NancyLebovitz comments on LW Women- Female privilege - Less Wrong

24 [deleted] 05 May 2013 01:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (236)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 May 2013 12:05:59AM *  4 points [-]

I don't know about snickering, but here's something that has me knocking my head against the wall:

Despite the far-reaching use of the assessment in organizations, the academic psychological community has been slow to embrace it. No major journal has published research on the MBTI, which academics consider a strong repudiation of the test’s authority. What makes this even more striking is that CPP has three prominent psychologists on its corporate board — Carl Thoresen, Wayne Cascio and Christina Maslach — who presumably could have used their stature in the field to help.

Thoresen, the CPP board’s chairman, is a long-time and highly regarded professor of psychology at Stanford. His role at the helm of CPP gives the image of strong institutional support for the test. And yet of the roughly 150 papers he has published in his career, there isn’t one mention of Myers-Briggs.

“I used it practically, but I didn’t use it in any of my research,” Thore­sen says. “In part because it would be questioned by my academic colleagues. That was always a barrier.”

It is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: No major journal has published on it, therefore no elite academic will support it, therefore no major journal will publish on it.

Comment author: gwern 06 May 2013 12:15:19AM *  5 points [-]

It is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: No major journal has published on it, therefore no elite academic will support it, therefore no major journal will publish on it.

Indeed, that is interesting, especially given that the first published MBTI preceded the first modern publication of Big Five by something like 20 years. (On the other hand, psychologists are known to be able to see into the future as their invariably-successful-in-disproving-the-null experiments demonstrate.)

Comment author: buybuydandavis 06 May 2013 05:15:25AM 1 point [-]

Unfortunately, once we're talking about snickering, I'm not confident I can infer why you're banging your head against the wall.

I only read one of five pages, but your quote was what stuck out to me. I'm disappointed at the academics turning away from doing research on a huge already measured base. If they found out anything useful, they would be creating value for a huge number of people.

Reading more, I'm probably more annoyed at the intellectual property racket that has grown up around it. I think I recall early internet years where the place I originally took the test was shut down under legal threat.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 May 2013 06:16:26AM 1 point [-]

The extended self-reinforcing lack of research is what got to me. The intellectual property angle doesn't bother me as much.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 06 May 2013 07:12:22AM 2 points [-]

Ok. I share the first, and see the second.