4 ms·

> 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'

> 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.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for, you seem awfully confident of your opinion.
    - Quekid5 6y ago
      > For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for I'm sorry, what? I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said > It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'science'. EDIT: Btw, my allusion was to a comment by Stephen Fry in a debate. (Specifics are no doubt going to lead to more contention, so I'll omit them.)
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        Some people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that. Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.
        dang 6y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack in HN threads. It's not what this site is for, and wrecks what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        ncmncm 6y ago
        I am not attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. What I wrote applies to anybody, myself included.
        Quekid5 6y ago
        Ah, yes. Not answering any of my questions and just putting out vague platitudes.
        dang 6y ago
        Please stop.
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    Imagine you have a job that is highly detail-oriented. Perhaps data must be perfect or a number of steps must be followed but checking the employee's work might be cumbersome. You have two applicants, roughly equal. One scores higher on conscientiousness ...
    - sosborn 6y ago
      Do you believe that measurement is actually accurate?
      - at_a_remove 6y ago
        Well, we were discussing the utility of such a test. I would assume that by the time we got to the point of utility, we would have agreed that the thing itself was valid. There's no point in discussing the utility of a thing that didn't work.
ncmncm 6y ago
It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. You can always lie, about anything you like. You can put salt in the sugar bowl. You can substitute decaf in for the coffee at the office, and give everybody caffeine-withdrawl headaches. You can have your dog crap in the sandbox at the park. What do you imagine you would prove, by that? (I give you exactly one guess.) All you did lying on the test was to land in a different box than if you had not lied. But one box is not better than another box, so what good did that do? It means somebody who looks and believes it will find it harder to communicate with you. What you achieved was to throw sand in the gears. Congratulations.
- Quekid5 6y ago
  > It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. Ok, so what is it for? And how do you justify its use? I've seen what it's being sold for/as.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    If you do not see it how it would be useful, my recommendation is do not buy it. I have not bought it, but I have used it. I justify using it because it is useful to me: It helps me understand how people very different from myself interact with their world. These other people are not wrong, just different. Remarkably often, the differences are quite comprehensible. It helps to organize those differences. The precise details of how to organize them are not especially important, because it is just a way to break up what would be a lot of confusing detail into chunks that minds can grasp more easily. If it matches how other people organize, then we can talk about it. Certain ways of organizing differences satisfy more criteria than others, and so have attracted more people to use them. MB is one that does, and so has. That doesn't make other systems wrong; and that other systems exist doesn't make MB wrong, even if different systems are more useful in one place than another.
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      If the purpose is merely to understand how people different from you view the world, then why take the test at all, rather than just reading about the ~sixteen personality types MBTI distinguishes between? The MBTI consultant who administered the test to me couldn't answer that question.

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.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for, you seem awfully confident of your opinion.
  - Quekid5 6y ago
    > For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for I'm sorry, what? I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said > It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'science'. EDIT: Btw, my allusion was to a comment by Stephen Fry in a debate. (Specifics are no doubt going to lead to more contention, so I'll omit them.)
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      Some people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that. Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.
      - dang 6y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack in HN threads. It's not what this site is for, and wrecks what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        ncmncm 6y ago
        I am not attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. What I wrote applies to anybody, myself included.
      - Quekid5 6y ago
        Ah, yes. Not answering any of my questions and just putting out vague platitudes.
        dang 6y ago
        Please stop.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  Imagine you have a job that is highly detail-oriented. Perhaps data must be perfect or a number of steps must be followed but checking the employee's work might be cumbersome. You have two applicants, roughly equal. One scores higher on conscientiousness ...
  - sosborn 6y ago
    Do you believe that measurement is actually accurate?
    - at_a_remove 6y ago
      Well, we were discussing the utility of such a test. I would assume that by the time we got to the point of utility, we would have agreed that the thing itself was valid. There's no point in discussing the utility of a thing that didn't work.

ncmncm 6y ago

It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. You can always lie, about anything you like. You can put salt in the sugar bowl. You can substitute decaf in for the coffee at the office, and give everybody caffeine-withdrawl headaches. You can have your dog crap in the sandbox at the park. What do you imagine you would prove, by that? (I give you exactly one guess.) All you did lying on the test was to land in a different box than if you had not lied. But one box is not better than another box, so what good did that do? It means somebody who looks and believes it will find it harder to communicate with you. What you achieved was to throw sand in the gears. Congratulations.

Quekid5 6y ago
> It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for. Ok, so what is it for? And how do you justify its use? I've seen what it's being sold for/as.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  If you do not see it how it would be useful, my recommendation is do not buy it. I have not bought it, but I have used it. I justify using it because it is useful to me: It helps me understand how people very different from myself interact with their world. These other people are not wrong, just different. Remarkably often, the differences are quite comprehensible. It helps to organize those differences. The precise details of how to organize them are not especially important, because it is just a way to break up what would be a lot of confusing detail into chunks that minds can grasp more easily. If it matches how other people organize, then we can talk about it. Certain ways of organizing differences satisfy more criteria than others, and so have attracted more people to use them. MB is one that does, and so has. That doesn't make other systems wrong; and that other systems exist doesn't make MB wrong, even if different systems are more useful in one place than another.
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    If the purpose is merely to understand how people different from you view the world, then why take the test at all, rather than just reading about the ~sixteen personality types MBTI distinguishes between? The MBTI consultant who administered the test to me couldn't answer that question.