[QUOTE=Tamschi;48509214]Since a lot of these are relatively open-source I had the idea of taking every single of whatever dubiously accurate test there is and rolling them up in a nice package with deduplicated questions where easily possible.
It would be a stupid amount of work for what comes out of it though, especially since afaik "professional" horoscopes are annoyingly complicated and I'd have to figure out how to handle non-answers.
I took this one a while back in English, where I got
This time I did it in German:
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5013896/forum/Facepunch/Programming/Personality%20test/ENTP-A.png[/img]
The difference could be because of the translation, but either way it doesn't sway in any particular direction much (as usual). [URL="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5013896/forum/Facepunch/Programming/Personality%20test/Testergebnisse%20_%2016Personalities.html"]Here's what it says in rather broken German[/URL]:
:what:
(This actually in part describes me somewhat well [I]when I engage in anything resembling political discussion[/I], but it's very unlike me when I'm programming or researching science, or doing pretty much anything else. It's also about 50% largely inaccurate no matter what I do.
If I'm not mistaken this is the third unique result I got from this test, so far.)[/QUOTE]
Well, look at (your) parameters/percents, they are very at the center, so that is why things are changing. (and you don't answer everything same everytime).
Aside from the obvious amount of bullshitting, that is a huge issue, there aren't nearly enough questions to determine if you really do belong to a particular side if you are close to the middle on any given statistic.
There is nowhere near enough depth to give any sort of useful analysis.
[QUOTE=reevezy67;48512207]Aside from the obvious amount of bullshitting, that is a huge issue, there aren't nearly enough questions to determine if you really do belong to a particular side if you are close to the middle on any given statistic.
There is nowhere near enough depth to give any sort of useful analysis.[/QUOTE]
I saw lots of bullshit and this isn't nearly as bad. I look at it as machine learning/classification.
And of course it's wrong that there are only 16 personalities, but hey, it determined that whole programming subsection is "similar" in it's types, so there must be some truth to it. (keyword: some).
And that is what interested me. Still not gonna buy pro account.
[QUOTE=Fourier;48511948]Well, look at (your) parameters/percents, they are very at the center, so that is why things are changing. (and you don't answer everything same everytime).[/QUOTE]
That and I probably changed a little since January.
Normally you're always supposed to take these in your native language, but I wonder how much impact the translation has because many things don't have the exact same meaning or are more or less precisely defined if you compare one language to another.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/RmFoDql.png[/img]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4J4Rewu.png?1[/IMG]
Idk if this is a good or bad thing but yay :D
[QUOTE]Your personality type: “The Advocate” (INFJ-T)
Strength of individual traits: Introverted: 35%, Intuitive: 15%, Feeling: 3%, Judging: 50%, Turbulent: 66%.
Role: Diplomat
Strategy: Constant Improvement[/QUOTE]
[url=http://i.imgur.com/C5XfE8h.png][img]http://i.imgur.com/C5XfE8hl.jpg[/img][/url]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Jzm3B4i.png[/t]
Sounds about right, I guess.
[img]http://puu.sh/jKxwO/8b71e59590.png[/img]
Only 3/22 of us so far have been on the assertive side of the last statistic.
Bunch of wusses.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6JNsEMW.png[/IMG]
I always get the same type on these tests
It's still pretty interesting how the "rare" INTP-T that only 3% of the population is, is the most common one here. I'm also it.
[QUOTE=Darwin226;48517961]It's still pretty interesting how the "rare" INTP-T that only 3% of the population is, is the most common one here. I'm also it.[/QUOTE]
Well this [I]is[/I] the programming section after all.
I suspect there's some kind of ridiculous sampling bias simply due to this here being online too though.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;48518087]Well this [I]is[/I] the programming section after all.
I suspect there's some kind of ridiculous sampling bias simply due to this here being online too though.[/QUOTE]
That's what I find interesting. That you could consistently guess which category people fit it knowing that they're programmers.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;48503854]To be fair, even some of those articles go "MBTI bad", The Big Five is much better! When the difference is really not all that large(look, it adds one trait!)
Trying to determine "personality" with a test like this, is pretty much futile either way, but it's just a fun thing (or ego-stroking, whichever you prefer).
So even the replacement is honestly a big piece of crock :v:
But hey! More pseudo-science is always nice.
Any kind of test like this will inevitably produce unpredictable results, and the "science" behind it, well, isn't.
What's scary is that some business owners enjoy using tests like these to determine "culture fit" or similar within a company.
It's still interesting to read though, just keeping in mind to not take it too seriously (because it approaches horoscope-level).[/QUOTE]
It's even worse if you translate it:
[URL="http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?oR=0.75&cR=0.611&eR=0.312&aR=0.639&nR=0.5"][quote]I'm a O59-C52-E12-A44-N43 Big Five!![/quote][/URL] vs [URL="http://de.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=76&c=30&e=22&a=32&n=32"][quote]Ich bin ein O_76-C_30-E_22-A_32-N_32 Big Five Persönlichkeitstyp![/quote][/URL] (Click for graphs, and yes that's the first thing that came up on Google.
It doesn't contain any fun marketing material, so I wouldn't bother with it for now.)
There's (at least on this site) in part a big difference in how questions are posed, so it completely trips over finer distinctions.
I remember there was another one of these "here's your type now feel good about yourself (and buy our book!)" site with a different model.
Maybe I'll post it next week if I can find it again :v:
Huh
The other day I took it and got Logistician (ISTJ-T)
Now I took it again and I'm (the only in the thread) The Defender, ISFJ
[t]http://i.imgur.com/s8T8gPC.png[/t]
That's... interesting. :s:
I took it twice and got INTP-T twice.
[QUOTE=Coment;48518357]Huh
The other day I took it and got Logistician (ISTJ-T)
Now I took it again and I'm (the only in the thread) The Defender, ISFJ
[t]http://i.imgur.com/s8T8gPC.png[/t]
That's... interesting. :s:[/QUOTE]
Maybe you are in-between those two types.
oooor you write Tower Defense games in your spare time.
[editline]22nd August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Darwin226;48517961]It's still pretty interesting how the "rare" INTP-T that only 3% of the population is, is the most common one here. I'm also it.[/QUOTE]
It was kind of expected :v:.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PDdWxN8.png[/IMG]
And now for some armchair-meta-psychoanalysis.
If you so consistently pick the extremes of questions that fit to certain traits that you get 100% twice, does that not also make you a little overconfident or narrow-minded? :v:
We are the 3%.
[QUOTE=szymski;48519680][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PDdWxN8.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You must be psychopath since you have 0% of feelings :v:.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NzPnOCz.png[/IMG]
I presume all test are taken, so I counted all the personalities here and did little statistics. I was not incredibly precise but I took my time.
[code]
INTP 10x 34%
INTJ 4x 14%
INFJ 3x 10%
ENFP 3x 10%
INFP 3x 10%
ISTP 2x 7%
ENTP 2x 7%
ISTJ 1x 3.5%
ISFJ 1x 3.5%
ALL 29x 100%
[/code]
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/eNX1Z61.png[/thumb]
INTP as well:
[thumb]http://puu.sh/jP26G/19134ccaf6.jpg[/thumb]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/BbRpqz8.png[/img]
Fairly accurate, I have to say.
Well that makes it sound like I am an asshole.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9v7P48S.png[/IMG]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/R0Ypoas.png[/t]
I did one a year back in a university class but the book it was in is missing the handouts that it was a part of. Oh well, all I learnt was my handwriting is arse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
