The Square Community, The Dudeist Community, and Personality Types

[Quaker Dude]

Wow, so so far we've got INFJ's and INFP's.

I'm an ENFP.  Maybe that's why I spend so much time blathering about this stuff.

[forumdude]

This is a very interesting topic. I personally seem to vacillate between INTP and ENTP, depending on my mood. Heading more towards INTP as I get older and I drink less!

[meekon5]

INFP - The "Dreamer"
Temperament: NF (Visionary)   
Primary Function: Introverted Feeling
Population: 2% (1.5% male, 2.5% female)   
INFP Overview
(info, people, careers...)

Not too surprise with this one. In fact could have probably told you that if you'd asked me directly.

The problem with such psychological profiling is the quality of the data behind it.

[Tripnastic]

The Meyers-Brigg has good validation behind it. The problem is, that validation doesn't extend to what it's normally used for, which is workplace personalities. 

So us using it in a forum will yield fairly accurate results, but a hiring manager using it in the interview process, or a workplace giving it so that you'll understand each other better is not going to get as valid of results.

[cckeiser]

We seem to be N (iNtuitive) dominant so far.
Anyone else?

[cckeiser]

This is a very interesting topic. I personally seem to vacillate between INTP and ENTP, depending on my mood. Heading more towards INTP as I get older and I drink less!

When did take the test last?
Which test did you take.
There are several test on several different web site. The link I left was only the first to pop up on a google search and may or may not be the same as the one I took 5 years ago.
The first one I took and scored INFJ had only 70 questions. 5 years later I took one with 120 questions, but scored exactly the same.
I may take it again and try to reply as I think The Dude would reply, but am afraid it would score INFJ yet again!
Yeah, I may be just a little bit prejudice here, but in my opinion, I believe The Dude is also INFJ!
Which is one of the reasons I have not taken the test as The Dude...who would believe me!?

[cckeiser]

There is something else we could try. "Someone" take the test, make a copy of the questions and post them on the forum. Then we could all vote on how we each think The Dude would reply to each question!
That way, when he comes out INFJ, you all will all know I'm not cheatin'!

[meekon5]

OK I've not properly explained why I don't think this kind of "test" actually works.

So here goes:

When any such test is compiled the main problem is to do with standard deviation of the sample used to base the assumptions on.

The basic idea is that any population should fit a standard deviation. For instance age in a country.

DudeSD_0 by meekon5, on Flickr

Here x is age and y is number of people.

The main assumption is that certain percentages of the population lie in certain areas of the graph.

DudeSD_1 by meekon5, on Flickr

Here 80% are in the red, 90% in the red and green together, and 95% of the population tested in the coloured areas.

Why is this important?

The idea is you test a population and compile the data, then when other people do the test you are able to match the individual and make assumptions about what the result says.

DudeSD_2 by meekon5, on Flickr

So in the test population a score of one (1) give type (a) person.

This is fine only if the test population is similar enough (almost identical) to the user population. Usually you test randomly and large enough sizes of people to ensure the data is fairly robust.

The problem hits when the test population (A) is different from the user population (B).

DudeSD_3 by meekon5, on Flickr

So when you test as we did above.

DudeSD_4 by meekon5, on Flickr

Here the test population suggests score (1) is person type (a), but because the user base is different the actual person type in the user population is (b).

This is a small difference which already starts to drift the results, but what if the user population is radically different from the test one. The bigger the user base and the smaller your sample the further the problem becomes.

DudeSD_5 by meekon5, on Flickr

Here you can see score (1) gives a small difference of result, but score (2) gives a huge difference.

If you test a thousand people in the UK (approximately 60 million population) and then generalise the whole UK population must be the same, you are assuming that a 0.0016% of the population represents the rest of the country. A five thousand person test is only 0.0083% of the population. Even a ten thousand person test represents 0.0166% of the population. If you then take the test and publish on the web your ten thousand divided by 6.91 billion becomes a very small percentage to rest your assumptions on.

Secondly if you test ten thousand UK people then expect other world populations to match your test set. How can you expect Zulu's to compare with the UK population, or Japan. Even with much of the similarity between the UK and the US there are vast cultural differences that negate the data being usable for both populations.

Even continually re-assessing the data and updating it with new results, or even testing different populations and using particular tests for particular groups still falls at the surety test.

The argument that I am essentially building here is that any IQ, brain training, or personality type test is only as good as the test data it is built on, and how closely I as a user am to the test data. You can only test a finite set of people, and no matter how different the set is (how diverse) they will never properly represent a general population.

So it is pointless taking a set of people and making assumptions on the rest of the population and creating a standard test.

IMHO of course.

[Tripnastic]

There is something else we could try. "Someone" take the test, make a copy of the questions and post them on the forum. Then we could all vote on how we each think The Dude would reply to each question!
That way, when he comes out INFJ, you all will all know I'm not cheatin'!

This is gonna take a while....I bolded the ones that I think, but that's just my opinion dude.  It was hard, because the Dude obviously socializes and cares (his college days protesting, regular bowling leagues) but we also see him enjoying his alone time in the tub and listening to his walkman. After we come to a consensus, I'll plug them in and we'll see what we get!

  1. You are almost never late for your appointments
     YES   NO
  2. You like to be engaged in an active and fast-paced job
     YES   NO
  3. You enjoy having a wide circle of acquaintances
     YES   NO
  4. You feel involved when watching TV soaps
     YES   NO
  5. You are usually the first to react to a sudden event:
     the telephone ringing or unexpected question
     YES   NO
  6. You are more interested in a general idea than in the details of its realization
     YES   NO
  7. You tend to be unbiased even if this might endanger
     your good relations with people
     YES   NO
  8. Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent a good outcome
     YES   NO
  9. It's difficult to get you excited
     YES   NO
 10. It is in your nature to assume responsibility
     YES   NO
 11. You often think about humankind and its destiny
     YES   NO
 12. You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed
     YES   NO
 13. Objective criticism is always useful in any activity
     YES   NO
 14. You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate
     about various options
     YES   NO
 15. You trust reason rather than feelings
     YES   NO
 16. You are inclined to rely more on improvisation
     than on careful planning
     YES   NO
 17. You spend your leisure time actively socializing
     with a group of people, attending parties, shopping, etc.
     YES   NO
 18. You usually plan your actions in advance
     YES   NO
 19. Your actions are frequently influenced by emotions
     YES   NO
 20. You are a person somewhat reserved and distant in communication
     YES   NO
 21. You know how to put every minute of your
     time to good purpose
     YES   NO
 22. You readily help people while asking nothing in return
     YES   NO
 23. You often contemplate about the complexity of life
     YES   NO
 24. After prolonged socializing you feel you need
     to get away and be alone
     YES   NO
 25. You often do jobs in a hurry
     YES   NO
 26. You easily see the general principle behind
     specific occurrences
     YES   NO
 27. You frequently and easily express your feelings and emotions
     YES   NO
 28. You find it difficult to speak loudly
     YES   NO
 29. You get bored if you have to read theoretical books
     YES   NO
 30. You tend to sympathize with other people
     YES   NO
 31. You value justice higher than mercy
     YES   NO
 32. You rapidly get involved in social life
     at a new workplace
     YES   NO
 33. The more people with whom you speak, the better you feel
     YES   NO
 34. You tend to rely on your experience rather than
     on theoretical alternatives
     YES   NO
 35. You like to keep a check on how things
     are progressing
     YES   NO
 36. You easily empathize with the concerns of other people
     YES   NO
 37. Often you prefer to read a book than go to a party
     YES   NO
 38. You enjoy being at the center of events in which
     other people are directly involved
     YES   NO
 39. You are more inclined to experiment than
     to follow familiar approaches
     YES   NO
 40. You avoid being bound by obligations
     YES   NO
 41. You are strongly touched by the stories about people's troubles
     YES   NO
 42. Deadlines seem to you to be of relative, rather than absolute, importance
     YES   NO
 43. You prefer to isolate yourself from outside noises
     YES   NO
 44. It's essential for you to try things with your own hands
     YES   NO
 45. You think that almost everything can be analyzed
     YES   NO
 46. You do your best to complete a task on time
     YES   NO
 47. You take pleasure in putting things in order
     YES   NO
 48. You feel at ease in a crowd
     YES   NO
 49. You have good control over your desires and temptations
     YES   NO
 50. You easily understand new theoretical principles
     YES   NO
 51. The process of searching for solution is more
     important to you than the solution itself
     YES   NO
 52. You usually place yourself nearer to the side
     than in the center of the room
     YES   NO
 53. When solving a problem you would rather follow
     a familiar approach than seek a new one
     YES   NO
 54. You try to stand firmly by your principles
     YES   NO
 55. A thirst for adventure is close to your heart
     YES   NO
 56. You prefer meeting in small groups to interaction
     with lots of people
     YES   NO
 57. When considering a situation you pay more attention to
     the current situation and less to a possible sequence of events
     YES   NO
 58. You consider the scientific approach to be the best
     YES   NO
 59. You find it difficult to talk about your feelings
     YES   NO
 60. You often spend time thinking of how things
     could be improved
     YES   NO
 61. Your decisions are based more on the feelings
     of a moment than on the careful planning
     YES   NO
 62. You prefer to spend your leisure time alone
     or relaxing in a tranquil family atmosphere
     YES   NO
 63. You feel more comfortable sticking to
     conventional ways
     YES   NO
 64. You are easily affected by strong emotions
     YES   NO
 65. You are always looking for opportunities
     YES   NO
 66. Your desk, workbench etc. is usually neat and orderly
     YES   NO
 67. As a rule, current preoccupations worry
     you more than your future plans
     YES   NO
 68. You get pleasure from solitary walks
     YES   NO
 69. It is easy for you to communicate in social situations
     YES   NO
 70. You are consistent in your habits
     YES   NO
 71. You willingly involve yourself in matters
     which engage your sympathies
     YES   NO
 72. You easily perceive various ways
     in which events could develop
     YES   NO

[Tripnastic]

Also, Meekon,  my wife says the central limit theorem is something you may want to explore, as it is the basis for the validity of these types of things.  This is all going way above my head though, as I am a lowly biologist type dude.   She agrees that there are definitely cultural differences, and sites that as the reason for so many cross cultural studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

[meekon5]

I was thinking it would be easier to set this up as a poll but that does mean setting up 72 questions.

Too much like work for this dude.

like this :

http://dudeism.com/smf/index.php?topic=2082.0

[meekon5]

Also, Meekon,  my wife says the central limit theorem is something you may want to explore, as it is the basis for the validity of these types of things.  This is all going way above my head though, as I am a lowly biologist type dude.   She agrees that there are definitely cultural differences, and sites that as the reason for so many cross cultural studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

Nice link, also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_tests

Which has some nice stuff on Binet (one of the originators of IQ tests), my main problem with all this is it's roots in eugenics, and the idea that people can be categorised and classified and measured (at the risk of becoming subject to Godwin's law) and all the links with the Nazis.

[Banjo Dude]

I like your illustration of some of the math behind the issue there, Meekon.

I read this fantastic book once, I am inclined to doubt that you really "need to" read it, but you might enjoy it anyway, and I'm pretty sure someone here could benefit from it, simply statistically speaking.

http://www.innumeracy.com

^ this is the site of the book's author, and could probably do a significantly better job than I of describing what it's about.

[edit: no, it's not, but it appears to be in the same vein. Didn't really look at it before posting, did I?]

Interesting... I didn't catch that the title "innumeracy" was a term coined by Douglas Hofstadter;  I would have imagined that fact would have stood out, as I enjoyed the hell out of Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach" (not even going to TRY to make an umlaut )

Now, THAT was one hell of a read, GEB was.  Best musical fugue pretending to be a book, drawing from one of Lewis Carrol's stories, about mathematics and art, but not really, that _I've_ ever read.  If you've ever wondered why contrapuntal music is such an experience to listen to (or play) or thought that a bee colony might be the more appropriate thing to address as the unit organism rather than a single bee, I suggest you check it out.

[Caesar dude]

I have innumeracy on my bookshelf...excellent reading material. 

[justjake]

Wow, so so far we've got INFJ's and INFP's.

I'm an ENFP.  Maybe that's why I spend so much time blathering about this stuff.

Hey fellow ENFP here.