Depends on how you define accuracy.
Accuracy isn't binary. Not being perfect doesn't mean it is irrelevant. My map of the city could be more accurate but it still gets me where I need to go.
That’s only in regards to the questionnaire, not the underlying system.
If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here.
> we know
Who knows? Who is "we?"
> it is not accurate
Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range.
> (and thus irrelevant)
Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain.
> the facts of the matter
Which facts would that be?
> have been long settled
By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?
Re:I'm a Very Slow Thinker
by yamazakiwi on Monday March 06, 2023 @04:26PM
(#35047854)
It doesn't matter how we define accuracy, I argue relevancy comes into play moreso when they stated this model is useful, making accuracy a non-issue, even if that's not what their exact words.
Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of the matter have been long settled.