The value of random on-line personality tests

[Ilah]

In terms of self understanding, I find that using Enneagram in addition to MBTI helps give me a more complete picture of myself than either one would alone. I think that taking other personality tests might be helpful in this as well. Each test giving me another piece of the puzzle or showing another aspect of myself.

I am looking at the sub-forum for on-line tests. Some of them, like "what supervillian are you" are clearly just for fun and don't really give you any insites into your personality. Others, like the value sorter or what type of thinker, could potential give insites.

How do you judge what is a good or useful test and what is not (excluding those that are obviously just for fun). I mean I could make up some categories and come up with some questions I think define it and slap a personality quiz up there. Ideally the tests would have some kind of psychology or logic or something behind them, but I can't really tell if they do or not.

So do I take them and then see if they seem valid based on how the results fit? Do I just regard them as all for fun and not view them as anything deeper? Do I look at various results and see if they form a pattern?

Ilah

[Jack Flak]

They're meaningless yet possibly fun unless they happen to be extremely accurate and useful.

[Mole]

In terms of self understanding, I find that using Enneagram in addition to MBTI helps give me a more complete picture of myself than either one would alone. I think that taking other personality tests might be helpful in this as well. Each test giving me another piece of the puzzle or showing another aspect of myself.

I am looking at the sub-forum for on-line tests. Some of them, like "what supervillian are you" are clearly just for fun and don't really give you any insites into your personality. Others, like the value sorter or what type of thinker, could potential give insites.

How do you judge what is a good or useful test and what is not (excluding those that are obviously just for fun). I mean I could make up some categories and come up with some questions I think define it and slap a personality quiz up there. Ideally the tests would have some kind of psychology or logic or something behind them, but I can't really tell if they do or not.

So do I take them and then see if they seem valid based on how the results fit? Do I just regard them as all for fun and not view them as anything deeper? Do I look at various results and see if they form a pattern?

Ilah

Personality tests are part of Psychometrics, and Psychometrics are part of Psychology.

So you could answer your questions by studying Psychometrics in a Psychology Department of a University.

Of you could simply ask a qualified Psychometrician.

But what is fascinating is that no one here studies Psychometrics or consults a Psychometrician.

Why is that?

It is exactly the same reason astrologers, and their multitude of followers, do not study Astronomy or consult Astronomers.

[Evan]

In terms of self understanding, I find that using Enneagram in addition to MBTI helps give me a more complete picture of myself than either one would alone. I think that taking other personality tests might be helpful in this as well. Each test giving me another piece of the puzzle or showing another aspect of myself.

I am looking at the sub-forum for on-line tests. Some of them, like "what supervillian are you" are clearly just for fun and don't really give you any insites into your personality. Others, like the value sorter or what type of thinker, could potential give insites.

How do you judge what is a good or useful test and what is not (excluding those that are obviously just for fun). I mean I could make up some categories and come up with some questions I think define it and slap a personality quiz up there. Ideally the tests would have some kind of psychology or logic or something behind them, but I can't really tell if they do or not.

So do I take them and then see if they seem valid based on how the results fit? Do I just regard them as all for fun and not view them as anything deeper? Do I look at various results and see if they form a pattern?

Ilah

I'd say think of them as fun only unless you can come up with a really good reason they would be somewhat reliable.

I think personality tests or multiple intelligence tests or whatever may correlate to actual ability, but not highly enough to think of as statistically valid.

Personality tests are part of Psychometrics, and Psychometrics are part of Psychology.

So you could answer your questions by studying Psychometrics in a Psychology Department of a University.

Of you could simply ask a qualified Psychometrician.

But what is fascinating is that no one here studies Psychometrics or consults a Psychometrician.

Why is that?

It is exactly the same reason astrologers, and their multitude of followers, do not study Astronomy or consult Astronomers.

Just because someone goes to school in one area doesn't mean you should blindly trust them. I've studied lots of areas of Cognitive Science and statistics, and I certainly trust my opinion about the validity of these tests more than someone with some random title.

[Mole]

Just because someone goes to school in one area doesn't mean you should blindly trust them. I've studied lots of areas of Cognitive Science and statistics, and I certainly trust my opinion about the validity of these tests more than someone with some random title.

They are not titles - they are qualifications.

And to earn a doctorate in Psychology from a certified University takes a very long time.

In exactly the same way it takes a very long time to earn a doctorate in Astronomy.

And of course you should not blindly trust anyone.

However we can reasonably trust an Astronomer with a doctorate to tell us about the stars; just as we can reasonably trust a Psychometrician with a doctorate to tell us about personality tests.

Of course instead of blindly following MBTI, you could study Psychometrics and have an informed opinion.

[burkeus]

Do you enjoy reading my mind and e-mails?

[Jack Flak]

I have had suspicions that Victor is an electronic deity.