this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
527 points (87.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
1039 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
I think that's actually been proven at this point hasn't it?
That doesn't stop an absolute fuck ton of people believing in it. One of my friends is quite deeply into it, she's in FB groups about it, and decides what everyone's type is upon meeting them. According to her I only think it's nonsense because I've only done the free online tests, not the proper one. She wouldn't listen the other day when I tried to put her right about flouride in the water, either.
Sounds like the test itself isn't the problem but how it's used and how much people attach to the results, like with IQ tests. Neither that nor Myers-Briggs should be part of interviewing for a job either but apparently some US companies do it anyway.
No, the test itself is definitely the problem. Regardless of whether you believe a personality type test can be effective, the MBTI is particularly and provably ineffective in just about every measurable way:
It's not reliable. It has terrible test-retest reliability. If I'm X personality type, I shouldn't test as X type one time, and Y type the next, and Z 6 months laters.
It's not predictive. If a personality test accurately judges someone, it should mean you now know something about someone's behaviours, and can extrapolate that forwards and predict behavioural trends. MBTI does not.
It fundamentally doesn't match the data. MBTI relies upon the idea that people fall neatly into binary buckets (introverted vs extroverted, thinking vs feeling, etc). But the majority of people don't, and test with MBTI scores close to the line the test draws, following a normal distribution. So the line separating two sides of a bell curve ends up being arbitrary.
And finally, it's pushed very hard by the Myers-Briggs foundation, and not at all by independent scientific bodies. copying straight from wikipedia:
I risk sounding very "AKSHUALLYY" here, but online tests do a huge harm to the credibility of MBTI, no wonder it gets such a bad rep when the tests are so unreliable and people nevertheless base their entire personalities on it... Originally it's not supposed to be based on the binary choices of the 4 letters but the "cognitive functions" as defined by Carl Jung, which a lot of people will find to be just as much non-sense but with the right attitude I think they're a useful tool to learn about ourselves and others.
Yeah, anyone who thinks that there's exactly 16 types of person is using it like a horoscope, but that really isn't the point.
Exactly, and that's what it helped me with. It's not a personality test about how you act outwardly (or which Pokémon you are or whatever), it's supposed to be about the inner workings.
But if you want an example of misuse: There's an MBT community on Reddit that is full of that sort of bullshit.
This should be a popular opinion honestly, because it's correct.
This is insulting to astrology, but yes lol
It shouldn't be taken as scientific truth but it can help you know yourself and others better, and it's an insult to compare it to astrology because at least it's not based on completely random things like the position of the planets when you were born. The issue is that most people only know MBTI as online tests, which are self-report and have extremely vague and stereotypical questions that can very easily be manipulated to get whatever result you want, with the worst offender being the most popular one, 16personalities, which isn't even an actual MBTI test but a BIg 5 one (which is not to say Big 5 is bad, but it's very misleading to map it to MBTI types). In reality to use MBTI somewhat effectively is going to take studying Carl Jung's work, how MBTI builds on that, lots of introspection, asking people about yourself, and lots of doubting and double checking your thinking. And very importantly you have to accept that in the end this all isn't real and just a way to conceptualize different aspects of our personalities and it's in no way predictive, you have to let go of stereotypes, anyone can act in any way, it's just about tendencies.
I used to think this, but I think the new posh astrology is mental disorders in general. It costs thousands of dollars to get professionally assessed, whereas MBTI is a free quiz online. Crippling anxiety, depression, OCD, panic attacks, etc., are the new ENFP
Jesus this is a bad take
Things that are scientifically provable are valid.
So you don't think a rich person can use their money to shop around for sketchy psychologists? You don't think it's possible that Munchausen syndrome (something science has proved exists) could be becoming more common? Why did you even state things that are scientifically provable are valid? Duh. Things that aren't scientifically disproven are also invalid, in case anyone else wanted another useless reminder to up vote.
You seem very upset about this. I doubt this will help since it doesn't seem like your reasoning is influenced by logic, but, the fact that there are fraudulent doctors and diagnoses doesn't mean science isn't real.
People treat diagnoses in irresponsible ways. You're not all wrong here. I could say more but I'm sick as fuck so I'm just gonna stop here and dangle the potential of decent conversation
Thanks for not immediately jumping on my back about it and down voting. I'm certainly not saying that there's no scientific validity to mental disorders, that's absurd and definitely not the take I have and I feel like taking that impression from my original comment is almost willingly misunderstanding what I was trying to say.
What are you saying if not that ADA recognized disabilities are no more significant to a person than a possibly made-up personality type?
I think what they're getting at is that just because the ADA or whoever recognizes that the disorders exist doesn't mean that everyone who believes they have it has it.
It's just substituting one set of acronyms to another. In a way, people find community in it. Whether they enrich one another or bathe in misery is a distinct conversation.