3 ms·

> 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

> 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.