when did they actually start working on it? ToyMakers starts their work right after a conference ends to prepare for the next conference. The logistics and scale even for several hundred badges is immense.
Do people actually believe when a company says something caused billions of dollars of damage? unless you can quantify that, much like law enforcement and articulate suspicion, it's pretty useless as a metric. If you can pull something out of your ass, what does it matter?
This is oddly well timed and amazing. I've been thinking about Dune and wanting to play it for a while now when I was recently looking at some old games when I had a Packerd Bell PC. Sweet, amazing work! :)
Regardless of how people feel about any of the personality frameworks and how well they describe human behavior, reasoning and makeup of the person -- it can be proven to be highly valuable in a day and age where people make judgements or seek to categorize and group people gauging how well they get along with those people. I am generally not a fan of labels, but, especially in our technology based field, as an INTP, I know to see other INTPs who process the world similarly to how I do. That's been difficult to calculate how useful that is to me and others. This also comes up in dating sometimes -- if you can discern that someone is a compatible type, it can be helpful.
The same poo-pooing comes up of Astrology. Now, I'm not one to go around saying that I'm a Rainbow Farting Horse Rising -- I only go as far as 'Aquarius', 'Scorpio', etc. But in that realm, there's a fantastic book called Sextrology that can give insights on partner compatibility in the bedroom and related realms. The authors, much like Meyers Briggs have interacted with an untold amount of couples. Unfortunately book has no 'edition' moniker, just a 'revised' notation so it's hard to tell how many times it's published, but it is a fascinating and great reference to get a quick read on someone and what their needs and desires may be. I've utilized it with several partners with positive and solid results.
If you're skeptical or unsure of any of these frameworks, I recommend giving them a more serious visit or consideration. Especially with something like MBTI, reading books of the time that are hidden classics that people aren't aware of (e.g. "Please Understand Me I and II") are very illuminating despite people's disdain for the MBTI as it currently sits.
> If you're skeptical or unsure of any of these frameworks
I am not unsure. I'm quite certain it's all complete and utter garbage protected with circular ex post facto justifications (and I'm surprised the author of the post is an assistant professor in a University).
100% this. It only takes a few minutes of googling to see that this is religious mysticism wrapped up in modern parlance and feed to the soulless corporate elite. I give it as much weight as astrology or divining rods.
My workplace recently went through the integrative9 courses and on their OWN website they claim that it's origins are steeped in mystery and accent mystical practices.
"Reasonable"? The idea was popularized by Gurdjieff, G. I. who was a mystic teacher. There is nothing reasonable about it. not a single wiff of actual truth, just rebranded new age woo for corporate elite. I may sound harsh but from what I've found in my own personal research it is much of a religion as scientology and as much science as astrology.
I'm surprised to see such woo in a top comment on hacker news. The accuracy or theoretical underpinning of these 'frameworks' aren't contentious, they're non existent.
There are solidly researched and evidenced personality theories developed and validated through quantitative research in academic psychology. These include the 'Big Five' trait approaches like MMPI and social learning theory.
Astrology, Myers–Briggs and other forms of pseudo-psychological theories are not theoretically grounded and do not show experimental validation. Myers–Briggs wasn't created by psychologists or sociologists and in fact wasn't based on any theoretical framework at all. Its a scientism based approach routed in a reading of Jungian theory. It has no predictive utility for human behaviour.
You're welcome to 'believe' anything you like of course. But it's a category error to put such theories into the same epistemic category as psychological theories. They're precisely equivalent to any other projective theory - from kabala to tarot the i ching. If cold reading yourself or others provides you with meaning - great. But these ideas should absolutely never be used in hiring or any other official capacity. They don't have a foothold in objective reality.
IIRC, there was some analysis done a while back that demonstrated that MBTI categories were strongly correlated to particular combinations of Big Five traits. If that is true, then MBTI piggybacks on whatever scientific validity has been established w/r/t Big Five.
It should also be pointed out that heuristics developed from ground-level experience can still be useful regardless of whether they are anchored in any formal theoretical framework. Most of us navigate the world most of the time by applying informal knowledge, intuition and insights obtained from local experience -- empiricism at the micro level -- rather than making inferences on the basis of theoretical frameworks. Formal models can certainly help us refine our knowledge and correct errors, but are not in themselves necessary to construct a sufficiently workable understanding of reality.
Then you should rely on your intuition directly instead of distrorting it through pseudoscience such as MBTI
> The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a pseudoscientific self-report questionnaire that claims to indicate differing "psychological types" (often commonly called "personality types").
Where did pseudoscience come into the conversation? Depending on your approach, MBTI is either a reasonable heuristic for concepts that have been validated scientifically (i.e. correlation to Big Five), or is not attempting to be a scientific model at all.
16Personalities, a Myers Briggs website, includes neuroticism on their test. They refer to it as Turbulence and Assertiveness, as in high neuroticism and low neuroticism.
You, like most people, are unfamiliar with the metaphysical underpinnings and historical origins of astrology, so you have no real place to stand on the question of the validity of its claims. The only way you could is if you were intimately familiar with the topic.
Anyway, even if you take the metaphysical claims out of the equation entirely, as Carl Jung did, you can still derive great value from a system of thought-organization like Astrology. In Carl Jung's work he found that regardless of the claims about causation and personality, the symbological mappings of the zodiac represents something close to a map of cardinal archetypes, or you might think of them as psycho-social behavior blueprints that are intrinsic due to our evolutionary history and ALSO, as a secondary layer, culturally conditioned.
Point being... taking the stance you take, of accepting things only if they can be empirically proven, would prevent a person like you from ever gaining that insight / wisdom.
Your strength of intelligence is the greatest barrier to the growth of your wisdom.
This is simply a variation of the no true Scotsman argument. In other words a classic fallacy. For someone to dispute the claims of <THEORY> they must be intimately familiar with <THEORY>. Were they familiar with it they would obviously not discount it. If they discount it, they must not be familiar with it.
As previously stated - you can believe anything you like, and it may even be useful to do so. For example there's solid research that religious belief has positive health outcomes. However that has no impact on the truth value of any religious or other metaphysical belief.
Again, theress a strong academic quantitate (and parallel quantitative) tradition of cross cultural psychology. Tacking such questions from a more rigorous point of view - including comparison of epistemic and ontological traditions. I'd recommend Mac McLaughin's text 'Culture and Health' as a good starting point.
The absence of scientific proof is not a scientific proof of a negative result.
> They don't have a foothold in objective reality.
Even when some scientists have made a claim about objective reality, we have to remember that they make their claims in the face of social pressures. It's only after enough scientists seem to believe a fact that parts of the general population starts to accept it as "science." And if even science boils down to "many people are saying it," we probably shouldn't make any bold claims about "objective reality" with condescension and closed minds.
reply