Tag Archives: psychometric tests

I’m a thinker

Yeah, I suppose I do have too much time on my hands.

Via Language Log (My brain hurts), we have a story about a site called Typealyzer which allegedly analyses the language you use on your blog to produce a profile of you as a person. It’s a bit like those ridiculous Quizilla quizzes about what Fullmetal Alchemist character you are. So I threw Green Bamboo into the machine and this is what I got:

ISTP – The Mechanics
The independent and problem-solving type. They are especially attuned to the demands of the moment are masters of responding to challenges that arise spontaneously. They generally prefer to think things out for themselves and often avoid inter-personal conflicts.
The Mechanics enjoy working together with other independent and highly skilled people and often like seek fun and action both in their work and personal life. They enjoy adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters.

Is that a reasonable description of me? I suppose that like horoscopes, the description will fit someone approximately so that more than one description might be applicable to me without being an exact fit. The one above works until it gets to the fun and action part and then becomes a bit of a fantasy.

I note that whatever I happen to be talking about on my blog at any one time will affect the analysis. Recently, I’ve mentioned Montaigne a few times; the presence of quotes from various translations, not being my words, must skew things a little. If this was a monothematic blog, the result might be different again.

Typealyzer even gives you a graph:

Mr Bamboo's brain

which I note looks suspiciously like the one the boys at Language Log got, although they’re more feeling than I am by about a millimetre.

But the blogspot version of GB has me down as

INTP – The Thinkers
The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

Again, I can’t disagree with the analysis entirely, which I think is even closer to me than the other one. Nonetheless, it still works on the basis of being approximately right, which merely goes to show that we’re a melange. Our personalities may predominantly be one thing, but there are always bits of this and that in them as well.

I also note that the graph that accompanies this analysis is barely any different from the one above.

Mr Bamboo's other brain

The only difference is that this is a little less S and a little more N, but somehow that changes the outcome. I can only see the difference clearly by tab switching in PSP to animate the two images.

I tried Chris’s blog. The resulting analysis is

ESTP – The Doers
The active and play-ful type. They are especially attuned to people and things around them and often full of energy, talking, joking and engaging in physical out-door activities.
The Doers are happiest with action-filled work which craves their full attention and focus.
They might be very impulsive and more keen on starting something new than following it through. They might have a problem with sitting still or remaining inactive for any period of time.

I must admit I don’t really recognise him from the description. I’m not sure Chris would exactly describe his job as action-filled.

Matt’s blog gets the same result. Well, he has been doing some travelling recently.

I think that’s enough silly fun as lunchtime beckons.

Ridiculous behavioural quizzes

Is it rational to answer them?

When I went to The Independent earlier this afternoon, I found an article How predictably irrational are you? It’s by some American academic called Dan Ariely, and is really a plug for some book of his. Anyway, with the article comes a pop quiz from which you can find out how rational you supposedly are.

I got 24, which allegedly makes me rational. My highest marks came in the fourth question because I decided that an apparently unknown guest who gives me £10 instead of a bottle of wine is unlikely to be a good friend[1]; and the ninth question because I preferred the pencil (which has a practical function) to the money (a mere 10p and thus a sum too pathetic to pilfer).

Obviously some hack at the The Indie had nothing better to do yesterday afternoon.

1. Actually, although some people might think that it’s worth making a friend of someone who’s willing to give you money for nothing, my inclination is that this person is, in fact, an idiot for such and act, and not someone I really want as a friend. Also, if they’re getting fussed about a bottle of wine, they’re too fastidious and indecisive to be someone I’m likely to get along with. On the contrary, I’d probably find someone like that to be rather annoying.