Better yet, you should scan the shape of each candidate’s skull and use that as a metric to aid in decisionmaking.
If measuring skull shape during the interview process was a) socially acceptable and b) actually predictive of outcomes, why not? The problem is that it is neither. The reason that it is not a) is because it was not b) and thus easily misused to justify stereotypes.
The MBTI is tea leaves reading. It has been experimentally shown to have no relationship to reality and no predictive power time and time again. Even the axis don’t make sense as some are heavily correlated.
The Big 5 is useful but far more complicated. It uses scale and has no pretty little boxes but at least it seems to consistently measure something.
No, just no.
The Big 5 was statistically designed using factor analysis so that its axis are independent. The axis actually came before their description. It’s actual serious research. Psychologists found that some characteristics clustered together and then spent time understanding what these clusters actually measured.
The MBTI however is all over the place. It was designed "using" Jung theory - itself a heap load of garbage - and its axis are total chaos. They even correlate between each others. That’s part of why the distribution of MBTI types is actually so skewed.
Seriously the MBTI is a perfect exemple of what’s wrong with psychology nowadays. On the one hand you have academics trying to do serious research and the other hand you have people motivated by greed pushing random rubbish and gathering a following in the corporate world like a pseudo-cult. It’s both sad and maddening.
Look, the reality is that almost all interviewing is far from scientific. I'm sure there are worse heuristics many of us use than MBTI[1]. The comment being downvoted is being perceived as trying to appeal to an argument of extremes: It doesn't follow that if you're following some poor methodology that one should consider even crazier ideas.
If we had nailed interviewing down to a science, I could see the point in the comment. Instead it's coming off as "Hey if you're going to do something imperfect, you should consider something extremely wrong!" We all have mostly wrong approaches to interviewing.
[1] Stuff I've seen:
Rejecting a candidate because they read Chapters 1-4 but not 5 of a textbook when the interview prep material mentioned chapters 1-5. Note that chapter 5 is not used at all for the job.
Favoring a candidate because of a strong handshake (cliched, but happens!)
Gauging the enthusiasm a candidate by assuming everyone is an extrovert (fairly common).
Using the MBTI is an improvement to these!
Ima guess you score low on openness. And probably T as opposed to F on MBTI.