MBTI is racist, sexist, and is used by evil corps for nefarious purposes

[dr froyd]

so you thought MBTI was all fun and games? Well you were wrong, because it's used by corps to literally clone their favorite employees, which of course entails discriminating against minorities, women and gay people. It's sort of like in Minority Report where they use futuristic technology to throw people in jail before they have committed a crime. Is it a societal problem? Who knows, but we can be certain it's possible to frame it in a social-justice framework narrated by people with blue hair.

behold - the new HBO documentary "persona - the dark truth behind personality tests"

Spoiler: trailer

on a more serious note i've seen a personality test be used in a hiring process once - it was at the absolutely final stage and more or less as a pointless addition to all the other parts of the hiring process. Maybe it's different in US, i dunno.

 

[Cognisant]

Evil requires emotion, passion, feelings like anger hate and sadistic joy. No corporations aren't evil, they're indifferent, colder than the dead and even less alive.

 

[Hadoblado]

While I agree personality tests are heavily misused corporately, this doco needs to relax.

IIRC, preferred employee attributes were found to be E, S, F, and J. This varies based on individual position, but these are the overall most preferred. Indirectly, what they're looking for is energy, EQ, and conscientiousness.

One useful application of personality tests is for helping people be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, and for helping people to develop reasonable expectations of others. It's really common seeing people go off the rails because they lack this sort of awareness, and it's really hard to tell someone their limitations without creating more drama. Personality tests can serve as a gentler medium that doesn't generate more HR complaints.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't know, what the logic of picking people in interview process.

I have watched some videos about this, and some companies put people through a pretty grueling process.

I think the logic there is the more annoying it is, the likely they get rid of people who don't want the job.

My personal take on this is, that jobs tend to change with time.

My current perspective on job, might change say 2 months later, as I learn more and figure out how things work.

Its not magic concept either.

I also think the reasons for this is that companies realized that people can job hop, and know that its better to make people work for it hard, to make sure that people don't just apply for arbitrary reasons.

My main point is that "wrong" criteria for interview process are basically defined by whatever seems the most bad.

The trouble here is that you are not really doing anything different.

I imagine some interview process is better and some less so.

Realistically I think companies that have very complicated interview process might not have a very good way of figuring out what the data means.

For instance a company that does several rounds of interviews with several different people, are going to have a lot of work to sort out all that data objectively, fairly and simply in ways that helps people to get the best candidate at the job later.

MBTI is also complex personality system, that has lots of disputed qualities.

Also so its know personality test.
So in some cases you might actually end up eventually with people who game the test.

These thoughts our not about the video though. Did not see the video.

 

[Hadoblado]

Interview processes arise from the face that a seemingly small decision (hiring Bert or Ernie) with low information has large impacts further down the line. A small difference in ability stacks up over time, and it's very possible to hire people who are a net negative to your output while taking up resources.

Any small edge in filtering people is paid back many times over, on average.

If I interview someone, rather than just read their resume, I get a whole additional set of information to base this decision on. A lot of people write well, but you want someone who isn't an asshole. I've played a small part in this process and often people who enter the interview ahead leave with zero chance.

Personality stuff can be a way to standardise some elements of the interview process.

Personally, I think people put too much weight on the interview, but I say this as someone who doesn't interview very well.

 

[BurnedOut]

which of course entails discriminating against minorities, women and gay people. It's sort of like in Minority Report where they use futuristic technology to throw people in jail before they have committed a crime

Cannot thank you enough to finally bring this up. I have my two cents to share on this.

There is a distinct female culture and a male culture which has perpetuated through history. There is progress being made but in the wrong direction. The 'female' culture embraces values such as communication, emotional displays and suchlike which is antithetical to what males are taught since childhood. MBTI makes no effort to eliminate the cultural influence from core behavior at all. If on average every female is going to be more expressive, naturally, the results will always be biased against females and males both. Males would be overrepresented as Thinkers and they do and females would be overrepresented as Feelers. This is asinine and a garbage conception. There is absolutely no effort made in the entire history of MBTI which even tries to fight this notion or debias their testing. The same goes for Big 5 and pretty much any personality test that tries to analyze traits notwithstanding cultural learning, schemas of behavior passed down from generation to generation.

What does this cause? Females are always lumped as Feelers and that effectively debars them from STEM fields or anything that male dominated in nature when neuroscience has repeatedly proven that males and females lie equally on the emotional spectrum and the brain differences are inconsequential. This leads to ingrained sexism and it is absolutely garbage. Like I had mentioned somewhere Personality Tests are the last thing a psychology aficionado should touch upon because there is no research on it that is whole or tells anything that is worthwhile. Even Big 5 for that matter. MBTI is nothing but a bloody cult and it arbitrarily categorizes people and forces them to think in certain ways and deem their self-worth and skills. For fuck's sake there is something known as neuroplasticity and that means you can turn from a Feeler to a Thinker or from a Sensor to an Intuitive and vice versa depending on the circumstances. That simply invalidates the whole scale they have made.

MBTI does not lead to any kind of self-actualization or emancipation or anything of any sort that is beneficial in any manner. Knowing a 4 letter that you get from one of the world's most unscientific ill-conceived test is not going to help you in life at all. It's usage will keep leading to self-fulfilling prophecy running in a perpetual feedback loop. It is the equivalent of Indian caste system which is similarly based on such bogus conceptions.

 

[BurnedOut]

If I interview someone, rather than just read their resume, I get a whole additional set of information to base this decision on.

That has also been proven wrong. There are massive losses based on the whole concept of 'interviewing'. Hell even relying on their resume is incorrect and unprofitable or efficient. Signalling effect runs rampant when it comes to resumes and Halo Effect runs rampant when it comes to mannerisms and clothing of the interviewee and tonnes of other cognitive biases which lead to incorrect deductions. The easiest method to overcome this is to provide a practical test to gauge whether the interviewee is able to meet the baseline performance standards. Interviewers are stupid megalomaniacal cunts who believe that they are somehow better than the person they are interviewing. HR is similarly one of the biggest scams the corporate world has ever created.

PS: Why interviewers are just as bad as the interviewees they are gauging

 

[ZenRaiden]

If I interview someone, rather than just read their resume, I get a whole additional set of information to base this decision on.

That has also been proven wrong. There are massive losses based on the whole concept of 'interviewing'. Hell even relying on their resume is incorrect and unprofitable or efficient. Signalling effect runs rampant when it comes to resumes and Halo Effect runs rampant when it comes to mannerisms and clothing of the interviewee and tonnes of other cognitive biases which lead to incorrect deductions. The easiest method to overcome this is to provide a practical test to gauge whether the interviewee is able to meet the baseline performance standards. Interviewers are stupid megalomaniacal cunts who believe that they are somehow better than the person they are interviewing. HR is similarly one of the biggest scams the corporate world has ever created.

PS: Why interviewers are just as bad as the interviewees they are gauging

Whatever happened to you?

You really talk angry.

Just observation. I know what you mean regardless.

There are apparently some ways of using algorithms as to what Daniel Kahneman said when talking about interviews.

He was assign using some sort of task where picking people right for the job included using algorithms.

He said this was better at gauging what people can do than actual talking.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah, you came in a bit hard there Burn.

Can you show why what you quoted (that interviewing grants a new set of data) is wrong? You denounced it in really strong terms but then only showed that bias exists and people aren't aware. I did not say that interviewers are unbiased, I said that employers with more information make better hiring decisions.

It's entirely possible you're right and my knowledge is outdated, but I can't up and change my mind every time someone suggests I'm wrong. I need you to walk me through it.

Re: Burn on sexism of MBTI
I think you've got some assumptions there that don't bare out. If women score F and men score T, that's fine. There's no rule saying the genders are equal in every regard and personality is not 100% innate. Feelers aren't barred from STEM fields. Neuroplasticity does not invalidate scales, psychology as a field is about trends, not binaries.

You also say psychology aficionados don't respect personality. But personality tests like big5 are developed and conducted exclusively by psychology aficionados. While it's true that as a field personality research is weak on the claims it can back up, there is still value there and I'd argue that psychology aficionados trust it too much.

I like your energy Burn, but you go too fast jumping from topic to topic giving only enough time for a shallow dismissal of accepted ideas.

 

[scorpiomover]

so you thought MBTI was all fun and games? Well you were wrong, because it's used by corps to literally clone their favorite employees,

Isn't that what the theory of evolution says? That the most successful organism is replicated in the species in its environment, until it becomes the dominant type of organism of its species in its environment?

which of course entails discriminating against minorities, women and gay people.

If the company's favourite employee is a minority, a woman or LGBT, then it discriminates against people who aren't a minority, aren't a woman and aren't LGBT.

It's only going to discriminate against minorities, women and LGBT, if everyone's favourite employee is always not a minority, not a woman, and not LGBT.

But if someone believes that everyone's favourite employee is always not a minority, not a woman, and not LGBT, then isn't that person discriminating against minorities, women and LGBT?

So isn't MBTI then only racist, sexist & homophobic, to those who already believe that the entire world is racist, sexist & homophobic, including minorities, women and LGBT.

Doesn't it seem rather unrealistic, and somewhat racist, sexist & homophobic, to believe that even minorities, women and LGBT would prefer employees who are not minorities, not women and not LGBT?

It's sort of like in Minority Report where they use futuristic technology to throw people in jail before they have committed a crime.

You mean the way a dwarf is probably not going picked toplay pro basketball in the NBA? Or someone with an LSAT score of 110 is probably not going to be accepted to Harvard Law School?

Is it a societal problem?

Kind of.

If an African-American with a degree in architecture wants to get hired as an architect, but only 1% of architect jobs go to African-Americans, and he applies to 100 architect jobs, then doesn't he get hired as an architect anyway?

It only becomes a problem if the guy doesn't send out as many applications as the probability of such a person aiming for such a job being successful.

But that wouldn't be frustrating unless if he wasn't successful anyway, or only applied for 50 jobs, and he expected some invisible hand to come ensure that he would get the job he wanted anyway.

It's only a problem for society, when people are encouraged to stop trying and expect the invisible hand to do the rest, but then the invisible hand doesn't.

If that invisible hand is 'society' or 'the government' or 'the public sector', then it expects society or an agent of society would pick up the slack, but doesn't.

So that's a failure of society to meet people's expectations.

However, if the society also provides public education, then those who attended public education were taught what to expect from society.

Then society told those people to expect those things, and yet did not fulfil those promises.

Is it a problem when society promises to do things that it doesn't? Have you cosnidered that maybe unfulfilled election promises & unrealised societal expectations have serious consequences, and are not all fun and games after all?

on a more serious note i've seen a personality test be used in a hiring process once - it was at the absolutely final stage and more or less as a pointless addition to all the other parts of the hiring process. Maybe it's different in US, i dunno.

I had an MBTI test in one job interview. It was for a sales job. They clearly wanted an ESTP. It was easy to answer the questions to fake a result of ESTP. It was just a question of whether I wanted to.

Since the questionnaire was clearly aiming for ESTPs, they probably had a work environment that was oriented for ESTPs. I'd probably need to pretend to be an ESTP to be successful there.

So the only question was: would I be willing to pretend to be an ESTP to get and keep a sales job and be successful at it, because it's an ESTP-oriented workplace?

Lots of people would. I wasn't that keen on sales anyway.

 

[BurnedOut]

You really talk angry.

I busted a pervert in my class yesterday, maybe that's why

 

[BurnedOut]

Can you show why what you quoted (that interviewing grants a new set of data) is wrong? You denounced it in really strong terms but then only showed that bias exists and people aren't aware. I did not say that interviewers are unbiased, I said that employers with more information make better hiring decisions.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

This is just one, i'll have to dig through Thinking Fast And Slow to get more information on the same but google scholar has many researches exploring the same. There is another book by Bryan Caplan - Case against Education. He argues against Signalling Effect in education and there is a section wherein he touches upon the topic of hiring subpar employees because they keep managing to slip through the interviewing process and lead to overall detriment of whatever firm that has hired them.

If women score F and men score T, that's fine. There's no rule saying the genders are equal in every regard and personality is not 100% innate. Feelers aren't barred from STEM fields. Neuroplasticity does not invalidate scales, psychology as a field is about trends, not binaries.

But if the interviewers end up using MBTI then? It does not bar them, I agree. Even in the varna system, a Shudra could turn into a Brahmin but in praxis, a Shudra is stuck being a Shudra because of historical pressures and the preconscious programming fed to them that they can never be intellectuals. If women keep getting F then they will be led to a self fulfiling prophecy of avoiding STEM fields which is extremely dangerous as firms will be less inclined to provide them with positions that require 'analytical' disposition.

You also say psychology aficionados don't respect personality. But personality tests like big5 are developed and conducted exclusively by psychology aficionados. While it's true that as a field personality research is weak on the claims it can back up, there is still value there and I'd argue that psychology aficionados trust it too much.

In a normal discourse, it is important that theory meets praxis and the dialectic is resolved. The job of the scientist is to be pragmatic enough to think about the potential application of what they are concocting. Whatever associations Big 5 has found are nonsurprising. For example if suppose an anal Conscientiousness person can be prone to cardiac problems, any doctor can easily diagnose it primarily via examining the patient. One of the criticisms of Big 5 is that it has no praxis whatsoever until now. Functional Fixedness is what personality theories engender.

Neuroplasticity does not invalidate scales, psychology as a field is about trends, not binaries

Any discourse has the potential to influence ideas. This means that if psychology overexamines a trend and tries to use it to gauge reality by performing extensive research, it has a massive opportunity cost insofar other hypotheses are concerned. Take Type A and B theory. Instead of linking Type A personalities with cardiac problems, what if there was enough research done to link body language with the same? Like muscle tenseness and anxiety and emotional dysregulation?

@Hadoblado, I am a through and through pragmatist. Psychology seems to be dominated by sophistry when it comes to its dissemination of itself view social media, popular figures. Many theories simply lack a philosophical underpinning essentially leading to a lack of awareness in the overall veracity of its multifarious claims.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I busted a pervert in my class yesterday, maybe that's why

Should that not be a positive?
Or you were upset about that he was pervert?

 

[Hadoblado]

We're on different wavelengths. I don't want you to google it for me, I want you to explain how the evidence leads to your conclusion. Evidence is great, but I come here to talk to people. If I'm going to do a research dive it's going to be for the homework I put off when I come here.

Again, I'm not arguing that interviewers are unbiased. I'm saying that an interview will yield more information than no interview and I don't really understand how you're even contesting this.

Does psychology need any philosophical underpinning beyond ethics and empiricism?

 

[Old Things]

Everyone is biased.
MBTI measures certain biases in some respects.
Jung more.
Big 5 is probably the most realistic.

 

[scorpiomover]

Double post.

 

[Old Things]

I just watched the video. This is why I do not watch TV.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

That has also been proven wrong. There are massive losses based on the whole concept of 'interviewing'. Hell even relying on their resume is incorrect and unprofitable or efficient. Signalling effect runs rampant when it comes to resumes and Halo Effect runs rampant when it comes to mannerisms and clothing of the interviewee and tonnes of other cognitive biases which lead to incorrect deductions. The easiest method to overcome this is to provide a practical test to gauge whether the interviewee is able to meet the baseline performance standards. Interviewers are stupid megalomaniacal cunts who believe that they are somehow better than the person they are interviewing. HR is similarly one of the biggest scams the corporate world has ever created.

PS: Why interviewers are just as bad as the interviewees they are gauging

Isn't the whole interview a sort of performance test? You could be heaven-knows-what level of genius and still if you would only stutter awkwardly in front of strangers or if you had several prison tattoos that would disqualify you as a liability to the employer.

There's a ton of information that can be gathered in a simple conversation, but probably the best benefit for the employer is the salary negotiation. I think the more socially awkward a person is the more they get screwed when they accept a low salary and a good interviewer can spot that they can offer you the lower and they will try to if there's a pay range.

The interview measures if you are communicative and extraverted, how you deal with pressure, if you are a good addition to work with their team. It can decide what actual technical position or role you are better for, even if you applied for a different job.

Most of my interviews had been multi-stage and there always was a stage where I met with a part of my future team and they then gave me performance/knowledge tests. The first interview is usually one on one or a call and they then decide if it's worth getting you a group interview. So the interviews checked both my social skills and professional skills.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think companies that want a whole package a person with full, quality that fits their structure, since their gain is fast, they might look for professionals.
Companies that don't look for professionals only need to know what makes people stick to doing the job and learn enough to pass the criteria.

For me the ideal employee is someone who does fit the criteria of what needs to be done.

The problem is that defining what needs to be done is hard, and expecting people to be able to do that as if they are machines, or are capable of doing this is kind of complicated.

I imagine that the more professional people get in the world, the less hard its to measure their quality.

For instance if the criteria strict with clear given constraints such as test pilots or astronauts you simply don't have to give a hoot about lot of stuff.

Since the bar is so high you might as well pick the few who fit the strictest criteria.

If they meet them chance are they meet all other criteria by virtue of being able to fill in the previous ones.

This is what makes older companies different who worked on models where people had to work through the company to go up.

Today the added flexibility means the company has to work with people more efficiently and at the same time, be able to "fit them purposefully" doing lot harder work.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The olive branch here is that there should be a consensus that it's possible to do, and act on an interview poorly. Though I don't think anyone made the claim that interviews are flawless tools, so this is kinda a waste of time unless you can make cogent points that add weight to your stated arguments.

The only compelling research I have seen is that people who are narcissistic are more likely to better (mis)represent themselves in interviews and sway that part of the hiring process in their favor.

But that's just it, the hiring process is a process that is based on multiple factors, always. Strawmanning a scenario where an egoist businessperson goes soley on their gut from an interview and a skim of the resume isn't going to get you any points except from people who already think what you think.

This notion that we shouldn't do certain things "BECAUSE BIAS" is absurd. Why do anything when everything we do is rooted in bias? It's silly.

 

[Old Things]

This notion that we shouldn't do certain things "BECAUSE BIAS" is absurd. Why do anything when everything we do is rooted in bias? It's silly.

The problem with the opposite position is that people always say they are unbiased and it's only the "other" who is biased, not them.

 

[Hadoblado]

Most people treat bias like it's a disease from a foreign land that they're careful not to catch, but bias and thinking are two sides of the same coin. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and it permeates the consciousness and subconsciousness at many levels. A good demonstration of this is the physical blind spot near the center of your vision where the optic nerve threads the optic disc. Even when you know you have it, you can't see it without doing very specific actions (like the thumb test) as your brain is too invested in presenting you with a coherent worldview it will literally make stuff up to fill in the gaps.

But just like the blindspot, piercing your own illusion requires additional information. Employers are biased when they read resumes, and they are biased in interviews. But I'm yet to see a reason why the employer who does both would in any way be more biased than the employer who does either in isolation.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The problem with the opposite position is that people always say they are unbiased and it's only the "other" who is biased, not them.

Pragmatism is a very flexible word. Knowing the limits and borders of our reasoning is easy with the right mentality/temperament. It's reaching outside those boundaries when we should worry about our biases not doing well enough.

/
BO doesn't like resumes nor interviews. Only skills assessments that accurately measure competencies for a job. Not entirely invalid, but very unsound.

 

[ZenRaiden]

act on an interview poorly.

Act, is the key word here.
But not in sense doing, but in sense playing a part.
Which is very different from what you actually do.
If you work you aren't doing anything, but working.
This is not the act you have to perform for your employer.
The employer thus "has the ability to assess things" on their own terms, without you actually knowing what is being assessed.
This pretty much means the company that is employing you always knows more than you can ever know during the interview.
Your only capacity in interview is make sure you don't get less than you need or like.
But that is also highly blurry concept.

 

[BurnedOut]

Isn't the whole interview a sort of performance test? You could be heaven-knows-what level of genius and still if you would only stutter awkwardly in front of strangers or if you had several prison tattoos that would disqualify you as a liability to the employer.

Stuttering awkwardly in front of your employer does not entail that you will keep stuttering in the future iff you don't have a severe problem that has afflicted you since eons. Take this woman for example. She started off as an actress in B Grade films insofar her semi-nudes' posters were rife on streets and stuck behind people's vehicles. She became the Chief Minister (equivalent to being the governor of a state in USA) later and had a 18 year long Supreme Court case against her. She was acquitted (of course by shoving money in the arsehole of the Indian Judiciary) but her best friend went to jail for disproportionate amounts of assets. What about Hitler? He wanted to become a painter. Take India's PM for instance, he used to sell tea, run around in Khaki shorts, hung out with Hindu zealots and his educational credentials are more or less bogus. My point is that leaders and employees and pretty much any position in any hierarchy makes people than have people make them. What about Trump? He talked about fucking his own daughter in an interview because 'she is too hot' for him.

Talking about liability in the most absolute sense, even if you stutter or walk around with a million prison tats but are still able to be competent at your job, it makes no sense to determine your employment on the basis of a several hours long interview. We already know that firms work imperfectly and that is due to signalling effect. People get coached for interviews and bullshit their way through it and end up causing more losses for the firm that are going to work for.

All the jobs in the world are nothing but a set of fiduciary procedures. Procedures can be learned. If you have 10 prison tats on your bald head but if you are an excellent employee in terms of pure financial productivity, it is simply not utilitarian nor profitable to not hire you right away after you perform excellently on a series of mock working conditions. However due to extremely severe biasing perpetuated in the form of Signalling Effect, Halo Effect, Salience Bias, etc and no debiasing process following it, interviewing on the basis of 'personality' and 'resumes' and 'professional conduct' are rife with egregious amounts of misinformation and misconstruation. I fail to see how interviewing and resumes (given how they are used currently) are any more useful than providing a comprehensive series of tests that are a nigh simulation of the working environment in the firm.

 

[BurnedOut]

The interview measures if you are communicative and extraverted, how you deal with pressure, if you are a good addition to work with their team. It can decide what actual technical position or role you are better for, even if you applied for a different job.

Most of my interviews had been multi-stage and there always was a stage where I met with a part of my future team and they then gave me performance/knowledge tests. The first interview is usually one on one or a call and they then decide if it's worth getting you a group interview. So the interviews checked both my social skills and professional skills

I still fail to see how testing your 'communicativeness' or 'extraversion' provides more information than the fact that you don't suffer from autism or any other kind of debilitating disease that makes you genuinely incapable of communicating with others. A - The job fetches money, B - it requires you to work with a group, C - not doing so will get you expelled, D - (9/10 times) You don't act autistic because you need the job. By underscoring unnecessary traits as prerequisites, the people who pass these interviews cannot be logical deemed fit for the job because it may be possible that they are simply better at presenting themselves by exploiting the interviewing process by taking advantages of the blindspots their employers have - emotional affect. If rain occurs, grey clouds always do but it does not mean that the existence of grey clouds is going to be followed by rain. It is a simply syllogistic folly

 

[BurnedOut]

Most people treat bias like it's a disease from a foreign land that they're careful not to catch, but bias and thinking are two sides of the same coin. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and it permeates the consciousness and subconsciousness at many levels.

If statistical analyses does not use usage of random values to attempt to prevent overfitting of data to a model, then indeed bias is a disease from a foreign land wrecking havoc on the whole process. Similarly, without the absence of adequate debiasing procedures or complete elimination of procedures that are very heavily susceptible to biases...

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Isn't the whole interview a sort of performance test? You could be heaven-knows-what level of genius and still if you would only stutter awkwardly in front of strangers or if you had several prison tattoos that would disqualify you as a liability to the employer.

All the jobs in the world are nothing but a set of fiduciary procedures. Procedures can be learned. If you have 10 prison tats on your bald head but if you are an excellent employee in terms of pure financial productivity, it is simply not utilitarian nor profitable to not hire you right away after you perform excellently on a series of mock working conditions.

What you're saying is rational and makes sense, but most people don't act solely based on reason.

A rational employer will be less biased and have access to more competent workers compared to an irrational, prejudiced employer.

Part of the problem is that in large corporations and office jobs people are paid to talk and interact with their colleagues. That's literally an integral part of their unwritten job duties. Even for a tech engineer a substantial amount of time is wasted on meetings, talks and presentations and top level engineers are actually reduced to a role of managers that only talk and present the ideas of their team of engineers and their most valuable technical skills are completely underutilized.

There's a certain linear inefficiency that comes with human to human communication and management. The more humans working together the less humans can focus on doing the work and the more humans need to manage the direction and specifics surrounding that work.

Things could be vastly improved, but that's nowhere on the horizon because this efficiency is just like any other technological progress; something that gradually is adopted and discovered and will take not just organizational change in the companies but also changes to the prevalence of bigotry in individuals.

Going a step further most international companies probably would generate a lot more value to the consumers if they were replaced by smaller and more local businesses. That is obviously something that large companies don't want to allow because this reduces the revenue they can get by monopolizing and internationalizing their reach. So even though large companies are inefficient and wasteful by their nature there is a clear profit motivation to make even more colossal an inefficient organizations to siphon all the wealth towards the smallest amount of people at the top.

 

[Black Rose]

PSYCHOLOGIST REACTS | PERSONA: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests
Such an irresponsible and misleading documentary by HBO Max

 

[Daddy]

I know they do this. But they have alway discriminated. You don't get hired just based on your qualifications, but on whether or not they like you, they know you, or think you will work well the team and business objectives. Less qualified people that tick all those boxes get hired over the more qualified person.

Using the MBTI is just one of many ways that employers discriminate. It sucks, but it's the way humans are. We're still the same unevolved humans that followed fuedalism and hunter-gatherer societies. Our tech evolved, but we didn't. Idiocracy is more accurate than people realize.

 

[Daddy]

PSYCHOLOGIST REACTS | PERSONA: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests
Such an irresponsible and misleading documentary by HBO Max

He says MBTI isn't used to select, but then says BIG 5 is used to select and that it's scientifically validated to predict whether someone is a good fit for the job...and that someone with say Bipolar or a mental illness shouldn't be scared about that because it doesn't discriminate them...except that neuroticism relates to mental illness, so apparently he admits they do discriminate against mental illness...

Also Big 5 isn't a whole lot different than MBTI in categorizing, and in terms of the actual Jungian psychology, Big 5 can be cross-linked to Psychological Types very well (with neuroticism being a huge focus of psychological types), not to mention that MBTI is based on Psychological Types. So in a roundabout way he's admitting that Psychological Types or Jungian Psychology is being used to discriminate...just through Big 5 and not MBTI...so it's okay?

 

[Black Rose]

PSYCHOLOGIST REACTS | PERSONA: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests
Such an irresponsible and misleading documentary by HBO Max

He says MBTI isn't used to select, but then says BIG 5 is used to select and that it's scientifically validated to predict whether someone is a good fit for the job...and that someone with say Bipolar or a mental illness shouldn't be scared about that because it doesn't discriminate them...except that neuroticism relates to mental illness, so apparently he admits they do discriminate against mental illness...

Also Big 5 isn't a whole lot different than MBTI in categorizing, and in terms of the actual Jungian psychology, Big 5 can be cross-linked to Psychological Types very well (with neuroticism being a huge focus of psychological types), not to mention that MBTI is based on Psychological Types. So in a roundabout way he's admitting that Psychological Types or Jungian Psychology is being used to discriminate...just through Big 5 and not MBTI...so it's okay?

Big 5 is 61% accurate in psychometric terms. You get the same results. MBTI is not based on any statical model and cannot tell you what Jungian function you have. MBTI just cannot tell you which functions you have. Only a human is capable of figuring out what functions another human has. No test can do this because it has nothing to do with statistics but with psychology. Jung invented cognitive functions by observation and contemplation. He defined them. But you need to be a mind reader to know for sure and a test cannot read minds in this way. The Big 5 measures things that are actually measurable. Even if some mental illness is measured, Bipolar is not which the movie clearly lied about.

"(with neuroticism being a huge focus of psychological types)"

Jung was describing what goes wrong in all the types when describing the conscious and unconscious. all types are capable of metal illness just in different ways. He described how things "go wrong" with each function. consciously and unconsciously. Tests don't know what is in the unconscious as such. The big 5 is all consciously represented in people. Functions deep down are not. That is why you need a human mind reader to detect these things.

 

[Black Rose]

The MBTI test has no social intelligence. It is inaccurate for finding a person's functions.

 

[dr froyd]

I know they do this. But they have alway discriminated. You don't get hired just based on your qualifications, but on whether or not they like you, they know you, or think you will work well the team and business objectives. Less qualified people that tick all those boxes get hired over the more qualified person.

Using the MBTI is just one of many ways that employers discriminate. It sucks, but it's the way humans are. We're still the same unevolved humans that followed fuedalism and hunter-gatherer societies. Our tech evolved, but we didn't. Idiocracy is more accurate than people realize.

even in highly technical positions one is quite dependent on people being able to cooperate and work as a team. As someone who has partaken in many hiring processes i've learned that the hard way

but on the other hand, i guess things like communication and working in a team are skills themselves and don't necessarily depend on personality

 

[Daddy]

PSYCHOLOGIST REACTS | PERSONA: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests
Such an irresponsible and misleading documentary by HBO Max

He says MBTI isn't used to select, but then says BIG 5 is used to select and that it's scientifically validated to predict whether someone is a good fit for the job...and that someone with say Bipolar or a mental illness shouldn't be scared about that because it doesn't discriminate them...except that neuroticism relates to mental illness, so apparently he admits they do discriminate against mental illness...

Also Big 5 isn't a whole lot different than MBTI in categorizing, and in terms of the actual Jungian psychology, Big 5 can be cross-linked to Psychological Types very well (with neuroticism being a huge focus of psychological types), not to mention that MBTI is based on Psychological Types. So in a roundabout way he's admitting that Psychological Types or Jungian Psychology is being used to discriminate...just through Big 5 and not MBTI...so it's okay?

Big 5 is 61% accurate in psychometric terms. You get the same results. MBTI is not based on any statical model and cannot tell you what Jungian function you have. MBTI just cannot tell you which functions you have. Only a human is capable of figuring out what functions another human has. No test can do this because it has nothing to do with statistics but with psychology. Jung invented cognitive functions by observation and contemplation. He defined them. But you need to be a mind reader to know for sure and a test cannot read minds in this way. The Big 5 measures things that are actually measurable. Even if some mental illness is measured, Bipolar is not which the movie clearly lied about.

"(with neuroticism being a huge focus of psychological types)"

Jung was describing what goes wrong in all the types when describing the conscious and unconscious. all types are capable of metal illness just in different ways. He described how things "go wrong" with each function. consciously and unconsciously. Tests don't know what is in the unconscious as such. The big 5 is all consciously represented in people. Functions deep down are not. That is why you need a human mind reader to detect these things.

MBTI is pretty flawed in its interpretation of Jungian Types, I know and agree. But that's not the point. It was based on Jungian Type and a lot of it is directly correlated to it. And the Big 5, "being statistically accurate", has also been correlated to Jungian Types, and is only meaningful if you know what the statistics are measuring, and even then you say "61%", which is 1/3 of the time wrong, is pretty big error when we are talking about "discriminating" based on it...

"

What Are The Big 5 Personality Traits?

Understanding the 5 big personality traits is paramount for sucess in the workplace amongst your employees. Learn the 5 personality traits and how to nourish them.

www.thomas.co

Openness is a characteristic that includes imagination and insight. The world, other people and an eagerness to learn and experience new things is particularly high for this personality trait. It leads to having a broad range of interests and being more adventurous when it comes to decision making.

Creativity also plays a big part in the openness trait; this leads to a greater comfort zone when it comes to abstract and lateral thinking.
"
openness - So basically Intuition. This is basically testing for intuitive types.
conscientiousness - Rational functions, Tx/Fx first. But it probably also depends on neuroticism. A neurotic version of an Tx/Fx type might not have the luxury of being conscientious. And this can be any type, since everyone has rational/irrational functions that they use.
extraversion - self-explanatory
agreeableness - Reinin Dichotomies (Obstinate/Yielding)
neuroticism - self-explanatory

There's clearly a lot of overlap, despite that Big 5 people don't want to admit this because they need to ride the wave of "statistically verified" so it makes them appear valid and everyone else invalid.

 

[Daddy]

I know they do this. But they have alway discriminated. You don't get hired just based on your qualifications, but on whether or not they like you, they know you, or think you will work well the team and business objectives. Less qualified people that tick all those boxes get hired over the more qualified person.

Using the MBTI is just one of many ways that employers discriminate. It sucks, but it's the way humans are. We're still the same unevolved humans that followed fuedalism and hunter-gatherer societies. Our tech evolved, but we didn't. Idiocracy is more accurate than people realize.

even in highly technical positions one is quite dependent on people being able to cooperate and work as a team. As someone who has partaken in many hiring processes i've learned that the hard way

but on the other hand, i guess things like communication and working in a team are skills themselves and don't necessarily depend on personality

The bolded - right, yeah. Which is why it kind of sucks. You may work well with the team, if given the chance, but they think you won't for one reason or another.

 

[Black Rose]

openness - So basically Intuition. This is basically testing for intuitive types.
conscientiousness - Rational functions, Tx/Fx first. But it probably also depends on neuroticism. A neurotic version of an Tx/Fx type might not have the luxury of being conscientious. And this can be any type, since everyone has rational/irrational functions that they use.
extraversion - self-explanatory
agreeableness - Reinin Dichotomies (Obstinate/Yielding)
neuroticism - self-explanatory

There's clearly a lot of overlap, despite that Big 5 people don't want to admit this because they need to ride the wave of "statistically verified" so it makes them appear valid and everyone else invalid.

This is flawed.

Type is not about the letters:

I - E
S - N
T - F
P - J

This is a dichotomy, not Jungian functions.

Big 5 shows letter dichotomy only.

It is as valid for finding type as to which harry potter character are you quize.

 

[Black Rose]

Research has since found that upwards of 50% of people got a different score when they re-took the MBTI just five weeks later. Studies have also shown that the test is not effective at predicting people’s success in different jobs.

Here's why people still take the Myers-Briggs test — even though it might not mean anything

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is one of the world's most popular personality, but experts have been questioning its validity for decades.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Daddy]

openness - So basically Intuition. This is basically testing for intuitive types.
conscientiousness - Rational functions, Tx/Fx first. But it probably also depends on neuroticism. A neurotic version of an Tx/Fx type might not have the luxury of being conscientious. And this can be any type, since everyone has rational/irrational functions that they use.
extraversion - self-explanatory
agreeableness - Reinin Dichotomies (Obstinate/Yielding)
neuroticism - self-explanatory

There's clearly a lot of overlap, despite that Big 5 people don't want to admit this because they need to ride the wave of "statistically verified" so it makes them appear valid and everyone else invalid.

This is flawed.

Type is not about the letters:

I - E
S - N
T - F
P - J

This is a dichotomy, not Jungian functions.

Big 5 shows letter dichotomy only.

It is as valid for finding type as to which harry potter character are you quize.

That's just pure bullshit. You may disagree on some of my conclusions, but Extraversion/introversion and neuroticism is a core component of Jungian Psychoanalytics/psychological-type. That's just a fact, it's not up for debate.

 

[Black Rose]

openness - So basically Intuition. This is basically testing for intuitive types.
conscientiousness - Rational functions, Tx/Fx first. But it probably also depends on neuroticism. A neurotic version of an Tx/Fx type might not have the luxury of being conscientious. And this can be any type, since everyone has rational/irrational functions that they use.
extraversion - self-explanatory
agreeableness - Reinin Dichotomies (Obstinate/Yielding)
neuroticism - self-explanatory

There's clearly a lot of overlap, despite that Big 5 people don't want to admit this because they need to ride the wave of "statistically verified" so it makes them appear valid and everyone else invalid.

This is flawed.

Type is not about the letters:

I - E
S - N
T - F
P - J

This is a dichotomy, not Jungian functions.

Big 5 shows letter dichotomy only.

It is as valid for finding type as to which harry potter character are you quize.

That's just pure bullshit. You may disagree on some of my conclusions, but Extraversion/introversion and neuroticism is a core component of Jungian Psychoanalytics/psychological-type. That's just a fact, it's not up for debate.

Bullshit how?

These are the functions:

Ni – surfing the unconscious (abstraction)
Si – instinct (gut)
Fi – personal values
Ti – deconstruction

Ne – potential (realization)
Se – sight clarity
Fe – social values
Te – rationalization (actualization)

not this:

I - E
S - N
T - F
P - J

This is a dichotomy based test, not a function measurement.

Introversion and extraversion are only orientations of the functions, not the functions themselves.

The big five is bullshit. It only measures dichotomies of MBTI if it is associated with it.

neuroticism is not a function. it is functioning gone wrong / mental illness. any function can express neuroticism.

but Extraversion/introversion and neuroticism is a core component of Jungian Psychoanalytics/psychological-type. That's just a fact, it's not up for debate.

Those aren't functions they are orientations and misfunctioning/mental illness.

no test measures functions just dichotomies.

These are functions:

Perception functions: Intuition and Sensing
Judgment functions: Thinking and Feeling.

J and P are not functions in themselves the way MBTI would have you believe.

 

[Black Rose]

A robust data-driven approach identifies four
personality types across four large data sets

These data sets are among the largest publicly available data sets and allow for insight into whether personality types truly exist. We show that these data can be used to efficiently sample the multidimensional space of personality traits. This richness in data not only allows for a direct visualization of the structure in the space of personality traits but also enables us to formulate robust null models to assess the statistical significance of clustering solutions. Surprisingly, we find that even state-of-theart clustering techniques23 yield mostly spurious clusters. However, after developing an alternative clustering approach, we identify four robust clusters that correspond to statistically meaningful personality types. The personality types we uncover provide some support for, but extend and refine, the three ARC types6 .

 

[ZenRaiden]

Big 5 is probably the most realistic.

Yes, but..... what does that mean for the interviewers when they are looking at candidates with 67 percent openness and 40 percent limbic or whatever.

I vaguely recall Jordan Peterson doing a whole series on Big Five meaning saying that the more disagreeable someone is the more likely they are nuts, but also more likely being in leadership position.
Are these info though helpful for interviewers.

Pretty sure MBTI would be easier in application if the people actually were doing a proper formal interview they way in needs be done.

 

[Old Things]

Big 5 is probably the most realistic.

Yes, but..... what does that mean for the interviewers when they are looking at candidates with 67 percent openness and 40 percent limbic or whatever.

I vaguely recall Jordan Peterson doing a whole series on Big Five meaning saying that the more disagreeable someone is the more likely they are nuts, but also more likely being in leadership position.
Are these info though helpful for interviewers.

Pretty sure MBTI would be easier in application if the people actually were doing a proper formal interview they way in needs be done.

In an interview, you are basically giving them a personality test + skills test. At least that is ideally how it should work but often doesn't. Is it helpful to do it this way? Actually, I think it is essential if you want to find the right person for the job.