Hacker News Reader

I'm not so sure. Years ago when I went to business school, they tested all 400 of my classmates. At the same time in the same room.

Then, they lined us all up on a scale from I to E and asked us to group up with the people next to us and do some simple things - like "plan a party".

The people at the I end of the spectrum planned a very, very different party than those at the E end. The difference was shocking. I think the extreme I people invited two close friends for dinner at their apartment. The E extremests planned a 10,000 person rager. All from the simple instructions "Plan a party."

Similar raknings for the other three pairings produced similarly dramatic differences in the way we approached common tasks. So I'm pretty sure it's not just entertainment.

You could argue people were just doing what they were "supposed" to do, but being one of those people - I don't think that was the case. We were just playing goofy icebreaker games as far as we knew.

On the other hand, practically speaking, all it taught me was "Don't assume everyone thinks like you." Not exactly a huge breakthrough, but not astrology either.

Personality tests aren't very revelatory though. Telling someone whether they are shy or not is almost the same as telling someone what color their eyes are -- they could've just as easily looked in the mirror and figured it out a long time ago.

I'm glad that there is at least one person who is bringing up the issues with the MBTI.

The assumption that you can judge personalities from a Myers-Briggs test is rather silly. The test was constructed by non-experts based on Carl Jung's theories of psychological types. The "Criticism" section of the test's Wikipedia article [1] is rich in citations of how the test by and large doesn't test anything, except perhaps the I–E scale.

I admittedly kind of have an axe to grind on this test. I think it's a waste of time if you're trying to actually learn something, and especially dangerous when people use it for any actual purposes other than just personal fun.

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

"Just to provide an example of the worst case, I've seen companies hold personality test workshops, only to have that bind their thinking and give them reason to quash dissent ("Of course... that's what a XXXX would say" or "I really need a YYYY on this project"). Too many times these things turn into a substitute for actually getting to know your employees' strengths and weaknesses."

They shouldn't be. Quite the opposite in fact. If you have an appropriate understanding of what personality type means then it becomes a lot more useful. If a person's skills, abilities, and personality are nature plus nurture, then MBTI shows the "nature" part. They don't cover the "nurture" part. Of course the other thing is that the MBTI is only applicable if you're sure the person that's taking it is telling the truth. Employees are always going to lie (or at least embellish) on these tests. But tests are only one way to get at this information. If you know what to look for, you can usually glean most peoples' personality types without subjecting them to tests they aren't going to tell the truth on anyway.

The way I think about it is almost like design patterns for people. Sure, everyone is unique. But we're not all that unique. There are almost always underlying themes and principles that make totally different people think similarly but not the same. If you think about it that way, personality type becomes a lot more useful.

You're a Saggitarius, aren't you? Yeah, you must be.

Nope—Leo. But I just read the description of Sagittarius and, wow, it sounds a lot like me. ;-)

(I'm also a Phlegmatic, and we're a naturally skeptical bunch.)

Well, I'm a Capricorn, and us Capcricorns don't believe in astrology.

And if the personality types in MBTI were that vague (as vague, for instance, as a horoscope) then I'd agree with you.

But I know that certain types describe me a lot better than others, and it's clear that one which paints me as extroverted, feelings oriented and sensing is clearly wrong.

If you keep asking a person in different ways if they're always in the middle of a party or standing next to the wall, you'll eventually find out if they consider themselves to be introverted or extraverted. Likewise for the other traits. But, at their coarsest levels, people probably already have an inkling about those. (E.g. before you took the test, did you think you may actually be extroverted, feelings oriented, and sensing?)

I think when it comes down to it, we take these tests for the enjoyment we get in reading about ourselves later. (The Great Facebook Personality Quiz Epidemic of Ought Nine is the foremost recent example of this in action.) It tickles that part of our brains that says "Someone's taken the time to get to know me—I must be important!", even if that someone is really an algorithm. And it's that, combined with all of the parts that are "right", that allows us to overlook the parts that are vague, over-generalized, right-but-with-certain-caveats, or flat-out wrong.

Everyone's a psychologist these days...

re: Forer Effect - one thing to do is to read all of the personality types, especially before taking the test. I find the these descriptors tend to be a little more specific about traits (especially weaknesses!) and there are many that don't apply to me.

re: self-evaluated multiple-choice - One thing I've done in these sorts of situations is to find concrete situations in which I can say, "when I was in this specific situation that the question was asking about, I did X", which hopefully minimizes the amount of "oh man i want to be an extrovert" sort of answering.

...but yes, agreed, this is really just sort of a goofy little thing, but it's fun and still potentially a bit interesting.

I think it is important to distinguish between the MBTI itself, and the ideas behind it.

Personally, I don't think the MBTI is worth much. It is not a bad introduction to ones own preferences, but does not seem to measure them well or consistently.

On the other hand, the ideas in the Myers-Briggs theory have helped me greatly in understanding myself and others. For example, I'm heavily NP, while someone I've had close interactions with is a strong SJ. This has helped me deal with this person, and get a clue about what is going on when they seem to be acting (from my naive point of view), nonsensically.

This kind of discussion is definitely welcome. Every one of these tests is incredibly subjective, and the results could be misused. To your point about companies, though: How would you build a team without knowing their personalities? Assuming you couldn't hire them as a contract-to-hire?

Knowing personalities is certainly essential. But, I think if you want to find that out, it's better to interact with them and form your own opinions and talk to others who've done the same. Using a 4-dimension set of binary states (just to pick on MBTI here) will only tell you what you could have found out faster, cheaper (there's an industry around these things), and without making the person feel like a replaceable part.

In an interview situation (where you have less time to decide than building an internal team), that could mean going through hypothetical situations and finding out how they would solve a problem, having multiple interviewers, and checking on references. Having them take a personality test beforehand sends a signal that as an employer, you're not willing to take the time to get to know them, which starts everyone off on the wrong foot. Also, IANAL, but it sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.