I largely avoid clickbait, but Joseph Stromberg at Vox caught me with his recent sledgehammering of Myers-Briggs. In my defense, I gave Vox the benefit of the doubt because Ezra Klein has historically written such smart, insightful pieces. I don't know to what extent that carries over to Ezra's new endeavor, or pieces written by Ezra's colleagues. Regardless, I clicked.
And it's brutal.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the psychological research behind workplace learning assessments, and I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on Myers-Briggs. Furthermore, I post this link not to trash-talk a "competing" assessment.
Rather, Vox raises several important questions that all workplace learning assessments should address. Wiley, for instance, has a small army of Ph.D. psychologists and psychometricians who are constantly validating, benchmarking, and improving their DiSC-based assessments (see the latest research report for their work and conclusions). I would assume that the publishers of Myers-Briggs, Big Five, and others operate similarly. These instruments are designed as useful tools for understanding oneself and for improving human interaction, so it's important to be forthright about their strengths and limits, and further to be transparent about the research. Regardless of the answers (and the MBTI publisher doubtless has a cogent rebuttal for each of these points), Vox is asking the right questions.