I’m no fan of personality grouping and there’s certainly no genuine science to the Meyers-Briggs in the traditional sense, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same as astrology.
Astrology tries to offer insight into your future based on birth conditions.
Meyers-Briggs basically says that people who answer these questions a certain way tend to share certain personality traits or quirks. It’s been refined extensively over the years compared to where it started.
There’s nothing especially predictive about it and that’s where it becomes dangerous. The temptation is to use it to assume anything about human action and performance and businesses do this all the time. Just because an IFTP did this job well, doesn’t mean anything about any other IFTPs and their ability to function in the environment.
Human personality is complex and nuanced and trying to build tools to understand it is generally laudable, but the simpler the tool, the easier its abuse. Meyers-Briggs is better than a lot of other personality assessment tools, which are so simplistic they often just serve as a tool to create discussion. Meyers-Briggs, with its slightly more nuanced take, creates the illusion of science with the ability to predict.
Meyers-Briggs honestly entirely misunderstands introversion and completely misses how introverted people just have a social battery that recharges differently from extraverts and social butterflies. This fact alone makes it hard to trust any other conclusion one can reach from a Meyers-Briggs test
Introversion in MBTI doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in normal usage. It refers to the orientation of your sense data, your information processing, your intuition, or your emotions.
I’m no fan of personality grouping and there’s certainly no genuine science to the Meyers-Briggs in the traditional sense, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same as astrology.
Astrology tries to offer insight into your future based on birth conditions.
Meyers-Briggs basically says that people who answer these questions a certain way tend to share certain personality traits or quirks. It’s been refined extensively over the years compared to where it started.
There’s nothing especially predictive about it and that’s where it becomes dangerous. The temptation is to use it to assume anything about human action and performance and businesses do this all the time. Just because an IFTP did this job well, doesn’t mean anything about any other IFTPs and their ability to function in the environment.
Human personality is complex and nuanced and trying to build tools to understand it is generally laudable, but the simpler the tool, the easier its abuse. Meyers-Briggs is better than a lot of other personality assessment tools, which are so simplistic they often just serve as a tool to create discussion. Meyers-Briggs, with its slightly more nuanced take, creates the illusion of science with the ability to predict.
Meyers-Briggs honestly entirely misunderstands introversion and completely misses how introverted people just have a social battery that recharges differently from extraverts and social butterflies. This fact alone makes it hard to trust any other conclusion one can reach from a Meyers-Briggs test
Introversion in MBTI doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in normal usage. It refers to the orientation of your sense data, your information processing, your intuition, or your emotions.
My company has new hires take it after getting the job as a fun way to show other people your style of working/learning/communicating.
I think that’s a better use