The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless by ivraatiems on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @10:58AM (#12684955)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. You are lacking a basic understanding of how the research process works in social sciences.

I don't want to be "credentials guy," but I have a degree in cognitive science and I've conducted human subjects research. What you are saying is simply wrong.

That publication cites dozens of studies to back up its claims. Are you suggesting they are all invalid? If so, why?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless by rlucas on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @11:53AM (#12685535)

Did you read the same linked article I did? There were not cites to "dozens of studies;" rather, there were quotes from the Guardian and something called Skeptoid, plus a quoted but uncited "researcher."

Combined with the fact that this is basically a listicle ("quoticle?") clickbait from a mid/low-brow popsci website, with no analysis or synthesis, and you can pretty much throw TFA away, regardless of your side of what's shaping up to be a religious war here on HN.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless by ivraatiems on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @11:59AM (#12685611)

I'm talking about the study I just linked, not the article that started this discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless by rlucas on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @02:13PM (#12687003)

Apologies, I missed that. The review paper you linked was indeed deeply researched and had a good synthesis of what it discussed. Decided not a pop Sci listicle :)

[ Parent | on HN ]