870: Personality Tests | Skeptical Sunday

870: Personality Tests | Skeptical Sunday

[00:00:00] Jordan Harbinger: And special thanks to Airbnb for sponsoring this episode of The Jordan Harbinger Show. Maybe you've stayed at an Airbnb before and thought to yourself, "Yeah, this actually seems pretty doable. Maybe my place could be an Airbnb." It could be as simple as starting with a spare room or your whole place while you're away. Find out how much your place is worth at airbnb.com/host.

[00:00:22] Welcome to Skeptical Sunday. I'm your host, Jordan Harbinger. Today, I'm here with Skeptical Sunday co-host Michael Regilio. Normally, on The Jordan Harbinger Show, we decode the stories, secrets, and skills of the world's most fascinating people and turn their wisdom into practical advice that you can use to impact your own life and those around you. Our mission is to help you become a better informed, more critical thinker. And during the week, we have long-form conversations with a variety of amazing folks, from spies to CEOs, athletes, authors, thinkers, and performers. On Sundays, though, we do Skeptical Sunday, where a rotating guest co-host and I break down a topic you may have never thought about, and debunk common misconceptions about that topic, such as why the Olympics are kind of a sham, acupuncture, astrology, funerals, and weddings.

[00:01:05] And if you're new to the show or you're looking for a handy way to tell your friends about the show, I suggest our episode starter packs. These are collections of our favorite episodes organized by topic and they'll help new listeners get a taste of everything we do here on the show. Topics like persuasion and influence China, North Korea, disinformation, cyber warfare, crime, cults, and more. Just visit jordanharbinger.com/start or search for us in your Spotify app to get started.

[00:01:29] Don't forget we have our fundraiser to lift that village in Kenya out of extreme poverty with a cash donation. There is a donor that's going to double our donation. So we're trying to raise 20 grand. It'll become 40 grand, bringing hope to families that struggle to afford really even the most basic necessities of life for themselves and their kids. This is the village of Ngamani in rural Kenya. We want to give a thousand dollars to each of the 36 families. It's about 200 people in total. In this village, only seven families have a permanent shelter. Education, three dollars per semester, but over half the residents have no formal education because they can't afford three dollars per semester to send their kids to school. No medical care because they have no way to get there. Access to water is erratic at best. The pipes run dry for up to a week at a time. People can't afford to buy water.

[00:02:16] So what they're going to do with the money is buy land for farming, cover school fees for their kids, buy things like goats that can endure harsh droughts, improve their homes with sturdy construction slash build homes for them to sleep in, metal roofs, concrete floors so they're not in the dirt, and most importantly, in my opinion, they are going to start small businesses like community taxi services. They got to get motorcycles and stuff like that. There's other ideas here. They're going to be self-sustaining. They're not just going to blow through this money. They're going to use it to lift the village out of poverty and they're going to chronicle this for us which is going to be really interesting for us to watch Go to givedirectly.com/jordan to donate. I, of course, am donating. Donations are a hundred percent tax deductible in the US. If you're not in the US, here's your chance to support the show, givedirectly.com/jordan. And if you email me a screenshot of your donation, I would love to send you a personalized video thanking you for it, givedirectly.com/jordan.

[00:03:08] By the way, if you use the Stitcher app to listen to this show, they are getting rid of that app. August 29th. It will no longer be useful. So switch to a different app if you use the Stitcher app to listen to this podcast. If you're on Android, I suggest Podcast Addict. It might not be as pretty, but it works really well. If you're on iOS, Apple, you should use Overcast, in my humble opinion, or Apple Podcasts. But definitely no longer Stitcher. It will not update anymore in the next couple of months. So if you're using the Stitcher app, now's a good time to switch to a new podcast app. And if you have any problems with this, you're kind of Boomer in terms of your tech, you don't know what to do, you can always email me, jordan@jordanharbinger.com. I will try to point you in the right direction, but the Stitcher app will no longer work for this show.

[00:03:51] All right, today, personality tests. Now, these things are everywhere. Some of them are completely innocuous, like those Cosmo tests from back in the day. Are you a Samantha or are you a Miranda? Are you a Kramer? Are you a George? People post their results on social media for fun, for laughs, for likes, but there are other personality tests with real-life consequences, unfortunately. Dating sites use them to help you determine which way to swipe. Employers employ personality tests to find out who gets the job and who is just out of luck. So is it a resume keeping people from a paycheck or is it a weird, n ot very accurate algorithm that assigns an unemployable personality type, whatever that means. With literal lives and livelihoods on the line, it's worth asking, what are personality tests? Who came up with them? Are they really a valuable tool, or are they basically just horoscopes in a fricking lab coat?

[00:04:45] This week, comedian Michael Regilio is going to be a real Jerry, I guess, and answer the burning question, what's the deal with personality tests?

[00:04:56] Michael Regilio: Thanks, Jordan. Despite your intro, I'm just myself today. Do you know who you are?

[00:05:01] Jordan Harbinger: I'm not sure. I'm a terrible Jerry Seinfeld impersonator. That was not something I'm ever going to do again. Should I take maybe a test to find out who I really am?

[00:05:09] Michael Regilio: Oh, that depends on how much you value your time. Personality tests are fun when there's absolutely nothing riding on the results. Plus, we like to talk and think about ourselves, which is the whole point of the results. But, as complex beings, I don't know if a few questions will exactly define Jordan Harbinger.

[00:05:27] Jordan Harbinger: I tend to agree. Can we learn something about ourselves based on the results, though?

[00:05:32] Michael Regilio: Not really. They put individuals into a box and say if you fall into this box, you're good at this and bad at that. When dating apps use them, they're saying, hey, look at all the people in your box. You should make out with them.

[00:05:43] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah, the teenage me would have absolutely loved that advice and would have also been woefully unsuccessful at taking it.

[00:05:50] Michael Regilio: Thousands of personality-type websites like meetup.com, Tinder, and SoSync. They match people based on personality test results. People are using their personality test results to define themselves and who they are compatible with, similar to how some people use zodiac signs.

[00:06:08] Jordan Harbinger: Ah, yes. In China, I think it's blood type as well, and I think it's both a diet and a horoscope. It's very scientific as you make us. How long have we been using personality tests? The recent, where do they come from?

[00:06:20] Michael Regilio: Personality testing boomed during World War I. Both the U. S. and British militaries were looking for ways to screen for soldiers who had, quote, "weak constitutions."

[00:06:29] Jordan Harbinger: That sounds very technical.

[00:06:31] Michael Regilio: Yeah, I know. And might be more susceptible to what they then called shell shock, nowadays we call PTSD. So, an American psychologist, Robert Woodworth, created a test called the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet. This early personality test had interesting questions like, can you sit still without fidgeting and did you ever think you had lost your manhood?

[00:06:52] Jordan Harbinger: I definitely can't sit still without fidgeting, and I always check for the manhood thing in the shower every morning.

[00:06:59] Michael Regilio: Won't ask questions. Okay, just in the morning, lucky you. By the time they published the Woodworth test in 1919, the war was over. But academia embraced the test, and psychologists used it for all kinds of research. It became the roadmap for all subsequent personality testing, and this ultimately led to the big dog on the personality test block, the Myers-Briggs type indicator.

[00:07:23] Jordan Harbinger: Oh yeah, I'm sure most people are generally familiar with the Myers-Briggs test. I remember taking it as a kid and as an adult. And you still hear about it everywhere. That's the one where you end up saying things like, "OMG, she's such an INTJ for like the next 18 months of your life and annoying the crap out of all your friends and colleagues." I'm guessing two people named Myers and Briggs came up with this.

[00:07:48] Michael Regilio: Sort of. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or the MBTI, is based on the ideas of personality types developed in 1921 by famed psychologist Carl Jung.

[00:07:59] Jordan Harbinger: Ooh, Carl Jung. A few of his devotees have cornered me at parties back in college. Not a whole lot of fun in that case. What was Carl Jung all about?

[00:08:08] Michael Regilio: Well, by the way, just for the record, Funyuns might be a brilliant idea for snack food for grad students. Yeah, we'll let's, we'll talk about licensing that.

[00:08:16] Listening to someone wax on about Carl Jung is like audible NyQuil, but we have to mention him.

[00:08:22] Jordan Harbinger: Yes, audible NyQuil, probably better than audible Ambien. Roseanne Barr told me that Ambien makes you racist. So at least, it's merely boredom that results from this one.

[00:08:31] Michael Regilio: Wow, indeed. Well, he did ask interesting questions about the human unconscious and its effects on behavior. And in a small offshoot of his thinking, Carl Jung hypothesized that there were eight identifiable personality types. The thing is, back in 1921, Jung did not consider the scientific method, so this was just, like, his opinion, man. His writings are—

[00:08:53] Jordan Harbinger: I was hoping there would be a Lebowski reference in there at some point.

[00:08:57] Michael Regilio: And you got it, dude. His writings are honest and admit some of the personality types were just based on his observations of his wife. Carl Jung complained his wife feels emotions all the time, so her type is a feeler.

[00:09:11] Jordan Harbinger: Oh, man.

[00:09:11] Michael Regilio: And that was good enough for science in 1921. Most notable, though, Carl Jung was the first to articulate the notions of introverted and extroverted.

[00:09:20] Jordan Harbinger: That's really funny. He's like, my wife and her pesky emotions. She's a feeler. She's one of those people that feels things. That is interesting, though. These are personality traits we still identify with today. Maybe not feeler, but introverted and extroverted, at least. I mean, I feel like I use that word every day.

[00:09:35] Michael Regilio: But right off the bat, there's a problem. Introverted and extroverted are not hard and fast traits that define a person for life. Who didn't watch a friend, or even themselves, come out of their shell after high school, or when they met the right significant other? Personality is not static. And my unscientific observation of myself is that, depending on the situation, I can be one or the other.

[00:09:56] Jordan Harbinger: That's a good point. I'm definitely the same way. I certainly came out of my shell. People are actually shocked when they hear that I said probably three words per week at school and only one called on throughout all of middle school and a lot of high schools. Especially given my job now, it's not a static trait. I'll give you that.

[00:10:13] Michael Regilio: Yeah. Jung, however, did not create a test for these personality types. That came later with Myers and Briggs who used Jung's writings and bought into the notion that personality traits are mostly static. So from the get-go, the Myers-Briggs test might as well be built on a foundation of sand, which gets us to the test's creators, Myers and Briggs.

[00:10:34] Jordan Harbinger: So, who are these guys?

[00:10:36] Michael Regilio: Gals, Jordan, gals.

[00:10:38] Jordan Harbinger: Mmm.

[00:10:38] Michael Regilio: Unfortunately, this test isn't a significant scientific accomplishment some believe it to be.

[00:10:43] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, so who were these women?

[00:10:46] Michael Regilio: Katharine Cook Briggs was born in 1875. She was a teacher and a writer of both fiction and essays. In writing fiction, she was interested in understanding the personality of distinct characters. Her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, was pretty much treated like Katharine's subject in an experiment in human behavior since birth. Her mother was obsessed with obedience and developed some questionable theories on the subject like, never warn a child a punishment is coming.

[00:11:14] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, I'm not a parenting expert, but that's objectively terrible and not a very impressive edict.

[00:11:20] Michael Regilio: Right. Isabel grew up to be a writer like her mother. She wrote mystery novels in the early 1920s. Mom Briggs read some Carl Jung and was really into his concept of eight personality traits and she shared it with her daughter.

[00:11:33] Jordan Harbinger: So I just want to be clear here, neither of these women were scientists or psychologists, is that correct?

[00:11:39] Michael Regilio: No. Between the two of them, they had zero—

[00:11:41] Jordan Harbinger: No. Yes, it's correct.

[00:11:43] Michael Regilio: No. Between the two of them, they had zero formal scientific experience. They just liked Jung's writings in their defense. Psychology was a boys club at that time, and it would've been next to impossible for women to take that career path. But it didn't stop Isabel and Katharine from revamping and expanding Jung's ideas. Literally, they took Jung's eight personality traits and stretched them out to the much more scientifically sound 16 personality traits.

[00:12:11] Jordan Harbinger: Oh, okay. So I guess they believed bigger numbers are more science-y?

[00:12:15] Michael Regilio: And aren't they?

[00:12:16] Jordan Harbinger: Mmm, indeed.

[00:12:17] Michael Regilio: They developed what they called a type indicator. They categorized people using questions based on Jung's interpretation of the four core psychological functions. After answering a few questions, they assigned a four-digit barcode with each letter corresponding to your type. This led to their theory of 16 distinct personality types.

[00:12:38] Jordan Harbinger: So the MBTI, which is used by employers and I believe federal agencies and stuff like that, is based on the opinion and bias of this mother-daughter, not scientific at all, sort of unqualified duo. And that's shocking, actually.

[00:12:55] Michael Regilio: Yeah, and Carl Jung would agree with you. Jung himself said every individual is an exception to the rule. This kind of classification is nothing but a childish parlor game.

[00:13:06] Jordan Harbinger: So if the guy who came up with the theory, and mostly was not scientific about it, disagrees you about your theory of his theory, I feel like you might be barking up the wrong tree or you're just, you know, taking things to the next level, but possibly also just part of the bullsh*t industrial complex that is personality tests.

[00:13:22] Michael Regilio: That's right. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a weird piece of pop psychology. And you are onto something when you say it's based on their biases. Isabel, the daughter, wrote mystery novels that are riddled with racism, sexism, all the isms.

[00:13:38] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, so whenever somebody's like, a century ago, and it's like, this is racist, is it a sign of the times back then? I never really know what to think.

[00:13:45] Michael Regilio: Nor do I, but look, I haven't read it, and apparently, it's difficult to come by, but her second novel seems to be what we would call today a racist piece of trash. The story follows an affluent white family who all start committing suicide when they learn that one of their ancestors was black.

[00:14:02] Jordan Harbinger: Wow, okay, right. So it's not just casually racist because of little things in the context. It's like the whole plot itself is racist and is about racist people being racist. They're so racist they basically die because of it. All right, I think I get it.

[00:14:17] Michael Regilio: Yeah. A certain coincidence strikes me. Isabel Briggs Myers was a mystery novelist who developed a theory of psychology and, indeed, a personality test based on little more than what she pulled out of her ass. A theory that has gone on to become a multi-billion-dollar industry and has millions of devotees. So, I have to ask, does this ring any pseudoscientific bells? Does it remind you of anything or anyone?

[00:14:43] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah, it does. It reminds me, especially the novelist part, of L. Ron Hubbard being a Sci-Fi writer and then being like, I should invent a religion, and then inventing Scientology.

[00:14:54] Michael Regilio: Okay, so I'm not crazy.

[00:14:55] Jordan Harbinger: Not in this particular instance, anyway.

[00:14:59] Michael Regilio: In fact, I guess you could say that old mother Briggs was actually old mother Hubbard.

[00:15:04] Jordan Harbinger: Mmm.

[00:15:05] Michael Regilio: You know?

[00:15:05] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah. Okay.

[00:15:06] Michael Regilio: Because she was like L. Ron Hubbard.

[00:15:08] Jordan Harbinger: We get it. Yeah, we get it.

[00:15:10] Michael Regilio: All right, coincidence aside, as we'll see, there's actually a fair comparison here. In 1944, Myers and Briggs published the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Handbook, and the seeds of a movement were born.

[00:15:24] Jordan Harbinger: Just by listening to this show, I can tell a lot about somebody's personality. For example, I know that you would enjoy the fine products and services that support this show. We'll be right back.

[00:15:33] This episode is sponsored in part by Airbnb. So we used to travel a lot for podcast interviews and conferences, and we love staying in Airbnbs because we often meet interesting people and the stays are just more unique and fun. One of our favorite places to stay at in LA is with a sweet, older couple whose kids have moved out. They have a granny flat in their backyard. We used to stay there all the time. We were regulars, always booking their Airbnb when we flew down for interviews. And we loved it because they'd leave a basket of snacks, sometimes a bottle of wine, even a little note for us. And they would leave us freshly baked banana bread because they knew that I liked it. And they even became listeners of this podcast, which is how they knew about the banana bread. So after our house was built, we decided to become hosts ourselves, turning one of our spare bedrooms into an Airbnb. Maybe you've stayed in an Airbnb before and thought to yourself, "Hey, this seems pretty doable. Maybe my place could be an Airbnb." It could be as simple as starting with a spare room, or your whole place while you're away. You could be sitting on an Airbnb and not even know it. Perhaps you get a fantastic vacation plan for the balmy days of summer. As you're out there soaking up the sun and making memories, your house doesn't need to sit idle. Turn it into an Airbnb. Let it be a vacation home for somebody else. And picture this, your little one isn't so little anymore. They're headed off to college this fall. The echo in their now empty bedroom might be a little too much to bear. So, whether you could use a little extra money to cover some bills or something a little more fun, your home might be worth more than you think. Find out how much at airbnb.com/host.

[00:16:56] Thank you for listening and supporting the show. All the deals, discount codes, and ways to support us are over at jordanharbinger.com/deals. You can also search for any sponsor using the search box on the website as well. So please consider supporting those who support us.

[00:17:10] Now, back to Skeptical Sunday.

[00:17:14] Okay, it's quite baffling, especially when one takes into account just how big the Myers-Briggs test has become. If this was niche little stuff that people were bringing back that hadn't been seen for 50 years, I'd be like, ah, okay, internet. But this is an institution. So, let's talk about what this test is and how it manages to classify people or pretends to classify people.

[00:17:34] Michael Regilio: Okay, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assigns you a four-letter label. Each letter represents how you scored in different categories. The categories are as follows, E for extroversion, I for introversion, S for sensing, and N for intuition.

[00:17:50] Jordan Harbinger: Hmm. N for intuition is not very intuitive.

[00:17:56] Michael Regilio: You are catching on, my friend.

[00:17:58] Jordan Harbinger: So, all right, I know what extroversion and introversion are, kinda. I mean, we all kinda do, right? Not in the scientific sense, but in the sense where when someone says it, I know what it means. What the hell is sensing and intuition? That sounds almost the same.

[00:18:09] Michael Regilio: Right. They are made-up categories by people without the credentials to be creating scientific categories. So, the skeptic in me is tempted to say, who cares? But, since a giant chunk of the population uses these letters to describe themselves, there is some merit in taking a moment to explain. So, sensing means you focus on reality, how things really are. Intuition means you see the possibilities, how things could be.

[00:18:33] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, that's not so crazy.

[00:18:35] Michael Regilio: Right, of course. No, but again, all of us are all of these things to one degree or another, and more importantly, we're different combinations of these things in different circumstances and in different times in our lives.

[00:18:47] Jordan Harbinger: Ah, okay, well, you're very rigid in these criticisms, Regilio. You're such a Charlotte.

[00:18:53] Michael Regilio: Look, I never watched Sex and the City, but I'm assuming Charlotte was not a one or even two-dimensional character, which is what the Myers-Briggs test tries to break us down into. They describe each letter, so T is thinking, which means the person is reasonable and level headed. F is feeling, so they are warm and empathetic. J is judging, which means you thrive with detailed instructions and like things solved definitively. P is perceiving, meaning a person is flexible and likes options.

[00:19:21] Jordan Harbinger: On the surface, it sounds a little bit like a lot of B with a dash of S.

[00:19:27] Michael Regilio: You're such a Samantha.

[00:19:29] Jordan Harbinger: I get that all the time.

[00:19:30] Michael Regilio: I bet you do, Jordan. So, after you take the 93-question test and you or your employer pays the 49.95, they assign you your MBTI score. You can either be an ISTJ, an ISFJ, an INFJ, an INTJ, an ISTP, an ISFP—

[00:19:50] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah. So you're just going to go over every possible four-letter combination.

[00:19:54] Michael Regilio: —an INTP, EST—

[00:19:56] Jordan Harbinger: Right. Now, we get it. It's going to be a B-O-R-E if you keep going. So tell me you took this test and you know what you are.

[00:20:04] Michael Regilio: No, I didn't take it. And not just because I don't like wasting my time and money. But because 50% of people who take the test a second time come up with a totally different score, or letters, or word, or whatever the hell it is, the test literally disproves itself. Yet, about two million people take it every year and not just on their own. People are instructed to take it by corporate HR departments, colleges, and even government agencies. CPP, the company that produces and analyzes the test, makes around 20 million a year off of it.

[00:20:36] Jordan Harbinger: Wow. Well, that's 20 million reasons that they continue to push this pseudoscientific test, right? I didn't realize that people get different results when they take it at different times or whatever, but that completely makes sense. This is why when I get ENTJ, I'm like, yeah, but sometimes I da-da-da-da, and it seems like it fits me, but then it's also so vague that any of those labels probably could fit me in some way.

[00:20:58] Michael Regilio: Right, and it's not just my skeptical and admittedly unqualified opinion that the test is worthless. Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, says, quote, "There is just no evidence behind it. The characteristics measured by the test have almost no predictive power on how happy you'll be in a situation, how you'll perform at your job, or how happy you'll be in your marriage."

[00:21:21] Jordan Harbinger: Okay. I think I've heard that about personality tests on the podcast before, but it probably was Adam Grant who said this on the show. He's been on several times or even Benjamin Hardy, who's a organizational scientist as well. And kind of in that same realm. All right. Why do people flock to this test, then? We made a little joke earlier about 20 million, but that's the company pushing it. Why does anybody else care? Is it just a palatable/convenient way to put people into a box and ditch nuance in favor of simplicity? Like, what's the real appeal here?

[00:21:53] Michael Regilio: Well, you'll notice that none of the personality descriptions were negative. But we all have negative aspects to our personality. There's no L for lazy or C for conceited. The results of the test are flattering and vague, so anybody who gets the results, no matter what their personality, is like, "Wow! You nailed it! I am empathetic thinking and feeling!" This is called the Forer or the Barnum effect, a technique used by grifters for stuff like astrology and fortune telling.

[00:22:22] Jordan Harbinger: Right, okay, that's funny. The Barnum effect just showed up on one of my logical fallacy flashcards, which I do a few times a week because I'm a giant nerd. This is where people see concrete personal examples and fill in the blanks of something that's vague when they're given those vague generalities. So they'll fill in specific examples in their mind when somebody gives them something vague. So if I get ENTJ, I might say, oh yeah, I'm a talk show. So I am extroverted and I am intuitive, I guess, because sometimes I use my intuition or whatever. And then I just sort of drag evidence kicking and screaming from my life experience to fit the label. And this kind of effect, it makes us think somebody made a great prediction about us or read our future on the crystal ball or tea leaves or whatever, when they really just spouted off something fairly general, like a horoscope. And then we latch on to it because we want to believe it and we flesh it out in our heads. It's basically self-deception at its finest. Again, cold readers, mentalists, fake psychic grifters. There's no such thing as real psychic, but psychic grifters take advantage of this all the time. So basically, personality tests sound like, like we said before, horoscope charts dressed all up in a lab coat.

[00:23:32] Michael Regilio: Yes, and CPP, the company that publishes the test, has three leading psychologists on their board but get this. None of them used the Myers-Briggs test in their professional life.

[00:23:43] Jordan Harbinger: Okay.

[00:23:44] Michael Regilio: Carl Thoresen, a Stanford psychologist and CPP board member, told the Washington Post that he can't use the test because, quote, "It would be questioned by my academic colleagues," end quote. Horoscope meet lab coat.

[00:23:56] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah, integrity meet paycheck is more like it. That's such a funny way of saying my colleagues would laugh me out of the room. "Yes, it would be questioned by my academic colleagues." "Oh really? What would the question be? Why are you using essentially the psychological version of a horoscope to do anything in your class? You're supposed to be a respected professor of psychology here at Stanford." That would be the question. But he doesn't want to say that because he's getting a hundred grand a year to join a Zoom call every six months.

[00:24:22] Michael Regilio: Exactly. Yep. Which is why it's so shocking that this test is so ubiquitous. 89% of Fortune 100 companies use it in hiring, and 200 federal agencies use it, including the State Department and the CIA, Jordan. The freaking CIA wants to know who's an INTJ or an ISTP.

[00:24:43] Jordan Harbinger: First of all, shouldn't they already know that? I wonder how Jason Bourne would score on something like that.

[00:24:48] Michael Regilio: I wonder myself. Personality testing is roughly a two-billion-dollar industry. Obviously, not all personality tests are the Myers-Briggs. Some of them are newer, better research tests, but they are not without problems. There's a growing resistance to these tests and the harm many believe they do. So much so that mathematician Cathy O'Neil has dubbed them weapons of math destruction.

[00:25:12] Jordan Harbinger: Ooh, that is a catchy, terrifying name and potentially a fantastic book title. She might have a book with that title. That's a really good title, if not.

[00:25:19] Michael Regilio: She does have a book by that name.

[00:25:21] Jordan Harbinger: Okay.

[00:25:22] Michael Regilio: Because who would pass up that opportunity?

[00:25:23] Jordan Harbinger: You can't, you can't pass it up. So you said there are newer, better-researched tests. What are they? Are they leagues different than this? And why doesn't the CIA use the new ones?

[00:25:34] Michael Regilio: Uh, good question. The other big dog on the personality test block is appropriately called the Big Five, also known as the Five-Factor Model. In developing the Big Five, psychologists took a different approach. They listed personality traits and created simple questions about them. Based on how people answered, they grouped traits into five basic categories — extroversion, Conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The Big Five doesn't sort anybody into a type, just informs them where they fall on a continuum.

[00:26:05] Jordan Harbinger: Already, that sounds better than Myers-Briggs.

[00:26:09] Michael Regilio: But again, the Big Five assumes that personality traits remain relatively static over time.

[00:26:15] Jordan Harbinger: So all these tests are riddled with the same problems in that they don't label the person for what they are all the time, but who they are when they take the exam, take the test?

[00:26:25] Michael Regilio: Of course, because no test comes with a crystal ball to tell you what personality you'll have next week, or next year, or any time in the future. But these are not the criticism Cathy O'Neil and others are referring to when they criticize the use of these tests in hiring practices. The big criticism here are the biases baked into the algorithm cake, and the sneaky and nefarious ways companies can use them.

[00:26:48] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, getting juicier. Tell me more about that.

[00:26:51] Michael Regilio: Okay, let's start with the biases. O'Neil is a mathematician, data scientist, and author. She points out, algorithms are opinions embedded in code. The people who program the algorithms contaminate the algorithm with their personal biases, and since the programmers are almost always economically well-off men, algorithm is embedded with their biases.

[00:27:12] Jordan Harbinger: All right, not to be a total Charlotte, but we got to take a break for our sponsors. We'll be right back.

[00:27:18] This episode is sponsored in part by Airbnb. We used to travel a lot for podcast interviews and conferences, and we love staying in Airbnbs. We often meet interesting people. The stays there are more unique, more fun. One of our favorite places to stay in LA, a sweet older couple, their kids moved out. They've got an in law unit in their backyard. We used to stay there. We used to book that place every time we flew down for interviews. And it's great. They had parking. They had snacks. They would bake banana bread for me because they knew I liked it. They listened to this podcast, which is a great way to become one of my favorite people. So maybe you've stayed in Airbnb before you thought to yourself, "Hey, this seems pretty doable. Maybe my place could be an Airbnb." We built one in our house with a separate entrance because we thought we would utilize the space. It could be as simple as starting with a spare room, your whole place while you're away. You could be sitting in an Airbnb right now and not even know it. Maybe you live in a city with a music festival, an epic sporting tournament, and that noise isn't your cup of tea, get out of town, make a quick getaway, leave the chaos behind. Meanwhile, Airbnb your home, earn a little extra cash while you're at it. Or maybe you're in the work-from-home club and now you're back in the office. The home office, well equipped, ready for use. It doesn't have to sit there and gather dust. Turn it into an Airbnb, earn a neat little sum on the side. So whether you could use a little extra money to cover some bills, or something a little more fun, your home might be worth more than you think. Find out how much at airbnb.ca/host.

[00:28:36] Once again, thank you for listening and supporting the show. Your support of our sponsors does keep us going. All the deals, discount codes are all in one place. jordanharbinger.com/deals. You can also search for the sponsors using the AI chatbot on the website as well I'm sure it's biased towards middle-aged men, but you know, whatever. Maybe you can give us some leeway there Please consider supporting those who support the show.

[00:28:56] Now for the rest of Skeptical Sunday.

[00:29:01] This sounds very Sci-Fi, and I feel like this is part of the AI conversation too. It's like some Black Mirror stuff, right? If the AI is made by a bunch of well off dudes who are middle aged, then the AI is going to think like that and not be as useful or as fair to everybody else.

[00:29:18] Michael Regilio: Yeah, look, we have to face it, we are living in the Sci-Fi films we grew up with. Critics say when personality tests are being used for hiring, algorithm filters out marginalized groups and people raised without standard Western values.

[00:29:32] Jordan Harbinger: So you're saying the algorithms, more or less like white dudes?

[00:29:37] Michael Regilio: No, this is 2023. No one likes white dudes.

[00:29:41] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, that one hits a little too close to home.

[00:29:43] Michael Regilio: But joking aside, this is one of the criticisms. But not white dudes per se, more like people who seem to share traditional, economically stable Western values.

[00:29:53] Jordan Harbinger: Man, that's a big claim, though, to call an algorithm and everything that uses it somewhat biased or racist. They can back this up, I assume?

[00:30:01] Michael Regilio: Short answer, no. But they're not claims, they're warnings. Perhaps companies aren't doing this intentionally, or perhaps it's not what they're looking for that companies are using the algorithm for, but what they're trying to keep out. When personality tests first started being employed in the 60s, many companies couldn't come right out and ask if you were pro-union, but they were determined to keep unions out of their businesses. So they compiled the traits they thought would indicate if a person was pro-union. Some version of, do you believe in justice, or is it worth fighting for? If the applicant answered yes, in the trash the application went.

[00:30:37] Jordan Harbinger: Oh, that's ice cold. So they were looking for non-rebellious people with no cause to fight for it. "Just give me the paycheck, I'll do whatever you want," kind of people.

[00:30:45] Michael Regilio: Kind of. So it's not too far-fetched to wonder what exactly companies might try to glean from the newer, more accurate personality tests. It could, in fact, be used as a way of getting around the Americans with Disabilities Act. Companies aren't allowed to ask if an applicant has a disability, but who knows what hints might be lying in the personality test. Many neurodivergent people like autistic and bipolar people and people with ADD have problems with being labeled too intense. If employers screen out candidates who test as overly intense, they'll screen out many people with disabilities, which is illegal.

[00:31:18] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah, and it's sneaky. So personality tests can stop a qualified person from getting hired based on, first of all, sort of seemingly arbitrary results, but also results that you're not legally allowed to screen for. Like, yeah, I hope you're not somebody who might need a ramp or wants a union or something like that because we can't ask you that, but we want to find out if you're older, uglier, or need a special accommodation because we don't want you in here. That's really sketchy.

[00:31:46] Michael Regilio: And gross. Yeah. Absolutely. There is a famous example involving a gentleman named Kyle Beam. Kyle was a straight-A student. He graduated from a good college and they diagnosed Kyle with bipolar disorder. He knew a friend that worked at a local grocery store who informed him that they were hiring. He applied and took the personality test. Kyle never heard back. For most people, that's the end of it. They never learned why they were passed over. But Kyle was in a unique position. He knew somebody at the company. Kyle asked his friend why they passed on his application and his friend informed him that he had been red-lighted because of his personality test. A college-educated man who couldn't even get a job at a grocery store. Tragically, Kyle killed himself.

[00:32:28] Jordan Harbinger: Okay, I didn't see that coming. That is super tragic. I assume there was more to it, right? It's not just he didn't get that job, but he was also, he had bipolar disorder. God, that's really dark, man, and awful. That's way more tragic than a result than I would have thought.

[00:32:43] Michael Regilio: Absolutely. Yeah, it is. And it's not just grocery stores. Dunkin' Donut, Macy's, McDonald's, the list goes on, all use personality tests to fill minimum wage positions. And personality tests are more high tech than ever. Today, companies are using facial recognition programs to infer what applicants are thinking and hiding during job interviews. And again, the biases of the programmers are baked into the algorithmic cake.

[00:33:07] Jordan Harbinger: I'm blown away by this. I've never heard of the facial recognition during a job interview. You hear it for security stuff, but that's like some Blade Runner sh*t right there. Where they're like, oh, when you asked him why he left his previous job, he had this weird micro expression of this. And so maybe he has negative feelings about how he left, even though he says he left on good terms. I wonder also, I've had like one or two real jobs in my entire life, if you can count some of the stuff I did as a teenager, so maybe I'm not the best sample here. But I don't remember ever doing a personality test as part of hiring. And I wonder if it's because for a position like an attorney, maybe they look at your degree and your grades. And they go, okay, but if it's a minimum wage position, maybe they don't have a degree or grades that they want to look at. And so they have to test on something else and they just pick this kind of arbitrary BS test to do the job. Does that make sense?

[00:33:59] Michael Regilio: That makes sense to me.

[00:33:59] Jordan Harbinger: I mean, it makes no sense. But does the reason check out at all?

[00:34:02] Michael Regilio: The reasoning makes sense, and it makes no sense that they would care if the guy that was applying to work at McDonald's was being dishonest about why he left his last job. But look, this is hardly an optimistic vision of the future. And for what? A quick Google search reveals countless websites offering the answer keys to personality tests. There are classes that teach you how to infer what the questions are really trying to glean and how to provide answers that perspective employers like. So the tests end up revealing very little about a person.

[00:34:32] Jordan Harbinger: It reminds me, there was a guy ages ago, of course, cause I'm old AF now, but I knew him. He cheated on his SATs. I can't remember the hows of it. It doesn't matter cause now technology, but He got into a really good school, and he had decent grades, but he failed out spectacularly at that school.

[00:34:48] Michael Regilio: I bet, and employers are hurting more than helping their bottom line. It's almost as if they should just review resumes, check references, and conduct thorough interviews.

[00:34:58] Jordan Harbinger: I mean, that sounds like a lot of actual work for management, Michael. That's very 20th century of you to think that anybody would go ahead and do that. Are there changes being made in the right direction with this at all?

[00:35:10] Michael Regilio: Kind of. Advocates are warning about the pitfalls of personality tests in hiring, but little is being done. Some psychologists are exploring changes to make to workplace personality tests. They are addressing some questions about their validity. But primarily, companies need to adapt to the changing norms of hybrid work post-pandemic. At Scotty Bank, which has—

[00:35:31] Jordan Harbinger: Scotiabank.

[00:35:31] Michael Regilio: Oh, Scotiabank. Thank God you knew how that was.

[00:35:34] Jordan Harbinger: Yeah, yeah. Nova Scotia.

[00:35:35] Michael Regilio: Oh, I thought it was Scotland. Okay, I'm an idiot. At Scotiabank, which has 90, 000 workers, executives decided in late 2020 to stop looking at resumes. They now focus on plum results and claim they have more diverse candidates.

[00:35:49] Jordan Harbinger: Did I hear you say plum results? What is that? Is that something I'm supposed to know or is that another personality test? P-L-U-M.

[00:35:56] Michael Regilio: Yeah, but this one is, in fact, AI-driven assessments to match companies with their perfect employees.

[00:36:02] Jordan Harbinger: That sounds like the algorithm issue we just talked about. So the hiring process is based on the same philosophy, it sounds like, as dating apps, and that does not seem like progress. Look, I'm a little bit biased because I know this stuff is crap, but I can't imagine how much important data that stuff misses in its current form.

[00:36:22] Michael Regilio: Yeah, it's not progress at all, Jordan. It's Myers-Briggs by another name and with a shiny technological veneer laid over it. Despite the pushback, employers are looking to AI to fix the flaws of personality tests. Soon, the AI will test AI with AI-driven personality tests for AI, and we'll all be on the sidelines. In fact, they gave a personality test to ChatGPT and you could guess the result was one of the rarest personality types. It was an INFJ.

[00:36:53] Jordan Harbinger: That's odd. I mean, introversion. Okay, cool. But intuitive and feeling for ChatGPT kind of just shows you what the test is, if that's what an AI bot got, and I wonder if the ChatGPT, Myers-Briggs personality type changes depending on who is giving ChatGPT that test because that would be an interesting experiment. So I get it. Look, AI and technology and all that stuff is new. So there's going to be problems with it. And I'm not saying like, throw out the baby with the bathwater, but it just seems like it's all based on a false premise entirely that you can test a personality. And it's not impossible for this to get done, right? It's just that what we're doing now, again, is a horoscope in a lab coat.

[00:37:33] Michael Regilio: I find it absurd that employees have to jump through hoops to prove we're worthy of employment, but employers aren't actually required to reciprocate. Why don't employers have to prove to prospective employees that they won't be horrible bosses? Why does one side of the equation have to prostrate themselves before the potential employer? Both sides are bringing something to the table, the other wands. I say, before I work for you, let me see your personality test. Let me have some assurance I'm not walking into working for a giant a-h*le.

[00:38:04] Jordan Harbinger: I mean, you know, you kind of technically work for me, right?

[00:38:08] Michael Regilio: I didn't mean you, Jordan. Clearly, you're cool.

[00:38:12] Jordan Harbinger: Clearly. Nice save. Very Samantha of you.

[00:38:15] Thank you all for listening. Topic suggestions for future episodes of Skeptical Sunday to jordan@jordanharbinger.Com. Pretty much all the topics we do are fan suggestions, so please let me have it. Don't forget the fundraiser at givedirectly.com/jordan. Want to help out our homies over there in rural Kenya?

[00:38:33] Once again, a reminder that the Stitcher app will no longer work for any podcasts as of August 29th, 2023. So if you're using the Stitcher app, time to switch. If you're on Android, Podcast Addict is a good one, Castbox. And if you're on iOS, I suggest Overcast or Apple Podcasts. The Stitcher app is going away, folks.

[00:38:51] Show notes at jordanharbinger.com. Transcripts are in the show notes. Advertisers, deals, discounts, and ways to support this show, all at jordanharbinger.com/deals. I'm at @JordanHarbinger on both Twitter and Instagram, or connect with me on LinkedIn. Of course, you can find Michael Regilio at @MichaelRegilio on Instagram, michaelregiliocomedy.com. Tour dates up now as well. We'll link to all of that in the show notes because nobody can spell Regilio.

[00:39:16] This show is created in association with PodcastOne. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jase Sanderson, Robert Fogarty, Ian Baird, Millie Ocampo, and Gabriel Mizrahi. Our advice and opinions are our own, and I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. Do your own research before implementing anything you hear on the show. Remember, we rise by lifting others. Share the show with those you love, and if you found this episode useful, please share it with somebody who could use a dose of the skepticism. that we doled out today. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show, so you can live what you learn, and we'll see you next time.

[00:39:49] Here's what you can check out next on The Jordan Harbinger Show.

[00:39:53] You're in Somalia trying to track down pirate gangs and I'd love to kind of hear what this felt like.

[00:40:00] Michael Scott Moore: We went with the big security team and we paid the security team a lot of money and it was this one portion of a clan in central Somalia that was supposed to protect us.

[00:40:11] Jordan Harbinger: So, how did they get you?

[00:40:12] Michael Scott Moore: My partner Ashwin flew off to Mogadishu. I drove him to the airport and then we saw him off. He got on the plane safely and then on the way back from the airport, back into town towards our hotel, there was actually a truck waiting for us. It was a truck with a cannon welded in the back. These are very common trucks, they're called technicals.

[00:40:30] At first, we thought it was there to watch over us or protect us or something. But actually, it stopped our car and 12 gunmen from the flatbed came over to my side of the car. And they actually fired in the air and then opened the door and tore me out of the car. They were waiting for me, and they were probably waiting or hoping for both of us. I think they were a little bit disappointed that there was only one journalist. They beat me, they broke my glasses, I was wearing glasses at the time, and they had another car waiting, and they bundled me into it and off we drove into the bush.

[00:41:00] For about three hours, something like that, hard to keep track of time, but at some point, we stopped, they blindfolded me and they took me a few steps over to a mattress. So there was a mattress waiting for me in the middle of nowhere. There were other people there, other guards and other hostages, and I sat down. For the next two years and eight months, I was a hostage.

[00:41:20] Jordan Harbinger: For more on life in captivity under the thumb of Somali pirates and how he made it out, check out episode 115 with Michael Scott Moore here on The Jordan Harbinger Show.