These personality classifications are bullshit.
That's exactly what an INTJ would say.
These personality classifications are bullshit.
That's exactly what an INTJ would say.
Yes, those pesky millenials with their mobile games and innocuous personality tests need to get off our lawns and back into school! Thin out the sheeple and bring back Theodore Roosevelt!Anti-intellectualism is a terrible drift in modern society and the popularity of these horoscope-like classifications is ample proof. Wise up people, it's in our duty.
Yes, those pesky millenials with their mobile games and innocuous personality tests need to get off our lawns and back into school! Thin out the sheeple and bring back Theodore Roosevelt!
I aim to please.Well that was somewhat anti-intellectual as well, I must say.
Myers-Briggs is astrology for people with degrees. It's meaningless nonsense, debunked many times over. You are not defined by four letters any more than you are by a 'which Disney character are you' buzzfeed quiz. As with horoscopes though, some people like to offload personal responsibility on to a feeling of 'well I'm an (insert nonsense here) so I'm born this way, really - and that won't change'.
I agree that it becomes an issue when used as a scapegoat for not dealing with any personal shortcomings. Short of that, I fail to see any merit to shit on self-assessment forms like the Myers-Briggs thing.
I'm calling it rubbish because its whole premise (people can be categorised into neat personality types) is demonstrably wrong. Not because it's not 'intellectual' or scientific. Because it is a nonsense science with no basis in reality other than perhaps confirmation bias. And Jung had barely anything to do with it in the first place.To call it rubbish because it is anti-intellectual raises two questions:
I'm calling it rubbish because its whole premise (people can be categorised into neat personality types) is demonstrably wrong. Not because it's not 'intellectual' or scientific. Because it is a nonsense science with no basis in reality other than perhaps confirmation bias. And Jung had barely anything to do with it in the first place.
Well that's a bit of stretch @erikradbo. Not to say a red herring. It almost sounded like an esoteric plea or argument for Myer-Briggs, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't claim for itself. I hardly believe that it's based on the fact that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Which is something I'd happily subscribe to. But Myer-Briggs is most certainly meant as a "scientific", grounded tool.
The argument isn't that Myer-Briggs can't be scientifically proven so it must be nonsense. The argument is that it's a superficial, simplistic and demonstrably misleading tool and that's why it shouldn't be taken seriously beyond "trivia" level.
Edit: @Richard Wilkinson was faster.
Fair point, I think both of you are saying that you dislike it not because it's not scientific, but because it's plain wrong. Do you mean that it's scientifically proven wrong, or do you mean that a common public opinion is that it's superficial and that you cannot group people like that?
Common public opinion is often a very bad thing to rely on - especially given the last few years of world politics...
I mean it's been shown to be based on little actual study or evidence, with demonstrations that people taking the test at different times will get different results - which contradicts the whole idea of the test.
My annoyance is more with companies who spend money using it to decide how to direct and manage their employees. It has a sort of pseudo-scientific reputation still, which means not enough people are actually taking the time to stop and go 'hang on a sec, this might be bollocks. Let's check before we spend a load of money and make business decisions based on it...'
I would happily have used another tool for this, but I am pretty sure that having a tool at all increased the understanding in the team.
I would happily have used another tool for this, but I am pretty sure that having a tool at all increased the understanding in the team.
Even if that other tool was, say, astrology?