News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Jessica Livingston. Parent comment

Re:Jessica Livingston by cm2012 on Friday June 23, 2023 @04:47PM (#36451985)
That "common knowledge" is wrong. Myers briggs is not great for scientific studies since it splits people into 16 buckets instead of sliding scales (like the Big 5, which is used in research). But MB is an incredible mental toolkit to have.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jessica Livingston by lotsofpulp on Friday June 23, 2023 @05:36PM (#36452469)
Why would something with no evidence behind it be an incredible mental toolkit?

See the whole criticism section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jessica Livingston by sneak on Friday June 23, 2023 @06:18PM (#36452930)
MB is astrology for nerds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jessica Livingston by cm2012 on Friday June 23, 2023 @06:20PM (#36452942)
Astrology has a one in twelve chance of accuracy since the only variable is birthday.

With the four discrete variables in MBTI, I can type people with 90% accuracy after a conversation.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jessica Livingston by sneak on Friday June 23, 2023 @06:36PM (#36453117)
The buckets themselves are also false, so no.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jessica Livingston by mattnewton on Friday June 23, 2023 @06:57PM (#36453355)
Isn’t this often just the Barnum effect, especially when ground truth is established by asking people if you are right? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect
[ Parent | on HN ]