6 ms·

You can bin people in any number of arbitrary ways. Just the fact you can bin people does not make the binning usefull. Meyers-Squid is equally valid as any ot

by fsloth 6y ago

You can bin people in any number of arbitrary ways. Just the fact you can bin people does not make the binning usefull. Meyers-Squid is equally valid as any other fiction driven binning process. Like dividing people into Hogswarts houses. Stability alone is useless if the predictive qualities do not extend beyond the binning process. Being INTJ only predicts the next time you do the test (if the scoring is stable) you might be more likely to score INTJ again. It does not predict the tested persons’ life outcomes or performance at work, in personal OR statistical sense. The scores don’t predict anything of value outside of the test framework. This is what it means to be useless pseudoscience. It can be a fun party game and thus be usable as a facilitation tool, but beyond that it’s useless (or harmfull if someone tries to use the scores for something like ’creating balanced teams’).

concordDance 6y ago
Are you really saying that testing as intj (for example) doesn't correlate with anything? Because that seems incredibly unlikely. E.g. three years ago Slate Star Codex readers were surveyed and found to be 10 times more likely to be INTJ/INTP than the general population.
- Twisol 6y ago
  Not particularly having a horse in this race, if a theory can't reliably make useful predictions, it's not a very useful theory. There's certainly something to be said about identifying correlations, but it isn't yet clear to me whether we can draw inferences based on those correlations to make useful predictions. In the SSC example, I wouldn't be especially shocked if there are no useful inferences in either direction, but rather a confounding variable that makes it more likely for SSC readers to answer MBTI answers in a particular way. MBTI itself wouldn't necessarily have a lot to say about this factor. (And given the intellectual, self-aware content of SSC, it seems pretty likely to me that this is the case.)
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    There are tons of correlations, for example INTP/INTJ subreddits on Reddit being most popular while these types generally are one of the rarest. There's tons of things you can predict with this. INTPs are often going to face similar challenges and obstacles in life, there's similar things that will help them grow as a person that would not help other types.
    - Twisol 6y ago
      Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx? There's probably some bias here, but I've only ever heard INTx specifically singled out when talking about MBTI. That suggests that MBTI may make too many clear distinctions where reality draws a much softer line. A coarser-grained theory is likely to have more predictive power and be more applicable. Alternatively, a fine-grained theory with the boundaries drawn differently, such as the Big Five, may better account for these softer distinctions. I'm not saying this is definitively the case. I'm saying that a complex theory that makes a small set of predictions doesn't justify its weight. If MBTI does fall into that category, we should feel no qualms about finding something that works better for us. (Personally, I get a lot more out of the Bartle taxonomy. Only four broad classifications, and more focused on what value one seeks from certain kinds of games. Not without its flaws, either.) > INTPs are often going to face similar challenges and obstacles in life, there's similar things that will help them grow as a person that would not help other types. I really am going to need a citation for this. Here's my new horse: there cannot be 16 broad (even with overlap) classes of obstacles and growth opportunities in life that are specific to each personality type. Humans are simultaneously too subtle for a personality test to provide this level of insight, and too similar for tactics to be inapplicable to all but one type of person. It smells like horoscopes, and there are only twelve of those. We all have issues. Let's categorize those, not the personality types that we think correlate with them. It borders on claiming that the problems I have in life are because of something wrong with me, and not just the circumstances of life in general.
      - nicoburns 6y ago
        Have you looked into the "Cognitive Functions" that MBTI theory uses? If not, I'd recommend reading through the 101, 201, and 301 articles here https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ To me I see "INTx" and think that makes no sense because INTJ and INTP have completely different functional stacks. INTJ's are dominant "Introverted Intuition" (Ni) followed by "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe), whereas INTP's are dominant "Introverted Thinking" (Ti) followed by "Extravert Inuition" (Ne). So they're basically completely different. Once you have a functional stack, then the MBTI theory becomes a lot more subtle: not only does everyone have 4 our of the 8 functions in their stack covering both sides of each of the distinctions, but the relative strength of each of these functions can vary continuously. And that's before you even get to variations based on experience, which the MBTI doesn't even attempt to describe (you'd typically use someone's MBTI type in conjunction with their life experience to explain their personality as a whole).
- fsloth 6y ago
  Statistically it would be very surprising if Meyers-Briggs score would not have correlations with some other samplings - but that does not make it any more relevant. The fact that you can bin answers does not make your questionnaire in any way relevant unless you have some theory how the binned statistic can be used outside of the scoring process. Meyers-Briggs is all about the scoring, and has no usable theory how that scoring could be used. A correlation alone does not mean it "means anything". Accidental correlations are quite common. We also notice them really well and tend to give them more meaning beyond them being random events. Picking only positive correlations from an arbitrary data set is also known as p-hacking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
- Bakary 6y ago
  INTJ and INTP are basically the "coolest" introvert result of the Myers-Briggs. For a supposedly rare result, it's one of the most trumpeted online and one with which people identify the strongest. The description of the result is essentially what those introverted readers imagine themselves to be when reading rationalist literature.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Thinking INTJ and INTP descriptions sound cool says more about you than the descriptions.
crispyambulance 6y ago
> predictive qualities do not extend beyond the binning process I agree that these tests should not be used for the purpose of evaluating/predicting the "fit" of any individual in an organization from an HR or leadership perspective. They are helpful, imho, for understanding some characteristics of one's own personality and how it relates to others. Personality is a real thing. It's also very complex so having some "bins" to structure how you (as an individual) think about it can be super useful. But yeah, in the hands of HR and other amateur psychologists it's not a useful tool.

by fsloth 6y ago

concordDance 6y ago

Are you really saying that testing as intj (for example) doesn't correlate with anything? Because that seems incredibly unlikely. E.g. three years ago Slate Star Codex readers were surveyed and found to be 10 times more likely to be INTJ/INTP than the general population.

Twisol 6y ago
Not particularly having a horse in this race, if a theory can't reliably make useful predictions, it's not a very useful theory. There's certainly something to be said about identifying correlations, but it isn't yet clear to me whether we can draw inferences based on those correlations to make useful predictions. In the SSC example, I wouldn't be especially shocked if there are no useful inferences in either direction, but rather a confounding variable that makes it more likely for SSC readers to answer MBTI answers in a particular way. MBTI itself wouldn't necessarily have a lot to say about this factor. (And given the intellectual, self-aware content of SSC, it seems pretty likely to me that this is the case.)
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  There are tons of correlations, for example INTP/INTJ subreddits on Reddit being most popular while these types generally are one of the rarest. There's tons of things you can predict with this. INTPs are often going to face similar challenges and obstacles in life, there's similar things that will help them grow as a person that would not help other types.
  - Twisol 6y ago
    Sure. Now can we do the same with the other fourteen types, or is the primary value here that there are two kinds of people: INTx and non-INTx? There's probably some bias here, but I've only ever heard INTx specifically singled out when talking about MBTI. That suggests that MBTI may make too many clear distinctions where reality draws a much softer line. A coarser-grained theory is likely to have more predictive power and be more applicable. Alternatively, a fine-grained theory with the boundaries drawn differently, such as the Big Five, may better account for these softer distinctions. I'm not saying this is definitively the case. I'm saying that a complex theory that makes a small set of predictions doesn't justify its weight. If MBTI does fall into that category, we should feel no qualms about finding something that works better for us. (Personally, I get a lot more out of the Bartle taxonomy. Only four broad classifications, and more focused on what value one seeks from certain kinds of games. Not without its flaws, either.) > INTPs are often going to face similar challenges and obstacles in life, there's similar things that will help them grow as a person that would not help other types. I really am going to need a citation for this. Here's my new horse: there cannot be 16 broad (even with overlap) classes of obstacles and growth opportunities in life that are specific to each personality type. Humans are simultaneously too subtle for a personality test to provide this level of insight, and too similar for tactics to be inapplicable to all but one type of person. It smells like horoscopes, and there are only twelve of those. We all have issues. Let's categorize those, not the personality types that we think correlate with them. It borders on claiming that the problems I have in life are because of something wrong with me, and not just the circumstances of life in general.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Have you looked into the "Cognitive Functions" that MBTI theory uses? If not, I'd recommend reading through the 101, 201, and 301 articles here https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ https://personalityjunkie.com/typology-101/ To me I see "INTx" and think that makes no sense because INTJ and INTP have completely different functional stacks. INTJ's are dominant "Introverted Intuition" (Ni) followed by "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe), whereas INTP's are dominant "Introverted Thinking" (Ti) followed by "Extravert Inuition" (Ne). So they're basically completely different. Once you have a functional stack, then the MBTI theory becomes a lot more subtle: not only does everyone have 4 our of the 8 functions in their stack covering both sides of each of the distinctions, but the relative strength of each of these functions can vary continuously. And that's before you even get to variations based on experience, which the MBTI doesn't even attempt to describe (you'd typically use someone's MBTI type in conjunction with their life experience to explain their personality as a whole).
fsloth 6y ago
Statistically it would be very surprising if Meyers-Briggs score would not have correlations with some other samplings - but that does not make it any more relevant. The fact that you can bin answers does not make your questionnaire in any way relevant unless you have some theory how the binned statistic can be used outside of the scoring process. Meyers-Briggs is all about the scoring, and has no usable theory how that scoring could be used. A correlation alone does not mean it "means anything". Accidental correlations are quite common. We also notice them really well and tend to give them more meaning beyond them being random events. Picking only positive correlations from an arbitrary data set is also known as p-hacking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
Bakary 6y ago
INTJ and INTP are basically the "coolest" introvert result of the Myers-Briggs. For a supposedly rare result, it's one of the most trumpeted online and one with which people identify the strongest. The description of the result is essentially what those introverted readers imagine themselves to be when reading rationalist literature.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Thinking INTJ and INTP descriptions sound cool says more about you than the descriptions.

crispyambulance 6y ago

> predictive qualities do not extend beyond the binning process I agree that these tests should not be used for the purpose of evaluating/predicting the "fit" of any individual in an organization from an HR or leadership perspective. They are helpful, imho, for understanding some characteristics of one's own personality and how it relates to others. Personality is a real thing. It's also very complex so having some "bins" to structure how you (as an individual) think about it can be super useful. But yeah, in the hands of HR and other amateur psychologists it's not a useful tool.