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.
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.
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.
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.