Myers-Briggs and related psychological concepts; Woo or credible?

[Rasmus55]

Quick question for the psychologists and others with an interest in such things. Why is it that the psychological community seems to place such great faith in the Myers-Briggs test? This is, of course, the test that allegedly is capable of determining someone's "personality type". I have seen this piece of nonsense creep into many different forums from business to law and government. Some corporations even use this as a tool in forecasting whether an employee will be successful in future roles and as a factor in whether to promote individuals. My understanding is that the alleged personality types into which people correlate depending upon their responses is entirely lacking in any objective or scientific data, credible studies, etc. Furthermore, the questions themselves also suffer from a similar lack of foundation. To my mind, this smacks of feminist lesbian intuition more than anything else. Isn't it reassuring to know that some I/O psychologist out there is going to consult her crystal ball and read tea leaves to determine whether you will be a "good manager" or a "team player" when you are up for promotion? Another one that I am sick of hearing about is the horrible Maslow’s theory of hierarchy. I don’t subscribe to either and have yet to find any credible sources showing data to support either. Appreciate comments from the psychologists here as the psychological discipline seems to suffer from this sort of woo with great frequency.

[sthomson]

To my mind, this smacks of feminist lesbian intuition more than anything else.

Wha??? You lost me there. This sort of psychology - the psychology of personality, I guess - was based on the work of Freud and Jung. It is completely inappropriate and furthermore unnecessary to blame the sexuality of Myers and/or Briggs-Myers for their work on personality types. As much as I agree that many fields of psychology can not be called proper sciences, blaming "feminist lesbian intuition" when you clearly have no idea how psychologists perform studies, analyze results, and make conclusions is just embarrasing.

[Rasmus55]

Are you then saying there is an empirical basis for Myers-Briggs? I guess you are also denying that the alleged personality test was in any way affected by Myers'/Briggs' social/sexual politics? I find that hard to believe considering the conclusions the test seems to reach. Thanks for your comments however, and can you tell us where to find the core data that created these personality types?

[ImaginalDisc]

But I like feminist lesbian intuition!

[Rasmus55]

But I like feminist lesbian intuition!

LOL; particularly when it's played out on DVD?

[blutoski]

We almost never see the MBTI anymore.

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the MMPI?

I think it depends on what claims about the tests you're actually questioning.

For example, they both have good predictive power for occupational fitness and satisfaction, regardless of whether the underlying assumptions about personality structure are true.

As long as the tests aren't used as evidence for the underlying models, I don't think they could be considered fraudulent.

I prefer the MMPI because it has more dimensions, and gives more information about the person.

[Rasmus55]

We almost never see the MBTI anymore.

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the MMPI?

I think it depends on what claims about the tests you're actually questioning.

For example, they both have good predictive power for occupational fitness and satisfaction, regardless of whether the underlying assumptions about personality structure are true.

As long as the tests aren't used as evidence for the underlying models, I don't think they could be considered fraudulent.

I prefer the MMPI because it has more dimensions, and gives more information about the person.

Yep, pretty sure I'm not confusing it with MMPI or MMPI-2. Those measure somewhat different quantities, although I disagree completely with your assertion that the MMPI (or, if you so asserted, the MMPI-2 for that matter) have any predictive value for occupational fitness/satisfaction. They are, again (and much like the Myers-Briggs or MBTI) screening tools and convenient ways to excuse and dismiss a promotion or particular viewpoint. I find that some corporations use them more to bolster a sense of collective thought into their employees more than anything else. Interestingly enough, these tests are rarely run on the upper echelons of the executive ranks in big/successful corporations. They tend to be used more on the rank and file or those in semi-executive positions; and, in my experience, also as a means of preventing people from reaching into the highest tier executive positions.

And yes, many corporate training groups, teambuilding seminars/companies, "creativity" building companies, and other leech-like collectives use the silly Myers-Briggs astrology formula religiously (along with Maslow's boring theory of alleged hierarchy). I'm sorry, but I just don't see much from the psychology profession that is of great value when it comes to predicting behaviour. Most of it seems wooish to me and based (like Jung's rantings) on introspection and assumption; basically, a guy just sitting in his office making things up as any good astrologer might do.

[Professor Yaffle]

I wouldn't say the "psychological community" places such great emphasis on Myers Briggs. I think it has just marketed itself well to businesses.

My psychology degree was a decade or so ago, and I don't think it was even mentioned in our personality lectures.

[ben m]

Rasmus55, it's clear that you think that Myers-Briggs's personality categories are bunk. That's a reasonable opinion to hold, and it's reasonable to ask for evidence. (FYI: I have no idea. I thought my type was a good match, personally, and recognizably distinct from non-matches, but that could be Forer at work.)

It is IMO offensive to use "lesbian feminist intuition" as a criticism the way you did---it stereotypes lesbians and/or feminists as incapable of doing science, inherently prone to intuition as opposed to rigor, or not worthy of listening to at all. If there's something wrong with the Myers-Briggs index, that "something" has to be a property of the personality test and its utility, not a popular stereotype connected to the authors' commonly-discriminated-against status. Myers-Briggs does not stand or fail on Myer's gender any more than, e.g., David Gelertner's algorithms stand or fall on his right-wing politics, or Sigmund Freud's conclusions stand or fall on his atheism or cocaine use.

Lesbianism is a sexual orientation. Feminism is several things including (a) a political movement responsible for securing womens' legal rights, (b) a social/cultural movement responsible for (or encompassing) the fact that women can leave the kitchen in practice as well as in legal right, and that to do so they no longer require Helen-Keller-esque levels of confidence and a stoic tolerance for put-downs, hoots, and groping, and (c) the nearly-unrelated lit-crit and cultural studies movement that David Horowitz is always complaining about, but whose entire impact on your life is most likely that your high-school English teacher discussed the complexities of "Taming of the Shrew" rather than cheering for Petruchio to hit Kate harder.

Neither lesbianism nor feminism have anything to do with the validity of the test, OK? If you want to delve into the authors' motivations, fine; sex and gender may well show up in there somewhere. But let's leave the stereotypes out of it.

[roger]

I posted this before on another one of these threads. I'll do the short version.

There is an Asian concept of 4 personality traits: water,fire, earth, and wind, IIRC. People are described as having either one of these traits, or some combination thereof.

It would be pretty easy to assign behaviors and traits to each of these signs, make some tests, and get some predictive powers: fire people are more likely to become angry when their will is thwarted, etc.

It's complete woo, in that we have no evidence of 'fire' elements in anybody, yet it has some predictive power.

We could make up any 4 disparate personality elements, and do the same thing. Want to do an 8 dwarves personality test? it'll be just as scientific as the Myers-Briggs. It's a step beyond astrology, but not a big step.

[sthomson]

Are you then saying there is an empirical basis for Myers-Briggs?

No.

Alternately, it depends on how much of an empirical basis you're looking for.

I guess you are also denying that the alleged personality test was in any way affected by Myers'/Briggs' social/sexual politics? I find that hard to believe considering the conclusions the test seems to reach.

I'm saying that you have provided NO evidence that such a claim is true (ie, that Myers and Briggs were driven by their own internal beliefs/politics, rather than by a school of psychological inquiry that was very popular and well-regarded at the time).

Thanks for your comments however, and can you tell us where to find the core data that created these personality types?

I have a rather limited interest in pop psychology (which is what the MBTI has become), but you can learn about typology straight from the source: Carl Jung's Psychological Types (http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-C-G-Jung/dp/0415071771).

I think in general Freudian and Jungian psychology are based more on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. I have never had to take such a test for any purpose except as a passing diversion. I would never work for a company that required a MBTI for hiring or promotion.

[Btodd]

I have no idea how much empirical evidence is behind the Myers-Briggs tests, but I do feel that it was very accurate in describing my personality, and not in the general, vague way that a horoscope is.

I tested INFP, borderline INFJ, and it describes me amazingly well. Other types do not.

[Rasmus55]

I wouldn't say the "psychological community" places such great emphasis on Myers Briggs. I think it has just marketed itself well to businesses.

My psychology degree was a decade or so ago, and I don't think it was even mentioned in our personality lectures.

You are probably right. It has marketed itself well because it is an easy tool with which to defer judgment and avoid being the bad guy. It is also something the corporate do-nothings can use as a means of showing self-importance (look here, I administer an important test and analysis!). Although I must say that in my psych 101 class (which I was forced to take) in the 1990s, it most certainly was covered along with Jung.

[Rasmus55]

Rasmus55, it's clear that you think that Myers-Briggs's personality categories are bunk. That's a reasonable opinion to hold, and it's reasonable to ask for evidence. (FYI: I have no idea. I thought my type was a good match, personally, and recognizably distinct from non-matches, but that could be Forer at work.)

It is IMO offensive to use "lesbian feminist intuition" as a criticism the way you did---it stereotypes lesbians and/or feminists as incapable of doing science, inherently prone to intuition as opposed to rigor, or not worthy of listening to at all. If there's something wrong with the Myers-Briggs index, that "something" has to be a property of the personality test and its utility, not a popular stereotype connected to the authors' commonly-discriminated-against status. Myers-Briggs does not stand or fail on Myer's gender any more than, e.g., David Gelertner's algorithms stand or fall on his right-wing politics, or Sigmund Freud's conclusions stand or fall on his atheism or cocaine use.

Lesbianism is a sexual orientation. Feminism is several things including (a) a political movement responsible for securing womens' legal rights, (b) a social/cultural movement responsible for (or encompassing) the fact that women can leave the kitchen in practice as well as in legal right, and that to do so they no longer require Helen-Keller-esque levels of confidence and a stoic tolerance for put-downs, hoots, and groping, and (c) the nearly-unrelated lit-crit and cultural studies movement that David Horowitz is always complaining about, but whose entire impact on your life is most likely that your high-school English teacher discussed the complexities of "Taming of the Shrew" rather than cheering for Petruchio to hit Kate harder.

Neither lesbianism nor feminism have anything to do with the validity of the test, OK? If you want to delve into the authors' motivations, fine; sex and gender may well show up in there somewhere. But let's leave the stereotypes out of it.

Wow! You really schooled me, huh? I might never have known any of that if you hadn't taken the time to explain it to me. What great enlightenment.

Meanwhile, I guess you mean to say that a person's social/sexual politics are no influence over his/her pseudo-scientific theories? Also, isn't psychology actually all about the creation of stereotypes, and in particular, those areas of psychology that deal with personality traits? What are those Myers-Briggs BS types other than exactly that, stereotypes? It is hard for you to argue they are not stereotypes because, guess what, they have ZERO empircal, scientific basis, which I think would be consistent with what you mention as a stereotype. They are literally born from the mind of Jung sitting around in an arm chair wondering if he is gay only to later be expanded upon by the famous mother-daughter team. If Myers-Briggs and the psych community can create and use their own stereotypes, why can not others? Is it because you find my "stereotyping" offensive but Myers-Briggs' acceptable?

Continuing, the strength of a theory certainly can be weakened by the creator's social/sexual politics. This is particularly true when there does not seem to exist any clear evidence to justify the theory. It makes no difference to me whether you thought your "type" was a good match; one can say the same of a horoscope. If the impulse for the creation of the theory and test was influenced by social/sexual biases, then of course the results could very well be skewed. In fact, not so much skewed in that I doubt there is any such definitive test; but rather the test could be designed to fold neatly into what such a person thinks people should be to better justify his/her personal view of how the world is or should be. Also, you retreated there significantly when you said, "If you want to delve into the authors' motivations, fine; sex and gender may well show up in there somewhere." Umm, if their motivations happen to be both lesbian and feminist, then aren't you being a tad contradictory?

I suppose we should leave aside the impact of feminism because I actually intended this thread to be about psych woo. I note, however, strange feminist thought has had a much greater negative impact than simply interchanging every instance of the masculine in common grammar with the feminine under the justification that to use the masculine is "sexist" language, yet somehow to use the feminine is not. Every high school English teacher I've ever encountered (and it certainly is not a majority of all such teachers by any means) and many in the NEA advocate feminist literature rountinely for school consumption. Possibly nothing wrong with that necessarily, although in terms of literature, the books generally suck and are far too introspective for my tastes.

[Rasmus55]

No.

Alternately, it depends on how much of an empirical basis you're looking for.



I'm saying that you have provided NO evidence that such a claim is true (ie, that Myers and Briggs were driven by their own internal beliefs/politics, rather than by a school of psychological inquiry that was very popular and well-regarded at the time).



I have a rather limited interest in pop psychology (which is what the MBTI has become), but you can learn about typology straight from the source: Carl Jung's Psychological Types (http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-C-G-Jung/dp/0415071771).

I think in general Freudian and Jungian psychology are based more on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. I have never had to take such a test for any purpose except as a passing diversion. I would never work for a company that required a MBTI for hiring or promotion.

Well, have you read Jung? After all, Jung is the basis for Myers-Briggs unless I'm gravely mistaken. You can also read some of Briggs' essays on feminism/sexual roles and sexual "traits" I think to get a clear picture of what is going on there. Of course, these things are far more toned down than what you would see today. I would, nevertheless, find clear influences there in her subsequent woo work.

Funny that you think of Myers-Briggs as "pop" psych. If you had been studying the subject a few decades ago, it would have been all the rage and an accepted part of psych study. So now psychs have moved on to other "clinical" tests. Wonder if there will be someone 20 years from now dismissing those tests out of hand as "pop" psych. Interestingly enough, the testing that I see most often occurs in court cases (as an attorney representing clients in divorce). These are often court ordered and, surprise suprise, they always seem to reach the same conclusion. Can you guess what that might be?

Nice that you would not work for such a company. But, suppose for a second, you worked for a company that had no such test. You worked there for 20 years and are now, say, 45 yrs of age. You have a retirement built-up in the company and only about 10 or so years to go until retirement. You are also up for promotion into the executive ranks. Suddenly, a young HR executive (under the heavy influence of psych woo) decides it's time for an I/O psych to come in and administer tests (like Myers-Briggs) to any person seeking promotion to VP or other executive lvl rank. What now? Would you quit and try to find another job at 45? Or do you put your faith in psych woo?

[Sasha]

Yep, pretty sure I'm not confusing it with MMPI or MMPI-2. Those measure somewhat different quantities, although I disagree completely with your assertion that the MMPI (or, if you so asserted, the MMPI-2 for that matter) have any predictive value for occupational fitness/satisfaction. They are, again (and much like the Myers-Briggs or MBTI) screening tools and convenient ways to excuse and dismiss a promotion or particular viewpoint. I find that some corporations use them more to bolster a sense of collective thought into their employees more than anything else. Interestingly enough, these tests are rarely run on the upper echelons of the executive ranks in big/successful corporations. They tend to be used more on the rank and file or those in semi-executive positions; and, in my experience, also as a means of preventing people from reaching into the highest tier executive positions.

And yes, many corporate training groups, teambuilding seminars/companies, "creativity" building companies, and other leech-like collectives use the silly Myers-Briggs astrology formula religiously (along with Maslow's boring theory of alleged hierarchy). I'm sorry, but I just don't see much from the psychology profession that is of great value when it comes to predicting behaviour. Most of it seems wooish to me and based (like Jung's rantings) on introspection and assumption; basically, a guy just sitting in his office making things up as any good astrologer might do.

Could you please name a few of the many corporate training groups, corporations, etc. who use these formulas religiously?

[Rasmus55]

Here are just a few from a brief internet search for you:

http://www.innerworkcompany.com/MBTI.html
http://www.adventureassoc.com/services/corporate-training.html
http://www.teambuildingprograms.com/behavior/MyersBriggs.html
http://ceolearningsystems.com/courses/myersbriggs.html
and in US DoD or DoD/USG related
http://wwhttp://www.mitre.org/work/sepo/toolkits/ippd/tools/tools.html
www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf01/youm-a.pdf
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/mentorship/tools.asp
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r350-16-c1.doc
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0309.pdf

Many other US gov orgs will use this test as standard practice; a little searching and they can be found. Any security related org you apply to in the US will also use it.

[vIQleS]

FYI:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80513&highlight=MBTI

I did this earlier this year (as a team-building thing at work), and i thought the categories were distinct enough to make it 'accurate' (FWIW).

The other important consideration (for me) was that this was only ever presented as a fun 'tool' to help understand the rest of the team and how they think / interact / see things. The instructor also discussed ethics and not using the test for job hiring etc...

So its not complete rubbish, and has some value - but i wouldn't take it as gospel. (but then i wouldn't take anything as gospel anymore, especially not gospels)

[Rasmus55]

No.

Alternately, it depends on how much of an empirical basis you're looking for.



I'm saying that you have provided NO evidence that such a claim is true (ie, that Myers and Briggs were driven by their own internal beliefs/politics, rather than by a school of psychological inquiry that was very popular and well-regarded at the time).



I have a rather limited interest in pop psychology (which is what the MBTI has become), but you can learn about typology straight from the source: Carl Jung's Psychological Types (http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-C-G-Jung/dp/0415071771).

I think in general Freudian and Jungian psychology are based more on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. I have never had to take such a test for any purpose except as a passing diversion. I would never work for a company that required a MBTI for hiring or promotion.

FYI:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80513&highlight=MBTI

I did this earlier this year (as a team-building thing at work), and i thought the categories were distinct enough to make it 'accurate' (FWIW).

The other important consideration (for me) was that this was only ever presented as a fun 'tool' to help understand the rest of the team and how they think / interact / see things. The instructor also discussed ethics and not using the test for job hiring etc...

So its not complete rubbish, and has some value - but i wouldn't take it as gospel. (but then i wouldn't take anything as gospel anymore, especially not gospels)

Where is the value? For a laugh and a gag? In which case you're taking it as not at all accurate just a funny BS gimmick. Or does it have value because it finds truth? If they are presenting it as a "fun" tool to "understand the rest of the team and how they think..." etc, then you see to be implying that it did find truth; fundamental truth about people in your group. And if it can find truth, why should it be at all unethical for use in hiring? Certainly if a company could be more competitive and better off by hiring a candidate who scores "properly" for that company, they should select him/her; if, of course, the test finds truth. I see nothing unethical about using the test under those circumstances because it would be true right? Now, if it is not a finder of truth, but instead the fantasy of bent, introspective minds, then it would be unethical. So how exactly did it have "value"?

[sthomson]

Well, have you read Jung? After all, Jung is the basis for Myers-Briggs unless I'm gravely mistaken. You can also read some of Briggs' essays on feminism/sexual roles and sexual "traits" I think to get a clear picture of what is going on there.

I read a bit of Jung, including studying his trait types in school. That was a few years ago. I haven't read any of Brigg's essays so if you could provide a link that would be greatly appreciated.

Of course, these things are far more toned down than what you would see today. I would, nevertheless, find clear influences there in her subsequent woo work.

I'm interested in your use of "of course" in this statement. Why would it be an obvious conclusion that her current work is less toned down compared to her previous work? (Given that I haven't read any of it).

Funny that you think of Myers-Briggs as "pop" psych. If you had been studying the subject a few decades ago, it would have been all the rage and an accepted part of psych study.

Well, of course. As new stuff comes in old stuff goes out. Psychological study back then was often more philosophy than science, which is fine with me. Studying our own brains and motivations is a tricky business - we're not machines, you know.

So now psychs have moved on to other "clinical" tests. Wonder if there will be someone 20 years from now dismissing those tests out of hand as "pop" psych.

I don't really have a problem with clinical psychology, or any psychology based on sound scientific principles. "Pop" psychology is a funny name we give psychological theories which are widely used outside of a psychologist's research lab or office. Type theory was very popular in the 90s (remember "What Color Is My Parachute?" and silly things like that?), but as new theories are developed of course they'll be used (and probably misused) in mass culture.

These are often court ordered and, surprise suprise, they always seem to reach the same conclusion. Can you guess what that might be?

I'm sorry, I can't imagine what you're talking about. Can you be more clear in the future?

Nice that you would not work for such a company. But, suppose for a second, you worked for a company that had no such test. You worked there for 20 years and are now, say, 45 yrs of age. You have a retirement built-up in the company and only about 10 or so years to go until retirement. You are also up for promotion into the executive ranks. Suddenly, a young HR executive (under the heavy influence of psych woo) decides it's time for an I/O psych to come in and administer tests (like Myers-Briggs) to any person seeking promotion to VP or other executive lvl rank. What now? Would you quit and try to find another job at 45? Or do you put your faith in psych woo?

Is this something that happened to you personally? I can see why you have been rather contentious about this subject.

It's rather common now-a-days for people to change jobs every 5 years or so, even as retirement is approaching. Things like employee loyalty and a continuous chain of management are unheard of. Did you ever wonder if the test was picked specifically to weed out certain employees?

[Rasmus55]

I would link you Briggs' several essays if I could find them. Have some in a few old books somewhere in the office. I'll search online and see if I can pull some up.

Her essays from the 50's (I think that was the time frame) are more toned down in feminist/lesbian quality/perspective and social/political thought than one might find today in the same field; that is, not fire and brimestone but more subtle and introspective.

So today, psych is "science" but back then, it was "philosophy"? Says who? What makes it more "science" today? Oh, let me guess (using my Myers-Briggs matrix I have for you); psychs today conduct polls of how people feel. Yeah right, the old random sample. What a crock. Meawhile, psychs might think they are studying "motivation" but I have yet to be convinced of the many and strange conclusions reached in such circumstances to which I have been a party.

And why the need for ever new theories? What "motivated" people in the 90's is now different a decade later? Seems like the indicators are constantly changing and what was true only a few years ago is now no longer the case. Hard to claim this as a science when that is the case.

If you are not familar with the type of psych testing I hinted at in divorce cases, it's of no value to address the same other than to say that some type of personality testing has always been conducted in those cases (in which I represented a party). The results of these alleged "tests" are very usually the same and almost always reflect poorly on one specific party (the male) in the custody context.

The example is from an employment law case I worked on. Sorry, but you've made a huge assumption there that people change jobs that frequently. "Employee loyalty" and "continuous chain of management" are certainly not unheard of; don't know where you get that from. Yes, the tests are designed to weed people out; that is my whole point. They are often used to justify refusal to promote because the company has specifically picked someone else for the job but cannot merely move that person up due to a variety of employment laws. This is even more of an issue in government. They can also be used to prevent a person from obtaining full pension/retirement package; something to which the person had a legal expectation after 20 yrs of service.

[Sasha]

Here are just a few from a brief internet search for you:

http://www.innerworkcompany.com/MBTI.html
http://www.adventureassoc.com/services/corporate-training.html
http://www.teambuildingprograms.com/behavior/MyersBriggs.html
http://ceolearningsystems.com/courses/myersbriggs.html
and in US DoD or DoD/USG related
http://wwhttp://www.mitre.org/work/sepo/toolkits/ippd/tools/tools.html
www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf01/youm-a.pdf
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/mentorship/tools.asp
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r350-16-c1.doc
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0309.pdf

Many other US gov orgs will use this test as standard practice; a little searching and they can be found. Any security related org you apply to in the US will also use it.

Thanks. A lot of big name corps.
I also looked at the thread vIQleS pointed to.
You seem concerned that people can be moved out of a job or not promoted on the basis of these tests, would they stand up to employment laws?

[Rasmus55]

Thanks. A lot of big name corps.
I also looked at the thread vIQleS pointed to.
You seem concerned that people can be moved out of a job or not promoted on the basis of these tests, would they stand up to employment laws?

Oh it absolutely does happen. In my experience, the only people who actually believe in these woo tests are the most worthless people in the world; the HR "professionals". These HR morons are usually acting as a proxy for some other executive or manager somewhere who wants to stiffle or move a particular person to another place, prevent promotion, or even prevent additional retirement benefits; often the HR person does not even realize he/she is being used in this way.

With respect to the law, it's tricky. Various states have a variety of employment laws. This type of thing, however, is always presented as a "scientific psychological" test that clearly demonstrated the person "lacked (insert type) qualities" necessary for advancement or hiring. It is always presented in a very formal, clinical sounding expert pronouncement. What's even more funny is that the actual testing is rarely conducted by the company itself; it is usually set up through the HR bozo with a consultant. In any case, it is very hard to challenge effectively and win; arguments in defense of this will include such things as, "the test was one of several factors", "everyone was given the test (often untrue)", "results of psychological testing are private and we cannot divulge them (some courts actually fall for this)", "the person showed a clear disrespect for authority based upon his personality", and it goes on and on. It is, nevertheless, all pretense. Also, the company has the cash to defend itself; the employee usually cannot afford an expert witness to come in an debunk this trash. I note also that it is very hard to find expert psychologists willing to debunk Woo like this but very easy to find many who are willing to explain and advocate it for the other side. At the end of the day, depends upon the facts of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the litigation occurs.

[letsthink]

So I come to this forum thinking that the level of discourse would be high. . . ;)

MBTI has no proven diagnostic value.

The MMPI(s) are for diagnosis of major mental illness and are inappropriate for the workplace.

Sorry, new here so I can't give you links to back up what I say.

Letsthink

[letsthink]

As far as employment laws, unless there is a specific law which bars their use or the use of a specific test would result in discrimination based upon an impermissible classification (such as race, religion, national origin, marital status, sex and in some places, sexual orientation) it is fine to use such tests.

[Rasmus55]

As far as employment laws, unless there is a specific law which bars their use or the use of a specific test would result in discrimination based upon an impermissible classification (such as race, religion, national origin, marital status, sex and in some places, sexual orientation) it is fine to use such tests.

Oh? And exactly what legal elements exist in the employee/employer relationship? Have any idea? Not all things are contained in statute alone.

[Rasmus55]

So I come to this forum thinking that the level of discourse would be high. . . ;)

MBTI has no proven diagnostic value.

The MMPI(s) are for diagnosis of major mental illness and are inappropriate for the workplace.

Sorry, new here so I can't give you links to back up what I say.

Letsthink

Why would the MMPI(s) be inappropriate for the workplace? If these tests are for the diagnonsis of "major mental illness" (although they are actually testing for personality traits), why should a company not have access to a test that will tell them whether their employee is likely to steal from the company for instance? The tests either have an acceptable degree of accuracy or do not. And, as you have said, such tests are permissible within the workplace unless prohibited by statute. So what makes it inappropriate?

[letsthink]

Why would the MMPI(s) be inappropriate for the workplace? If these tests are for the diagnonsis of "major mental illness" (although they are actually testing for personality traits), why should a company not have access to a test that will tell them whether their employee is likely to steal from the company for instance? The tests either have an acceptable degree of accuracy or do not. And, as you have said, such tests are permissible within the workplace unless prohibited by statute. So what makes it inappropriate?

It is a medical diagnostic test and thus may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Some courts have held this to be the case. Accordingly, a specific law may bar its use.

I also think it is inappropriate for reasons that are not legal reasons. I question its value to predict how well you will do or not do a job. It does not predict if you will steal.

[letsthink]

Oh? And exactly what legal elements exist in the employee/employer relationship? Have any idea? Not all things are contained in statute alone.

Speaking of the US only:

Elements:

1.The terms of the employment contract. In many cases, there is no contract and under the laws of most states in that case employment is "at will."

2. Specific regulations and statutes and constitutional provisions that apply to the employment relationship. For example, anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, wage and hour laws, sexual harassment laws, etc.

3. Common law principles. These are theories handed down over the years but without a specific statute to back them up. Generally concern things like fiduciary duty, agency, etc, and not things like discrimination.

[sthomson]

(using my Myers-Briggs matrix I have for you)

Is this a joke, or do you really have a Myers-Briggs matrix for me?

Yeah right, the old random sample. What a crock.

What, specifically, are your problems with a properly conducted random sample?

Meawhile, psychs might think they are studying "motivation" but I have yet to be convinced of the many and strange conclusions reached in such circumstances to which I have been a party.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

And why the need for ever new theories?

Are you kidding me? You don't think our understanding and knowledge of the world and of our own minds should change and grow over time?

What "motivated" people in the 90's is now different a decade later? Seems like the indicators are constantly changing and what was true only a few years ago is now no longer the case.

I never claimed that anything fundamental about being a human was different in the '90s, but I DID argue that people used different techniques to analyse themselves and other in the 90s than they do today. What exactly is wrong with that statement?

The example is from an employment law case I worked on. Sorry, but you've made a huge assumption there that people change jobs that frequently. "Employee loyalty" and "continuous chain of management" are certainly not unheard of; don't know where you get that from.

I perhaps mis-stated myself. Previously, (say, post-WWI) it was very typical for people to stay with the same company from the age of 16 till retirement. As the US job core shifts away from skilled labor and industrial manufacturing jobs towards services and white-collar jobs with no tangible products, the idea that I would stick with a company for 20 years is almost laughable. Even if I had worked for a company for 20 years, I would not hesitate to find a job elsewhere, transferring over my benefits. Of course, this model does not apply to past situations, where people did indeed get screwed out of pensions, etc., because they thought that such things were assured.

It's become very clear to me that you have quite an axe to grind when it comes to certain topics, and I doubt that we could ever convince each other of our own opinions. But let me be very clear: using someones gender or sexual preference (or race, or any other inborn trait) to insult him/her or his/her beliefs is not acceptable in my book, or in many other people's books.

[ben m]

Meanwhile, I guess you mean to say that a person's social/sexual politics are no influence over his/her pseudo-scientific theories?

I am saying that they are not an influence by default. They may or not be an influence, and assuming they are is pretty much the definition of "stereotyping".


Also, isn't psychology actually all about the creation of stereotypes, and in particular, those areas of psychology that deal with personality traits? What are those Myers-Briggs BS types other than exactly that, stereotypes?


You are a little unclear on the concept. If I ask you "Do you like cheese?", it is not stereotyping to say, "Now I know whether you like cheese and can put you in my dairy-product-eaters category". (Leave aside whether this is a useful category, or a well-defined one, or a scientific one.) If I ask you "Are you French", it is stereotyping to make the same statement. If I ask you "Are you a feminist and a lesbian", it is stereotyping to infer, "In that case you are prone to fuzzy intuitive thinking".

Is it because you find my "stereotyping" offensive but Myers-Briggs' acceptable?

There's an actual, ugly history of mainstream, government-run unpleasantness associated with people's presumptions about women and gays. Perhaps you've noticed; you're darn right I find it offensive. This is not at all comparable to the problem that some psychology theory is wrong and/or overused. Griping that you didn't get hired at Company X because "the morons in HR only want ENJFs" is only marginally different than "the morons in HR were hiring totally randomly" ... but entirely, categorically different than "Fifteen companies in a row told me they don't promote women managers and that I should go find a husband instead."


Continuing, the strength of a theory certainly can be weakened by the creator's social/sexual politics. This is particularly true when there does not seem to exist any clear evidence to justify the theory.


Incorrect. If there's no evidence, you're done. That's all you need. If there is evidence, ditto. Knowing the authors only helps if you want to substitute your expectations for evidence---"Oh, the authors were X. People like that tend to make mistake Y, so I can reject this theory because it probably contains mistake Y."

If the impulse for the creation of the theory and test was influenced by social/sexual biases, then of course the results could very well be skewed.

Are you saying that you can tell it's skewed because you know the author's gender? Would a similar skeptic who didn't know the author's genders be able to see the same skew? Why not?

Umm, if their motivations happen to be both lesbian and feminist, then aren't you being a tad contradictory?

I know that Copernicus's orbital mechanics are wrong; I know because the planets move in thus-and-such way when Copernicus says otherwise. Separately, I know what aspects of Copernicus's life and times influenced his research methods, and this gives some insight into how he derived the wrong mechanics. The former is grounds for rejecting the theory; the latter isn't.

I don't even know, by the way, what your imagination conjures up for "lesbian and feminist motivations". But please don't tell me, I don't want to know. And I have no idea why you think that "writing marginally-reproducible survey tools" would follow from such motivations, given that straight white men (to my knowledge) weren't doing anything different in the 1950s.

[letsthink]

Oh it absolutely does happen. In my experience, the only people who actually believe in these woo tests are the most worthless people in the world; the HR "professionals". These HR morons are usually acting as a proxy for some other executive or manager somewhere who wants to stiffle or move a particular person to another place, prevent promotion, or even prevent additional retirement benefits; often the HR person does not even realize he/she is being used in this way.

With respect to the law, it's tricky. Various states have a variety of employment laws. This type of thing, however, is always presented as a "scientific psychological" test that clearly demonstrated the person "lacked (insert type) qualities" necessary for advancement or hiring. It is always presented in a very formal, clinical sounding expert pronouncement. What's even more funny is that the actual testing is rarely conducted by the company itself; it is usually set up through the HR bozo with a consultant. In any case, it is very hard to challenge effectively and win; arguments in defense of this will include such things as, "the test was one of several factors", "everyone was given the test (often untrue)", "results of psychological testing are private and we cannot divulge them (some courts actually fall for this)", "the person showed a clear disrespect for authority based upon his personality", and it goes on and on. It is, nevertheless, all pretense. Also, the company has the cash to defend itself; the employee usually cannot afford an expert witness to come in an debunk this trash. I note also that it is very hard to find expert psychologists willing to debunk Woo like this but very easy to find many who are willing to explain and advocate it for the other side. At the end of the day, depends upon the facts of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the litigation occurs.


So you an employment lawyer/litigator?

So, if you are an at will employee, what is impermissible about not hiring, firing or not promoting someone because of a score on a personality test, even if that test is not reliable or predictive?

How often do you run into this issue? Have you ever tried an ADA argument?

I think the bigger issue is using these bogus tests in custody cases. Now that is a big problem in my mind. However, I have seen some relatively good cross examinations of psychotherapists regarding their lack of knowledge of the research showing that the tests lack predictive value. Remember all the false memory cases which started with kids in daycare accusing their providers of all sorts of nonsense? A lot of psychotherapists got caught up in this, even though there is no science to support the idea that people repress memories of abuse. Now that is woo. (ugh, I am too old to use a word like "woo.")

[tishayton]

Definition of "woo?" please? (I assume some hypothesis created without critical thinking) also "Woo-woo" (I assume that in this context it's some idea straight out of someone's imagination and not thought through at all.)

Would that be a correct definition?
New here, mainly lurking. I am here to study the psychology of skepticism: is this last exchange typical?
Tish

[Professor Yaffle]

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html