[good_gnu]

I would like to raise the issue of nature vs. nurture in this context: Does Myers-Briggs really identify stable characteristics of someone's current personality or merely the way in which it currently expresses itself.

E.g. consider someone who has previously worked in a dysfunctional corporate environment but was unable to quit that job for financial reasons. They were very well rewarded for superficial qualities like punctuality and tidyness and thus learned that it was necessary to prioritize these values.

Does that mean that this person now has a personality which prioritizes these values? What if their ``natural'' personality in another environment would have been to only emphasize utility to their company even at e.g. the cost of tidyness. What if their natural personality will quickly adapt once they are put in an environment that emphasizes these qualities?

These issues seem to be given oddly little weight by advocates of Myers-Briggs classification for the purpose of hiring decisions.

[visarga]

Fully agree, and I think this makes results ambiguous. Testers might take any of the two perspectives: "what I usually do in this situation", vs. "what I would instinctively do". For example, a religious person would respect her religious moral principles even against her instinct - what should she answer - isn't her will also a part of her personality? Should she ignore her will and answer with her instinctive impulse instead?