Personality Tests, Myers-Briggs etc

[FlammableFlower]

In my current role as Placements Tutor in my department I'm seeing a massive increase in the use of "Screening Centres" for students applying for a placement during their degree. They didn't really feature much a few years ago. A lot of companies are using them as a filter to cut down on the number of applications they've got to go through before short-listing for interview. They mainly seem to be made up of personality tests with or without some group "problem" to work on: e.g. you've survived a plane crash in the desert, here's 15 items that you've found in the wreckage - as a team, order them from most to least important and decide what you'll do next.

I'm really don't like them at all, and the Faculty Placements Team have been doing presentations on them covering Myers-Briggs and those bl..dy de Bono coloured hat thinking ideas.

Now this does massively feed my biases, but the Guardian has a piece on an upcoming HBO documentary on how it's now being extensively used in the hiring process and how bollocks the whole thing is.

[Nero]

Brian Dunning of Skeptoid wrote/podcasted about Myers Briggs a while ago:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221

Today we're going to delve into the murky depths of Jungian psychology, and examine one of its most popular surviving manifestations. The Myers-Briggs test is used all over the world, and is the single most popular psychometric system, with the full formal version of the test given more than 2,000,000 times a year. But is it a valid psychological tool, is it just another pop gimmick like astrology, or is the truth somewhere in between?

[FlammableFlower]

Cheers Nero!

[bolo]

This seems like an excellent screening system from the point of view of the students.

If a potential employer uses quackery to select its employees, run rapidly in the other direction and look for another potential employer that doesn't.

[malbui]

All my employers apart from my university have loved this pseudo-scientific bollocks. It's very hard to fight against it when senior partners and directors are really into it and oversee the process.

My most recent experience of it came three years ago when I was being considered for a head of division role and had to undergo a full-day evaluation centre thing for it. The written report that emerged noted that I appeared bored and frustrated by the process and barely hid it during the afternoon session; in the space set aside for my comments I expressed, robustly, my reservations about the validity and utility of the process. I got the job anyway.

The only useful applications of the whole evaluation process that I know of are two friends of mine who avoided national service, in France for one and in the Netherlands for the other, by scaring the assessors. The Dutch guy is now a full professor of philosophy and bioethics and he looks back on it as one of his proudest moments.

[noggins]

Wiser heads than mine shall give you intelligent accurate reasons why myers-briggs is a load of bollocks

Ill contribute this instead

https://zombiesintelligently.com/myers-briggs/

[nezumi]

To be fair to Myers Briggs, at least I get consistent results when I do it. However, they're basically unemployable results

Employers need to cut this sh.t out. For my sake, if nothing else

[Aitch]

We had a manager who was always sending the department on assorted working-together type away-days.

The only one I remember much about was the Insights personality-test type one. Usual drivel, but at least I got a baseball cap out of it.

Mind you they do have the PTC Kitemark from the BPS. Whatever that is worth?

[sTeamTraen]

There are two problems here.

The first is that MBTI and friends are bollocks for learning about your personality.

The second is that even reliable knowledge of personality characteristics (once you've identified a model that you like; there are several that aren't bollocks) contributes very little to predicting job success, especially in senior roles where everyone is highly qualified; the personality characteristics that got you those qualifications are probably pretty close to what you need for the job, by definition. Kind of like how the most successful professional basketball players are not the tallest, because every pro is "tall enough", otherwise they wouldn't be in the study.

FWIW I think the main psychological requirements for most senior jobs, among people who appear to be doing the job one level below competently enough, are "not being a narcissist", "not being a psychopath", and "not being a dick (of any gender)". Sadly, those tend to be exactly the people with the sharpest elbows.

[Bird on a Fire]

This seems like an excellent screening system from the point of view of the students.

If a potential employer uses quackery to select its employees, run rapidly in the other direction and look for another potential employer that doesn't.

Well, except for how difficult it is to find jobs, and the huge amounts of debt a lot of US (and UK) graduates are stuck with. It's not exactly an applicants' market. Given how common it is for people to work for free for big companies in the hope of a job later, filling in an extra stupid form isn't much hardship.

I mean, we all know interviews don't really work, but how many people here have ever refused to turn up for one on the basis that it's quackery?

[Bird on a Fire]

To be fair to Myers Briggs, at least I get consistent results when I do it. However, they're basically unemployable results

Employers need to cut this sh.t out. For my sake, if nothing else

Yes, I've done it a couple of times, and (a) got the same result and (b) the bumf it gave about working habits and stuff was pretty spot-on, compared with the bumfs for other personalities when I went back and changed answers a bit. It seems to be less Barnham-effecty than say horoscopes, and is based on something slightly more plausible (personalities do, after all, exist). So I'm gonna read that Skeptoid thing to find out why I'm wrong

I'm not keen on the idea of employing people based on their personality rather than experience/competencies/interests etc. to be honest.

[nezumi]

There are two problems here.

The first is that MBTI and friends are bollocks for learning about your personality.

The second is that even reliable knowledge of personality characteristics (once you've identified a model that you like; there are several that aren't bollocks) contributes very little to predicting job success, especially in senior roles where everyone is highly qualified; the personality characteristics that got you those qualifications are probably pretty close to what you need for the job, by definition. Kind of like how the most successful professional basketball players are not the tallest, because every pro is "tall enough", otherwise they wouldn't be in the study.

FWIW I think the main psychological requirements for most senior jobs, among people who appear to be doing the job one level below competently enough, are "not being a narcissist", "not being a psychopath", and "not being a dick (of any gender)". Sadly, those tend to be exactly the people with the sharpest elbows.

Which ones aren't bollocks though? I know there's a few tests out there that have scientific backing, mostly for specific issues like autism*, although most I've seen state quite boldly that they are not a sub for an actual assessment with a professional. I always get the same result on MB - INTJ, but that overlaps so much with autism it's impossible to work out where the personality ends and the autism begins. Pseudoscience linky

An actually accurate test that measures personality traits as opposed to my disability** would be lovely as it might even be helpful.

* Bizarrely, as a woman who is absolutely epically brilliant at masking, I always get "totally autistic and shouldn't be allowed near people" Accurate!
** So apparently there's a thing I can maybe try to do to get a diagnosis which involves asking for a referral because apparently there's a big thing and councils are supposed to help... It's gatekept to hell though - you need a mental health referral followed by mental health people referring you on and so on, and so on. I like labels so I might even go for it.***
*** Ex-counsellor: but labels are BAD! Labels are what we use to organise things in our experience, labels are not just good, labels are the entire reason humans are humans and not chimpanzees****
**** well, that and war.

[nezumi]

To be fair to Myers Briggs, at least I get consistent results when I do it. However, they're basically unemployable results

Employers need to cut this sh.t out. For my sake, if nothing else

Yes, I've done it a couple of times, and (a) got the same result and (b) the bumf it gave about working habits and stuff was pretty spot-on, compared with the bumfs for other personalities when I went back and changed answers a bit. It seems to be less Barnham-effecty than say horoscopes, and is based on something slightly more plausible (personalities do, after all, exist). So I'm gonna read that Skeptoid thing to find out why I'm wrong

I'm not keen on the idea of employing people based on their personality rather than experience/competencies/interests etc. to be honest.

Quite, unless you're intending to pay me 30k+ a year, in which case, I'll be whatever personality you want

[science_fox]

I mean, we all know interviews don't really work,

I'm not keen on the idea of employing people based on their personality rather than experience/competencies/interests etc. to be honest.

When any job advert, even word of mouth, gets 10s to hundreds+ of applications all (well nearly) of whom have relevant experience/qualifications/competencies etc, how do you propose to filter them down to a list of <5 people that you can spare the time to interview?

Throw 90% of them away unlooked at "because they're unlucky"?

[Boustrophedon]

To be fair to Myers Briggs, at least I get consistent results when I do it. However, they're basically unemployable results

Employers need to cut this sh.t out. For my sake, if nothing else

Same for me. I treated it as an enjoyable bit of fun and an interesting way of thinking about people. It does seem to be fairly replicable. Whether it is useful I'll leave to others.

Wasn't there a story about Lufthansa picking pilots with it, which nearly bankrupted the airline when the entirely wrong sort of people got promoted from flying to management?

[noggins]

Yes thats exactly what they should do.
Randomly selecting from a qualified pool is better in every way than applying a bogus filter.

[Millennie Al]

To be fair to Myers Briggs, at least I get consistent results when I do it. However, they're basically unemployable results

Employers need to cut this sh.t out. For my sake, if nothing else

You'll have to start cramming for your personality tests.

[lpm]

Only a decade ago, employers recruited people with the right personality to "fit in".

Now there's been a 180 switch and employers seek "bring something new" instead. At least for competent companies. The latest fashion is all about diversity of experience, personality and background.

Are these tests now being used for diversity? "We lack adventurous introverts who spontaneously obey rules"? Or are employers who use it stuck on recruiting the company type?

[Woodchopper]

To be fair to Myers Briggs, at least I get consistent results when I do it. However, they're basically unemployable results

Employers need to cut this sh.t out. For my sake, if nothing else

You'll have to start cramming for your personality tests.

That's actually an important point.

The traditional face to face interview is a personality test. Anyone shortlisted should be qualified to do the job. So the purpose of the interview is to weed out the liars and bullshitters and assess the personality of the candidate. However, interviewers are notoriously subjective, arbitrary and biased. There are criteria but they are hidden and may well be based on things like 'reminds me of myself when I was younger' or 'people like that are always trouble'.

At least with a written test the criteria being used to assess people are knowable and standardized. They may be bollocks but at least its relatively transparent bollocks that are applied uniformly.

[Allo V Psycho]

I've paid quite large sums to use MBTI with my medical students over the years. Not because I felt it was much use, but to stimulate conversations and thinking about how different kinds of people might contribute to/be essential for a team, and to counteract the temptation to think that "how I operate is the CORRECT way, and any other way is therefore wrong". My own outcome was pretty stable.

I also had a free app on my phone, which did largely the same thing, but also placed you in a Hogwarts House.


BoaF wrote

I mean, we all know interviews don't really work, but how many people here have ever refused to turn up for one on the basis that it's quackery

Interviews can detect the (rather rare) highly deviant characters. I've been told "Team working? I don't know the meaning of the word! I just do my job and go home!"

Highly structured interviews are better than unstructured interviews. Multiple Mini Interviews are better still (where short interviews are held with a number of separate individuals) in terms of predictive validity for the role.

Where you have, say, 28,000 applicants for 8,000 places, almost any filter is helpful, but cognitive ability tests, prior educational achievement, and Situational Judgement Tests have all been shown to have predictive value. SJTs measure something different from prior educational achievements.

If I had to use a personal qualities test, I would try NEO PI-R, especially with regard to the trait of conscientiousness, which is generally the single biggest predictor of workplace performance.

Sorry, I don't have time to add references at the moment, but can if anyone is interested, and if time permits.

[secret squirrel]

I mean, we all know interviews don't really work,

I'm not keen on the idea of employing people based on their personality rather than experience/competencies/interests etc. to be honest.

When any job advert, even word of mouth, gets 10s to hundreds+ of applications all (well nearly) of whom have relevant experience/qualifications/competencies etc, how do you propose to filter them down to a list of <5 people that you can spare the time to interview?

Throw 90% of them away unlooked at "because they're unlucky"?

Throw them away. Something that is functionally a lottery should be explicitly a lottery. Pick out the 'definitely' and the 'definitely not' people, and make up the numbers with a lottery of the rest. I think e.g. academic journals should do the same thing.

[Tessa K]

The trouble with face-to-face interviews is that a lot of senior staff haven't been trained to do them and smaller companies don't have HR. I've had a lot of bad interviews, both for jobs I've got and ones I haven't. Pretty much every male interviewer has gone on about my height, some at length.

I've never had to do a 'personality' test but I would have to game it to appear employable. (I score quite high on the psychopath test btw). Basically, I like some people a lot and I'm never deliberately unpleasant but find it hard to be interested in most people - although I'm good at masking that. This shouldn't affect my ability to do the job, of course.

[kerrya1]

There are two problems here.

The first is that MBTI and friends are bollocks for learning about your personality.

The second is that even reliable knowledge of personality characteristics (once you've identified a model that you like; there are several that aren't bollocks) contributes very little to predicting job success, especially in senior roles where everyone is highly qualified; the personality characteristics that got you those qualifications are probably pretty close to what you need for the job, by definition. Kind of like how the most successful professional basketball players are not the tallest, because every pro is "tall enough", otherwise they wouldn't be in the study.

FWIW I think the main psychological requirements for most senior jobs, among people who appear to be doing the job one level below competently enough, are "not being a narcissist", "not being a psychopath", and "not being a dick (of any gender)". Sadly, those tend to be exactly the people with the sharpest elbows.

Which ones aren't bollocks though? I know there's a few tests out there that have scientific backing, mostly for specific issues like autism*, although most I've seen state quite boldly that they are not a sub for an actual assessment with a professional. I always get the same result on MB - INTJ, but that overlaps so much with autism it's impossible to work out where the personality ends and the autism begins. Pseudoscience linky

An actually accurate test that measures personality traits as opposed to my disability** would be lovely as it might even be helpful.

* Bizarrely, as a woman who is absolutely epically brilliant at masking, I always get "totally autistic and shouldn't be allowed near people" Accurate!
** So apparently there's a thing I can maybe try to do to get a diagnosis which involves asking for a referral because apparently there's a big thing and councils are supposed to help... It's gatekept to hell though - you need a mental health referral followed by mental health people referring you on and so on, and so on. I like labels so I might even go for it.***
*** Ex-counsellor: but labels are BAD! Labels are what we use to organise things in our experience, labels are not just good, labels are the entire reason humans are humans and not chimpanzees****
**** well, that and war.

Hello fellow Neurodivergent!, I got an official NHS diagnosis at the end of last year. Mostly because I wanted a way of explaining to managers etc that I'm not simply rude, out-spoken, and anti-social because I want to be. I think I'm quite good at masking, but also score very highly on the "don't employ this person test"

Fortunately, I have had to suffer through them often enough that I can now answer them to give the assessor whatever answer they think they want, or to scare the bejesus out of them depending on what mood I'm in.

[Tessa K]

*** Ex-counsellor: but labels are BAD! Labels are what we use to organise things in our experience, labels are not just good, labels are the entire reason humans are humans and not chimpanzees****
**** well, that and war.

Chimps do make war. They fight other groups for territory and resources. And, as you can see here, they also have interview panels...

[jimbob]

I've paid quite large sums to use MBTI with my medical students over the years. Not because I felt it was much use, but to stimulate conversations and thinking about how different kinds of people might contribute to/be essential for a team, and to counteract the temptation to think that "how I operate is the CORRECT way, and any other way is therefore wrong". My own outcome was pretty stable.

I also had a free app on my phone, which did largely the same thing, but also placed you in a Hogwarts House.


BoaF wrote

I mean, we all know interviews don't really work, but how many people here have ever refused to turn up for one on the basis that it's quackery

Interviews can detect the (rather rare) highly deviant characters. I've been told "Team working? I don't know the meaning of the word! I just do my job and go home!"

Highly structured interviews are better than unstructured interviews. Multiple Mini Interviews are better still (where short interviews are held with a number of separate individuals) in terms of predictive validity for the role.

Where you have, say, 28,000 applicants for 8,000 places, almost any filter is helpful, but cognitive ability tests, prior educational achievement, and Situational Judgement Tests have all been shown to have predictive value. SJTs measure something different from prior educational achievements.

If I had to use a personal qualities test, I would try NEO PI-R, especially with regard to the trait of conscientiousness, which is generally the single biggest predictor of workplace performance.

Sorry, I don't have time to add references at the moment, but can if anyone is interested, and if time permits.

Yes please.

Certainly for technical roles, I think interviews are useful. Comparing people with somewhat relevant post-doctoral experience and seeing how they actually approach problems that are slightly outside their background is informative