Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Why is this article quoting Adam Grant's words?

I find the Adam Grant's quotation to be very problematic and biased. First of all, I read his comments toward MBTI are very vindictive if not downright antagonistic. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/adammgrant_the-mbti-is-astrology-for-nerds-say-it-with-activity-6392023183561752576-XQzh

I quote: "personality types are a myth"

And yet, he's also involved in the making of a personality test called https://principlesyou.com/. (Ray Dalio is part of the project since the guy at that time was apparently into MBTI).

Putting his quotation up there is just confirming the bias (which confirms the criticism that this page gets). It should be relocated, at least.

Southeastviewer (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a quote that summarizes the mainstream position well. There is no conflict there, since personality tests or traits have support in the scientific community. Using those results or combinations of traits to assign people 'types' does not. You might also have a look at WP:GOODBIAS - Wikipedia is biased, biased toward mainstream viewpoints. We don't regard that as a problem. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no conflict except the same guy also has designed his own Personality Test?

Southeastviewer (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

He's a professor of psychology. Engaging in the normal sort of work a professor of psychology does is not a conflict. If Wikipedia adopted your reasoning here we wouldn't be able to quote experts on almost any topic. MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wrong. If a health expert spoke against fast-food restaurant consistently, then yes, you could quote him. If a health expert spoke against fast-food restaurant, and then decided to work with a billionaire to make their own fast-food restaurant, would not that be an issue?

His words, at least, should be relocated. It's also important to quote completely what he said about personality test and also when he decided to make his own personality test.

Southeastviewer (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a flawed analogy, because that is not the type of work a 'Health expert' would typically engage in. Proposing or consulting on personality metrics is standard work for a professor of psychology. What you're suggesting would be more like suggesting NASA employees have a conflict of interest if they say the earth isn't flat. MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The flawed analogy is the one you just gave because flat earth is a conspiracy theory while MBTI is not.

If someone said "product A is really bad" but then that someone also made his own "product A", would you still quote his criticism in the page for the first product A? Or should you also mention that someone actually made his own product A?

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I reject the premise of your loaded question, which assumes the disputed facts at issue. MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

A simple question about consistency is a loaded question?

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Rejecting a fair question about consistency does not really exhibit an impartiality. Southeastviewer (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be impartial, I am partial to following Wikipedia's policies and properly reflecting the mainstream scientific view of this topic. But you have the answer to your question (Why is this article quoting Adam Grant's words? so I don't plan to respond to this tangent any further. Feel free to take the last word if you require it, but do not interpret any silence from me as agreement with your points. MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)