4 ms·

Scientific findings are that MBTI is flawed, but not completely uncorrelated voodoo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8458560 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p

Scientific findings are that MBTI is flawed, but not completely uncorrelated voodoo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8458560 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8458560

emodendroket 8y ago
What I'm reading here is that the best thing it does is tell us whether someone is introverted or extroverted. Well, that's also the most obvious one and I don't agree that that justifies using such a flawed test. If you have a test where half the results and half are bad the test is more or less useless. Consider this also: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309... > I began to read through the evidence, and I found that the MBTI is about as useful as a polygraph for detecting lies. One researcher even called it an “act of irresponsible armchair philosophy.” When it comes to accuracy, if you put a horoscope on one end and a heart monitor on the other, the MBTI falls about halfway in between. [...] Research shows “that as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category.”
- MockObject 8y ago
  > Well, that's also the most obvious one and I don't agree that that justifies using such a flawed test. I'm not debating what's justified and what isn't. I'm here dispelling the pseudo-rigorous, fashionable stance that MBTI is 100% rubbish. It is not. Instead of a blog post with one man's anecdote, how about some more science? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2709300 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2709300
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    That's among the sources cited by the article you're dismissing: > As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on the four domains it does sample.” As I said, a sometimes-reliable survey with wild variance that poorly measures what it purports to is worse than nothing because it gives false confidence in someone's hunch. The MBTI test was not constructed in any scientifically rigorous way and if it accurately correlates to anything it's an accident.

Scientific findings are that MBTI is flawed, but not completely uncorrelated voodoo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8458560 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8458560

emodendroket 8y ago

What I'm reading here is that the best thing it does is tell us whether someone is introverted or extroverted. Well, that's also the most obvious one and I don't agree that that justifies using such a flawed test. If you have a test where half the results and half are bad the test is more or less useless. Consider this also: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309... > I began to read through the evidence, and I found that the MBTI is about as useful as a polygraph for detecting lies. One researcher even called it an “act of irresponsible armchair philosophy.” When it comes to accuracy, if you put a horoscope on one end and a heart monitor on the other, the MBTI falls about halfway in between. [...] Research shows “that as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category.”

MockObject 8y ago
> Well, that's also the most obvious one and I don't agree that that justifies using such a flawed test. I'm not debating what's justified and what isn't. I'm here dispelling the pseudo-rigorous, fashionable stance that MBTI is 100% rubbish. It is not. Instead of a blog post with one man's anecdote, how about some more science? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2709300 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2709300
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That's among the sources cited by the article you're dismissing: > As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on the four domains it does sample.” As I said, a sometimes-reliable survey with wild variance that poorly measures what it purports to is worse than nothing because it gives false confidence in someone's hunch. The MBTI test was not constructed in any scientifically rigorous way and if it accurately correlates to anything it's an accident.