You started this thread by implying that the acceptance (and alleged validity) of the Myers-Briggs test (or any psychometric test for that matter) has to do with whether those tested agree with their test results.
No I did not-- in fact it is quite the opposite. DrewDad is making claims such as that Myers-Briggs can "predict human behavior"-- my point is that claims like this can and should be tested before they are asserted as fact.
You further stated that personality tests are easy to construct and validate by scientific "experiments".
This is a misstatement of my position. I am questioning that the relevance of the personality tests to predict human behavior, or their ability to predict success in certain careers.
My point out that if personality tests could really do these things... it would be easy to confirm this with objective scientific experiments.
Would conclusions drawn from the Myers-Briggs test in such employment situations be any less accurate than the subjective judgments formed from the interview procedure with a job applicant?
There is no reason to suspect that conclusions drawn from the Myers-Briggs test are any more accurate then picking random classifications from a hat.
Why shouldn't claims that Myers-Briggs has any more value then random classification to predict employees success be subject to objective science research. This question is pretty easy to set up experimentally, you get two research groups-- give on "real" Myers-Briggs results, and the other random Myer-Briggs results and the measure success in the job.
There is no objective scientific evidence being offered here (wikipedia implies that there is some independent research that fails to show any benefit of Myers-Briggs over random classification)
Couldn't a potential employer use the test data simply as additional information about the applicant, without making it the determining factor in whether someone is hired or promoted? Might it not have some practical usefulness in such situations?
If there is practical usefulness, then it should be demonstrated with objective scientific research. Right now all we have is a marketing pitch.
This is exactly what bothers me. There is no way to know what practical usefulness it may have (if it has any practical usefulness at all) unless you measure what effect you think it has in an objective scientific way.
The idea that someone could lose a job based on something that is no better then a random "assessment" pulled out of a hat bothers me.
But the real issue here is science versus pseudo science.
I get the point that personality is difficult to measure and all that. I am backing off my argument that everything of value can be measured. But concrete claims and practical uses for a product can and should be measured.
But when you are making concrete claims about what Myers-Briggs (or any system of assessment) can do, you can and should back this up with objective science experiment. When you want to sell Myers-Briggs for a practical use, especially one that impacts peoples lives, you can and should measure its effectiveness with objective scientific experiment.
If claim to have something that can "predict human behavior", I certainly want you to back this claim with objective scientific experiment.