Because both Miss Cleo and MBTI use non-scientific methods to back up their claims.

Ah, what a refreshing digression from invasion! The MBTI-Miss Cleo thread!.....

....I'm having nostalgic flashbacks to when we'd sit around on the graveyard shift on the psych ward at Fort Gordon, shuffle the cards, and play to see who could score the highest on the femininity-masculinity scale on the MMPI (and what was that question about _Alice in Wonderland_ all about???)

I tend to view these tools as adjuncts to anything else that is going on. It *is* interesting to me that the MBTI reduces things to something akin to "Earth, Air, Fire, Water". This does *not* inspire confidence!

One of the most interesting (most circumspect?) articles on MBTI I found was at: http://www.du.edu/~psherry/mbti2.html. Not sure of the provenance of this (like, what is the author's background? is this the author's work?) but it seemed to cover MBTI pretty well.

I am wary of *all* sorts of management fads that promise to reduce management to a simple set of jazzy tools. We've just *been* through a period where companies like Enron presumed that a focus on individual qualities could provide a substitute for a solid organization and a plan. As such, I tend to view things like MBTI -- or at least the popularity of same -- with some suspicion.

Anyhow, my opinion leans toward Tony's. I took the sample test in that link, answered all the questions as frankly as I could, then was quite amused at my personality type. Twenty bucks to anyone who can guess *both* my MBTI and my astrological sign in the first go!

[edit: provenance-wise, I think I found that gent Zenke's web site: ]http://www.socksoff.com/index.html]