Re: Myers-Briggs (the real thing)

[Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>]

Quoting John Wilcox <JWilcox -at- zetron -dot- com>:

> 
> Rather than relying on the abbreviated M-B test currently going around on
> the Internet, consider getting the book (available at your local library)
> and taking the full 75-question test. Everyone I know who has taken it has
> found the results to be right on.

But the same is true of horoscopes, or even of general comments (which is why 
psychics can do such a roaring business). Add the aura of scientific 
respectability, and people are heavily disposed towards accepting whatever is 
said about them, even if some of it is negative. Since there is no control, the 
fact that people believe the results "right on" doesn't mean that they are.

You're right, of course, that some variations of the test are more thorough 
than others. However, thoroughness does not necessarily imply greater accuracy. 
A horoscope based on the exact second of birth may be more thorough, but is it 
any more accurate than one based on the day? From the viewpoint of a skeptic 
like me, they are both nonsense - amusing nonsense, maybe, when I'm at a party, 
but nonsense all the same.

Also, the design of all M-B variants is highly questionable. They assume that 
personality is constant, although many people find that they get different 
results on different days. And how were the axes for evaluating people chosen? 
Why weren't other aspects chosen? They were for other types of personality 
tests.

-- 
Bruce Byfield bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com 604-421.7177