I’m a bit lost. Combining 1) and 2), it means the test is against contextual and “fakeable” traits ?
Setting apart 3), as I would imagine a rotated iceberg might not come back to a resting state identical to before the rotation.
If the goal is to predict anything, we could also assume that context will change with time (even working at the same company, people change, assignments change, incentives change).
All in all it feels like a super weird disclaimer for something that is supposed to be useful.
Re:In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)
by specialist on Sunday February 28, 2021 @11:03AM
(#26294269)
You're the exact same person at church, work, hanging out with your buddies watching sports (or playing board games), doorbelling for a political campaign, baby sitting your nieces, etc?
Per the article, your traits are on a spectrum. Not binary. You may be more extroverted at church and less at work.
While the article does mention non-"binarizing" (I prefer "non-discretizing" as the more common parlance) in the sense of treating the 4 dimensions as axes not buckets, the article does not mention context sensitivity like church-home, buddies, babysitting, same/opposite sex, older/younger, etc., etc.
The one and only time I did the Myers-Briggs stuff, the speaker made it absolutely abundantly clear:
1) Traits were contextual. We're different around family, friends, coworkers, commuting into work... (Duh, right?)
2) Though people can fake traits, like an introvert acting extroverted, doing so requires more effort. So maybe ponder that your resting state traits are more likely the "real you".
2.1) The speaker used an ice berg metaphor, which stuck with me. People present an aspect of themselves in public. With effort, you can rotate your ice berg to show other aspects. Removing the effort allows the ice berg to find its resting state.