[1457389]

Meyers Briggs is meant to be descriptive, but the preponderance of evidence shows that it is not, at all. In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive. In my line if I see someone discuss MBTI with any level of passion or enthusiasm I have learned to distrust their evaluations of personalities and strengths/weaknesses, whether they refer to themselves or others.

[gnaritas]

> In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive.

Misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool.

[sn9]

Yes the uselessness of the tool invalidates the tool.

[gnaritas]

And yet, misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool; MBTI can do something the big 5 can't, assign a category which aids in thinking about and understanding another person which as someone else in this discussion points out can be statistically mapped directly to the big 5 making it not at all a useless tool.

[sn9]

This is also true of astrology and MBTI has as much scientific validity and predictive value.

No one's disputing that a useless tool can be misused. They're questioning the use of useless tools at all. They give the illusion of understanding to those not interested in evidence.

[gnaritas]

> This is also true of astrology

False.

> and MBTI has as much scientific validity and predictive value.

As it can be mapped directly to the big 5, this is also false.

[sn9]

Psychologists don't even use it because of how completely useless and scientifically invalid.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personalit...