Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Awaclus]

(I didn't remember my old result except for the E while taking the test, and was trying to answer the questions as honestly as possible by thinking about concrete situations I have recently been in and how I have behaved in them, so the effect of "trying to get a different result on purpose to prove a point" bias should be negligible)

[silverspawn]

By the way, I just took the same MBTI test again. Want to guess what result I got this time?

Yes and no. I mean yes, I do. But I maintain that axes are allowed to change if you're close to the middle and that's not an indictment of the test. I've seen the stats on how many people's results change and I don't find them terrible.

Anyway -- ENTP!

(Btw isn't it a good sign for the test that it labeled you a campaigner? )

[Awaclus]

By the way, I just took the same MBTI test again. Want to guess what result I got this time?

Anyway -- ENTP!

Correct. Do you feel like I have changed since Jan 2022 or is that what you would have guessed back then as well?

[Awaclus]

Here are the full results I got:

[silverspawn]

I probably wouldn't have guessed the same without knowing your previous result. As a socially insecure person, I dug it up from earlier in this thread to increase my odds and combined that with my impression. You seem a lot more N than S to me and a little more T than F, and the other two are hard to tell, so the safest guess is that they stayed the same.

[silverspawn]

"Analyst" and "People mastery" seems pretty on point!

[silverspawn]

dug it up

lol @ filename

[silverspawn]

and yeah you do seem a little more T than you used to maybe but hard to say

[Awaclus]

"Analyst" and "People mastery" seems pretty on point!

Well, the other possible roles are "Diplomat", "Sentinel" and "Explorer" and the strategies are "Confident individualism", "Constant improvement" and "Social engagement". Any of them would seem pretty on point for basically anyone.

[silverspawn]

I feel like only about 1 of them is an equally good fit for you (but you're the authority). And certainly not all of them fit me.

[Awaclus]

I feel like only about 1 of them is an equally good fit for you (but you're the authority). And certainly not all of them fit me.

I bet if I had actually gotten Explorer and Confident individualism, you would have said that those seem pretty on point.

[silverspawn]

I feel like only about 1 of them is an equally good fit for you (but you're the authority). And certainly not all of them fit me.

I bet if I had actually gotten Explorer and Confident individualism, you would have said that those seem pretty on point.

You'd lose that bet 100%. "Confident Individualism" maybe but "Explorer", as far I'm concerned, has no association with you at all. It's just an arbitrary vague label. if my confirmation bias were that great, I'd still be a functionalist.

The main thing I associate with you is a rare mix of (a) being a rational thinker with a genuine ability to converge on truth, yet (b) also being in politics, which means dealing with and persuading normal people and convincing them. (And these two abilities are kinda anticorrelated in my mind, or at best orthogonal; the second doesn't help with the first at all.) So "Analyst" plus "people mastery" really is perfect.

[silverspawn]

I don't know what labels INTJ has, but if it's "Diplomat", "Sentinel" , "Explorer", "Analyst" I also want the analyst; none of the others are anything special. And for the strategies, "Confident individualism" and "Constant improvement" are ok, the other two aren't.

[silverspawn]

And surprise, I'm right on both of them! (These aren't my precise results, I just used google image too find the analogue image for the INTJ.) It's almost like these aren't just arbitrary  buzzwords!

[Awaclus]

You'd lose that bet 100%. "Confident Individualism" maybe but "Explorer", as far I'm concerned, has no association with you at all. It's just an arbitrary vague label. if my confirmation bias were that great, I'd still be a functionalist.

ISTPs (a result I have gotten before) are Explorers, and I'd say it's very descriptive of me. I often pick up new interests and want to learn a lot about that subject until I feel like I've gotten the gist of it and get bored because I'm not that interested in the finer details. I hate having a strict schedule and not being able to decide what I want to do in the moment. I follow the news and keep myself in the know about new developments and trends and I'm generally looking forward to seeing how things will change rather than being scared of it (unless the news are just objectively scary because of their content and not just because change in and of itself is scary). And I think I have a pretty demonstrable track record of being extremely open to new and unconventional (e.g. political or musical) ideas including coming up with a bunch independently.

For what it's worth, last year I was a Diplomat.

The main thing I associate with you is a rare mix of (a) being a rational thinker with a genuine ability to converge on truth, yet (b) also being in politics, which means dealing with and persuading normal people and convincing them. (And these two abilities are kinda anticorrelated in my mind, or at best orthogonal; the second doesn't help with the first at all.) So "Analyst" plus "people mastery" really is perfect.

Those are skills, not personality traits.

[silverspawn]

All granted, but it doesn't change that I would never have associated explorer with you. I think this goes with J/P being hard to predict for online people because you don't really know how they schedule their lives or how open-minded they are.

[silverspawn]

Those are skills, not personality traits.

people mastery also sounds like a skill

[Awaclus]

It's almost like these aren't just arbitrary  buzzwords!

I bet I'm going to get Slytherin if I take a Hogwarts house quiz.

[Awaclus]

Wow, I guess Rowling really was onto something with the house descriptions!

[silverspawn]

If you wanted to make a secondary point with this, I don't think it makes that point, but I agree that the houses say something about you. In fact if the test is actually solid and corresponds to what I associate with the houses, I might find it about as interesting as the big 5 test.

[Awaclus]

The point is that Hogwarts houses are literally completely arbitrary, and not even an attempt for rigorously categorizing people who aren't fictional characters (and even many of the fictional characters that Rowling actually wrote could have plausibly been in a different house, some explicitly so, and many Gryffindors would have arguably been more appropriate in some other house).

As evidenced by the test I just took, I get a relatively high score in Gryffindor and substantially higher than zero scores in Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, and they all add up to a lot more points in total than what I have in Slytherin, so if you compress that data into a 2-bit value which is what the house system does, all of that information disappears even though it's the majority of the information that was available before the compression. And I would expect that my Slytherin result is actually a lot higher than what the average person gets in any house, so for the vast majority of people, at least as much information gets lost in the compression. The average person probably moves houses if they keep retaking the test every few months.

This is all transparently ridiculous. If you have to admit that the test nonetheless meets all the same standards that you use to evaluate the MBTI highly, that should probably be a very strong sign that those standards are not high enough.

[silverspawn]

This is all transparently ridiculous. If you have to admit that the test nonetheless meets all the same standards that you use to evaluate the MBTI highly, that should probably be a very strong sign that those standards are not high enough.

I don't think MBTI is good because of any objective standard. I think MBTI is good because the results are interesting, which isn't measurable. Afair I brought up the deviation from the mean only as a response to the accusation that it's pseudoscience or that it doesn't measure anything. I never said "and that makes it a good test" nor is this the kind of thing I would ever say or think.

And I don't get the compression critique either. That's not a property of the test, it's just a property of how you present the results. You got positions on a spectrum, which is also what you get from MBTI.

But I also object to the whole approach of using the Hogwarts houses as an obviously worthless test. We live in a world where "single people have better ideas than large groups of people all the time, that's not even surprising.

[Awaclus]

This is all transparently ridiculous. If you have to admit that the test nonetheless meets all the same standards that you use to evaluate the MBTI highly, that should probably be a very strong sign that those standards are not high enough.

I don't think MBTI is good because of any objective standard. I think MBTI is good because the results are interesting, which isn't measurable. Afair I brought up the deviation from the mean only as a response to the accusation that it's pseudoscience or that it doesn't measure anything. I never said "and that makes it a good test" nor is this the kind of thing I would ever say or think.

Well, it is pseudoscience, but of course the test measures something. It measures how you answer the questions.

And I don't get the compression critique either. That's not a property of the test, it's just a property of how you present the results. You got positions on a spectrum, which is also what you get from MBTI.

The entire point of MBTI is that everyone neatly fits into one of the 4-letter archetypes (like this is not even a strawman argument, that's basically what the creators believed), and while the Harry Potter books definitely do not claim that everyone neatly fits into a house, they nonetheless sort everyone into a house. So both of these systems are meant to include that compression by design. The fact that IDRLabs and 16Personalities offer more nuanced results kind of goes against the spirit of these systems.

But I also object to the whole approach of using the Hogwarts houses as an obviously worthless test. We live in a world where "single people have better ideas than large groups of people all the time, that's not even surprising.

Did you accidentally delete parts of this paragraph? I don't understand what the point is and there's an unclosed quote.

[silverspawn]

The entire point of MBTI is that everyone neatly fits into one of the 4-letter archetypes (like this is not even a strawman argument, that's basically what the creators believed), and while the Harry Potter books definitely do not claim that everyone neatly fits into a house, they nonetheless sort everyone into a house. So both of these systems are meant to include that compression by design. The fact that IDRLabs and 16Personalities offer more nuanced results kind of goes against the spirit of these systems.

If this is the crux, we don't disagree. Arbitrary cutoffs are always stupid (the p=5% cutoff comes to mind). I'd even agree that it's stupid to call you, say, an ISFJ if your I value was 51/100 or something, it should just declare the first undecided. And afaik there's a normal-ish distribution for each spectrum so that most people are the middle, which means most people don't neatly fit into one of the 16 categories.

But the dimensions are still really great!

Did you accidentally delete parts of this paragraph? I don't understand what the point is and there's an unclosed quote.

No, but if you only brought up hogwarts houses for the cutoff thing, it's not really relevant anymore

[Awaclus]

No, but if you only brought up hogwarts houses for the cutoff thing, it's not really relevant anymore

Well, the cutoff is the issue that's clearly wrong with MBTI and Hogwarts houses, but the fact that the categorizations are arbitrary is another problem. Like, the Hogwarts houses basically represent valuing/exhibiting bravery, wisdom, friendship and ambition, respectively, but there's no reason to expect that these are mutually exclusive or that there isn't some fifth thing that could be much more central to someone's personality than any of these four (say, creativity).

The MBTI is a little bit better because at least each axis might intuitively feel like the extreme ends are mutually exclusive, and for the I/E axis, they even actually kind of are (still not in the sense that you can't have aspects of both though, but yes in the sense that if you are less introverted, that necessarily makes you exactly that much more extraverted and vice versa). I don't think that's true for the other axes; being less imaginative does not necessarily make you more pragmatic, being less logic-oriented doesn't necessarily make you more emotional, and being less comfortable with careful planning doesn't necessarily make you more comfortable with spontaneous action, or vice versa respectively. And there still isn't a reason to expect that these four axes are the most important in categorizing everyone (16Personalities even added an actual fifth axis to their test and I bet a lot of people who only differ in their Assertive/Turbulent result are actually more different than a lot of people who have the same Assertive/Turbulent result but a different result on one of the original axes).