[sascha_sl]

Or a personality test, which will likely be based on the MBTI - complete BS.

Just because there's an entire consulting industry behind convincing you that to build the perfect team you must have "complementary personality types", does not mean it's true.

Not like the IT industry has the luxury of choice based on such a lot of the time either.

[TheRealDunkirk]

I don't understand the hate towards MB. It does what any theory should do: predict behavior. And it does it pretty well, actually. I'm 52. I learned about it when I was 16, and my mother filled in some questionnaire in a computer program, and it nailed my internal thought processing to a T. Ever since, I've paid passive attention to it, and people seem to fit the archetypes pretty well, though I find the category division names to be utterly useless. Why do you say it's BS? What's the thinking behind the "anti" side?

[pseudalopex]

It's a recurring debate here.[1] Wikipedia has a summary of the criticisms.[2]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26288772

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

[sascha_sl]

Aside from the link already posted, MBTI testing provides an interesting slight of hand where it abuses nonspecificity. I can read myself into about 3 of the 16 archeotypes pretty easily, and I bet if you read descriptions of adjacent types you can too. The test has to be like that if it aims to categorize humans into just 16 categories anyway. The results, especially on 16personalities, is more about stroking your ego than anything else.

It's a horoscope for smart people, with slightly more utility.

[TheRealDunkirk]

> It's a horoscope for smart people, with slightly more utility.

Well, I guess there's the issue. You think there's very little value in it. I think there's much more than you do, though I agree it's certainly a subjective measure. I say that any of the 3 archetypes that you might "test out" as would give a potential manager some measure of useful context in predicting how you will respond/react to various situations and people, despite criticism of the accuracy of the system.

[kthejoker2]

I think the main challenge with MBTI questioning is less the results (which openly talk about hhow people are on a spectrum between the 16 personalities) but that companies tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to describing their own culture with regards to MBTI-style traits.

You can be data-driven or sentiment-driven, but not both.

You can favor disciplined structure, or you can favor creative chaos, but not both.

You can favor generalists, or specialists, but not both.

You can favor ambition or humility, but not both.

But companies will gladly tell you they have room for diverse personalities, and only after being there a number of weeks, months, or sometimes years, will the untruth of that scenario hit you.

[FpUser]

I've been in development for way too long (still am). Every time I've spoken to a potential client I would only talk about what I do, how I do it and how I can solve client's problem. Also present list of completed projects with the references. Anything beyond I consider as infringement of my private life / BS and flat out refuse to participate.

I might have lost few opportunities because of this but that was my choice.

[sn9]

Because it doesn't have any empirical backing, has poor predictability, poor reliability, poor reproducibility, etc. It's fundamentally not scientific and was made up by a pair of laypeople.

See this article for a summary of the criticisms: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personali...

[Sohcahtoa82]

To be able to have a meaningful personality test, the subjects need strong introspection abilities.

And there are a LOT of people that are awful at introspection.

[delusional]

I can kinda respect a personality test. It doesn't really mean anything, but they do stress that there's no "good" personality. IQ tests are different, because a higher number means better. That leads to superiority complexes.

[smugglerFlynn]

MBTI (or other non-scientific test) stressing that there’s no “good” personality behave just like tobacco companies prior to regulations, trying to whitewash downsides of the product.

People rely on these things to make hiring decisions. I personally know people who hire based on reported personality that closely matches their own. I’ve seen people making biased opinions after being coached on these tests.

“No scientific backing, Makes people rely on confirmation bias” should be plastered all over these things, just the way we label cigarettes with photos of smoking consequences.

[ajuc]

There's a difference between personality test taken because you're curious, and one taken as a filter on the way to get a job. Usually you can guess where the authors of the test are going with the questions and which answers are "a better fit". And then it becomes a test of "how much you want this job" vs "how strongly you feel about being honest".

Also even if people answer honestly the science behind it is very shaky and when applied to real world situations it seems about as useful as astrology.

[gumby]

For IQ tests, a higher number is supposed to mean better. The accuracy of such tests is dubious.