Myers-Briggs: Does it pay to know your type? | Hacker News Reader

Myers-Briggs: Does it pay to know your type?

washingtonpost.com

48 pointsLibertatea60 comments

From the article: "Yet despite its widespread use and vast financial success, and although it was derived from the work of Carl Jung, one of the most famous psychologists of the 20th century, the test is highly questioned by the scientific community."

Yes. Here are some references about that.

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

http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/person...

"Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: 'at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs,' the very thing that it is most often used for."

http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/deve...

http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Annie-Murphy/...

I'm a Pisces... sorry... I mean INFJ ;-)

I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously.

> "I get terribly depressed by how often I see folks take MBTI seriously"

About four years ago I worked briefly for an IT department at a large university. Every staff member at a certain level had to have a one-to-one with the CTO shortly after joining.

About a week before my one-to-one I received a folder from the CTO's PA. It contained:

* The CTO's Myers-Briggs test results in their entirety

* A two page document entitled "How to talk to our CTO", based off said test results

* A discussion of why the CTO's results made him suitable for his job

Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long. Do a personality test if you want, but don't let the test dictate how you're doing your job.

Needless to say, the guy was a huge jackass and I didn't stay there very long.

The jackass in question should have read the references about the Myers-Briggs test that I've already submitted to this thread (above in this same subthread). And he should also have done some research on company hiring procedures

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543

so that he knew that what really matters for his organization is whether or not his colleagues can do their work. He should have worked harder at developing himself as an effective CTO.

Agreed: CTO should have focused on his/her own development.

My SO works in sales/mkgt. That segment relies heavily on personality and aptitude tests. My SO swears by them. Says it helps identify prospect's weaknesses, to better help them succeed. I'm dubious, but it's hard to argue with success.

I'll chew thru all those links you provided. Thanks.

I would have loved to meet this guy head on.

It was certainly attempting to capture something useful about the test-taker's approach to interaction and problem-solving, though -- unlike astrological signs and similar things (which are based only on birthday).

Of course, it depends on the context -- I'd be distressed to run into this as part of a job interview -- but in general the people taking it seriously are trying to figure out ways to help people with different styles of thinking/working interact with each other.

On the whole, this is worth some effort, and you should encourage it (while gently dissuading them from using the MBTI as the starting point...).

The problem is primarily that the MBTI is misapplied and misunderstood.

It is misunderstood by most people as a set of absolutes without any nuances, whereas it's generally intended to simply classify dominant modes of thinking. i.e., most people will have some problems that they approach one way and other problems that they approach another way, but they will also have a tendency to approach most problems in one of a few ways.

Think of it as handedness: most people have a dominant hand, but that doesn't mean that they use only their dominant hand for everything, and that doesn't mean that people can't change their handedness.

Because of the way that it's misunderstood, it's also misapplied by a couple of groups of people: those gullible people that are seeking either self-understanding or validation without putting any real effort in, and those people that make a living by going around selling snake-oil psychology.

So, while certain professional fields do exhibit certain MBTI trends, it should not be used as a way to determine what profession someone would be best at, or what relationships they should have, or any of that other nonsense. Likewise, all of that "ABCDs behave like this or that or the other thing" stuff is all bullshit too.

That said, MBTI can be a useful tool. I use it to listen for certain cues in conversations, and then I slightly change my behavior in the conversation to communicate better with the other person. For instance, I listen to whether the person tends to say, "I feel like ..." versus "I think..."; one tells me to communicate with them emotionally, the other rationally. Another cue is in paying attention to whether a person tends to communicate action or observation. In a management context, you can generally rely on an "action" person to let you know if they think something needs to be done (or they'll just do it, if you've granted them the freedom); conversely, an observant person might be even more useful in a group, but you're going to have to take some initiative to find out what they see.

I could have learned to do these things without ever learning about the MBTI, but the MBTI made it easier for me to figure out what I should watch out for.

That said, I have exactly zero identity as a particular MBTI type, and it has otherwise zero guidance on my life or relationships, as it should.

It is misunderstood by most people as a set of absolutes without any nuances,

-- Only the high priests of MBTI know the truth? Puleeeez.

That is the nuance: It is in no way 'scientific'. Its about as scientific as any 2x2 (or: NxN) dimensionalized matrix. Which is to say, it says nothing about the dimensionalizing variables. Nor does it say anything about the underlying hypotheses of relevance. Nor the alternative or relative performance different dimensionalizations. It follows that referencing MBTI today says more about the acronym dropper than anything else.

If you're going to argue with me, please at least argue against something I actually said.

If you'd rather continue arguing with yourself, carry on, I won't interrupt you again.

After you reduce the idea (as per your post), then the "idea" of concept of XYZ becomes a ~meaningless heuristic. And on that, we agreee. So there is no need to argue "with" you. Hope you understand. Nothing personal.

I agreed with everything you said until the last sentence.

About 25 years ago I got an interesting demonstration, in a group of people. I was in a large group of people, who were asked to draw two lines. On the first, mark how noticeable you are. On the second mark how organized you think you are. We were then divided into quadrants based on this, and sent off to talk with others in the same quadrant.

The test took just a few seconds. It was based on BS criteria. Everyone understood that. But it was amazing at how much each quadrant shared. And when we came back in and sat down in quadrants, to report back what we'd learned, you could look at all 4 groups and it was instantly obvious which group was which.

If you're looking to get a label, and to figure out where you belong, this kind of test does not work. But as a starting place to get ideas for how to get insight about yourself, the test absolutely is valuable. And as long as the personality characteristics measured are consistent and well understood, it wouldn't matter what they are.

If you're curious, on the MBTI I came out ENTP. On the tiny test I just described, I was a promoter - I am both noticeable and disorganized.

Have an upvote. You have relieved me of the need to compare 16 personality types to 12 (sun signs).

(Irony: I actually think astrology -- and MBTI -- has its uses. I just think dividing billions of people into twelve general groups is somewhat silly. Making it sixteen isn't tremendously better.)

From the article: "Even more compromising, according to Grant, is the fact that Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Myers created the framework in their living room before doing any robust scientific research, rather than the other way around."

Any justification must be after the fact. I also love the section on how the closest "more-scientific" analog isn't gaining traction because it's possibly too negative. And open-source.

tl;dr - The issue of the MBTI and psychometrics in general is nuanced, and strongly held opinions of either pseudoscience, or devoted metaphysical truthiness, are equally problematic.

The MBTI test as it currently stands, deserves the reputation as flawed empirical instrument, yet at the same time it's utility is undeniable. Unlike horoscopes, individual descriptions do differ rather significantly. The biggest issue in my view is not a fundamental one, but rather a flawed set of assumptions. The principle being that the test taker, possesses intimate self knowledge and presents an accurate and unchanging self portrait. In addition to the wonderful qualities humans have, there remains a number possible impairments with regards to self assessment: bias, delusion, deceitfulness, fancifulness, ignorance or simply an innocent unrefined skill in introspective ability. Thus the issue appears to largely be with the test itself, and not so much any solid refutation of the Jungian theory on which it rests.

While Jung certainly had some strange and mystical ideas, which would be difficult to support in today's scientific environment, his theory of cognitive functions is uncannily prescient IMHO, and believe is most deserving of further scrutiny. He is also largely responsible for the introducing the concepts of extraversion/introversion in the early part of the last century which have remained a mainstay on both public and academic discourse. [5]

Thus upon reflection, the observation of Jung as a mystic, is not necessarily an indication of a weak mind. One should not overlook the fact Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps one of the greatest scientists of all time, had strong mystical[1] and occultist[2] leanings too.

One might argue "well, the 1600's are quite different to the 1900's and Jung ought to have known better". Yet if the whole idea of a personal God seems rather delusional in the 21st century, the fact that credible scientists continue to partake in it today, does not simply invalidate their scientific discoveries. For example, James Smalley's [3] won the Nobel prize for the discovery of Buckyballs while simultaneously being an ardent supporter of old earth Creationism. Another example would be notable Christian apologist and Human Genome Project pioneer, Francis Collins [4]).

Returning to the issue of the test itself, the primary concern is that it it relies on self-report and is not a direct measure of the physical cognitive diversity existing between brains.

On the topic of Jung and neuroscience there is some preliminary proto-research by done by UCLA researcher Dario Nardi investigating the possible evidence for Jung's cognitive functions within the brain. He gave a talk at Google in 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA explaining his results.

Of course this is by no means an empirical vindication of Jung, but it does open up a potentially interesting line of exploration. As with any non-peer reviewed work, it should be treated with due skepticism.

Lastly, for those interested in further reading, I have digitized a copy of Jung's seminal work, 'Psychological Types (1921)' [5] am sharing it for anyone wishing to study the source material.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_religious_views

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newtons_occult_studies

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Christianity

[5] http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=extraversion%2C...

[6] https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Ty...

The only useful thing I got from MBTI and the related training was that different people think and communicate differently; sometimes very differently. People work differently and you can't treat everyone the same; and different people need styles of communication. This was in the midst of leadership training in an organization that had one set of guidelines for performance reviews and promotions.

So like most management training / classes, this insight is fairly obvious but mostly ignored.

I agree on this, and think it's particularly useful to do with younger people for this exact reason. I did it as a Masters student with some colleagues, and it was an eye-opener for showing how many of us had different priorities in terms of work and working styles. (I think for the cerebral types it can also be something of a relief to realise you're not just weird!).

Single page, distraction free, print view: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-b...

Whether it's scientific or not, I think it makes sense for some people. It's not based on where the moon was when you were born or something like that, and for that reason I don't oppose it too much. For ex, I'm more of an introvert than an extrovert and that is obvious to me and others. Therefore, to say that I'm an I instead of an E is just a true personal statement. Am I a thinker more than a feeler? Also yes. Again, most people who know me know this.

I mostly dislike Jung's work, and I'm generally very skeptical about any IQ or personality test. However, after being convinced to try this one by a friend, essentially doing it so that they would stop asking, I found the results to be shockingly accurate, and subsequently found this to be the common reaction for people that happen to have the same type. In my ongoing skepticism, I've read explanations and definitions for several other types, pretending they were mine, to see if I could somehow relate to all of them, but failed miserably. The wording was never vague, as in the case of astrology, for example, and the descriptions of my type all precisely described me, personally. Up until now, I presumed that this would be the case for everybody, but I see a lot of dismissal here. I would conjecture that either those people did not actually find their MB type, or that the results only appear to be impressive for certain types, like mine. To be fair, this was the first time that I answered one of those tests truthfully. During school, I'd give the answers for which I assumed I'd be less scrutinized for; for work, I'd give the answers I assumed were more likely to get me promoted.

In any case, I found finding my type to be beneficial. The typical interview question "tell me about yourself" was always the one I dreaded the most, and finding my type has not only increased my awareness of who I am, but given me a way to explain it to others as well. The results have also brought me to see that I may not always be right after all, and that people who agree with me might simply belong to the same or similar category. Put differently, I now think that different types, while most of them clash with me, are necessary for the functioning of society, and I don't need to agree with them, or them to agree with me. Note that "live and let live" is apparently a defining characteristic of this particular type, which I got a good belly laugh discovering by reading another comment. It's funny to find out that you're a lot more deterministic than you'd be willing to admit.

Think of it this way: you (presumably) answered a series of questions about your behavior, and then, based on the answers to those questions, you got back a result which describes your behavior.

That doesn't invalidate whatever value you derive from it -- having your behaviors read back to you can be just as valuable as asking a trusted friend about their opinion of you -- but you do have to be careful not to allow yourself to be constrained to a particular type.

I accidentally cured myself of this around 10 years ago when I first discovered the MBTI by immediately joining the INTJ-Open mailing list. The only not-regrettable outcome of that, for me, was that I learned that self-identifying as "INTJ" was a stupid thing to do.

What do you mean by that?

Which part wasn't clear?

> The only not-regrettable outcome of that, for me, was that I learned that self-identifying as "INTJ" was a stupid thing to do.

Are you sure you're an INTJ? If so, why was it stupid?

Mainly because self-identifying as any MBTI type is a stupid thing to do (I just didn't realize it until I interacted with a bunch of other people that self-identified as one). It can lead to silly conclusions like, "well, I'm right-handed, so I can't be good at art."

The INTJ-Open list was filled with people whose favorite hobby seemed to be arguing, even when it was just arguing about arguing. They were some of the most eloquent and logical dense people I've ever read. They justified some of their more egregious antisocial behavior as "being INTJ", which seemed to me to be about the dumbest possible response. They agreed on nearly nothing -- for a bunch of self-described rationalists you'd think there'd be at least some kind of trends in, I dunno, socio-economic thinking, or education, or something.

After a while I naively suggested that it might be a good habit to work on self-improvement a little. Y'know, go to the occasional party or mixer, have a drink, talk to people; chat with people in line at the store; let people say silly things without embarrassing them in front of others; treat people nicely even if you disagree with them; that sort of thing. The stuff that normal people do. IIRC, the most common response was that I must not be an INTJ. I got a couple of messages of support, but strictly off-list; the supporters were afraid of being ostracized on-list.

And that's when I realized that this group was Mensa, but more argumentative and with lower requirements.

I have an exceedingly low opinion of Mensa.

Anyway, I was really glad that saved me from going around "acting like an INTJ" (jerk) all the time, and I realized that I had just accidentally dodged the real danger of the MBTI stuff: that it encourages you to put yourself into a tiny little box.

>> Are you sure you're an INTJ?

> IIRC, the most common response was that I must not be an INTJ.

Again, I had a great laugh finding out that questioning other people's INTJness is seemingly an INTJ thing to do.

Part of the way I see it is that doing the test is a good way to find out what you might want to work on (as you suggested with self-improvement), and that should be relevant to every type. For example, if you're an I, learn some conversation skills; if you're an E, you don't need to always say what's on your mind. I can see the trap of finding it an excuse to be unpleasant to others, however.

Any discussion of Myers-Briggs always makes me remember this quote attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.

"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord

Interesting fellow. He had the cojones to tell Hitler to step back, he actively worked to undermine the Holocaust, and he still managed to die of natural causes.

His quote is reminiscent of the almost-axiomatic truth that the best programmers are lazy ones.

My sons like to say "Lazy is another word for efficient".

A thousand times no. I was asked to take one of these at my first job out of college and loudly refused.

> The framework itself has barely changed since Katharine Cook Myers and Isabel Briggs created it decades ago

One could take this as yet another sign that there's nothing scientific going on here.

Why would you refuse? If it were so abashedly unscientific it should be easy to manipulate the outcome to achieve your desired type.

Apparently what's true is more important to me than what can be exploited? I don't know, I find that to be kind of a ridiculous question.

That's interesting. Given what you know now about corporate culture would your answer be different today?

I'm reminded of the recent discussion on HN where it was related that a well-known angel would not participate until he could observe the potential founder at a social dinner gathering with his or her spouse/partner. This received lots of comments in support and followups that you need to be friends with your cofounders. Seems like no less a haphazard, wildly speculative way to judge s personality.

I remained skeptical. If there has been any insight I have gained with respect to human interaction is that people are inherently deceitful when there is something they want. The better at it they seem to get the more attractive or desirable the goal being pursued.

Any chance you could link to that discussion?

Dinner is judging person B's behaviour relative to you.

MBTI is not in relation to you.

The context was that he wanted to view the interaction of the candidate with their spouse not his own spouse in order to guage/divine their personality. Dinner was just a pretext.

Sorry if that was unclear.

One could take this as yet another sign that there's nothing scientific going on here.

I don't know anything about the test being discussed here, but that sounds like a pretty unscientific thing to say, in itself.

No, it's bunk. This is one case in which Betteridge's law of headlines applies. For most people, your MB type changes with your mood that day, or with the way you interpret the ridiculously ambiguous questions in the test.

I'm pretty sure its bunk, but took the test when I was 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, and got the same type each time (ENTP). I was definitely in different moods (the amount of irritation I felt at 27 taking the stupid thing was amazing).

What's more amazing is that you keep taking it despite being "sure" it's bunk.

I didn't really have a choice in the matter. I went to a summer program where it was required and then had a job where it was required. It isn't amazing, its crappy circumstances.

I still have no clue why it was required at the job since it was never mentioned or the results even talked about.

Yeah, fair enough. Job is how I was first introduced to it too.

They could potentially use it to organize you into teams.

To this day, I have the sneaking suspicion that it ended up in some HR persons thesis. :)

At one point I took multiple different tests to compare them within a short period of time. I ended up getting 3 different results over the tests I took, I got INTP, INTJ, and ENTP. Overall I found that a lot of the test questions were not black and white enough, or just repeated with different wording on the test (essentially doubling the weighting of that question). These poor questions were present regardless of whether it was a free online one, or a so called "professionally written" one.

The Libertarian Party was into Myers-Briggs for a while. The vast majority of libertarians seem to be from the "NT" quadrant (usually INTP or INTJ) - they had stats that were as a group wildly divergent from those of the population at large. The theory was that this explained why the arguments libertarians find compelling don't seem compelling to anybody else. So the goal of the resulting workshops was for people to learn to put their political arguments in ways that would appeal to the other groups.

That sort of thing seems like a better use of Myers-Briggs than in the workplace.

> For most people, your MB type changes with your mood that day...

My other comments in this thread should make it clear that I'm not terribly invested in the MBTI stuff, but still: got any evidence for that?

And, even if there is some evidence for that, wouldn't that same argument also apply to a person's height? "For most people, your height in cm is bunk because it changes throughout the day..."

I love these because you basically get the types 'best suited' to managerial positions by asking yourself 'what would the most conceited asshole say?'

One of the many significant issues with the MBTI is that it's a typology: you're an E, an N, or whatever else; it's all-or-nothing. As anyone who knows even a little bit about actual research psychology can tell you, people don't work like that. Any decent system of examining human personality NEEDS to deal in spectrums and grey areas.

If anyone is curious about an actually valid personality measurement construct, check out Costa and McCrae's Big Five Personality Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits). It was designed based on decades of experimentation and research (rather than the other way around), and it's been experimentally validated time and time again. It's basically the gold standard for personality psychologists researching trait theory. It's a whole lot less sexy than the MBTI, and you won't walk away being able to say "I'm type XYZ!" (which is a major appeal of the MBTI), but the things that actually work rarely are.

I took one in college and one in grad school (4 years later). Results starkly different from each other.

People change as they get older, and that includes your personality as much as your interest in foie gras.

I thought it was fun. What can I say, I enjoy pop psychology.

Further though, I find it has had a real effect on how I relate to others. Reading of the different MBTI's, particularly how different types communicate, forced me to seek to understand the nuances & preferences of individual styles of social interaction. Sometimes broad personality generalisations are all that are needed to establish a meaningful channel of communication.

I would recommend doing the test or at least reading the 16 types, if for no other reason than it forces you to be mindful of the fact that there are many large & small differences between individual personalities.

The four letters indicate the current state of your personality, which is a function of your maturity, emotional development, and life events. It is only likely to be accurate for certain types of people.

This current state is a manifestation of a combination of your (Jungian) cognitive functions - these are mental processes structured in a certain hierarchy. The sole purpose of life (if you adhere to the principle of growth) seems to work towards a flattening of this hierarchy and hence, become an equanimous person.

MBTI is a data point - it's unwise to use a single data point for understanding oneself and others.

For me personally, 'my' type accords with the type of person I am and have been, and - as one aspect of the psychiatric consultations I was having to sort of various issues - really helped me a lot. And, anecdotally, it gave me some kind of broad framework for understanding others, their motivations and actions, something I had struggled with (and still do, I must admit).

My understanding was that MBTI is the most valid of these type of tests, if not MBTI then what should organisations be using? Include links if you have them?

Also I can't see a test which includes a negative factor such that there is a 'wrong way' to complete it and hence risk potential workplace repercussions as a valid replacement.

Further I'm sure each big consulting firm has a version which is no more valid than MBTI.

I would post a comment but I'm an introvert.

I can't really speak to or am very interested in the validity of the assessment, but that is a pretty impressive startup story. Especially for one with two women founders given the context.

I kind of wonder if I sent a child to school to do product research today though if I wouldn't be in some serious trouble.

Somehow unrelated, but here is a nice poetic definition of a INTP in a roadtrip (compiler vs amputee)

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/11/05/at-home-in-a-car/

I guess it pays to know you can live like that.

What is the most scientifically sound, evidence-based conceptual framework for uncovering one's strengths and weaknesses? Is there anything at all with good science behind it?

Whenever they tried giving me this test, my score just went off the scale. In the end, they had to assign me a new type: SEXY. ;)

Of course there are people who fall on the border between different types and who will test differently each time they take an MBTI test.

When viewed with the appropriate amount of skepticism it can be quite interesting to view social and relationship dynamics through the lens offered by Myers Briggs.

For example, those who are not NT can probably not really understand me in the way I want to be understood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com