/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10574949]

Why does /sci/ hate the best personality test of our age?

[Anonymous No.10574958]

wheres the one where you constantly zone out and cant stay focused

[Anonymous No.10574959]

>MBTI
not science or math

[Anonymous No.10574964]

>>10574959
>not science

[Anonymous No.10574965]

>>10574949
>do you feel like Statement Y represents your personality?
>wow it turns out you have a personality described by Statement Y
damn so this is the power of pop psych

[Anonymous No.10574969]

>>10574965
I learned so much about my strenghts and weaknesses.

[Anonymous No.10574973]

>>10574969
Neat. Doesn't make it science. Is better suited to /his/ (psych is a humanity).

[Anonymous No.10574983]

>>10574973
>Psychology is the science of behavior and mind

[Anonymous No.10574989]

infp here :3c

[Anonymous No.10574997]

>>10574983
A very poor description. No university in the world holds psych in the natural science department. It is ubiquitously thought of as a humanity. So, >>>/his/
>>10574989
wow same c:

[Anonymous No.10575004]

>>10574997
infp losers, always complaining

[Anonymous No.10575009]

Reminder that if you’re not an INT you should kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10575011]

>>10575009
why are int's such violent autists

[Anonymous No.10575012]

>>10575011

[Anonymous No.10575022]

>>10574949
because "personality tests" themselves are inaccurate, they are at the very best a complementary tool for psychology studies but generally, they're just pop-sci crap for normies. being the best of the worst means you're still the worst

[Anonymous No.10575041]

>>10574949
I'll just repost this I guess.
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
Some key takeaways:
A) It has low consistency (people taking the test multiple times in a set period of time often end up with different types).
B) The choice in hypothetical dimensions like thinking / feeling or sensing / intuiting is wrong because they have correlations with each other / aren't actually independent.
C) It also makes the bad assumption there are discrete categorical distinctions (e.g. you will be classified as either thinking or feeling) when in actuality there is no evidence of bimodal distribution in MBTI types and most people score towards the middle and have more in common with those closer to them but in the opposite category than they do with those in their same category.
And even the US military won't touch it:
>In a recent review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrument should not be used for career planning counseling.13 The Institute's analysis of the available research showed no evidence for the utility of the test. Indeed, with respect to career planning they note that "the types may simply be an example of stereotypes."

[Anonymous No.10575083]

These tests are just snapshots of how a person is feeling at any particular time. If you take the MBTI after you just bombed a test or lost your wallet you’ll score differently than if you took it after landing a new job or getting a new girlfriend. It’s all relative. It’s only valid if you take a baseline and see how you score over time, which no one actually does.

[Anonymous No.10575095]

>>10575083
>It’s only valid if you take a baseline and see how you score over time, which no one actually does.
That's something which has been formally tested. MBTI fails that test badly. It's not a question of maybe it would be valid if people used it in a more controlled and scientific way. We already know it isn't valid.

[Anonymous No.10575125]

>>10574964
That's correct. It's not.

>>10574983
>Computer Science is the science and behavior of the computer

[Anonymous No.10575133]

>>10575125
>Computer science is the study of processes that interact with data and that can be represented as data in the form of programs.

[Anonymous No.10575161]

>>10575133
funny how computer science still has nothing to do with science or and very little to do with computers

[Anonymous No.10575261]

>>10575083
I've taken it several times over the years and always gotten INTP, I don't see why your mood would matter if you answer the questions thoughtfully

[Anonymous No.10575286]

1. A psychological tests tells you what you DON'T know. This test asks YOU what you like and do.
2. Any collection of questions of binary choice create unique categories. If I choose red or green, less filling or more flavor, pizza hut or taco bell, and cat or dog, I get 16 orthogonal categories.
3. The Meyer's Brigg test is neither reliable or informative.

4. It is BAD because dumb people use it to choose who to hire under the guise of science when all they are doing is justifying Human Resources jobs.

POP psychology has the effect of manipulating you into thinking you have learned something while selling lots of books, services, and advertising for websites...

[Anonymous No.10575315]

>>10574949
It's not reliable or valid.

Big 5 is the best personality thing we got.

[Anonymous No.10575668]

>>10575286
This. Add to it that it's self tested. big 5 is more accurate but still self tested. anyone with a little knowledge in these tests can get whatever result they want.

[Anonymous No.10575705]

>take the test
>get some result
>take the same test while drunk
>get very different results
Wow cool verifiable and repeatable scientific experiment bro

[Anonymous No.10575727]

>>10575261
>I've taken it several times over the years and always gotten INTP
Why do you think a single personal and heavily biased self-reported anecdote carries any sort of evidential weight? This has been tested formally with proper studies and MBTI fails miserably:
>>10575041
>indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf

[Anonymous No.10575744]

The descriptions of the "16 personalities" (I could swear I know more than 16 people with different personalities, but whatever) are so fucking vague that everyone can see themselves in them. They're like horoscopes.

Also, these things are highly situational. I can be very introverted at work and extraverted in my private life. I can base decisions at work differently than with a partner. Throughout the day, every single person assumes several of these "personalities"

[Anonymous No.10575752]

>>10575041
>most people score towards the middle
Can confirm. I had 33%, 63%, 46% and 46%, so at least two of the four categories are not statistically relevant for me.

[Anonymous No.10575766]

Fuck off I'm an ENTJ and ghost all lectures

This is the Chad personality type

[Anonymous No.10575837]

>>10575766
>be Chad INFJ
>be Cesar Milan of vagina
Yea bud, okay, just remember that she spreads her wings for me

[Anonymous No.10576906]

Has anyone actually looked at the big 5? It’s bargain brand MBTI. Openness = Inntuition, conscientious = judging, agreeable = feeling, extraversion = well, extraversion, and (optional) neuroticism = turbulent. It’s literally a ripoff. Look at the definitions and you’ll see it. Big 5 really doesn’t add value; it just refactored what MBTI had. Taking away the binary lettering system and only giving people a score from 1 - 100 (Mbti also scores from 1-100) suddenly makes it more legit? Not to me.
Of course MBTI doesn’t matter for most people. It’s a bell curve! Most are likely too normal to tell much of a difference! MBTI’s failing is not that the letters aren’t real personality traits, it’s that the test assigns everyone one of the two letters. I’d say that anyone who scores in the middle 80% for each category should not get a specified letter, or maybe they should get both. Either way, no singular letter for them. It’s misleading, but it’s also not hard to figure out.

[Anonymous No.10576944]

>tfw knew an ENTJ who ran the company and spent his time putting INTJs on blast and letting them know he was onto their sneaky bullshit

>was just the INFP assistant who followed him around

[Anonymous No.10576979]

>>10576944
INTJs are the most honest people

[Anonymous No.10577016]

>>10576979
Objective best people at everything. INTJs only need other people as cattle. It's no coincidence that we make up 2% of the population, goy.

[Anonymous No.10577029]

>>10577016
downies are .0006% of the population..... coincidence???

[Anonymous No.10577088]

>>10575705
Same would happen with an IQ test so I guess they're BS too

[Anonymous No.10577092]

>>10575705
you sound like an S

[Anonymous No.10577099]

>>10575161
As a smart nigga once said:
"The study of Computer Science is so young we have yet to separate the tools from the essence of the field."
Although I would argue that Computer Science is in fact a science, just not about computers.

[Anonymous No.10577101]

>>10574949
So which one is the best? That's what really matters. Or what combinations are best?

I would figure the order of BEST is the following:

FIRST PLACE, THE BEST PERSONALITY IS: ENTJ

Then:
2. ESTP
3. ENTP
4. ISTP
5. ISFJ
6.-16. the rest

BEST PAIR WOULD BE
ESTP and ENTJ

BEST TRIPLE WOULD BE
ENTJ, ESFP, and ESTP

BEST QUARTER WOULD BE
ENTJ, ESFP, ESTP, ISFJ


You can see that I study economics as I actually want to make a difference in the world.

[Anonymous No.10577111]

>>10577101
>You can see that I study economics as I actually believe this glorified crap

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.10577123]

>>10577111
Answer YES/NO to the following questions so we can observe your view point. Most of the questions are not disjoint from each other:

1) Human behavior is predictable.
2) Human is unique.
3) Human has limited range of options.
4) Human acts with intention.
5) Human as a species is unique.
6) Humans actions involve other humans.
7) Humans actions are attempts of his intentions.

[Anonymous No.10577181]

>>10574949
>tfn 2% difference between introvert and extrovert
what even am i

[Anonymous No.10577185]

>>10577181
A faggot

[Anonymous No.10577186]

>>10577185
thanks

[Anonymous No.10577191]

>>10577101
>You can see that I study economics as I actually want to make a difference in the world.

vigin economics vs chad finance

[Anonymous No.10577192]

>>10577101
Having lots of ENTJs is just asking for trouble.

You want a few of them that are competent, you put them all together and they'll just start fighting eachother and utilizing whatever other types the turn into underlings to wage war on the others.

[Anonymous No.10577264]

[Anonymous No.10577285]

>>10574949
INFJ here, I'll go INTJ on your ass I swear to god

[Anonymous No.10577291]

>>10575286
I know everything already though how can I be tested for what I don't know?

[Anonymous No.10577316]

>>10577285
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.10577432]

i get a different type every 2 weeks
this is bullshit

[Anonymous No.10579443]

>>10574958
ADHD or INTP. same thing

[Anonymous No.10579481]

ENTP EE here. Not being an antisocial weirdo has greatly benefitted my career

[Anonymous No.10579520]

>>10574959
Can something be accurate or a decent model if it wasn't developed with the scientific method in mind? Genuine question.

[Anonymous No.10579956]

>>10577101
ENTJ is like a hyperactive kid version of INTJ

[Anonymous No.10579980]

>>10575041
>even the US military won't touch it
Why would they be expected to? Even if the 16-type theory is correct, 15 and a half of those types are all going to get the same job as a rifleman or truckdriver anyway

[Anonymous No.10579989]

>>10577123
you never asked the questions

[Anonymous No.10580376]

>>10574949
I’ve done all of these in the left column. MBTI is general enough to cover most behaviors, and most will apply to you at different times. Kinda like horoscopes but a little more truth to them.

[Anonymous No.10580485]

>>10574997

University of Toronto considers psychology and all psychology courses to be "life science". Checkmate, Atheist scum.

[Anonymous No.10580739]

>>10574949
>that entire image
t. undergrads

[Anonymous No.10581790]

I think the critique that it's just asking a person what they want/think and is therefore unreliable is true. So a question would how do you change the test so that only a person of category X would be able to give the answer that places them in category X?

[Anonymous No.10581799]

>>10580376
That's exactly what you'd hope for a model of behavior to accomplish.

I'm not disagreeing with your general sentiment, but it doesn't really refute the premise.

[Anonymous No.10581966]

I'm intj and love taking notes during class

[Anonymous No.10582303]

>>10579980
>Why would they be expected to?
Because that's exactly what it was made for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
>Briggs and Myers began creating the indicator during World War II[2] in the belief that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sort of war-time jobs that would be the "most comfortable and effective" for them.[1]:xiii
Not that this is the only thing wrong with it. Even if you go "OK, it's just not good for the purpose it was designed but still has value with other applications" that still doesn't save it. MBTI fails test-retest reliability hard (if it were measuring a real thing the same person shouldn't get a different categorization one month later, yet that's what happens with large numbers of formal test subjects).
And it fails construct validity per factor analysis (the theory alleges independent combinations of introversion-extraversion, thinking-feeling, intuiting-sensing, and perceiving-judging axes, but in reality SN axis isn't independent of JP axix).
And it has something like an 80% measurement error, meaning most of the differences in test subject results are not accounted for by the theory's proposed factors.
And what it measures isn't categorical as predicted. Results are not a bimodal distribution, most fall towards the middle of the axes, and you actually have more in common with people of different types who test nearby you in the middle than you do with people who are supposed to belong to the same type as you, completely defeating the purpose of having those personality types in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10582310]

>>10581790
>I think the critique that it's just asking a person what they want/think and is therefore unreliable is true.
It's not unreliable because people say what they want. It's unreliable because it's factually, demonstrably unreliable. The theory purports there exist personality types which this system is measuring and identifying, and we know this isn't true in reality because of how many people don't get assigned to the same personality type when you test and then retest.

[Anonymous No.10582316]

>>10574949
INTP present

[Anonymous No.10582325]

>>10577088
That is correct, they are. However not for the same reason. Alachol reduced your cognitive abilities, so obviously your IQ (though a bad measure of intelligence) will decrease.

[Anonymous No.10582327]

>>10577092
I don't know what that means. Sounds like a glorified horoscope

[Anonymous No.10582341]

>>10581799
>That's exactly what you'd hope for a model of behavior to accomplish.
No it isn't. I don't think you understood what he was saying. When he wrote this:
>>10580376
>MBTI is general enough to cover most behaviors
He wasn't talking about it being a system that does a good job covering the full range of human behavior. He was talking about it in the context of:
>I’ve done all of these in the left column.
Meaning people believe the results are accurate because you could give them any of the results and they'd be vague enough to strike most people as accurate. It's called the Forer effect, and it is NOT a desirable thing for a personality test to have at all since it means satisfaction with the test is better explained by all the answers being vague and equally applicable to everyone than it is explained by what a test should be doing which is finding one result that does apply to you with every other result not applying to you. It's analogous to being caught using a two-headed coin in a coin toss. No matter which answer the person ends up with every answer is right, and that's another way of saying you aren't really measuring anything.

[Anonymous No.10582409]

>>10575022
t. Someone who doesn't know the definition of worst

[Anonymous No.10582412]

>>10574949
Enjoy your pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10582424]

>>10574949
Your test is broken

you forgot 'THE LOSER'
which is most people

[Anonymous No.10582450]

>>10577123
First of all, learn English.
Second of all, these are statements, not questions, but I get what you want us to do. The problem is that these are all (at least the ones I can understand despite the ESL) gross overgeneralizations with no one true or false judgement.

[Anonymous No.10582453]

>>10574949
Sleepy INTP with good grades reporting

[Anonymous No.10582469]

>>10575083
every single time I've taken the test over the course of more than a decade I get INTP
literally every single time

Ive had IQ tests range from like 127 to 139, but I'm always an INTP.

[Anonymous No.10583474]

>>10575041
obviously such models should not be taken as absolute facts but I still think they have some truth in them

eg >>10577264 the type that I get from the test also has the picture that represents me the most. or the descriptions in >>10574949 and >>10575012

its not just a coincidence. there is some validity in this

[Anonymous No.10583474,1]

>>10582412
Enjoy your penis.