
Does the Myers-Briggs personality assessment really tell you anything? - rglovejoy
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2922/does-the-myers-briggs-personality-assessment-really-tell-you-anything
======
tomsaffell
It's a model, which brings to mind my favorite quote on models:

    
    
      All models are wrong; some models are useful.
    

I.e. the question is not 'is it right', but 'is it useful?'. Personally, I
think the MB model is somewhat useful - e.g. identifying some of the 'watch-
out' points of various personality types.

~~~
patio11
Does the same argument excuse astrological signs? You're a Libra? Libras need
to carefully balance their desire to be accepted by their peers with their
conviction that they are in fact in the right. (Technically speaking that's
just total horsepuckey I plucked out of the air, but put a lab coat on me and
I think I could get 80% of the population to agree that it applied to them.
Score one for science!)

~~~
rw140
Unfortunately astrological signs didn't give me any 'opposites' I can compare
myself with. Having read through the descriptions of various character types
associated with various astrological signs, I cannot say I identify with one
any more than another.

MB-types give me a set of sliding scales. I show up as strongly I and strongly
N, which allows me to compare myself with ES types - I recognise very little
of myself in ES types, and a lot more of myself in IN types, which means I'm
biased towards the assumption that there is at least some basis to it.

I can also make predictions about what types my friends are, and (before
telling them my guess) ask them what type they are. Currently these
predictions seem to be matching up pretty well, although a little fuzzy on the
P/J axis.

~~~
BearOfNH
I don't know much astrology so I'm not able to address that issue, but decades
ago I studied handwriting analysis. I realized there were "opposites", but
they were always described in a positive manner. For example, long endings on
a script 'e' were associated with _generous_ people. The opposite, a short 'e'
ending, would be associated with a _thrifty_ individual -- as opposed to the
more blunt _cheapskate_.

Maybe that's just wordsmithing but it seems reasonable to characterize
attributes in a positive way.

------
patio11
Describing Myers-Briggs as witchcraft is gratuitously unfair to witches, but
like many other forms of pseudo-science which make someone with few
demonstrable skills sound like they earned their graduate degree, it is
surprisingly durable.

------
bootload
_"... Does the Myers-Briggs personality assessment really tell you anything?
..."_

Yes, MB is about _"self validation"_ and can be dangerous when used to pigeon
hole individuals into occupations by third parties who rely on the results ~
<http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html>

~~~
DenisM
Human brain is an unstoppable pattern-matching machine and it will invent
patterns when there were none if that's what it takes to satisfy the urge.
That's why astrology, personality types etc are so popular - it satisfies both
narcissism and pattern-craving at the same time.

~~~
hop
>75% CS majors test intp. Thatsa lot of stars aligning.

~~~
a-priori
And don't forget about a poll that appeared here a while back.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=946249>

As I said there, "Apparently, 76% of Hacker News is an NT type of one type or
another."

~~~
DenisM
Yes I forgot the urge to conform to a group.

------
dmarble
Extremely good multi-part series on understanding personality
temperaments/indicators/etc.:

Part 1: Temperament for Dummies <http://www.erictb.info/temperament1.html>

Part 2: MBTI and the 16 Types and Cognitive Functions
<http://www.erictb.info/temperament2.html>

Part 3: APS and Other Systems (Enneagram, Horney, Type A, etc)
<http://www.erictb.info/temperament3.html>

Part 4: APS and Dynamic Type: adding moderate scales to EISeNFelT (from 16 to
81 types) <http://www.erictb.info/dynamictype.html>

From what I gather each person has potential to display ALL personality types.
The question is to what degree and in what contexts we prefer them.

I sure like having some kind of framework (or several) to help me analyze
people. Learning to identify traits using a few simplifying tools (MBTI, color
code, enneagram, love languages, etc.) helps me quickly figure out how best to
get along with someone so we can communicate and get stuff done (in a work
environment especially), understand better how someone prefers to interact
with ideas (casual conversation and debate), understand people's underlying
motivations a bit (particularly important with family and relationships), and
in general just "get" people.

-A softened ENTJ

------
ryanelkins
I found it to be surprisingly accurate for myself. I never took the official
quiz but I usually come out as either an INTP or INTJ. It seems that last slot
is a close call for me. After reading over both types, INTP is the most
accurate. I think it's up to most people to find where they best "fit" and
that will be more difficult for each "category" for lack of a better word if
they aren't definitively one way or the other.

So knowing that, now what? Well, I've tried using it to understand the general
process of how others think and better understand how I myself think. I'm
prone to introspection and I do find that many of the attributes of the INTP
match my own personality. It gives me a handle on what sorts of things I
should watch out for and helps me to recognize why I tend to do better in some
areas. I think like any tool it's success will depend largely on how it's
used.

~~~
hop
Well said. There was a poll here a while ago, something like 75% of the people
that responded on HN had NT in commmon - it can obviously help identify
technical people. 90% of CS majors at my college were intj.

From a sky high view, it's been very good to help see how other people think -
especially emotionally vs logically and organized vs disorganized. And every
other ENTP I've met had damn similar thinking and habits as myself.

~~~
tokenadult
_it can obviously help identify technical people_

I would rather have my son, an aspiring programmer, be identified by his
coding skills.

EDIT TO REPLY TO BELOW:

My son got into programming by programming. In that sense, I am NOT technical
(as my HN profile should make sufficiently clear).

I'm a lot more learned in psychology than in computer science, and that is
precisely why I distrust the Myers-Briggs, because it has never been properly
validated.

~~~
ryanelkins
Coming from a technical family (as I assume you are technical) it's probably
easier to get him in to some of those things. For younger people who perhaps
don't have the same level of guidance from an adult it can be useful to
identify areas or professions that they may not have considered or even been
aware of.

I remember when I first started programming - I tried it out because it seemed
interesting. I realized something was different when I was completing week
long assignments in 20 minutes and watched everyone else really struggle.

Sometimes people need whatever help they can get in finding some direction. If
they aren't fortunate to have a person or environment to guide them something
like a website with information about the MBTI can be a rough substitute.

------
GHFigs
I question the validity of any assessment that is presented to assessors (the
paying customers) as a verified and reliable instrument, but then presented to
the assessed as a "starting point", and who should be instructed " _...that
the respondent is the expert; the only person who can verify which type fits
best._ "[1]

It may test _something_ to _some_ degree of accuracy, but when the makers of
the test turn it into a game of picking which of 16 all-positive self-
descriptions they like the most, I have to wonder what the point is beyond
being a well-marketed horoscope.

[1] [http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-
foundation/ethic...](http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-
foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethical-feedback.asp)

------
tokipin
i think one of the main confusions is that people think it is a statistically-
constructed personality test like the ones that are designed and bred as such

------
jey
To MBTI skeptics: I agree that the MBTI is a flawed instrument, but do you
assert that personality testing is intrinsically flawed, that personalities
don't have measurable patterns/traits/components? Why? Is it really that
inconceivable that there are broad tendencies and trends in personality? Is
everyone such a "unique snowflake" that there's no patterns or trends?

I personally think there's definitely some underlying dominant factors, but
the fact is that determining what they are and measuring them is _really_
hard, because it's _really_ hard to do substantive psychology in a truly
scientific manner. I think something like a principal components analysis
should be possible in the theoretical ideal -- and binary trait based schemes
are just a crude approximation to such a scheme. For example, scoring as
"ENTP" wouldn't mean that you have zero introversion, or zero feelings -- just
that you score closer to E than I, etc.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
How can you go so easily from believing there is such a thing as personality
traits to supporting a complex, copyrighted system that has no valid research
basis and is actively sold to big business HR departments with the disclaimer
that it is basically nothing more than a party game?

People with an interest in the science of personalities should dislike MBTI
more than casual observers. It's a pop-culture perversion of the entire field.

~~~
jey
Like I said, I think the MBTI is broken. I'm asking why people act as though
the idea of personality testing is intrinsically flawed from the get-go and on
the level with astrology and numerology.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I don't believe personality testing is intrinsically flawed so I can't speak
for those that do but ...

I think the answer to that question could be that the first exposure to the
field is MBTI which is blatantly nonsense and generally promoted by people who
wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass.

