Personality testing part II -- George is guinea pig for various online tests

We've talked before about personality tests and their usefulness (or not) for employee selection (most recently here).

Now here's a little sampling of online personality tests I've experimented with. I'll lay bare my soul by disclosing my personal results, and commenting on their accuracy. A later installment may reflect more on the limitations of such tests for workplace use.

I do this not because I think my readers are so curious about my personality quirks, but because I think it may be useful to try a test out on yourself and perhaps some trusted employees before deciding whether and how to use it in making employment decisions. Of course, such self-testing is a far cry from a professional validation, and no substitute for one, but it may nonetheless be a valuable first step if you are contemplating using such tests.

First, lets look at the Big Five Personality Test.

This test, which apparently is serious and well known, provides five scores. I also took another version supposedly based on the Big Five, which required answering between 182 and 287 questions: QueenDom.ComTM Advanced Multidimensional Personality Matrix (AMPM)(Revised). See also Big Five Test explanation and links

Here's how I fared on both:

Big Five: You are relatively open to new experiences (70 percentile)

AMPM: Openness: 64 (high subscore = 81 on "interest in knowledge")


Big Five: You are well-organized, and are reliable (64 percentile)

AMPM: Conscientiousness: 66 (high subscore = 87 on "dependability")


Big Five: You are neither particularly social or reserved (42 percentile)

AMPM: Extraversion: 41 (high subscore = 68 on "self disclosure")


Big Five: You are neither extremely forgiving nor irritable (44 percentile)

AMPM: Agreeableness: 63 (high subscore = 82 on "trust")


Big Five: You aren't particularly nervous, nor calm (49 percentile)

AMPM: Emotional Stability: 67 (high subscore 81 on "independence)

Given that both tests claim to be based on the "Big Five, I find the variations in the scores in a couple of the areas quite troubling.

It would also appear that one could manipulate these results fairly easily, as the questions seemed fairly transparent as to what personality attributes they measured.

I would guess my scores would all be considered "normal," and they seem reasonably accurate to my own perception of my personality, but how would an employer use them? Would a lawyer with only a 41 on extraversion be viewed as too inwardly-focused to be worthy of hire? How about a salesman or manager?

How do you weigh the various scores? Do my relatively high conscientiousness and openness scores compensate for other perceived weaknesses? What if a successful employment history seemed contrary to weaknesses appearing from test results?

The AMPM came up with an overall assessment as well, saying that my "Personality Type" was:

Stoic

Your supreme emotional stability makes you the Stoic. Your relatively agreeable and open nature allows you to work in a variety of positions and get along with most people. You have an appreciation for both social life and personal time. The time you spend alone refreshes you both mentally and spiritually and helps to keep you feeling steady. For the most part, you are confident, pleasant, and even-keeled. While you don't allow life to pass you by, you have an appreciation for the natural order of things, and although you accept change, you don't usually initiate it. Your steady emotions are remarkable - you know how to handle yourself in different environments and you bounce back quickly from hardship and stress. . .

Obviously, this sounds great, but is it really me? I'd like to think so, but I'm not really so sure, which raises a tough question: To what extent do such tests measure a person's perception of their own personality, rather than the reality perceived by others or observeable in actual behaviors?

Next, I tried out that old chestnut, the inkblot test.

StupidStuff.org says it has developed an inkblot test based closely on the Rorschach test protocol and materials. You can take this test yourself online and supposedly see more or less what your results would have been on a real test. (Given the name of the site, I'm a bit skeptical of that claim.) They caution: "Sometimes the results aren't pretty; people who take the test can find out some extremely unsettling things about themselves."

Good thing they had that caveat, because here's the shocking truth I learned about myself:

Because you have no regard for human life, fair play, or mercy, your only career choice is to be a lawyer.

Well, at least the second half of that statement validates my career choice! But of course, I beg to differ with the first half!

I had real doubts about that inkblot test, but had great fun with it anyway, so next I tried another inkblot test: Tickle's Original Inkblot Test

Now really, would we be surprised to find a very different result?

Here's what came out, many inkblots later:

You are driven by a higher purpose than most people. You have a deeply-rooted desire to facilitate peacefulness in the world. Whether through subtle interactions with loved ones, or through getting involved in social causes, it is important to you to influence the world.

You are driven by a desire to encourage others to think about the positive side of things instead of focusing on the negative. . . Usually, the thing that underlies this unconscious drive is a deep respect for humankind. . . [Y]our personal integrity acts as a surrogate for your deeper drive toward peace and guides you in daily life towards decisions that are respectful toward yourself and others. . . People who have unconscious minds driven by peace tend to be independent thinkers who often prefer to live by their own high personal standards and moral code.

Hmm, sounds kind of like a horoscope or even a Chinese restaurant placemat personality-by-year-of-birth description! And quite the opposite of the other inkblot test result.

Next, I tried this test: The Simpsons Personality Test (Find out which character from the Simpsons you are most like.)

OK, I'm Marge Simpson. Sorry, I have no clue how to interpret that. I don't watch The Simpsons.

Heading back to the serious and detailed tests, I tried the HUMANMETRICS Jung Typology Test based on the Jung - Myers-Briggs typological approach to personality.

Many questions later, I learned my "type" is "INTJ." Following a link, I read a very detailed and interesting description of this type, referred to as a "Mastermind."

It's flattering to hear I'm in a category that is "rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population," has highly developed abilities for "contingency planning or entailment organizing," and is "very judicious" -- but is it true?

Another link describes this type: "When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know." Guess what, Donald Rumsfeld is mentioned as being of this type (he famously said: "as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.").

We are also perfectionists, yet pragmatic, and "Systems Builders." "Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia)."

Interesting. Seems to be somewhat true of me.

Next, I tried the Untelligence Test (sponsored by Visa), described as "a measure of your ability to reason in tough situations."

My score: "72% Untelligent! You kick ass! Your score is higher than the current worldwide average of 64%!" Sounds good, but wait, what's this?

He just isn't tough enough, sir, and avoids any situation that involves violence.

Finally, the subject displayed a pathetic and useless (seriously bad) sense of humor, a fair and productive sense of morality, and a complete lack of self-confidence. The balance of these three traits is important; high levels of confidence, medium levels of morality, and a good level of humor make for the strongest individuals.

Lastly, I tried an honesty test at Queendom.com, trying to answer accurately, rather than trying to get a good score.

Result:

You scored very high on this test, indicating that your susceptibility for dishonest behavior is minimal. You are someone who isn't swayed from acting honestly even in situations where many "normal" people would feel temptation to act deceitfully. You are strong enough in character to resist any temptation to act in a dishonest manner.

But wait, what's this?

The Validity Score indicated that your results may have been slightly compromised by dishonest responses or inconsistency.

Does this disqualify me from employment, despite the superior score? How common is such a comment?

Have we learned anything particularly useful to a potential employer? Dunno. I see some truth in much of what is said in many of these results, but that doesn't mean the tests convey anything about the "real me" to a prospective employer any better than a face-to-face meeting and review of my employment record and references.

Without a doubt, I had fun taking the tests. But I'd be extremely hesitant about placing too much stock in any of them for major employment decisions, at least absent a very dramatically unusual score revealing clearly undesirable qualities.