Big Five has been shown to be highly predictive of various things like career choice and income. But it's not so fun to find out that you are highly disagreeable, low in conscientiousness, and high in neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
I can't prevent any "unofficial" interpretation of this information.
Making it "better" only makes it more threatening, by making it more believable or making it harder for an intelligent person to game the test.
Note the tendency of people to invent all sorts of things in falsifiable fields - like perpetual motion machines, and so on. There's no falsification mechanism in psychology...
Analogously, I'm pretty sure if astrology used some non-falsifiable grounds for it's input variables it would still be a reputable academic pursuit.
In fact, one of the problems with the Myers-Briggs is that it is continuously brought up in these discussions, even when experts in the area of behavioral individual differences dismiss it because it is lacking in evidence (and it has never really been dominant, or at least not for decades). There's all sorts of model-testing that lends support to some models (e.g., the Big Five, which is mentioned in the essay) and not the M-B, in terms of its internal empirical characteristics and predictive properties. And they do involve falsifiable predictions of multiple sorts.
The problem is that people complain about nonsense such as the M-B being nothing more than a money-making consulting scam, but then don't take that assertion seriously, in the sense that they assume the consultants are scientists.
It's as if con artists were selling perpetual motion machines, and HR departments started buying them, and then we started complaining about physics being non falsifiable, rather than about HR departments and business administration not understanding physics. It's all strawman arguments.
As an exercise, for example, I recommend someone searching for modern basic research using Myers-Briggs uncritically in mainstream psychology journals. You probably won't find it except for as some kind of deceptive ruse in an experimental protocol.
As for measuring behavior, any measurement throws away information. That's the tension: weight, BMI, blood pressure, temperature (under what pressure?), etc. The problem isn't in the measurement, it's in how that measurement is used and interpreted, and how much information is thrown away.
So, nothing is wrong with getting a measure of emotional-behavioral state. The problem is overgeneralizing from that, across time or situations, overestimating its predictive information, failing to consider uncertainties or biases of measurement, and so forth. BMI is an imperfect summary of someone's physical health, but it does have utility. The danger isn't in BMI per se, it's in assuming it won't change, assuming things about the reasons for a given BMI, ignoring how any given BMI was calculated, and so forth.
I do agree with the person you're responding to that astrology would likely still be considered somewhat scientific if it didn't rely on things that we know to be false. For instance astrology mixes Mercury starting to go backwards as a key player in its predictions. The problem being there that Mercury doesn't go backwards. It was/is an optical illusion based on an inaccurate understanding of our solar system. But outside of getting some things fundamentally wrong astrology is the same as any other unfalsifiable model. Being wrong doesn't matter, and you can just constantly add onto it and claim you're 'refining' it.
Maybe even that geocentric model though is the same story. Part of the reason the geocentric model of our universe lasted so long was because, with the technology at the time, it wasn't completely falsifiable. Mercury needs to go backwards to make this model work? Other planets need to go into crazy floral sharped curvy patterns to make it work? Well okay then I Mercury goes backwards and planets go in floral shaped curvy patterns. If you wanted to suggest a different model, such as a heliocentric one, that'd involve throwing away literally centuries of work and entirely discrediting astrology (which was at one time a pursuit as scholarly as any other) as a science. People blame the church for the geocentric model, but there was much more to it than just that.
I don't think that can be said for characteristics of someone's personality. It's hard to even define them, much less measure them.
This is simply ignorant and untrue.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions
EDIT: I'd appreciate any further detail you might have on your specific criticism of Jung, as I've apparently attracted some downvotes. I guess I'll just add that another thing I remember hearing about in school was that a lot of Jung's theories were considered impenetrable without having access to his so-called "Red Book" - which was not widely available until ~2009.
>Biographers and critics have disagreed whether these years in Jung's life should be seen as "a creative illness", a period of introspection, a psychotic break, or simply madness.
Which makes me wonder about the context of what you heard in school. By that I mean people seem to agree that what Jung wrote makes sense to a lot of people, so there's something of worth in there. What it doesn't make it is scientific. There's not a lot of people currently arriving at the same conclusions as Jung.
I'll admit I don't know anything about psychology (just what I've heard second hand), but I do find people like Jung quite interesting.
What I meant about the "Red Book"'s significance (and I agree that it's "odd") is that it tends to show some of the "raw data" of Jung's personal experience from which he was deriving his hypotheses that otherwise seem very abstract (and for that reason were not relatable to me when I was in school). Its extreme subjectivity and unscientific quality is a main reason Jung and his heirs did not wish for it to be published, and successfully kept it from being so for many decades.
Perhaps in terms of scientific rigor there is much to improve upon with Jung's work. I fully agree that he is "quite interesting", and still think there is likely something that could be gained scientifically from critically revisiting some of his ideas in a modern context.
Now, indeed nobody is a pure ESFJ nor a pure INTJ. People tend to get hung up a little bit too much on the letters.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions#Ex... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions#Ex...
I really try not to until their behavior tells you to. Where practical, I think we should strive to treat people the same regardless of these attributes.
Why? If there's validity to the personally profile, you'll get the right result 60, 70, or 80% of the time. Probably more, if you don't care specifically about finding the differences.
It could also give someone a way to rationalize their place in life, so they don't feel uncertain or inferior about it. "Now I know it's because I'm a JVWA. What a revelation."
..because they're a Virgo and I'm a Gemini..
That's very well put.
edit: from the linked journal article:
> In addition, 73% of these professionals believe that interpersonal skills training is effective despite the lack of empirical evidence for such a claim.
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227809050_An_empiri...
Tracom's styles:
DRIVER: ( Low responsiveness, high assertiveness ) Task orientated, clearly defined goals, committed, determined, risk takers, efficient.
EXPRESSIVE: ( High Responsiveness, High Assertiveness ) People orientated, centre of attention, positive, emotional, talkative, enthusiastic, dramatic.
AMIABLE: ( High Responsiveness, Low Assertiveness ) Loyal, personable, patient, Uncomfortable with risk, Non-Confrontational, Dislike pressure, Enjoy the company of others.
ANALYTICAL: (Low Responsiveness, Low Assertiveness) Serious, mull matters over, Indecisive, persistent, ask lots of questions,
Source: https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/7539...
DiSC model:
Dominance - The D-style is the most aggressive of the 4 styles. D-styles are quick, competitive and results-focused.
Influence - I-styles are the most outgoing and social of the 4 styles. They enjoy being the center of attention. I-styles like interacting with others and meeting new people.
Steadiness - S-styles are calm, steady, and the most laid back of the 4 styles. S-styles are more reserved and less animated than the outgoing I-styles.
Correctness - C-styles are the most analytical of the 4 styles. C-styles focus on details, facts, information, and proof.
Open Source Psychometrics Project
https://openpsychometrics.org/
Where I think this could help is in primary education. Particularly in the design of a bespoke curriculum or self guided-study. Taking into account the multitudes and variety of intelligences that can emerge in a population.
But the real money quote from the article, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading: "The idea of cutting people up into groups is problematic."