The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-myers-briggs-personality-test-is-pretty-much-meaningless-9359770/?no-ist <comment> n-exploit As an individual (INFJ) thoroughly interested in Myers-Briggs, I often see this discussion brought up. As a short rebuttal, I feel as though many of those who tout Myers-Briggs as a comprehensive personality test fail to understand what the Myers-Briggs attempts to identify. While the "value-add" is more subjective, I'm going to go ahead and say it's not as useless as this article claims. While I don't think anyone (especially employers) should rely heavily on Myers-Briggs, I think it can provide a decent framework (or starting point) outlining basic facets of an individual's personality based on their own perspective. Though I often distrust individual claims about belonging a certain type, given my interest in understanding myself and facets of my own personality, I enjoy discussing why a person may claim to be a part of a certain type.

For me, Myers-Briggs tends to be little more than a starting point for discussing the finer parts of my own personality, values, and perspectives. I find that those who are equally interested in Myers-Briggs share similar values in self-understanding, thus a starting point for some interesting discussion.

<comment><USER11> My primary concern with even cursory usage of Myers-Briggs is that retest consistency isn't as high as I'd like. Plenty of people retest very solidly, of course, but there's a large-percentage chunk of the population that walks or more boundaries and doesn't put up consistent tests. That makes it hard to say _anything_ about the results, at least in simple "my type" terms.

A nuanced discussion would probably accept that these are continuous axes, but instead they get treated as clusters, distorting even casual analysis.

<comment><USER12> Which is the fundamental failure. Picking E v. I says little about relative magnitude. 'E' might be slightly larger than 'I' but below the test's noise floor so you show up 'I' slightly more frequently. Or 'E' might significantly higher than 'I' so it's a consistent result.

Further, it says nothing about the fluctuations in magnitude over time, some days 'E' might be more important than 'I' and it really can swap on other days. Or even how accurately people self report.

<comment><USER13> Actually, a type (e.g. INFP) does say a lot about the magnitude of different cognitive processes. Take a look at this website (INFP linked as an example): [http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/INFP.cfm](http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/INFP.cfm)

<comment><USER12> There are only 4 bits of information. E v I, S v N, T v F, J v P.

So, if you are 'strongly' I and weakly P that does not change the order to show P is more dominate over J than I is over E. AKA, magnitude is literally not part of the test.

<comment><USER14> When I took the MBTI as part of a college psych course, our test results came back with magnitude scores: moderately I, very N, barely T (ie, almost X), and very P. (The actual scores were numeric, but I only remember the relative strength years later.)

When discussing the results as a class, the strength of a type seemed to correlate reasonably with behavior, and explain more than the clusters on their own, eg, all the strong NPs had similar epistemological views and styles, fading towards an SJ style as the scores people had changed.

What a lot of people seem to forget, though, is the MBTI doesn't account for effects from disorders only healthy variation and it's about who you are right now, not who you are permanently. People vary over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is so poorly thought out. I really don't get why some people can't seem to tell the difference between things like MBTIs and astrological signs/zodiacs/horoscopes in terms of their potential to classify people in a meaningful way...

One is an arbitrary mapping of a person's date of birth to an set of traits and prophesies.

The other is a brief summary of a person's personality/behavioral inclinations based on a survey of that person's stated behavior and inclinations. When you say MBTI can be "just as arbitrary," what you're claiming is that it might be true that there is zero correlation between how any individual person of a given personality type answers any of the 93 MBTI questions. Sure, there is variation in people's self-assessments (and personalities for that matter, but let's ignore that for the moment) over time, but it wouldn't be "just as arbitrary" unless it had no correlation at all with basically anything about the person. I find that claim to be completely implausible.

The only way it could be true that it is meaningless is if upon repeated testings, knowing a person's formerly reported MBTI provided no insight _at all_ into what MBTIs are more likely than for the average person in subsequent testings. That's certainly not the case that's been found in the research, so at the very least, it provides insight into what a person thinks that they are like.

Even if it were the case that all the MBTIs are only related to positive traits (which isn't true), the idea that it is meaningless is just nonsense.

<comment><USER16> > I really don't get why some people can't seem to tell the difference between > things like MBTIs and astrological signs/zodiacs/horoscopes

Then let me try to help clarify. MBTI has no predictive power ("I'm an INTP, so... ?") and is not falsifiable. Those are the delineators between science and pseudoscience, so that's why I bucket it with astrology.

<comment><USER17> .

<comment><USER18> That's meaningless unless you confirm that their fitness for that task was actually correlated to their MTBI, e.g. by mixing those "fit" and "unfit" (based on MTBI) on the same task and comparing their performance. I'm pretty sure most companies don't do this. They just assume MTBI has predictive power and use it anyway since it gives them something to go on besides gut instinct.

<comment><USER17> Well, I know for sure that a person with an INTJ personality type is not suited for marketing and sales (statistically speaking of course). Would you claim otherwise?

<comment><USER19> Yes I would. Given the inconsistency of results that the Myers-Briggs test outputs for individuals, the personality of that person who tested as an INTJ could be far from it normally.

Furthermore, your willingness to buy into the narrative (and others' willingness to also believe it) that by categorizing certain people into stereotypes and assuming that most of these people tend to excel at a particular set of tasks is most likely what limits them from excelling at tasks that lie outside of their respective sets just as much as their true predisposition to not excelling at them.

<comment><USER17> Then please point me to the research, because the article does a lousy job at it.

Saying that any profiling technique has zero predictive value is a very bold claim.

Even one's astrological sign has predictive value: [1]. And yes, this has been scientifically proven.

[1] [http://www.medicaldaily.com/how-birth-month-influences- perso...](http://www.medicaldaily.com/how-birth-month-influences-personality- traits-ironic-science-astrological-signs-333274)

<comment><USER20> Why is it the job of the skeptic to prove that a profiling technique _does not_ have predictive power? Shouldn't _you_ have to prove that it _does_?

<comment><USER17> Because it is very hard for a test _not_ to have predictive power.

For example, companies fruitfully extract predictive power from whether a user clicked a link or not. Facebook extracts predictive power from whether users like videos, et cetera. So why shouldn't an elaborate test that was developed to have meaning, not have any predictive power?

<comment><USER21> Not having predictive power means it is not better than chance at predicting any X.

There are results that show MBTI has no predictive power against job performance. It has not been tested against any other measure.

That said, MBTI shows bad orthogonality in the factors in its response. This suggests the factors are ill defined.

<comment><USER17> > There are results that show MBTI has no predictive power against job > performance.

Could you provide a reference?

<comment><USER21> Provided by another person in this thread already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I find the MBTI incredibly useful. When I meet someone I immediately figure out what their MBTI type is. That saves me enormous amounts of time later on ---I don't have to pay close attention to what they say or do. I just rely on their MBTI type. Sometimes I don't even bother listening to them or asking their opinion, which lets me use the time to think about other things, like HN. I used to use their astrological sign, but that required asking for their birthday, which was awkward, especially when I didn't get them a present.

</comment><comment><USER23> The point of these IMO, isn't to pigeonhole people, it's for many practical reasons:

\- Engender some self awareness. It's astonishing how many people lack critical self-awareness about how they approach problems , handle change, communicate with others, or deal with their emotions. MBTI might be nonsense or unverifiable but for many people it's their first exposure to any written form of objective introspection. The belief that these are immutable traits somehow isn't usually dwelled on.

\- Help team members recognize that there are different styles/preferences of thinking and reasoning. You'd be amazed how many inter-office conflicts get resolved just through spending time getting to know one another. MBTI or HBDI workshops (not just the test) are helpful for this

On a final note, there is a fairly popular executive MBA program where I took a one week survey course on leadership about a decade ago. In both this course and the program, they were pretty stoked about the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI): [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Ins...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument)

With the hope it was a bit more rooted in science than MBTI. It focuses more on cognitive preferences than on personality.

<comment><USER24> For me, I appreciated obtaining and knowing my MBTI result for exactly this self-awareness. It allowed me to recognize in myself when certain behaviors and patterns were occurring, and how others might perceive me in those moments. Scientific or not, having a way to codify my personal introspection helped me in many ways career-wise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's basically horoscope for geeks

More articles

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and- take/201309/go...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and- take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die)

Edit: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/09/29/the- mysteri...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/09/29/the-mysterious- popularity-of-the-meaningless-myers-briggs-mbti/#4f75ae8950ad)

And the Guardian article [https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain- flapping/2013/mar/...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain- flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific)

<comment><USER26> I think your missing the point. Do you know what flavor of ice cream you like? I think you do -- and why not know that about yourself?

Everyone is some range of introverted to extroverted, for example. It's their preference, such as the flavor of ice cream they like. It can change often, under circumstances, or even not be present, of course. It's not set in stone; it's just a preference. It doesn't define you; you define it.

Myers-Briggs is unfortunate in that it assigns that preference as letter. You like Chocolate. You're a C. There are some who have no problem with this sort of designation. They love chocolate always and in every circumstance. Many, however, are not one letter, and so it's a poor test.

The point is not the letter. The point is asking yourself the question: do you feel more energized after a dinner party or after a quiet day alone? The point is to know, not just what flavors your prefer usually, but what situations (in this case) you prefer. And why not know that about yourself?

<comment><USER25> I'd prefer a questionnaire which provides the benefits of self-questioning towards better self knowledge and actualisation. This can be done without MBTI which adds pseudo-science on top of any questioning it might provide, which falsely formalises bull __ __and fossilises fake intellectual structures into public consciousness.

The scales are unsound. They actively direct people away from curiosity in discovering other structures which are less wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This article is as unscientific as it claims the Myers-Briggs test to be. It does not prove the Myers-Briggs test wrong, but instead claims that there is no evidence to support it. Well, in science, if you want to claim that something is wrong, you need two things: the theory must be falsifiable and you need to falsify it. Just claiming something has no evidence is not enough.

Some more critique on the article.

1\. The Myers Briggs test result does not need to be binary. There are variants of the tests that give you a score on each of its 4 axes (Introvert/Extrovert, Sensing/Intuitive, Feeling/Thinking, Judging/Perceptive). For example, see [https://www.16personalities.com/free- personality-test](https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test)

2\. The test results do not always talk about positive qualities. For example, here is a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the ISFJ personality. [https://www.16personalities.com/isfj-strengths-and- weaknesse...](https://www.16personalities.com/isfj-strengths-and-weaknesse..).

Finally, on the point of falsification, I would like to suggest the following test. Take a group of people and let them take the test. Now let the close friends of the test taker read all the personality type descriptions and chose one for the test taker. Find the correlation between the friends' choices and the test results. If the correlation is significant, then the test is meaningful. Otherwise not meaningful.

<comment><USER11> For these points, I think it's crucial to distinguish "Myers-Briggs style tests" from The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The first thing, MB-style tests, are amorphous and have been improved in various ways since the invention of the test.

That second thing is a formalized test with licensed practitioners. It's been used to disqualify people from jobs, and has produced a huge amount of secondary literature/analysis which requires the binary distribution to be meaningful. This formalized test has been worth a small fortune for the people who own it, and their training seminars and public literature aggressively go against both points 1 and 2.

It's fair to criticize MBTI as, say, needing to be binary. 16personalities is a secondary group which is doing a different thing than the still-popular, rigorously-bounded original.

<comment><USER27> I guess you are referring to this. [http://www.myersbriggs.org/](http://www.myersbriggs.org/)

This is a valid point. If the version that most companies are using needs a binary classification, then this is a meaningful criticism of the test.

However, note that this is just be a criticism of the test. It says nothing about whether the tests are effective or not, which is what the article tries to prove.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> My opinion is that the real value of tools like this is to give people a common vocabulary to talk about themselves and understand others. I think StrengthsFinder[0] does a particularly good job at this. The danger is when people assume they understand somone (or themselves) based on the letters/scores/etc. sans dialogue/reflection.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now%2C_Discover_Your_Strengths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now%2C_Discover_Your_Strengths)

<comment><USER29> That is valuable and true. The problem is that people take them to mean "this is what I'm like" when it really means "this is how I responded to this test."

<comment><USER30> Sometimes, people strive to be different, perhaps to improve themselves. When answering a MB question, the answer could be understood in two possible ways: "I usually do that" and "My instinct is to do that". For example, she might keep the room clean but when she was younger, she was sloppy - her instinct is still to be sloppy by she is more disciplined now and keeps clean. How should she answer? These kinds of confusions could change a type.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The covariance of the Big 5 and MBTI is high. This means that if you give both inventories to the same population you can do a factor rotation of one onto the other with much of the variance being preserved. This has been demonstrated multiple times in the academic literature. I have never read an article against the MBTI that mentioned this, and that's because the people who write these articles do not understand statistics. The MBTI is approximately as valid as the Big 5.

<comment><USER32> Yea, it's very frustrating that this sort of article gets written when the author does not even address the arguments on the wikipedia page!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Big_Five)

That said, I don't think it's quite true that "The MBTI is approximately as valid as the Big 5". It seems to me that the Big 5 is a strict improvement on the MBTI. First, the discrete nature of the MBTI incorrectly suggests that the distributions are bimodal, when I don't think anyone thinks that's true. Second, I'm willing to bet that even if we just concentrate on the 4 factors of the Big 5 that correlate with the (non-discrete version of the) MBTI factors, we'd find significantly higher validity for the former, if only because there have been many more serious scientists studying and refining it over many years.

Read more: [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-myers-briggs- pe...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-myers-briggs-personality- test-is-pretty-much-meaningless-9359770/#hzApBS3IkVv6vvsa.99) Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! [http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv](http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv) Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

<comment><USER31> They both have strengths and weaknesses. Strengths of the MBTI include the text descriptions, which are very valuable, and that it focuses on positive psychology. Of course, if you rotate the MBTI onto the Big 5, you see that it does in fact measure neuroticism, although not that strongly.

<comment><USER32> > Strengths of the MBTI include the text descriptions, which are very > valuable, and that it focuses on positive psychology

You're describing salesmanship and/or popularizing techniques, not scientific validity.

<comment><USER31> What you have to understand is that statistically the models are very similar (you can compress them both into one unified model that does what both of them do quite well). However, the ways the models are constructed makes them useful for different things. The Big 5 is primarily useful for academics, and the MBTI is primarily useful for the rest of us.

If you are a logical positivist and scientific realist you'll never be able to grok this. As a utilitarian I understand that science is the process of making something that does something you want done.

<comment><USER32> I think I grok that some simplifications are more useful and teachable than others, and that it's possible to accomplish useful things by simplifying (and also by misleading). But I don't think you have to be a hardcore logical positivist to think these are distinct notions from "validity". My impression is that you have psychological or statistical training, so when you used the word in your original comment I assume you know what it meant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've found that Meyers Briggs feels accurate to people whose classifications _don 't_ fall right on the margin. If two of the letters fall close to the margin, parts of the description will feel a bit inaccurate.

In my opinion, the Meyers Briggs is useful mainly because it can help people become more self-aware and more empathetic toward others.

I've observed that in a group of 15 people who just got their Meyers Briggs results, several usually think it was uncannily accurate, and a few are immediately defensive because the result does not jive with their self- perception (usually because the personality type is described as similar to some unsavory characters from history). When I read articles criticizing Meyers Briggs, I always assume it was written by one of these people.

If you are in a relationship, one interesting game to play with your significant other is to take the Meyers Briggs test and then read some of the stuff that has been written about relationship compatibility through the Meyers Briggs lens. I've found it to be quite accurate for many couples I know. There is also a very amusing book called _Please Understand me II_ which has detailed write-ups about the characteristics of each type. It's great for parties to read out loud everyone's results over a glass of wine.

IMHO Personality tests are useful mainly to encourage self-awareness, introspection and empathy. As a Meyers Briggs ENTP I find the descriptions of an ENTP personality flattering and desirable. I suspect nearly any type would find their own type description equally flattering and desirable.

<comment><USER11> > I've found that Meyers Briggs feels accurate to people whose classifications > don't fall right on the margin. If two of the letters fall close to the > margin, parts of the description will feel a bit inaccurate.

Unfortunately, the traits investigated by the MBTI seem to be normally distributed. So as true as this is, it still means that people who are decisively placed on all four axes are the exception rather than the rule.

<comment><USER33> True, in my case I'm close to the P/J line and the E/I line, so there are aspects of the ENTJ, INTJ, and INTP that ring true to me, but in spite of that the ENTP description tends to feel more accurate.

Nonetheless, one meets a lot of ENTJs and INTPs and understanding some of the subtle differences between those and ENTP has helped me understand my differences and similarities with those people better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I get highly skeptical whenever I encounter things like this.

I've been subjected to "DiSC" profiling at a previous employer. After taking the test we were subjected to a 3 hour session where we slowly discovered and learned about our unique profile. The best part was I compared my strengths and weaknesses with someone who had an "opposite" personality and they were pretty close to identical.

Granted there is a lot to be gained by getting a group of people in a room to talk about the different ways they interact with the world and how they go about solving problems. However, as soon as you start providing formulas for how to interact with people my bull shit detector goes off.

<comment><USER35> And when your employer totally buys in to the bullshit, there's a strong incentive to game the system -- make sure you're classified as a DI (Dominance/Inducement) if you want to move up the management ranks.

<comment><USER36> This is good to know. It would probably be useful for someone to catalog the "desirable" categories for the various personality tests. We know the tests are used for screening, and it's a pretty safe bet that the screening is based on stereotypes.

I don't think it's necessary to precisely nail a specific set of quanta, but simply to avoid the symbols that are associated with negative stereotypes such as introverted, obstinate, or lazy. When I had to take one of these kinds of tests, I just put myself into a mind set of being outgoing, cheerful, agreeable, diligent, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > _the most obvious flaw is that the MBTI seems to rely exclusively on binary > choices….For example, in the category of extrovert v introvert, you're > either one or the other; there is no middle ground_

This is categorically false. Myers Briggs results are quite literally reported on a spectrum of 100 I - 0 - E 100, with your position on the spectrum shown. The 4 letter rollup is exactly that: a summary rollup of your test results.

<comment><USER38> Then why do we use the summary rollup when it completely loses any of the granular insights? It makes no sense for me to say I'm an E when it was 51E, 49I. For me personally, shouldn't I instead say something like 51E64N60F65J? Likewise, the "insights" you get into your 4 letters is based on whatever the majority letter was, even when your percentages are nowhere near 100% for each.

<comment><USER39> Eh, I'm right on the E/I border and pretty strongly test one way in the other categories so I just say i'm barely an I and then NTJ.

<comment><USER40> I believe this is classified as an "x" within the MBTI community, where x means on the border.

<comment><USER39> So xNTJ? Cool

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> MBTI highly correlates with OCEAN (aka Big Five), a psychological test (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Big_Five)). Sure, some parts make no sense (like insisting in binary values, or some of its interpretation). Still, it is not a horoscope.

I use it a lot when it comes to introducing people to nerdy friends (especially in the context of dating, like: "She's INFP!" or "Yeah, she looks nice, but is a total ESFJ...".)

A link (nice pictures, especially the carnivorous plant for INTP) and some descritpions that actually may be helpful how to deal with other people (especially with different personalities): [https://www.16personalities.com/](https://www.16personalities.com/).

If you really want to "be scientific" (as if it was a binary criterion), you can use OCEAN. For me it would be:

O+ C- E= A- N+

</comment><comment> J-dawg It is well worth watching Derren Brown's demonstration of the Barnum / Forer effect [0].

If you've never heard of it, I recommend watching the video before you Google anything. It's only a short video (less than 4 minutes) and is a brilliant demonstration.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCjzLij54k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCjzLij54k)

</comment><comment><USER42> As a society, we believe in a lot of pseudo-scientific garbage, from management principles, to nutrition theories, to psychological tests. Ironically it's an outgrowth of our glorification of science and education: kids are taught from an early age to defer to those who clothe themselves in the trappings of the academic, and so as adults people voluntarily entertain very stupid ideas so long as they sound sufficiently "science-y."

<comment><USER25> Caution and scepticism are important. However, you imply that teaching and science are bad. That way lies creationism and magical thinking via truthy plausibilist hokum to end up teaching them to be conspiracy theorists

<comment><USER42> A lot of the science-y crap that is popular today is no better than creationism and magical thinking. The problem isn't science, it's "science for everyone" and scientists' failure to jealously guard their turf.

<comment><USER25> That's clearer and more reasonable. But what do you think should be done to achieve this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is not a new finding. MBTI has never really been a serious psychological tool. In fact, a lot of the personality assessments used in business are really just woo - MBTI isn't even the worst. It at least is internally consistent.

For a real personality exam with actual use in psych research, check out the Five Factor metric.

<comment><USER43> Five Factor is not much better than MBTI. See [http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.161.10.1...](http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.161.10.1743) for better (and more recent) research on the subject.

<comment><USER21> Dead salmon study is nowhere near comparable to a psych survey with a lot of data behind it like Big Five.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> At the company I work for, everybody took the test and then we all sat down with a coach to go over the scope of Meyers Briggs and exactly what each part meant. As we were going through this with our team we each had a card in front of us with our type on them.

Explaining the profile parts while seeing your team members profiles was a great exercise for us because it effectively taught us how to communicate better with each other. I'm an ENFJ on a team of highly technical introverts INTJ.

We learned how to work better together, how to communicate better and they also learned how/when to better utilize me for interactions with the rest of the company.

Until we did this exercise it was just some interesting test results.

</comment><comment><USER45> > For example, in the category of extrovert vs introvert, you're either one or > the other; there is no middle ground.

That's not entirely true. The final answer that people wear as a badge is binary, but the result is calculated as a percentage, and usually presented to the test-taker as a percentage.

</comment><comment><USER46> The difficulty I see with MBTI is that the categories were decided in advance, whereas they should be determined based on the data. In other words, MBTI treats human personality as a classification problem (which of these categories do you belong to?) where it should be treated as a clustering problem (which categories even exist?)

I'd love to do some data mining on a large MBTI test database. Better yet, a large database of people's responses to various personality-oriented questions, MBTI or not.

</comment><comment><USER47> Lots of comments here mention the use of MBTI in the workplace. This is such a bad idea! As someone who has taken the test many times over the years, I have a lot of problems with the system in general, especially when applied to the workplace. That's not to say that the idea of personality types is invalid, but I have often seen them misapplied (and overapplied) in practice.

In my experience, Gallup's Strengthsfinder system is much better suited to workplace environments. It's backed by solid research, and I really like its core philosophy: everyone has natural strengths, and building off those strengths will lead to better outcomes than trying to compensate for personal weaknesses. As long as companies understand that it isn't a litmus test for suitability -- teams should have a diversity of strengths or they will have blind spots -- it can actually be a great tool for understanding management and team dynamics.

For personal development, I prefer the Enneagram system. I've found each type's "levels of development" to be incredibly helpful in pinpointing my own type, and overall I have a much better "fit" with my type than in MBTI. As opposed to Strengthsfinder, the Enneagram system is mainly useful for identifying patterns in behavior and understanding motivations. Not such a great business tool, except perhaps at the executive level.

<comment><USER48> I also had incredible "fit" with Enneagram. I'm not sure I agree about it not being a good business tool, though. I've met a great Quality Manager who almost certainly was a type 6 (which is naturally focused on finding risks and things that might go wrong). The level to which his position matched his personality was striking - he was extremely good at what he was doing and he loved it. I know a type 6 girl who dropped her job as editor and became a software tester as well. She just liked doing it.

Similarly you could reason about type 7 and their ideal job position: they see more opportunieties and options than others (Steve Jobs was said to be 7w8), but they often dismiss any risks involved. They also hate repetitive day to day work. Hence they would make better Architect, Analyst, UX Designer or Salesperson than a Project Manager (unless they are eg. balanced by a 6 in their team).

I'm not saying that we should choose job solely on the type, it just offers lot of opportunities to understand what is it specifically in given activity that we like and what goes naturally against our habits. Whether we change the job or just work on the weaknesses is up to us.

<comment><USER47> Good point. I should have been more specific. I agree that the Enneagram is useful _personally_ in business, but I'd caution against HR departments attempting to categorize their employees based on type and draw judgments from the results. (Again, this could be different at the executive level, where companies may be seeking a certain type or "flavor" of leadership.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> If you want a scientific measure of personality you can use the Big Five.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)

<comment><USER50> Which notably do correlate closely with Myers-Briggs traits, so if you believe the one is meaningful then so is the other.

<comment><USER51> The primary problem with Myers-Briggs, besides the four traits not at all correlating with the big five is the test itself because it's binary.

Correlations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Big_Five) 0.44 / -0.49 is not correlation.

<comment><USER50> The test measures a scale. Reporting the result as binary is indeed extremely misleading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> This is making light of a difficult problem. Personality is an interesting and relevant aspect of individual behavior and socialization that remains incompletely characterized by science. One of the most popular modern alternatives to Meyers-Briggs is the Five Factors model which also has limitations. Utility for corporate applications may not be the best metric for these early attempts to characterize personality.

</comment><comment><USER53> I don't feel that it's meaningless. I've taken it multiple times in a span of a decade and most of the times I get the same result (INTJ) - I guess P's and J's must be pretty dominant in here. As any test, it gives me a rough estimate. It's not meant to define you, it's meant to give you a guideline to understand yourself better. In that aspect it works just fine for me.

</comment><comment><USER54> As an INTJ, I am part of 1% of the population and 25% of people who know their MBTI. Systematizers FTW!

The MBTI is more useful than an astrological sign, and less useful than a 15 minute conversation with someone, if you want to understand their personality. That said I think it's a mostly harmless way of classifying people, unlike race, class, nationality, profession, etc.

</comment><comment><USER55> I would like to raise the issue of nature vs. nurture in this context: Does Myers-Briggs really identify stable characteristics of someone's current personality or merely the way in which it currently expresses itself.

E.g. consider someone who has previously worked in a dysfunctional corporate environment but was unable to quit that job for financial reasons. They were very well rewarded for superficial qualities like punctuality and tidyness and thus learned that it was necessary to prioritize these values.

Does that mean that this person now has a personality which prioritizes these values? What if their ``natural'' personality in another environment would have been to only emphasize utility to their company even at e.g. the cost of tidyness. What if their natural personality will quickly adapt once they are put in an environment that emphasizes these qualities?

These issues seem to be given oddly little weight by advocates of Myers-Briggs classification for the purpose of hiring decisions.

<comment><USER30> Fully agree, and I think this makes results ambiguous. Testers might take any of the two perspectives: "what I usually do in this situation", vs. "what I would instinctively do". For example, a religious person would respect her religious moral principles even against her instinct - what should she answer - isn't her will also a part of her personality? Should she ignore her will and answer with her instinctive impulse instead?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> The Birkman Method is a far better tool that doesn't 'put you in a box' so to speak. We use it exclusively at Elaura and with our hoozyu and expresso apps.

[https://hoozyu.com](https://hoozyu.com) [https://expresso.elaura.com](https://expresso.elaura.com)

<comment><USER57> I found this blog post interesting along the same lines: The Tests Who Think They Know Me [http://exilelifestyle.com/tests/](http://exilelifestyle.com/tests/)

Disclaimer: I work for Birkman

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Here's the correlations between MBTI dimensions and the "big five" personality traits that are commonly used in social-sciences research:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Big_Five)

When I look at those, I think "Not everything, but not nothing either". A correlation of 0.7+ is pretty high for _anything_ in the social sciences - <USER2> comparison, the correlation between intelligence and genetics is about 0.4. It's certainly a lot higher than astrology, which has a correlation of roughly 0.0 with anything other than birthdate.

A lot of the criticism of MBTI is that it breaks people down into 16 arbitrary categories, and there's no way a single category can reflect everything about a person. This is true; there _is_ no way a single category will reflect everything about a person. But we break people down into arbitrary categories all the time - race, social class, profession, job title, political party, ethnicity, place of residence, generation, etc. Categorization by MBTI brings all of the pitfalls of these - you're stereotyping, and you're going to miss important details about the person themself - as well as all the benefits, in the form of a quick mental shorthand to draw inferences about their future behavior on little data.

You can think of it in "Thinking fast and slow" terms: MBTIs and other social categories are in the "thinking fast" category, where you make quick but error-prone judgments on limited information, while actually getting to know someone is the "thinking slow" side, where you get a much more accurate picture of who they are at the cost of significantly higher effort. Indeed, the MBTI has a dimension for this (iNtuitive vs. Sensing), and I've found that online MBTI tests tend to overrepresent the number of Ns in the population compared to offline, professionally-given tests, because Ns tend to be more attracted to the MBTI as a way of thinking about the world.

<comment><USER21> Correlation of 0.4 means generally "it could be" in proper statistics. As in "it is also probable for a normal variate that you're seeing a spurious one". You probably wanted effect size instead and a good statistical test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> It's not foolproof, much like a lie detector test. But I do think it has value. I'm an INTJ, and understanding that other people are wired differently in very demonstrative ways, helped me understand how to relate to people. When I thought people were "phony" it was just that they were more extroverted than me. I've been told I'm too black-and-white, whereas I hated the wishywashiness in people that couldn't be decisive. This is also reflected in the Myers- Briggs test.

So it might not be completely accurate, but it did help me understand how I relate and differ with others due to these 4 major personality characteristics.

</comment><comment><USER60> I've never been interested in Myers-Briggs. I have no idea what the designations are or what they mean. I have no idea what my score (?) is, and I'm profoundly uninterested.

My uninterest only increased when I was in an environment where this was a frequent point of reference among co-workers, as I watched people with no education and training in psychology or other relevant fields make pronouncements and direct people's work lives based on four letters.

As far as I can see (and obviously, I don't know a lot about MB), it's words pulled out of legitimate fields of study and used ignorantly and out of context, sometimes with real consequences.

</comment><comment><USER61> I greatly appreciate the Myers-Briggs test, but I've only seen it applied as a tool for self-understanding: I think I've been given the test a couple of times by schools and universities. Taking it has helped me understand a little bit more about myself and there are very few tools in the world that help you learn _anything_ about yourself.

AFAICT, the only reasons for a company to administer it are: employee development (same as universities); to attempt to fix a deficient interview process (which is BS).

</comment><comment><USER62> Sooo INTJ-ish all this! Disclosure: I am INTJ and see this as a tool among other tools to understand where I do stand socially within a few business- oriented group dynamics.

</comment><comment><USER63> The comments here so far seem to be jumping too far the other direction. It is an imperfect test, which does not give meaningful results for all people, and should not be a factor in business decisions. That does NOT mean that is has no meaning at all, or is a complete hoax, or is like unto astrology. Like almost all things, it is a tool that has a purpose, and understanding where it can or cannot be applied is a prerequisite to getting value from it.

</comment><comment><USER64> It's funny but I have a relative who was into the works of Carlos Castaneda and I've read quite a few of them (they're a bit magical realism, remind me a bit of J. L. Borges). In one of the books, Don Juan (his guru) describes a personality system based on the cardinal directions which ends up classifying every member of the human species in one of sixteen distinct personality types. As is typical for Castaneda's stories, Carlos immediately challenges the idea that there are only sixteen types of people in the whole world - which is really just a plot device to keep Don Juan talking and move the description of the whole system along.

Anyway, this personality system is what I thought when I first heard of the Myers-Briggs test and I thought it has exactly the same merit as any other system that arbitrarily groups people into 16 types based on whatever perceived characteristic of theirs, which is to say: none at all. In Castaneda's case you need to have special seer powers to _see_ peoples' type. In Myers Briggs all you need is an MBTI test.

There is progress even in magic, it seems.

</comment><comment><USER65> If such a test is administered in connection with some external consequences for someone which vary depending on the outcome, the subject can game the test to obtain results which are favorable or desirable to him or her.

The four letters that pop out are purely a function of some responses given, and not of actual personality. Anyone who understands the mapping from answers to outcome can just give the answers to produce a desired outcome.

Any test that a subject can game is inherently unscientific.

The above would be true even if the model of personality were actually valid, and indicated something meaningful in the case of honest, accurately introspective answers. (That it isn't and doesn't is what is called into question by the article.)

This section of the Wikipedia page on it suggests that some other personality tests have some built-in sophistication to detect dishonest answers, which is lacking in Myers-Briggs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Lack_of_objectivity)

</comment><comment><USER66> I always considered the problem with personality tests is that it tells you what the person thinks about _themselves_ , which is always going to be an inaccurate picture, since everyone has a lot of blind spots about themselves.

As a citation, pretty much all of these: [https://youarenotsosmart.com/all- posts/](https://youarenotsosmart.com/all-posts/)

</comment><comment><USER67> Really? I used to have to take these tests in the '80s but nobody has made me do one for decades. I thought we were all past this hoax years ago.

</comment><comment><USER17> What is wrong with recording personality traits of people, and determining correlations between them? Because that is essentially what the test does.

<comment><USER68> No statistical measurement or actual attempt at a scientific investigation was done.

The classification was purely validated by Isabel Briggs Myers' own free interpretation of what a particular trait should be.

That's self-deception, not science.

There's nothing wrong in trying to build an understanding of personalities but making things up just because you think your intuition is all you need to build theories, well, that doesn't inspire much confidence.

The Myers-Briggs Test smells like science -it has codes and categories!- but like most pseudo-sciences, no-one has really been interested in validating the assumptions with actual data.

Pseudo-Psychology is rife with these wishful-thinking theories that sound kind of right but have no solid data to support them.

Not bashing Psychology, I think it's a hugely interesting field, but the science behind a lot of it still remains fishy.

<comment><USER17> > The classification was purely validated by Isabel Briggs Myers' own free > interpretation of what a particular trait should be.

This is like saying that somebody who claimed that 1+1=2 is wrong because they came up with the left hand side of the equation themselves.

Yes, the MBTI is arbitrary to a large extent, but that does not make it meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> The MBTI asks you what your preferences are, and then tells you what you said. That's not "meaningless," but it's certainly not a tool for doing science.

For me, it's been meaningful in that it emphasizes that my preferences can be different from those around me, and that that is just fine. It's helpful to consider that some prefer to think for a while before speaking, even if that's not my preference because silence makes me uncomfortable. It's helpful to acknowledge that some people like to make detailed plans whereas I prefer to be more flexible and open to possibilities. The attitude of the MBTI is that neither approach is wrong but that it helps to recognize which approach you prefer.

Does each person fit comfortably into one of 16 categories? No, of course not. But it might be a useful framework for introspection and thinking about your relationships.

</comment><comment><USER70> The Myers-Briggs was developed in a time where lobotomies were still considered to be a valid psychological treatment.

</comment><comment><USER71> I am always amazed by how many discussions of MBTI go on without any consideration of the Jungian cognitive functions that the 16 MBTI types are based on. Without seeking to understand the function stack associated with a MBTI personality type it's hard to use MBTI usefully/as it was intended to be used.

</comment><comment><USER72> The weirdest job interview I ever went to was for a sales position at a software development company. These guys had me do a Myers-Briggs test online a few days before the interview. After taking a day off and making a long drive to see these guys, the manager introduced himself by saying "We don't want you for this job. With your personality type you can't be a salesman. I let you come here anyway, though, because our web developer is really overwhelmed. Would you be willing to meet him and talk about working for him?"

It was so bizarre it took me a while to decide if they were insane or just incredibly rude. Upon reflection, they were both.

</comment><comment><USER73> "SMARTNEWS"

"The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless"

promises explosive insights such as:

"[...] and statistical analysis reveals even data produced by the test shows a normal distribution rather than bimodal, refuting the either/or claims of the MBTI."

It is really surprising that aggregation of a number of binary questions results produces a normal distribution. In all my experiments with a randomly selected coin from my purse I got something close to bimodal - not.

MBTI may be flawed, overused and too simplistic. However simplifying statistical arguments down to that level is not the way to advance science.

</comment><comment><USER74> I remember taking the test in high school and just feeling the bias creep into my answers. Like, I would answer in ways I wanted to be viewed, not how I actually act.

Apart from that, I don't think there are necessarily problems in treating it as a fun personality test, like "astrology or tarot cards" as others have said. But in the digital marketing space, Buyer Modalities is a popular model used to segment site visitors. It's based on the Myers-Briggs so it's inherently useless, but makes you feel like you're doing rigorous work.

<comment><USER75> > I would answer in ways I wanted to be viewed, not how I actually act.

Do you know if it was an official MBTI test or something else? In keeping with the "no wrong personality" mantra, I found the test questions to be fairly neutral. By that I mean neither option would be perceived as socially unacceptable, just different personal preferences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> In one of my courses we took Myers-Briggs, which the professor scored and then handed us a summary of our results and asked people how they felt the results actually matched up with them. Virtually everyone agreed that the results were fairly accurate, at which point our professor provided us with our real results and we went through the various possible results to understand how they're designed in such a way that you can generally find ways to agree with the results no matter what you got.

Needless to say I've ignored any MBTI results since.

</comment><comment><USER77> I wonder how MBTI would be perceived if instead of simply a binary EI/NS/FT/PJ, anyone within a standard deviation of the mean got an X, so you could be INXX if you were solidly introverted and intuitive, but not particularly strongly aligned on the later two axes.

Naturally most people would have at least an X or two, but it would be much more useful if people didn't have to advertise an F or T if it didn't really matter for describing them.

Though it probably wouldn't have caught on. Who wants to be the XXXX in a situation.

<comment><USER29> It might be perceived differently, but the underlying system would still not be a solid one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I get a different score nearly every time I take it. Am I alone in this?

<comment><USER66> No, I get a different one nearly every time too. I figured it was part of learning: I adapt my personality as I learn.

Of course, my theory is that personality tests just tell you what you think of yourself, and I change my opinion about that often.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is a subject I spend a lot of time reading about. It's interesting because I think the field of psychology is going to have a bit of a (computational) overhaul soon as we acquire more data about people and develop new models of behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if machine learning ends up revolutionizing psychology twenty years form now.

A few points:

\- Science is concerned with making accurate predictions about the future

\- Predictions range in quality: QFT can predict the gyromagnetic moment of the electron to 12 decimal places, but psychiatrists still have trouble figuring out which medications serve as effective antidepressants (nothing against them — it's a complex subject)

Also, good science is able to find correlations between things, and these correlations allow you to improve your predictions. How much of the variance in a dataset is explained by a given model? In this sense:

\- Astrology has almost zero predictivity (I say "almost" because there are extremely weak, but non-zero correlations with the month that someone was born in)

\- Myers-Briggs has weak, but non-zero predictivity that is still much higher than that of astrology

\- Big Five has weak, but non-zero predictivity that is _slightly_ higher than Myers-Briggs

\- The field of psychology has weak, but non-zero predictivity ([http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology- studies-f...](http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail- reproducibility-test-1.18248))

\- The field of biology has adequate predictivity

\- The field of particle physics has extremely high predictivity

See where I'm going with this? The math may be hard, but quantum mechanics is actually pretty easy as far as accurately predicting the future goes. Understanding the human brain is a far more difficult task than making sense of C* algebras.

There's been quite a few studies on Myers-Briggs, and I think it has more value than the Smithsonian article gives it credit for. That said, I think Big Five has _much less_ value than most psychologists give it credit for.

In terms of determining the eigenfactors of personality, something recent like this goes much further than Big Five:

[http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.161.10.1...](http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.161.10.1743)

</comment><comment><USER48> Personality typing is obviously incredibly shaky ground because of the huge potential for the suggestion bias, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's almost obvious that there are patterns of human behaviour that are often distinctive and repetitive across society. It's hard to identify these regularities and we should be sceptical about any blatant simplifications, but we shouldn't stop trying to understand them.

There is another personality typing method called Enneagram, that takes a more interesting approach than static M-B. Rather than attributing some essential properties to each person, it assumes that personality is formed by a set of cognitive habits. These habits condition our attention to pick specific aspects of experience and giving it interpretation in line with this bias. Most people use all of these 9 identified patterns, but one is dominant, and hence it defines what we perceive as personality.

These habits are mostly crystalised in childhood and depend on the environment and upbringing. Eg. when a child is punished at random without any consequence there's a chance it will become type 8, on the other hand if there's great deal of regularity and rules at home, it may and up as type 1 etc. Seems like a gross oversimplification, but it's just an example of this type of conditioning.

The general approach seems legit (based on what we know about cognitive science), but what's more important, learning about these 9 habits/types usually leads to incredible insights into one's behaviour. There's lot of regularities that we suddenly find in our actions that fit specifically to one of these 9 types.

Unlike what article states about M-B, Ennegram mostly focuses on the dark, habitual and unconscious aspects of each personality, so it's much less susceptible to the "horoscope effect" (where we're more likely to attribute anything positive to ourselves).

I try to challenge it as much as possible, because as anything related to personality it may become a self fulfilling prophecy, but still I found it very hard to falsify, there's just a lot of positive evidence.

Since there's strong overrepresentation of rational thinkers on HN I'd love to hear some comments from anyone here who took Enneagram test or heard about it (there's a lot of free tests on the internet).

<comment><USER79> I have studied the Enneagram deeply. It is a far more profound system than the MBTI, and far more useful for understanding oneself and others.

The MBTI has some correlation to the Enneagram, and it is from that correlation that it takes most or all of its validity. But the correlation is only partial. If you look in Jung's _Psychological Types_ , you will see that he correctly characterized eight of the nine Enneagram types (which one he missed I leave as an exercise for the reader). Missing one type, he was unable to see the whole structure with its deeper properties, such as integration/distintegration, that reflect the way the types relate to one another. Nor did he pick up on how the types develop as childhood survival strategies (which is not as simple as you're suggesting).

The MBTI starts with Jung's already incomplete system and just messes it up further.

Someone will probably ask me whether the Enneagram has been objectively validated. It has not been, and can never be, because it contains an inherent element of subjectivity. The way you know your Enneagram type is not by taking tests. Tests can provide useful hints, but if all you have is a test result -- even if it's correct! -- you do not know your type. The way you know is by studying the types until one of them clicks for you, and you see yourself in a new way: _then_ you know.

The Enneagram does talk about our dark sides, and that's important; but it isn't only about that by any means. It can also show us positive aspects of ourselves that we have not accepted, and it's very much about how to develop those aspects further.

ETA: if you would like help figuring out your type, I would be delighted to assist. My email address is in my profile.

<comment><USER48> What you mention about Jung/enneagram correlation is interesting. You'd think that since he's based on different partitioning scheme (2 * 2 * 2) he should end up without any types matching exactly, but you seem to suggest that it's the case and he's just missing one. I guess it could make sense provided he based his type descriptions on empirical evidence (clustering his patients) that he later artificially pushed into 8 categories. I don't know M-B well, but since it's a M-B thread and it may be useful to other readers, I tried to pursue your exercise and based on type descriptions tried to match it. Here's what I managed to do, based on vague Jung type descriptions I've found on the internet: ET - 1,IT - 5, EF - 3, IF - 9?, ES - 8, IS - ?, EI - 7, II - <USER7>

Does it make some sense? Where are the gaps?

Are there any Eneagram specific resources that you'd recommend? I've found A.H. Almaas and Eli Jaxon-Bear books the most insightful. I'd love to read/hear something original on the topic that doesn't come from the echo chamber of people who are in these circles, make money from it etc.

As to the type, just as you said one of them "clicked" with me strongly and I'm almost 100% sure which one is mine.

<comment><USER79> Here are my pairings. (I'm at work and don't have my copy of _Psychological Types_ handy, so this is going off someone else's interpretations [0]. But I think this is probably right.)

      ES - <USER4>
      IS - <USER5>
      EI - <USER6>
      II - <USER7>
      ET - <USER8>
      IT - <USER9>
      EF - 2 (but see below)
      IF - <USER10>

The EF description does have some Three-sounding qualities to it; it's a fair guess that Jung lumped many Threes in with the Twos, since, after all, a lot of Threes (a majority, in my experience) lean toward Two, and after all he had to put them somewhere. (Some of them probably wound up in EI and ES as well.) Still, based on the descriptions in his book, I concluded that he overlooked the Three.

[0] [http://www.watchwordtest.com/types.aspx](http://www.watchwordtest.com/types.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> We used a system called Facet5 at work once. I'm still not convinced these types of things are actually worth the money in terms of productivity gains but it did seem to do a decent job addressing the biggest flaws with the MBTI (Rates things on a scale and uses a 5th scale that determines the expression of the other 4).

Again, not sure if it actually made any difference in interactions with coworkers but it was kinda interesting.

</comment><comment><USER81> Is any personality test really meaningful? I mean the entire field of psychology apparently doesn't care much about correctness or falsifiability? Why bother to hold MBTI to a higher standard? [1]

[1]: [http://www.nature.com/news/smart-software-spots- statistical-...](http://www.nature.com/news/smart-software-spots-statistical- errors-in-psychology-papers-1.18657)

<comment><USER82> Yes, there are models of personality that, unlike MBTI, have a scientific basis for the selection of their dimensions.

That there are widespread problems with psychological research does not mean that there is no reason to apply standards when evaluating proposed models in the field (in fact, it's a good reason to be particularly careful in doing so.)

<comment><USER81> I was merely being fatous, I don't seriously think it isn't, I'm just saying MBTI seems like pretty par-for-the-course psychology as far as things go. Sadly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Except for what you put into it. The conceptualization of meaning as being located only in quantifiable scientific measurement is a denigration to the immense benefits and resilience a person can derived from the places they choose to locate meaning, rather than only the places that any formalized worldview insists are the acceptable ones.

</comment><comment><USER84> We recently took the Kolbe Index test and I found it WAY more useful than the Myers-Briggs. It's much more intuitive and the results, at least to me, seemed to be much easier to relate to. It's a great process to put higher level execs and team members to learn how best to draw from their strengths and weaknesses.

</comment><comment><USER85> Emotional styles by Richard Davidson are a much better and neuro- scientifically / experimentally validated way of mapping personalities:

[http://www.beinghuman.org/article/six-emotional- styles](http://www.beinghuman.org/article/six-emotional-styles)

</comment><comment><USER86> The sad thing about these tests is that it puts people in closed boxes. I've used to be an introvert, now I'm an extrovert. Depending on my mood, tiredness, hour of the day, I'd answer differently a test. People are more complex and have richer personalities than 2^4.

</comment><comment><USER87> Last time I read about Myers-Briggs, I got the impression that it was to be used strictly for self-assessment and not externally, and I recall the article I was reading specifically saying that the test only makes sense for personal use because it was too easy to game otherwise...

</comment><comment><USER88> I had a hard time understanding how people were comparing meyers briggs to astrology and I think the problem is that they don't know the full idea behind the meyers briggs classification. I thought I should give a brief description of what it is, or at least what I think it is.

What meyers briggs is NOT is a group of 16 types each with a description of what the person is like. This looks like astrology. This 16 groups is just a summary of what people might be like based on the test results.

Meyers briggs IS a group of four classifications. A person falls on a continuum related to each classification. For each classification there is a letter associated with each end of the spectrum. For a given classification you can label yourself as one of the two letters based on which side of the continuum you fall, though this is just a simplifying representation. The true representation is a place on the continuum between each of the two letters.

The four categories are give below, in my matchbox description:

E vs I - extroversion/introversion. An I is a person who recharges by being alone. An E recharges by being with other people. An I type person will typically be tired after spending a lot of time in a group of people and will want to spend some time by themselves. An E will be drained if they are by themselves for a while. Keep in mind, there is no such thing as a pure E or a pure I. We are all a combination of the two.

N vs S - intuitive/sensing - An N person relies on subconscious thinking, whereas a S person relies on conscious thinking, or reasoning. We can thinking much faster subconsciously but the problem with it is that it is when are brain produces a result, such as "That person doesn't like me", it is difficult to know if it is right if it is based on subconscious reasoning.

T vs F - thinking/feeling - An F is more sensitive to another's feelings where as a T is less concerned with a persons interpretation of what they say than with how true it is. A T is more the brutally honest type.

P vs J - perceiving/judging - a J is a planner and doesn't like when the plan changes. A P likes to take things as they come and doesn't like to be tied down.

I see this as a very scientific classification. Of course, what people do with the classification may be a different story, such as how it is used in the hiring process. I find it very useful in understanding how people react to situations differently than I do, and that I should not judge them negatively for this.

</comment><comment><USER89> The main value of any "personality type" inventory is to help people with different personalities interact in mutually agreeable and beneficial ways. The very fact that people cling to their MBTI type designators indicates that the see some value in that, even if the value they see is not there. With that in mind, I have a simple question:

      ** If not MBTI, then what else instead? **

Rose Eveleth doesn't seem to have an answer. What she has is just sneering condescension for the only such inventory that has gained any popular traction (which is necessary for it to be effective). The comparison to astrology is particularly unhelpful. Does anyone else know of something that could succeed where MBTI has supposedly failed?

</comment><comment><USER90> it's almost self confirming right? so if you believe you are an INTJ, you might start taking on INTJ traits or become biased in self evaluating those in yourself.

i get the business and HR "value" (yes, in quotes :), but i largely view this as "astrology for top 50 university people", ie people who want to believe in some collective unconsciousness affinities, peppered with scientific plausibility. especially with regard to application in personal life

</comment><comment><USER91> As someone who can control what I get on the test pretty successfully (never tested for exact numbers but it changes every time I take it) I have thought this for a while.

</comment><comment><USER92> If anything, Myers-Briggs forces introspection and reflection.

But it really shouldn't be used as an employee classifier... just personal growth only.

</comment><comment><USER93> This article simply quotes verbatim other sources without providing much insight of its own. That's not very good.

</comment><comment><USER94> I thought the MBTI was fun because it made me feel better about myself.

It didn't actually solve anything though.

</comment><comment><USER95> I thought this was old news but any reputable publication helping to slay this dinosaur is welcome.

</comment><comment><USER96> OK, i'll bite: so what do psychologists believe is a good way to learn about people?

</comment><comment><USER97> Oh no! Now where will I get my smug sense of satisfaction from?

</comment><comment><USER98> MBTI is a very misunderstood system. People tend to take it too far and in directions it shouldn't go. It's not surprising when it's labeled as meaningless.

Here's one example: I'm an ISTP which is only one letter away from ISFP. That's pretty similar right?

No, they're actually pretty different.

The letters ISTP are just a shorthand for a system developed by Carl Jung. ISTP actually means that I have a stack of behaviors that I tend towards and that I've developed as I've aged.

The stack goes as follows: Introverted Thinking which I have (supposedly) developed since I was young. [http://personalitygrowth.com/introverted- thinking/](http://personalitygrowth.com/introverted-thinking/)

Extraverted Sensing which, again supposedly, I started developing since I was in my teens and through my 20s. [http://personalitygrowth.com/extraverted- sensing-se/](http://personalitygrowth.com/extraverted-sensing-se/)

Introverted Intuition which I've been developing more recently (30s). [http://personalitygrowth.com/introverted- intuition/](http://personalitygrowth.com/introverted-intuition/)

And finally Extraverted Feeling which is still moderately awkward for me (like trying to write with my off hand). It's getting less awkward as I get older. [http://personalitygrowth.com/extraverted-feeling- fe/](http://personalitygrowth.com/extraverted-feeling-fe/)

An ISFP, on the other hand, has the following stack: Introverted Feeling, Extraverted Sensing, Introverted Intuition, and Extraverted Thinking.

And other types have their own function stack that they've developed as they've aged. Some faster, some slower. This is one potential reason why people test differently as they age. I first took the test I was in my 20s when I was at a different point in my maturation process. Nowadays I'm much more focused on long term goals as opposed to short term satisfaction. Maybe I'm just developing my Introverted Intuition which is typically associated more with long term thinking. Maybe it's just part of the maturation process everyone goes through.

I will say, though, some people I've observed have gone through the process in reverse -- being interested in long term goals when they're young and then realizing they should also pay attention to short term gratification a little as they age. Maybe they're a type that leads with Introverted Intuition. Who knows.

</comment><comment><USER99> Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.

</comment><comment><USER100> All models are flawed, but sometimes they are useful.

</comment><comment><USER101> Similar comments have been raised about the MMPI. On a quick look again, I found:

[https://www.minnpost.com/second- opinion/2009/08/fascinating-...](https://www.minnpost.com/second- opinion/2009/08/fascinating-tale-about-us-mmpi-controversy)

 _he original developers of the MMPI questionnaire went about choosing their "normal" control group. They compared test answers from patients in hospitals for the mentally ill with answers from people working in and visiting those hospitals.

Who's to say those workers and visitors were mentally healthy?_

It's well known that certain kinds of mentally ill people are drawn to working in the mental health industry. I know a psychiatrist who's a narcissist, and a psychiatric nurse who's probably BPD or NPD.

Bootstrapping a test from a hand-picked set of people is just bad methodology.

</comment><comment><USER102> One big problem I have with these personality classifications (MBTI, Type-A/Type-B) is it assumes that personality traits are bimodal instead of normally distributed. MBTI would have made sense if the population was split 50-50 into E/I etc. but in reality most people fall somewhere in the middle.

</comment><comment><USER103> The more I learn, then more all of the social sciences appear to be less solid regarding the demarcation problem.

</comment><comment><USER104> You know what kind of responses you are asking for without adding: /s ? :)

<comment><USER105> We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12687196](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12687196) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> I hear this and I'm a huge man of Science, but I can't ignore the similarities I have with my designated type ISTP and the lack of with the other types. Very interesting either way.

</comment><comment><USER107> And it can be harmful. People use their categorization as an excuse (I know I have). "I'm an INTP, I can't have a normal career, I always lose interest and move on to the next thing!"

Yeah... this is called being undisciplined. Experts and Masters aren't born with the discipline to master their craft. They struggle like anyone else, but they break through those barriers and continue their mastery.

Don't use your personality as an excuse to get around the discipline and practice components of success. Don't let the introvert label be an excuse for you being a standoffish asshole or a hermit.

Go on the subreddits for these ... such as /r/INTP and browse a bit ... they are sad.

<comment><USER95> I believe it, but I don't find it hard to believe that, to some extent, differences in diligence are ingrained.</comment></comment>


UK government should give £10K to every citizen under 55, a report suggests - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43078920 <comment><USER2> The report is here:

[https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and- articles/rs...](https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa- blogs/2018/02/pathways-towards-economic-security-and-universal-basic-income- new-rsa-report)

Link to PDF: [https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_pathway...](https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_pathways- to-universal-basic-income-report.pdf?visitorgroupsByID=undefined)

Online (on Medium):

[https://medium.com/pathways-to-universal-basic- income](https://medium.com/pathways-to-universal-basic-income)

Seemingly the path to UBI leads to UBOF:

>The central proposition is the creation of a Universal Basic Opportunity Fund (UBOF): an effort to reimagine how society supports people to live meaningful, contributory lives.

>Its premise is simple: fund every citizen under the age of 55 with a £5,000 opportunity dividend for up to two years, taken at a time of their choosing over the course of a decade.

>The fund would initially last for ten years, with dependent children also eligible for the payment in the year a parent, or both, were receiving it.

EDIT: I didn't see the direct link to the PDF in the original article, not that it is particularly visible, the first sentence is in bold (and is not a link, and the initial part of the second sentence is also bold, but it is a link) removed initial sentence that read:

How nice of the BBC guys to provide not the source.

<comment><USER3> > How nice of the BBC guys to provide not the source.

The article's second sentence is the source - a link to the PDF - and it has been in the article since it was published.

<comment><USER2> My bad, didn't see that it was a direct link to the PDF.

Correcting my post.

<comment><USER3> :) The BBC are usually quite good with directly linking their sources, when it's reports or studies (or anything in PDF form). The Guardian are similarly good in that regard, too.

<comment><USER4> For science articles, yes. That took a lot of lobbying and complaining.

On law/crime articles, they don't link to legal judgments. That's partly the fault of the British legal system for not publishing a lot of that material. But there are plenty of times when it is available and it doesn't get linked to.

Hypertext is a thing. One day people will work out all the amazing possibilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> " The report says the fund could help people: "A low-skilled worker might reduce their working hours to attain skills enabling career progression.

"The fund could provide the impetus to turn an entrepreneurial idea into a reality. It could be the support that enables a carer to be there for a loved one." "

I'm skeptical of the long term implications of this logic, and this reads as a very neoliberal solution. 416 pounds a month for two years is not a lot of money. Job training and child/elderly care are difficult, time consuming, and expensive. This seems to be why they are prime tasks to be run by the state. Giving people a small cash sum, and telling them to teach themselves new skills so that they're ready for the economy of the future feels ignorant and wasteful.

If you're working a part time retail job that is about to be automated, what type of "job training" can this realistically provide. Or, if you're taking care of an elderly parent, or a young child, this is far from a replacement for more robust social services.

I truly want to believe in a UBI in some form, but I find the language of "entrepreneurial idea[s]" to be a little repulsive. Not everyone can be a successful entrepreneur. Not every poor and middle class citizen can become a successful start up founder and small business owner. UBI could be fantastic but is not a replacement for the once robust social safety nets that are being chipped away at (or decimated) in the US/UK. I am not saying it is the case in this article -- I know little about the Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures and Commerce -- but anytime I see someone advocating for UBI I think it is worthwhile to interrogate their positionality and their imagination of the future. The silicon valley libertarian billionaire dream of a UBI seems different from someone with a genuine commitment to improving the quality of life for everyone.

There are no quick fixes to poverty, skill gap, and the problems wrought by automation. Looking towards UBI as a panacea feels dangerous in that it can prevent addressing the more structural problems at play.

<comment><USER6> Or to put it in simple numbers, every startup founder needs ten employees, who themselves have to not be startup founders. Unless 90% of the people who reach age ~35 die, and then 90% of the survivors die at ~50, there is no way to guarantee an entrepreneurial career path to everybody. Or, I guess, robots _waves arms_.

What I suspect will happen is that people will be able to leave dead-end jobs that are stressful and provide little to no value to them. Which in turn _might_ crash the economy, because while not having the next Juicero isn't that big of a deal, not having anyone picking up the garbage on time is a real issue. Or, it might end up with employers offering a fair salary that fairly redistributes the gains in productivity afforded by modern civilization (I almost wrote this with a straight face). In any case, UBI is not just a money redistribution scheme, it's also a power redistribution scheme, because it gives you fuck-you-money, or at least the next closest equivalent.

<comment><USER7> > I suspect will happen is that people will be able to leave dead-end jobs > that are stressful and provide little to no value to them. Which in turn > might crash the economy, because while not having the next Juicero isn't > that big of a deal, not having anyone picking up the garbage on time is a > real issue. Or, it might end up with employers offering a fair salary that > fairly redistributes the gains in productivity afforded by modern > civilization (I almost wrote this with a straight face). In any case, UBI is > not just a money redistribution scheme, it's also a power redistribution > scheme, because it gives you fuck-you-money, or at least the next closest > equivalent.

This is the main reason I want a basic income. I want persons who have a job to be the same persons who want that job. If nobody wants that job then there is something wrong about that job - maybe it doesn't pay well or maybe the job conditions are horrible. But in any case, I think we will all be better off if our workers are people who want that particular job rather than people who are stuck with that job and can't afford to quit.

<comment><USER8> I like to think of it as making up for the fact that there isn't any other place someone that doesn't want to be part of the current status quo can just say "I've had it, I'm going off on my own way".

All the land is taken, owned, and occupied; and all of the best places for starting your own settlement were /long/ ago occupied, let alone the marginal ones.

I don't want to do any of the above, but having that /option/ gave a default alternative to being an employee and thus meant that there had to be actual benefit in such a relationship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article seems to contradict itself:

> The idea sees two payments of £5,000 paid over two years, but certain state > benefits and tax reliefs would be removed at the same time.

> Payments would come from a British sovereign wealth fund in the form of two > annual £5,000 dividends, the RSA proposes.

It's not really Universal either:

> applicants would only have to demonstrate how they intended to use the money

<comment><USER10> I'm sure the DWP will come up with many ideas on the "intend to use the money", just like when cutting disability benefits.

Can't walk more the 10 minutes to the shops? No money!

<comment><USER11> Friend of mine gets disability benefits and your comment is inaccurate.

<comment><USER12> You're aware there's a mass of evidence that the DWP is, at best, ineffective and trending towards excessively cruel in its capability assessments? It's not exactly something that's gone unreported.

Your friend is lucky, I know several people personally who have been dragged through the courts for months before they were able to get their incorrect assessment overturned.

<comment><USER11> Yes, a mass of evidence yet none to refute my challenge?

<comment><USER12> Double reply, eh? - I've been doing my job. Sorry I can't drop everything to respond to you on HN.

As I said it's not exactly under-reported, that was your cue to search and find something like: [https://fullfact.org/news/how-many-fit-work-assessments- are-...](https://fullfact.org/news/how-many-fit-work-assessments-are- successfully-overturned/)

And (to address your other comment) I assume you aren't being literal with your specific example (because the guy you were responding to didn't literally mean people were assessed on their ability to walk to a shop specifically), but yeah there have been reports of people who can't walk very far getting told they're fit for work (For instance this guy: [https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall- news/photographer...](https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall- news/photographer-told-hes-fit-work-1184852) from earlier this week)

Where's your evidence?

<comment><USER11> OK, I didn't realise the guy wasn't speaking literally. I thought he actually knew of a case that supported his statement in some way.

<comment><USER13> [https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/most-dwp-benefits- cases-...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/most-dwp-benefits-cases-which- reach-court-are-based-on-bad?utm_term=.riV0y2jyl#.ub57bq9ba)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp- disabled-p...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-disabled- people-benefits-legal-action-lose-government-work-pensions-department-frank- field-mp-a7886166.html)

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/12/disability-...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/12/disability- benefit-appeals-department-for-work-and-pensions-figures)

Happy now? Or are you perhaps going to try to play the no true Scotsman PR game and claim this doesn't count as _real_ evidence?

<comment><USER11> '...and claim this doesn't count as real evidence?'

If the guy had replied saying he actually did know the person I would have to accept that as true. He didn't.

Despite recent evidence, this isn't The Guardian and I am willing to believe that most people here are honest and don't just make stuff up to suit their political agenda.

To answer your question, two lefty news articles and fakenews.com don't count as evidence, no. His word would have been good enough for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In addition to the contradictions already highlighted by many posters, I don't like the way the only economist they've quoted is Patrick Minford.

Not because he says UBI won't work (I'm on the fence about this, because I'd love it to work, but I don't see how you can stop it triggering inflation to the point that the UBI sum becomes useless to live on - but I'm no economist), but because he's really quite far out of the mainstream of economists and it's as if they've picked him solely because he's the only big name pro-Brexit economist - and I'm sick of the BBC dragging pro-Brexit commentators on to speak unopposed regardless of whether they know anything about the subject or how out-there their views are.

Some prior references on Minford: [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-minford- economi...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-minford- economics_uk_599ae35be4b0e8cc855ee180) [https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick- minf...](https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford- thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt)

<comment><USER15> > triggering inflation

That's something I don't get either. But maybe thinking is that it would induce some needed inflation in deflationary times?

<comment><USER16> It only triggers inflation if the money supply goes up. If you pay for UBI with taxes, it has no effect on inflation.

In theory.

The problem is that this amounts to taxing the super-rich to a much greater extent than we do now. The super-rich tend to hoard their money (that's part of the problem!) so even if you manage to do that successfully, you do end probably end up increasing the _effective_ money supply. But not to the extent that the income becomes worthless.

<comment><USER17> How about just creating money and giving the same amount to everyone?

It would have the effect that the value of each individual dollar would go down to a small extent, but everyone would have say 10,000 dollars extra. The effect would be negative for the rich, but positive for the poor.

Quantitative easing seemed similar, but the money was given to the banks who just kept asset prices high - not great for the poor but good for the rich.

Anyone want to "explain it like I am 5" to to why thats such a bad idea?

<comment><USER18> During QE they didn't just give the money to the banks, they bought stuff from the banks. This introduced new money into the system without being unduly unfair (although by the nature of buying a lot of things at once the price was lower than it would otherwise have been).

This means that when the BoE wants to contract the money suply (as it's doing now) it has assets to sell off.

If it printed money and then gave it away then it would be in a sticky situation if it wanted to shrink the money supply again.

Also producing that much extra cash every year would produce a high rate of inflation. This would have very weird effects and would probably be highly unpleasant for everyone.

<comment><USER17> I don't really see it as especially fair. I had done my calculations and worked out that a house price correction was well overdue. Instead my taxpayer money was used to keep the prices artificially high, while the bankers kept their huge bonuses and I got next to no interest on the money II had saved for a deposit. How exactly was that fair?

I agree that it would probably cause innflation, but why not just repeat every ten years? As I say it would devalue money for everyone. It would also give a lump some to everyone. That is going to be positive for the people who need it the most and worst for the people that need it the least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's with the "sovereign wealth fund" idea? What's the advantage of raising taxes to pay for a sovereign wealth fund the interest on which pays for the UBI? Why not just pay for the UBI with the taxes?

People don't seem to understand that you can't create money just by randomly moving it around.

<comment><USER19> You can create money, it just exerts an inflationary pressure that is commensurate with the rate at which it is spent (minus the offsetting effect of industrial slack).

Issuing more public debt and spending it is (in a low interest environment) not so very different to printing cash and spending it. The creation of highly liquid assets backed by cash that don't pay interest = might as well _be_ cash.

The "sovereign wealth fund" idea is weird though. I don't see the point of the UK creating one - it's not like it has vast quantities of oil wealth it needs to sequester.

<comment><USER20> There hasn't been inflationary pressure in the last 20 years. We can print money till the cows come home and we'll still be stuck in this economic nadir.

<comment><USER19> There have been significant inflationary pressures in housing and most other financial asset markets.

Printing money isn't really the issue - it's what is done with it once printed that matters.

<comment><USER20> Inflation is different to speculation.

<comment><USER19> It is indeed. Not really relevant here though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is going to replace what was regular income with large one time payments.

This is like giving small lottery wins. People will think they're rich in the beginning, blow it all and then have nothing to fall back on.

Basic income should be the same as regular work income that comes in once a month for living off.

<comment><USER22> Income/salary is a large one time payment (once a month, or bi-weekly), for work you do every day.

I don't disagree with your assessment of this being a problem, but increasing overhead by splitting up payments to solve an issue that's inherently behavioral seems counterproductive to me.

<comment><USER23> A payment which is once a month is not a one time payment. A grant which is once a lifetime is. Someone squandering the former has an opportunity to rectify their mistake the following month.

And more generally, if the once a lifetime universal grants are competing for budget and theoretical purpose with hardship funds, unemployment benefits and entitlement to free government services, the distributional effects are going to heavily favour the lucky and financially secure over the unlucky and financially insecure.

<comment><USER22> > A payment which is once a month is not a one time payment. A grant which is > once a lifetime is.

What I responded to that you wrote, and what the article suggests, is:

> This is going to replace what was regular income with large one time > payments.

If they are plural they are no longer one time. And if they are no longer one time, it's just a matter of scope size when discussing frequency. I'm not trying to sound robotic, but there's no functional difference between getting 6x twice a year and getting 1x 12 times a year. The difference is psychological.

<comment><USER21> It is two payments over two years.

So it's 1 payment per year.

Yes it's psychological, but that's the problem people are weak at saving for the future.

It's allowing people to make a mistake 12x bigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Anyone receiving the "dividends" would not be able to claim any tax > allowances, which the RSA says would act as a disincentive to wealthier > earners wanting to apply for the handout.

This is an obvious way to align incentives that I haven't seen before. Negative income tax (NIT) is also something that might be worth looking into: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Implementa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Implementation)

<comment><USER18> Does "tax allowances" just mean the tax-free Personal Allowance of £11500? No one pays £10000 of tax on £11500, so it doesn't seem like it would actually stop anyone from claiming.

If the government is saying the cost will be £14.5B then they must think only 1.5M people will sign up, a tiny portion of the population. I don't quite see how they're expecting this to work.

<comment><USER25> I think they mean more that if you're already above the tax threshold then you wouldn't get £10k, you'd get £10k minus the prevailing rate of tax - so if you already earned £11500-£34500 then you'd get £8000 (£10k-20%). If you earned £34500-£150,000 then you'd get £6000(£10k-40%), and over £150k you'd get £5500(£10k-45%).

<comment><USER18> Do they really mean "We're going to make this money so tedious and bureaucratic to apply for that a middle class person wouldn't bother to do it even for £6000"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The title should be changed. It's not universal, and it's not £10,000 per year.

<comment><USER27> Exactly, this article is just one big disappointment when you read the title and actual article. It's basically some extra money to help it's citizens for the short term.

<comment><USER21> Whilst taking away a bunch of other regular income

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "A low-skilled worker might reduce their working hours to attain skills enabling career progression."

It this based on anything? Are we hoping they'll do this, or do we know how people typically use unexpected sources of income? Or, is it: "The more stitches the less riches" ?

Appendix 1 of the paper is a hard-to-read "fictionalised accounts" of how the money can be used. I like #2, Kathryn the government debt collector who already felt a great sense of accomplishment is now able to provide even more help.

(I did a quick google and found some analysis of how IETC is spent. It seems that transportation is the biggest thing, but that might be a US-specific pattern).

<comment><USER29> _Utopia for Realists_ has some well-cited discussion of how people used their money in the UBI tests of the Seventies. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists_(book)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists_\(book\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Rather sounds like a way to buy people off their benefits and tax reliefs.

I don't see the financial sense in it.

</comment><comment><USER31> One aspect of Universal Basic Income (UBI) debate which remain unanswered for me is the question of meaning & purpose. Most of us derive our sense of purpose from our jobs. In a future with UBI and Automation where will derive our purpose in life. I think this will dictate the future of UBI more than the intrinsic merit of the underlying idea.

<comment><USER32> > Most of us derive our sense of purpose from our jobs.

Most of "us", as in your peers, those visible to you. Nothing wrong with feeling a sense of purpose.

Most of "us", as in bus drivers, bored security guards with nothing to do, McDonald's cashiers, cleaning personnel who clean in your office between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. so you never have to encounter them, would they be depressed and forlorn without the "purpose" of their _awesome_ jobs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Bit rough on 55 year olds.

<comment><USER34> Yep. But that somewhat matches recent UK policy (lifetime ISAs, for instance). I think the logic goes that the (currently) middle-aged have benefitted disproportionately from house price rises. Which might on average have a degree of truth to it, but such gains are far-from-uniformly distributed, and mostly still locked up in illiquid assets...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "Anyone receiving the "dividends" would not be able to claim any tax allowances, which the RSA says would act as a disincentive to wealthier earners wanting to apply for the handout."

It's also a disincentive from becoming a wealthier earner, which is _exactly_ what UBI is meant to address (among other things).

</comment><comment><USER19> >Jonathan Reynolds MP, Labour's shadow Treasury minister, said: "This new report from the RSA raises the right questions about the future of work and the long-term challenges we face, including making sure automation and the changing nature of work deliver a fairer, more prosperous society."

Instead of pretending that our iPhones were all just built by magic Chinese robots (or soon will be), the UK could instead decide to enact policy changes that grows rather than bleeds our manufacturing sector.

I don't think policymakers understand the long term risks associated with trade and currency policy pushing manufacturing to places like China. Building a dense industrial ecosystem - exhibited in all its glory in markets like Huaquingbei - is simply impossible in the UK under current "free" trade policy. This means startups like OnePlus (which grew out of Huaquingbei) won't and can't work in the UK - which should worry people.

One day we're going to wake up and find out that China can switch off the flow of hi tech goods to the UK overnight - components and finished goods alike - and the rude surprise will be that industrial ecosystems take _decades_ to build. Neoclassical economic models buries this problem in assumptions, so most economists are just as blind to this risk as they were to 2008.

The fact that we let our industrial ecosystem rot while they steadily built theirs up will come, if we get cut off, in the form of a highly inflationary shock and ultimately a shortage of hi tech goods.

Perhaps then the notion that trade and currency policy created to appease banks and landowners ('unfettered trade'), rather than companies that actually make things and created jobs ('protectionism'), wasn't such a great idea.

Enacting basic income (which will, by its nature, also be very inflationary) with those kinds of medium term risks hanging over us seems unwise when its impetus - the shortage of good jobs - was artificially driven by bank friendly trade policy that can't last forever.

</comment><comment><USER36> You shouldn't have used UBI in the title

</comment><comment><USER37> So great that there actually are influential politicians who understand that universal income is not a luxury but a necessity for a modern society.

<comment><USER38> Not sure I would describe the "RSA" as "influential politicians" \- they haven't got anything to do with the government or civil service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> That's not universal basic income at all... Clickbait shit

</comment><comment><USER40> Those snobs are gonna get snobbier now.</comment>