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.
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.
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.)
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.
The two polls 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.
Right. As a general guide to communicating to various 'types", it’s fine. As to being a “predictor” I think it’s useless.
Wholeheartedly agree.
Have you talked with your mother about this?
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.
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.
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.
The problem is when you can read profiles of other ‘types’ and identify with them as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which does tend to suggest there is something measurable/measured here.
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, so if I’m wrong there, I blame Brian Dunning.
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. 
I’d bet those comparing Myers-Briggs to astrology show as Judgmental.