Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rekniht01 t1_ixe6z0k wrote

Take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Up to half of the research published on it is for the organization that sells the "official" tests in a publication that is supported by sales of the "official" test. So...

Then there is the new fad CliftonStrengths which includes dichotomies like: I am routinized or I am zestful.
I still don't have any clue what the hell that is supposed to mean.

10

square_mile t1_ixejk4z wrote

We know that Myers Briggs is just a false derivative of the big 5. But the big five is scientifically sound, if anything in psych is.

4

chazwomaq t1_ixeuher wrote

Myers Briggs is not a derivative of the Big 5 - it long predates it.

But it is a crock of shite.

18

square_mile t1_iy11dkn wrote

Sorry, I meant that to the extent that it works, it does so because it overlaps with big 5.

1

koboldium t1_ixeiz03 wrote

I find the Strength Finder by Clifton fairly useful, especially when it’s being actively used within the company. Whenever you assemble a team to work on a project, you can check their “strengths” to adjust the ways of working, and get the general sense of team dynamics. It usually helps, never heard of a case when using SF would actually hurt.

The “strengths” sometimes have weird names, that’s true, but they’re explained quite well in the materials provided by Clifton.

Having said all that - I have no idea how well is it based on science.

−2