3 ms·

"Basically, the Myers-Briggs type determines your preferences for particular cognitive functions." This is backwards; your Myers-Briggs type is determined by y

"Basically, the Myers-Briggs type determines your preferences for particular cognitive functions." This is backwards; your Myers-Briggs type is determined by your preferences, and is ultimately little more than a form of horoscope targeted at those who realize that birth month has no significant correlation with personality.

DaniFong 18y ago
I meant determine as in "to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation." I didn't say that it was necessarily 100% accurate. But the MBTI is not a horoscope. The INTP/INTJ slant here is way statistically significant. Obviously there's something there.
- gambling8nt 18y ago
  The same thing that is there if you ask a bunch of computer science students whether or not they like computers. Sure, the result is statistically significant; it just doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know. The categories of the MBTI are sufficiently broad and vague that having an atypical distribution of results on HN doesn't actually tell us anything about ourselves that wasn't inherently obvious.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    It's not as if we're just asking people if they like computers, and parroting it back. The MBTI was published in 1962. Barely anyone had access to computers then. I don't know how you'd measure this, but the profiles, to me, certainly aren't broad and vague. They make very specific and very falsifiable claims about personality, and all out of a mere 4 bits of information. The first time I read my profile (ENFP) it was like a bolt of lightning shot through me. It had me to a 'T.' My parents couldn't describe me so well. And my experience is far from atypical. There are a bunch of other major statistical discoveries about the different groups. For example, INTP's have the lowest level of emotional coping resources, while their cousins, the ENTP's, have the highest! INTJ's have the highest college GPA's, while the adjacent INTP's have much lower, scoring far below what their aptitude tests would indicate. There is a lot of real information in those few bits! Sources: J. Shelton, in MBTI Applications by A.L. Hammer, 1996. More at: http://www.ransdellassociates.com/INTJ.htm http://www.ransdellassociates.com/INTJ.htm
    - gambling8nt 18y ago
      The claims made aren't all that falsifiable (like anything else in psychology, it isn't ever possible to know to what extent a person is lying to themselves), and the specificity of the claims is something of a red herring; when 90% of a list of specific claims appear to describe a subject to at least some extent, if they want to believe that the system works, they're going to ignore the other 10%. The medium-sized fraction of the audience who fit at least that closely into the categorization system trumpet it around as a success, making those who fit somewhat less well more inclined to accept the errors and inaccuracies of their classification. These effects, plus the handful of results related in a very obvious way to the original categorization (emotional coping resources are often defined in such a way that the INTP/ENTP result you mention is entirely obvious, for example), make it appear that the MBTI means much more than it actually does. Much like an IQ test, used professionally, as part of a deeper analysis of a subject, the MBTI can help a psychologist or psychiatrist better understand a subject/patient. Used recreationally, such things lead to faulty generalizations unless treated as they are--glorified horoscopes geared toward looking at particular aspects of ourselves.

DaniFong 18y ago

I meant determine as in "to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation." I didn't say that it was necessarily 100% accurate. But the MBTI is not a horoscope. The INTP/INTJ slant here is way statistically significant. Obviously there's something there.

gambling8nt 18y ago
The same thing that is there if you ask a bunch of computer science students whether or not they like computers. Sure, the result is statistically significant; it just doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know. The categories of the MBTI are sufficiently broad and vague that having an atypical distribution of results on HN doesn't actually tell us anything about ourselves that wasn't inherently obvious.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  It's not as if we're just asking people if they like computers, and parroting it back. The MBTI was published in 1962. Barely anyone had access to computers then. I don't know how you'd measure this, but the profiles, to me, certainly aren't broad and vague. They make very specific and very falsifiable claims about personality, and all out of a mere 4 bits of information. The first time I read my profile (ENFP) it was like a bolt of lightning shot through me. It had me to a 'T.' My parents couldn't describe me so well. And my experience is far from atypical. There are a bunch of other major statistical discoveries about the different groups. For example, INTP's have the lowest level of emotional coping resources, while their cousins, the ENTP's, have the highest! INTJ's have the highest college GPA's, while the adjacent INTP's have much lower, scoring far below what their aptitude tests would indicate. There is a lot of real information in those few bits! Sources: J. Shelton, in MBTI Applications by A.L. Hammer, 1996. More at: http://www.ransdellassociates.com/INTJ.htm http://www.ransdellassociates.com/INTJ.htm
  - gambling8nt 18y ago
    The claims made aren't all that falsifiable (like anything else in psychology, it isn't ever possible to know to what extent a person is lying to themselves), and the specificity of the claims is something of a red herring; when 90% of a list of specific claims appear to describe a subject to at least some extent, if they want to believe that the system works, they're going to ignore the other 10%. The medium-sized fraction of the audience who fit at least that closely into the categorization system trumpet it around as a success, making those who fit somewhat less well more inclined to accept the errors and inaccuracies of their classification. These effects, plus the handful of results related in a very obvious way to the original categorization (emotional coping resources are often defined in such a way that the INTP/ENTP result you mention is entirely obvious, for example), make it appear that the MBTI means much more than it actually does. Much like an IQ test, used professionally, as part of a deeper analysis of a subject, the MBTI can help a psychologist or psychiatrist better understand a subject/patient. Used recreationally, such things lead to faulty generalizations unless treated as they are--glorified horoscopes geared toward looking at particular aspects of ourselves.