- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 26,600
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 6w5
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Does anyone find this guy's argument to be seriously lacking in depth of insight?
Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die | Psychology Today
1. Reliability - his statistics don't seem to match up with what myersbriggs.org publishes and it would appear they have a fairly large data set that they are basing their numbers on. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/reliability-and-validity.htm?bhcp=1
2. Application - his paragraph contains basic and fundamental flaws. "A test is valid if it predicts outcomes that matter. If we’re going to use it in organizations, it should shed light on how well I’ll perform in a particular job or with a certain group of people. Although there are data suggesting that different occupations attract people of different types, there is no convincing body of evidence that types affect job performance or team effectiveness. As management researchers William Gardner and Mark Martinko write in a comprehensive review, “Few consistent relationships between type and managerial effectiveness have been found.â€
Who ever said type predicts job performance? These statements alone show a remarkable lack of knowledge about the instrument he is criticizing.
3. Categories and Mutual Exclusivity - "in the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions."
Again, shows a remarkable lack of understanding on the instrument - linking a preference for feeling to liking people and emotions.
I mean, I could go on but this guy just seems incredibly stupid. And he's got a doctorate? Don't they teach you how to do research when you do something like that? He's a professor at Wharton? If a student wrote something so poorly researched, I believe they would deserve a D or an F. Or is his integrity so low that he's just looking for clickbait in an attempt to become popular?
Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die | Psychology Today
1. Reliability - his statistics don't seem to match up with what myersbriggs.org publishes and it would appear they have a fairly large data set that they are basing their numbers on. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/reliability-and-validity.htm?bhcp=1
2. Application - his paragraph contains basic and fundamental flaws. "A test is valid if it predicts outcomes that matter. If we’re going to use it in organizations, it should shed light on how well I’ll perform in a particular job or with a certain group of people. Although there are data suggesting that different occupations attract people of different types, there is no convincing body of evidence that types affect job performance or team effectiveness. As management researchers William Gardner and Mark Martinko write in a comprehensive review, “Few consistent relationships between type and managerial effectiveness have been found.â€
Who ever said type predicts job performance? These statements alone show a remarkable lack of knowledge about the instrument he is criticizing.
3. Categories and Mutual Exclusivity - "in the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions."
Again, shows a remarkable lack of understanding on the instrument - linking a preference for feeling to liking people and emotions.
I mean, I could go on but this guy just seems incredibly stupid. And he's got a doctorate? Don't they teach you how to do research when you do something like that? He's a professor at Wharton? If a student wrote something so poorly researched, I believe they would deserve a D or an F. Or is his integrity so low that he's just looking for clickbait in an attempt to become popular?