A basic problem with this kinds of tests is that it's too easy to interpret the results to fit a very wide range of personalities - just like a horoscope will fit just about everyone who believes in them.
But they're still fun, and might give a hint about some general tendencies.
That's not really comparable, though. That question is "what's your birthday", not "answer a bunch of ambiguous questions and see if the made up blurb that results is applicable to you".
There's also the aspect of giving the "right" answers to achieve a desired result. It's not very difficult to e.g. get an inrovert or extrovert type, and everyone knows that "real" hackers are introvert, so...
Basically it's not science, definitely not in this form.
[edit: I would have expected more extroverts in the results here, since the target audience is entrepreneurial hackers. Maybe it's the proggit exodus that's showing?]
I doubt that people actually bother to lie on the test to get a specific result, especially here. Noone knows anyone else's type, and even if they did, they could always just lie.
My point was that the constant claims that these categorisations were qualitatively indistinguishable from the zodiac are patently false, and there's the evidence.
Derren Brown did a magic trick where he gave people scary accurate statements of their personality. At least that's what they thought: they were all given the same text.
I think that xenophanes is referring to Bertram Forer. Here's the text he used in his class, taken from the Wikipedia article on the Forer effect:
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."
I am referring to Derren Brown, a magician/mentalist on UK TV. I didn't think it was an original trick, though. And I don't have the text, but yours is nice, and I wouldn't expect it to work too well on HN readers anyway. They might generally agree with the text, but I think a lot of them would not be fooled into believing the text contains detailed, non-generic personal information about them.
Comments
I 100% disagree... I found it to be extremely accurate. Like Scary Accurate.
You mean scary accurate like a horoscope?
A basic problem with this kinds of tests is that it's too easy to interpret the results to fit a very wide range of personalities - just like a horoscope will fit just about everyone who believes in them.
But they're still fun, and might give a hint about some general tendencies.
Compare and contrast distrubitions;
above vs http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=943884
So no, not scary accurate like a horoscope. :)
That's not really comparable, though. That question is "what's your birthday", not "answer a bunch of ambiguous questions and see if the made up blurb that results is applicable to you".
There's also the aspect of giving the "right" answers to achieve a desired result. It's not very difficult to e.g. get an inrovert or extrovert type, and everyone knows that "real" hackers are introvert, so...
Basically it's not science, definitely not in this form.
[edit: I would have expected more extroverts in the results here, since the target audience is entrepreneurial hackers. Maybe it's the proggit exodus that's showing?]
I doubt that people actually bother to lie on the test to get a specific result, especially here. Noone knows anyone else's type, and even if they did, they could always just lie.
My point was that the constant claims that these categorisations were qualitatively indistinguishable from the zodiac are patently false, and there's the evidence.
Derren Brown did a magic trick where he gave people scary accurate statements of their personality. At least that's what they thought: they were all given the same text.
Excellent. Could you run the text by HN and see if we think the same thing?
I think that xenophanes is referring to Bertram Forer. Here's the text he used in his class, taken from the Wikipedia article on the Forer effect:
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."
I am referring to Derren Brown, a magician/mentalist on UK TV. I didn't think it was an original trick, though. And I don't have the text, but yours is nice, and I wouldn't expect it to work too well on HN readers anyway. They might generally agree with the text, but I think a lot of them would not be fooled into believing the text contains detailed, non-generic personal information about them.
Brown's text was longer, but he credits it as Forer's idea originally (in his book 'Tricks of the Mind' p322)