Why is the Myers-Briggs system disliked by so many people?

[Diamonds02]

I was introduced to the Myers-Briggs personality typing system in college. I find it pretty neat and useful. Once I figure out someone's type, it makes it a lot easier to predict a person's behavior. Well, sometimes, but a lot easier compared to when I don't take their MB type into consideration.

It seems though, that a lot of people put very little faith into the MB typings. On another message board I lurk, people would often present a relationship or work problem and they list their and their partner's/co-worker's/manager's MBTI type. Most of the time, the replies from other members say that the OP's problem/conflict has nothing to do with the MBTI types involved.

I find this hard to believe. Your personality type directly impacts how you percieve the world and how you communicate. Can someone shed some light on this?

[Musicat]

What's your take on astrology? Myers-Briggs isn't a whole lot different. It is subject to the same confirmation bias, wishful thinking, the Forer Effect (Barnum statements) and many logical fallacies.

http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html

The MBTI is based upon Carl Jung's notions of psychological types...Jung’s evidence, from his clinical observations, is merely anecdotal. He talks about the extravert and the introvert as types. He also talks about the thinking type, the feeling type, the sensation type, and the intuition type. His evidence for his claims is not based on any controlled studies.

I can sum it up in one word: bullshit.

[Ferret Herder]

Speaking as a former psych grad student - there is significant debate about real test-retest reliability and its actual utility as a valid measure of anything of worth. Many analyses have shown significant percentages of people retesting after a relatively short period of time into different types, so how could it be a measure of personality?

[Musicat]

If you like Myers-Briggs, why not ask for a Rumpology reading? (http://www.skepdic.com/rumpology.html)Stallone [the developer of RO] claims that the left and right butt cheeks reveal a person's past and future, respectively... She claims any doctor will tell you that the body is like a warehouse which stores everything. She thinks that the right buttocks represents the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain, while the left buttocks represents the right hemisphere. Her rump report, she says, can tell you "whether you are going ass-backwards (into that little closet called the left brain)" or are going forward with the right brain.

[Inner Stickler]

My mbti score has fluctuated wildly over the years. In the past I used to score somewhere around infp but lately I get stuff more like esfj. That's a pretty big swing. Added to the fact that once you've taken it a couple of times you can game the questions to get the response you want.

Fun party game: have people take the test and then read a wrong description of their personality. Most people will agree with the synopsis even if it's not actually their 'real' personality.

[Musicat]

Fun party game: have people take the test and then read a wrong description of their personality. Most people will agree with the synopsis even if it's not actually their 'real' personality.
Which is a good demonstration of the Forer Effect (http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html): The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

[Mangetout]

I just went on a MBTI-themed day with the rest of my team. I was initially very skeptical of it, but I found it to be reasonably useful and accurate - there was a blinding process to insulate us from the suggestion/Barnum effect - and yet it was evident to us individually and as a group which descriptions fit which members (we're a small team and know each other quite well).

I don't think MBTI is a complete picture, but I don't think it's useless either - it can determine preferences, and those preferences may be the expression of ingrained personality traits.

[MrDibble]

Yes, IME with test people often change their type on retesting.

Although personally, I dislike it because for some reason I always confuse it with the Voight-Kampff, and that makes me testy.

[John DiFool]

Speaking as a former psych grad student - there is significant debate about real test-retest reliability and its actual utility as a valid measure of anything of worth. Many analyses have shown significant percentages of people retesting after a relatively short period of time into different types, so how could it be a measure of personality?

That's internal reliability, which can be improved on by making the tests better. Improving external validity is quite a bit tougher: you have to assume that what you are measuring actually exists, and that you can both qualify and quantify it and sort all the dimensions out adequately.

I don't think the MBTI is as random as some here are making it out to be; it appears to be measuring actual personality traits, and not random bullshit. I know in my case the description of the INFP was much more apropo than any of the others, which I can easily check (and, again, said description depends on the skill and knowledge of the writer-there are quite a few hacks out there). The real important questions are whether there are other equally important dimensions that it fails to notice and integrate and which might affect how the others fall out, or whether two criteria placed on opposite ends of a single dimension really are mutually exclusive. These unmeasured factors may be much more important for some people than are the "default" MBTI ones, which would mean they would get very little out of it.

[DrDeth]

It’s not quite bullshit. I tried a reverse test, once. Now, a reverse test is one where you have a person read aloud their personality/horoscope/etc, and the audience votes on how much it sounds like that person. With astrological signs, no matter what the sign is, once you ascribe it to a person- no matter their ‘real sign” most dudes nod and say “Yes, that’s exactly like Bob!”. But not so with Meyers/Briggs.

Mind you, it’s hardly exact. The different between a ESTP and a ESTJ, (esp if neither is very strong along the P/J axis) is more or less undetectable. But a strong introvert is quite different than a strong extrovert.

Yes, indeed your ‘type’ changes, and that’s actually a reason for believing it has some validity. Your type is most likely to change if it wasn;t ‘strong” in the first place.

So, are the types fully valid? No, but they are not bullshit either.

[Rachellelogram]

Funny timing, I just took this again yesterday. The set of questions I answered was really lame and overly general. They need to be more concrete, with examples, because there was more than one question where I just flipped a coin to answer it.

I do think it's valuable to know whether one is introverted or extroverted, at least. There are too many introverts being forced into conformityextroversion nowadays.

[Musicat]

It’s not quite bullshit...
So, are the types fully valid? No, but they are not bullshit either.The theory is that it is predictive. How predictive is it?

[Inner Stickler]

Mind you, it’s hardly exact. The different between a ESTP and a ESTJ, (esp if neither is very strong along the P/J axis) is more or less undetectable. But a strong introvert is quite different than a strong extrovert. Here's the thing though, you don't need a test to tell you if you're strongly an introvert or an extrovert. Your reaction to being at a party for 2 hours will tell you that. For the big stuff that is actually verifiable, you don't need the test, you just need 5 minutes of introspection. For the piddly things, there's so much noise that it really doesn't matter how you answer.

[Mangetout]

It’s not quite bullshit. I tried a reverse test, once. Now, a reverse test is one where you have a person read aloud their personality/horoscope/etc, and the audience votes on how much it sounds like that person. With astrological signs, no matter what the sign is, once you ascribe it to a person- no matter their ‘real sign” most dudes nod and say “Yes, that’s exactly like Bob!”. But not so with Meyers/Briggs. This is more or less what happened at the testing day I attended recently - they read out the descriptions of the types in the room and there was strong and almost unanimous agreement on who was what, before the actuals were revealed - and the revealed results almost entirely validated our own matching.

It's true that the descriptions (at least the ones we saw) tend to be phrased in the sort of fawning complimentary way that horoscopes are, which does make it easy to assume there's nothing more than bias involved, but I think that might be because the material was (and often is) used within a generally optimistic framework - i.e. team-building, getting the best out of yourself, mutual understanding and co-operation, etc - they're not going to say "you're type INTJ, which means you're really shit at XYZ, and everyone thinks you're an ass", because that's not really useful.

[Mangetout]

Here's the thing though, you don't need a test to tell you if you're strongly an introvert or an extrovert.

As I understand it, the terms used to describe the types have more nuanced meanings - from one of the handouts I was given:
...Some of the terms used in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator have a somewhat different meaning than we use everyday.

“Extrovert” does not mean talkative or loud; “Introvert” does not mean shy or inhibited; “Feeling” does not mean emotional; “Judging” does not mean judgmental; and “Perceiving” does not mean perceptive...

It goes on to explain that it's not just about how people behave, but how they define/perceive the direction and impetus of their lives - so an extraverted impetus is based/dependent upon social/family/public/other external factors, but still quite meek in character, whereas an introverted impetus is based upon internalised thought, consideration, planning, etc, but may appear quite extrovert in expression.

That might sounds like it's especially designed for no other purpose than to permit unlimited weaselling scope, but really, it's not. Not everyone knows themselves all that well - and not everyone knows very well how other people around them might be thinking and perceiving the world. MBTI is a not-entirely-useless tool in putting that right.

[Inner Stickler]

I reiterate my opinion that any trait someone strongly identifies with is obvious to other people and usually the person as well and lesser correlated traits may as well be ascertained by means of a dartboard.

[monstro]

I dislike it because I never know how to answer the questions, so I always feel like I'm guessing. Somehow I always get the same score, but the description of my "type" doesn't mesh with who I am very much.

IMHO, just living with yourself for a few years will teach you on how introverted, analytical, intuitive, etc. you are. Answering a handful of questions isn't going to do anything but make you second-guess yourself should you respond or act against your "profile".

[Ferret Herder]

The anecdotal evidence may be convincing, but it does not have, from what I've seen, a convincing weight of statistical proof behind it. There aren't studies that show that people who get certain scores on the test do better, or are more likely to go into, certain professions. It's not based on solid principles that have been supported by research. There are no internal means of determining validity of the person's responses. Plus these factors should be separate from each other, but there is evidence that the J/P and S/N scales are linked (http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf) (PDF warning) (see pg. 5 for reference), which should not happen if they're supposed to be measuring different things.

As noted in the Skepdic article, even the company that produces the MBTI suggests that you can talk over your results with your test-giver and change a letter or two if they don't seem to fit you.

It's a fun party trick/dating game/mental exercise, but can be misleading or worse if used in things like determining job duties or ability to advance in your chosen career (especially since the MBTI claims to measure only preference, not ability), as so many pop psych things seem to be used from time to time.

[Motorgirl]

I've found it moderately useful as a manager and team leader in understanding the preferred communication styles of colleagues. If I know or suspect someone is an ENFP I know that when they throw out frequent multiple (sometimes contradictory) ideas they are thinking out loud and I should let them talk it through, and draw them out on various ideas by asking some directed questions.

On the other hand some of my team members are squarely ISTJ and they won't think out loud and brainstorm freely/publicly. They're much more comfortable thinking it through silently and listening to others before voicing an idea or plan. I know I am much more likely to get good concrete suggestions and feedback from them a couple of hours after a team meeting, after they've had time to noodle things over in private.

As to using MBTI as a predictor of what someone would be good at or what their career path should be? No way.

[GreenElf]

It seems that inordinately too many people, online at least, test as introvert ("deep thinker") and intuitive ("smart").

[Mangetout]

I reiterate my opinion that any trait someone strongly identifies with is obvious to other people and usually the person as well and lesser correlated traits may as well be ascertained by means of a dartboard.

Even if you're right (and I think you're oversimplifying), that still doesn't provide any kind of framework for interaction with, or expectations from other types.

[Inner Stickler]

I think it would be just as useful to leave the basic personality types out and let the group discuss amongst themselves which type everyone is.

[minor7flat5]

I question the premise.

Just exactly what percentage of MB takers dislike it strongly?

The reason why I ask is that I recall only a few very vocal folks (two, in fact) in my department who went on and on about not liking to be "put in a box" or "pigeonholed" and talked about how useless these things are. Most others just didn't make a big fuss about it. I'm one of the ones who didn't have a strong opinion.

I found it neat that the one person who matched me really does seem to have many close personality traits to my own. I mean very close. Despite the fact that she is a Taiwanese female and I'm a gringo dude, in the fifteen years I have worked with her I have always understood her reactions to different kinds of workplace stress far more than any other co-worker, because I felt exactly the same way in those situations.

And the two folks who made such a big stink about it? They were the only two in their category set. One of the characteristics listed for their combo was something like "doesn't want to be put in a box" :)

(I forgot what my group was and what the other people were. It was ten or twelve years ago.)

[Acsenray]

I was introduced to the Myers-Briggs personality typing system in college. I find it pretty neat and useful. Once I figure out someone's type, it makes it a lot easier to predict a person's behavior.

Frankly if I found out someone was trying to "predict my behavior" using this kind of test, I would write him or her off as an idiot. If it were my boss, I'd start looking for another job.

[John DiFool]

It seems that inordinately too many people, online at least, test as introvert ("deep thinker") and intuitive ("smart").

The two (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=569411&highlight=myers-briggs) polls (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=600438&highlight=myers-briggs) we've done here indicate that about 70-75% of the sample of Dopers are indeed IN's, with about a third being INTJ's, the most common type.

[John DiFool]

...our most common type. INTJ's are fairly uncommon in the general population.

[DrDeth]

I've found it moderately useful as a manager and team leader in understanding the preferred communication styles of colleagues. If I know or suspect someone is an ENFP I know that when they throw out frequent multiple (sometimes contradictory) ideas they are thinking out loud and I should let them talk it through, and draw them out on various ideas by asking some directed questions.

On the other hand some of my team members are squarely ISTJ and they won't think out loud and brainstorm freely/publicly. They're much more comfortable thinking it through silently and listening to others before voicing an idea or plan. I know I am much more likely to get good concrete suggestions and feedback from them a couple of hours after a team meeting, after they've had time to noodle things over in private.

As to using MBTI as a predictor of what someone would be good at or what their career path should be? No way.

Right. As a general guide to communicating to various 'types", it's fine. As to being a "predictor" I think it's useless.

[TriPolar]

I reiterate my opinion that any trait someone strongly identifies with is obvious to other people and usually the person as well and lesser correlated traits may as well be ascertained by means of a dartboard.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Although personally, I dislike it because for some reason I always confuse it with the Voight-Kampff, and that makes me testy.

Have you talked with your mother about this?

[even sven]

I always get a slightly different combo each time I take it. Given that there are only four components, anything less than 100% accuracy on re-tests is pretty damning.

I think it falls really short on a lot of important subtlety. Like, the extrovert-introvert scale is not a particularly useful one to a lot of people. I'm a shy extrovert, which shouldn't really make sense on a two-dimensional line.

[BigT]

While my score varies on many of the short tests, I find that it only varies by one letter on the longer ones.

I'd argue that consistency is the only necessity for saying something is valid, not predictability. The test does not include what job I'm supposedly great for.

[Diamonds02]

I'm talking more about the profile part. Yeah the test part has some validity issues, I've tested as everything, but when it comes to reading profiles they have described me consistantly. An example, say if I read a very good description of an INFP and say "aha, that's me!", it's like every description of INFP regardless of source, describes me quite well.

While the tests need touch ups, I think they are onto something that there are 16 main types of people.

So, the next question is...if you don't use MB to determine personality types and predict behavior, what sort of criteria does one use? I mean without using this sort of system, it seems more tempting to "type" people according to their gender/race/age/occupation/etc. a road that we don't want to travel down.

[sandra_nz]

I'm talking more about the profile part. Yeah the test part has some validity issues, I've tested as everything, but when it comes to reading profiles they have described me consistantly. An example, say if I read a very good description of an INFP and say "aha, that's me!", it's like every description of INFP regardless of source, describes me quite well.


The problem is when you can read profiles of other 'types' and identify with them as well.

[Half Man Half Wit]

If you like Myers-Briggs, why not ask for a Rumpology reading? (http://www.skepdic.com/rumpology.html)Stallone [the developer of RO] claims that the left and right butt cheeks reveal a person's past and future, respectively... She claims any doctor will tell you that the body is like a warehouse which stores everything. She thinks that the right buttocks represents the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain, while the left buttocks represents the right hemisphere. Her rump report, she says, can tell you "whether you are going ass-backwards (into that little closet called the left brain)" or are going forward with the right brain.
So the present's in the crack, huh? Well that makes some sense at least... But do, as we age, and our futures become our pasts, the features move from one butt-side to the other? Do newborns have hugely structured right butt cheeks? Are old person's right butt-sides nearly smoothed out? Is the day you die the day your right butt turns flat? So many questions are left open by this method!

As for the Myers-Briggs, I think one problem is that it divides the population into two bins at opposite ends of the four scales, where one would expect the majority of people to fall 'somewhere in between' -- i.e. it approximates a Gaussian distribution with a doubly-peaked (bimodal) one, which is a very bad approximation on average; most people, who will be judged to be placed near the peaks corresponding to the extremes, will in fact be placed near the central peak. This may still yield reasonably accurate judgements on a person-by-person basis, i.e. if the test correctly identifies your 'leaning', the side of the peak you're on, you'll likely judge it a valid characterization of yourself, but it grossly distorts the distribution of characters for a whole population.

[Mangetout]

...Plus these factors should be separate from each other, but there is evidence that the J/P and S/N scales are linked (http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf) (PDF warning) (see pg. 5 for reference), which should not happen if they're supposed to be measuring different things...

Not necessarily - I mean, you could be right - and the four axes might be inappropriately grouped or described, or complete bullshit, or it could be that the linked scales are linked by some hidden/buried factor that isn't relevant to the scope of the test.
By way of analogy - for example, there are correlations between blonde hair and blue eyes, and between ginger hair and freckles - they're not absolute, but in both cases, they're linked by a genetic factor that isn't really relevant to conversations about cosmetic, outward appearance, yet blonde hair is not the same thing as blue eyes, and freckles are a different outward phenomenon to ginger hair.

[Mangetout]

As for the Myers-Briggs, I think one problem is that it divides the population into two bins at opposite ends of the four scales...

No, it doesn't. It says which side of an imaginary centre line you supposedly fall, and by how much - the position on the scales has a score value in each case - and in some cases, people are very close to the middle.

[Mangetout]

I think it falls really short on a lot of important subtlety. Like, the extrovert-introvert scale is not a particularly useful one to a lot of people. I'm a shy extrovert, which shouldn't really make sense on a two-dimensional line.

This was my impression also - I think it needs an additional dimension (like the political compass) to express how deeply-held/amenable to flexibility the positions are - the simple scale height doesn't do this.

[Mangetout]

The two (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=569411&highlight=myers-briggs) polls (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=600438&highlight=myers-briggs) we've done here indicate that about 70-75% of the sample of Dopers are indeed IN's, with about a third being INTJ's, the most common type.

...our most common type. INTJ's are fairly uncommon in the general population.
Which does tend to suggest there is *something* measurable/measured here.

[Half Man Half Wit]

No, it doesn't. It says which side of an imaginary centre line you supposedly fall, and by how much - the position on the scales has a score value in each case - and in some cases, people are very close to the middle.
Yes, it does give a spectrum for each to fall on, which is why it doesn't give rise to a 'two sharp lines' distribution; but still, it's my understanding that the overall distribution will indeed be bimodal, in disagreement with other measures. I think I got this mainly from this skeptoid episode (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221), so if I'm wrong there, I blame Brian Dunning.

[septimus]

What's your take on astrology? Myers-Briggs isn't a whole lot different....
I can sum it up in one word: bullshit.

We've had the same conversation at SDMB before, and I'll give a response similar to that I gave before:

Why in heaven's name are Dopers so afraid of (or confused by) Myers-Briggs ?

Myers-Briggs asks questions about one's personality and behavior and then makes predictions about one's ... personality and behavior. There may be limitations (answering honesty, changing, etc.) but to compare it to astrology goes beyond mere ignorance to demonstrate mind-boggling confusion.

I test consistently as INTP, while many Dopers show as INTJ. The P/J difference is strikingly clear in many threads, probably including this one. :D I'd bet those comparing Myers-Briggs to astrology show as Judgmental.

[Mangetout]

Yes, it does give a spectrum for each to fall on, which is why it doesn't give rise to a 'two sharp lines' distribution; but still, it's my understanding that the overall distribution will indeed be bimodal, in disagreement with other measures. I think I got this mainly from this skeptoid episode (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221), so if I'm wrong there, I blame Brian Dunning.

It's true that it summarises in a bimodal way, but that's not really different from, say, talking about liverals and conservatives - summaries can be useful, or misleading, depending on how you try to use them.

[Kobal2]

It's true that it summarises in a bimodal way, but that's not really different from, say, talking about liverals and conservatives.

I consider myself more as a pancreatarian.

[Slithy Tove]

Too bad "introvert" isn't a Title 7 Protected Class, since the average person's encounters with Myers-Briggs-style personality tests are their use to keep them out of suck jobs that they really need. Fifty demeaning questions at a computer kiosk, including "I sometimes want to hit people: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree."

To the psychologists it's all very complex and rigorous and subject to review, etc; but to business owners it's simply "introverts are dangerous brooders who come in shooting one day. Extroverts are desirable: even though at the narcissistic end of the spectrum they'll scoop out the till, generally they still generate more profit that what they steal."

[Gyrate]

I prefer the Strength Deployment Inventory (http://www.accelerate.uk.com/sdi_strength_deployment_inventory.html)to the Myers-Briggs as I found the results slightly more interesting on a personal level, but I've yet to meet the manager who has the slightest idea what to do with the results of either the MB or SDI. And neither is worth whatever the company paid for it.

[Ferret Herder]

Which does tend to suggest there is *something* measurable/measured here.
Quite possibly, it's the social group's desired/idealized/preferred characteristics. There's nothing to prevent the person from answering in ways that they may think the group/their boss finds desirable. Tests like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Personality Assessment Inventory (noticed the latter in the MBTI Wiki article, but I knew about the former) have internal checks to look for that sort of thing, as well as to show that they are actually measuring different things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminant_validity). That link suggests narcissism and self-esteem as concepts to be measured and how to determine if a new (theoretical) test can separate them out sufficiently. Obviously there may be some self-esteem present in narcissists, but you need to be able to distinguish between the two categories. MBTI seems to fall down somewhat in this respect.

[monstro]

I'm talking more about the profile part. Yeah the test part has some validity issues, I've tested as everything, but when it comes to reading profiles they have described me consistantly. An example, say if I read a very good description of an INFP and say "aha, that's me!", it's like every description of INFP regardless of source, describes me quite well.

When I was taking abnormal psychology in college, I remember thinking "that's me!" for many, if not most, of the disorders. (Ironically, the diagnoses I eventually received were the ones that didn't register on my radar.)

The profiles are suspicious to me. Like they are designed to make you identify with them. None of them say, "You have a tendency to bug the crap out of people, and you're a self-centered slacker too." No, they tend to play up positive attributes. "You are very analytical, committed to problem-solving and perfectionism..." If you value these traits, then why wouldn't you identify with them whether you actually possess them or not?

The tests are especially useless for people who have weak identities and lack self-awareness.

So, the next question is...if you don't use MB to determine personality types and predict behavior, what sort of criteria does one use? I mean without using this sort of system, it seems more tempting to "type" people according to their gender/race/age/occupation/etc. a road that we don't want to travel down.

I predict people's future behaviors based on their past behaviors. And I try to treat people as individuals rather than as members of a "type". I don't like being pigeon-holed, so it would be hypocritical for me to do that to someone else. And it doesn't take me THAT long to figure out if a person is a details-oriented person versus a big-picture person, or if they process information externally versus internally. But really, those are minor considerations for me when I'm interacting with people. I'm not in a position where it's important to predict people's behaviors. If I have to dessiminate information to multiple people, for instance, I will send out an email with attachments and tell them to let me know if they have any questions. If they have questions, they can use whatever personality attributes they have to get the answers out of me. I'm not going to alter my behavior to suit them. It is possible to understand someone else without distilling their personality down into arbitrary constructs.

That said, openness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience) is a facet of personality that I find more meaningful than any of the MB measures.

[Broomstick]

I dislike MB because I've worked at too many places where the HR drones use it against the employees. So it's not MB itself I hate but the uses to which I've seen it put.

[BMalion]

Have you talked with your mother about this?

My mother? Let me tell you about my mother.

[Hello Again]

I test consistently as INTP, while many Dopers show as INTJ. The P/J difference is strikingly clear in many threads, probably including this one. :D I'd bet those comparing Myers-Briggs to astrology show as Judgmental.
You obviously have little understanding of the Meyers-Briggs system. J does not mean "Judgemental" at all. J is for "Judging" as opposed to "Perceiving" and indicates a preference for structured interaction with the world and decision-making (contrasted with free-flowing interaction with the world and information-gathering).

I mean, that's what J indicates if it indicates anything at all -- which for the most part, it doesn't, except strong parts of your personality that are obvious anyway.

[septimus]

You obviously have little understanding of the Meyers-Briggs system. J does not mean "Judgemental" at all.

Sounds like you're a J. :cool: But from your comment I'd guess you're judgmental not only in Merriam-Webster's sense #1 (the sense I intended and that you seem unfamiliar with), but in sense #2 as well.

I'd quote those definitions for you but (to answer your tone in kind) instead I'll let you open a dictionary -- maybe you'll learn how to spell judgmental ! :D

[Hello Again]

I'd quote those definitions for you but (to answer your tone in kind) instead I'll let you open a dictionary -- maybe you'll learn how to spell judgmental ! :D

haha, I always spell that wrong, mea culpa.

The point is, "J" does not mean "judgemental" in the MB profile. Period. The reason people hate and loathe the system is because other people say stupid shit like that about it. Things that are both wrong and assign value to certain results over other results.

BOTH J and P can be pathological in their extremes. It is not "better" to be a P than a J. In fact, if you are indeed a P you should revel in gathering this information. Clearly you should be thanking me for my observations, (P)ointless. LOL.

[Hello Again]

haha, I always spell that wrong, mea culpa.

The point is, "J" does not mean "judgemental" in the MB profile. Period. The reason people hate and loathe the system is because other people say stupid shit like that about it. Things that are both wrong and assign value to certain results over other results, or use the results as an insult. Its nothing more than an interesting parlor game. Amusing for as long as it lasts, but without any significance.

Accepting the system for what it is, it is not "better" to be a P than a J; both can be pathological. In fact, if you are indeed a P you should revel in gathering this information about other people's opinions. Clearly you should be thanking me for my observations, (P)ointless. LOL.

[Shalmanese]

The more empirically valid personality test is the Big 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits) test which uses the scales of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

[Quintas]

....average person's encounters with Myers-Briggs-style personality tests are their use to keep them out of suck jobs that they really need. Fifty demeaning questions at a computer kiosk, including "I sometimes want to hit people: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree."



Yep.

That was me about 6 years ago. I got called in to "interview" at a call center job at Charter. There was no interview, I sat at a kiosk and answered myers-brigg type questions and the HR person returned and said my test results were not a match for the candidate they were looking for.

Considering my experiences with Charter customer service, I chose to accept it as a compliment.

[septimus]

people [like septimus] say stupid shit ...

It is not "better" to be a P than a J. In fact, if you are indeed a P you should revel in gathering this information. Clearly you should be thanking me for my observations, (P)ointless. LOL.

Please show me where you think I implied that it is "better" to be a P than J. And, BTW, your reply (duplicated for emphasis :smack: ) makes clear you've not checked "judgmental" in dictionary. It wasn't your ignorance of the spelling that was relevant.

Your comments may lead to a change of mind for me about Myers-Brigg "J". :dubious: You "J" that I am "stupid." With comments like yours I may "P" something about you. :D

Hope this helps. LOL.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Sounds like you're a J. :cool: But from your comment I'd guess you're judgmental not only in Merriam-Webster's sense #1 (the sense I intended and that you seem unfamiliar with), but in sense #2 as well.

I'd quote those definitions for you but (to answer your tone in kind) instead I'll let you open a dictionary -- maybe you'll learn how to spell judgmental ! :D

Judgemental (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Judgemental) is a perfectly acceptable spelling (I think it's even the preferred form in Britain, though I could be wrong).

[Otara]

We've had the same conversation at SDMB before, and I'll give a response similar to that I gave before:

Why in heaven's name are Dopers so afraid of (or confused by) Myers-Briggs ?

Myers-Briggs asks questions about one's personality and behavior and then makes predictions about one's ... personality and behavior. There may be limitations (answering honesty, changing, etc.) but to compare it to astrology goes beyond mere ignorance to demonstrate mind-boggling confusion.

I test consistently as INTP, while many Dopers show as INTJ. The P/J difference is strikingly clear in many threads, probably including this one. :D I'd bet those comparing Myers-Briggs to astrology show as Judgmental.


Saying 'it works for me personally' is a classic example of judgment by case example as seen in astrology, as is your use of the equivalent of 'I bet you're a Taurean to answer like that'. The fact of the matter is when its measured using current statistical testing, it falls apart.

Otara

[DrDeth]

Saying 'it works for me personally' is a classic example of judgment by case example as seen in astrology, as is your use of the equivalent of 'I bet you're a Taurean to answer like that'. The fact of the matter is when its measured using current statistical testing, it falls apart.



1. True.
2. Cite?

[Otara]

I must confess Im mostly going by memory during my post-grad training as a psychologist when it got eviscerated. Im on holiday at a farm for now, so would have to look for any of my old texts for cites when I get home. Firstly the most obvious critique is that it was a test constructed to find archetypes invented by Jung, rather than traits discovered through normative testing. As a result its always going to be a case of trying to make a round peg fit a square hole as these qualities werent really developed from statistical testing in the first place which is why you get things like 6 factors resulting rather than 4.

Secondly it was originally constructed to decide what kinds of jobs suit people best yet this is the area it has been shown to greatly fail at. Its a test that had to look for a use, as it fails badly at its original goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Validity

This has many of the weaknesses I was taught, as well as ones I wasnt aware of. Wiki is always tricky of course, as its a result of the battle between proponents and critics - in my view the real killer is the test-retest reliability.

Its of no real use if its only stable for 36% of people after 9 months, particularly when you have no way of predicting who that 36% will be until after that time period.

Otara