[testoo]

You're exactly right, I think, as to the reason most people are attracted to Myers-Briggs.

That said, it's odd that the narrative persists of M-B having been discredited, when, as the article mentions but doesn't explore, the opposite is true. Myers-Briggs traits strongly correlate with the categories in the FFA, which is the dominant model in psychology, as the article states. But this doesn't even include the cross-correlations between the 4 MB traits and the 4 main FFA traits (minus neuroticism)

Myers-Briggs is in fact basically identical to FFA but in a different eigenbasis, and minus the "neuroticism" dimension. This information is available in every major source on MB vs FFA, including just on Wikipedia. And yet, the "MB as horoscope" idea continues, despite having been scientifically discredited, so to speak.

the mapping is roughly this: E/I <=> Extroversion N/S <=> Openness F/T <=> Agreeableness J/P <=> Conscientiousness

But it is fun to make fun of the MB-scale (and its enthusiasts) as a horoscope and it's also fun to USE its categories as horoscopes, and the first meme feeds off the second, so both persist.

[LiquidSky]

>That said, it's odd that the narrative persists of M-B having been discredited, when, as the article mentions but doesn't explore, the opposite is true.

What? The article directly says M-B has been discredited:

>In academic circles, however, the test has long been discredited. While the Myers-Briggs test lumps people into “types,” most modern personality tests measure traits on a continuum. Another objection rests on the test’s inability to predict meaningful life outcomes. “Basically, there isn't an algorithm that translates how people answer into how they're likely to behave,” explains Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor of business psychology at University College London. Today, this is considered a crucial element of a personality tests. The backlash against the Myers-Briggs test has been powerful – beyond being shunned by academics, a steady drip of articles over the years have condemned its shaky scientific grounding. But this hasn’t stopped diehard Myers-Briggs fans seeing themselves within the test’s categories.

You're falling into exactly the same trap that horoscope enthusiasts have, gesturing to vague correlations and associations with no scientific grounding or basis.

You're simply wrong. M-B is pseudoscience.

[testoo]

Thank you for the reply!

I'm not sure what the best way to link a source on HN is, but I'll do my best.

McCrae and Costa did a study in the 1980s that looked at correlations between MB and FFA, as part of a larger, longitudinal study on aging. There were 468 participants.

Here are the correlations found in the study:

E/I=>Extraversion: 0.74 N/S=>Openness: 0.72 F/T=>Agreeableness: 0.44 J/P=>Conscientiousness: 0.49

As you can see, these are extremely strong, and the reason F/T and J/P are in the 0.40s is the cross-correlation I was mentioning, with part of the T/F prediction being tied to intra/extraversion (0.19), and part of the P/J prediction being tied to openness (0.30), which is intuitively just what you'd expect.

The full table of 16 correlations is available here: McCrae, Robert R; Costa, Paul T (1989). "Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality". Journal of Personality. 57 (1): 17–40

...so that's one of the sources for the correlations I mentioned, though there have been other such studies. But as I said, the strange thing is that this information has been publicly available and is even referenced on both the M-B and FFA Wikipedia pages (i.e that M-B and FFA are more or less measuring the same thing) and yet the popular narrative remains that one is dogma while the other is pseudo-science.

(and sorry, yes indeed, the article directly says M-B has been discredited, which is part of the point I'm making. It SAYS that, but it doesn't offer any support for that claim, and the only data it cites shows the opposite)

(edit: author does cite one source, a Vox article, which has the same problem of not citing any data and also plugs the FFA, saying "the newer, empirically driven test focuses on entirely different categories" which suggests the Vox author has also not delved into the research. Most of the people quoted in both pieces make statements like "[using the M-B] would be questioned by my academic colleagues," which may suggest the echo-chamber nature of the problem)

[LiquidSky]

>yet the popular narrative remains that one is dogma while the other is pseudo-science.

Because it's not "the popular narrative", it's a factual statement. MBTI is unsupported pseudoscience while the Five-Factor Model is the more widely accepted model in psychology.

You seem fixated on the correlation point, as if that provides any validity to MBTI. For instance, you cite the study you mention being referenced on Wikipedia but ignore the numerous other studies cited in the lengthy section detailing the various criticisms and problems with MBTI. The article even opens with:

>Though the MBTI resembles some psychological theories, it is commonly classified as pseudoscience, especially as it pertains to its supposed predictive abilities. The test exhibits significant scientific (psychometric) deficiencies, notably including poor validity (i.e. not measuring what it purports to measure, not having predictive power or not having items that can be generalized), poor reliability (giving different results for the same person on different occasions), measuring categories that are not independent (some dichotomous traits have been noted to correlate with each other), and not being comprehensive (due to missing neuroticism).[10][11][12][13] The four scales used in the MBTI have some correlation with four of the Big Five personality traits, which are a more commonly accepted framework.

Your fixation on the correlation between the two models is noted, but MBTI otherwise lacks a valid scientific basis.

Again, you are simply wrong on the facts. MBTI is indeed pseudo-science, and selective use of sources doesn't change that. You keep trying to frame this as a popular misconception when it is simply the academic consensus.

[pseudalopex]

The same professor says that criticism of the MBTI is overblown.

The article doesn't back up the claim that predicting meaningful life outcomes is considered a crucial element of personality tests. It also doesn't define meaningful life outcomes.