Myers-Briggs personality test isn't actually based on science


1 Like

That sounds exactly like what an INTJ would say about the test.


is this news to anyone?

It’s like the zodiacal signs, but multi-dimensional.


The article doesn’t say much, uses bad logic (multiple arbitrary appeals to authority) and assumes people would use the MBTI in the most literal, black-and-white way possible. Many versions of the test provide your scoring percentages for each function, meaning it is not entirely binary. Also, it’s fascinating how well the MBTI compares to the far more scientific Big Five personality inventory. Overall, this article is mostly pot-stirring, with transparent assertions repeatedly loudly but insufficient in actual, you know, content.

In other news: Sun Rises in East, Water Wet and Mildly Polar

1 Like

There has been some research that the Big 5 Personality traits correlate with the MBTI.

If large companies and the government are using these 16 categories to evaluate who to hire, how to train them, and how to evaluate them, that is pretty bad. I took a Myers-Briggs test when I was 12, and the defects listed here in both the test and the classification were manifestly apparent to me at the time. Obviously bad design coupled with a lack of any research showing that it correlates to any of the things people actually use it for seems pretty damning.

It is true that the article is pretty badly written. It should have been about half as long. “Carl Jung believed in ESP and collective unconcscious” is completely irrelevant, for instance. But the important criticisms are there if you sort through the drek.


I’ve heard M-B described as “Nerd Horoscopes.”


So this Buzzfeed test isn’t scientifically valid? I’m shocked


:arrow_left: ESFP obv.

That’s the one that tells you which people are Replicants, right?


Have you ever had a black and tarry bowel movement?

Actually, I wonder how scientific the Voight-Kampff tests are in the world of Blade Runner. After all, when Deckard wants to know if a snake is a replicant he actually looks for a serial number imprinted on the scales. You’d think something similar would be implemented for human replicants rather than a cheesy psychological test about feelings about wasps, turtles and mothers.


Yeah, that made no sense. If nothing else you’d think the manufacturers could just tattoo “REPLICANT” on their foreheads or something instead of depending on a whole new branch of law enforcement to tell the difference.


i’d have guessed xxFJ. as you know FJs aren’t just RIGHT they’re RIGHTEOUS

I think it says some pretty interesting things. 50 percent of people getting a different result a few weeks later is a pretty big warning sign. If studies haven’t linked the test to job performance or satisfaction then it is pretty bad that large organizations (in particular public ones) use the test to predict those things.


I don’t actually know what any of those are. That was the only one in my head. Probably because that’s how I must have scored at some point.


I’m not aware of anybody using it that way. Years ago I took the MBTI in a corporate setting, but the objective was to help us all get along and understand individual differences. It might have done a sliver of good, but was mostly just fuel for office jokes. Nobody was fired.


Perhaps this is an indictment of the Five-factor model? The FFM has all the same flaws as the MBTI… it just has a better publicity department.