How Accurately Did Personality Tests Describe You? Scary Accurate?

[PallElendro]

For giggles, I decided to take a personality test on 16personalities, and after answering it all, it eerily tells me who I am, almost exactly to close analysis in solitary conditions and taking charge when needed. INTJ, it tells me. I had to think about all the times I've exhibited those traits, which was most of the time, compared to times where I contradicted that, which were few.
Then, under pressure by my girlfriend, I had to check the commonly expressed traits for Sagittarius, because I was born 09 December. Also accurate, because I haven't had many encounters that said otherwise. I am tactlessly straightforward and focused.

Have any of you had encounters with either astrology or personality tests that you couldn't refute because of all evidence leading to its truth? Or maybe where you believe it's all myth based on evidence to its contrary?

[warty goblin]

I have never learned anything interesting about myself from a standardized test, except that I'm reasonably good at guessing how to answer a question to get the result I want.

I suspect a lot of their apparent validity is simply due to human heterogeneity: if you say anything general about somebody's personality it is highly probable to be right enough of the time that they'll agree with the statement. Am I outgoing? Sometimes. Do I crave solitude? On occasion. If the test spits out that I'm an introvert, I'm enough of an introvert that I'll respond to that, and probably to the other statement as well. Add in the position of apparent authority, and I suspect a lot of folks are simply being cold-read and responding to the implicit expertise of the test.

[Axinian]

I have never learned anything interesting about myself from a standardized test, except that I'm reasonably good at guessing how to answer a question to get the result I want.

I suspect a lot of their apparent validity is simply due to human heterogeneity: if you say anything general about somebody's personality it is highly probable to be right enough of the time that they'll agree with the statement. Am I outgoing? Sometimes. Do I crave solitude? On occasion. If the test spits out that I'm an introvert, I'm enough of an introvert that I'll respond to that, and probably to the other statement as well. Add in the position of apparent authority, and I suspect a lot of folks are simply being cold-read and responding to the implicit expertise of the test.

Yeah, this is my experience too. These tests are kind of like astrology to me: complete bupkis, but also eerily accurate because of the generalizations.

[Cuthalion]

I am actually quite surprised with how well this captures me.

[AtlanteanTroll]

The Myers-Brigg test is most definitely not bupkis and anyone who instantly dismisses it as such has no knowledge of psychology.

[Axinian]

The Myers-Brigg test is most definitely not bupkis and anyone who instantly dismisses it as such has no knowledge of psychology.

Oh, I was more dismissing just the kind of random tests you find on the internet 'cause I (possibly erroneously) thought that's what we were talking about. I didn't mean to dismiss the entire field of behavioral psychology out of hand :P

[Emperor Ing]

It's scarce that I ever take a personality test that could ever accurately describe who I am. Ever. The only exception was the nature quiz at the beginning of Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team, which was so accurate I was legitimately frightened. (I got Sassy btw,)

[warty goblin]

The Myers-Brigg test is most definitely not bupkis and anyone who instantly dismisses it as such has no knowledge of psychology.

The only thing I really know about psychology is that every time I see them doing statistics, it causes me serious mental pain.

[Aedilred]

I suspect a lot of their apparent validity is simply due to human heterogeneity: if you say anything general about somebody's personality it is highly probable to be right enough of the time that they'll agree with the statement. Am I outgoing? Sometimes. Do I crave solitude? On occasion. If the test spits out that I'm an introvert, I'm enough of an introvert that I'll respond to that, and probably to the other statement as well. Add in the position of apparent authority, and I suspect a lot of folks are simply being cold-read and responding to the implicit expertise of the test.

While I don't doubt that there are accurate personality tests out there, I strongly suspect that this is absolutely the case for the majority of tests out there.

I'm actually going to quote myself here (add "egotistical" to the list of personality traits thrown up by the test) on the subject of popular astrology, because the same thing basically applies here and I don't think I'd really word it any better the second time around:

The thing about people is that they're (mostly) much more complex than a list of personality traits. One of the reasons it's so difficult to write fictional characters realistically is that people are inconsistent, whereas in fiction characters are expected to be well-defined. If anybody in real life starts displaying the same personality traits half as consistently and unwaveringly as the majority of fictional characters, I start to think there's something a bit wrong with them.

To take my own personality as an example, I know that I [...] can, or at least appear to, be generous, caring, dedicated, sensible, passionate and witty. Equally, I can be, or appear, selfish, cruel, damagingly lazy, foolish, cynical, and sarcastic, and all the shades in between. Matching up my personality with a generic profile is a piece of cake because there's always going to be enough that fits, and the same goes for everyone.

[sktarq]

due to a history of landing near the tipping point of various behavioral psy tests (in a test score -100 to 100 I'd rarely get a score outside +/-10) I do find them pretty useless.

[Knaight]

For giggles, I decided to take a personality test on 16personalities, and after answering it all, it eerily tells me who I am, almost exactly to close analysis in solitary conditions and taking charge when needed. INTJ, it tells me. I had to think about all the times I've exhibited those traits, which was most of the time, compared to times where I contradicted that, which were few.

Myers Brigg tests are actually fairly legitimate - although, if you read descriptions of the other 15 types you'll almost certainly see yourself in some of them, for the simple reason that there are more than 16 personalities out there. Still, it manages decently. I personally am a --TJ, if I remember correctly, with the first two fluctuating, and those legitimately do show up more than the other personalities.

Then, under pressure by my girlfriend, I had to check the commonly expressed traits for Sagittarius, because I was born 09 December. Also accurate, because I haven't had many encounters that said otherwise. I am tactlessly straightforward and focused.

Astrology, on the other hand, is not particularly legitimate. They tend to be written really broadly, in such a way that they'll apply with some frequency. If you look at videos involving cold reading, you'll see that that's all it takes - rates of under 50% often come across as pretty accurate to the people involved, given any deflection skill whatsoever on the part of the cold readers.

Read the other 11 (or 12, under some systems) 'personalities' for astrology. You'll probably see yourself in all of them. On top of that, take a look at the actual predictions*, and see just how many seem likely. It tends to be most of them. Or, for an ideal test - see if you can guess people's birth sign by knowing them with better than random accuracy. Guessing Myers Briggs types with better than random accuracy is pretty easy, particularly if you count per trait (random guessing should get 2 traits per person right, on average). Astrology? Not so much.

*I use this term loosely. Specific times have a tendency to be completely absent, and the categories used tend to be closer to "some guy" or "someone in your entire family" or "your social life in general" than a specific person.

[TaiLiu]

As everyone else allured to, the Forer Effect (along with other cognitive biases) can be a powerful thing.

The Myers-Brigg test is most definitely not bupkis and anyone who instantly dismisses it as such has no knowledge of psychology.

While it is rather difficult to claim that something is wholly valueless, it should be mentioned that the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator - despite being relatively well-known - has quite a list of criticisms, and is more validly used as a therapeutic conversation starter than as an accurate personality exam.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Opened the thread, read the first few posts. Wanted to mention the Forer Effect. Realized I was a few hours late.

Personality tests used to be a hobby of mine a while ago, but the more I learned about academic psych, the more I realized the limitations.

Scientifically valid (measuring what they intend to measure) and reliable (score doesn't change inbetween various raters) tests pretty much all fall into the Five Factor Model aka the Big 5 (OCEAN, or Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness & Neuroticism), however this theory has one big downside that makes it rather boring. It's descriptive, rather than predictive. I.e. it tells you what you are right now, and what that means, but treats each personality as a collection of the 5 traits, rather than an overarching Gestalt archetype that's more than the sum of its parts.

MBTI itself is fun, as are its different derivations (i.e. Kiersey's model, Socionics), even if they're not scientifically valid (in the narrow scientific definition of validity) or especially reliable inbetween tests. Biggest issue of note is that some people fall exactly into the outlined types, while others can't strongly identify with a type, or seem like a mixture of several types. Whether this is because people's traits lie on a continuum rather than a dichotomy, or because there are more than 16 types, is yet unexplored. But it's there.

I'm a textbook ENFP by the way.

[TSGames]

I find that personality test, even the Meyers Briggs, describe me exactly as accurately as horoscopes. But that could just be me; fortunately, my mind tends to work at orthogonal angles to normallacy.

[Frozen_Feet]

MBTI tests consistently rate me as one of two types, ENTJ or INTJ, with the latter being slightly more common. "Intuitive, thinking, judging" do fit me well enough.

That said, most personality tests, especially those found on the net, tend to be based on pseudoscience or are made by amateurs. As such, they have nill validity. If I recall my lessons on tricking human beings right, you can achieve around 70% accuracy just by cold reading - that is, listing some generally applicable traits. Derren Brown's "How to control a mind" had an example of one such story.

[warty goblin]

Astrology, on the other hand, is not particularly legitimate. They tend to be written really broadly, in such a way that they'll apply with some frequency. If you look at videos involving cold reading, you'll see that that's all it takes - rates of under 50% often come across as pretty accurate to the people involved, given any deflection skill whatsoever on the part of the cold readers.

Read the other 11 (or 12, under some systems) 'personalities' for astrology. You'll probably see yourself in all of them. On top of that, take a look at the actual predictions*, and see just how many seem likely. It tends to be most of them. Or, for an ideal test - see if you can guess people's birth sign by knowing them with better than random accuracy. Guessing Myers Briggs types with better than random accuracy is pretty easy, particularly if you count per trait (random guessing should get 2 traits per person right, on average). Astrology? Not so much.

*I use this term loosely. Specific times have a tendency to be completely absent, and the categories used tend to be closer to "some guy" or "someone in your entire family" or "your social life in general" than a specific person.

I pay close attention to the Onion's horoscopes, and they've never led me wrong yet.

[Axinian]

MBTI tests consistently rate me as one of two types, ENTJ or INTJ, with the latter being slightly more common. "Intuitive, thinking, judging" do fit me well enough.

That said, most personality tests, especially those found on the net, tend to be based on pseudoscience or are made by amateurs. As such, they have nill validity. If I recall my lessons on tricking human beings right, you can achieve around 70% accuracy just by cold reading - that is, listing some generally applicable traits. Derren Brown's "How to control a mind" had an example of one such story.

I'm either ISTJ or ISFJ. The third letter is contentious to me because I don't think I truly favor one approach over the other. I usually do both, if I'm understanding the distinction right, at least when when I'm aware enough of how I'm approaching a problem.

[Miriel]

I have never answered a free online test that didn't tell me anything I already knew. Even Myerrs-Briggs things -- just show me the types and what they mean, it's quicker than filling in a test and I reach the same conclusion.

Now, those serious tests with 200+ questions which psychologists and the like had me do? When I've was given the results, they were instructive.

[Valameer]

I know Myers-Briggs isn't definitive, but I've found it quite useful as one of many tools used to understand myself and others.

I'm one of those people that falls exactly into one of the 16 boxes, though. I am, and have always been, strongly INFJ.

[Zrak]

The Myers-Brigg test is most definitely not bupkis and anyone who instantly dismisses it as such has no knowledge of psychology.

Or knows about psychology and is accordingly aware of the numerous valid criticisms of that test and believes them to be merited enough so as to render the MBTI unreliable at best.

[Jeff the Green]

I have a rather extreme personality, so tests tend to fit me pretty accurately. ISTJ on the Myers Briggs, highly introverted and neurotic on the big five, etc. it means I end up pretty much always getting what people expect on the internet tests. In the muppets I'm Kermit the Frog, in Sesame Street I'm Bert, D&D I'm a wizard (or occasionally druid because I bird and am an environmentalist), etc.