I'm a "Benevolent Analyst"

[william.scherk]

So says the result of a personality test at Personal DNA

Not entirely surprising . . . you can see the full results here.

Thanks to Jenna Wong, who posted her own profile at her marvelous blog, Cyberspace Rendezvous.

[Barbara Branden]

I'm am advocatimg creator. (But I'm definitely not a computer maven: don't know how to include a link in blue!)

The personality test is fun. Thanks, Jenna and William.

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

Fun. I'm a "benevolent inventor."

[gary williams]

"Considerate Inventor."

That was different. I like it.

And I enjoy reading Jenna's blog too! She is pretty sharp.

gw

[Aggrad02]

Free-Wheeling Analyst.

http://personaldna.com/report.php?k=vLoKRx...&u=abe451b67263

Dustan

[Paul Mawdsley]

Benevolent Idealist. The label seems to fit half of me. It missed the "Arrogant Rationalist" I found on the Keirsey profile. I especially liked the "If You Want to Be Different" part. Always looking to grow.

Paul

[Roger Bissell]

I came out a Reserved Analyst. I take that to be roughly equivalent to Jung's introverted thinking type. I'm an INTP (introverted, intuitive, thinking, perceiving) type on the Myers-Briggs (Jung-based) Type Inventory, and I come out INTP on the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, too.

REB

[CNA]

very interesting, I liked it.

I am a "Reserved Leader." Doesn't surprise me in the least bit, although curious as to some of the extremes but predictable. According to that, I am only a 2 on the womanly factor....LOL...which also doesn't surprise me amongst a few other traits. But it was different and interesting and fun.

Thanks, Jenna.

Angie

[Barbara Branden]

Does anyone else have the impression I do -- that it's almost impossible, on this test, to receive a verdict that isn't complimentary? I doubt if anyone is told he's a lying scumbag!

Barbara

[CNA]

Hi Barbara,

I have the same impression. For me personally, I don't take tests such as this too seriously, although it does give a quick "glimpse" into how the person may be. I think it is something that needs to be assessed over time and not from a quick survey or test, etc. My son is a good example of these types of tests. Even though he is young, he was given personality tests. But after much observation with many different doctors ranging from neuros to psychs to nurses to therapists, etc., of my son over a period of months and many IEPs later, their conclusions and observations of him were quite different from the initial test they gave him. They ultimately threw out the initial assessment of him and based their conclusions and findings of him over the many months of observing him and putting him through a battery of tests. One of the many benefits to having awesome health insurance, he gets the care he needs without any red tape of HMOs, etc.

Exactly as you said, how many of these tests are going to tell you that you are a lying scumbag. LOL For me, I take these types of tests as for entertainment purposes only. When it comes to psych issues, etc., it is very difficult to get a good assessment of a person's personality based on a simple sit down test, even though it does give a "glimpse" into how they may be. But for me, an accurate assessment should be done over a period of time based on observations, multiple testing, etc. But I have the same impression as you.

Angie

Quick clarification re: my son. He was initially dxd as being autistic by his neuro but not sure to what extent. Then was referred to a number of different doctors, therapists, etc., and this is when most of the heavy testing went on, their assessments, the ultimate care he would need, etc. The dx was then narrowed down to being high functioning. Just wanted to clarify that so there was no confusion on what I posted in the parenting section re my son.

[Dragonfly]

Alas, I can't try it, as it doesn't work with Opera.

Barbara:

Does anyone else have the impression I do -- that it's almost impossible, on this test, to receive a verdict that isn't complimentary?

That sounds like Barnum statements, with which everyone can always agree more or less (popular with horoscope makers).

I doubt if anyone is told he's a lying scumbag!

No, therefore you need a different program, called Solo.

[Barbara Branden]

Dragonfly: " . . therefore you need a different program, called Solo."

Right!

Barbara

[WytchWench]

Hello, everyone. I'm new to the forums but wanted to post my results of this test as well.

I'm an advocating curator. I'm not sure how to post the link to the full results but I'm going to try. #-o

My Results

I've taken this test in the past but today's results are quite different from the first time I took it. I think my problem the first time was not reading the full instructions though. :-s

[Roger Bissell]

This is just an educated guess, but I think that this is a relabelled form of the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, and that the people who devised this test are kindred spirits to the ladies who invented the MBTI.

For several decades, all Myers and Briggs would say about the 16 personality types were positive things -- strengths, not weaknesses. They might advise as to pitfalls or how you could improve, but they wouldn't elevate some types above the others in moral status. They wanted to encourage people, not demoralize them or make them think they were stuck in certain kinds of dysfunctional behavior -- or, especially, that they had some kind of inborn moral evil, a la Original Sin.

Which is as it should be. These are personality types based on preferences in using one's cognitive and evaluative faculties and one's energies in relating to people. One can use them for good -- or evil -- whatever one's particular constellation of preferences.

However, it's also good to know about one's weaknesses -- actual or potential. That's why it's good to read people like Jung, even though his writing sounds rather archaic and arcane, compared to people like Myers-Briggs or David Keirsey, who are much more American/apple pie in their writing styles and packaging of the theory. Jung really lays it out there.

For instance, if you want to read about "judgmental, dogmatic assholes," read about the extraverted thinking types in Jung's 1921 essay "Personality Types." This is a fabulous bit of analysis of how such types act when they are stressed or threatened or angry, &c. It may even remind you of one or more people you have recently read posts by on certain other discussion lists. :-) I'm still thinking about posting on this, perhaps "channeling" Jung, as if he were observing the mess over on So-Low Bashin.'

Jung identifies only 8 types, rather than 16, but they are consistent with the 16 types of the MBTI, and he is the MBTI's predecessor and the granddaddy of this whole approach to understanding personality and human foibles, so it's good to check him out, if you're interested in this as more than just a parlor game or ice-breaker.

all 4 now,

reb

[CNA]

Hi Roger,

I've read much about personality tests, types, etc. One of my many interests that I have is psychology, one specific area though is "profiling" and forensics. Psych was very briefly touched on in my classes while in college but have read much outside of that setting. I enjoy reading regarding this aspect so I'll definitely check out Jung more thoroughly. Thank you for the recommendation as this is an area that I'm sure you know I would have a definite interest in.

Angie

[Paul Mawdsley]

Thanks Roger. Everything seems to be pointing to Jung as my next area of serious study. The "If You Want to Be Different" part of my "Personal DNA" suggests I try new restaurants. I'm interested in what's on the Jungian menu.

Paul

[CNA]

Roger,

I would be highly interested in your "channeling" Jung as if he was "observing" the mess over on So-Low Bashin'. Here within the next couple days, as soon as I get a free moment from my hectic day to day life, I'll be going down to pick up Jung. If you have any recommendations on where to begin, I would be interested. I'm not sure how many books, etc., he has written, although I'm sure he has written a few. Since this is an area I find fascinating and have come up with my own conclusions and observations of people when I was so young and watching them and what I went through personally and still do this till this day, I am very interested, and yes, excited to see what coincides with my own conclusions based on my own observations of people and what I went through so young. I am sure if you did this "channeling" I will definitely be reading as I'm sure many on this board will also be reading.

Angie

[Philip Coates]

I'm a "benevolent inventor".

> Does anyone else have the impression I do -- that it's almost impossible, on this test, to receive a verdict that isn't complimentary? I doubt if anyone is told he's a lying scumbag! [barbara]

You must be right because everyone knows I'm a flatulent overeater.

[Roger Bissell]

If you want a good sampling of Carl Jung's writings, I suggest The Portable Jung. Read the introduction, then the section on Psychological Types, to get a good feel for the area of Jung's ideas that have had the most widespread popular application. (And that is relevant to understanding the different types of people involved in Objectivism.)

The material on the unconscious, archetypes, etc., is very interesting, too, but not as well empirically correlated.

For popular works on personality and temperament type, check out Myers' Gifts Differing and Keirsey's Please Understand Me. They both have their limitations and inaccuracies, but they are both quite good as a place(s) to start delving into this area.

At some point, you might want to check out my web page called "Achilles Tendencies." I won't bother with the URL right now. Those really curious can google it. It's more advanced stuff and not the best place to start.

REB

[gary williams]

I'm glad I did not receive a "Cock-eyed Hyena"; that would have been too weird.

Accurate, but weird!

gw

[Kat]

Well, according to their personality test I am a "Respectful Idealist."

Don't they know that I'm a DROOLING BEAST!! =P~

Kat

[Roger Bissell]

Kat, it's no surprise that you're a "DROOLING BEAST," judging from the picture of your hunky boyfriend. Who wouldn't be!

Ooops, heh-heh, wait a minute...I forgot that I'm no longer posting as "Artemis Kerridge." :-)

REB, the reserved analyst

(or is it the anal reservationist?)

[CNA]

My cock eyed friend, you better put your asbestos suit on. You calling me weird? If so, it wouldn't be the first time....LOL Have been told that I'm strange, weird, eccentric, etc. I'm a very visual person amongst many other things. I got a visual of you in my mind and you reminded me of the cock eyed hyena that's in the Lion King and that's what I equated you to be when we almost got into that tiff over Jody. But I do have a visual of what you might look like in my mind in real life, although I've never seen you. This is what I imagine you look like: Definitely on the slender side, brown to dark brown wavy hair not super short but long enough to see that your hair is wavy, not that tall, shorter than average, you don't wear glasses, smooth pale complexion, not much acne from when you were a kid, you know, pockmarks; and a possible mole someplace on your face, possibly olive skin, not dark by any means, olive but pale. That's the visual I have of you amongst others I haven't identified in this post.

I know it sounds weird but I'm a visual person. I have a picture of what you might look like in my mind but it may not be accurate, plus I don't know you that well and haven't read enough of your posts to get a better idea. I do this with everybody that I talk with but haven't seen yet. I did this with a doctor friend of mine about his uncle. He was sending me his emails from a group discussion he was in with the rest of his family. After reading his thoughts for a period of time, I whipped out a mini psychological profile on him down to how he is as a person, from being angry and a bomb waiting to go off to a control freak, to enjoying being a button pusher, that women were afraid of him, etc., down to what he may possibly look like...relatively short, stocky build, little overweight, balding if not bald already, if he wore glasses that he prefered to wear black frames, etc. I got an email back saying that it was extremely accurate of him and he enjoyed reading it and then said he wanted to send the psych profile to his uncle who is also a pscyhologist himself. My friend then sent a pix of him and it was very close to what he looked like all the way down to the black framed eye glasses he had on !!

I'm very visual and read people extremely well. I don't know you well enough to do something like that with you and make it concrete so to speak but I do have a visual of you and what you might look like in my mind. May be accurate or may be way off in left field and totally inaccurate but again don't know you well enough nor have I read enough of your posts, thoughts, etc.

Roger, don't think what I said about these types of tests I use for entertainment purposes only. I think it came off as that. I do take these tests seriously. For me, when first taking them, etc., the results can't be heavily relied upon but gives a glimpse into their personality. For me, the test needs to be performed many times in order to get a true asseesment of the person in addition to observations of the person and talking with them, etc. Mind set when taking these things is a big issue I believe. Say for instance, my functional/aesthetic trait came back at 0, yes 0. I'm very much into efficiency versus what something looks like obviously. And I definitely agree with that. But in 6 or 7 months when taking the test over, it may come back differently. Say for instance, if I go on vacation someplace that is absolutely breathtakingly beautiful which I've been to some amazing places, when answering the aesthetic questions, I may answer a little bit differently, depending on my mindset at that time and what I'm thinking about. My mind may keep going back to my wonderful vacation. Although I don't deny the core of the test will not change as to my personality type. This isn't the first one I've taken. I do very much appreciate beauty but my definition of beauty may be quite different than the guy next to me obviously. And I also don't want to be like the guy next to me. I'm my own person, very much an individual. Trust me, I don't want to be like anybody else but myself.

I do take these tests seriously when performed multiple times. But I believe in order to get a true assessment of the person it should be done after multiple tests and observations and conversations with them. That's what I meant. I just wanted to clarify that more to make sure there wasn't any confusion.

Angie

[gary williams]

My cock eyed friend, you better put your asbestos suit on. You calling me weird? Very Happy If so, it wouldn't be the first time....LOL Have been told that I'm strange, weird, eccentric, etc. Very Happy I'm a very visual person amongst many other things. I got a visual of you in my mind and you reminded me of the cock eyed hyena that's in the Lion King and that's what I equated you to be when we almost got into that tiff over Jody. But I do have a visual of what you might look like in my mind in real life, although I've never seen you. This is what I imagine you look like: Definitely on the slender side, brown to dark brown wavy hair not super short but long enough to see that your hair is wavy, not that tall, shorter than average, you don't wear glasses, smooth pale complexion, not much acne from when you were a kid, you know, pockmarks; and a possible mole someplace on your face, possibly olive skin, not dark by any means, olive but pale. That's the visual I have of you amongst others I haven't identified.

Oh great! Now I am a cartoon hyena!

No, I wasn't calling you weird my firecracker friend.

I was only remarking on the fact that the DNA test seemed to be giving 'nice' discriptions instead of calling a spade a spade as it were. If it had called me a hyena it would of been freaky because someone else around here calls me that! Hmmmm? I wonder who?

I take it as a compliment coming from you.

What do I look like?

My build? Gorillla-esqe comes to mind. Sorta like King Kong's Mini Me!

I have been told that I have a chisled face - Kinda like a Gargoyle.

I have wonderful hair! Well, patches of it anyway! (Damn mange!)

The doctor tells me that some day my back will straighten out and my knuckles will no longer drag the ground! I can't wait!

I am a mouth breather.

And, I don't wear hats; they don't make them big enough for my head!

Oh well, at least you now have an accurate discription of me.

Or you can just imagine a cartoon hyena!

gw

[CNA]

I'm laughing so hard my tummy hurts. Damn, boy, you got some serious problems....LOL. That's just too much. Your hyena appearance has now changed to a cock eyed Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde appearance from the depiction of a character in the movie A League of Extraordinary Gentleman with Sean Connery now comes to mind. Come on now, you know I'm just being playful with you. I don't have a problem with most people but do have a problem with those that are disrespectful, enjoy being bashers and/or button pushers, complete assholes, or those that lure or bait others in order to attack them, etc. I'm sure you know the type as most here probably know or have come across these types. When it came to Jody and the name calling, it rubbed me the wrong way and I was defending a friend. And yes, slipped on a banana peel and landed flat on my ass. But yes, it did rub me the wrong way and I did refer to you as a cock eyed hyena but I gave my description and definition as to the type of people I thought they were.

But with you, my cock eyed friend that has an unsightly hunch back, a grotesquely large head with only patches of hair that are bristly and drools and breathes heavily out of his mouth, it's all GOOD. You're still lookin' mighty fine to me !! LMAO

I'm sure my reading of you would be all GOOD as it is for most on OL !! I just don't take kindly to those that are disrespectful, baiters, button pushers, control freaks, etc.

Your fire breathing dragon

Angie