4 ms·
Well, since we know that 50% of people score different types upon retaking the test, that should be enough to identify the prevalence of these problem. As for
by cazum 10y ago
Well, since we know that 50% of people score different types upon retaking the test, that should be enough to identify the prevalence of these problem.
As for signal-to-noise, mbti is a useful tool for measuring the traits it measures, it just, for some reason, cuts the signal in half by removing the percentage from the label.
Without the percentages, you can never assume a persons traits don't hover at that middle ground. And thus, can never assume any part of their label is accurate.
If the occurrence of these hover cases were more like <4%, I'd be more inclined to agree with its usefulness, but as it is right now, the 4bit label, on its own, is just noise.
- 0xfffafaCrash 10y agoIf 50% of people score the exact same type upon retaking the test, I consider that great evidence that there is relatively stable information in the indicator. As a baseline, remember that if the distribution of results was uniform, a null model would expect something on the order of 6.25% if the noise really drowned out all the signal.