Ask Lemmy

The love language test in part because it was a great way to start a conversation about our romantic needs with my spouse.

I enjoy the D&D alignment chart.

The ones for autism :•|

The one that confirmed I should talk to a psychiatrist about a possible ADHD diagnosis.

Most typological approaches to personality are BS. Take Meyers Briggs as an example. If you are 51% extroverted, you are an extrovert, supposedly having more in common with someone who scored 100% on that same metric than an “introvert” who scored 49% on that metric.

None really work, generally, but all try to make you think about the various factors involved and how other people might approach things differently from you, which is why they can be helpful:-).

The gold standard in personality tests is the NEO PI-R.

I'd recommend the book Me Myself and Us by Dr. Brian Little. Or even just search YouTube for lectures he's given.

I've heard the love language test is pretty decent

MBTI is astrology for people who think they're too smart for astrology

Official Hogwarts House Sorting Quiz

Nope, they are all made up recruiting companies to try and justify their ridiculous fees.

Requiring personality tests is just admitting that you are socially incompetent.

Big 5 personality test

I used to have a job that was really into the Core Value Index. I thought it was pretty awesome because their categories were really simple and there are only 4 so you can really wrap your head around the whole thing at once.

It's not a full personality test, it's more focused on trying to answer the question "How do you want ideas presented to you?" And. "How do you prefer to interpret ideas?" I found myself making meanful changes in how I worked with coworkers where I knew their results, which isn't something anyone can manage with more complicated tests.

I really got a lot out of the Myres Briggs when I was younger. I know its not scientifically valid, and it's stupid of folks take it too seriously, but it really helped young me understand that other people weren't wrong/dumb/weird for approaching things differently. And it helped me understand some of the axis on which difference can lie in a helpful way.

I think in the post internet age people are very aware of different categories and identities, but growing up in the previous millenium it wasn't something that we talked about much. The introvert / extrovert division is overblown and overly simplistic nowadays, but before people use to just criticise each other for being "too shy" or "too loud" like there was a "normal" way to be that everyone should get.

The big five is certainly more reliable and scientifically supported, but I never found that it helped me understand a coworker or friend better. Partly I think conscientiousness and neuroticism sound a little too value laden. People can happily self describe as "detail orientated" (Sensing) or "big picture types" (Intuitive) but nobody really wants to say "I'm closed-off and unconscientious". And I think that's why MB has been popular in business / organisation worlds, because it's a useful way to get people discussing themselves and how they approach problems. It doesn't matter that in reality my level of extraversion varies depending on the context, or I'm Judging in certain tasks but Perceiving in others.

I'm kind of a fan of the True Colors system but not because I "believe it". More so that I just like that it makes you stop and consider how other people you're interacting with might consider your behaviors and vice versa.

• green: independent thinkers (logic driven, efficient, analytical)
• gold: pragmatic planners (organized, responsible, respect rules and authority)
• orange: action-oriented (short term changes, adventurous, impulsive)
• blue: people-oriented (sympathetic, emotion driven, seeks harmony in groups)

Our exercise at work first required you to classify yourself, then everyone else voted to classify you. So you could get a picture of how you can see yourself compared to how others see you.

I think what helps the most for facilitating the conversation is that it groups traits that are similar under a single color, so you can quickly say "I'm gold, I think this other person is green", then start diving into how one set of actions might be perceived by the other, etc. We didn't take a personality test. We just went straight in with "here's what I think I am", so there's no questionnaire pigeonholing you into something you might not identify with.

It helped me interact with my co-worker (and close friend outside of work), because he's very impulse driven and constantly spitting out 200 line proof-of-concept things. But they're messy and buggy and don't have any safety rails and all kinds of other things. Where as I'm much more analytical, filing code changes to him for things like considering null inputs in fields, or to fix spelling mistakes (that one is more anal than analytical, but whatev).

By doing this classification exercise, we were able to see beyond "dude wtf are you doing you look at all this wrong stuff" and we're able to consider how each of us worked was causing stress for the other. By realizing that and incorporating it to our work we were able to stop getting bogged down in arguments of really specific things and could stay focused on the general problem we were trying to solve.

My favorite part of the whole exercise when we did it at work was all of our managers said that they are Blue (considerate of others feelings, etc) where as everyone that reported to them said they were Gold (organized, respect authority), like ruthlessly Gold, and sometimes with a hint of Orange because they change focus of the team every time a new "issue" comes up before we'd finished resolving the open ones. It made me realize that management isn't intentionally shitty. They're just delusional to the point that they don't even see how their actions are nothing like their intentions.

Probably an attachment style test. Attachment theory is empirically valid, and knowing your attachment style can help you understand relationship patterns: communication, behaviors, emotional needs, etc.

After that, the love languages are a good start to a conversation. Essentially they can help you figure out how you prefer to be cared for, and how you tend to show that you care. The categories themselves are arbitrary, and they're based on observations by a baptist minister who offered relationship counseling. He's not a licensed mental health professional, and the love languages aren't empirically based. One issue I have with his book is that he claims that men tend to have "physical touch" as their love language, and that women should have more sex with their husbands to help them feel loved.

The Big Five personality traits are the most valid of the popular personality tests, but I didn't feel like they helped me understand myself more.

I have done many.

"Helpful" needs to be defined. In my younger life it helped me to find out about my personality. Later it also helped to understand other people.

Sometimes these tests gave contradicting results, so I learned that these results can never be taken 100% literally. You have to decide what to take from it and what to leave.

MBTI was the first one that fully admitted this, and that book even explained how these things change when you get older. So I consider this the most helpful one.

The strongest one IMHO was the Enneagram. But also most hard to understand.

The most scary one (and in retrospect, the most funny one) was at Scientology. It helped me to understand what a bunch that is and how they can catch people.

OCEAN is useful.

For fun but also interesting because it is a piece of history? The four temperaments (Hippocrates).

I did the Luxx test and found it useful in helping me to understand myself more clearly.

The test is based on empirically found foundational motivations everyone has more or less strongly.

I've set up a few of them, but helpful ones by other people are scarce. Personality tests are constructed based on principles of litmus-style generalization and me and what I'm doing them for tend to slip through the cracks. I've taken many for instance to see what my political alignment is and it's always inconclusive since they think in black and white, assuming it's not outright wrong because they want recruits. I'm likewise credited with "sorting systems" which themselves work but perhaps because they're not there to shoehorn distinguishing absolute borders between people.

I don't need a test to tell me what my personality is. I'm literally me practically every day.

Strengths Finder was scary accurate for me

https://www.playalterego.com/

I’ll add the test name if I come across it, but I did one for an employer (everyone had to). It was shocking how much it nailed my personality.

I hate them because when I try to take personality tests, there are rarely answers that fit me.

Possibly off topic.

I read and used a book called "Discover What You Are Best At" by Linda Gail. It's a series of self administered tests and a list of jobs that use those skills.

It aimed me at a career I found I really enjoyed. It was helpful, but I don't know if you count that as a 'personality test.'

An ADHD diagnosis test. Does that count?

MBTI, DISC, and love languages work well together. Even if there's no hard proof, it at least gets your thinking about the fact that other people think differently. It's very easy to live in your own head and make assumptions, so getting exposed to these concepts in a formal way can be really effective in building relationships of all kinds.

I was fairly impressed with the Truity enneagram test.

The brutially honest personality test. Which was your standard MB test (not very useful) except it points out typical weaknesses and thus is something to watch out for. I know what I'm good at.