Asklemmy

43852 readers

968 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

291

What popular product do you think is modern day snakeoil? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

578 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 58 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The Mayers Briggs Type Indicator test. It was developed with the same rigor as horoscopes, yet I still hear people I know are smart proudly tell me their four letter personality code.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Yeah, it's corporate astrology

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've always felt that the Myers-Briggs shit was utter nonsense, having been forced many times to go through it at several employers over the years.

Any chance you've got a decent source that debunks it? I'd love to have it in my pocket for next time...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Wikipedia entry for it is pretty scathing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator

If you look into it further, neither of the people who designed it has any background in psychology except having read a book by Jung once.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Nice one. This statement in particular sums it up nicely:

Jung did not see the type preferences (such as introversion and extraversion) as dualistic, but rather as tendencies: both are innate and have the potential to balance.

I remember reading elsewhere that it'd be like drawing a line down the middle of a table of people's heights, so that those who were 5 feet 10 inches and under would be the "shorts" and those 5 feet 11 inches and taller would be the "talls".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Typical ITPS comment! /s