Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 352 posts

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#81

Post by visarga »

analog31 wrote: post #23
Xcelerate wrote: post #19

I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive, but not to be honest, nothing else in psychology is either; the whole field is just not anywhere near the level of physics or chemistry (not to blame the researchers; predicting humans is very hard). The big 5 and I think more recently an 18 dimensional breakdown (using PCA or ICA?) just aren't that much better than MBTI, despite ma…

Something I wonder is if people within different occupations tend to interpret the questions differently. That would explain a trend in the results, unrelated to personality.

> people within different occupations tend to interpret the questions differently

There are also other types of ambiguity. For example when asking: "Do you keep your room in order?" - you might answer "yes" because that's what you do, but you only do it because it has been enforced into you over time, while if you were alone and free you'd keep it messy.

Do people respond with their instinctive reaction or with their trained reaction? Which one is the right answer? Depending on that you could get a different type.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#82

Post by [deleted] »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #38

Whoever knows more personality type systems please share (no matter how credible or bizarre they are, just list). I bet I have seen at least at least one original brand personality type start-up presented here on HN some years ago and another brand new one advertised on Google+ when it was a thing. I have probably stumbled upon at least 6 or more but can't remember any other than MBTI, the Socionics, and the Enneagra…

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#83

Post by cbfrench »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #38

Whoever knows more personality type systems please share (no matter how credible or bizarre they are, just list). I bet I have seen at least at least one original brand personality type start-up presented here on HN some years ago and another brand new one advertised on Google+ when it was a thing. I have probably stumbled upon at least 6 or more but can't remember any other than MBTI, the Socionics, and the Enneagra…

I have had to take the DISC inventory for one of my jobs, although it seems mostly derivative of antecedent personality inventories. I didn’t gain dramatically more insight into my own personality style from the DISC than I did from any other metric.

I’ll add to that the Strengthsfinder inventory. It’s clearly a consultancy gimmick, but I did find it somewhat meaningful in figuring out how to relate to colleagues with divergent ‘strengths’ from my own. It’s probably neither more nor less meaningful than any other personality inventory.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#84

Post by bambax »

Xcelerate wrote: post #19

I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive, but not to be honest, nothing else in psychology is either; the whole field is just not anywhere near the level of physics or chemistry (not to blame the researchers; predicting humans is very hard). The big 5 and I think more recently an 18 dimensional breakdown (using PCA or ICA?) just aren't that much better than MBTI, despite ma…

If the aim is to help conversation during a first date, as the post implies, then why not. If such an imprecise tool is used to determine your employability, or pay grade, or career path, or access to some vital services or housing, etc. then it's unacceptable.

The fact that HR professionals seem to love it is a strong indicator that it is bad and harmful.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#85

Post by dfraser992 »

For some reason, Myers-Briggs has gotten all of the publicity (all those high priced management consultants, I guess). I have found the Enneagram [0] to be just as useful (all the controversy about accuracy aside). It is a different flavor of a personality test and the spiritual growth connotations of it makes 'real' scientists discount it. But I think it provides useful info when you ignore all the surface level superficial writing about it and only read the books by Don Riso.

At the very least it is as interesting or even more than Myers-Briggs. I have found it useful for creating characters as part of the script writing process because it makes one think about internal psychological processes.

The main problem I think with Myers-Briggs, or even all of these things including the OCEAN model, is the general public not understanding their limitations and thus using them inappropriately as definitive or concrete sources of fixed information - like in interviews, HR assessments, etc. Myers-Briggs has been Agile-d(tm).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#86

Post by bambax »

ncmncm wrote: post #29
Quekid5 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive [...] I think the problem might be that people are using it to 'predict' things. > Myers-Briggs Wikipedia will give you a lot of references to research as to why this is not considered science (or even science-adjacent). Anecdotally, I have been subjected to these (or something very similar at least) as a condition of employment. I…

It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. You can always lie, about anything you like. You can put salt in the sugar bowl. You can substitute decaf in for the coffee at the office, and give everybody caffeine-withdrawl headaches. You can have your dog crap in the sandbox at the park. What do you imagine you would prove, by that? (I give…

> That's not what it's for.

But what is it for then?

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#87

Post by at_a_remove »

sosborn wrote: post #67
at_a_remove wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you have a job that is highly detail-oriented. Perhaps data must be perfect or a number of steps must be followed but checking the employee's work might be cumbersome. You have two applicants, roughly equal. One scores higher on conscientiousness ...

Do you believe that measurement is actually accurate?

Well, we were discussing the utility of such a test. I would assume that by the time we got to the point of utility, we would have agreed that the thing itself was valid. There's no point in discussing the utility of a thing that didn't work.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#88

Post by jrumbut »

visarga wrote: post #76
esperent wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with these results is not that they're inaccurate, it's that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable - if you spend all your time working on a computer, you become more introverted - or at least, you start to express your introverted tendencies more strongly. If you switch jobs and have to spend all your days talking to people, you'll beco…

> In truth, people's personalities are malleable That's what I observed myself - I can have different MBTI depending on situation and context. When "people change" it's mostly the context that changes, and a different personality is assumed like a role by the mind, as if the mind just wants to adapt to each situation as best possible. Reminds me of the unlimited ability of GPT-3 to assume personalities and points of…

I think degree of malleability would be the most interesting personality facet to measure.

Anecdotally, I think it varies quite a bit between people and changes over time.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#89

Post by bloqs »

esperent wrote: post #58
Xcelerate wrote: post #19

I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive, but not to be honest, nothing else in psychology is either; the whole field is just not anywhere near the level of physics or chemistry (not to blame the researchers; predicting humans is very hard). The big 5 and I think more recently an 18 dimensional breakdown (using PCA or ICA?) just aren't that much better than MBTI, despite ma…

The problem with these results is not that they're inaccurate, it's that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable - if you spend all your time working on a computer, you become more introverted - or at least, you start to express your introverted tendencies more strongly. If you switch jobs and have to spend all your days talking to people, you'll beco…

Personality is mostly established by age 6. Its more plastic than people realise, but it can be altered over a long period of time. Trauma helps, in regards to the big 5, concienciousness is the easiest to change.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#90

Post by Udik »

esperent wrote: post #58
Xcelerate wrote: post #19

I've never really understood the harsh criticisms of MBTI. It's not super predictive, but not to be honest, nothing else in psychology is either; the whole field is just not anywhere near the level of physics or chemistry (not to blame the researchers; predicting humans is very hard). The big 5 and I think more recently an 18 dimensional breakdown (using PCA or ICA?) just aren't that much better than MBTI, despite ma…

The problem with these results is not that they're inaccurate, it's that people think they measure a permanent aspect of themselves. In truth, people's personalities are malleable - if you spend all your time working on a computer, you become more introverted - or at least, you start to express your introverted tendencies more strongly. If you switch jobs and have to spend all your days talking to people, you'll beco…

I just don't understand which of these criticisms doesn't apply to the Big Five too.
Post reply on HN