8 ms·

Myers-Briggs: Does it pay to know your type?

48 points by Libertatea 14y ago

tokenadult 14y ago
From the article: "Yet despite its widespread use and vast financial success, and although it was derived from the work of Carl Jung, one of the most famous psychologists of the 20th century, the test is highly questioned by the scientific community." Yes. Here are some references about that. http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/person... "Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: 'at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs,' the very thing that it is most often used for." http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/deve... http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Annie-Murphy/dp/0743280725 http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Annie-Murphy/...
- ndonnellan 14y ago
  From the article: "Even more compromising, according to Grant, is the fact that Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Myers created the framework in their living room before doing any robust scientific research, rather than the other way around." Any justification must be after the fact. I also love the section on how the closest "more-scientific" analog isn't gaining traction because it's possibly too negative. And open-source.
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  I'm a Pisces... sorry... I mean INFJ ;-) I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    > "I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously" About four years ago I worked briefly for an IT department at a large university. Every staff member at a certain level had to have a one-to-one with the CTO shortly after joining. About a week before my one-to-one I received a folder from the CTO's PA. It contained: * The CTO's Myers-Briggs test results in their entirety * A two page document entitled "How to talk to our CTO", based off said test results * A discussion of why the CTO's results made him suitable for his job Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long. Do a personality test if you want, but don't let the test dictate how you're doing your job.
    - tokenadult 14y ago
      Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long. The jackass in question should have read the references about the Myers-Briggs test that I've already submitted to this thread (above in this same subthread). And he should also have done some research on company hiring procedures http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543 so that he knew that what really matters for his organization is whether or not his colleagues can do their work. He should have worked harder at developing himself as an effective CTO.
      - specialist 14y ago
        Agreed: CTO should have focused on his/her own development. My SO works in sales/mkgt. That segment relies heavily on personality and aptitude tests. My SO swears by them. Says it helps identify prospect's weaknesses, to better help them succeed. I'm dubious, but it's hard to argue with success. I'll chew thru all those links you provided. Thanks.
    - namank 14y ago
      I would have loved to meet this guy head on.
  - jtheory 14y ago
    It was certainly attempting to capture something useful about the test-taker's approach to interaction and problem-solving, though -- unlike astrological signs and similar things (which are based only on birthday). Of course, it depends on the context -- I'd be distressed to run into this as part of a job interview -- but in general the people taking it seriously are trying to figure out ways to help people with different styles of thinking/working interact with each other. On the whole, this is worth some effort, and you should encourage it (while gently dissuading them from using the MBTI as the starting point...).
- wamatt 14y ago
  tl;dr - The issue of the MBTI and psychometrics in general is nuanced, and strongly held opinions of either pseudoscience, or devoted metaphysical truthiness, are equally problematic. The MBTI test as it currently stands, deserves the reputation as flawed empirical instrument, yet at the same time it's utility is undeniable. Unlike horoscopes, individual descriptions do differ rather significantly. The biggest issue in my view is not a fundamental one, but rather a flawed set of assumptions. The principle being that the test taker, possesses intimate self knowledge and presents an accurate and unchanging self portrait. In addition to the wonderful qualities humans have, there remains a number possible impairments with regards to self assessment: bias, delusion, deceitfulness, fancifulness, ignorance or simply an innocent unrefined skill in introspective ability. Thus the issue appears to largely be with the test itself, and not so much any solid refutation of the Jungian theory on which it rests. While Jung certainly had some strange and mystical ideas, which would be difficult to support in today's scientific environment, his theory of cognitive functions is uncannily prescient IMHO, and believe is most deserving of further scrutiny. He is also largely responsible for the introducing the concepts of extraversion/introversion in the early part of the last century which have remained a mainstay on both public and academic discourse. [5] Thus upon reflection, the observation of Jung as a mystic, is not necessarily an indication of a weak mind. One should not overlook the fact Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps one of the greatest scientists of all time, had strong mystical[1] and occultist[2] leanings too. One might argue "well, the 1600's are quite different to the 1900's and Jung ought to have known better". Yet if the whole idea of a personal God seems rather delusional in the 21st century, the fact that credible scientists continue to partake in it today, does not simply invalidate their scientific discoveries. For example, James Smalley's [3] won the Nobel prize for the discovery of Buckyballs while simultaneously being an ardent supporter of old earth Creationism. Another example would be notable Christian apologist and Human Genome Project pioneer, Francis Collins [4]). Returning to the issue of the test itself, the primary concern is that it it relies on self-report and is not a direct measure of the physical cognitive diversity existing between brains. On the topic of Jung and neuroscience there is some preliminary proto-research by done by UCLA researcher Dario Nardi investigating the possible evidence for Jung's cognitive functions within the brain. He gave a talk at Google in 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA explaining his results. Of course this is by no means an empirical vindication of Jung, but it does open up a potentially interesting line of exploration. As with any non-peer reviewed work, it should be treated with due skepticism. Lastly, for those interested in further reading, I have digitized a copy of Jung's seminal work, 'Psychological Types (1921)' [5] am sharing it for anyone wishing to study the source material. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_religious_views [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_occult_studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_occult_studies [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Christianity [5] http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=extraversion%2Cintroversion&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=extraversion%2C... [6] https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Types.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Ty...
aw3c2 14y ago
Single page, distraction free, print view: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-briggs-does-it-pay-to-know-your-type/2012/12/14/eaed51ae-3fcc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_print.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-b...
chromaticorb 14y ago
I love these because you basically get the types 'best suited' to managerial positions by asking yourself 'what would the most conceited asshole say?'
cyberrodent 14y ago
I would post a comment but I'm an introvert.
diego 14y ago
No, it's bunk. This is one case in which Betteridge's law of headlines applies. For most people, your MB type changes with your mood that day, or with the way you interpret the ridiculously ambiguous questions in the test.
- protomyth 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure its bunk, but took the test when I was 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, and got the same type each time (ENTP). I was definitely in different moods (the amount of irritation I felt at 27 taking the stupid thing was amazing).
  - starky 14y ago
    At one point I took multiple different tests to compare them within a short period of time. I ended up getting 3 different results over the tests I took, I got INTP, INTJ, and ENTP. Overall I found that a lot of the test questions were not black and white enough, or just repeated with different wording on the test (essentially doubling the weighting of that question). These poor questions were present regardless of whether it was a free online one, or a so called "professionally written" one.
  - namank 14y ago
    What's more amazing is that you keep taking it despite being "sure" it's bunk.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      I didn't really have a choice in the matter. I went to a summer program where it was required and then had a job where it was required. It isn't amazing, its crappy circumstances. I still have no clue why it was required at the job since it was never mentioned or the results even talked about.
      - namank 14y ago
        Yeah, fair enough. Job is how I was first introduced to it too. They could potentially use it to organize you into teams.
rickmode 14y ago
The only useful thing I got from MBTI and the related training was that different people think and communicate differently; sometimes very differently. People work differently and you can't treat everyone the same; and different people need styles of communication. This was in the midst of leadership training in an organization that had one set of guidelines for performance reviews and promotions. So like most management training / classes, this insight is fairly obvious but mostly ignored.
- vickytnz 14y ago
  I agree on this, and think it's particularly useful to do with younger people for this exact reason. I did it as a Masters student with some colleagues, and it was an eye-opener for showing how many of us had different priorities in terms of work and working styles. (I think for the cerebral types it can also be something of a relief to realise you're not just weird!).
grandalf 14y ago
Of course there are people who fall on the border between different types and who will test differently each time they take an MBTI test. When viewed with the appropriate amount of skepticism it can be quite interesting to view social and relationship dynamics through the lens offered by Myers Briggs. For example, those who are not NT can probably not really understand me in the way I want to be understood.
mcfunley 14y ago
A thousand times no. I was asked to take one of these at my first job out of college and loudly refused. > The framework itself has barely changed since Katharine Cook Myers and Isabel Briggs created it decades ago One could take this as yet another sign that there's nothing scientific going on here.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  Why would you refuse? If it were so abashedly unscientific it should be easy to manipulate the outcome to achieve your desired type.
  - mcfunley 14y ago
    Apparently what's true is more important to me than what can be exploited? I don't know, I find that to be kind of a ridiculous question.
    - shawn-butler 14y ago
      That's interesting. Given what you know now about corporate culture would your answer be different today? I'm reminded of the recent discussion on HN where it was related that a well-known angel would not participate until he could observe the potential founder at a social dinner gathering with his or her spouse/partner. This received lots of comments in support and followups that you need to be friends with your cofounders. Seems like no less a haphazard, wildly speculative way to judge s personality. I remained skeptical. If there has been any insight I have gained with respect to human interaction is that people are inherently deceitful when there is something they want. The better at it they seem to get the more attractive or desirable the goal being pursued.
      - ladon86 14y ago
        Any chance you could link to that discussion?
      - namank 14y ago
shawn-butler 14y ago
I can't really speak to or am very interested in the validity of the assessment, but that is a pretty impressive startup story. Especially for one with two women founders given the context. I kind of wonder if I sent a child to school to do product research today though if I wouldn't be in some serious trouble.
personlurking 14y ago
Whether it's scientific or not, I think it makes sense for some people. It's not based on where the moon was when you were born or something like that, and for that reason I don't oppose it too much. For ex, I'm more of an introvert than an extrovert and that is obvious to me and others. Therefore, to say that I'm an I instead of an E is just a true personal statement. Am I a thinker more than a feeler? Also yes. Again, most people who know me know this.
bahman2000 14y ago
I took one in college and one in grad school (4 years later). Results starkly different from each other.
- peterwwillis 14y ago
  People change as they get older, and that includes your personality as much as your interest in foie gras.
Itaxpica 14y ago
One of the many significant issues with the MBTI is that it's a typology: you're an E, an N, or whatever else; it's all-or-nothing. As anyone who knows even a little bit about actual research psychology can tell you, people don't work like that. Any decent system of examining human personality NEEDS to deal in spectrums and grey areas. If anyone is curious about an actually valid personality measurement construct, check out Costa and McCrae's Big Five Personality Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits). It was designed based on decades of experimentation and research (rather than the other way around), and it's been experimentally validated time and time again. It's basically the gold standard for personality psychologists researching trait theory. It's a whole lot less sexy than the MBTI, and you won't walk away being able to say "I'm type XYZ!" (which is a major appeal of the MBTI), but the things that actually work rarely are.
surement 14y ago
I mostly dislike Jung's work, and I'm generally very skeptical about any IQ or personality test. However, after being convinced to try this one by a friend, essentially doing it so that they would stop asking, I found the results to be shockingly accurate, and subsequently found this to be the common reaction for people that happen to have the same type. In my ongoing skepticism, I've read explanations and definitions for several other types, pretending they were mine, to see if I could somehow relate to all of them, but failed miserably. The wording was never vague, as in the case of astrology, for example, and the descriptions of my type all precisely described me, personally. Up until now, I presumed that this would be the case for everybody, but I see a lot of dismissal here. I would conjecture that either those people did not actually find their MB type, or that the results only appear to be impressive for certain types, like mine. To be fair, this was the first time that I answered one of those tests truthfully. During school, I'd give the answers for which I assumed I'd be less scrutinized for; for work, I'd give the answers I assumed were more likely to get me promoted. In any case, I found finding my type to be beneficial. The typical interview question "tell me about yourself" was always the one I dreaded the most, and finding my type has not only increased my awareness of who I am, but given me a way to explain it to others as well. The results have also brought me to see that I may not always be right after all, and that people who agree with me might simply belong to the same or similar category. Put differently, I now think that different types, while most of them clash with me, are necessary for the functioning of society, and I don't need to agree with them, or them to agree with me. Note that "live and let live" is apparently a defining characteristic of this particular type, which I got a good belly laugh discovering by reading another comment. It's funny to find out that you're a lot more deterministic than you'd be willing to admit.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Think of it this way: you (presumably) answered a series of questions about your behavior, and then, based on the answers to those questions, you got back a result which describes your behavior. That doesn't invalidate whatever value you derive from it -- having your behaviors read back to you can be just as valuable as asking a trusted friend about their opinion of you -- but you do have to be careful not to allow yourself to be constrained to a particular type. I accidentally cured myself of this around 10 years ago when I first discovered the MBTI by immediately joining the INTJ-Open mailing list. The only not-regrettable outcome of that, for me, was that I learned that self-identifying as "INTJ" was a stupid thing to do.
sandycheeks 14y ago
Any discussion of Myers-Briggs always makes me remember this quote attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. "I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Interesting fellow. He had the cojones to tell Hitler to step back, he actively worked to undermine the Holocaust, and he still managed to die of natural causes. His quote is reminiscent of the almost-axiomatic truth that the best programmers are lazy ones.
  - Mz 14y ago
    My sons like to say "Lazy is another word for efficient".
guylhem 14y ago
Somehow unrelated, but here is a nice poetic definition of a INTP in a roadtrip (compiler vs amputee) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/11/05/at-home-in-a-car/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/11/05/at-home-in-a-car/ I guess it pays to know you can live like that.
namank 14y ago
The four letters indicate the current state of your personality, which is a function of your maturity, emotional development, and life events. It is only likely to be accurate for certain types of people. This current state is a manifestation of a combination of your (Jungian) cognitive functions - these are mental processes structured in a certain hierarchy. The sole purpose of life (if you adhere to the principle of growth) seems to work towards a flattening of this hierarchy and hence, become an equanimous person.
kyebosh 14y ago
I thought it was fun. What can I say, I enjoy pop psychology. Further though, I find it has had a real effect on how I relate to others. Reading of the different MBTI's, particularly how different types communicate, forced me to seek to understand the nuances & preferences of individual styles of social interaction. Sometimes broad personality generalisations are all that are needed to establish a meaningful channel of communication. I would recommend doing the test or at least reading the 16 types, if for no other reason than it forces you to be mindful of the fact that there are many large & small differences between individual personalities.
mb_72 14y ago
MBTI is a data point - it's unwise to use a single data point for understanding oneself and others. For me personally, 'my' type accords with the type of person I am and have been, and - as one aspect of the psychiatric consultations I was having to sort of various issues - really helped me a lot. And, anecdotally, it gave me some kind of broad framework for understanding others, their motivations and actions, something I had struggled with (and still do, I must admit).
evolve2k 14y ago
My understanding was that MBTI is the most valid of these type of tests, if not MBTI then what should organisations be using? Include links if you have them? Also I can't see a test which includes a negative factor such that there is a 'wrong way' to complete it and hence risk potential workplace repercussions as a valid replacement. Further I'm sure each big consulting firm has a version which is no more valid than MBTI.
charlieflowers 14y ago
What is the most scientifically sound, evidence-based conceptual framework for uncovering one's strengths and weaknesses? Is there anything at all with good science behind it?
antonb2011 14y ago
Whenever they tried giving me this test, my score just went off the scale. In the end, they had to assign me a new type: SEXY. ;)

48 points by Libertatea 14y ago

From the article: "Yet despite its widespread use and vast financial success, and although it was derived from the work of Carl Jung, one of the most famous psychologists of the 20th century, the test is highly questioned by the scientific community." Yes. Here are some references about that. http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/person... "Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: 'at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs,' the very thing that it is most often used for." http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/deve... http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Annie-Murphy/dp/0743280725 http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Annie-Murphy/...

ndonnellan 14y ago
From the article: "Even more compromising, according to Grant, is the fact that Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Myers created the framework in their living room before doing any robust scientific research, rather than the other way around." Any justification must be after the fact. I also love the section on how the closest "more-scientific" analog isn't gaining traction because it's possibly too negative. And open-source.
adrianhoward 14y ago
I'm a Pisces... sorry... I mean INFJ ;-) I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously.
- objclxt 14y ago
  > "I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously" About four years ago I worked briefly for an IT department at a large university. Every staff member at a certain level had to have a one-to-one with the CTO shortly after joining. About a week before my one-to-one I received a folder from the CTO's PA. It contained: * The CTO's Myers-Briggs test results in their entirety * A two page document entitled "How to talk to our CTO", based off said test results * A discussion of why the CTO's results made him suitable for his job Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long. Do a personality test if you want, but don't let the test dictate how you're doing your job.
  - tokenadult 14y ago
    Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long. The jackass in question should have read the references about the Myers-Briggs test that I've already submitted to this thread (above in this same subthread). And he should also have done some research on company hiring procedures http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543 so that he knew that what really matters for his organization is whether or not his colleagues can do their work. He should have worked harder at developing himself as an effective CTO.
    - specialist 14y ago
      Agreed: CTO should have focused on his/her own development. My SO works in sales/mkgt. That segment relies heavily on personality and aptitude tests. My SO swears by them. Says it helps identify prospect's weaknesses, to better help them succeed. I'm dubious, but it's hard to argue with success. I'll chew thru all those links you provided. Thanks.
  - namank 14y ago
    I would have loved to meet this guy head on.
- jtheory 14y ago
  It was certainly attempting to capture something useful about the test-taker's approach to interaction and problem-solving, though -- unlike astrological signs and similar things (which are based only on birthday). Of course, it depends on the context -- I'd be distressed to run into this as part of a job interview -- but in general the people taking it seriously are trying to figure out ways to help people with different styles of thinking/working interact with each other. On the whole, this is worth some effort, and you should encourage it (while gently dissuading them from using the MBTI as the starting point...).
wamatt 14y ago
tl;dr - The issue of the MBTI and psychometrics in general is nuanced, and strongly held opinions of either pseudoscience, or devoted metaphysical truthiness, are equally problematic. The MBTI test as it currently stands, deserves the reputation as flawed empirical instrument, yet at the same time it's utility is undeniable. Unlike horoscopes, individual descriptions do differ rather significantly. The biggest issue in my view is not a fundamental one, but rather a flawed set of assumptions. The principle being that the test taker, possesses intimate self knowledge and presents an accurate and unchanging self portrait. In addition to the wonderful qualities humans have, there remains a number possible impairments with regards to self assessment: bias, delusion, deceitfulness, fancifulness, ignorance or simply an innocent unrefined skill in introspective ability. Thus the issue appears to largely be with the test itself, and not so much any solid refutation of the Jungian theory on which it rests. While Jung certainly had some strange and mystical ideas, which would be difficult to support in today's scientific environment, his theory of cognitive functions is uncannily prescient IMHO, and believe is most deserving of further scrutiny. He is also largely responsible for the introducing the concepts of extraversion/introversion in the early part of the last century which have remained a mainstay on both public and academic discourse. [5] Thus upon reflection, the observation of Jung as a mystic, is not necessarily an indication of a weak mind. One should not overlook the fact Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps one of the greatest scientists of all time, had strong mystical[1] and occultist[2] leanings too. One might argue "well, the 1600's are quite different to the 1900's and Jung ought to have known better". Yet if the whole idea of a personal God seems rather delusional in the 21st century, the fact that credible scientists continue to partake in it today, does not simply invalidate their scientific discoveries. For example, James Smalley's [3] won the Nobel prize for the discovery of Buckyballs while simultaneously being an ardent supporter of old earth Creationism. Another example would be notable Christian apologist and Human Genome Project pioneer, Francis Collins [4]). Returning to the issue of the test itself, the primary concern is that it it relies on self-report and is not a direct measure of the physical cognitive diversity existing between brains. On the topic of Jung and neuroscience there is some preliminary proto-research by done by UCLA researcher Dario Nardi investigating the possible evidence for Jung's cognitive functions within the brain. He gave a talk at Google in 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA explaining his results. Of course this is by no means an empirical vindication of Jung, but it does open up a potentially interesting line of exploration. As with any non-peer reviewed work, it should be treated with due skepticism. Lastly, for those interested in further reading, I have digitized a copy of Jung's seminal work, 'Psychological Types (1921)' [5] am sharing it for anyone wishing to study the source material. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_religious_views [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_occult_studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_occult_studies [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Christianity [5] http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=extraversion%2Cintroversion&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=extraversion%2C... [6] https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Types.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Ty...

aw3c2 14y ago

Single page, distraction free, print view: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-briggs-does-it-pay-to-know-your-type/2012/12/14/eaed51ae-3fcc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_print.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-b...

chromaticorb 14y ago

I love these because you basically get the types 'best suited' to managerial positions by asking yourself 'what would the most conceited asshole say?'

cyberrodent 14y ago

I would post a comment but I'm an introvert.

diego 14y ago

No, it's bunk. This is one case in which Betteridge's law of headlines applies. For most people, your MB type changes with your mood that day, or with the way you interpret the ridiculously ambiguous questions in the test.

protomyth 14y ago
I'm pretty sure its bunk, but took the test when I was 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, and got the same type each time (ENTP). I was definitely in different moods (the amount of irritation I felt at 27 taking the stupid thing was amazing).
- starky 14y ago
  At one point I took multiple different tests to compare them within a short period of time. I ended up getting 3 different results over the tests I took, I got INTP, INTJ, and ENTP. Overall I found that a lot of the test questions were not black and white enough, or just repeated with different wording on the test (essentially doubling the weighting of that question). These poor questions were present regardless of whether it was a free online one, or a so called "professionally written" one.
- namank 14y ago
  What's more amazing is that you keep taking it despite being "sure" it's bunk.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I didn't really have a choice in the matter. I went to a summer program where it was required and then had a job where it was required. It isn't amazing, its crappy circumstances. I still have no clue why it was required at the job since it was never mentioned or the results even talked about.
    - namank 14y ago
      Yeah, fair enough. Job is how I was first introduced to it too. They could potentially use it to organize you into teams.

rickmode 14y ago

The only useful thing I got from MBTI and the related training was that different people think and communicate differently; sometimes very differently. People work differently and you can't treat everyone the same; and different people need styles of communication. This was in the midst of leadership training in an organization that had one set of guidelines for performance reviews and promotions. So like most management training / classes, this insight is fairly obvious but mostly ignored.

vickytnz 14y ago
I agree on this, and think it's particularly useful to do with younger people for this exact reason. I did it as a Masters student with some colleagues, and it was an eye-opener for showing how many of us had different priorities in terms of work and working styles. (I think for the cerebral types it can also be something of a relief to realise you're not just weird!).

grandalf 14y ago

Of course there are people who fall on the border between different types and who will test differently each time they take an MBTI test. When viewed with the appropriate amount of skepticism it can be quite interesting to view social and relationship dynamics through the lens offered by Myers Briggs. For example, those who are not NT can probably not really understand me in the way I want to be understood.

mcfunley 14y ago

A thousand times no. I was asked to take one of these at my first job out of college and loudly refused. > The framework itself has barely changed since Katharine Cook Myers and Isabel Briggs created it decades ago One could take this as yet another sign that there's nothing scientific going on here.

shawn-butler 14y ago
Why would you refuse? If it were so abashedly unscientific it should be easy to manipulate the outcome to achieve your desired type.
- mcfunley 14y ago
  Apparently what's true is more important to me than what can be exploited? I don't know, I find that to be kind of a ridiculous question.
  - shawn-butler 14y ago
    That's interesting. Given what you know now about corporate culture would your answer be different today? I'm reminded of the recent discussion on HN where it was related that a well-known angel would not participate until he could observe the potential founder at a social dinner gathering with his or her spouse/partner. This received lots of comments in support and followups that you need to be friends with your cofounders. Seems like no less a haphazard, wildly speculative way to judge s personality. I remained skeptical. If there has been any insight I have gained with respect to human interaction is that people are inherently deceitful when there is something they want. The better at it they seem to get the more attractive or desirable the goal being pursued.
    - ladon86 14y ago
      Any chance you could link to that discussion?
    - namank 14y ago

shawn-butler 14y ago

I can't really speak to or am very interested in the validity of the assessment, but that is a pretty impressive startup story. Especially for one with two women founders given the context. I kind of wonder if I sent a child to school to do product research today though if I wouldn't be in some serious trouble.

personlurking 14y ago

Whether it's scientific or not, I think it makes sense for some people. It's not based on where the moon was when you were born or something like that, and for that reason I don't oppose it too much. For ex, I'm more of an introvert than an extrovert and that is obvious to me and others. Therefore, to say that I'm an I instead of an E is just a true personal statement. Am I a thinker more than a feeler? Also yes. Again, most people who know me know this.

bahman2000 14y ago

I took one in college and one in grad school (4 years later). Results starkly different from each other.

peterwwillis 14y ago
People change as they get older, and that includes your personality as much as your interest in foie gras.

Itaxpica 14y ago

One of the many significant issues with the MBTI is that it's a typology: you're an E, an N, or whatever else; it's all-or-nothing. As anyone who knows even a little bit about actual research psychology can tell you, people don't work like that. Any decent system of examining human personality NEEDS to deal in spectrums and grey areas. If anyone is curious about an actually valid personality measurement construct, check out Costa and McCrae's Big Five Personality Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits). It was designed based on decades of experimentation and research (rather than the other way around), and it's been experimentally validated time and time again. It's basically the gold standard for personality psychologists researching trait theory. It's a whole lot less sexy than the MBTI, and you won't walk away being able to say "I'm type XYZ!" (which is a major appeal of the MBTI), but the things that actually work rarely are.

surement 14y ago

I mostly dislike Jung's work, and I'm generally very skeptical about any IQ or personality test. However, after being convinced to try this one by a friend, essentially doing it so that they would stop asking, I found the results to be shockingly accurate, and subsequently found this to be the common reaction for people that happen to have the same type. In my ongoing skepticism, I've read explanations and definitions for several other types, pretending they were mine, to see if I could somehow relate to all of them, but failed miserably. The wording was never vague, as in the case of astrology, for example, and the descriptions of my type all precisely described me, personally. Up until now, I presumed that this would be the case for everybody, but I see a lot of dismissal here. I would conjecture that either those people did not actually find their MB type, or that the results only appear to be impressive for certain types, like mine. To be fair, this was the first time that I answered one of those tests truthfully. During school, I'd give the answers for which I assumed I'd be less scrutinized for; for work, I'd give the answers I assumed were more likely to get me promoted. In any case, I found finding my type to be beneficial. The typical interview question "tell me about yourself" was always the one I dreaded the most, and finding my type has not only increased my awareness of who I am, but given me a way to explain it to others as well. The results have also brought me to see that I may not always be right after all, and that people who agree with me might simply belong to the same or similar category. Put differently, I now think that different types, while most of them clash with me, are necessary for the functioning of society, and I don't need to agree with them, or them to agree with me. Note that "live and let live" is apparently a defining characteristic of this particular type, which I got a good belly laugh discovering by reading another comment. It's funny to find out that you're a lot more deterministic than you'd be willing to admit.

thaumaturgy 14y ago
Think of it this way: you (presumably) answered a series of questions about your behavior, and then, based on the answers to those questions, you got back a result which describes your behavior. That doesn't invalidate whatever value you derive from it -- having your behaviors read back to you can be just as valuable as asking a trusted friend about their opinion of you -- but you do have to be careful not to allow yourself to be constrained to a particular type. I accidentally cured myself of this around 10 years ago when I first discovered the MBTI by immediately joining the INTJ-Open mailing list. The only not-regrettable outcome of that, for me, was that I learned that self-identifying as "INTJ" was a stupid thing to do.

sandycheeks 14y ago

Any discussion of Myers-Briggs always makes me remember this quote attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. "I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord

CamperBob2 14y ago
Interesting fellow. He had the cojones to tell Hitler to step back, he actively worked to undermine the Holocaust, and he still managed to die of natural causes. His quote is reminiscent of the almost-axiomatic truth that the best programmers are lazy ones.
- Mz 14y ago
  My sons like to say "Lazy is another word for efficient".

guylhem 14y ago

Somehow unrelated, but here is a nice poetic definition of a INTP in a roadtrip (compiler vs amputee) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/11/05/at-home-in-a-car/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/11/05/at-home-in-a-car/ I guess it pays to know you can live like that.

namank 14y ago

The four letters indicate the current state of your personality, which is a function of your maturity, emotional development, and life events. It is only likely to be accurate for certain types of people. This current state is a manifestation of a combination of your (Jungian) cognitive functions - these are mental processes structured in a certain hierarchy. The sole purpose of life (if you adhere to the principle of growth) seems to work towards a flattening of this hierarchy and hence, become an equanimous person.

kyebosh 14y ago

I thought it was fun. What can I say, I enjoy pop psychology. Further though, I find it has had a real effect on how I relate to others. Reading of the different MBTI's, particularly how different types communicate, forced me to seek to understand the nuances & preferences of individual styles of social interaction. Sometimes broad personality generalisations are all that are needed to establish a meaningful channel of communication. I would recommend doing the test or at least reading the 16 types, if for no other reason than it forces you to be mindful of the fact that there are many large & small differences between individual personalities.

mb_72 14y ago

MBTI is a data point - it's unwise to use a single data point for understanding oneself and others. For me personally, 'my' type accords with the type of person I am and have been, and - as one aspect of the psychiatric consultations I was having to sort of various issues - really helped me a lot. And, anecdotally, it gave me some kind of broad framework for understanding others, their motivations and actions, something I had struggled with (and still do, I must admit).

evolve2k 14y ago

My understanding was that MBTI is the most valid of these type of tests, if not MBTI then what should organisations be using? Include links if you have them? Also I can't see a test which includes a negative factor such that there is a 'wrong way' to complete it and hence risk potential workplace repercussions as a valid replacement. Further I'm sure each big consulting firm has a version which is no more valid than MBTI.

charlieflowers 14y ago

What is the most scientifically sound, evidence-based conceptual framework for uncovering one's strengths and weaknesses? Is there anything at all with good science behind it?

antonb2011 14y ago

Whenever they tried giving me this test, my score just went off the scale. In the end, they had to assign me a new type: SEXY. ;)