24 ms·

In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

136 points by souprock 6y ago

souprock 6y ago
tl;dr is: this holds up as well as the "big 5" mathematically, but the naming avoids unpleasant terminology and the usual binary bucketing makes discussion quick and easy
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  Right now the tl;dr is 404 Not Found.
  - souprock 6y ago
    This now works: https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-briggs/ https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-... I think they just happen to be reorganizing at the moment, without leaving a redirect.
tanylak 6y ago
Your link doesn't work
- souprock 6y ago
  It moved, and I can't change the link. I need dang to help. Here: https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-briggs/ https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-...
  - dang 6y ago
    Changed now from https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html.
anotherfish 6y ago
Its good as a one-off. Then you feel all warm and fuzzy as you go "oh yeas this makes sense". I did an experiment using these tests. I ran them every week. Did a different test from a different website. Very little consistency at all. I came to the conclusion it was a waste of time.
- Quekid5 6y ago
  It's worse than a waste of time. It's harmful.
pii 6y ago
I've never seen anyone not use MTBI as a horoscope. I'm inclined to believe there's high likelihood that the measurements will be misused, even if it were measuring useful.
dhosek 6y ago
An interesting thing about introversion/extroversion and testing: Assuming that I remember details right from a class I took over twenty years ago, taking caffeine before a test improves performance for introverts but not extroverts (unless I misremembered and it's the other way around). It's a remarkably strong result and one of the few strong results in experimental personality research.
- nl 6y ago
  What does "improve" mean on an introvert/extrovert test?
  - mNovak 6y ago
    I think they mean improves performance on an unrelated skill/knowledge test, such as doing math problems. The benefit is realized either in introverts or extroverts apparently.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    My wording was confusing: it would be on an unrelated skills test. I'm pretty sure it was introverts that improved because I remember thinking that I should make a point of getting some caffeine before future tests.
lcuff 6y ago
The scale titles are terrible. Based on Kersey's work, I think of the four scales as answers to four questions: (1) How do you get your batteries recharged: Extraverts do so by being with people, introverts by the world of ideas. (It's not about your social skills. I'm an introvert who can easily converse with strangers). (2) How do you take in the world? Details, or larger, vaguer impressions. My wife's friend walks in after a 10 years absence and says "Oh, you got your couch recovered". That ain't me. You could paint the room purple and I wouldn't notice. (3) How do you make decisions? From the gut, or by thinking about them. Thinking takes a lot longer, from the gut can be quick. (4) How much need for closure do you have (firm plans vs playing it by ear, filing cabinets vs piles). Anecdotally, I've found this useful to view myself, my wife, and the world, but it plays a little fast and loose with the science.
- souprock 6y ago
  I think the naming is intentional. The titles have to be short and simple, and none can be shameful. If you pick a shameful-sounding title like "neurotic" in the Big 5, few people would willingly admit to it and you certainly can't politely ask about it.
  - analog31 6y ago
    I suspect that in a business setting, "introvert" is also seen as a negative. The other MTBI symbols are confusing enough that nobody is likely to remember them off hand, so they are probably neutral. I would advise against self identifying as an introvert. Also, "conscientious" and "openness" probably each have only one right answer.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      In a sales setting, being an introvert is probably a negative. In programming, it’s the overwhelming default I think.
- rntksi 6y ago
  on question (1), there have been scientific researches that shows if you identify as "introvert" or "extrovert", it can be explained by your body's "efficiency" in releasing dopamine [1] [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/07/brain-chemistry-plays-role-extroverts https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/07/brain-chemistry-pla...
paulie_a 6y ago
I find it amazing that anyone uses it in the business world. Next up HR will be adding tarrot cards and oiji boards Then again I find it amazing that anyone uses it at all. It's complete trash
- mathattack 6y ago
  The voodoo I’ve seen from HR departments makes MB look like Newtonian Physics. Yet they are so bad at stats that you can’t even enter a discussion on if it passes any kind of empirical test.
- baron_harkonnen 6y ago
  It should not be surprising at all. How many companies have you worked at where part of your performance review involves dividing and averaging ordinal numbers? If you give someone some sort of numeric rating in N categories you cannot mathematically (trivially) average these rating to get a meaningful score. Ordinal numbers only allow you to say A is greater than B and B is greater than C therefore A is greater than C, but it says nothing about the distance between A and B, B and C and A and C. Yet at countless companies compensation is determined by literally nonsensical mathematical operations. Before the pedants get me, there are ways to transform ordinal numbers to do perform more complex mathematical operations on them, but I can assure you that your HR department does not do these. So given HR's disregard for basic principles of mathematics it should not be surprising that they find the variety of personality tests worthwhile.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    HR isn’t spending time on this ritual for performance reasons, but for risk management. It doesn’t serve your desired purpose, and the math would make no sense. Yet it perfectly satisfices what’s asked of them. // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
- dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop posting shallow dismissals and calling names in HN comments? Posts like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26289644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26289644 are not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to ask you this sort of thing a ton of times. Eventually we ban such accounts. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
combatentropy 6y ago
When I first heard about it in grade 8, I thought it was the dumbest thing ever. The first pair, Introvert or Extrovert made sense. But I could never make up my mind on the rest: Intuitive or Sensing, Thinking or Feeling, Judging or Perceiving? I felt I could be either, depending upon mood. Later I learned that these terms had hyperspecialized meanings, different from how most people use them in everyday speech, especially the latter two pairs (thinking and feeling, judging and perceiving). Finally I heard that the last pair is some kind of key, which turns the meaning of the middle two pairs. If that does't make sense, that is expected. The letters are just symptoms of inner causes, called the Cognitive Functions, which only the most serious of devotees have heard of, and even fewer understand. --- To go back to basics, it is obvious to me that personality is partly biological. Whether you are introvert or extrovert, for example, doesn't seem to be changeable by sheer force of will or even long, continuous practice. The genetic origin doesn't mean you will match your parents. Just like hair color or the shape of the nose, it can vary, and genes from both sides interact to form a unique child each time. Child 1 can be the polar opposite of Child 2, and things are reinvented once again with Child 3 --- and I don't think it's all explained by birth order. I think there are personality genes. --- The best way I have found to approach Myers Briggs is backwards. Instead of taking a test or trying to understand the exact meaning of each letter, just read the prose descriptions of the 16. https://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html https://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html I think you will find some familiar faces in there --- not only a few that sound like yourself but many that remind you of friends. And these are about how you are in default mode, when you are relaxed, not trying. Certainly you can imitate the others for a little while. But some things seem to go with your grain, and others against it. How are you when you behave automatically? That's all that it's about --- not your whole potential when you bring learning and effort into the mix. Some things that are easy and natural for others will always be harder for you, and vice versa. So there's something to it. My main reservation is that I think 16 is too many, but only by a little. Maybe there are just 12 genetic types (which are further built upon by one's upbringing, experiences, etc., to make each of us unique). --- As a final note, back to the Cognitive Functions, I think they may be hard to grapple with at first, but they are what make Myers Briggs distinctive. It is the only personality theory that posits that how you feel on the inside is often the opposite of how you appear on the outside. For example, I think I am probably an INFJ. Alone in my thoughts or in writing, I am analytical, logical, factual, always trying to come to judgment on this theory or that. But at a party I am open, agreeable (to a fault), even gregarious if my energy is up. Likewise someone else may feel in touch with humanity in their inner selves, but socially will come across as coolly decisive and a hard-nosed debater.
Xcelerate 6y ago
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 many online claims to the contrary. Myers-Briggs at least has some small level of predictive power, so no, it's not like horoscopes. There was once a poll of engineers at the tech company I work at, and I think the results were like 70% INTJ, 25% INTP, and 5% other. If MBTI lacked all predictive power, you would expect a distribution roughly equivalent to that of the general population. Could people self-select what they "want" to be? Sure, but it's still predictive of something in that case.
- Quekid5 6y ago
  > 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. It was so incredibly transparent that I chose a personality at the outset and 'achieved' that outcome.
  - souprock 6y ago
    Check the math in the article. (the correlation tables especially, both against the "Big 5" and for repeatability) If Myers-Briggs is not science, then the "Big 5" personality traits are also not science. They are tied together, each strongly predictive of the other. Results are repeatable, especially if not rounded to boolean values.
    - Quekid5 6y ago
      I'm going to suggest a hypothetical. Let's ignore any personality test specifics just to generalize. Ok, so I have a candidate for a position, who shows +5% to "conscientiousness". What does that mean, practically, for me as an employer? It means exactly nothing, because that trait is so vague as to be ... meaningless. (That's just the start of the problems with these tests.) Even if it M-B (or whatever) is a repeatable effect it has no value as a predictor of performance of a single individual. In aggregate, maybe... (but also no, see the wiki). It's just people playing Management Consultant extracting money from Management.
jplr8922 6y ago
I took the MBTI in my early twenties, then forgot about it. I got into the much more scientific big-5 to understand different types of personalities, and in order to flesh out the possible ranges of behaviors in my mind. Then 10 years later I find myself going back to the MBTI. Why? Because I now understand it as a gateway to Jung ideas, which I find helpful during my current period of professional questionning. Acording to what I understand, the original idea is that our minds all share basic different functions : thinking, feeling, sensing, intuition, each coming into an introverted or extraverted way. Depending on your lifepath, your self concept (ego) will ''cling'' to certain functions because of perceived talent, events, etc. Then, you will start to realize that you are weaker than what social norms dictate about using some other functions. You might also realize that you judge other for using their functions in an ''inferior'' way, and that some of yours are present but less agile than your favorites. That the last ones are subcounscious and silencious because using them (or seeing other using them) will trigger repressed emotions. Finally, that developping a healthy ego, containing workable 'stack' of cohesive functions which both fits your aspirations and society's expectation is hard. And that maybe one way, your mind will be fluid and adjust itself according to the situation.
- leblancfg 6y ago
  jplr9822, I just wanted to say thanks for this great reply, and that I would thoroughly enjoy reading an expanded version of this in long form. Cheers
  - jplr8922 6y ago
    Gee I'm far from being a specialist. Best gateway I found to MBTI as a tool for personal development (and not self masturbation) is the personality hacker podcast (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5S23Z7_qa4sRnfW80Xd6Ag https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5S23Z7_qa4sRnfW80Xd6Ag). Keep in mind that the MBTI is not a model to forecast your perfect job / match, simply a tool for self reflexion. You could also read the original book by Jung : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Types. As the article explains, the goal is to understand the various complexes that an individual will develop if he becomes over-reliant to some functions and repress their opposite in their subcouscious. Think about an overly-logical nerd unable to take action, a social butterfly with no introspection, or a tyranical boss with an substance-based stress management technique. Pay special attention to those you judge.
ani-ani 6y ago
I like when people bring up Myers Briggs because it allows me quickly categorize them as "people who attach importance to personality types", and thereby make sweeping generalizations about them.
- exfalso 6y ago
  hahahahaha
qwerty456127 6y ago
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 Enneagram. I'm very interested in this subject.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cbfrench 6y ago
  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.
- Terretta 6y ago
  These days you’re likely to run into WPI or WPI-Pro, Workplace Personality Inventory for Professionals: https://thepsychometricworld.com/wpi-pro/ https://thepsychometricworld.com/wpi-pro/ The following is quoted from that link to save you a click: WPI-Pro is a comprehensive work personality assessment tool developed and validated over several years of research and improvements. It helps you to make better selection and development decisions. In only 45 minutes you can have invaluable information about the candidate that could otherwise take months or even years to acquire. Over 5 years of rigorous research has shaped this unique psychometric test based on trait theory of personality (BIG FIVE MODEL) and is mapped on 80+ behavioral competencies. WPI-Pro is designed and validated to cover a variety of job performance aspects including: - Leadership - Decision making - Organizing & prioritizing - Planning and coordination - Self motivation - Stress tolerance - Emotional resilience - Honesty and integrity - Team work - Interpersonal/Cross-cultural sensitivity - … AND MANY MORE
roenxi 6y ago
The article observes that if the Myers-Briggs axis are treated as continuous then they map very closely to the Big 5 personality traits. It seems to me that observation is substantially more important than the space it is given. If M-B is basically measuring 4 of the Big 5, that really sets up a lot of the rest of the conversation. Why measure 4 of the big 5 when you can measure 5 of the 5? The complaint here seems to be that the names of the Big 5 should be changed to something more neutral (which is a pretty fair idea, they aren't well named).
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Myers Briggs tests have profiles of each type usually. Big 5 tests don't.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cb321 6y ago
    The profiles seem more propagated by Keirsey Temperament type material (e.g. Please Understand Me). Their existence could be viewed as more of a downside of MB relative to Big 5 because they exaggerate the meaning of the measurement and/or category. { These profiles "read a lot into" the various categories - as do all the English names for axes/groups. } EDIT1: Also B5 just names 5 axes instead of MB naming (4*2) groups which always bugged me. Beyond that, because B5 does not discretize, it puts the measurement error center stage. Emphasizing measurement error is a major positive for something already so vague. EDIT2: Also, while situation, context, how well you slept, or whatever absolutely matter, I believe this vagueness underwrites much of the "MB is pseudoscience" hostility. To some, it's so vague as to be meaningless jibber-jabber. To others, it's specific enough to be just on this side of the "science" line. Even if you think it is science, science can clearly be misapplied by those who don't understand it, and this "science" probably is..a lot (as bemoaned by the article). As the author @dyno-might points out in fledgling steps to harden the ideas, there could be an intermediate 'x' value for each of the 4 axes. He does not say how far out from the mean one has to be "to not be in 'x'". Far enough out for each of the 4 and, boom, 99% of people are XXXX. At that point, the tests become only outlier detectors (again modulated by other, unmeasured variables) discriminating only 1% of people. Note 0.317 is also about outside 1 standard deviation for a normal curve and assuming independence, for simplicity of the example, 0.317*4 = .01. At 1.25 SDs that goes to 0.002. (Not random values - @dyno-might's distributions looked a little platykurtic.) So, it might easily be the test is only very informative (i.e. maybe predictive) for a tiny fraction of people - so not exactly unscientific, but also not exactly very useful if "over-concluding" is likely for 99% to 99.9% of the "modal" test takers. Textual profiles (or book chapters!) can take that over-concluding from just binning up a few notches.
totemandtoken 6y ago
I don't have an issue with Myers-Briggs or the Big 5 as ideas, or even as a first step towards a more rigorous science of human behavior. You have to start somewhere, right? My issue is the premature adoption of it by corporations and businesses who treat it as though it is a settled science.
- ckozlowski 6y ago
  >You have to start somewhere, right? Agreed, and I suspect from a scientific method perspective, MBTI is something that's being explored in reverse. We've got a strong feeling that these different axis exist, but haven't yet landed on a truly robust and reliable way to evaluate them. So it's a lot of fuzzy intuition about things still. As long as these proponents explain the analog nature of the scales and the immaturity of the field as a whole, (which I know doesn't happen much), I don't see much harm in it. But I agree that outside of one's on personal insight, using it to make any sort of business decision is folly.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  Why do you need to subject people to personality tests at all? It uncomfortable and demeaning, not to mention that it make the business come of as lazy and unrelateable. If you need to know what type of person someone is, talk to them, take the time to learn if they’d be a good fit. I no longer interview at companies who subject candidate to personality test. The best jobs I’ve ever worked have been where I talked directly with my future boss, often for more than an hour, no tests. The worst jobs all had quizes or personality tests. What’s the use of a test that’s easily influence by a person mood, if you don’t take the time to understand why that person feels like that?
0xbadcafebee 6y ago
It doesn't matter so much if MBTI is "real" as much as the fact that it's constantly applied in the wrong ways. Using MBTI / big five to help narrow down the selection of a sales candidate? Okay. Choosing only sales candidates with a specific MBTI / big five? Crap.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  The first isn't good either. MBTI literature stresses it measures preferences not abilities.
timwaagh 6y ago
What isn't touched upon are the descriptions of the various attributes in mbti. Because each of those is a bit questionable. Like can't you be both thinking and feeling. Maybe according to the test you can't but that doesn't intuitively follow from those descriptions. That's why I like big five more. It just slaps you in the face with how bad your personality is.
d_silin 6y ago
I took M-B test and was surprised how accurate it was in describing my personality type. I suspect my personality traits are closer to endpoints of its scales, making it more precise for me.
- Udik 6y ago
  Same for me. My MBTI personality portrait is so spot on that the feeling is that the test really is providing more information than you put in by answering the questions. That said, a lot of people who took it didn't have that instant of perfect self-recognition- the results are often mixed.
  - simias 6y ago
    The entire field of astrology is based on similar confirmation bias, very broad and vague assertions on character are likely to resonate on way or the other. That's the main reason I took this test with a grain of salt. Here, let me paste random lines from the "16 personalities" website describing various types: > $type may feel directionless or stuck unless they connect with a sense of purpose for their lives. > Embracing the values of honesty, dedication and dignity, people with the $type personality type are valued for their clear advice and guidance, and they happily lead the way on difficult paths. > This can earn them a reputation for inflexibility, a trait shared by all $type personalities, but it’s not because $type are arbitrarily stubborn, but because they truly believe that these values are what make society work. > Despite all this, $type are definitely Introverts, surprising their friends further when they step out of the spotlight to be by themselves to recharge. Just because they are alone though, doesn’t mean people with the $type personality type sit idle – they take this time for introspection, assessing their principles. Rather than dwelling on the past or the future, $type think about who they are. > These personalities can be both the boldest of dreamers and the bitterest of pessimists. $type believe that, through willpower and intelligence, they can achieve even the most challenging of goals. But they may be cynical about human nature more generally, assuming that most people are lazy, unimaginative, or simply doomed to mediocrity. I took all these samples from different profiles randomly, and I relate to a certain extent to all of them. Obviously I cherry-picked a bit but it shows that if you want to believe that the test is working it won't be hard to confirm-bias any result that you get.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
Summary: Myers-Briggs is a useful model, when a few adjustments are made. 1. Problems I've Discovered 1a. Myers-Briggs pigeon-holes people into one "personality type", and generalizes what they should think and do based on that. I think that's kind of silly and limiting. 1b. If you read the personality descriptions, it is favorable towards the "rare" types, describing them as brilliant geniuses, while the other types are portrayed as barely sentient worker drones. I think that's really condescending and divisive. 2. Adjustments I've Made Nevertheless, I think the questions and the other text is a USEFUL tool for SELF-ASSESSMENT and also for UNDERSTANDING others, so I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here is how I make Myers-Briggs make sense and fit into my other mental models: 2a. First, instead of four scales, I consider it an EIGHT-SCALE system, with each trait being its own measure. For example, you can be high on the introversion scale (needs alone time to recharge) and at the same time also be high on the extraversion scale (connects with others readily, needs socializing to thrive.) I think the worldwide quarantine made this obvious to many an self-described introvert. This applies to all the other scales as well. You can be someone with intense feelings and at the same time a thorough and dedicated thinker, who sits down and combs their mental models for hours. You can be very good at listening to your intuition while also being highly perceptive to your senses. And you can have firm general rules about how things "should be", especially as one gets older, while still remaining to new possibilities. 2b. The other adjustment I have made is that I consider each scale to be a measure of how much ABILITY a person has developed and PRACTICING that trait. In other words, beyond natural predisposition, each person can grow considerably in any of these traits, provided they practice and apply it regularly. Conclusion: People are neither introverts, nor extraverts, but both. People are both thinkers and feelers, both judgers and perceivers, and both intuiters and sensers.
- cbfrench 6y ago
  > 2b. The other adjustment I have made is that I consider each scale to be a measure of how much ABILITY a person has developed and PRACTICING that trait. In other words, beyond natural predisposition, each person can grow considerably in any of these traits, provided they practice and apply it regularly. I do think, at its best, this is what MBTI aims to emphasize: each of us is capable of developing those areas where we are deficient, be it introversion/extraversion, thinking/feeling, etc. Problems only arise when people treat these factors as static binaries. I’m mostly an MBTI agnostic, but I have been surprised at how consistently I have been typed as an INTP across the various versions of the test I have taken (including the ‘official’ one). I view it as a rough indicator of where I am at a particular moment in time, and the domains I can seek to develop to become a more ‘well-rounded’ person. I agree completely with you that, understood correctly, it can be a useful model when people view it as a means of growth. Not, I guess, to get too self-helpy about it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
smokey_circles 6y ago
I don't know how/why people defend this test. 1. It's inaccurate. And that's not just "technically true", it's very rare that the test reproduces results. 2. Jung's theories (the ones used in the test) aren't just "controversial". They're wrong. He says it himself, in the same document they used to create the test. It is just a cash cow now. The _biggest_ problem with the test is it is harmful, not helpful. People believe the results are accurate _and permanent_ and so division is created where in reality there is more overlap than difference. It's also not good to tell people "these are good" followed up by "you have none of them and never will". By the way: This is true of a _lot_ of IQ tests too: We're still debating what IQ is, nevermind how to measure it. So we definitely shouldn't be telling people the results of their IQ tests, most of which are also not reproducible. But the data these tests collect is useful. We just shouldn't wield such aouthority about a theory with a lot of apparent leaks we can't explain. There's a better way Psychology is a young field. Lots of kinks to work out still
- souprock 6y ago
  The article covers reproducibility. The test does reliably reproduce results, at least if you don't quantize to boolean. Jung doesn't matter. Being a cash cow doesn't matter. There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. If you aren't going to accept IQ, then you've entirely tossed out the field of psychology. There is nothing left.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    > There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. If you aren't going to accept IQ, then you've entirely tossed out the field of psychology. There is nothing left. Huh. That's quite a bold and incorrect claim. Are you a psychologist?
    - exfalso 6y ago
      Perhaps the word "psychometry" would have been better. There isn't any psychometric test more stable than IQ.
dfraser992 6y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality
- iso1210 6y ago
  I did an Enneagram last week. I'm doing a part-time MSc at the moment, and the last 2 weeks has been talking about these types of tests. I'm certainly on the "cynical" side in any test. My Enneagram result was even in 4 of the 9 boxes. Wonderful. With all these tests, it seems that many people think the categorisation is what matters, rather than what you do with the information. You could use them as an icebreaker on a teambuilding day I guess, but then you could probably use a 'what hogwarts house are you' or 'what game of thrones character are you' test from buzzfeed. Maybe it's useful to create fictional characters of D&D backstories. I can see that if you have an idea of the type of person you have on a team, you might know how to help them, and an idea of personality traits they may have could help -- if you're an introvert that likes time alone to recharge, knowing that some people are weird and like to recharge with other people may help, but then you're just as likely to get it wrong anyway - for example thinking "I won't invite X to the pub because they're an introvert that doesn't like being around people"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sradman 6y ago
I found this defense of Myers Briggs Type Index (MBTI) against the Big Five [1] OCEAN personality traits helpful. Neuroticism is a useful measure but has negative connotations that requires self-disclosure and, therefore, less likely to be shared with co-workers and acquaintances. The advantage of MBTI is the value neutral labels that encourage sharing and discussion amongst laypeople. This is exactly why it is popular in corporate settings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Smaug123 6y ago
I must say I was extremely amused when I took MBTI, that one of the last questions was essentially "did you think this test was a load of bollocks?" It's like they created the test, administered it to a bunch of people to try it out, half of them said "your test is a load of bollocks", and they thought "hmm, well, the test can't be bollocks, so that must mean we've found another useful discriminator of personality types!".
rasengan0 6y ago
VP wanted MB for team building for our division to assess our alignment and role effectiveness. [1] I mean who doesn't like free lunch and horoscopes? Well turns out it was like going to the shelter and hearing the bible sermon before the pay off in baloney sandwiches. Instead, the well paid consultant ate our baloney too. Questioning validity means you're of the SFTU type. At least she taught a great lesson: always convince the $uckers at the top. [1] Golly extremely useful! https://jobtalk.indiana.edu/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf https://jobtalk.indiana.edu/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/... https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137
itbm 6y ago
The theory behind Jung and MB deals with the idea of cognitive functions. https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/underst... The underlying claim is that people's mental processes fall under these behaviors and from observation it appears that there are four pairs of functions. It is these functional stacks that determine the 16 buckets/types and not any sort of dichotomy of the letters. 1. The breakdown of the letters doesn't make any sense and doesn't appear to lead to any insight. This is a completely valid critique of how MBTI is being pitched and presented. But, at least personally, I find the cognitive functions at least point in the right direction after examining my own mental processes and what is present or absent. 2. If we are measuring the quality of a test to be how well it can repeat the same result, it is not surprising that once you get into a higher dimensionality of representing a person's personality that we don't have a great repeatable way to test. This is a product of both the test and the difficulty of conveying and capturing what it is trying to represent, and the general inexperience of people to be able to accurately enumerate their own thought process. Happy to hop on zoom or discord and explain functions to anyone interested.
lukebuehler 6y ago
MBTI depends on Jung's personality type theory. Jung's ideas on personality are actually quite interesting and involve a lot of nuance. If you go and read Psychologial Types, you'll quickly realize that Jung developed his notions regarding personality as a tool for literary criticism. That is, to have a way to explain why authors, throughout history, took opposite stances on issues. For example, he begins the book by interpreting the Trinitarian and Christological debates at the dawn of Christianity. My takeaway is that Jung's typology is less of a science than it is a philosophy of the psyche, or even a philosophy on how the psyche expresses itself, and thus belongs more in the domain of the humanities. I like MBTI as a shortcut to talk about Jung's theories. As a scientific tool, MBTI is obviously extremely blunt. Testing for your MBTI type is therefore not a very good idea, IMO. As far as I can tell, many people who really are into MBTI will rather try to "type" you in a guided conversation than you merely taking a test. This is much more in the spirit of analytical psychology anyhwow.
yawaworht1978 6y ago
There cannot be a defense. Someone else telling you what kind of personality you really are is preposterous. It seems the next scam on the matter is "the big 5". Nope, all these do not work or account for peoples ability to change or simply...lie. Look at how wrong Freud was in hindsight. These tests will be regarded like Freud's cacophony in the future. Psychology today is not an accurate science at all. Interpret these tests with plenty of salt. There is no a little bit wrong, there is no a little bit pregnant. Source: Wife is a psychologist.
- erhk 6y ago
  I agree with you up until "people lie so it's wrong" None of these tests are useful on predicting how a person actually will behave or how they will make decisions. First, it's only personal perception of self which is nebulous at best and strictly wrong at worst. Did the Nazis see genocide as evil? Would they test into INTJ or into ENTP? Try to answer the question of which category a homeless man on the brink of starvation would fall into. All of the descriptors are happy and fluffy candy for white collar narcissists. Nowhere on the 16 personalities does it draw a line on who would kill for their own survival. Oh wow, you identify with the traits that you self elected. That's lovely.
moomin 6y ago
A fun game to play is see how the headline statements apply to astrology. Star sign is _way_ more reproducible than MBTI.
de6u99er 6y ago
Such tests are for robots who lack the necessary gut feeling (aka EQ). E.g. hose who think, a good education will result in a good hire.
wombatmobile 6y ago
Myers Briggs is popular for the same reason astrology is popular. People like categorising personalities so they can generalise about behaviours and "understand" people better by associating them with a pigeon hole. What is innovative about Myers Briggs is that it isn't limited like the horoscope by date of birth. If you want to be identified as a certain type, with Myers Briggs, all you have to do is answer the questions in a certain frame of mind. Contrast this agility with the rigidness of the horoscope, which requires the falsification of a birth certificate to change categories.
leto_ii 6y ago
I've always had mixed feelings regarding the Myres-Briggs test. On the one hand I was surprised by its consistency - in my case, every time I take it (regardless of the implementation), I get the same result. This probably comes down to a combination of me sort of being able to anticipate what a question is about and the test's genuine descriptive power. On the other hand, like pretty much everything psychology-related, this test feels like it's trying to impose a relatively simplistic order onto an area that we don't understand properly. I have a similar impression of the big five personality traits, as well as of the descriptions of pathologies in the DSM. I think at the end of the day the Myers-Briggs and the Big Five probably have quite a bit of overlap. At their core they seem to describe personalities via a number of principal components or latent variables that differ a bit between the two models, but capture about the same amount of information. > The great advantage of the the MBTI is exactly that it makes everyone feel like a beautiful special snowflake. The axes are chosen and named ingeniously so as to make them easy to reveal. Considering that both models are hand-wavey borderline pseudo-science, I agree that the Myers-Briggs is the more palatable of the two.
mhd 6y ago
This reads a lot like people defending D&D alignments.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
It seems strange that we've moved on from grouping and categorising people by race and sex but it's still acceptable to do so based on a few multiple choice questions.
dyno-might 6y ago
Hi, I'm the author of this post. Any way we can change the link to here: https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html ? This is a slightly updated version of the post (new links, slightly less unhinged language, and a link to this MBTI quiz that I made to promote non-binary axes: https://dynomight.net/mbti https://dynomight.net/mbti )
- graup 6y ago
  Thanks, the test was very refreshing. I really like the simplicity. As an anecdote, my result came out very close to the one from 16personalities.
- dang 6y ago
  Sure—changed from https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-briggs/ https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-.... Thanks!
- souprock 6y ago
  It was changed the other way. I originally posted with your suggested link, but then moments later it was a "404 Not Found" error page. Your web site might be unreliable. Also, until I found the other link, I was unaware that there were any images. I had seen only plain text. Currently there are images, but will they stay? Do you know what went wrong with the web site? Might it go back to being "404 Not Found" again? If you are certain that your web site isn't going to go "404 Not Found" again, contact dang.
  - dyno-might 6y ago
    Sorry, I accidentally pushed it to live before I was finished revising it, then hurriedly (but not hurriedly enough, clearly) pulled it down again. Blame me, not the site.
specialist 6y ago
What's the utility of Myers-Briggs, Big Five, astrology, etc? What's the actionable advice? Do they help me make better predictions? -- After my occult phase (middle school), I had a longer skeptic phase. What kids today call "rationalist". Then someone at a party told me "Astrology isn't about truth. It's just a way for people to talk about the human condition." Huh. That kinda makes sense. So I stopped LARPing as Michael Shermer. (More recently I tried the "belief as attire" stuff for a while. Now I think people are all about identity and wanting to belong to a group.) Anyway. I'm fine with Myers-Briggs. It's no less true than any of the other stupid stuff we tell ourselves about our selves.
foxhop 6y ago
Learning your MBTI type helps you learn what you work on. I'm currently exploring Carl Jung and performing my own red book style adventures to try to heAl and learn. Have a growth mindset. Understand your defaults are just your defaults. Just like you have a dominant hand, you can still use your "weaker" hand, just takes practice. Utilize Love, Truth, and Freedom to drive thoughts and actions.
einpoklum 6y ago
Having taken this "test" a good number of years ago, and I remember I often did not have a proper straight answer to give. On many questions, I would want to say something like: * You're mis-representing the choices. * Well, you say that, but I'm not sure what it would actually mean. * Depends on the circumstances. * I'm not sure. * I might choose one option and then regret it, and maybe switch to another. * Those things don't contradict. * I would have done something different early on which would preclude this scenario altogether. * This question looks like an earlier one. I choose X there, but that doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I'll choose Y here for good measure. * None of the above.
- Terretta 6y ago
  That’s why they sample each trait repeatedly through a dozen lenses. Just do it fast without thinking. Unless you’re STJ then I can’t help you. :-)
bobbygoodlatte 6y ago
Throw enough marketing & psychology studies behind a "Which Muppets character are you?" quiz and you'd have something about as meaningful & actionable as MBTI.
mcguire 6y ago
Yes, but does it mean anything? Does it make useful predictions? Does it tell me the kinds of people to seek out or avoid, like the Chinese zodiac?
armoredkitten 6y ago
I've got a PhD in psychology. I have things. I. could. say. about this topic. But I would like to emphasize, in the strongest of terms, that Cronbach's alpha is not a measurement of test-retest reliability. Cronbach's alpha is a measure to answer the question, "If we ask five questions to measure the same thing, how well do they agree?" Test-retest reliability says, "If we ask these same questions X days/months/years later, how likely is it we'll get the same answer?" Past research on this latter form of reliability (test-retest) on the MBTI have found it to be quite weak; yes, I'm sure it's probably more favourable if you don't binarize the measures. But it's still weak. If you're interested, the references on the "Reliability" section of the Wiki page[1] is a decent place to start. My biggest issue with the MBTI, however, is that it gets used to make important decisions like whether to hire someone, despite little to no evidence for its validity in terms of predicting on-the-job performance. And that's extremely concerning. Quite frankly, personality tests have very little place in hiring assessments at all -- often the primary dimension employers care about is conscientiousness, and those questions are generally too transparent to be reliable for someone who has a vested interest in getting a job. Are you really going to report that you are "someone who tends to be disorganized" when you're trying to get hired? If you're an employer looking for ways to find the best candidates, then you have a responsibility to ensure that the methods you're using to test someone's fit are a reliable indicator of their actual fit. Interpret "fit" how you like, but generally speaking, you want measures that are going to actually tell you how well that person will do with the tasks they would be performing. You're going to have much better luck with a take-home assignment or temporary contract than you will reading the tea leaves of MBTI, or even using an established, valid test like the Big Five Inventory. These measures just aren't meant for what you're trying to use them for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
- dyno-might 6y ago
  Do you have any pointers for better studies regarding test-retake reliability with the MBTI and/or Big Five? The Wikipedia page does not appear to be helpful in this regard. As far as I can tell, every citation is regarding 16 discrete bins.
warmfuzzykitten 6y ago
Because human beings can be described in four bits. Oh, four bits isn't enough? Four scales, then. That fixes it.

136 points by souprock 6y ago

tl;dr is: this holds up as well as the "big 5" mathematically, but the naming avoids unpleasant terminology and the usual binary bucketing makes discussion quick and easy

bluefirebrand 6y ago
Right now the tl;dr is 404 Not Found.
- souprock 6y ago
  This now works: https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-briggs/ https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-... I think they just happen to be reorganizing at the moment, without leaving a redirect.

tanylak 6y ago

Your link doesn't work

souprock 6y ago
It moved, and I can't change the link. I need dang to help. Here: https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-briggs/ https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-...
- dang 6y ago
  Changed now from https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html.

anotherfish 6y ago

Its good as a one-off. Then you feel all warm and fuzzy as you go "oh yeas this makes sense". I did an experiment using these tests. I ran them every week. Did a different test from a different website. Very little consistency at all. I came to the conclusion it was a waste of time.

Quekid5 6y ago
It's worse than a waste of time. It's harmful.

pii 6y ago

I've never seen anyone not use MTBI as a horoscope. I'm inclined to believe there's high likelihood that the measurements will be misused, even if it were measuring useful.

dhosek 6y ago

An interesting thing about introversion/extroversion and testing: Assuming that I remember details right from a class I took over twenty years ago, taking caffeine before a test improves performance for introverts but not extroverts (unless I misremembered and it's the other way around). It's a remarkably strong result and one of the few strong results in experimental personality research.

nl 6y ago
What does "improve" mean on an introvert/extrovert test?
- mNovak 6y ago
  I think they mean improves performance on an unrelated skill/knowledge test, such as doing math problems. The benefit is realized either in introverts or extroverts apparently.
- dhosek 6y ago
  My wording was confusing: it would be on an unrelated skills test. I'm pretty sure it was introverts that improved because I remember thinking that I should make a point of getting some caffeine before future tests.

lcuff 6y ago

The scale titles are terrible. Based on Kersey's work, I think of the four scales as answers to four questions: (1) How do you get your batteries recharged: Extraverts do so by being with people, introverts by the world of ideas. (It's not about your social skills. I'm an introvert who can easily converse with strangers). (2) How do you take in the world? Details, or larger, vaguer impressions. My wife's friend walks in after a 10 years absence and says "Oh, you got your couch recovered". That ain't me. You could paint the room purple and I wouldn't notice. (3) How do you make decisions? From the gut, or by thinking about them. Thinking takes a lot longer, from the gut can be quick. (4) How much need for closure do you have (firm plans vs playing it by ear, filing cabinets vs piles). Anecdotally, I've found this useful to view myself, my wife, and the world, but it plays a little fast and loose with the science.

souprock 6y ago
I think the naming is intentional. The titles have to be short and simple, and none can be shameful. If you pick a shameful-sounding title like "neurotic" in the Big 5, few people would willingly admit to it and you certainly can't politely ask about it.
- analog31 6y ago
  I suspect that in a business setting, "introvert" is also seen as a negative. The other MTBI symbols are confusing enough that nobody is likely to remember them off hand, so they are probably neutral. I would advise against self identifying as an introvert. Also, "conscientious" and "openness" probably each have only one right answer.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    In a sales setting, being an introvert is probably a negative. In programming, it’s the overwhelming default I think.
rntksi 6y ago
on question (1), there have been scientific researches that shows if you identify as "introvert" or "extrovert", it can be explained by your body's "efficiency" in releasing dopamine [1] [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/07/brain-chemistry-plays-role-extroverts https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/07/brain-chemistry-pla...

paulie_a 6y ago

I find it amazing that anyone uses it in the business world. Next up HR will be adding tarrot cards and oiji boards Then again I find it amazing that anyone uses it at all. It's complete trash

mathattack 6y ago
The voodoo I’ve seen from HR departments makes MB look like Newtonian Physics. Yet they are so bad at stats that you can’t even enter a discussion on if it passes any kind of empirical test.
baron_harkonnen 6y ago
It should not be surprising at all. How many companies have you worked at where part of your performance review involves dividing and averaging ordinal numbers? If you give someone some sort of numeric rating in N categories you cannot mathematically (trivially) average these rating to get a meaningful score. Ordinal numbers only allow you to say A is greater than B and B is greater than C therefore A is greater than C, but it says nothing about the distance between A and B, B and C and A and C. Yet at countless companies compensation is determined by literally nonsensical mathematical operations. Before the pedants get me, there are ways to transform ordinal numbers to do perform more complex mathematical operations on them, but I can assure you that your HR department does not do these. So given HR's disregard for basic principles of mathematics it should not be surprising that they find the variety of personality tests worthwhile.
- Terretta 6y ago
  HR isn’t spending time on this ritual for performance reasons, but for risk management. It doesn’t serve your desired purpose, and the math would make no sense. Yet it perfectly satisfices what’s asked of them. // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
dang 6y ago
Would you please stop posting shallow dismissals and calling names in HN comments? Posts like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26289644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26289644 are not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to ask you this sort of thing a ton of times. Eventually we ban such accounts. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

combatentropy 6y ago

When I first heard about it in grade 8, I thought it was the dumbest thing ever. The first pair, Introvert or Extrovert made sense. But I could never make up my mind on the rest: Intuitive or Sensing, Thinking or Feeling, Judging or Perceiving? I felt I could be either, depending upon mood. Later I learned that these terms had hyperspecialized meanings, different from how most people use them in everyday speech, especially the latter two pairs (thinking and feeling, judging and perceiving). Finally I heard that the last pair is some kind of key, which turns the meaning of the middle two pairs. If that does't make sense, that is expected. The letters are just symptoms of inner causes, called the Cognitive Functions, which only the most serious of devotees have heard of, and even fewer understand. --- To go back to basics, it is obvious to me that personality is partly biological. Whether you are introvert or extrovert, for example, doesn't seem to be changeable by sheer force of will or even long, continuous practice. The genetic origin doesn't mean you will match your parents. Just like hair color or the shape of the nose, it can vary, and genes from both sides interact to form a unique child each time. Child 1 can be the polar opposite of Child 2, and things are reinvented once again with Child 3 --- and I don't think it's all explained by birth order. I think there are personality genes. --- The best way I have found to approach Myers Briggs is backwards. Instead of taking a test or trying to understand the exact meaning of each letter, just read the prose descriptions of the 16. https://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html https://www.personalitypage.com/html/portraits.html I think you will find some familiar faces in there --- not only a few that sound like yourself but many that remind you of friends. And these are about how you are in default mode, when you are relaxed, not trying. Certainly you can imitate the others for a little while. But some things seem to go with your grain, and others against it. How are you when you behave automatically? That's all that it's about --- not your whole potential when you bring learning and effort into the mix. Some things that are easy and natural for others will always be harder for you, and vice versa. So there's something to it. My main reservation is that I think 16 is too many, but only by a little. Maybe there are just 12 genetic types (which are further built upon by one's upbringing, experiences, etc., to make each of us unique). --- As a final note, back to the Cognitive Functions, I think they may be hard to grapple with at first, but they are what make Myers Briggs distinctive. It is the only personality theory that posits that how you feel on the inside is often the opposite of how you appear on the outside. For example, I think I am probably an INFJ. Alone in my thoughts or in writing, I am analytical, logical, factual, always trying to come to judgment on this theory or that. But at a party I am open, agreeable (to a fault), even gregarious if my energy is up. Likewise someone else may feel in touch with humanity in their inner selves, but socially will come across as coolly decisive and a hard-nosed debater.

Xcelerate 6y ago

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 many online claims to the contrary. Myers-Briggs at least has some small level of predictive power, so no, it's not like horoscopes. There was once a poll of engineers at the tech company I work at, and I think the results were like 70% INTJ, 25% INTP, and 5% other. If MBTI lacked all predictive power, you would expect a distribution roughly equivalent to that of the general population. Could people self-select what they "want" to be? Sure, but it's still predictive of something in that case.

Quekid5 6y ago
> 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. It was so incredibly transparent that I chose a personality at the outset and 'achieved' that outcome.
- souprock 6y ago
  Check the math in the article. (the correlation tables especially, both against the "Big 5" and for repeatability) If Myers-Briggs is not science, then the "Big 5" personality traits are also not science. They are tied together, each strongly predictive of the other. Results are repeatable, especially if not rounded to boolean values.
  - Quekid5 6y ago
    I'm going to suggest a hypothetical. Let's ignore any personality test specifics just to generalize. Ok, so I have a candidate for a position, who shows +5% to "conscientiousness". What does that mean, practically, for me as an employer? It means exactly nothing, because that trait is so vague as to be ... meaningless. (That's just the start of the problems with these tests.) Even if it M-B (or whatever) is a repeatable effect it has no value as a predictor of performance of a single individual. In aggregate, maybe... (but also no, see the wiki). It's just people playing Management Consultant extracting money from Management.

jplr8922 6y ago

I took the MBTI in my early twenties, then forgot about it. I got into the much more scientific big-5 to understand different types of personalities, and in order to flesh out the possible ranges of behaviors in my mind. Then 10 years later I find myself going back to the MBTI. Why? Because I now understand it as a gateway to Jung ideas, which I find helpful during my current period of professional questionning. Acording to what I understand, the original idea is that our minds all share basic different functions : thinking, feeling, sensing, intuition, each coming into an introverted or extraverted way. Depending on your lifepath, your self concept (ego) will ''cling'' to certain functions because of perceived talent, events, etc. Then, you will start to realize that you are weaker than what social norms dictate about using some other functions. You might also realize that you judge other for using their functions in an ''inferior'' way, and that some of yours are present but less agile than your favorites. That the last ones are subcounscious and silencious because using them (or seeing other using them) will trigger repressed emotions. Finally, that developping a healthy ego, containing workable 'stack' of cohesive functions which both fits your aspirations and society's expectation is hard. And that maybe one way, your mind will be fluid and adjust itself according to the situation.

leblancfg 6y ago
jplr9822, I just wanted to say thanks for this great reply, and that I would thoroughly enjoy reading an expanded version of this in long form. Cheers
- jplr8922 6y ago
  Gee I'm far from being a specialist. Best gateway I found to MBTI as a tool for personal development (and not self masturbation) is the personality hacker podcast (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5S23Z7_qa4sRnfW80Xd6Ag https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5S23Z7_qa4sRnfW80Xd6Ag). Keep in mind that the MBTI is not a model to forecast your perfect job / match, simply a tool for self reflexion. You could also read the original book by Jung : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Types. As the article explains, the goal is to understand the various complexes that an individual will develop if he becomes over-reliant to some functions and repress their opposite in their subcouscious. Think about an overly-logical nerd unable to take action, a social butterfly with no introspection, or a tyranical boss with an substance-based stress management technique. Pay special attention to those you judge.

ani-ani 6y ago

I like when people bring up Myers Briggs because it allows me quickly categorize them as "people who attach importance to personality types", and thereby make sweeping generalizations about them.

exfalso 6y ago
hahahahaha

qwerty456127 6y ago

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 Enneagram. I'm very interested in this subject.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cbfrench 6y ago
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.
Terretta 6y ago
These days you’re likely to run into WPI or WPI-Pro, Workplace Personality Inventory for Professionals: https://thepsychometricworld.com/wpi-pro/ https://thepsychometricworld.com/wpi-pro/ The following is quoted from that link to save you a click: WPI-Pro is a comprehensive work personality assessment tool developed and validated over several years of research and improvements. It helps you to make better selection and development decisions. In only 45 minutes you can have invaluable information about the candidate that could otherwise take months or even years to acquire. Over 5 years of rigorous research has shaped this unique psychometric test based on trait theory of personality (BIG FIVE MODEL) and is mapped on 80+ behavioral competencies. WPI-Pro is designed and validated to cover a variety of job performance aspects including: - Leadership - Decision making - Organizing & prioritizing - Planning and coordination - Self motivation - Stress tolerance - Emotional resilience - Honesty and integrity - Team work - Interpersonal/Cross-cultural sensitivity - … AND MANY MORE

roenxi 6y ago

The article observes that if the Myers-Briggs axis are treated as continuous then they map very closely to the Big 5 personality traits. It seems to me that observation is substantially more important than the space it is given. If M-B is basically measuring 4 of the Big 5, that really sets up a lot of the rest of the conversation. Why measure 4 of the big 5 when you can measure 5 of the 5? The complaint here seems to be that the names of the Big 5 should be changed to something more neutral (which is a pretty fair idea, they aren't well named).

pseudalopex 6y ago
Myers Briggs tests have profiles of each type usually. Big 5 tests don't.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cb321 6y ago
  The profiles seem more propagated by Keirsey Temperament type material (e.g. Please Understand Me). Their existence could be viewed as more of a downside of MB relative to Big 5 because they exaggerate the meaning of the measurement and/or category. { These profiles "read a lot into" the various categories - as do all the English names for axes/groups. } EDIT1: Also B5 just names 5 axes instead of MB naming (4*2) groups which always bugged me. Beyond that, because B5 does not discretize, it puts the measurement error center stage. Emphasizing measurement error is a major positive for something already so vague. EDIT2: Also, while situation, context, how well you slept, or whatever absolutely matter, I believe this vagueness underwrites much of the "MB is pseudoscience" hostility. To some, it's so vague as to be meaningless jibber-jabber. To others, it's specific enough to be just on this side of the "science" line. Even if you think it is science, science can clearly be misapplied by those who don't understand it, and this "science" probably is..a lot (as bemoaned by the article). As the author @dyno-might points out in fledgling steps to harden the ideas, there could be an intermediate 'x' value for each of the 4 axes. He does not say how far out from the mean one has to be "to not be in 'x'". Far enough out for each of the 4 and, boom, 99% of people are XXXX. At that point, the tests become only outlier detectors (again modulated by other, unmeasured variables) discriminating only 1% of people. Note 0.317 is also about outside 1 standard deviation for a normal curve and assuming independence, for simplicity of the example, 0.317*4 = .01. At 1.25 SDs that goes to 0.002. (Not random values - @dyno-might's distributions looked a little platykurtic.) So, it might easily be the test is only very informative (i.e. maybe predictive) for a tiny fraction of people - so not exactly unscientific, but also not exactly very useful if "over-concluding" is likely for 99% to 99.9% of the "modal" test takers. Textual profiles (or book chapters!) can take that over-concluding from just binning up a few notches.

totemandtoken 6y ago

I don't have an issue with Myers-Briggs or the Big 5 as ideas, or even as a first step towards a more rigorous science of human behavior. You have to start somewhere, right? My issue is the premature adoption of it by corporations and businesses who treat it as though it is a settled science.

ckozlowski 6y ago
>You have to start somewhere, right? Agreed, and I suspect from a scientific method perspective, MBTI is something that's being explored in reverse. We've got a strong feeling that these different axis exist, but haven't yet landed on a truly robust and reliable way to evaluate them. So it's a lot of fuzzy intuition about things still. As long as these proponents explain the analog nature of the scales and the immaturity of the field as a whole, (which I know doesn't happen much), I don't see much harm in it. But I agree that outside of one's on personal insight, using it to make any sort of business decision is folly.
mrweasel 6y ago
Why do you need to subject people to personality tests at all? It uncomfortable and demeaning, not to mention that it make the business come of as lazy and unrelateable. If you need to know what type of person someone is, talk to them, take the time to learn if they’d be a good fit. I no longer interview at companies who subject candidate to personality test. The best jobs I’ve ever worked have been where I talked directly with my future boss, often for more than an hour, no tests. The worst jobs all had quizes or personality tests. What’s the use of a test that’s easily influence by a person mood, if you don’t take the time to understand why that person feels like that?

0xbadcafebee 6y ago

It doesn't matter so much if MBTI is "real" as much as the fact that it's constantly applied in the wrong ways. Using MBTI / big five to help narrow down the selection of a sales candidate? Okay. Choosing only sales candidates with a specific MBTI / big five? Crap.

pseudalopex 6y ago
The first isn't good either. MBTI literature stresses it measures preferences not abilities.

timwaagh 6y ago

What isn't touched upon are the descriptions of the various attributes in mbti. Because each of those is a bit questionable. Like can't you be both thinking and feeling. Maybe according to the test you can't but that doesn't intuitively follow from those descriptions. That's why I like big five more. It just slaps you in the face with how bad your personality is.

d_silin 6y ago

I took M-B test and was surprised how accurate it was in describing my personality type. I suspect my personality traits are closer to endpoints of its scales, making it more precise for me.

Udik 6y ago
Same for me. My MBTI personality portrait is so spot on that the feeling is that the test really is providing more information than you put in by answering the questions. That said, a lot of people who took it didn't have that instant of perfect self-recognition- the results are often mixed.
- simias 6y ago
  The entire field of astrology is based on similar confirmation bias, very broad and vague assertions on character are likely to resonate on way or the other. That's the main reason I took this test with a grain of salt. Here, let me paste random lines from the "16 personalities" website describing various types: > $type may feel directionless or stuck unless they connect with a sense of purpose for their lives. > Embracing the values of honesty, dedication and dignity, people with the $type personality type are valued for their clear advice and guidance, and they happily lead the way on difficult paths. > This can earn them a reputation for inflexibility, a trait shared by all $type personalities, but it’s not because $type are arbitrarily stubborn, but because they truly believe that these values are what make society work. > Despite all this, $type are definitely Introverts, surprising their friends further when they step out of the spotlight to be by themselves to recharge. Just because they are alone though, doesn’t mean people with the $type personality type sit idle – they take this time for introspection, assessing their principles. Rather than dwelling on the past or the future, $type think about who they are. > These personalities can be both the boldest of dreamers and the bitterest of pessimists. $type believe that, through willpower and intelligence, they can achieve even the most challenging of goals. But they may be cynical about human nature more generally, assuming that most people are lazy, unimaginative, or simply doomed to mediocrity. I took all these samples from different profiles randomly, and I relate to a certain extent to all of them. Obviously I cherry-picked a bit but it shows that if you want to believe that the test is working it won't be hard to confirm-bias any result that you get.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

Summary: Myers-Briggs is a useful model, when a few adjustments are made. 1. Problems I've Discovered 1a. Myers-Briggs pigeon-holes people into one "personality type", and generalizes what they should think and do based on that. I think that's kind of silly and limiting. 1b. If you read the personality descriptions, it is favorable towards the "rare" types, describing them as brilliant geniuses, while the other types are portrayed as barely sentient worker drones. I think that's really condescending and divisive. 2. Adjustments I've Made Nevertheless, I think the questions and the other text is a USEFUL tool for SELF-ASSESSMENT and also for UNDERSTANDING others, so I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here is how I make Myers-Briggs make sense and fit into my other mental models: 2a. First, instead of four scales, I consider it an EIGHT-SCALE system, with each trait being its own measure. For example, you can be high on the introversion scale (needs alone time to recharge) and at the same time also be high on the extraversion scale (connects with others readily, needs socializing to thrive.) I think the worldwide quarantine made this obvious to many an self-described introvert. This applies to all the other scales as well. You can be someone with intense feelings and at the same time a thorough and dedicated thinker, who sits down and combs their mental models for hours. You can be very good at listening to your intuition while also being highly perceptive to your senses. And you can have firm general rules about how things "should be", especially as one gets older, while still remaining to new possibilities. 2b. The other adjustment I have made is that I consider each scale to be a measure of how much ABILITY a person has developed and PRACTICING that trait. In other words, beyond natural predisposition, each person can grow considerably in any of these traits, provided they practice and apply it regularly. Conclusion: People are neither introverts, nor extraverts, but both. People are both thinkers and feelers, both judgers and perceivers, and both intuiters and sensers.

cbfrench 6y ago
> 2b. The other adjustment I have made is that I consider each scale to be a measure of how much ABILITY a person has developed and PRACTICING that trait. In other words, beyond natural predisposition, each person can grow considerably in any of these traits, provided they practice and apply it regularly. I do think, at its best, this is what MBTI aims to emphasize: each of us is capable of developing those areas where we are deficient, be it introversion/extraversion, thinking/feeling, etc. Problems only arise when people treat these factors as static binaries. I’m mostly an MBTI agnostic, but I have been surprised at how consistently I have been typed as an INTP across the various versions of the test I have taken (including the ‘official’ one). I view it as a rough indicator of where I am at a particular moment in time, and the domains I can seek to develop to become a more ‘well-rounded’ person. I agree completely with you that, understood correctly, it can be a useful model when people view it as a means of growth. Not, I guess, to get too self-helpy about it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

smokey_circles 6y ago

I don't know how/why people defend this test. 1. It's inaccurate. And that's not just "technically true", it's very rare that the test reproduces results. 2. Jung's theories (the ones used in the test) aren't just "controversial". They're wrong. He says it himself, in the same document they used to create the test. It is just a cash cow now. The _biggest_ problem with the test is it is harmful, not helpful. People believe the results are accurate _and permanent_ and so division is created where in reality there is more overlap than difference. It's also not good to tell people "these are good" followed up by "you have none of them and never will". By the way: This is true of a _lot_ of IQ tests too: We're still debating what IQ is, nevermind how to measure it. So we definitely shouldn't be telling people the results of their IQ tests, most of which are also not reproducible. But the data these tests collect is useful. We just shouldn't wield such aouthority about a theory with a lot of apparent leaks we can't explain. There's a better way Psychology is a young field. Lots of kinks to work out still

souprock 6y ago
The article covers reproducibility. The test does reliably reproduce results, at least if you don't quantize to boolean. Jung doesn't matter. Being a cash cow doesn't matter. There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. If you aren't going to accept IQ, then you've entirely tossed out the field of psychology. There is nothing left.
- feanaro 6y ago
  > There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. If you aren't going to accept IQ, then you've entirely tossed out the field of psychology. There is nothing left. Huh. That's quite a bold and incorrect claim. Are you a psychologist?
  - exfalso 6y ago
    Perhaps the word "psychometry" would have been better. There isn't any psychometric test more stable than IQ.

dfraser992 6y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality

iso1210 6y ago
I did an Enneagram last week. I'm doing a part-time MSc at the moment, and the last 2 weeks has been talking about these types of tests. I'm certainly on the "cynical" side in any test. My Enneagram result was even in 4 of the 9 boxes. Wonderful. With all these tests, it seems that many people think the categorisation is what matters, rather than what you do with the information. You could use them as an icebreaker on a teambuilding day I guess, but then you could probably use a 'what hogwarts house are you' or 'what game of thrones character are you' test from buzzfeed. Maybe it's useful to create fictional characters of D&D backstories. I can see that if you have an idea of the type of person you have on a team, you might know how to help them, and an idea of personality traits they may have could help -- if you're an introvert that likes time alone to recharge, knowing that some people are weird and like to recharge with other people may help, but then you're just as likely to get it wrong anyway - for example thinking "I won't invite X to the pub because they're an introvert that doesn't like being around people"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sradman 6y ago

I found this defense of Myers Briggs Type Index (MBTI) against the Big Five [1] OCEAN personality traits helpful. Neuroticism is a useful measure but has negative connotations that requires self-disclosure and, therefore, less likely to be shared with co-workers and acquaintances. The advantage of MBTI is the value neutral labels that encourage sharing and discussion amongst laypeople. This is exactly why it is popular in corporate settings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Smaug123 6y ago

I must say I was extremely amused when I took MBTI, that one of the last questions was essentially "did you think this test was a load of bollocks?" It's like they created the test, administered it to a bunch of people to try it out, half of them said "your test is a load of bollocks", and they thought "hmm, well, the test can't be bollocks, so that must mean we've found another useful discriminator of personality types!".

rasengan0 6y ago

VP wanted MB for team building for our division to assess our alignment and role effectiveness. [1] I mean who doesn't like free lunch and horoscopes? Well turns out it was like going to the shelter and hearing the bible sermon before the pay off in baloney sandwiches. Instead, the well paid consultant ate our baloney too. Questioning validity means you're of the SFTU type. At least she taught a great lesson: always convince the $uckers at the top. [1] Golly extremely useful! https://jobtalk.indiana.edu/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf https://jobtalk.indiana.edu/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/... https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137

itbm 6y ago

The theory behind Jung and MB deals with the idea of cognitive functions. https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/underst... The underlying claim is that people's mental processes fall under these behaviors and from observation it appears that there are four pairs of functions. It is these functional stacks that determine the 16 buckets/types and not any sort of dichotomy of the letters. 1. The breakdown of the letters doesn't make any sense and doesn't appear to lead to any insight. This is a completely valid critique of how MBTI is being pitched and presented. But, at least personally, I find the cognitive functions at least point in the right direction after examining my own mental processes and what is present or absent. 2. If we are measuring the quality of a test to be how well it can repeat the same result, it is not surprising that once you get into a higher dimensionality of representing a person's personality that we don't have a great repeatable way to test. This is a product of both the test and the difficulty of conveying and capturing what it is trying to represent, and the general inexperience of people to be able to accurately enumerate their own thought process. Happy to hop on zoom or discord and explain functions to anyone interested.

lukebuehler 6y ago

MBTI depends on Jung's personality type theory. Jung's ideas on personality are actually quite interesting and involve a lot of nuance. If you go and read Psychologial Types, you'll quickly realize that Jung developed his notions regarding personality as a tool for literary criticism. That is, to have a way to explain why authors, throughout history, took opposite stances on issues. For example, he begins the book by interpreting the Trinitarian and Christological debates at the dawn of Christianity. My takeaway is that Jung's typology is less of a science than it is a philosophy of the psyche, or even a philosophy on how the psyche expresses itself, and thus belongs more in the domain of the humanities. I like MBTI as a shortcut to talk about Jung's theories. As a scientific tool, MBTI is obviously extremely blunt. Testing for your MBTI type is therefore not a very good idea, IMO. As far as I can tell, many people who really are into MBTI will rather try to "type" you in a guided conversation than you merely taking a test. This is much more in the spirit of analytical psychology anyhwow.

yawaworht1978 6y ago

There cannot be a defense. Someone else telling you what kind of personality you really are is preposterous. It seems the next scam on the matter is "the big 5". Nope, all these do not work or account for peoples ability to change or simply...lie. Look at how wrong Freud was in hindsight. These tests will be regarded like Freud's cacophony in the future. Psychology today is not an accurate science at all. Interpret these tests with plenty of salt. There is no a little bit wrong, there is no a little bit pregnant. Source: Wife is a psychologist.

erhk 6y ago
I agree with you up until "people lie so it's wrong" None of these tests are useful on predicting how a person actually will behave or how they will make decisions. First, it's only personal perception of self which is nebulous at best and strictly wrong at worst. Did the Nazis see genocide as evil? Would they test into INTJ or into ENTP? Try to answer the question of which category a homeless man on the brink of starvation would fall into. All of the descriptors are happy and fluffy candy for white collar narcissists. Nowhere on the 16 personalities does it draw a line on who would kill for their own survival. Oh wow, you identify with the traits that you self elected. That's lovely.

moomin 6y ago

A fun game to play is see how the headline statements apply to astrology. Star sign is _way_ more reproducible than MBTI.

de6u99er 6y ago

Such tests are for robots who lack the necessary gut feeling (aka EQ). E.g. hose who think, a good education will result in a good hire.

wombatmobile 6y ago

Myers Briggs is popular for the same reason astrology is popular. People like categorising personalities so they can generalise about behaviours and "understand" people better by associating them with a pigeon hole. What is innovative about Myers Briggs is that it isn't limited like the horoscope by date of birth. If you want to be identified as a certain type, with Myers Briggs, all you have to do is answer the questions in a certain frame of mind. Contrast this agility with the rigidness of the horoscope, which requires the falsification of a birth certificate to change categories.

leto_ii 6y ago

I've always had mixed feelings regarding the Myres-Briggs test. On the one hand I was surprised by its consistency - in my case, every time I take it (regardless of the implementation), I get the same result. This probably comes down to a combination of me sort of being able to anticipate what a question is about and the test's genuine descriptive power. On the other hand, like pretty much everything psychology-related, this test feels like it's trying to impose a relatively simplistic order onto an area that we don't understand properly. I have a similar impression of the big five personality traits, as well as of the descriptions of pathologies in the DSM. I think at the end of the day the Myers-Briggs and the Big Five probably have quite a bit of overlap. At their core they seem to describe personalities via a number of principal components or latent variables that differ a bit between the two models, but capture about the same amount of information. > The great advantage of the the MBTI is exactly that it makes everyone feel like a beautiful special snowflake. The axes are chosen and named ingeniously so as to make them easy to reveal. Considering that both models are hand-wavey borderline pseudo-science, I agree that the Myers-Briggs is the more palatable of the two.

mhd 6y ago

This reads a lot like people defending D&D alignments.

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

It seems strange that we've moved on from grouping and categorising people by race and sex but it's still acceptable to do so based on a few multiple choice questions.

dyno-might 6y ago

Hi, I'm the author of this post. Any way we can change the link to here: https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html https://dynomight.net/in-defense-of-myers-briggs.html ? This is a slightly updated version of the post (new links, slightly less unhinged language, and a link to this MBTI quiz that I made to promote non-binary axes: https://dynomight.net/mbti https://dynomight.net/mbti )

graup 6y ago
Thanks, the test was very refreshing. I really like the simplicity. As an anecdote, my result came out very close to the one from 16personalities.
dang 6y ago
Sure—changed from https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-briggs/ https://dynomight.home.blog/2020/06/12/in-defense-of-meyers-.... Thanks!
souprock 6y ago
It was changed the other way. I originally posted with your suggested link, but then moments later it was a "404 Not Found" error page. Your web site might be unreliable. Also, until I found the other link, I was unaware that there were any images. I had seen only plain text. Currently there are images, but will they stay? Do you know what went wrong with the web site? Might it go back to being "404 Not Found" again? If you are certain that your web site isn't going to go "404 Not Found" again, contact dang.
- dyno-might 6y ago
  Sorry, I accidentally pushed it to live before I was finished revising it, then hurriedly (but not hurriedly enough, clearly) pulled it down again. Blame me, not the site.

specialist 6y ago

What's the utility of Myers-Briggs, Big Five, astrology, etc? What's the actionable advice? Do they help me make better predictions? -- After my occult phase (middle school), I had a longer skeptic phase. What kids today call "rationalist". Then someone at a party told me "Astrology isn't about truth. It's just a way for people to talk about the human condition." Huh. That kinda makes sense. So I stopped LARPing as Michael Shermer. (More recently I tried the "belief as attire" stuff for a while. Now I think people are all about identity and wanting to belong to a group.) Anyway. I'm fine with Myers-Briggs. It's no less true than any of the other stupid stuff we tell ourselves about our selves.

foxhop 6y ago

Learning your MBTI type helps you learn what you work on. I'm currently exploring Carl Jung and performing my own red book style adventures to try to heAl and learn. Have a growth mindset. Understand your defaults are just your defaults. Just like you have a dominant hand, you can still use your "weaker" hand, just takes practice. Utilize Love, Truth, and Freedom to drive thoughts and actions.

einpoklum 6y ago

Having taken this "test" a good number of years ago, and I remember I often did not have a proper straight answer to give. On many questions, I would want to say something like: * You're mis-representing the choices. * Well, you say that, but I'm not sure what it would actually mean. * Depends on the circumstances. * I'm not sure. * I might choose one option and then regret it, and maybe switch to another. * Those things don't contradict. * I would have done something different early on which would preclude this scenario altogether. * This question looks like an earlier one. I choose X there, but that doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I'll choose Y here for good measure. * None of the above.

Terretta 6y ago
That’s why they sample each trait repeatedly through a dozen lenses. Just do it fast without thinking. Unless you’re STJ then I can’t help you. :-)

bobbygoodlatte 6y ago

Throw enough marketing & psychology studies behind a "Which Muppets character are you?" quiz and you'd have something about as meaningful & actionable as MBTI.

mcguire 6y ago

Yes, but does it mean anything? Does it make useful predictions? Does it tell me the kinds of people to seek out or avoid, like the Chinese zodiac?

armoredkitten 6y ago

I've got a PhD in psychology. I have things. I. could. say. about this topic. But I would like to emphasize, in the strongest of terms, that Cronbach's alpha is not a measurement of test-retest reliability. Cronbach's alpha is a measure to answer the question, "If we ask five questions to measure the same thing, how well do they agree?" Test-retest reliability says, "If we ask these same questions X days/months/years later, how likely is it we'll get the same answer?" Past research on this latter form of reliability (test-retest) on the MBTI have found it to be quite weak; yes, I'm sure it's probably more favourable if you don't binarize the measures. But it's still weak. If you're interested, the references on the "Reliability" section of the Wiki page[1] is a decent place to start. My biggest issue with the MBTI, however, is that it gets used to make important decisions like whether to hire someone, despite little to no evidence for its validity in terms of predicting on-the-job performance. And that's extremely concerning. Quite frankly, personality tests have very little place in hiring assessments at all -- often the primary dimension employers care about is conscientiousness, and those questions are generally too transparent to be reliable for someone who has a vested interest in getting a job. Are you really going to report that you are "someone who tends to be disorganized" when you're trying to get hired? If you're an employer looking for ways to find the best candidates, then you have a responsibility to ensure that the methods you're using to test someone's fit are a reliable indicator of their actual fit. Interpret "fit" how you like, but generally speaking, you want measures that are going to actually tell you how well that person will do with the tasks they would be performing. You're going to have much better luck with a take-home assignment or temporary contract than you will reading the tea leaves of MBTI, or even using an established, valid test like the Big Five Inventory. These measures just aren't meant for what you're trying to use them for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

dyno-might 6y ago
Do you have any pointers for better studies regarding test-retake reliability with the MBTI and/or Big Five? The Wikipedia page does not appear to be helpful in this regard. As far as I can tell, every citation is regarding 16 discrete bins.

warmfuzzykitten 6y ago

Because human beings can be described in four bits. Oh, four bits isn't enough? Four scales, then. That fixes it.