Respectfully, isn’t personality testing pseudoscience? I’ve done MBTI and was always a bit skeptical of how well they really know me from just those simple questions (sent from an ENTJ)
I have so much to say on the topic that I probably can't fit it in an HN comment but some key points
1. Some personality testing is definitely pseudo-science. Some (big5, attachment styles, etc.) are empirically supported.
2. Often personality tests are used incorrectly. For instance, MBTI gets criticized for not being valid, but what does valid mean? If you're talking about a predictive validation study for something like hiring, then yes, it's not valid, but the authors would never have wanted it to be used for hiring/selection.
3. We see value of personality testing mostly in being (1) a framework to understand people and (2) a vocabulary to be able to describe ourselves and our intrapsychic experiences (3) a way to feel less alone/alienated in our suffering. For instance, if you understand that your attachment style (which is causing you suffering in your relationships) is common and mostly not your choice, it might make you feel less defective/alone.
seems like a key piece to achieving $1MM/year is working your way to a senior position (director+) and then negotiating for equity in the company. that's good advice, but definitely feels like you're taking liberties with the term "traditional employee"
I think that is correct. You are not going to make $1MM as a senior manager of social media marketing. The only way to get to $1MM is to get into the executive ranks.
And even that is not enough! There are lots of executives that are not making $1MM/year... You need to be positioned as an executive that is uniquely placed to drive the business. And THAT is only possible in some types of roles.
"Traditional" here refers to employment by a company (rather than self employment or starting your own business). It is not "traditional" in the sense of "an average person off the street can make $1MM/year is they follow The Secret"
