HN Guidelines: “Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.”
Personally, I took the test and got:
“A weak sense of space
Spatial skills are important in lots of things: Math, athletics, music and coding are just some examples.
Feelers in this group may struggle in these areas or need to find unconventional ways to approach the topics through the other arguments.”
Which is the exact opposite of me…
Idk but something feels off about the thing. OP says things that sound exactly like a bipolar mania: “I'm at an inflection point in my life, if you read the rest of the post. I've become very very powerful.”
“You don't know my name now, but I promise you. You will.”
I'm going to be transparent, when I read your post I assumed it was a dismissal that's a bit too shallow. Having read the article and taken the test, both sound uncomfortably like the writer has some sort of disordered thinking (e.g. has been really hitting the amphetamines). It's a little unhinged.
But as with all personality tests, it's fun to take. As with all such tests, the things they say are general enough that they apply to most people relatively well. It's like reading a horoscope - meant to entertain. The meaning ascribed to it in the article this post references is not something I could find.
Usually the proper way to handle this is to flag and/or send a mail to hn [at] ycombinator.com; probably just the latter because there are a minimum number of flags required for any story to be taken off the page, while the issue at hand is a bit serious.
(For this one, I just sent an email; and it might be a good idea to introduce a reason for flagging that might help set various thresholds for moderator actions on the story.)
I received the same result, and similarly have strong spatial skills (among other divergences from the archetype). Taking a look through the others, none of them describe me particularly well. The author of the article touches on this when they mention how low-energy and emotionally moderated people find the personality test less interesting, but I would expand this to say that the results overrepresent 'type-A' and adjacent personality types, while the characterizations of those less goal-oriented, introverts, and so on are rather lacking.
I confess I failed to properly familiarize myself with the HN guidelines. I absolutely did not intend to violate them. I will review and avoid violations in the future.
I have made some mistakes as a result of this semi-manic phase and I've taken steps to calm myself so they don't happen again.
All that said, I hope the material I shared is interesting regardless. It is ultimately just some interesting ideas, not a guaranteed way to become super powerful or anything silly like that.
This test should be subjected to rigorous scientific validation to make any objective claims about its utility. One place we want to start is a basic smell check of the Barnum effect. If that doesn't pan out, I believe that we (myself, the test creator, and any other individuals promoting the test) will own up to it. We are happy to be wrong and learn from it.
I'm intrigued by the analysis of emotions and dualities and priorities. (I didn't understand the concept of "beats", but maybe I would if I read it again.) I strongly affirm the framing that "all emotions [even the strong, 'negative' ones, like anger and disgust] have value".
I didn't think much of the outcome of the quiz. I answered honestly, and was assigned "Dragon Slayer" (interestingly, like the author of this post). I plausibly recognized myself in most of the descriptions. Then I clicked on the "random" button, and read another breakdown of another personality type. I plausibly recognized myself in most of those descriptions, too.
I think this trades on the technique that makes horoscopes and tarot readings attractive: write gnomically, and positively, and your audience will fill in enough blanks to make anything plausibly applicable to themselves.
But, maybe that's just my analytical Dragon Slayer archetype talking. :-)
I'm happy for anyone who derives psychologically-useful insights out of this framework.
Even if it isn't scientifically rigorous, I feel it's ( slightly) better than a horoscope in that it at least provides an opportunity for self reflection.
On the whole, one of the difficulties with tests like these is that we tend to have multiple "roles" we take on in different situations (there's a psychological term for this that I can't recall). We might be analytical and impartial at work, but emotion-driven when interacting with friends and family. It's difficult for tests like this to take into account the fact that we might feel differently about a question depending on the role we are currently in.
That's a good insight, and I agree with everything you wrote.
Side note about horoscopes, or something similar. My sister is pretty far out on the 'woo' side of things, and one of her side gigs is doing 'readings', based on some method that (as far as I can tell) she largely made up. She's a bit canny (at least with me!) about the extent to which she believes in the fortune telling side of it, but she firmly believes that the process opens people up for self reflection, and that the conversations she then has with her clients (some of whom have been with her for years) provide real value. I believe her about that! She's a wise person, and I value her advice a great deal, even though I excuse myself from the 'woo'.
All that's to say that self-reflection is useful and good, and deep conversations with trusted people even better. I try not to be too critical of anything someone finds leads them to those valuable experiences. (Unless, of course, it costs life-changing amounts of money, or otherwise damages other parts of participants' person or identity. There's a special hell - or should be - for people who prey on vulnerable people in those ways.)
14 comments
[ 30.6 ms ] story [ 961 ms ] threadhttps://x.com/getnormality/status/1817334956814692445
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN Guidelines: “Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.”
Personally, I took the test and got:
“A weak sense of space
Spatial skills are important in lots of things: Math, athletics, music and coding are just some examples.
Feelers in this group may struggle in these areas or need to find unconventional ways to approach the topics through the other arguments.”
Which is the exact opposite of me…
Idk but something feels off about the thing. OP says things that sound exactly like a bipolar mania: “I'm at an inflection point in my life, if you read the rest of the post. I've become very very powerful.”
“You don't know my name now, but I promise you. You will.”
Just because they took a 16 Q personality test.
But as with all personality tests, it's fun to take. As with all such tests, the things they say are general enough that they apply to most people relatively well. It's like reading a horoscope - meant to entertain. The meaning ascribed to it in the article this post references is not something I could find.
(For this one, I just sent an email; and it might be a good idea to introduce a reason for flagging that might help set various thresholds for moderator actions on the story.)
CliftonStrengths were much more accurate and actually helped me understand one coworker better after we all took the test.
I confess I failed to properly familiarize myself with the HN guidelines. I absolutely did not intend to violate them. I will review and avoid violations in the future.
I have made some mistakes as a result of this semi-manic phase and I've taken steps to calm myself so they don't happen again.
All that said, I hope the material I shared is interesting regardless. It is ultimately just some interesting ideas, not a guaranteed way to become super powerful or anything silly like that.
This test should be subjected to rigorous scientific validation to make any objective claims about its utility. One place we want to start is a basic smell check of the Barnum effect. If that doesn't pan out, I believe that we (myself, the test creator, and any other individuals promoting the test) will own up to it. We are happy to be wrong and learn from it.
I didn't think much of the outcome of the quiz. I answered honestly, and was assigned "Dragon Slayer" (interestingly, like the author of this post). I plausibly recognized myself in most of the descriptions. Then I clicked on the "random" button, and read another breakdown of another personality type. I plausibly recognized myself in most of those descriptions, too.
I think this trades on the technique that makes horoscopes and tarot readings attractive: write gnomically, and positively, and your audience will fill in enough blanks to make anything plausibly applicable to themselves.
But, maybe that's just my analytical Dragon Slayer archetype talking. :-)
I'm happy for anyone who derives psychologically-useful insights out of this framework.
On the whole, one of the difficulties with tests like these is that we tend to have multiple "roles" we take on in different situations (there's a psychological term for this that I can't recall). We might be analytical and impartial at work, but emotion-driven when interacting with friends and family. It's difficult for tests like this to take into account the fact that we might feel differently about a question depending on the role we are currently in.
Side note about horoscopes, or something similar. My sister is pretty far out on the 'woo' side of things, and one of her side gigs is doing 'readings', based on some method that (as far as I can tell) she largely made up. She's a bit canny (at least with me!) about the extent to which she believes in the fortune telling side of it, but she firmly believes that the process opens people up for self reflection, and that the conversations she then has with her clients (some of whom have been with her for years) provide real value. I believe her about that! She's a wise person, and I value her advice a great deal, even though I excuse myself from the 'woo'.
All that's to say that self-reflection is useful and good, and deep conversations with trusted people even better. I try not to be too critical of anything someone finds leads them to those valuable experiences. (Unless, of course, it costs life-changing amounts of money, or otherwise damages other parts of participants' person or identity. There's a special hell - or should be - for people who prey on vulnerable people in those ways.)
Personally, I’m a fan of the Enneagram. But it, too, has no scientific backing.