Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless
by maverick_iceman on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @12:19PM
(#12685822)
>ineffectiveness of MBTI at providing useful information to people on average has not been established
Don't invert the burden of proof. It's up to the proponents of MBTI to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless
by cazum on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @12:14PM
(#12685767)
Well, since we know that 50% of people score different types upon retaking the test, that should be enough to identify the prevalence of these problem.
As for signal-to-noise, mbti is a useful tool for measuring the traits it measures, it just, for some reason, cuts the signal in half by removing the percentage from the label.
Without the percentages, you can never assume a persons traits don't hover at that middle ground. And thus, can never assume any part of their label is accurate.
If the occurrence of these hover cases were more like <4%, I'd be more inclined to agree with its usefulness, but as it is right now, the 4bit label, on its own, is just noise.
Re:The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless
by 0xfffafaCrash on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @01:47PM
(#12686689)
If 50% of people score the exact same type upon retaking the test, I consider that great evidence that there is relatively stable information in the indicator. As a baseline, remember that if the distribution of results was uniform, a null model would expect something on the order of 6.25% if the noise really drowned out all the signal.
The question isn't whether people who are in the middle of each criteria exist and could easily swap classifications to their polar opposite. The question is what percentage of people would do that and whether it's high enough that there's too little signal to noise to extract any meaningful information out of the classification system.