Just found this on BBC Science:

BBC - Science & Nature - Human Body and Mind - Mind - What Am I Like? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/whatamilike/static_quiz.shtml)


I came out as Mastermind ???????

tried it, but the answers for depend on the situation and my mood.

as friend of mine once said about me, in the mornings i open the closet and decide what personality (or mood) i will wear for the day.

Mastermind,
but these things are such bolleaux. Stuckgear is right.

I remember the doc at North Luffenham saying that the RAF tried to recruit stable extroverts to fly fighters, but in his experience we were mostly borderline unstable introverts, and that seemed to work. A quick test showed that for our group.

We need a personality test that identifies HR types pre-birth, so we can abort them

My personality type is "Extreme Cynic About Psychologists".

In the USA about 40% of the population are Republicans. Only 0.3% of the Psychologists are republicans.

A Very, very large number of psychologists in the USA are of the Jewish faith. (Their dads came over from Germany in the 30s and the sons are in the same trade.)

They spend all their time trying to prove their theories, and academia ostracises anyone who points out that Scientists should be trying to Disprove their theories.

No psychological work done before about 2,000 has been proven to be accurate.

A German-Jewish bloke called Robert Rosenthal, with a sidekick (Orme??) de-bunked most psychologists work back in the 60s and 70s. it hasn't got any better since.

Lost interest half way through, don't know what that makes me. :confused:

That's wierd, it didn't work for me at all
there's no section for "miserable old git who hates everyone under 60 and thinks young people should be flogged and forced to do national service"

Bring back sailing ships and send them all to sea for ten years.

Mastermind

The last two were pretty clear-cut, the first two could have gone either way.
Which would have made me Strategist, Realist or possibly Resolver.

If I had gone straight to the end and looked at the list of 16, I would have chosen Strategist, Realist or possibly Resolver. I am of course far too modest to have even considered Mastermind.

So, yes, not a bad assessment.

That's wierd, it didn't work for me at all
there's no section for "miserable old git who hates everyone under 60 and thinks young people should be flogged and forced to do national service"


yeah it did.. the second part of your post makes you a supervisor

Supervisor (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/whatamilike/supervisor.shtml) = Planner + Facts + Head + Extrovert

;):E:}

I just love the titles they choose.

'Mastermind', but there's no intelligence test. Presumably this title should be 'Arrogant moronic control freak' for those of average intelligence, or just 'My boss' for short.

'Leader', but there's no command assessment. Perhaps 'Loud-mouthed bossy boots' would be more appropriate. You aren't a leader if no-one's following!

etc.

Arrogant moronic control freak
That's a very nasty thing to say about me, and ArthurR, and that other bloke who got the same result.

Hang on ...

Don't need no steenkin' test.

Grumpy old bastid.

You see...there's no category for Polemic Shit-stirrer, although perhaps this should be an alternative title for Performer?

I have (and I'm sure most of us have) had to play all 16 of these roles at one time or another. The very idea that people have a single over-arcing personality 'type' is rubbish.

I'm a......................Peacemaker!

What a load of cobblers. I've inherited the ability (from dearly departed daddy aka the arguer-in-chief) to start an argument in an empty room!

Standard Noise: I've inherited the ability (from dearly departed daddy aka the arguer-in-chief) to start an argument in an empty room!

Yes but can you win it?

Indeed yet, total rubbish. No prediminent numbers, in every category 2 of one, 2 of another, 1 of a third, in groups that don't go together.

I wonder which idle overpaid expletive deleted dreamed this up ?

OK, I get it. My classification is "Can't stand idle overpaid expletives, sorry executives".

Can I be Head of BBC and get my 450,000 pounds a year now ? (plus pension benefits).

Only if you went to a proper University.

This is the classic Myers-Briggs test, lightly warmed over and put on a severe diet. MB has over 100 yes/no questions which cross-check each other. It generates classes made up of four letters, e.g. INTP - which this test glosses as "Mastermind" though MB makes no such implied value-judgement.

MB actually works pretty well and is helpful for figuring out how people will fit together into a group. Simplified to this point it's just a party game though. If you want to try something closer to the original, you cna go to several places on the web, e.g.: Personality test based on Jung and Briggs Myers typology (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)

Supervisor apparently.

It clams that I am a Mastermind as well.

Okay, but to be honest, in two sections I could have very well answered A, B, C, and D. Thus not having more of one letter than another. They didn't seem to have an answer for that. :p

Myers-Briggs, and all other personality tests, are still wrong. It assumes the personality can be fitted into boxes. I can be introverted, I can be extrovert. Completely depends on the group or situation. Furthermore, given its use by HR, it assumes you will be the same at home as at work.

One can drive a bus through most of the questions; from your link

8. Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent a good outcome
Yes or No ?

Depends who wrote the rules. Depends on the situation. Depends on level of experience. Depends on one's definition of a good outcome - and for whom? individual, group, human race, your boss, the company's share price?

10. It is in your nature to assume responsibility
Yes or No?

totally depends on what for, why, who else is around, and the risk/reward balance.

This box filling is a major part of what's wrong with modern recruitment.

I would suggest the Myers-Bricks test

Digital Digressions: The Myers-Bricks Recruitment Method (http://www.digitaldigressions.net/blog/2006/04/the_myersbricks.html)

I remember when my class in high school was recruited to do personality tests for the psych department of a major university. It was done after classes in the afternoon. Everyone started taking it seriously but after an hour we got bored - it was after 4 and we all wanted to go home. So a bunch of us sitting at the back of the classroom secretly conspired to screw up the test - we would put down random answers to the questions. When it was over we left laughing our heads off. Personality type - psychopath!

Test shows me to be a go-getter. Strange, as everyone seems to think I'm a has-been or a never-was.

back in the dim distant days when I were a lad, some of the sixth formers were being taught how to determine psychological types by measuring our skin resistance as we listened to taped stories of the weepy and emotional type.

It was quite funny how quickly we managed to work out how to screw the tests up by breath holding / bowel clenching / thinking of Raquel Welch
Totally wrecked the results - no consistency at all

on the whole, middle of the road A$$

'it-depends' for me, too. :p
The one that I really liked was Littauer's "Personality Plus". Which is very humorous and has a bit of quite bitter truth under the smooth surface. According to her there are Sanguines (fun and entertaining, but do not plan and can drive others crazy bec. of that), Melancholies (think, plan and execute, all for precision; also convinced that the world is a gloomy place generally), Cholerics (dominant and arrogant - I would never be rude or offensive if others did what told to! - and often they are right, also get things done, but...) and Phlegmatics (to ensure there's peace and diplomacy in the world... but their relaxed attitude is just too much for others at times when you actually need to do something).

Of course it's nothing new (the book is old, too), but the style is really fun. At least I found it highly amusing, but when I read out the passage about the Melancholy being drawn to the Sanguine because of their happy-go-lucky atmosphere, often choosing one as a spouse - and then sulking for the rest of their life about why the Sanguine does not take life more seriously, my spouse didn't laugh at all. (guess, why! :p). Also our friends are a couple of a Choleric (wife)/Phlegmatic and several stories rang the hilarious bells.
P.S I also got to know it's not any kind of mental deficiency not to remember where you parked the car, or go home and not notice it's not in front of the house (as the spouse has taken it to servicing). Just a Sanguine-thing.

And true, no-one is just one type, mostly something just dominates and others are there, too.

Mastermind as well. There seem to be a lot of us lurking around this forum...

http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef014e8952970e970d-800wi

It assumes the personality can be fitted into boxes. I can be introverted, I can be extrovert.

This statement reveals a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of personality. Of course, anyone can behave in an introverted or extroverted way when the situation demands. The real question is which situation energises you or exhausts you, or if you prefer, stresses you or de-stresses you.

An extrovert is energised by being with people and, if deprived of company for too long, becomes a little dispirited.

An introvert can be as sociable as anyone but eventually will need to get away for a spell to recharge their batteries.

Some people are happiest when they have clear rules to follow and become uneasy in a free environment. They tend to use words like "should" of "must".

Another personality type hates making decisions without all the facts before them It doesn't mean that they can't do it. It just means that they are more likely to become stressed when they do.

Intensities of the propensities determine whether and how one may be adjudged class or ass.

Of course, anyone can behave in an introverted or extroverted way when the situation demands. The real question is which situation energises you or exhausts you, or if you prefer, stresses you or de-stresses you.

An extrovert is energised by being with people and, if deprived of company for too long, becomes a little dispirited.

An introvert can be as sociable as anyone but eventually will need to get away for a spell to recharge their batteries.

Some people are happiest when they have clear rules to follow and become uneasy in a free environment. They tend to use words like "should" of "must".

Another personality type hates making decisions without all the facts before them It doesn't mean that they can't do it. It just means that they are more likely to become stressed when they do.

Of course this is right, but how does a simple test like the above define this for us :confused:

It never asks how happy we are to adjust to life among other human beings

Myers Briggs is rubbish, too.

When some Social Psychologists checked it, (as opposed to MB "trained" (read - mindwashed) psychologists, they found that the person administering the test introduced more variability than the people taking the test.

So if you ever took this test, your result probably reflects more about what you thought the administrator was like than it reflects what you are like.

These blooming psychologists need to be taught some science.

Years ago the company I then worked for intoduced these sorts of tests whenever you applied for an internal vacancy.

I sat one of these & completed it in the given timeframe (you had to tick the little boxes and it was a fixed time 10 minutes I think)

I then asked for another set of questions, to the bemusement of the HR person and did the test again. Then I got a third set of questions and did it again.

pretty well over the time I completed the same number of questions each go.

I didn't get the job... and soon after left that company. But the HR person was completely baffled that I could complete 3 sets and get 3 completely different sets of personality/apptitude etc. She said it was impossible to fake the test.

Oh yeah??

pulse1

It doesn't show a complete lack of understanding. I am well aware of the definitions for introvert and extrovert, and the underlying stress-reactions which you are talking about. What your response shows is that you aren't prepared to have your beliefs challenged. I said "I can be introverted" not "I can behave in an introverted manner" quite deliberately.
I have done various personality tests over the years, and my results were all over the shop. Never mind the fact that the testers assume you are responding openly, yet in my experience, especially for job interviews, people rarely are.

As for the assumption that one shouldn't get a job because one's "personality test" shows one might have underlying stressors, this is ridiculous without knowing what a person's reactions to stressors is. To my knowledge, no firms assess this (the military does). Tasks are much better undertaken by people who can cope with stress, rather than people who are naturally less stressed by a situation, but can't cope with stress when it does happen.

And one can beat the tests, even the long ones with the check questions.

Fox3,

What your response shows is that you aren't prepared to have your beliefs challenged.

Wow! I am intrigued to know how you come to that conclusion from my post. Perhaps you should be designing personality tests ;).

I can assure you that I am constantly having my beliefs challenged by Mrs p who runs courses on understanding personality and the effect on relationships.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post. I have used Myers Briggs tests at work and found them to be quite useful in helping people with different personalities to work together and overcome the idea most of us have that everyone should be like "me". However, for a lot of people who are very balanced in more than one attribute, quick tests are mostly useless.

Incidentally, one of the clearest results I ever had was my Sales Director whose initial response to the whole idea was totally negative. He reckoned that he could be anything he wanted to be.

After a quick test he came out as an ENTP (The Architect) and I reckon that whoever wrote the Myers Briggs profile must have known him. He was a perfect fit. Look it up and you can see that he was not easy to work with but, when our small team understood why he was like it, they could see his immense strong points and this helped them cope with the problems.

That's very reasonable of you, Pulse1.
The particular point I am making is that quite a few people do not have a fixed personality 'type', and either change between several of the Myers-Briggs types, or do not fit into the characteristics expected from whichever type the test indicates.
I understand that, in the best light, the aim of personality testing is to better fit people to tasks and/or groups. However, I really don't think they have enough validity to base an appointment on.
I feel the suitability of a candidate is much better judged by interview, and I have a very low opinion of the typical HR person's ability to judge suitability for a job they haven't done. HR should be advising and assisting managers, but far too often they are trying to take over from them. In short, HR are a bunch of Empire-builders, and personality tests is just one more way of trying to pretend they are more important than they are.

According to the stuff available online, the ideal character types for my various careers, all of which I was very good at and well suited to, are ENFJ, ESTJ, INTP and ISTP. A freebie online test tells me I'm ENTJ. When I read the characteristics, I would assess myself at the moment as ISTJ This appears to be a complete mix of opposites, or maybe the tests are rubbish.