News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) by DiscountChocula on Sunday February 28, 2021 @01:09AM (#26291073)
> There was once a poll of engineers at the tech company I work at, and I think the results were like 70% INTJ, 25% INTP, and 5% other. If MBTI lacked all predictive power, you would expect a distribution roughly equivalent to that of the general population.

You're assuming the types are proportionally represented in the general population, which we have no reason the believe even if the test works as advertised. For all we know urban environments are 70% INTJ.

Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) by jbay808 on Sunday February 28, 2021 @01:19AM (#26291111)
> For all we know urban environments are 70% INTJ.

There are 16 categories, which means you'd expect about 6% in each if the test sorts evenly. It doesn't; in fact only between 2% and 3% of the population is INTJ. Unless one of the questions is literally "are you a tech worker", that's very conspicuous selectivity.

Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) by sdenton4 on Sunday February 28, 2021 @01:22AM (#26291129)
On the other hand, a test with questions like 'are you a tech worker' might be a lot shorter and just as meaningful!
Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) by calt on Sunday February 28, 2021 @01:27AM (#26291147)
The test doesn't sort evenly. One of the most popular online test sites says in one of their descriptions - I forget which one - that "this is the rarest type with only x% of the population."

I had a female friend who was an INTJ, and told me that it was very rare among women. Being very, INTJ, she was referencing some rigorous statistics.

Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) by jbay808 on Sunday February 28, 2021 @03:08AM (#26291584)
Yes, I mentioned in the next line that it doesn't sort evenly, and INTJ is particularly a minority.
Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020) by Simon321 on Sunday February 28, 2021 @04:17AM (#26291900)