“Meaningless” is a meaningless term.
When I was in college, our entire Computer Science class took the Meyers-Briggs. Over 50 students. Every last one of them scored INTJ. I was the closest to an exception, getting nearly 50-50 on I vs E and P vs J.
Comp Sci people are bound to be INTJ; it fits the demands of the discipline. Does this mean you should say, “So, you’re INTJ.. you should be a Comp Sci major”? No. I guess that makes it “meaningless” to the author. But it DOES mean that there is some validity to the testing. And the presence of that validity means that there must be some use.
I just skimmed the article, and that appears to be the flaw: Meyer-Briggs (arguably) is a good indicator of one’s personality-type, but anyone using its results to predict future performance is engaging in what Hayek alluded-to when he created the term, “fatal conceit.”
Fascinating post on INTJ’s clustered in computer science.
I am INTJ, but not a techie. Writer and developmental editor. Also close to center in I vs E, depending upon what’s going on in my life at the time. Working as a department head, I was much closer to E; retired, definitely I. I’ve seen this categorized as XNTJ.
INTJ’s comprise only .03% of the female population. I share this distinction with Hitlery, if certain analysts are to be believed. Big sigh.
Some personality types do better in different jobs. Extroverts tend to do better in jobs. You want a detailed oriented person as an accountant.
However, there shouldn’t be a personality test and then being told “you can’t have the job, you’re one letter off” despite education, experience and credentials.