Re: Interesting personality tests

[Enail]

Yeah, it was similar for me, although I scored lower than that! I think I gave a "neutral" answer for almost every single question.
As for the pictures, I dunno. I disliked anything that was too cottage-y looking and systematically preferred ukiyo-e but other than that... there seemed to be a bit of a portraits vs landscapes and abstraction vs realism pattern in some pictures, though.

I also systematically preferred ukiyo-e but didn't take a stand on the question of cottages. And my portraits/landscapes, abstraction/realism and closeup/distance (which I think was also another pattern they were looking at) were aaaaallllll over the place.

[eselle28]

Oh, I didn't notice closeup/distance. I was curious whether the color palette was being assessed as well. I have pretty strong preferences in that vein (which can be summed up as liking either bright things or black and white and disliking muted tones) and there were at least a few cases where I thought that was the primary difference between the pieces.

I lean pretty heavily toward liking abstraction, but suspect I was pretty divided in terms of portrait/landscape.

[Wondering]

I preferred portraits to landscapes, but I like realism more, just not photo realistic. But I don't want pictures of run down cottages in my house, and I was judging that set of questions more by what I would want hanging in my house.

Also, they said it would be 20 paintings and it was 30.

[waxingjaney]

I got 50.

[reboot]

This one was kind of fun. I am apparently high Machiavellian, which is unsurprising given my career path and experience.
http://personality-testing.info/tests/MACH-IV.php

What was your score though?

I got a High Mach. score too (65/100).

67/100 although I was neutral on most questions so ????

[nearly_takuan]

All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.

All in all is a pretty large scope and "better" is somewhat vague. To me, morality/ethics is a system of qualitative considerations. Lots of functions that take a wide variety of contexts as domain but can only output on a range of Boolean values. Not much room for ordering or sorting by magnitude. Whereas there are other ways of calculating things that lend themselves very well to ordered systems.

So in this case, I have a sense that someone who is (for the sake of philosophy) always humble and honest is likely to end up behaving ethically/morally with greater frequency than the "important and dishonest" person. (But a small ratio of contexts will favor the latter instead.)

As an actual fallible human being, I of course am neither all of the time, even though I also sense that I'd be happier (one possible measure of "better") if I were more willing to be dishonest/important more often despite the outputs of my ethics-functions. As an actual fallible human being, I sometimes am.

So do I agree or disagree? Well, first we have to calculate the probability of finding life in space....

[Enail]

I got stuck on that one too, since humble and honest are not virtues I value very highly and, depending on how you're defining it, importance not a benefit I desire, especially not the sort that would really be achieved through dishonesty and bragging.

[eselle28]

All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.

That was a weird one for me because I agree that a humble, honest person is on average going to be less of an asshole to others than an important, dishonest one, I don't necessarily have great associations with either "humble" or "honest." The former to me sort of suggests lousy self-esteem in a way that ends up being a burden to others in its own way, and "honest" just makes me think of tactless people. It's not that "dishonest" is a good thing, more that I prefer people who hang out somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Also, "humble" and "important" aren't true opposites. It's rare, but there are occasionally people who are both humble and important. There are lots of people who are arrogant and unimportant.

[nearly_takuan]

I read "important" as "taking action to make others view you as important", which encompasses a large portion of cases where anyone uses the word "humbled". I read "humble" as "taking action (or inaction) that does not increase others' perception of your importance". It seemed contrast was intended, and that was the only way I could find to make it work.

I don't like being in the spotlight. On the other hand, I don't like not being noticed and do like having money. So there are benefits to "being important" that I'd very much like to have, regardless of whether or not I have to get there by "being important" or not.

I did like that a lot of the remaining questions dealt a lot more with how we think the world operates, instead of how we ourselves behave.

I got 70/100. That seems low, given the way I think I think the world works. But also high, given that I also think of myself as someone who sees those choices and doesn't choose them.

[Wondering]

I took issue with it setting humble in opposition to important. One can be both humble and important: Malala, for example. Mother Theresa for another.

Humble is the opposite of arrogant, and important the opposite of unimportant or insignificant.

[Enail]

I assumed it was setting up important not as the opposite of humble, but as the thing that would be hardest to refuse if you were the opposite of humble.

[Wondering]

Ah. Hmm. Interesting. That's not how I read it, but I see where you're coming from.

[Werel]

I've never put too much stock in Myers-Briggs types beyond "oh what fun to navel-gaze in this specific way!" I took it way back in high school or college, got INFP, and have been rolling with that label since then. But a convo with a friend yesterday led to me re-taking the test... and getting ENFP. And taking three different MBTI tests in flustration. And getting ENFP three more times.

I don't know why I'm so floored to have the arbitrary label "extrovert" applied to me. I think I'm right in the middle, so it's not like it doesn't apply at all, but it seems at odds with some old, longstanding self-conceptions ("outsider status" harder to claim as extrovert? undermining of nerd cred? residue of old ideas about "intellect=introversion"? failure to explain why I'd rather stay home and read 65% of the time?). But it feels weird to have an E at the beginning.

[Enail]

I can see why you'd find that startling. I've been shocked before to realize that friends I assumed were introverts because they were shy or homebodies or had stereotypically introvert interests, were actually extroverts...though it did explain a bunch of things that had confused me, like wanting to spend hours and hours hanging out when we get together or wanting all their friends around when they were upset. There's definitely a residue of all of those associations you list hanging around in my brain.

[Werel]

I can see why you'd find that startling. I've been shocked before to realize that friends I assumed were introverts because they were shy or homebodies or had stereotypically introvert interests, were actually extroverts...

Yes! The realization that shy, socially unskilled extroverts exist was a pretty big thunderbolt for me too-- and not only because jeez, how heartbreaking to be all the way on the "need people badly" end of the scale but lack the tools to easily achieve it, but because it revealed how many faulty assumptions were built into my concepts of intro/extroversion (like conflating "desire" and "skill" in the social arena*).

*E.g. a stranger told me at a party last week "you seem pretty extroverted" and I surprise-laughed because at the moment I was thinking "ugggh, man, when can I go home and play video games?" but I think they just meant "you don't seem stressed out by interacting with strangers"?

[waxingjaney]

I took it way back in high school or college, got INFP, and have been rolling with that label since then. But a convo with a friend yesterday led to me re-taking the test... and getting ENFP.

Many many yahrens ago I took an online MBTI quiz that gave a 0-100 score for each axis (0 would be full E,100 would be full I, etc.) You were probably always an EI tweener and got a 55 back in the day, and shifted into the upper 40s later.

MBTI is biased towards what you do, rather than what your personal preference might be. Going out and talking with people a lot can pull you E-wards, simply because you train yourself to do it as a habit.

[Caffeinated]

I just took two quizzes I thought were very interesting:

A test of common misconceptions, or can you tell reality from BS?
http://programs.clearerthinking.org/common_misconceptions.html

A test of political bias (along with an article on political bias).
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/10/9188517/political-bias

[Enail]

Ooh, neat! I did that first one, and my Brier score (combination of how often answers are correct and how confident you are at the right times) was 80%, which sounds pretty good, but was mostly based on my knowing when to be confident and not rather than getting a lot of questions right. I was pretty timid about the betting amounts, too, even when I was confident.

And I got one question wrong because I assumed it was sort of a trick question, even though I knew they said there weren't trick questions. Maybe I should test my paranoia next?

[Werel]

Took the political bias test to confirm that I don't know jack shit. Confirmed! I got fewer right answers than 75% of people. Also confirmed: I am a huge skeptic. Less political bias than 75% of people. So uh... I'm a skeptical know-nothing who won't commit strongly to any position?

[Wondering]

I'd like to take the political bias test, but I can't get it to load in either Firefox or Chrome.

[eselle28]

I got 84% right on the BS test, but only performed averagely on the guessing game. I'm apparently very underconfident in the rightness of my answers.

[Caffeinated]

I actually did really really well on both the political bias test and the BS test, but it kind of felt like what they were testing was a combination of curiosity and memory. Lots of the questions were about things I'd been curious enough to look up or read about in the past, and my memory of what I read about them is good. It seemed like some of the wording on a few of the questions was even word for word or close to word for word what I'd read about the topic. Basically, if I can study for a test, I can pass it.

I also took their "How rational are you really?" test: http://programs.clearerthinking.org/how_rational_are_you_really_take_the_test.html

More emphasis on analyzing things than just remembering things. I got The Meditator.

Meditators often combine two features that are rarely seen together — a relaxed, big-picture worldview and a strong propensity to question their own judgments. This mixture inclines Meditators to ponder life's big questions, which they can consider in great depth if they choose. Approximately 6% of the populace are Meditators.


You are Reflective: You dislike jumping to conclusions quickly. You’re adept at reflecting on your own thoughts. When it looks like your intuitions might be leading you astray, you don’t have a problem overriding them — instead, you take the time to re-evaluate the situation and figure out the wisest course of action.

You are Subjective: People and stories interest you more than facts and figures do; you focus on the essence of ideas over the details. Your mind is more qualitative than quantitative. This trait lets you focus on the big picture over the nitty-gritty.

You are Carefree: You tend to live in the moment. You don’t waste a lot of emotional energy fretting about the future. Instead, you focus on getting the most out of life right now.

You are Open: You're not an aggressive skeptic or naysayer. You tend to consider information without immediately disputing it unless given clear reason to do so. Proving people wrong is not a high priority for you.

But it also told me that I had no strong areas in their list of 7 specific reasoning skills. I don't really know what to make of that.

[Wondering]

Okay, I finally was able to take the political bias test. I did very well. My bias rating was 0%. So, yay! My correct answers rating was 55%, which I'm disappointed in, but there weren't many questions, so one wrong answer skews a lot. That still makes me more knowledgeable than 95% of test takers, though.

Also, I take issue with their GMO question.

Spoiler:

[fakely mctest]

Aw yiss, I got 91.46% overall on the BS test with 90% correct answers and 96.26% reliability in determining whether I'd answered correctly. I'd like to thank my subscription to Smithsonian Magazine for that one.

[Robjection]

What Percentage Corbyn Are You?

You Got: You are 74% Jeremy Corbyn!You are very, very Corbyn! You care deeply about economic and social justice, you can’t stand slick, identikit politicians, and you bloody love a good cycle ride with some homemade jam at the end of it. You might be El Gato.

Honestly, even if you don't know who Jeremy Corbyn is, take the test anyway just for the question about cat names!

(Also never mind the fact that I don't know how to ride a bicycle and I don't like jam.)

[Sponsored content]