[FishInTheWater]

You're assuming here that there has to be "real" value at the root. This isn't really true.

Astrology, Tarot, the I Ching, or any other kind of divination all serve the same purpose: To provide certainty where there is none. To measure the unknowable.

People fear the unknown and risk, divination lets them feel like they have some certainty about the future.

Myers Briggs, DISC, and all the other "personality tests" are the same thing, for contemporary times.

They provide no actual measurement of applicants, Myers-Briggs is especially easy to cheat and dubious in science.

The benefit is that managers feel like they're taking less risk when hiring, but that is mere delusion.

[detourdog]

All of theses old ideas are simply ways to look at yourself from the outside. Any value is the insight it provides to oneself.

[FishInTheWater]

The issue with them is that it's not simply "looking at oneself".

If you were using divination for that purposes then it's no issue. Harmless superstition is fine.

But things like personality tests and other pseudoscience see regular use in hiring and promotion. And that's just ridiculous, damaging for both "honest" applicants and the company, as such processes favour dishonest people.

[Loughla]

Do personality tests see regular use in hiring and promotion? What are some examples of that? My workplaces have offered those sorts of things as professional development, but not for direct promotion or hiring practices. I would be fascinated to see the outcome of a place that does use those things in that way.

[detourdog]

Long ago the first place I worked developed a HyperCard stack for Myers-Briggs evaluations for a specific company. The company used it as tool to improve communications between existing employees. The purpose is to give everyone the same language. Fundamentally one is not in simply one category but can move through all the categories based on their current state and context.

Helping people have language to express this thoughts has value.

Misuse of any tool is a problem.

[Velofellow]

In my experience yes - At an earlier role, all employees were subjected to a DISC assessment at hire. This was at the headquarter office of a large real estate franchise. Results were kept in your file, and were a big component during reviews.

The biggest flavor-aid drinkers at the company used their assessment results as shorthand to either justify shitty behavior: "oh, person X is a 'High-D', of course that's why they co-opted the meeting, were abrasive, made everyone else feel small and insignificant". If you did not test with a high decisiveness level, it was absolutely brought up in promotion conversations. High-D, High-S etc. all became quick qualifiers to know where someone's career was headed.

Knowing strong dominance was likely an attribute valued by the company, I took the assessment with that in mind, resulting in a high dominance level (I'm probably middle of the road). That it was so easy to game made me loose all respect in their application of these assessments.

[briantakita]

These are more like frameworks for imagining & interacting with the complexities of reality. Similar to an interactive Philosophy. Worldviews cannot be avoided & nobody holds a purely objective viewpoint...anyone who claims to hold an purely objective viewpoint is a liar or delusional.

[mistermann]

> anyone who claims to hold an purely objective viewpoint is a liar or delusional.

Is this purely objective? Can you think of no exceptions, under any scenarios?

[kelseyfrog]

Confusing the subjective for the objective is a widely studied phenomenon. It's called reification and people generally deny doing it. There's a strong ego defense mechanism that raises when it's pointed out that shuts down conversation.

[mistermann]

The utterly bizarre things is how so many (I would say, the VAST majority) smart people are unable to overcome it when discussing certain subjects.

Like sure, I can certainly understand the initial incident, heuristics are a bitch...but what is so bizarre is that when people are in this state, there seems to be literally nothing that can draw them out of it. I have done many, many thousands of experiments in this area, it is uncanny.

[nmz]

> They provide no actual measurement of applicants, Myers-Briggs is especially easy to cheat.

Myers briggs aside, I take issue with this specific argument in any context, just because a dishonest party can cheat a test, doesn't mean the test itself is worthless. I can do a math test with a calculator without knowing how to even do math, (oh, put this symbol next to that symbol and hit the = key?) doesn't mean the test is worthless.

[halkony]

I was once skeptical of the usefulness of personality tests, but reading Principles by Ray Dalio convinced me they can be used to build well-oiled organizations.

[erehweb]

The I Ching is very ambiguous and open to interpretation, as Philip K Dock shows in The Man in The High Castle, or you can try for yourself. Whatever else it's doing, it is not providing certainty.

[FishInTheWater]

That's the trick. It's about feelings of certainty, not actual measurable reproduceable predictions.

Most long-lived divination methods are very vague. Anything providing concrete predictions is easily proven wrong and discredited, only the vague survives.

But people rarely take ambiguous answers for what they are, and instead interpret them into something more certain.

And this lets divination exploit all kinds of biases. On top of the regular old confirmation bias, whenever the interpretation turns out wrong, people don't write off the divination method, but assume they merely "interpreted it wrong" (and often, the vagueness means they can retcon an interpretation that is true), and worse yet, assume that now they're better at interpreting so next time it's going to be a correct prediction.

Observe how little the personality tests actually say, they're just as ambiguous.

[jprete]

Nitpick: The five-factor scale (extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) both reproduces and makes good life predictions.

MBTI and most other personality tests unfortunately seem to be astrology for the scientifically oriented.

[nostrademons]

The correlation between MBTI and the Big-5 is surprisingly strong (except for neuroticism, which has no representation in the MBTI):

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

I look at personality typologies in general as approximations. If you actually want to get to know a person, get to know them. But when you need to make a snap judgment about how someone might see the world and react to you, on very little information, it's handy to have a general archetype as guidelines. You can fill in all the details later.

It's not unlike Carmack's fast inverse square root, a Bloom filter, or how Google hasn't used PageRank since 2006 (instead substituting a cheaper-to-calculate approximation). Yes, they give wrong answers. But the answers are usually close enough that when you lack the computing power to get a better result, they'll do.

[HelloMcFly]

The biggest issue w/ MBTI and others like it is the desire to put you into a category as an outcome. This is really bad for reliability of the test - take it again and change just a few answers, you may be in a different category altogether! But it's often great for sparking team discussions on norms, behaviors, etc. But the sheen of science and validity can be misleading.

[harimau777]

That's reasonable.

As I see it, even assuaging fear of the unknown seems like it could be a valuable benefit. Especially if freedom from fear helps someone to make better decisions based on the information that they have.

[detourdog]

I see this as why humans love stories so much. An explanation with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The human condition is facing the unknown.

[mistermann]

Heuristics also provide the same benefits, and are the source of the "facts" in your comment.

Rationalism is a lot like astrology in many ways, interestingly.