我的看法：迈尔斯-布里格斯是一种有用的工具，并且有相关证据支持。
有人常说迈尔斯-布里格斯性格类型测试是无用的，因为它是一种伪科学。但这一说法并没有数据支持。
首先，许多关于在不同家庭中长大的同卵双胞胎的研究表明，他们的性格类型相同的比例远高于随机概率。
其次，数据中存在非常强的相关性。在对超过10万人进行的不同调查中，收入最高的性格类型的薪资是最低类型的两倍。这几乎不可能是偶然的结果。
性格类型的字母组合（如ENTJ）与科学家使用的五大性格特质（Big 5）变量高度相关。只不过它被划分为16个类别，而不是5个连续的量表。
科学研究寻求的是可以可靠追踪的变量，因此五大性格特质在这方面是更好的衡量标准。
但对于个人或组织的使用，类别方法是一种特性，而非缺陷。作为一种心理工具，它比单纯在五个类别中获得一个性格分数要有帮助得多。
查看原文
Its kind of a common thing to say Myers-Briggs typing is useless because its pseudo-science.<p>This is not supported by the data.<p>For one, many studies of identical twins raised in separate households show they have the same personality type at a much higher rate than chance.<p>Two, there are incredibly strong correlations in the data. In different surveys of 100k+ people, the highest earning type has twice the salary of the lowest type. This is basically impossible by chance.<p>The letters (like ENTJ) correlate highly to the variables of Big 5, the personality system used by scientists. Its just that it's bucketed into 16 categories vs being 5 sliding scales.<p>Scientific studies are looking for variables that can be tracked over time reliably, so Big 5 is a better measure for that.<p>But for personal or organizational use, the category approach is a feature, not a bug. It is much more help as a mental toolkit than just getting a personality score on each of the 5 categories.