Another of those "Accurate" tests

[skypse]

So a quick search gave some results regarding this matter but they are outdated and I would like a fresh opinion. Some days ago a friend of mine at work came and showed me this website that after taking a test describes your personality type with 4 letters. I've always been up for the challenge of proving those things completely wrong as I think that the results are generalized ideas that could fit to anyone, something like horoscopes. So when I completed it and started reading 4-5 pages of results, I got stunned of how accurate this thing was. It wasn't something like "yeah I believe that/I do this, but not so much on this one. IT WAS DEAD ON!!! It almost felt like a cross-site scripting prank created by my friends just to mess with me. Now don't get me wrong here. I am not the type of person who would blindly digest anything given to him, but at least this test made the whole "challenging every test on the internet" thing, interesting! So I wanted to see if this also works for you and also if we manage to have a large enough sample, learn the general "personality" type of these forums. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

My personality type is INTJ.

http://www.16personalities.com/

[BannedInSchool]

I'm Xyzzy.

[Gavran]

The reason you're more impressed with this is that unlike say horoscopes is that it's a legit psychological evaluation. (Though I've no idea the value it holds to modern psychologists.) I feel like there was a thread about it not that long ago but I may be thinking of a different forum...

Edit: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389768-Jungian-typology-How-Accurately-Did-Personality-Tests-Describe-You-Scary-Accurate) we are.

[goto124]

INFP

(Image of Druid lady)

For some reason, it suggests my role is 'diplomat'. I don't even talk to people IRL.

It is pretty accurate though.

[Peebles]

It seems pretty legit, really identified me down to the ground.

ENFP Diplomat with the Turbulent Variant. You can say that again. :smalleek:

I'm an awful diplomat, but it doesn't stop me from trying. I guess that's where the Turbulent comes in.

[Cyber Punk]

The test says ENFJ; Assertive Diplomat.

Accurate, to a point, but I wouldn't call it dead-on.

My, how I've changed in the past few years. From being barely able to talk to people to being comfortable in a group of strangers...

[Flickerdart]

The reason you're more impressed with this is that unlike say horoscopes is that it's a legit psychological evaluation.
Except it's not. Its foundations are in Jung's work, but everything piled on top of that is all kinds of nonsense. Essentially it's just a cash cow paraded as legitimate science.

[Jeff the Green]

In my case it's ISTJ, which is both very true and utterly useless, because forget about me being able to tell you ahead of time, anyone who's known me more than five seconds could have told you that. (Same thing with the big five, actually. Low extroversion and agreeableness and high neuroticism, openness to new experience, and conscientiousness.)

[(Un)Inspired]

Except it's not. Its foundations are in Jung's work, but everything piled on top of that is all kinds of nonsense. Essentially it's just a cash cow paraded as legitimate science.

Well Jung's work was Continental rather than Analytical (not that I have a problem with Continentals, my heart belongs to Kierkegaard) but even so it does seem a little pop psych-y.

Anyway I got ENTJ but I literally don't think there was a single question I felt comfortable answering with their little thumb buttons.

Like this little jem:


You believe that moral positions are often more important than what makes logical sense.

Holy Interobang, why are moral positions placed opposite logic? How does one even support a moral position without using logic?

[Zweisteine]

Ah. I wouldn't give too much weight to that quiz, though I wouldn't say it's all that bad.

I took the test in a serious setting (i.e. not a free online quiz), and got one result. A short time later, I took an online version and got something else. Something close, yes, but not the same result.

Though I agree that the results seem eerily accurate at times. Part of that eeriness is probably created the same way fortune tellers work, choosing wide statements tht encompass the personality type as people in it see it. Then you take the test, answering as you see yourself, and read that description. The description was made for people who answered The questions how you did, so you'll probably agree with most of what it says.

Of course, I still put altogether too much weight on those personality types, so...

(And my favorite site for info about the types is typelogic.com (http://typelogic.com/).)


Pre-posting-edit:
As (Un)Inspired said, this also suffers from a common plague of online quizzes: poor questions. They frequently do not cover all possibilities, and do not allow for answers that combine elements. Also, some questions just might not apply to the questioner at all.

All that, and the answered is not necessarily self-conscious enough to answer everything accurately.

[ranagrande]

I got INTP on this one. I've taken several varieties of this test before. The N and the P are consistent for me, but E/I and F/T are fairly interchangeable.

As for the write-up at the end, some of it was accurate and some of it was not. It's a good fit, but it's not perfect.

[tomandtish]

Though I agree that the results seem eerily accurate at times. Part of that eeriness is probably created the same way fortune tellers work, choosing wide statements tht encompass the personality type as people in it see it. Then you take the test, answering as you see yourself, and read that description. The description was made for people who answered The questions how you did, so you'll probably agree with most of what it says.



This sums up the biggest issue with all self-administered tests of those types. It's measuring how YOU see yourself, which is not necessarily the same as how you actually are. Self-bias can definitely skew the results.

Want to do something interesting? Get five of your good friends to fill out the test as THEY perceive YOU. I'm willing to bet that not only do most of them come out different from you, but different from each other as well, including some where two letters are different, not just one.

[Bulldog Psion]

ISTJ -- Assertive Sentinel.

It may be kind of accurate. At least, I have something of a similar reputation with my clients.

To tell you the truth, when I was inputting my answers, I thought I'd get the "Jeez What a Loser" personality type at the end. :smallbiggrin: Really.

I kind of like the quote accompanying it:



My observation is that whenever one person is found adequate to the discharge of a duty... it is worse executed by two persons, and scarcely done at all if three or more are employed therein.
George Washington

[warty goblin]

I got INFJ. Judging by their syrupy description of how I'm the greatest damn thing on two feet because of this, what they got right about me I already knew because it's obvious, and they got enough wrong the results lack enough specificity to be meaningful or interesting. I continue to not understand the point of these sorts of things.

[Bulldog Psion]

I got INFJ. Judging by their syrupy description of how I'm the greatest damn thing on two feet because of this, what they got right about me I already knew because it's obvious, and they got enough wrong the results lack enough specificity to be meaningful or interesting. I continue to not understand the point of these sorts of things.

Well, everyone's curious to see the result, probably. The problem is that it's so broad that it's meaningless; but even people who know that can't resist seeing what the "machine" punches out at the end. :smallwink:

I still remember one that awarded me the title of "The Boot-Knife of Lovingkindness" at the end. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Edit: I think these things are kind of a horoscope for the computer age. The "psychological test" has replaced "the stars" for the reading, but they still give you a horoscope at the end, which is written carefully so that you will be able to identify part of your personality in it regardless of what you're actually like.

Double Edit: and yes, they are syrupy. It goes with the territory; the whole purpose of the horoscope is a mild ego stroke and to tell you "be confident and do what you think you should do."

[Mx.Silver]

The reason you're more impressed with this is that unlike say horoscopes is that it's a legit psychological evaluation. (Though I've no idea the value it holds to modern psychologists.)

AFAIK, the amount is 'not much'. As a read through the end results should indicate, the Barnum effect at work in a few places.

[Heliomance]

Supposedly I'm ISTP. Can't say it resonated with me much at all.

[Cyber Punk]

As for the write-up at the end, some of it was accurate and some of it was not. It's a good fit, but it's not perfect.

I feel the same way about some of these so-called tests. Also, the write up was a bit broad i.e. could apply to many people.

[TuggyNE]

I feel the same way about some of these so-called tests. Also, the write up was a bit broad i.e. could apply to many people.

You are aware that the test is intended to describe everyone in existence in one of exactly 16 ways, no? "Broad" is not a bug here, but a feature.

[veti]

Except it's not. Its foundations are in Jung's work, but everything piled on top of that is all kinds of nonsense. Essentially it's just a cash cow paraded as legitimate science.

Well, let's say it's a serious attempt, unlike all of those "what D&D alignment are you" type tests that nobody ever claimed had any meaning...

I've heard the Myers-Briggs test is actually quite widely used in business, e.g. when putting together a project team, to figure out who'll work well together. It has some value, although opinions will vary widely on how much.

[afroakuma]

See, I took the test two weeks apart once, and got ENFP followed by ISTJ. So either I'm actually a yin-yang in disguise, or the test is constructed in such a way that you'll feel pretty satisfied with any of a number of results that it could provide.

[Cyber Punk]

You are aware that the test is intended to describe everyone in existence in one of exactly 16 ways, no? "Broad" is not a bug here, but a feature.

Exactly! :smalltongue:

[Mx.Silver]

I've heard the Myers-Briggs test is actually quite widely used in business, e.g. when putting together a project team, to figure out who'll work well together.

Businesses have also been known to use graphology and, in some countries, blood types for similar purposes.



You are aware that the test is intended to describe everyone in existence in one of exactly 16 ways, no? "Broad" is not a bug here, but a feature.
As is also true of horoscopes.

[Flickerdart]

Businesses have also been known to use graphology and, in some countries, blood types for similar purposes.



As is also true of horoscopes.
Those tend to throw a lot fewer marketing dollars into the fire, though.

[TuggyNE]

As is also true of horoscopes.

The problem with horoscopes is not their broad applicability, or lack thereof; it is their vague and useless implications. You can perhaps criticize MBTI for being wishy-washy, or for having insufficiently meaningful predictive value once classified, or whatever you wish, but criticizing it for lumping people into broad groups is like criticizing the law of gravity for being applied to all masses. That's what it's for.

[Jeff the Green]

See, I took the test two weeks apart once, and got ENFP followed by ISTJ. So either I'm actually a yin-yang in disguise, or the test is constructed in such a way that you'll feel pretty satisfied with any of a number of results that it could provide.

It's possible you're very middle-of-the-road in each aspect. Because it reports binary outcomes, someone who is equally introverted and extroverted, for example, will get I half the time and E the rest depending on mood and exact questions (and possibly their order).

[warty goblin]

Edit: I think these things are kind of a horoscope for the computer age. The "psychological test" has replaced "the stars" for the reading, but they still give you a horoscope at the end, which is written carefully so that you will be able to identify part of your personality in it regardless of what you're actually like.

I think you're on to something with the astrology thing. Mind, the only horoscopes I ever pay attention to are The Onion's (http://www.theonion.com/articles/your-horoscopes-week-of-february-10-2015,37977/). They don't see to be that accurate - I still have all my limbs - but they certainly don't sugarcoat anything.


Double Edit: and yes, they are syrupy. It goes with the territory; the whole purpose of the horoscope is a mild ego stroke and to tell you "be confident and do what you think you should do."
Maybe because I'm a glass-is-too-damn-big kinda guy, but that really makes me think the results are even less meaningful. My thought, having reached the end and then being liberally basted with praise was that a completely horrible person would get exactly the same results. Which rather diminished me feeling all special and understood, ya'know?

[thorgrim29]

Independent of whether or not the Myers-Briggs test is scientifically valid (my conclusion, probably not because personality is a murky subject and it's self-reporting, but it gives a good idea), judging it based on a quick test on an overly positive web site (the real descriptions spend as much time on flaws and drawbacks as on positive traits) is like saying IQ tests are bull**** based solely on a 20 question test you got on Facebook.

The "official" test has around 150 questions and the descriptions go much deeper then those on that site.

[Mx.Silver]

Those tend to throw a lot fewer marketing dollars into the fire, though.

Point. Although graphology in particular has a history of being employed during the hiring process, which may well have lead to a different sort of cost.


something I missed earlier:

Its foundations are in Jung's work, but everything piled on top of that is all kinds of nonsense. Essentially it's just a cash cow paraded as legitimate science.

Even if it was a strict following of Jung's work, it's worth noting that Jung's work is not particularly significant as far as modern (scientific) psychology is concerned.



The problem with horoscopes is not their broad applicability, or lack thereof; it is their vague and useless implications.
Which they have to be because each needs to apply to 1/12th of the population.

That's the point: the broad groups necessitate that each category relies on ambiguity and Barnum statements because that's the only way you can achieve what looks like a success rate with this sort of reductionist divisional exercise. At which point you've lost any practical use for the exercise in the first place, beyond giving various people something to hold onto.

[McStabbington]

I also got INFJ. I suppose that's a good thing, but I also remember that most of those questions were left right in the middle, as I only rarely valued one trait over the other when asked to measure. Would I rather be empathetic rather than logical? I suppose, but as someone with a philosophy degree, I would point out that logic is really just a set of rules used to avoid errors in reasoning; there's really nothing that sets the two apart other than the cultural assumption that you could be a Spock or be a McCoy, but not both. In point of fact, often times the best kind of empathy is to cut through someone else's baloney with a focused, razored application of logic to their argument.

It was a bit blue-orange in it's wording choices, although it could be that I'm coming to this with a specialist's understanding of the language when they were looking for more ordinary language usage..

[Jeff the Green]

That's the point: the broad groups necessitate that each category relies on ambiguity and Barnum statements because that's the only way you can achieve what looks like a success rate with this sort of reductionist divisional exercise. At which point you've lost any practical use for the exercise in the first place, beyond giving various people something to hold onto.

Not necessarily. Imagine a trait that's a numerical spectrum from 1 to 100. You can divide the spectrum into 10 equally-sized discrete categories and they will be meaningful. Rough, sure, and less informative than one's exact position on the scale, but not irrelevant. There will also be some fuzziness, and someone that's a 10 will probably test into category 1 some of the time and category 2 some of the time, but again it's not meaningless. They will never be sorted into 9 or 10.

The distinction between horoscopes, on the other hand, is meaningless. I've never seen a set of horoscopes for which Aries wasn't equally as appropriate for me as Virgo (I was born in early September). I certainly don't see myself in ENTP or ISFP.

[TuggyNE]

Which they have to be because each needs to apply to 1/12th of the population.

That's the point: the broad groups necessitate that each category relies on ambiguity and Barnum statements because that's the only way you can achieve what looks like a success rate with this sort of reductionist divisional exercise. At which point you've lost any practical use for the exercise in the first place, beyond giving various people something to hold onto.

That's only true if they're not valid theoretically, since the entire point of a theory is to allow you to make sweeping generalizations, based on a few data points, that correctly go substantially beyond the immediate implications of those data points. Theories are file compression for reality: they let you know more with less. A good example is the mammalian classification for organisms. If you know that a) a given creature nurses its young then you also know with great certainty that it b) has hair of some variety, c) is warm-blooded, d) is a vertebrate, and you have a pretty good chance of correctly guessing that e) it gives birth to live young. This feat of classification is not diminished by the fact that "mammal" is one of relatively few categories at that level; if anything, it's remarkable that so tight a cluster of creature characteristics exists, which strongly suggests that "mammal" means something surprisingly real.

Again, criticizing MBTI for broadness is barking up quite thoroughly the wrong tree. Precision matters, especially about the nature of something so enormously crucial to rational thought as the process of making sound generalizations.

[The Second]

I always take issue with these tests, for the fact that they make too many generalizations. For instance, the assertion: Your home/work space is tidy (yes/no). Yes, my work space is pristine. No, my home is a mess. How do I answer? With maybe?

Then there's the assertion: You often take initiative in social situations (yes/no). What sort of social situation? There are some social situation where, yes, I will take the initiative, but then there are others from which I will withdraw. Where's my third option?

As for the final analysis, no, I am not. I am the actor, the face. I am the person who is publicly lauded and privately reviled. The tragic clown.

Meh, as with all of these tests, YMMV.

[skypse]

I always take issue with these tests, for the fact that they make too many generalizations. For instance, the assertion: Your home/work space is tidy (yes/no). Yes, my work space is pristine. No, my home is a mess. How do I answer? With maybe?
Where do you spend the most time working? That's your answer.


Then there's the assertion: You often take initiative in social situations (yes/no). What sort of social situation? There are some social situation where, yes, I will take the initiative, but then there are others from which I will withdraw. Where's my third option?
Which of the two happens more often? That's your answer. If you claim to be the actor and the face, then you don't need a third option.


As for the final analysis, no, I am not. I am the actor, the face. I am the person who is publicly lauded and privately reviled. The tragic clown.

Meh, as with all of these tests, YMMV.

It is expected to have to deal with questions that are either black or white. If there was gray, EVERYONE would choose it because nothing is absolute in our lives. However, your personality is defined by your most-of-the-time reactions and not the once-in-a-thousand ones. If every time you go out with your friends and you meet someone from another group you are the one who makes the first move and the connection, but when there is someone wearing a pink dotted T-shirt on the other group, you can't function and you don't even go near them, it doesn't mean that you are shy.

[thubby]

I'm consistently INTJ on those things, on occasion is comes up INTP

[Nai_Calus]

INFP on that, another gives me ISFJ, but just barely on the J.

I inevitably get I on Myers-Briggs things, I'm massively introverted, but the rest will vary test to test, though I tend to get F over T.

It really depends on what the questions are for me; which side I fall on for things depends on what the subject is. Is it an emotional matter? Then yes, my feelings and judgments and intuition are going to be out. Is it something more like 'This is a problem, fix it'? Then I'm going to sit there and analyze it and test it and poke it.

It's silly.