Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpeterson | Hacker News Reader

I'll go with an option not on the list: "useless", as are the results of all these personality tests. The whole notion that you can absolutely quantify something as nebulous and volatile as personality is absurd; the idea of doing so within the constraint of four axes is down right laughable.

Seriously, these things are the real-life equivalent of a silly Facebook quiz.

edit: Having looked over the questions in the linked quiz, my answer to most all of them was "it depends". I guess this means I have no personality. :)

View on HN

I up voted for your anti-herd thought. Even if it is a bit invidious for those that find value in it.

The Myers-Briggs typology based on Carl Gustav Jung's work, is in my opinion, an accurate and useful tool for generalizing intelligence types.

You are correct, in contending, that quantifying the psychic whole of a person to an absolute degree is absurd because the psyche of a person is constantly evolving. The MBTI type only seems to shift in a minor way, though, despite gnostic shifts in the psyche.

I can account for this. I was typed as an INTJ early in life when I mostly just built stuff, didn't socialize much, and sandboxed in my own mind; throughout life I've experienced many things and people that would be considered "outside" the profile of an INTJ. Those experiences didn't change my typing, they only made it more potent.

Instead of a socially inept introvert, I became a socially adept introvert. Instead of being intellectually rigid and intransigent, I became intellectually focused and discerning. My type hasn't changed at all, despite traveling through India, experimenting with psycho-active drugs, and working for soul crushing corporations.

I'm supporting your statement that it isn't necessary, because it isn't. At all. However, is it useful? Fun even? Yeah. It is.

I view Astrology in a similar light. Your "sun sign" is just a "blueprint" upon which your living of life molds and evolves (another discussion though).

It does describe a few of axes of your personality, but it's not that great. It's not like they are really poles - you don't get many total introverts or extroverts, people sit on a continuum. A normally distributed attribute is a lousy way to categorize people.

Introverts are people who tend to think before acting (which makes them more shy), and extroverts act before thinking (which makes them less shy), but those aren't the only factors in social adeptness. A polite introvert who can make good jokes will have more friends than the extroverted class bully.

The main value of MB is that it's value free. It's easy to talk about introversion-extroversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling or judging-perceiving; it's hard to say people are lazy-hardworking, boring-interesting, smart-dumb, or brave-cowardly.

Good point that the norm of these axis tend to be on the line.

However, a good M-B test will also provide a degree of strength or clarity of your various dimensions. So it can be useful to see where you deviate from the norm.

Personally, though I'm INTP, the only dimension that is particularly pronounced is the N (88). And that does say something about me. While in all the other dimensions, I can't see a clear preference in myself, I can say that I do live primarily in the world of abstract thought over sensory data.

I know I'm a bit late in replying, I'm guessing this won't be read - but oh well!

Typically, it is assumed that a typing represents the whole of the Self; I tend to use it only as a generalization of the Self.

Coming from a Jungian background, the psyche is composed of multiple (if not many) complexes. Each complex being an autonomous psychic entity but a component of the psychic Self.

Each complex can have its own typing. The Anima (feminine complex) could very well be an ESTJ and the Animus (masculine complex) could be a INSJ. The compound result of all the complexes results in the dynamic and volatile nature of the psyche.

This multi-faceted nature of the psyche produces a (to me) accurate view of the psychic Self; a person can too have a type that generally dominates the whole of the their psychic Self as well (ie: I'm an INTJ, my Animus is more of an ISTP and my Anima is an ENFJ - don't forget there are other complexes).

Also, MB typing is not value free. If something were value free it would not be of value ;) The difference between "introverted" and "boring" isn't in the value of each term, it is in the interpretation of the value of each term.

One could consider boring and introversion to both be an inward psychic motion. Boring - to bore - going within; is uncomfortable for many people because within their psyche they must experience their complexes as opposed to projecting their complexes and experiencing them outside of the psyche (with other people, things, etc...). Hence why "boring" is imbued with bad or un-associative thought.

Introverts tend to be internally focused and rarely engage in the projection atmosphere commonly seen with large groups of familiars or extroverted (to different degrees) people. When a person is not engaging in a projection that another wishes to engage in, the person not engaging is typically considered "boring" or "serious" or "anti-social".

Please note, neither extroversion nor introversion is better or worse than the other. Claiming and accepting the complexes of the psyche within leads to both a happier introvert (that is more extroverted) and a happier extrovert (that is more introverted). Just like claiming and accepting the feminine or masculine self leads to a more balanced individual; it just happens that one is already dominated by the other and finds it to be a natural setting. The above paragraph was using familiar language to convey a point, but was limiting in its scope.

All things have value, even if that value is unit value (or 1). Value is provided by the human mind and subject to valuing meme levels (context dependent).

The majority of Hacker News readers are in a mix of systemic (computers, systems) and entrepreneurial (startups, ambition) valuing memes. The Hacker News reader typically values the experiences they have within their life at this stage based on those memes.

I became aware of MBTI about fifteen years ago and it's been an ongoing fascination. I see it mainly as a useful conceptual framework upon which one may build a set of intuitive tools that enable effective interpersonal understanding. I've always felt it somewhat loose and inexact but unlike many of the posters here (borderline trollers actually) I don't have a problem with that looseness. And it's perhaps unsurprising that the type I seem to prefer to manifest is an extreme minority type both in the context of this site and in the context of the general population.

You seem to have a more rigorous and holistic understanding of the psyche than I do. I have a set of intuitions built from this framework. It seems you have understandings of additional surrounding frameworks, and probably a more clear understanding of MBTI itself than I do.

Do you have a reference (ideally a published book or books) that could help me expand my understanding of MBTI and the enveloping aspects of the psyche?

Learning how the psyche works is crucial, in my opinion, to being able to grow as a person. Intellectual skills increase with the understanding too, hence why I've been adamant about learning what I can.

Read Carl Gustav Jung's work, his psychoanalytic process and framework is very powerful. Particularly his works on the shadow self, symbols and the psyche, and alchemy as a transformative psychic tool.

I also pull quite a bit from Claire Grave's work on Spiral Dynamics. Ken Wilbur is also known for taking his work and expanding upon it (a simple Google search will turn up some good resources). Here's a blurb I've got copied on it:

Here is a link to my present understanding of the spiral dynamics: http://antiquatis.info/tool/vmeme

M-B is actually quite interesting to me. It is a very well defined personality type system, and I've found the results of tests to often be insightful.

The test does not claim ANY kind of "absolute quantifification". That would be claiming that there are only 16 personalities in the world, which, as you note, is absurd. It is merely an attempt to define a few of the dimensions that make up a human personality, and provide a framework for talking about how those different dimensions interact.

If you aren't interested in this, it's your business. But you should really reflect on where the attitude of "this is too nebulous and volatile" a subject to study and try to quantify, and decide if that's really how you want to react to things that are too big and complex to be immediately understood.

If you really think the test is bullshit, then why am I, and the vast majority of the respondents on the previous poll (linked above/below) NTs, also know as Rationals? Seems odd, considering the figure I've heard quotes Rationals as 10% of the US population. Unless, of course, these results are revealing something specific about this population in particular?? Hmm.

That was exactly my response when a psychologist friend of mine told me about the M-B tests. Then we did a test at work and the result was surprisingly accurate. I know you think it's a waste of time but maybe try it out anyway.

Also, as with many of these things: "the map is not the territory". Use any insight it gives, ignore what it doesn't.

MBTI is more complicated than that. Those four preferences interact to form a fuller picture of the personality type. Regardless of whether you choose to view it as informative, it certainly has more depth than a Facebook quiz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Typ...

Personality is indeed a complicated thing, and MBTI respects that. It's understood that only the person in question can decide what their type is, since so much about it is below the surface of what another person can observe. It's only a tool for analyzing and understanding certain parts of your own personality that most people share, that can vary widely, and that tend to face one of two directions.

Knowing my type (INTP) has been pretty valuable to me. It's given me a clearer understanding of the preferential basis for some of my attitudes and behaviors, and it helped me accept my introversion as a natural part of who I am. Looking at the previous HN poll (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=204240), there's a strong presence here of types that are uncommon in the general population. At the very least, that correlation is pretty interesting.

Those four preferences interact to form a fuller picture of the personality type

I don't know what this means, and to be frank, it sounds like a lot of gobbledy-gook. The whole point of categorizing is that the categories should convey some information about the thing categorized. The point I'm making here is that these personality categories don't even come close to this. The problem is that personality is an extremely complicated concept, and one that is prone to constant change. I seriously doubt that you could say something meaningful about a subject's personality with 10 axes, let alone four.

To illustrate this, ask yourself two basic questions of these test results:

    1) Are the conditions and results repeatable?
    2) Can you use them to make any meaningful prediction of behavior?

My contention is that the answer to each is a resounding "No", and hence the results are essentially useless.

The Wikipedia link I provided describes preference interaction in depth.

It seems you're saying that a categorization system that doesn't describe its subjects in complete, full, everlasting detail is worthless. I'd have to disagree.

Look at the poll right now, or its predecessor. INTP has a higher tally than all the other types, which is particularly interesting considering its relative rarity in the general population. You could therefore conclude that an INTP is more likely to vote in a poll on HN than, say, an ISFJ. That's information. Useless information perhaps, but information nonetheless. If MBTI didn't actually indicate anything, then the tallies would more closely fit the type distribution in the general population.

Your concerns about the test's reliability are valid, but any attempt to categorize something that we don't completely understand is going to have its inconsistencies. It's a far leap from there to useless.

It seems you're saying that a categorization system that doesn't describe its subjects in complete, full, everlasting detail is worthless.

No, what I'm saying is that a categorization system that doesn't say much of anything about its subjects is useless.

INTP has a higher tally than all the other types, which is particularly interesting considering its relative rarity in the general population. You could therefore conclude that an INTP is more likely to vote in a poll on HN than, say, an ISFJ. That's information.

You're using INTP in conjunction with a hacker news poll to draw a conclusion here; not INTP itself. The reason for this is that it's not possible to draw any meaningful conclusion from the INTP result itself. And even this conclusion is very vague: what does it tell you exactly that the incidence of scoring INTP is higher on HN than the general population? What prediction can you make from this fact?

What it tells me is that most HN readers are introverts who like solving abstract problems, but that's news to no one.

A categorization system that could make accurate predictions about how a person may act or be or feel would be far more complete than MBTI. I think we agree on that. But I don't think that's what MBTI claims to be. What I've gotten from it is an improved vocabulary for describing my personality in general. My type didn't tell me much I didn't already know. What it did tell me was that my lack of meatspace organizational skills and my well-structured code (or meticulously organized music library) may share a source in my preference for introverted, abstract thinking. Which is to say, it highlighted an aspect of myself of which I was dimly aware and caused me to relate it to the way I behave.

Ultimately MBTI is a personal tool for limited reflection. Any larger conclusions about a population should be avoided or qualified with "generally speaking."

Except that the theory suggests that a high prevalence of INTP / INTJ types on a forum dedicated to intellectual curiosity and rational discourse is exactly what you'd expect.

Couple that with the mentioned fact that the entire four set of rational types is less than ten percent of the general population and I can't see how you couldn't find that just a little indicative that perhaps they're onto something.

FWIW, when I take the tests I come out INTJ every single time and I usually "act like an INTJ" most of the time, which is to say, if the only thing you knew about me was I'm INTJ, you could meaningfully predict my sort of behavior a good percentage of the time ;P

You're confusing this with a lot of the garbage out there. This is based on Carl Jung's work and is absolutely valid. It's not "quantifying" personality; it's helping -you- understand yourself better. That's it.

Everyone is a combination of these things. The most introverted person in the world is sometimes extroverted, and the opposite as well. My wife is introverted around friends but extroverted at home; I'm extroverted with friends but introverted at home. You're answer "it depends" is absolutely valid and yet doesn't invalidate any part of Meyers-Briggs. You don't like to be pinned down and that's fine, but you have preferences, and that's all it's asking. You may be able to write with both left and right hands, but which one do you sometimes prefer? And if you prefer that, you might also prefer 'x'.

If you give it a chance, you might be surprised to learn something new about yourself.

I generally think so, but I was sitting at a table with my friends in a bar once, and we discovered that all of us were INTPs. The more different people are from my personality type, the more difficulty I have communicating with them. Sometimes I feel like we're not even the same species, as they offer me homeopathy for a burnt finger, or tell me they're psychic with a straight face.

What are the M-B personality types of the people you have most trouble communicating with?

I 100% disagree... I found it to be extremely accurate. Like Scary Accurate.

You mean scary accurate like a horoscope?

A basic problem with this kinds of tests is that it's too easy to interpret the results to fit a very wide range of personalities - just like a horoscope will fit just about everyone who believes in them.

But they're still fun, and might give a hint about some general tendencies.

Compare and contrast distrubitions;

above vs http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=943884

So no, not scary accurate like a horoscope. :)

That's not really comparable, though. That question is "what's your birthday", not "answer a bunch of ambiguous questions and see if the made up blurb that results is applicable to you".

There's also the aspect of giving the "right" answers to achieve a desired result. It's not very difficult to e.g. get an inrovert or extrovert type, and everyone knows that "real" hackers are introvert, so...

Basically it's not science, definitely not in this form.

[edit: I would have expected more extroverts in the results here, since the target audience is entrepreneurial hackers. Maybe it's the proggit exodus that's showing?]

I doubt that people actually bother to lie on the test to get a specific result, especially here. Noone knows anyone else's type, and even if they did, they could always just lie.

My point was that the constant claims that these categorisations were qualitatively indistinguishable from the zodiac are patently false, and there's the evidence.

Derren Brown did a magic trick where he gave people scary accurate statements of their personality. At least that's what they thought: they were all given the same text.

Excellent. Could you run the text by HN and see if we think the same thing?

I think that xenophanes is referring to Bertram Forer. Here's the text he used in his class, taken from the Wikipedia article on the Forer effect:

"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."

I am referring to Derren Brown, a magician/mentalist on UK TV. I didn't think it was an original trick, though. And I don't have the text, but yours is nice, and I wouldn't expect it to work too well on HN readers anyway. They might generally agree with the text, but I think a lot of them would not be fooled into believing the text contains detailed, non-generic personal information about them.

Brown's text was longer, but he credits it as Forer's idea originally (in his book 'Tricks of the Mind' p322)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com