|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 12, 2014 2:50:25 GMT
The strengths and weaknesses were actually what conflicted for me, Harp. "Optomistic and Energetic". Heh, hell no. "enjoy taking risks". Ho-lee crap, no. "Good at dealing with crisis situations." Not in the slightest. Plus there were a few things about "lack of need for personal space," which is just straight up false for me. Half of the romance and friend parts were wrong as well. Shit, maybe I'm not ITSP. Or perhaps I'm just borderline. The biggest problem I found with it was that it said that my type of personality usually had a large problem with cheating in relationships, due to the physical pleasure, and was easy to make friends. Neither of those are true. It takes me a long time to make friends (and they're usually people I hate when I first meet them), and, not to get too personal, but I have next to no sex drive. I found my second personality fit me more. Especially my weaknesses, which were me almost exactly. The way it described romance for my second type was pretty accurate. As was the description of friendship, because I generally have trouble making friends and only have a few close ones I can relax around. Plus, sarcasm and dark humor were mentioned as traits and, well, yeah. That's me right there. A few of the strengths didn;t match up, but overall I feel that the second one comes closer to em than the first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 2:53:34 GMT
The biggest problem I found with it was that it said that my type of personality usually had a large problem with cheating in relationships, due to the physical pleasure, and was easy to make friends. Neither of those are true. It takes me a long time to make friends (and they're usually people I hate when I first meet them), and, not to get too personal, but I have next to no sex drive. I found my second personality fit me more. Especially my weaknesses, which were me almost exactly. The way it described romance for my second type was pretty accurate. As was the description of friendship, because I generally have trouble making friends and only have a few close ones I can relax around. Plus, sarcasm and dark humor were mentioned as traits and, well, yeah. That's me right there. A few of the strengths didn;t match up, but overall I feel that the second one comes closer to em than the first. Looking through ISTP, this is clearly me. I have found only one or two things that I can't think of several examples of from my short fifteen years.
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 12, 2014 3:00:57 GMT
I found my second personality fit me more. Especially my weaknesses, which were me almost exactly. The way it described romance for my second type was pretty accurate. As was the description of friendship, because I generally have trouble making friends and only have a few close ones I can relax around. Plus, sarcasm and dark humor were mentioned as traits and, well, yeah. That's me right there. A few of the strengths didn;t match up, but overall I feel that the second one comes closer to em than the first. Looking through ISTP, this is clearly me. I have found only one or two things that I can't think of several examples of from my short fifteen years. My second personality, the one I think is better fitting, turns out to be INTJ. Oh, speaking of that particular type, let me just... What's up, Dome. Now you're even more expendable. Care to retract those first two words? We INJT's gotta stick together, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 12, 2014 3:03:16 GMT
The personality types themselves are probably an efficient way to categorize human personality. But I think people tend to have a pretty good gauge of their personality, strengths, and weaknesses as it is, so these tests don't really do anything but tell you stuff about yourself that you already know. They're slightly more scientific horoscopes. But that's not saying much. Eeehhh... I cringe at the thought of people using this kind of thing to legitimately categorize people based on the personality it dishes out to them. A lot of the questions on tests like these are pretty heavily influenced by how a person might be feeling when they take it. Or the circumstances they take it under. Like if you had (for example) just gone to a party where everyone was dead-drunk and somebody puked on you or something, and you caught your girlfriend with some other guy in the bathroom - you might be in a bad enough mood that you answer differently regarding how you feel about spending time with other people. Just a random example, but you get the point. I doubt anyone here will judge anyone else based on these personality tests. I just saw them as a fun little thing to do, and I've been enjoying this thread so far so it's proven true in my case. Obviously they can't really be used to classify people when some of the test takers, like Harp and myself, found personality profiles much closer to ourselves than what the test said we were at first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 3:03:54 GMT
The personality types themselves are probably an efficient way to categorize human personality. But I think people tend to have a pretty good gauge of their personality, strengths, and weaknesses as it is, so these tests don't really do anything but tell you stuff about yourself that you already know. They're slightly more scientific horoscopes. But that's not saying much. Eeehhh... I cringe at the thought of people using this kind of thing to legitimately categorize people based on the personality it dishes out to them. A lot of the questions on tests like these are pretty heavily influenced by how a person might be feeling when they take it. Or the circumstances they take it under. Like if you had (for example) just gone to a party where everyone was dead-drunk and somebody puked on you or something, and you caught your girlfriend with some other guy in the bathroom - you might be in a bad enough mood that you answer differently regarding how you feel about spending time with other people. Just a random example, but you get the point. That's why you should be in a neutral mood when you do these things. And of course people shouldn't take this super seriously, but Dome is right, as per the usual, it's pretty decent... At least for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 12, 2014 3:17:25 GMT
I doubt anyone here will judge anyone else based on these personality tests. I just saw them as a fun little thing to do, and I've been enjoying this thread so far so it's proven true in my case. Obviously they can't really be used to classify people when some of the test takers, like Harp and myself, found personality profiles much closer to ourselves than what the test said we were at first. They give tests like this during psych evals, and they definitely take that shit seriously. It's really, really stupid. At the very least, I don't classify people just by these tests. I don't think that they're entirely bogus, mind you, because since these personality profiles and test questions were assembled using research and statistics (probably), then there's going to be fact in them. But I feel that someone's personality simply can't be nailed down to one set "type", not exactly, and anyone who thinks that it's possible really has no idea how complex a human being's personality is.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jun 12, 2014 3:20:18 GMT
Eh, it's not that stupid. It's just a simple measure of personality traits. It's similar to an IQ test. Some days, you just suck at taking tests so maybe your score ends up being a bit lower than it should be. All psychometric tests are imperfect in some way because humans can't be neatly sorted into little bin. But I'm betting that these tests (or tests similar to these) work pretty well at generally categorizing a majority of people.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jun 12, 2014 3:43:35 GMT
Eh, it's not that stupid. It's just a simple measure of personality traits. It's similar to an IQ test. Some days, you just suck at taking tests so maybe your score ends up being a bit lower than it should be. All psychometric tests are imperfect in some way because humans can't be neatly sorted into little bin. But I'm betting that these tests (or tests similar to these) work pretty well at generally categorizing a majority of people. I.Q. tests are pretty stupid, too, though. I probably just shouldn't have said anything, I guess. I didn't mean to create a fuss or be a downer, I just think stuff like this is silly and was wondering if you guys were serious about it or if it was just some silly little thing to you all, since some people take it very seriously. And it absolutely should not be taken seriously. Neither should I.Q. tests, in my opinion. Say what you will about them, IQ tests have good internal validity and are well-correlated with success, income, and criminality. Saying that they measure intelligence in its pure form is a stretch since intelligence is pretty much just a social construct used to describe aptitude in a number of somewhat related cognitive tasks. But to the extent that those tasks capture the kind of thinking that's done in the workplace and society, the IQ test is a useful tool to gauge how well an individual would perform in those environments. People shouldn't rely too much on them or deem their results infallible truths, but they are quite useful. I imagine that personality scales have good evidence to back them up as well.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jun 12, 2014 4:43:05 GMT
Say what you will about them, IQ tests have good internal validity and are well-correlated with success, income, and criminality. Saying that they measure intelligence in its pure form is a stretch since intelligence is pretty much just a social construct used to describe aptitude in a number of somewhat related cognitive tasks. But to the extent that those tasks capture the kind of thinking that's done in the workplace and society, the IQ test is a useful tool to gauge how well an individual would perform in those environments. People shouldn't rely too much on them or deem their results infallible truths, but they are quite useful. I imagine that personality scales have good evidence to back them up as well. I have had professionally administered I.Q. tests in my life - I honestly don't believe that most of those connections between success/income/criminality have anything to do with the I.Q. test at all. Did you know that there was a spelling portion on the test? That's *education* - something that you're taught. The people who generally do better on that shit are the people who have actually had the opportunities to succeed in life to begin with - of course those same people aren't as likely to go out and commit crimes or be arrested, and are more likely to have better educations. The kinds of people who would know how to spell words like "principle" by a specific age range, because they got to go to an actual school, and actually learn things. It makes complete sense that there would be a connection - because those people are the people who were geared up to do better in life, from the beginning. It really has nothing to do with the I.Q. tests, themselves. Stupid tests like these place people into arbitrary little categories that don't actually mean anything, and can be really harmful in certain situations. I really wish I just hadn't said anything to begin with. Maybe I should just see myself out. Oh, don't be so dramatic, whatever. This is a debate. You'd better get used to these on here. The test measures knowledge and vocabulary because the ability to acquire knowledge is a part of what is generally considered to be intelligence. But only part. There are also working memory measures, abstract reasoning measures, and spatial puzzle-solving. What's useful about IQ is that it serves as a better predictor of the things I described than any individual component of the test. Yes, people with better early education will do better on the vocabulary and information components of the test, but it's the aggregate score across all of the sections that is used to predict social well-being. But again, it's only a predictor, not a determinant. The categories that it creates aren't arbitrary. They're based on aptitude in modes of thinking that are valued in Western society. It's an imperfect measure, to be sure, and there is plenty of debate as to how to improve it or what other tests may be better, but so far, this is the best approximation we have of what we as a society generally refer to as intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by DomeWing333 on Jun 12, 2014 4:45:10 GMT
...Dude, really? You need to stop panicking over this stuff, man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 5:09:02 GMT
Yeah, dude. Especially with Sheriff Harp running around, there are gonna be some arguments.
|
|
|
Post by thatstoomuchfestivity on Jun 12, 2014 5:51:13 GMT
INTJ. Supposedly rare, though it looks like this place is a haven for us, and introverts in general. In company with Putin, Walter White/Heisenberg, JFK...alright.
|
|
|
Post by wakemeup on Jun 12, 2014 6:21:14 GMT
INTP. I can't really say it fits me. But what could I expect from online personality test.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 12:37:22 GMT
Definitely.
Yeah, pretty much.
Yep.
Kind of... sort of.
Sort of.
Sort of again. I'm dedicated to my own causes, or things that I want to do personally.
First part isn't true, second part kind of is.
I was never that good with more mathematical stuff or anything. I was always better at Art and English than Maths and Science.
Not on the internet but definitely in real life. I do find it hard to accept criticism.
Being forever alone, I wouldn't know, but this is how I suppose things would go.
Kind of. I won't exactly forget to eat or drink or sleep but I'll definitely put them off if I'm in the zone.
Overall I'd say this is about 77% correct. I just did maths even though the weaknesses for INFP says I don't work well with it.
|
|
|
Post by IDEK on Jun 12, 2014 14:05:48 GMT
I did this a while ago, getting ISFJ. although I don't remember what it was. I do remember that result.
just re-checked, and not much of it fits me, other than the fact that I am ignored in school unless I'm drawing a comic for someone or something.
EDIT: Upon re-doing it, ISTP, uh...guess I've switched types or mis-remembered...okay.
first paragraph kinda fits in real life.
some parts of the second fit, and others don't (especially the SP rage--which also applies online)
3 and fourth are not that accurate.
|
|