Putting your Myers-Briggs personality type in your CV suggests to me that you probably believe in horoscopes, too. At the very least, you think it's relevant somehow and reflects positively on you (or why would you include it?). It's twee, self-indulgent, and pseudo-science - I want more from my developers.
Wow, it's great to be so confident. You must be correct then. /sarcasm
If you dig a little deeper into the foundation of analytical psychology, you might be surprised. Carl Jung popularized the terms Extravert and Introvert, and there have been at least 2 studies (that I know of) in neuroscience showing that dichotomy to exist, physically in the brain.
I'm hyperrational, started 2 successful companies, majored in CS, atheist, don't believe in horoscopes, or any bullshit for that matter, but do believe not all brains process information in the same way.
Now to say the MBTI test does not have some validity issues, would be delusional. But on the other hand, only an arrogant fool, would conclude that therefore there is a fundamental problem with the theory.
For example, if I construct a test that asks 500 people (assuming highly randomized sample) if they like sugar. And 250 people say "yes". One cannot conclude 50% of people like sugar.
The best you can hope to conclude is that 50% of people, self report as "liking sugar".
So what this means is that the test makes some flawed assumptions: eg
1. people are honest (consciously and/or subconsciously)
2. people know themselves enough, to give accurate responses
There may be more, but those appear to be the major flaws accounting for validity and reliability issues (engineering synonyms are, accuracy and precision). It is also plausible, that these challenges are not insurmountable.
Putting your Myers-Briggs personality type in your CV suggests to me that you probably believe in horoscopes, too. At the very least, you think it's relevant somehow and reflects positively on you (or why would you include it?). It's twee, self-indulgent, and pseudo-science - I want more from my developers.
This poster is not saying, "everyone processes information the exact same way." Rather the poster is saying, "The Meyer Briggs type inventory (as currently administered) is extremely flawed. Therefore, putting your type on your resume is akin to putting your horoscope."
In that regard, the original commenter is correct - the description of INTP is not useful as the test itself is fundamentally flawed. While there is a whole lot of science that says, "We are all different," MBTI doesn't do a very good job of quantifying these differences.
>the description of INTP is not useful as the test itself is fundamentally flawed.
Another logical fallacy. The test and a person's test result, are irrelevant to a persons actual personality type. It may or may not correlate. That is all we can say.
For example a person could test as an ESFJ, whilst in reality actually uses the cognitive functions, Fi Se Ni Te which correlates with an ISFP personality type.
And anyone that thinks everyone has the same personality type or thinks the same way, or that different personalities do not exist, is simply delusional.
It's not like myers-briggs is administered under anything resembling controlled conditions. It really is useless except for self-identifying that you like the myers-briggs categorization scheme and which of the 16 boxes you think that you are in.
Also, if you're going to cite scientific studies to rebut someone else's point, it goes much further to making your case when you actually dig up references or links to them.
Neuroanatomical Correlates of Extraversion and Neuroticism
Christopher I. Wright, Danielle Williams1 et al, Oxford JournalsLife Sciences & Medicine Cerebral Cortex (2006)
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/12/1809.full
It's a beachhead. It does not increase the perceived validity or precision of the test, but it does help support the claim that the theory and model, may have a basis in reality.
That is the foundation of science, models and theories describing reality.
There are also plenty of new theories being created today that have yet to be empirically evidenced. But that in itself, does not make that theory unscientific.
Thus, "What is science?" This is actually an extremely thorny question and perhaps better suited for another time. Although I should add philosophy of science and epistemology happen to be two passions of mine.
Falsificationism is a pretty good start if you are interested. It is by no means not contentious (as is probably any position in contemporary philosophy - but that is another matter)
Many engineering types with a brief flirtation with the philosophy of science, tend to like Popper's idea of a theory being solid, if in theory it is able to be shown to be false.
That is the major reason why the MBTI is not at all like horoscopes. Horoscopic predictions cannot be shown to be false (because they are too vague), but the MBTI test can be.
For example, I have never ever met a single person that has said or thinks that "all 16 types fit a person equally".
> It really is useless except for self-identifying that you like the myers-briggs categorization scheme and which of the 16 boxes you think that you are in.
That's about the gist of the MBTI reference when I included it in the page.
For some reason, there's a popular myth that Myers-Briggs has any scientific basis. It doesn't. Please don't use it and thereby perpetuate this insult to the genuine social science research that is done.
MBTI and the MBTI test are two different things although often confused as one.
If you want to be scientific, then a more accurate statement is:
The MBTI test, may have weak validity and precision across all it's dichotomies.
Albeit even this matter seems to be contended.
"CPP Inc., the publisher of the MBTI instrument, calls it "the world's most widely used personality assessment",with as many as two million assessments administered annually. The CPP and other proponents state that the indicator meets or exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments and cite reports of individual behavior. Some studies have found strong support for construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, although variation was observed. However, some academic psychologists have criticized the MBTI instrument, claiming that it "lacks convincing validity data". Some studies have shown the statistical validity and reliability to be low. The use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a predictor of job success has not been supported in studies,[15][16] and its use for this purpose is expressly discouraged in the Manual.[17]"
That's not entirely true, some of the factors and some of the profiles do have empirical backing. E.g. I think the INTP type has been found to underperform in school relative to IQ, and both introversion and extraversion have been validated as well.
Putting your Myers-Briggs personality type in your CV suggests to me that you probably believe in horoscopes, too.
That was harshly said, but the OP appeared to be looking for constructive criticism, so that comment is warranted. The unvalidated Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® is no more useful to employers than horoscopes, and likely to expose employers who use it to legal liability. Here are some standard references on the subject:
"Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: ‘at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs’, the very thing that it is most often used for."
The problem with including the MBTI on your resume has nothing to do with its accuracy, precision, or scientific basis. It's about relevance.
Flip the problem around: If your interviewer asked you for your MBTI type, would you think that was a good sign? Is that the kind of company that you want to work for, the kind that spends valuable interview time quizzing you about being an INTP? Let me venture to guess that the answer is "no". So why provide such detail?
(If the answer is "but I would never want to work for someone who doesn't know, and care, that I identify as an INTP", then I withdraw my observation. Good luck to you.)
My more general advice is: A resume isn't a dossier that summarizes one's entire life. You're not trying to adopt a child. You're trying to score a six-month gig. Focus, focus, focus.
> Flip the problem around: If your interviewer asked you for your MBTI type, would you think that was a good sign?
No, that would not be a good sign, point taken, although I'm not sure it's that bad when you mention it as an applicant. The relevance for me was describing what kind of guy I think I am (somewhat of an introvert), but maybe I should downplay it or leave it out completely.
The risk I see with hiring someone who lists their MBTI on their CV so prominently is that one day I'm going to ask them to do something, or work with someone, or communicate in a certain way about something, and they'll claim they can't or won't, based on that.
MB is not magic. It does not produce new information out of thin air like horoscopes. You give it your psychological traits in pretty much clear text, and all it does is reduce these to a few categories. Strictly scientific? Probably not. But neither are a lot of useful things in psychology. Anecdotally accurate? Check. Has a reasonable model? Check. Works for me.
I know, there's probably a crazy cult about MB somewhere, but such things are around pretty much anything remotely interesting.
> Anecdotally accurate? Check. Has a reasonable model? Check.
To the former part: horoscopes are also anecdotally accurate, and hence the comparison. Good horoscopes and other forms of cold reading are specifically designed to offer people given situations they can relate to: "sometimes you feel like you're the life and soul of the party, but it's interesting, because you represent a contradiction - there are times when really you just want to be alone" (source: I just made that up)... Compare and contrast to: "As an INTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition." (source: first line of first result for INTP on Google) You mean ... INTPs are sometimes rational and logic, and sometimes intuitive? ;-)
To the latter part: the model is a big part of the problem. It polarizes personality traits that are necessarily context-dependent, mood-influenced, and exist on a scale in to binary Yes/No. If you're not Introverted, you're Extraverted. Not: "you're in the middle, and occasionally tend to one or the other" - simply: "you are x".
One thing I am realizing is that they put ISTJs/ESTJs in the interviewer seat. Your liked minded INTPs are all developing, not interviewing.
They don't find certain fluffy things as impressive. They like concrete, palpable information.
That's why you have to take it off to increase your chances...you'll be with your other INTPs after your hired...just have to make it through those SJs...
