Is liking personality descriptions with no supporting evidence as valid as liking personality descriptions that are supported with scientific evidence?

I see it as not any different than liking anything that seems helpful or enjoyable to one on a personal level.

In the case of the personality tests I am an Enneagram fancier and have found my profiling to be very accurate.
The typing is uncannily right on and I like the health scale they present which shows when you are in peak health/expression of all your best traits and when you are unhealthy/digressing.

As with many things, lots of subjectivity, but if someone finds enjoyment in, help with, or otherwise value in anything, all that really matters is how it works for them regardless of adhering to rigid data.

I think there are many valuable ‘tools’ in ones quest to better know themselves and one should be open minded enough to not be closed minded.

In an individual case, it makes no difference. If you want to use the description to “prove” something on a large scale, then it does make a difference.

I like your examples of Tarot and Astrology. Scientific evidence means it is repeatable under the same conditions, and that makes it more useful for large scale predictions.

For a personality description, specifically, there are too many factors to take into consideration to be scientifically valid. Scientific studies can only see correlations, not proof.

This past week, I fooled around with several commonly used personality tests, not to elucidate my own personality so much as to look at their methodologies. For me, Myers-Briggs inspires the least amount of confidence. The questions are too binary, and too few. On too many questions, both choices felt wrong. I could easily get quite different results with a retake. But I think people like it because you end up with a simple label to sum you up, and some glowing description of all the wonders of your particular type. In my case, the description seemed to fit me like a suit ordered off the internet, sized S, M or L.

The better tests are the ones that are designed to unearth aspects of the personality that the subject is likely unaware of or tries to conceal. These tests are never simple. The MMPI-2, for example, has something like 560 questions. There are built-in mechanisms for revealing attempts to put oneself in a good light, catch lies and inconsistencies, etc.. Taking the test is a long, tiring ordeal, but one has the sense that the questions are getting at the real substance of personality. This will never be a popular, DIY test because the scores aren’t easily interpreted by the layman. You end up not with some glib label, but a huge list of scores that are essentially indicators of potentially troublesome personality features. That’s not sexy stuff, and there’s no romantic description of your personality type associated with it, but it actually stands to reveal something the subject my not know (or agree with). I looked at those narrowly focused results and clearly saw the accuracy in them.

I don’t think people necessarily have accurate insight into their own minds. Some do, some don’t. People can be very suggestible if told with some degree of authority that they’re this way or that. That suggestion can just as easily come from a Tarot card reader or an online personality test. What I’m trying to get at is that “liking” this or that description, no matter the source, isn’t a good indicator of its accuracy.

I’ve taken some of the personality tests and the results for me were mixed. Some of the description of the “type” of pesonality that I supposedly am, seemed correct, but other aspects of it didn’t seem right at all. Also, the “types” didn’t seem real to me either, when I read them. The types left me asking, “What does that even mean?” I just think that there are too many variables with people to put them into a particular personality type, even though lots of people that may seem dis-similar (like you and me for instance) would likely have a bunch of traits that actually intersect. And with people who seem a lot alike, like my best friend and I, there are still plenty of things that just aren’t going to jive. She, for instance does not find Severus Snape interesting or sexy. But we both love Patrick Stewart.

With astrology, it seems like the peole who want to believe in it, will almost always see the consistencies within their own personalities, even when those traits are generalities. I always see some of my own personality traits in all of the horoscope/star sign/astrology signs/zodiac signs or whatever you want to call them, but other things are always wrong.

I guess I look at “scientific based” personality tests a little less skeptically, because they are measuring something, but like @thorninmud said, most people either can’t or won’t give accurate insight into their own minds or personalities for a whole bunch of reasons such as wanting to please the questioner, not wanting to look foolish or stupid, wanting and hoping that they will look better than they are, not really having an answer, but answering anyway etc. With tarot and astrology, it’s just a crapshoot.

So for me, personality traits and tests are kind of like dining in a Chinese restaurant. You take some from column A and some from column B and with six you get eggroll. Or in my cake, you get Kardamom.

The real issue of the discussion you linked to was truth, not usefulness. There is no evidence that the tests give accurate portrayals of the test takers’ actual personalities, and so there is no evidence that the tests are useful as tools to find out the truth about the test takers’ personalities. Even thought the second part uses the word “useful,” the issue is still truth. People can find personal value in just about anything. If they value the truth, however, they should understand that there is no evidence that personality tests provide any truth at all.

Personal beliefs that the tests yield accurate results are not just irrelevant, they are part of the problem. These tests accentuate the positive, and human beings have all sorts of internal biases that make them subject to flattery—especially vague flattery that could apply to almost anyone. Michael Shermer did an experiment on “psychic readings” where he gave everyone the same opening statement and then went on to do a more “personalized” reading. All of his subjects rated him as accurate—despite the fact that he spent only 24 hours preparing for what he knew to be a fraudulent exercise—even if a few did not find anything he said surprising.

The opening statement gambit is the crown jewel of this experiment because it was exactly the same for everyone and received the most consistently positive response. Every single subject, for instance, found the last line to describe them perfectly. Why? Because it was pure flattery gold. Remember: the opening statement was generated in advance and with no reference to anything about the actual people who were profiled—except for the likelihood that they would be subject to certain biases. Yet it worked perfectly.

So what does this mean? First, I don’t think it means that people who believe in tarot or astrology are idiots. I’m not sure anyone is saying that; and at the very least, I would not assert such a thing. What I am saying is that people who believe that personality tests, astrology, or tarot give them reliable and accurate information are factually mistaken. The adverse impact of this is that it leads to believing in untrue and unjustified things. It lowers one’s epistemic standing.

A random personality description might be helpful for personal growth, but it might also inhibit that growth. This makes it risky in a way that we can’t acknowledge if we insist on saying “these tests are meaningful to me, so I’m not going to question them.” If you think that living in the real world is valuable, then, you’ll stay away from these fancy tools for self-deception—or you will at least take them for what they are and not pretend that they are anything more. They may be fun, and they may be revealing when taken for what they are; but they are no substitute for actual self-reflection and self-analysis.

@SavoirFaire While I agree with most of what you posted last, I cannot agree with the second sentence. There is no evidence that the tests give accurate portrayals of the test takers’ actual personalities, and so there is no evidence that the tests are useful as tools to find out the truth about the test takers’ personalities.

Some groups have done extensive research on personality tests. The one that I am most familiar with was conducted by The Gallup Organization over a 50 year study. Since they are an independent company, their reputation is maintained by staying impartial. Granted, their StrengthsFinder assessment has its loopholes, it is better than most I have taken.

Unless you have done research on all self-assessment tests and their backgrounds, it doesn’t seem fair to dismiss them all.

As for agreeing with what you said, there are way too many assessments with issues. Some are poorly worded or do not cover the full gamut. For example, if one has to choose from a multiple choice selection, the true feeling is not always there in the options offered. The other problem is that if a person takes an official self-assessment, but the results are not explained in detail, then they become worthless. Taking it a step further, if it is not supported by an ongoing educational experience, then the results just becomes a label.

@Pied_Pfeffer I am speaking in the context of the previous question, so that comment should be read as being restricted to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment and its close relatives. There are certainly other tests—usually restricted to more specific aspects of one’s personality—that have (varying degrees of) scientific support. Sorry for not being clear about that in the previous post, and thank you for pointing out my mistake. I should have been more specific.

@SavoirFaire No problem my friend. It is no doubt my fault for not re-reading the post you referred to in the first sentence.

I’m not a fan of Myers-Briggs. While I have never looked into how valid the studies are, it is obviously unhelpful when people can take the self-assessment online and only receive a four letter result and a brief description of what it means. For example, people who take the test are either an I (Intuitive) or an E (Extrovert). Yet, it is not an ‘either/or’ case. There are varying degrees. This comes out in a proper detailed report, and it should be explained by someone trained to do so.