4 ms·

The idea that you know something is nonsense, but you make some excuse in your mind for how it is useful nonetheless is such a common, human thing. You see the

The idea that you know something is nonsense, but you make some excuse in your mind for how it is useful nonetheless is such a common, human thing. You see the same "logic" with lie detector tests. "Oh we know it is useless but its still useful because of nonsense games we play with it" Just stop, accept that it is bogus and don't do it.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
I'm not saying it's useless at all. I'm saying that the online bullshit that everyone thinks when you talk about "the MBTI" is useless. The actual MBTI is useful when used in its intended context, and no more. When people take the test out of context, it becomes no more than a horoscope. For most personality inventories, that context is in terms of determining what makes people comfortable in interpersonal relations. It doesn't predict the kinds of jobs you like (even though people online say it does). It doesn't predict your income earnings potential. It doesn't predict how you will act in any given circumstance. It doesn't predict how you will feel in any given circumstance. Its only value is in helping to determine what kinds of interactions you are most comfortable with. This is the same as other psychology tests, like those online autism, ADD, or psychopathy tests that people are also obsessed with. The paper test literally means nothing on its own. It is used to follow up on a clinical observation. Also, by the way, the Myers-Briggs test itself has had a hard time standing up to scrutiny because the test is very transparent about what it's testing for, so any test-taker can manipulate their answers to get the result they want very easily. Modern personality tests are usually some variant of the "big five" (which is kind of like Myers-Briggs plus one). The tests have gotten better at not convincing you to manipulate the result. A lot of people who are engineers are uncomfortable with this kind of arrangement, but it's how a lot of psychology (and medicine, for that matter) works due to the uncertainty in the testing vehicles, which is substantial.
- runarberg 4y ago
  What do you believe is the intended purpose of the actual MBTI? It is my understanding that it has its roots in Jungian psychoanalysis, which is thoroughly debunked pseudoscience at this point. The only utility of Jungian psychoanalysis today is in media and literature, particularly in Hollywood movies (and even then it is a bit outdated). I am aware that the MBTI has outlived Jungian psychoanalysis so we should assess it on its own merits (and not by its intended context) and as such it is at best useless fun (like the horoscope, online autism test, etc[1]) but at worst an industry based around provably false benefits. On its own merits MBTI is no different from modern personality tests in its lack of utility. It only set is self apart by being exceptionally poor at it, and explicitly basing it self on non-sensical statistical methods. Modern personality tests use cromulent statistics but fail to demonstrate any merit outside of which personality they’ve “discovered”. In other words, they’ve “discovered” epicycle and use that to describe planetary motions, all the while cognitive psychologists, behavior psychologists, neuro-pshychologists, sociologists, etc. have discovered general relativity and are using that to describe the same phenomena. 1: Although online autism tests often serve as a first step for autistic adults to go and get an actual diagnostic, or even just self-diagnose, and become a part of the autistic or neuro-diversity community which often has quite positive effects on their lives (if only by educating and being around other people in the community). I fail to see how MBTI has even this tiny foot-in-the-door benefit.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The intended purpose is to serve as a discussion point for how to best interact with you. Same with the other big 5 tests. It turns out people are not good at articulating that absent a weird context like a personality testing process. The typical use of big 5 and MBTI is to help teams work together and understand each others' working styles. That's it. The Jungean crap is just crap. Like literally everything else in psychology, it's a discussion point that gets the conversation started. So is Big 5. So is CBT (arguably the most "evidence-based" form of psychology, which still turns out to be scientifically debatable). It turns out that psychology is just about having structured conversations about your feelings. Personality tests are a framework for that, and they work for that purpose (and basically that purpose alone).
    - runarberg 4y ago
      I think you might confusing psychiatry/clinical psychology and behavioral psychology, which is understandable. Psychiatry and clinical psychology (including cognitive behavioral therapy) is indeed the most evidence based part of psychology, understandably so since it deals with our health care system, and the correct treatment does save lives. Personality psychology however doesn’t deal with psychological disorders focusing instead on the science of explaining behavior. The quality of the science in question is about finding a good model is, and evidence in question is not how effective a certain treatment is, but how well it justifies and backs up the model. I see this sentiment a lot here on HN that psychology is poor science, I disagree with that. Yes if you include psychoanalysis you will see a lot of bad science, however psychoanalysis has been on the fringe for almost a century at this point, and is not at all representative of the field as it is currently practiced. As an example take the subfield neuroscience, which looks at brain trauma from various patients and is able to predict with some accuracy what kind of behavioral change the patient will experience (a good model), and then uses that to focus on best paths for rehabilitation (a good justification for that model). Personality psychology has not been as successful in creating a good model, nor in finding ways to justify their model. Personality psychology is at best a poor and limited predictor of behavior, with very limited justification for said models. Nothing about feelings here really, just evidence for models of behavior.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

I'm not saying it's useless at all. I'm saying that the online bullshit that everyone thinks when you talk about "the MBTI" is useless. The actual MBTI is useful when used in its intended context, and no more. When people take the test out of context, it becomes no more than a horoscope. For most personality inventories, that context is in terms of determining what makes people comfortable in interpersonal relations. It doesn't predict the kinds of jobs you like (even though people online say it does). It doesn't predict your income earnings potential. It doesn't predict how you will act in any given circumstance. It doesn't predict how you will feel in any given circumstance. Its only value is in helping to determine what kinds of interactions you are most comfortable with. This is the same as other psychology tests, like those online autism, ADD, or psychopathy tests that people are also obsessed with. The paper test literally means nothing on its own. It is used to follow up on a clinical observation. Also, by the way, the Myers-Briggs test itself has had a hard time standing up to scrutiny because the test is very transparent about what it's testing for, so any test-taker can manipulate their answers to get the result they want very easily. Modern personality tests are usually some variant of the "big five" (which is kind of like Myers-Briggs plus one). The tests have gotten better at not convincing you to manipulate the result. A lot of people who are engineers are uncomfortable with this kind of arrangement, but it's how a lot of psychology (and medicine, for that matter) works due to the uncertainty in the testing vehicles, which is substantial.

runarberg 4y ago
What do you believe is the intended purpose of the actual MBTI? It is my understanding that it has its roots in Jungian psychoanalysis, which is thoroughly debunked pseudoscience at this point. The only utility of Jungian psychoanalysis today is in media and literature, particularly in Hollywood movies (and even then it is a bit outdated). I am aware that the MBTI has outlived Jungian psychoanalysis so we should assess it on its own merits (and not by its intended context) and as such it is at best useless fun (like the horoscope, online autism test, etc[1]) but at worst an industry based around provably false benefits. On its own merits MBTI is no different from modern personality tests in its lack of utility. It only set is self apart by being exceptionally poor at it, and explicitly basing it self on non-sensical statistical methods. Modern personality tests use cromulent statistics but fail to demonstrate any merit outside of which personality they’ve “discovered”. In other words, they’ve “discovered” epicycle and use that to describe planetary motions, all the while cognitive psychologists, behavior psychologists, neuro-pshychologists, sociologists, etc. have discovered general relativity and are using that to describe the same phenomena. 1: Although online autism tests often serve as a first step for autistic adults to go and get an actual diagnostic, or even just self-diagnose, and become a part of the autistic or neuro-diversity community which often has quite positive effects on their lives (if only by educating and being around other people in the community). I fail to see how MBTI has even this tiny foot-in-the-door benefit.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The intended purpose is to serve as a discussion point for how to best interact with you. Same with the other big 5 tests. It turns out people are not good at articulating that absent a weird context like a personality testing process. The typical use of big 5 and MBTI is to help teams work together and understand each others' working styles. That's it. The Jungean crap is just crap. Like literally everything else in psychology, it's a discussion point that gets the conversation started. So is Big 5. So is CBT (arguably the most "evidence-based" form of psychology, which still turns out to be scientifically debatable). It turns out that psychology is just about having structured conversations about your feelings. Personality tests are a framework for that, and they work for that purpose (and basically that purpose alone).
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I think you might confusing psychiatry/clinical psychology and behavioral psychology, which is understandable. Psychiatry and clinical psychology (including cognitive behavioral therapy) is indeed the most evidence based part of psychology, understandably so since it deals with our health care system, and the correct treatment does save lives. Personality psychology however doesn’t deal with psychological disorders focusing instead on the science of explaining behavior. The quality of the science in question is about finding a good model is, and evidence in question is not how effective a certain treatment is, but how well it justifies and backs up the model. I see this sentiment a lot here on HN that psychology is poor science, I disagree with that. Yes if you include psychoanalysis you will see a lot of bad science, however psychoanalysis has been on the fringe for almost a century at this point, and is not at all representative of the field as it is currently practiced. As an example take the subfield neuroscience, which looks at brain trauma from various patients and is able to predict with some accuracy what kind of behavioral change the patient will experience (a good model), and then uses that to focus on best paths for rehabilitation (a good justification for that model). Personality psychology has not been as successful in creating a good model, nor in finding ways to justify their model. Personality psychology is at best a poor and limited predictor of behavior, with very limited justification for said models. Nothing about feelings here really, just evidence for models of behavior.