[pureGuano]

I don't know about that. You just shouldn't strap more meaning onto it than that it's a survey that gives you a qualitative description of the answers you gave to it -- people have some innate attraction to such things and I find it hard to criticize them for it. I just don't think it's appropriate to use for career counseling, etc.

[lucas_membrane]

Educational Testing Service got interested in it long ago and then dumped it. The National Academy of Sciences did a huge project on improving human performance for the US military back in the 1980's, and they put it in the not useful category. What would you expect for an assessment developed by a team of two with no background in assessment?

I would extend your evaluation to say that it is not appropriate for use on others, but if you think that it helps you assess yourself, knock yourself out.

[poulsbohemian]

@mathperson - pureGuano covers my view of it too, which is why I added that caveat to my message. It's certainly indicative of personality, but not all encompassing. It's pseudo-science, but interesting and a starting place to understand someone.

[emodendroket]

You can't even consistently get the same results for the same person.

[itronitron]

that applies to a lot of medical tests as well

[emodendroket]

How many of those purport to measure innate characteristics of the subject?

[pureGuano]

I'm well aware.

[lsc]

I think mathperson is referring to the fact that 'big 5' is the new personality type test that psychology researchers seem to take more seriously.

My understanding is that it's a lot more, I forget the word. reliable or repeatable? I mean, two different big5 tests are more likely to give you the same answer than two different MBTI tests.

[mathperson]

I'm actually not familiar with this exam-I'll look into it!