Jung Typology Test

[coineineagh]

Although I understand Rich Burlew's time is precious, I was wondering if he might be interested in taking a personality test, if he hasn't already:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
For you other guys, the test will probably be a revalation for you. It's like reading the perfect life horoscope of your character, with all your strengths and especially weaknesses. There's some great YT vids about personality types, too, if you want more detailed infotainment.
Personality types are not good or bad, so don't view it as an IQ or competence test.

I'm and INTJ myself. Introvert, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging.
I'm always amazed by what gems Rich manages to produce, the humour, the aesthetics, the depth of plot... I'm just curious what personality produced them.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Rich might be INFP, because so many great writers are:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php
Of course I hope Rich drops by to post a four-letter-word, but I'd also be interested to know what the majority of the board users are too. Most D&D enthusiasts are probably Introverts, and I wonder what other similarities they/we have.

[woweedd]

I hate these ****ing things. They're way too easy to game. It's incredibly easy to get the result you want just by lying, especially if you know the types. Also, they have no scientific weight whatsoever according to most psychologists and as someone interested in psychology, the fact that so many people in the world swear by them just me incredibly mad:smallfurious:

[Gift Jeraff]

I'm INWH. Intelligent, Nihilistic, and with a Wicked sense of Humour.

[coineineagh]

@woweedd: Calm down dude. It's just a test. It's a label that's much less meaningful than the IQ test, which strikes deep into your personal worth by giving you a 1-dimensional hierarchical number; a powerful value judgement. Many people who view people as static entities dread the IQ test, because it seems like the end of the story; a prediction of all they can ever be. But my IQ was raised a lot by going to university; I scored 40 points higher than my mother for the same test. It probably dropped by now, because I haven't been doing mentally challenging things for years. In summary: IQ is emergent and changeable, so most people completely misunderstand its significance. That's no reason to write off the IQ test entirely.

This Jung thing is a very benign test. As far as psychologists go, Jung was way better than Freud, who made his work into a populist cult. Yes, psychology is a century behind where it should be right now, but that's not to say everything psychological is bunk. This test seems accurate to me. And the label might even be changeable; I'm only 11% Introvert, so maybe I will be an ENTJ one day.

One way I easily debunk rubbish like horoscopes: I'm Cancer, maybe my horoscope sounds like it's about me, but hey: so do Leo and Capricorn's horoscopes.
Do the test, find your type, read the summary. Then read a few random other character type summaries. Could they just as easily describe you? I highly doubt it.

I'm INWH. Intelligent, Nihilistic, and with a Wicked sense of Humour.
After a lame, predictable joke like that, you have a lot to make up for.:smalltongue:

[woweedd]

@woweedd: Calm down dude. It's just a test. It's a label that's much less meaningful than the IQ test, which strikes deep into your personal worth by giving you a 1-dimensional hierarchical number; a powerful value judgement. Many people who view people as static entities dread the IQ test, because it seems like the end of the story; a prediction of all they can ever be. But my IQ was raised a lot by going to university; I scored 40 points higher than my mother for the same test. It probably dropped by now, because I haven't been doing mentally challenging things for years. In summary: IQ is emergent and changeable, so most people completely misunderstand its significance. That's no reason to write off the IQ test entirely.

This Jung thing is a very benign test. As far as psychologists go, Jung was way better than Freud, who made his work into a populist cult. Yes, psychology is a century behind where it should be right now, but that's not to say everything psychological is bunk. This test seems accurate to me. And the label might even be changeable; I'm only 11% Introvert, so maybe I will be an ENTJ one day.

One way I easily debunk rubbish like horoscopes: I'm Cancer, maybe my horoscope sounds like it's about me, but hey: so do Leo and Capricorn's horoscopes.
Do the test, find your type, read the summary. Then read a few random other character type summaries. Could they just as easily describe you? I highly doubt it.

After a lame, predictable joke like that, you have a lot to make up for.:smalltongue:
Yeah, the problem is PEOPLE LIE.

[Rakoa]

Yeah, the problem is PEOPLE LIE.

People can lie. But I don't see the benefit of that other than to be obstinate.

[Murk]

This seemed like a post that might be better suited for, say, friendly banter than the Order of the Stick, I thought. But then wowweed made an interesting point: you don't have to make this test "with your own personality", so to say. It might be pretty interesting to try fill out the test for a few characters from the comic.
Even better: how do different readers perceive the characters? If we try to fill out the test "as Roy", do we get the same results, or does everyone have a different perception about Roy?

Science!

Or, comics!

[King of Nowhere]

well, woweedd exaggerated, but i do concur that those tests are nowhere near as good as they are supposed to be. It's because of a human tendency to interpret a generic statement in a way that applies to oneself, especially when the subject is predisposed to trust the source of the statement; it's called the barnum effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect).
I did that very test a few months ago from another site (i don't remember how i resulted), and it told me nothing about myself that i didn't knew before. It then proceeded to tell me "did you find amazing how well this test describes you? did you get the impression that we know you better than you know yourself? We'lll give you an even more complete profile full of deep truths about yourself if you pay us" which is basically a nice way to set up an internet scam.

Anyway, don't you think suspicious that someone can give you 60 questions and then they know you better than you do? So whenever someone can claim to "know me" by getting some generic answers to some generic questions I think that guy must have a very shallow concept of "knowing" someone. If they claim that they can tell me something about me that i didn't knew before, I think they must have a fairly low opinion of me.

I don't know, I suppose there must be people cruising through life without ever second guessing themselves or wondering why they take some decisions rather than others, who never try to figure out what kind of people they are, and those may get some useful data out of a test. Most people don't need it.

[littlebum2002]

Plus, doesn't it seem like a lot of the questions are repetitive? I count at least 5 questions that basically ask "are you spontaneous or do you plan in advance?"

[cobaltstarfire]

Plus, doesn't it seem like a lot of the questions are repetitive? I count at least 5 questions that basically ask "are you spontaneous or do you plan in advance?"

That's being done on purpose, though I can't properly explain in words what is going on there. But most tests like this or similar that ask a lot of the same question worded differently are doing it for a reason.


I had to take these tests a couple of times between highschool and early college, and usually get INTP, they're really only good for capturing the broadest strokes of a persons character though, and have never been particularly useful to me.

[serenetempest]

There are a few issues with the myers-briggs theory. One is that by framing personality as 16 distinct types, it implies that most people should have a distinct preference on the personality axes. But the data that's been collected to test this prediction actually shows that most people tend to fall closer to the middle of the axes. Another way of putting it is that the theory predicts that the majority people should be either distinctly introverted or distinctly extraverted (for example), whereas the data suggests that the majority of people are balanced.

Another issue is that of the two personality spectrums with the most solid evidence, only one is represented in the myers-briggs theory (introversion-extraversion). The other is neuroticism (basically, one's propensity to be affected by negative emotions).

I do think the theory sometimes gets dismissed for not being perfect. I'm an INTP according to the theory, and if nothing else it gives me an ideal to live up to and helps me better recognize some of my weaknesses so I can work on improving them. But I would advise thinking of the theory as very much a work in progress on building a robust theory of personality.

[coineineagh]

I get it already, guys. You've been there, you've done that, and you disapprove because it's beneath you.
I was just curious about some info, I got BSed with "you ask a bad question."

I did that very test a few months ago from another site (i don't remember how i resulted), and it told me nothing about myself that i didn't knew before. It then proceeded to tell me "did you find amazing how well this test describes you? did you get the impression that we know you better than you know yourself? We'lll give you an even more complete profile full of deep truths about yourself if you pay us" which is basically a nice way to set up an internet scam.
Oh dearie me, some psychologists offered their services online for a fee? What a malicious scam; far worse than Nigerian princes, Oprah or Dr. Phil, and with no basis in actual research. Do you think you're going to be OK, after being scammed like that?

Did any of you INTPs just google the highest average IQ personality type by any chance, to decide which label provides you the most face? It's definitely true that PEOPLE LIE. And it's not worth discussing things with people who won't even make the effort to meet you halfway, which reminds me why I rarely visit this forum.

[Prinygod]

I get it already, guys. You've been there, you've done that, and you disapprove because it's beneath you.
I was just curious about some info, I got BSed with "you ask a bad question."

Oh dearie me, some psychologists offered their services online for a fee? What a malicious scam; far worse than Nigerian princes, Oprah or Dr. Phil, and with no basis in actual research. Do you think you're going to be OK, after being scammed like that?

Did any of you INTPs just google the highest average IQ personality type by any chance, to decide which label provides you the most face? It's definitely true that PEOPLE LIE. And it's not worth discussing things with people who won't even make the effort to meet you halfway, which reminds me why I rarely visit this forum.

If you think that test us neat, you should try my 100% effective hand writing personality test. Just fill out a Blank check and send it to me and by using my special scientific technique I'll inform you how gullible you are. Satisfaction guaranteed (for me)

[Vinyadan]

I thought authors were normally asked for autographs and free merchandise, not personality tests :smallbiggrin:

[The Giant]

If someone asks a question that doesn't interest you, folks, just ignore it. You are not required to post in a thread to say that you disagree with the very premise of the thread. Just don't post. The alternative is called threadcrapping, and we don't look kindly on it.

That said, there is absolutely zero chance of me answering the original question, because my psychological profile is none of anyone's business. I'm not going to put that out there to have it be picked apart or used as fodder for criticizing me or the comic. ("Of course Roy did such-and-such, because Rich is a XXXX type.") No thanks.

Given that and the needlessly hostile turn this thread has taken, I'm locking it.