You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

roystgnr comments on The Rebuttal Repository - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: peter_hurford 11 August 2013 06:59AM

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

Comments (59)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: roystgnr 12 August 2013 05:28:17PM 3 points [-]

I read the Myers-Briggs link down to "we'd expect ... bimodal", i.e. "I'm criticizing a binary version of Myers-Briggs that doesn't match the continuously-scored tests roystgnr took decades ago", and then successfully predicted what most of the subsequent criticisms would be and why they would have been similarly inapplicable. That doesn't mean the criticism is invalid for what it applies to, mind you, but I'd prefer rebuttals which steelman the opposing arguments, and I'd at least want rebuttals to be aware of any steelmen which already exist.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2013 07:22:52AM 1 point [-]

I read the Myers-Briggs link down to "we'd expect ... bimodal", i.e. "I'm criticizing a binary version of Myers-Briggs that doesn't match the continuously-scored tests roystgnr took decades ago", and then successfully predicted what most of the subsequent criticisms would be and why they would have been similarly inapplicable.

I had a similar reaction to that argument. Overall the article counts strongly against the credibility of 80,000 hours. I don't especially advocate Myers-Briggs, but the reasoning in this particular essay is terrible.