>>13604199Read it. And your WP article too.
>“To raise questions about [Myers-Briggs’s] reliability and validity is like commenting on the tastiness of communion wine. Or how good a yarmulke is at protecting your head,” says Brian Little, a former psychology professor at Harvard University who is now at the University of Cambridge. “It’s simply the wrong question, from their perspective.”>That is, from the perspective of MBTI adherents who find the test both enlightening and empowering.It's the classic case of something being rightfully scorned among the scientific community, so some smartass needs to come up the with article how it's "chicken-egg-problem" how the MBTI doesn't get published as much.
The scientific publish industry is a scam and mafia cartel, there is no doubt about that, and surely the reputation of the shitty MBTI makes the publishing extra hard.
But the basic facts remaind. No validity, no reliability, inferior and less tested model than Big5, no massive HR industry to shill on background your worker classifications (not proven anyway effective). Just some feelgood pop-psycholoy
