[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.