7/27/11 Update We are now working on a Five Factor Model (NEO) test!!
The plan is to modify the test in such a way that it reflects in game personality, while also allowing for better international consistency by using StarCraft II as the cultural norm. As such, we're looking for anyone interested in helping to develop the Big 5 questionnaire. If you have a Love for SC2, and an interest in psycho-metrics, please give us a shout here:
We only want a portion of the sc2persona community involved, so that the remainder can assist in testing the test, so to speak.
We are, of course, still hoping to see more MBTI submissions. Please see below, or visit http://www.sc2persona.com/submit.php for the Myers Briggs portion of the project.
[Original] Goal: To compare data from players' Myers Briggs type indicator result with their SC2 player data.
Initially, I'd like to simply compare Race Preference with Personality Type Indicator. I believe there will be correlations that some will find very interesting.
Our current comparison of MBTI and SC2 Race Preference can be found here: http://www.sc2persona.com Credit to Briz for the fine PHP script!
Additionally, we've already started to plan for bigger and better things - with the help of a few community members wishing to contribute their coding skills, and the API from sc2ranks.com; I expect we can find all sorts of correlative analysis to play with once enough Personality Type indicators are collected from SC2 players! Which personality tends to win most often? As which Race? Which has higher W/L ratio? Which personalities prefer Team Games? Which ones win them? The potential comparisons are nearly endless - and if we have people just contributing scripts for whatever facet interests them most, I feel the results may be very amusing.
I've purchased hosting for this project and intend to build a data entry portal along with a modular statistical analysis system - allowing several people to mess around with analysis of their own interest with access to the database and portions of the site, hopefully growing into a neat collaborative open project!
Our request!: If you would like to help on the most basic level, you can submit your Myers Briggs personality type indicator, along with preferred Race, Character Name and Character Code from Bnet. If you could follow a format similar to this, it would be highly appreciated!:
Phinix#311 INTJ/ISTJ borderline Zerg/Trying Random
Important to note: - Character Name is CaSe SeNsItIvE! Be sure to submit capitalized exactly as they are on your character, or the sc2ranks data wont come through.
If you don't know your Personality Indicator, here is a free test online: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm If you don't like that test, here is another that contributors have praised: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/report/online/ (I will likely only use the primary personality indicator, but please be sure to mention borderline results as well, if you feel it applies. Up to you, really. We will store all the data we can!)
If you'd like to save me the hassle of entering your MBTI... You can now submit your data through our Online Form!: http://www.sc2persona.com/submit.php
Any input is also appreciated. I am very open to suggestions and am hoping to move this into an entirely community driven deal eventually. There is no intention of publishing these findings scientifically or claiming stake in any portion of the project.
This is all just for fun and to satisfy the curiosity of the contributors.
PS: I'm trying to not be obnoxious and over-bump this thread myself; but I am still active and updating our data. Hopefully we will have some fresh stats/analysis up in the near future - at which point I'll post them here.
Lastly, I know our data analysis is a bit out-dated.
The most current dataset is in the MySQL database. You can view a dynamic representation of that data by visiting http://www.sc2persona.com, as mentioned earlier in this post.
Vaux has been seemingly busy, so I'll be working on a Python script to emulate his analysis.
Here is the old analysis from when the project first began:
The community has provided! Here are some early analysis:
New [sort of old, to be honest] entries from Vaux - Weighted totals for more accurate assesment. Graphs for Judging and Perceiving characteristics accross Races. + Show Spoiler +
Very nice analysis by Vaux, from the BNet[NA] forums: + Show Spoiler +
I just merged the BNet and TL datasets that you have and now I have a N (number of respondents) of almost 475. Some how Terran responces got worse and now account for almost a third of responses and Zerg is way too high and accounts for 40% of responses.
Here are the weights that have to be used
Race Weight Protoss 116% Random 70% Terran 213% Zerg 49%
Here is the real population ratios
Race Population Protoss 35% Random 8% Terran 37% Zerg 20%
So now each Terran response accounts for 2 responses so zerg doesn't throw off the expected average.
Expected
FJ 13.29% TJ 43.69% FP 11.69% TP 31.33%
What I mentioned before about terran maybe being Feeling Judging... that's vanished now that the N is about 82 so it was probably due to the lower responce rate for terran that that looked like it might go that way.
However I have about a 95-99% confidence in these results Zerg - are TP more often (37.95%) then the expected and less often Protoss(21.68%) The expected was 31.33% - basically Thinking Perceiving type prefers Zerg and tends to hate Protoss, but they don't seem to have any issue with Terran at all just a clear disdain for Protoss. Protoss - are TJ more often (51.75%) then the expected of 43.69% they don't seem to have an issue with ether Terran or Zerg but strongly favor Protoss play.
This can lead to an interesting conclusion. Zerg requires you to take in all the information about the game and then make a flexible decision. Protoss play requires you to have a clear plan from the start and to work with that plan till the end without deviation. You can play Zerg the same way which is why the TJ doesn't have a problem with Zerg, but You cannot play Protoss in a flexible fashion like how TP prefers which is why the Zerg players hate Protoss play.
With more data I might be able to draw something out of Terran or random but the N for Terran is too small still and Random is well.. Larger then Expected but smaller then Terran.
This data was collected and analyzed within just 9 hours of starting the first thread: + Show Spoiler +
this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
eggers.167 ENTJ Protoss Gold
Extra notes: this was from a few years ago, i know personality is relatively stable at my age though.... Also, I was platinum and random, but i switched mouse and race, and dropped to Gold
Extra notes: this was from a few years ago, i know personality is relatively stable at my age though.... Also, I was platinum and random, but i switched mouse and race, and dropped to Gold
We'll be able to pull dynamic data from sc2ranks; so as you move back up, the statistics should reflect the changes on yours, and everyone else's, profile!
Weird, I took this before, like two or so years ago, and got INTJ..
No kidding - That's quite a change,...
Briz and I have been discussing how rare it must be to change from I to E unless very borderline. :-) I'm no psychologist, though - so I just have to look at the data (which is fine by me! - Edit: Because I like data - not because I dislike psychology or anything. Heheh)
Hi, might I suggest to put percentages in relative to the personality totals ?
for example, for random, 2 out of 11 INTP which is 18% 1 out of 3 ISTJ which is 33%
whereas you actually show 50% INTP and 25% ISTJ so, in absolute numbers, there are more random INTP, but in relative numbers, ISTJ tends to chose random more than INTP's.
Hope that makes sense.
For me, I am Robi.218 on EU (playing Zerg) the first test showed ISTJ the second test showed INTP or perhaps INFP
So I deduced INTP (dunno if it is very accurate though)
Hi, might I suggest to put percentages in relative to the personality totals ?
That's a great suggestion that I will definitely implement into the early analysis scripts (Should be quite easy to do, once we've got the MySQL back end).
*Barely, I've already been demoted and re-promoted once and I suspect I will once more. Low masters high diamond.
It's funny how INTJ is rare in the general populace. I remember in a class of 70 kids we all did this and only 2 of us and the professor were INTJ and the common ones were ENFP or ENFJ. Then when you get to the internet on practically any website, it reverses and INTJ suddenly becomes common.
KLABANUS.425 INTJ/INTP border Z before, P atm, T after, then R afterwards (haven't been playing for long yet, don't have a definite choice)
also would like to add that i am very interested by sociotypes and their relations to things etc, and I hope you wont lose motivation during this poll =) very cool initiative, gl
I think the first test sucks. I got extroverted on that one, and I've never gotten that before (although I am pretty much in the middle as far as introvertedness/extroverdedness goes. Anyways, I did it on this site:
I posted my stuff earlier, but just wanted to mention that I also received a different result from the 2nd test than the first. Upon reading both descriptions, the 1st test seemed way more accurate for me personally.
I scoped that one out when I was first searching too,... it's interesting how many different tests are appealing/unappealing to different people.
A lot of contributors have taken one test, not felt great about the result, taken another, researched the system and just determined themselves what they believe their type to be.
I know it isn't the most perfectly scientific manner of data collection, but there are honestly holes all throughout this data acquisition if I were conducting this in a manner that required perfect, sterile input. - Right now I'm only polling forum-goers (I hope to find a way to broaden this eventually, though) - Only a certain type of person would be interested in these results. So we may simply have biased data because it's less likely for those not interested in the result to contribute to the project. - Data collection isn't standardized - some people know their score from a legit test, some take one of the suggested online tests, some take a guess based on researching the types,...
I'm sure there is more than that escaping me now,...
Regardless, I hope we will be able to extrapolate trends, evaluate the data and perhaps even attempt to compensate for the biases in the collected data. It will be fun to try!
I scoped that one out when I was first searching too,... it's interesting how many different tests are appealing/unappealing to different people.
A lot of contributors have taken one test, not felt great about the result, taken another, researched the system and just determined themselves what they believe their type to be.
I know it isn't the most perfectly scientific manner of data collection, but there are honestly holes all throughout this data acquisition if I were conducting this in a manner that required perfect, sterile input. - Right now I'm only polling forum-goers (I hope to find a way to broaden this eventually, though) - Only a certain type of person would be interested in these results. So we may simply have biased data because it's less likely for those not interested in the result to contribute to the project. - Data collection isn't standardized - some people know their score from a legit test, some take one of the suggested online tests, some take a guess based on researching the types,...
I'm sure there is more than that escaping me now,...
Regardless, I hope we will be able to extrapolate trends, evaluate the data and perhaps even attempt to compensate for the biases in the collected data. It will be fun to try!
I dunno, I think it's mostly because whenever I've taken that test, it's always been from that site and I always have gotten the same thing, so it was surprising to get something different. However, on that note, if you want to get something as meaningful as possible from this, then I think people should stick to one test. I like the similarminds one because it sort of provides a gradient for if you are more one way or in the middle.
It's funny how INTJ is rare in the general populace. I remember in a class of 70 kids we all did this and only 2 of us and the professor were INTJ and the common ones were ENFP or ENFJ. Then when you get to the internet on practically any website, it reverses and INTJ suddenly becomes common.
Did you also notice that intj/intp people often "find" each other in for example a class. Like 3/4 of the people are enfp enfj and esfj, and when there are mostly 1 or 2 intp/intj's, there's a big chance that they will befriend each other. Makes sense of course, but still funny.=)
Also, would be nifty if you did some correlations along the lines of play style. Like that personality code corresponds to a cheeser, or a person who plays macro oriented, or someone who goes for early all-ins, that sort of thing.
On February 03 2011 05:30 Xanbatou wrote: However, on that note, if you want to get something as meaningful as possible from this, then I think people should stick to one test. I like the similarminds one because it sort of provides a gradient for if you are more one way or in the middle.
I agree that the data would be more consistent with such a policy, but at this point I still need as much data as I can get; and discouraging people from noting their legitimate test, or a test they prefer over the one suggested might dwindle the contributions.
What might be on the horizon, is our own test hosted on the website we're putting up. That way it's accessible enough that most people wont mind a few questions that they couldn't answer on impulse... and we could collaboratively tweak the test, if we figure out a means to do so effectively.
Yes, I saw that just today and found it very interesting. I pointed it out to the followers of the Bnet thread as well. :-)
That was done a bit differently, though. It was more of a poll. The data we're collecting is for correlative analysis of many many more variables... and hopefully in a way that allows multiple entities to contribute in multiple ways.
Edit: But perhaps I can use that data as well,... if I'm able to determine Character Codes and/or Bnet URLs of the posters,... Anyone see an ethical issue with that, though? I feel like that's a gray area, pulling information that wasn't intended for this exact purpose,...
On February 03 2011 05:33 alepov wrote: Did you also notice that intj/intp people often "find" each other in for example a class. Like 3/4 of the people are enfp enfj and esfj, and when there are mostly 1 or 2 intp/intj's, there's a big chance that they will befriend each other. Makes sense of course, but still funny.=)
As an introvert; it's natural to avoid the extroverts somewhat, I think.
I just realized we're going to have a bunch of cross-regional statistics to play with now too! (I had only been on the NA Bnet forum before now). I'm pretty sure I'll be able to just check every region in sc2ranks to determine there's data for the player - it's highly unlikely that people would somehow have the same name and char code across regions,...
On February 03 2011 06:01 Phinix wrote: I just realized we're going to have a bunch of cross-regional statistics to play with now too! (I had only been on the NA Bnet forum before now). I'm pretty sure I'll be able to just check every region in sc2ranks to determine there's data for the player - it's highly unlikely that people would somehow have the same name and char code across regions,...
This excites me,...
same name and char code cross-region is entirely possible, if the names are created in the same account. For example, I have a Zephirdd#361 both at LA and NA.
On February 03 2011 06:04 Zephirdd wrote: same name and char code cross-region is entirely possible, if the names are created in the same account. For example, I have a Zephirdd#361 both at LA and NA.
Oh, sweet! - I didn't really expect someone to know what they're talking about regarding that. lol... I spend too much time on Bnet forums, it seems.
The same Name/Code for the same person is fine for what we intend to do,... but is it likely two different people coincide with exact Name/Code accross regions?
edit: Also, is there a baseline of personality distributions of video gamers in general, and online forum posters we can compare the results to? I suspect personalities could be correlated more by these factors than a specific game preference.
Great study also interesting to note that INTJ account for about 2% of the worlds population but seem to be in great abundance on this thread. ( We are nicknamed the scientist or the mastermind and excel at strategy and logic)
* Yeah, fairly large difference between ISTP/INTJ, but it fits for me. Some versions of the test I tend to get INTJ, others ISTP. The two linked in the OP gave me one of each. I fit both descriptions to a point. I tend to consider myself ISTP, both because I agree slightly more with that description, and because ISTP is what I got the first time I ever took a Meyer's-Briggs' test.
It's probably important to note that all your statistics will be biased towards the type of people who read online forums. This means your gathered statistics could be of a significantly different subset of starcraft 2 players.
On February 03 2011 06:10 happyft wrote: edit: Also, is there a baseline of personality distributions of video gamers in general, and online forum posters we can compare the results to? I suspect personalities could be correlated more by these factors than a specific game preference.
Not that I know of,... but if anyone finds something of that sort, I hope they'll share it with us here!
I've used some meyers-briggs classifications when coaching people in badminton. It is theorized by some that certain personality indicators or combinations of indicators result in many common strengths and weaknesses, which in practice I believe to be true. In many sports having a working idea of the personality types of the athlete will give you insights into the tactics and strategies they choose, their playstyle, etc.
A few indicators that may be interesting to think about: S vs N - S types are typically often better at sports because they pay more attention to the outside environment which allows them to react quickly and adjust their movements to what's going on around them. N types will typically add an extra layer of processing: "well, what does this mean in the context of my plan?" which can potentially slow down the speed of their reactions but can be of benefit in a highly strategic activity.
P vs J - J types like to have very logical, step by step decision making processes e.g. I scout X, hence I need to build Y to counter. In such situations, they are more focused on the key information that affects what they are trying to do. P types are less inclined to focus hard on specific items, but instead perceive everything at once and make decisions by instinct. At lower levels a J player would probably have the advantage since he would likely be better at following a solid build order with precision. At higher levels, P types may gain some advantage as they are more likely to instinctively make right decisions under unusual situations, with the assumption that at these levels opponents will try to force you to play strategies that you're not comfortable with.
Evaluating type gets more complicated when a person has developed some skill in an activity. For instance, someone whose personality type is more inclined towards creative decision making can benefit a lot from drilling a basic build order over and over again. This would bring his mechanics up to par so he can use his strength, which lies in decision making, to win games at a higher level. To complicate things further, if this person benefits greatly from that training, he'll extol the benefits of it, but it may not be as beneficial for other types, for instance those whose mechanics are pretty good but lack imagination for the later game.
At high levels, players have such refined play that it's hard to come up with simple examples relating playstyle to personality type. However, when things break down due to pressure (and they will in a sufficiently competitive environment), some of these differences will manifest themselves.
On February 03 2011 06:48 zylog wrote: Evaluating type gets more complicated when a person has developed some skill in an activity. For instance, someone whose personality type is more inclined towards creative decision making can benefit a lot from drilling a basic build order over and over again. This would bring his mechanics up to par so he can use his strength, which lies in decision making, to win games at a higher level. To complicate things further, if this person benefits greatly from that training, he'll extol the benefits of it, but it may not be as beneficial for other types, for instance those whose mechanics are pretty good but lack imagination for the later game.
At high levels, players have such refined play that it's hard to come up with simple examples relating playstyle to personality type. However, when things break down due to pressure (and they will in a sufficiently competitive environment), some of these differences will manifest themselves.
Love it! <3 I was hoping to find input like this along the way! *drool*
On February 03 2011 06:46 JWill wrote: It's probably important to note that all your statistics will be biased towards the type of people who read online forums. This means your gathered statistics could be of a significantly different subset of starcraft 2 players.
Yep - we're hoping to broaden our submission pool eventually... somehow,... It will help once we have a web portal and a means to spread by word of mouth.
I think that you WILL see differences between your TL sample and your battle.net sample. NA server with like 1300 bonus pool lol.
Weasel.892 ENFJ BW Zerg SC2 Protoss
EDIT: That questions that second test asked really pissed me off. I found myself strongly agreeing with both answers 80% of the time. The only ones I could really pick a side for were the future-oriented ones.
On February 03 2011 07:02 Weasel- wrote: I think that you WILL see differences between your TL sample and your battle.net sample. NA server with like 1300 bonus pool lol.
Agreed - I need to remember to make a column to differentiate the two! (when desired)
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
This is really interesting but i would reccomend you do use a different test than Myers Briggs since the test-retest reliability of that test (3months) is only 0.5. That means that if you test a person today chances are only 50% he will get the same result in three months.
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
I think we really need to consider a custom test somewhere down the road if this remains interesting enough to the community! There must be someone with enough psychometric experience to help design a test that is gamer/sc2 centric and still able to formulate accurate results!
On February 03 2011 07:16 Genovi wrote: This is really interesting but i would reccomend you do use a different test than Myers Briggs since the test-retest reliability of that test (3months) is only 0.5. That means that if you test a person today chances are only 50% he will get the same result in three months.
At this time, Myers Briggs is the only test with enough exposure to inspire the volume of response we'll need for the statistical analysis. Many people already know their Myers Briggs type, and there are very simple and quick test resources online for Myers Briggs.
I'd Love to see that dependency disappear down the road!
On February 03 2011 07:16 Genovi wrote: This is really interesting but i would reccomend you do use a different test than Myers Briggs since the test-retest reliability of that test (3months) is only 0.5. That means that if you test a person today chances are only 50% he will get the same result in three months.[/QUOTE
] At this time, Myers Briggs is the only test with enough exposure to inspire the volume of response we'll need for the statistical analysis. Many people already know their Myers Briggs type, and there are very simple and quick test resources online for Myers Briggs.
I'd Love to see that dependency disappear down the road!
Okay, i understand. In sweden myers briggs isn't used a lot and i just wanted to make sure you understood the rather poor reliability of the test. I hope too that the test becomes a reliable tool for measuring personality but honestly I believe more in normative tests.
On February 03 2011 07:54 Genovi wrote: Okay, i understand. In sweden myers briggs isn't used a lot and i just wanted to make sure you understood the rather poor reliability of the test. I hope too that the test becomes a reliable tool for measuring personality but honestly I believe more in normative tests.
Agreed. :-) Hopefully we'll be able to build an alternative. It will require consistent interest, though; as, without data, the project would fall apart.
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
While I reconsidered the post because the thread is targeted at players and not esport fans, I still find the statistics amusing. In my experience the MB test isn't too off the ball, but it is only accurate in very general sort of way (the descriptions of the profiles are very general). Therefore I'm wondering what's sort of commonality correlates with the skews(TL population, starcraft players, Internet users).
That being said, some of it should just be accounted for because combinations of certain traits are much rarer than others.
I'm zerg and I think I'm both INTP and INTJ. I did the test about 5 times over the course of a year and have gotten strong percentages on the INT, but the P and J have both always been about 8%.
Please keep in mind we will need character names (case sensitive!) and character codes in order to cross reference your sc2ranks data.
If you'd prefer, E-Mail your submission to phinix@sc2persona.com and it will only be accessible to those who are given Read access to the database (coding contributors - currently just myself and Briz). We will refrain from adding those submissions to the interim spreadsheet that is currently public.
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
I think only extreme introverts prefer to play single player by themselves. The more common description of an introvert is someone who prefers to interact with a few close friends, so playing video games with your friends is well within that definition.
On the other hand, a true extrovert thrives on the stimulus of interacting with new people. So on a typical night, the extrovert is more likely to do an activity involving more direct social activity than staying home to play games. At a lan party, the extrovert will go out of his way to meet new people.
Wow that's really interesting that INTJ/INTP are dominating so far, considering they are two of the least common types. I think you could predict that SC2 nerds would skew the results like this though
It's fascinating that there are so many INTPs around here. Statistically, it's one of the least common personality types, comprising less than 1% of the total population.
I've taken this test periodically for over a decade and I've even tried taking it when I'm in different moods and I've never gotten anything other than ENFP.
Kpyolysis#570 INTP / ENTJ (The last one always comes up as 49-51% one or the other on these tests, so it's incredibly close, and the first switches with it) Protoss
I was looking at your spreadsheet, and something that you may want to add is how each personality type is divided between races.
For instance: ENTJ: 75%P, 25%Z, 0%T
The reason for this that some personality types are much larger than others. In the current system you have, for Protoss, ENTJ makes up 18%. That doesn't seem like much - until you realize that literally 66% of ENTJs in your data are Protoss.
I was looking at some of the other entries, and it seems like most ENTJ's love protoss. Damn straight boys!
Edit: If there are a lot of ENTJ's, and most of the ENTJ's are protoss, that could help explain why there are so many protoss guides and replay packs on TL.
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
Yeah thats why im doubtful as well. The chances that this unbelievably limited test can show anything are very slim in my opinion.
On February 03 2011 18:25 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
Yeah thats why im doubtful as well. The chances that this unbelievably limited test can show anything are very slim in my opinion.
What I always found odd is that the psychological community generally is very critical towards stuff like Myers-Briggs and 'emotional intelligence', but at the same time all stand firmly behind the notion of 'IQ' and 'IQ tests'.
I mean, IQ tests are as reproducible as cannon rushes and lack any constructive value. There are people who score phaenomenal at IQ tests but have accomplished nothing intellectually, and the reverse. My cents are that IQ tests, and the entire notion of 'IQ', the supposed metre on 'intelligence' are as pseudo-scientific as Myers-Briggs or 'emotional intelligence'.
On February 03 2011 18:25 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
Yeah thats why im doubtful as well. The chances that this unbelievably limited test can show anything are very slim in my opinion.
What I always found odd is that the psychological community generally is very critical towards stuff like Myers-Briggs and 'emotional intelligence', but at the same time all stand firmly behind the notion of 'IQ' and 'IQ tests'.
I mean, IQ tests are as reproducible as cannon rushes and lack any constructive value. There are people who score phaenomenal at IQ tests but have accomplished nothing intellectually, and the reverse. My cents are that IQ tests, and the entire notion of 'IQ', the supposed metre on 'intelligence' are as pseudo-scientific as Myers-Briggs or 'emotional intelligence'.
I always like that people in psychology criticize MB because it totally lacks rigor and data collection, but they rely heavily on rigorous tests (models) with 100% subjective analysis. It's like saying "My system is better because I collected data before totally disregarding it and applying my own preconceived notions and biases..."
Regardless... This should be a pretty interesting/entertaining project. I'd also like to see % of Starcraft Players with each personality type compared to the % of the total population with each type - something like 20% of people are ESFJ, but 3% of Starfcraft players are (totally fake numbers).
On February 03 2011 19:44 Omnipresent wrote: Regardless... This should be a pretty interesting/entertaining project. I'd also like to see % of Starcraft Players with each personality type compared to the % of the total population with each type - something like 20% of people are ESFJ, but 3% of Starfcraft players are (totally fake numbers).
My guess is that people who play a lot of computer games are generally some-what 'IN' though.
I wouldn't be surprised if the differences are basically too insignificant between races to be interesting at all.
On February 03 2011 18:25 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
Yeah thats why im doubtful as well. The chances that this unbelievably limited test can show anything are very slim in my opinion.
What I always found odd is that the psychological community generally is very critical towards stuff like Myers-Briggs and 'emotional intelligence', but at the same time all stand firmly behind the notion of 'IQ' and 'IQ tests'.
I mean, IQ tests are as reproducible as cannon rushes and lack any constructive value. There are people who score phaenomenal at IQ tests but have accomplished nothing intellectually, and the reverse. My cents are that IQ tests, and the entire notion of 'IQ', the supposed metre on 'intelligence' are as pseudo-scientific as Myers-Briggs or 'emotional intelligence'.
Uhm, IQ tests predict performance in education job performance very well. There is no other instrument that predicts as well as a good intelligence test (not even a very, very expensive assessment centre matches the IQ test in general). What does emotional intelligence predict?
I like how you mention some individuals with a high IQ that do not perform well... We're talking populations here, norm groups. No offence, but you are pretty clueless on this subject.
IQ tests measure the ability to perform on IQ tests. That ability correlates somewhat with performance, but it's nowhere near absolute.
Myers Briggs has got some predictive validity, but it's culture bound. I really cannot recommending using a tool that is designed on a specific region for a global research project. The norms for certain typologies differ per region, which means that you will never be able to make valid conclusions if you continue your research in this fashion.
The thing about Myers-Briggs-Jung is that each category is assigned a weight as well. For example, I am 50% introverted/extroverted. I think this study would be far more interesting if you got actual data from a qualified test proctor and showed how strongly weighted toward each category people are.
The thing about Myers-Briggs-Jung is that each category is assigned a weight as well. For example, I am 50% introverted/extroverted. I think this study would be far more interesting if you got actual data from a qualified test proctor and showed how strongly weighted toward each category people are.
I believe that with the way the MBTI works The 'weighting' is actually not the amount of the quality that you have. If you get 90% introversion, you are not 90% introverted. It's actually an expression of the degree of confidence you have in your preference. So in this example you would be 90% confident that your preference is introversion over extraversion.
I must say these statistics are pretty interesting. It's interesting to see what personality types are under-represented compared to the general population such as ESFJ's/ESFP's. Not really surprising that online gaming underrepresents them however. Also you would expect a greater proportion of T's given that males are more often T (i believe studies have shown that 2/3rds of males favour T or thereabouts) and there are obviously a greater number of males than females on this forum and playing starcraft.
Teehee - I think I need to make a FAQ,... or FSP (Frequently stated points?)
On February 03 2011 16:05 Gnial wrote: I was looking at your spreadsheet, and something that you may want to add is how each personality type is divided between races.
The reason for this that some personality types are much larger than others. In the current system you have, for Protoss, ENTJ makes up 18%. That doesn't seem like much - until you realize that literally 66% of ENTJs in your data are Protoss.
I was looking at some of the other entries, and it seems like most ENTJ's love protoss. Damn straight boys!
Edit: If there are a lot of ENTJ's, and most of the ENTJ's are protoss, that could help explain why there are so many protoss guides and replay packs on TL.
Someone brought that suggestion up on Bnet and I definitely intend to make it one of the early analysis scripts. It will be very easy to do once we have MySQL carrying the data!
I like the speculation relating to guides and replay packs! Interesting assessment.
On February 03 2011 15:24 GypsyBeast wrote: for some reason ESTP is not on your list :/ for whats it worth it says im Extraverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving maybe i did somthing wrong.
The first analysis was from the first 37 entries. I'm sure there are more ESTPs in the data by now; I just need to update everything.
It may not be completely up to date until the weekend. We're trying to multitask and get a viable automation going, so we don't have to lose sleep during the project. :-)
On February 03 2011 21:35 Meborg wrote: IQ tests measure the ability to perform on IQ tests. That ability correlates somewhat with performance, but it's nowhere near absolute.
Myers Briggs has got some predictive validity, but it's culture bound. I really cannot recommending using a tool that is designed on a specific region for a global research project. The norms for certain typologies differ per region, which means that you will never be able to make valid conclusions if you continue your research in this fashion.
Many people have expressed concern over the validity and accuracy of Myers Briggs.
To start this project, we're going to stick with MB - its fairly widespread and easy to understand.
Eventually it would be phenomenal if we could enlist some assistance from someone experienced with psychometric data; to help generate a short survey focusing on the SC2/Gamer niche, instead of the cultures Myers Briggs more often applies to.
On February 03 2011 21:13 Beyonder wrote: Uhm, IQ tests predict performance in education job performance very well.
Is there a unit for accuracy of job prediction? Is there a unit for performance in education?
I studied physics, I can predict the path electrons will take in an electric field down to femtometric precision, furthermore, I can quantify the uncertainty of my measurements in hard units and account exactly how much they leak through. You will pardon my snobbish elitism I hope when what I learnt actually has to do with bloody hard numbers and irrefutable stone cold mathematics rather than this creative interpretation of results.
There is no other instrument that predicts as well as a good intelligence test (not even a very, very expensive assessment centre matches the IQ test in general).
There isn't, so what?
IQ tests are still ridiculously poor at it. If you take an IQ test the next day the result can be a whole standard deviation different. It's not at all unlikely that if I take it today, it will be 97, if I take it tomorrow, it will be 112. Furthermore, the test itself is also relevant, the selection of questions into it and so on. Imagine if they tried to measure the mass of the W/Z-bosons and were like 'Yeah, it's totally 80 GeV', and they try again the next day and are then like 'Okay, now it's 97 GeV'
What does emotional intelligence predict?
Very little, just as IQ. a 'high emotional intelligence' bears some correlation with a succesful carreer and love life later on. Just as a 'high IQ' bears some correlation with academic results. There are however a very significant amount of people which have a low result on IQ tests and enjoyed a lot of academic success, and the reverse.
I like how you mention some individuals with a high IQ that do not perform well... We're talking populations here, norm groups. No offence, but you are pretty clueless on this subject.
And this is exactly why it's not science.
You can see an average in everything. I can devise a test right now to measure intellect. It works quite simple, you take a metre, and you measure someone's length, the higher the length, the more intelligence.
And I'm willing to bet my butt that this test averagely indeed correlates with academic results and corporate success. It's in fact already been established that for some reason longer people seem to enjoy more of it (not to mention that we have the confounder that good food and milieu at childhood not only encourages length but also intelligence).
So, is my test now some indicator of intelligence? No, of course not.
And this is why it's pseudoscience, you need some absolute pattern, or at least a very, very, very strong correlation to be able to start saying these things. This is why physics is free of such pseudo-scientific gibberish, because shit in physics is absolute. You don't take silly averages and norms, your theory must apply in every single case, there are no exceptional situations. If they do occur, its your job to find out why they would occur and adjust your theory to encompass them.
It's complete pseudoscience, if it's only an average, how can you know that what IQ tests do is not simply measure some other variable like confidence? You need confidence to submit an academic paper or to apply to a university? How do you know IQ tests don't simply measure motivation or what-not. It could measure a thousand other things than intelligence if you just works in averages, there could be a zillion hidden confounders which you can't rule out. And this still ignores the fact that IQ tests are as reproducible as a cannon rush. Take the test tomorrow, and the result will be completely different, take a different IQ test at the same time, and its result will also be different.
And then people say 'Yeah, but it measures the moment, your intelligence at the point you make the test.', and maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but the point is that you can never hope to falsify or verify that idea. Maybe it does measure the moment, or maybe the test just has a very bad signal to noise ratio, you cannot ever demonstrate it either way, and as such it's pseudo-science.
Sorry for the delay in getting all of this data logged, by the way. I took a breather last night to hang out with the wifey. I'm hoping to get everything current by tonight (PST timezone).
My goal for the next analysis crunch is to have new output data posted by this weekend.
I'm guessing we're around 400 submissions now, which should give us some much more well rounded results than that initial run!
On February 03 2011 04:51 Drowsy wrote: Legion.400 INTJ Protoss Masters*
*Barely, I've already been demoted and re-promoted once and I suspect I will once more. Low masters high diamond.
It's funny how INTJ is rare in the general populace. I remember in a class of 70 kids we all did this and only 2 of us and the professor were INTJ and the common ones were ENFP or ENFJ. Then when you get to the internet on practically any website, it reverses and INTJ suddenly becomes common.
I think also being anonymous + on the Internet, people here will be more honest (relatively) about their choices than in a class with peer pressure, etc.
On February 03 2011 04:51 Drowsy wrote: Legion.400 INTJ Protoss Masters*
*Barely, I've already been demoted and re-promoted once and I suspect I will once more. Low masters high diamond.
It's funny how INTJ is rare in the general populace. I remember in a class of 70 kids we all did this and only 2 of us and the professor were INTJ and the common ones were ENFP or ENFJ. Then when you get to the internet on practically any website, it reverses and INTJ suddenly becomes common.
I think also being anonymous + on the Internet, people here will be more honest (relatively) about their choices than in a class with peer pressure, etc.
On February 03 2011 19:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 18:37 Erandorr wrote:
On February 03 2011 18:25 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
Yeah thats why im doubtful as well. The chances that this unbelievably limited test can show anything are very slim in my opinion.
What I always found odd is that the psychological community generally is very critical towards stuff like Myers-Briggs and 'emotional intelligence', but at the same time all stand firmly behind the notion of 'IQ' and 'IQ tests'.
I mean, IQ tests are as reproducible as cannon rushes and lack any constructive value. There are people who score phaenomenal at IQ tests but have accomplished nothing intellectually, and the reverse. My cents are that IQ tests, and the entire notion of 'IQ', the supposed metre on 'intelligence' are as pseudo-scientific as Myers-Briggs or 'emotional intelligence'.
Uhm, IQ tests predict performance in education job performance very well. There is no other instrument that predicts as well as a good intelligence test (not even a very, very expensive assessment centre matches the IQ test in general). What does emotional intelligence predict?
I like how you mention some individuals with a high IQ that do not perform well... We're talking populations here, norm groups. No offence, but you are pretty clueless on this subject.
Well to be fair you can learn for IQ tests. I had to do one ( it was not called that but it esentially was) for a college aplication and a friend recommended to me to do a few and it really improves the results, because you see the thoughpatterns required etc. An IQ test just measures what its designed for, which is basicly measuring how quickly and correctly you can understand and apply certain patterns in different categories. There are quite a few people who just train a lot for the test and then score high results based on training not "intelligence" whatever that even is and noone would ever think them to be of high intelligence. Of course if you are really smart you will get through those tests without much preparation but i would never value someones intelligence by that standart
I studied physics, I can predict the path electrons will take in an electric field down to femtometric precision, furthermore, I can quantify the uncertainty of my measurements in hard units and account exactly how much they leak through. You will pardon my snobbish elitism I hope when what I learnt actually has to do with bloody hard numbers and irrefutable stone cold mathematics rather than this creative interpretation of results.
You can debate, but yes there are measures that tell us how well one does in a job or in an educational setting. Not that unthinkable is it? There's entire sub-field of psychology dedicated to it.
IQ tests are still ridiculously poor at it. If you take an IQ test the next day the result can be a whole standard deviation different. It's not at all unlikely that if I take it today, it will be 97, if I take it tomorrow, it will be 112. Furthermore, the test itself is also relevant, the selection of questions into it and so on. Imagine if they tried to measure the mass of the W/Z-bosons and were like 'Yeah, it's totally 80 GeV', and they try again the next day and are then like 'Okay, now it's 97 GeV'
And this still ignores the fact that IQ tests are as reproducible as a cannon rush. Take the test tomorrow, and the result will be completely different, take a different IQ test at the same time, and its result will also be different.
No they are not, they are not ridiculously poor. Actually, the correlation between measures of IQ and job and educational performance is quite high (= a good predictor). Additionally, IQ is ideally measured more than once. However, a good intelligence test will report a confidence interval scale... And although there is variation, this variation is not nearly as high as what youve written. The correlation between intelligence tests at the beginning and at the end of youth are really high as well, for example, indicating the strength of the measurement even over the course of the development.
Very little, just as IQ. a 'high emotional intelligence' bears some correlation with a succesful carreer and love life later on. Just as a 'high IQ' bears some correlation with academic results. There are however a very significant amount of people which have a low result on IQ tests and enjoyed a lot of academic success, and the reverse.
There are barely any good research articles done on EQ, while there are tons for IQ. Throwing these two in one sentence is a sign of being uneducated on this subject. Additionally, of course there are exceptions, but population wise it's a good indicator.
And this is exactly why it's not science.
And the list goes on. Really, get off your high exact science horse. There's a reason why we call these social sciences. And yes, they work differently from what you are used to. But if you really want to say something on this topic, I suggest reading some.
You can debate the construct, but you can not really debate how useful it is when large populations need to be assessed on how well they will do for a certain job, or a certain education. And this is what it was designed for, and it does the best job possible.
Anyways, im quitting derailing this thread now. Nice initiative and I in no way mean to criticise this. I just hate the ignorance on this topic.
Suggestion: normalize the by-race statistics with respect to the overall statistics by dividing them... that way we can see the relative preferences for races.
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
This is a classic misunderstanding of what a introvert is. Put simply, the difference between introverts and extroverts is how they recharge energy. Imagine a party in a packed apartment. An extrovert can spend hours there and feel refreshed and energized at the end. On the other hand, an introvert will feel tired and drained. But this has nothing to do with how they act at the party. I'm a huge introvert and I go to parties all the time. I act very outgoing, friendly, and confident. Close friends are in fact quite surprised when they find out I am an introvert at heart. But I could never sustain going to parties twice a week every week because I would get too drained.
Similarly in high school I did competitive athletics and I am a competitive person. Maybe introverts tend towards individual sports like track or swimming and extroverts prefer team games. This certainly held true with people I know. Perhaps the analogous holds for gaming as well. Perhaps introverts prefer Starcraft instead of team games like Halo. Personally I feel energized after I play Starcraft. But if I was in a room with my team mates playing Halo for hours, I would definitely feel drained.
On February 03 2011 19:01 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 18:37 Erandorr wrote:
On February 03 2011 18:25 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
On February 03 2011 04:11 akaname wrote: this is amazing, i'm a psychologist and i love it.
Surely you should know as a psychologist that Myers-Briggs is basically your average pseudo-science? It really has no more predictive value than enneagrams.
Runkk#195 INTP, INFP, INTJ, INFJ (depending on when I take the test and what test I take) Protoss/Zerg.
Yeah thats why im doubtful as well. The chances that this unbelievably limited test can show anything are very slim in my opinion.
What I always found odd is that the psychological community generally is very critical towards stuff like Myers-Briggs and 'emotional intelligence', but at the same time all stand firmly behind the notion of 'IQ' and 'IQ tests'.
I mean, IQ tests are as reproducible as cannon rushes and lack any constructive value. There are people who score phaenomenal at IQ tests but have accomplished nothing intellectually, and the reverse. My cents are that IQ tests, and the entire notion of 'IQ', the supposed metre on 'intelligence' are as pseudo-scientific as Myers-Briggs or 'emotional intelligence'.
Uhm, IQ tests predict performance in education job performance very well. There is no other instrument that predicts as well as a good intelligence test (not even a very, very expensive assessment centre matches the IQ test in general). What does emotional intelligence predict?
I like how you mention some individuals with a high IQ that do not perform well... We're talking populations here, norm groups. No offence, but you are pretty clueless on this subject.
Well to be fair you can learn for IQ tests. I had to do one ( it was not called that but it esentially was) for a college aplication and a friend recommended to me to do a few and it really improves the results, because you see the thoughpatterns required etc. An IQ test just measures what its designed for, which is basicly measuring how quickly and correctly you can understand and apply certain patterns in different categories. There are quite a few people who just train a lot for the test and then score high results based on training not "intelligence" whatever that even is and noone would ever think them to be of high intelligence. Of course if you are really smart you will get through those tests without much preparation but i would never value someones intelligence by that standart
Also, as you might expect, the more IQ test you've made, the better you're becoming at it. Does making IQ tests make you 'smarter'?
Imagine if weighing the mass of some object increased its mass after multiple measurements, not really a reliable method eh? :')
I studied physics, I can predict the path electrons will take in an electric field down to femtometric precision, furthermore, I can quantify the uncertainty of my measurements in hard units and account exactly how much they leak through. You will pardon my snobbish elitism I hope when what I learnt actually has to do with bloody hard numbers and irrefutable stone cold mathematics rather than this creative interpretation of results.
You can debate, but yes there are measures that tell us how well one does in a job or in an educational setting. Not that unthinkable is it? There's entire sub-field of psychology dedicated to it.
Yeah, there are 'measures', which make large assumptions, personal interpretations, subjective analyses, and what the one psychologist considers 'successful' the other disagrees with.
I want hard, cold units. Which do exist in psychology by the way, a simple example of a hard, cold, unit used in psychology is a sentence like this:
'Of all people in the group investigated, the median amount of REM sleep per night in the experimental condition was 5 cycles'
This is a hard unit, there is no disputing it.
No they are not, they are not ridiculously poor. Actually, the correlation between measures of IQ and job and educational performance is quite high (= a good predictor). Additionally, IQ is ideally measured more than once. However, a good intelligence test will report a confidence interval scale... And although there is variation, this variation is not nearly as high as what youve written. The correlation between intelligence tests at the beginning and at the end of youth are really high as well, for example, indicating the strength of the measurement even over the course of the development.
Be more specific, what do you call 'really high'?
Dude, I'm used to apparatus that measure stuff up to femtometric precision, I find a confidence interval of 5 points (which is precise for an IQ test) unacceptable noise. You realize that is one-third of a standard deviation right?
There are barely any good research articles done on EQ, while there are tons for IQ. Throwing these two in one sentence is a sign of being uneducated on this subject. Additionally, of course there are exceptions, but population wise it's a good indicator.
As I noted, population wise, length is also a 'good' indicator.
Be less vague with 'they are not ridiculously poor', I want some hard numbers, what are the confidence intervals, what are the average standard deviations of test. What's the expectancy value for a test to deviate when you take it the next day?
And yes, there is more research done on IQ I give you that, and it all should show for any scientific mind that IQ is bollocks. They are completely unreliable, it's quite the norm that it can differ 5 points if you take it the next day, 10 is not exceptional, and 15 is quite possible, this is completely unreliable and unacceptable to me as a tool.
And then comes the validity, I mean, what the fuck is 'intelligence', to begin with? The pompous ridicule of it, psychology freely, and correctly, admits that the term 'intelligence' is vague, and il-defined, how can you even begin to test the validity of a test then?
It even remains to be proven that this elusive concept of 'intelligence' even exists. I for one am very, very, sceptical towards its existence.
And the list goes on. Really, get off your high exact science horse. There's a reason why we call these social sciences. And yes, they work differently from what you are used to. But if you really want to say something on this topic, I suggest reading some.
Social sciences are a joke compared to actual sciences. My elitism is fully justified considering the rigour I was trained at and the precision my instruments were required to have compared to this ridiculous anything-goes reasoning of social """research""", please, I read enough, and I think you need to read more about actual sciences and its methodology and realize just how much different it is and how much higher the standards are.
I mean, psychological research is subject to different interpretations, the interpretation of the data collected can be criticized as much as the conclusions drawn from it, that is completely unacceptable in an actual rigorous science. Anyone must come to the same conclusion from the same data or the methodology used is severely flawed.
You can debate the construct, but you can not really debate how useful it is when large populations need to be assessed on how well they will do for a certain job, or a certain education. And this is what it was designed for, and it does the best job possible.
'useful'?
Yeah, it does the best job at the current point, and that's the worst of sins and flaws that are continued to be made 'Ohh, it's clearly lacking in precision, has huge uncertainties, but there's nothing better so we'll just take it.', grow some standard man.
If there's nothing better than bad, what is bad is still bad, there's just nothing good around.
And the reason that nothing good is around could very well be that this 'intelligence' as a metre does not even exist.
Anyways, im quitting derailing this thread now. Nice initiative and I in no way mean to criticise this. I just hate the ignorance on this topic.
Bold of you to speak of ignorance.
We have hardly even quantified our statements and it should be clear that my demands on precision are higher than yours and what you call 'precise' I call unacceptable unreliability. I'm pretty sure we can both agree that it's far from exceptional that an IQ test taken again the next day shows a 5 point deviation. If you want to call that an acceptable reliability, or a confidence factor of 5 acceptable than that's your own prerogative, it's just absurd to call an uncertainty of 1/3 of a standard deviation acceptable.
And that still ignores the philosophical issue of the existence of 'intelligence' or a metre thereon.
Looking at all the data so far as updated on google docs, I find it kinda funny that ENTPs (15/247 entries if I add myself) all seem to be the following:
On February 04 2011 06:15 Stereotype wrote: Stereotype.788 NA ENTP Zerg Diamond
Looking at all the data so far as updated on google docs, I find it kinda funny that ENTPs (15/247 entries if I add myself) all seem to be the following:
On February 05 2011 10:43 babo213 wrote: Just some interesting stats from his last excel/database post for primary race
Added to OP! (Hope you don't mind)
It's all good If you need any help with sorting through the data or stuff like that I can assist you if you want.
sc2persona.com has a contact method up; get in touch with me. We're definitely looking for anyone who wants to contribute beyond submissions. (I'm not sure how TL is about posting e-Mail addresses, so I'm just going to handle it like I do at Bnet).
Once I get the initial portal up, I'm hoping to make it very easy for contributors to post analysis!
They often consider two things which can easily coexist (both being very strong) in a personality to be opposites. They also don't take into account the reasoning behind each answer.
eg: Say I don't "consider the destiny of humankind". Is this because I'm unthinking? Or is it because I've already considered the destiny to its conclusion and so I don't need to think about it anymore? Those are two polar opposites, yet would both account for the same answer.
On February 05 2011 12:11 Buddhist wrote: These personality tests are so stupid :/.
They often consider two things which can easily coexist (both being very strong) in a personality to be opposites. They also don't take into account the reasoning behind each answer.
eg: Say I don't "consider the destiny of humankind". Is this because I'm unthinking? Or is it because I've already considered the destiny to its conclusion and so I don't need to think about it anymore? Those are two polar opposites, yet would both account for the same answer.
Definitely. Some of them are ambiguous. Some of them depend on the situation.
For example: "You are almost never late for your appointments"
I'm never late for my appointment if it's actually important, but I'm always late for meetings with my friends (and they hate me for it lol).
On February 05 2011 12:11 Buddhist wrote: These personality tests are so stupid :/.
They often consider two things which can easily coexist (both being very strong) in a personality to be opposites. They also don't take into account the reasoning behind each answer.
eg: Say I don't "consider the destiny of humankind". Is this because I'm unthinking? Or is it because I've already considered the destiny to its conclusion and so I don't need to think about it anymore? Those are two polar opposites, yet would both account for the same answer.
Definitely. Some of them are ambiguous. Some of them depend on the situation.
For example: "You are almost never late for your appointments"
I'm never late for my appointment if it's actually important, but I'm always late for meetings with my friends (and they hate me for it lol).
Yeah, the quiz is a bit lacking. There are more accurate tests that can be administered professionally if you're really curious, or you can do some research and classify yourself. The quiz actually labeled me as INTJ (with only a slight J preference), but I felt like I was more of an INTP. Did some research on the distinctions between the two and I'm positive I'm an INTP now.
On February 05 2011 12:11 Buddhist wrote: These personality tests are so stupid :/.
They often consider two things which can easily coexist (both being very strong) in a personality to be opposites. They also don't take into account the reasoning behind each answer.
eg: Say I don't "consider the destiny of humankind". Is this because I'm unthinking? Or is it because I've already considered the destiny to its conclusion and so I don't need to think about it anymore? Those are two polar opposites, yet would both account for the same answer.
Yeah, it was discussed earlier that it's pure pseudo-science, but we were told to get on-topic.
On February 05 2011 12:11 Buddhist wrote: These personality tests are so stupid :/.
They often consider two things which can easily coexist (both being very strong) in a personality to be opposites. They also don't take into account the reasoning behind each answer.
eg: Say I don't "consider the destiny of humankind". Is this because I'm unthinking? Or is it because I've already considered the destiny to its conclusion and so I don't need to think about it anymore? Those are two polar opposites, yet would both account for the same answer.
Yeah, it was discussed earlier that it's pure pseudo-science, but we were told to get on-topic.
Definitely acknowledged here too. They're absolutely pseudo-science and far from precise. But absolute precision was never a goal for this project,... it would be too ambitious of a project (to be non-profit and unfunded, anyway) if it were. To procure truly accurate (if there is such a thing) personality data, it would likely require resource and time contributions vastly more costly than the "for giggles" return we're shooting for.
I don't intend to publish the results anywhere reputable (in the sense that scientific journals are reputable),... just in places that are awesome - such as TL. :-D
The database still needs some fleshing out. We still need lots of submissions, particularly from Terran. Get your Terran buddies to submit data if you can, as our weighting is thrown off by the low turnout. :-)
The database still needs some fleshing out. We still need lots of submissions, particularly from Terran. Get your Terran buddies to submit data if you can, as our weighting is thrown off by the low turnout. :-)
You refer to an "ISDJ" in the stats.
I think that was probably a typo for ISFJ.
edit. Also, the number of INTJ's is really cool. Especially since according to wikipedia 1-4% of people are INTJ's, the fact that 25% of TLers who have contributed to the study are INTJ is pretty neat.
edit. Also, the number of INTJ's is really cool. Especially since according to wikipedia 1-4% of people are INTJ's, the fact that 25% of TLers who have contributed to the study are INTJ is pretty neat.
Not surprising that geek personalities INTP and INTJ both account for 55%.
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
This is a classic misunderstanding of what a introvert is. Put simply, the difference between introverts and extroverts is how they recharge energy. Imagine a party in a packed apartment. An extrovert can spend hours there and feel refreshed and energized at the end. On the other hand, an introvert will feel tired and drained. But this has nothing to do with how they act at the party. I'm a huge introvert and I go to parties all the time. I act very outgoing, friendly, and confident. Close friends are in fact quite surprised when they find out I am an introvert at heart. But I could never sustain going to parties twice a week every week because I would get too drained.
Similarly in high school I did competitive athletics and I am a competitive person. Maybe introverts tend towards individual sports like track or swimming and extroverts prefer team games. This certainly held true with people I know. Perhaps the analogous holds for gaming as well. Perhaps introverts prefer Starcraft instead of team games like Halo. Personally I feel energized after I play Starcraft. But if I was in a room with my team mates playing Halo for hours, I would definitely feel drained.
I wasn't venturing an understanding of introvert and extrovert beyond how the online tests linked in the OP used them.
Don't see the point of this response, not like it was surprising?
Wouldn't introverts tend to play single player and offline? If they're competitive, do speed runs or accumulate achievements. Esports is the more social realm of competitive gaming.
If the questions were more specific like "would you rather play a game at home by yourself or at a LAN party with your friends" or "do you prefer to discover a new game along with friends or by yourself" etc then esports folks ought to score more extroverted than on these generic tests.
This is a classic misunderstanding of what a introvert is. Put simply, the difference between introverts and extroverts is how they recharge energy. Imagine a party in a packed apartment. An extrovert can spend hours there and feel refreshed and energized at the end. On the other hand, an introvert will feel tired and drained. But this has nothing to do with how they act at the party. I'm a huge introvert and I go to parties all the time. I act very outgoing, friendly, and confident. Close friends are in fact quite surprised when they find out I am an introvert at heart. But I could never sustain going to parties twice a week every week because I would get too drained.
Similarly in high school I did competitive athletics and I am a competitive person. Maybe introverts tend towards individual sports like track or swimming and extroverts prefer team games. This certainly held true with people I know. Perhaps the analogous holds for gaming as well. Perhaps introverts prefer Starcraft instead of team games like Halo. Personally I feel energized after I play Starcraft. But if I was in a room with my team mates playing Halo for hours, I would definitely feel drained.
I wasn't venturing an understanding of introvert and extrovert beyond how the online tests linked in the OP used them.
Online tests link in in the same way.
They often ask things like 'After a night of partying I: A: Feel refreshed. B: Need some time alone to regenerate.', not so much 'Do you or don't you go partying'?
Of course, this is silly, because I miss the option 'Feel annoyed at myself and the collective of human stupidity, hate myself, the entire world, the lack of caffeine and am one step closer to work over my school with a half-automatic but am terribly pleased I live on the civilized part of the North-Atlantic where I need to at least have a reason to posses them.'
I know the sample's small, but this is crazy. My own personality is twice as likely to play the race I picked than either of the others. Really hope that you guys keep these trends when the data pool grows.
Sooo ... I am less likely to play Toss as an INTP ? Just when i stopped condering switching over and over again and sticking to P. T_T
Also, terran looked more "J" to me. I mean, in the actual game they make the decisions, they decide when to attack, which opening to choose, how long the game is gonna long, etc. Whereas P is actually the one reacting in PvT.
Not giving any information because i have no idea what my race actually is whatsoever :o
Really having a difficult time choosing between zerg and terran. Right now, Terran tho. Interesting to see ENTP's (inventor) not really present in other races.
I thought the questions in the personality test were all really stupid (or at least helplessly vague) like any other such test. But "inventor" far and away appeals to me over any other possible personality profile.
The database still needs some fleshing out. We still need lots of submissions, particularly from Terran. Get your Terran buddies to submit data if you can, as our weighting is thrown off by the low turnout. :-)
You refer to an "ISDJ" in the stats.
I think that was probably a typo for ISFJ.
edit. Also, the number of INTJ's is really cool. Especially since according to wikipedia 1-4% of people are INTJ's, the fact that 25% of TLers who have contributed to the study are INTJ is pretty neat.
Yah - Unfortunately, the [Google Docs] spreadsheet data is subject to my own human error. Once we're primarily using the data from the database, we'll be certain it only matches real personality types. I think Vaux just did the data crunching and didn't double check my work (as he shouldn't have to). :-)
On February 07 2011 17:22 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: They often ask things like 'After a night of partying I: A: Feel refreshed. B: Need some time alone to regenerate.', not so much 'Do you or don't you go partying'?
Of course, this is silly, because I miss the option 'Feel annoyed at myself and the collective of human stupidity, hate myself, the entire world, the lack of caffeine and am one step closer to work over my school with a half-automatic but am terribly pleased I live on the civilized part of the North-Atlantic where I need to at least have a reason to posses them.'
Wow,... that was an awesome run on sentence (No sarcasm intended) - I think I like this guy (No sarcasm intended)
funny how the race with the most statistics behind it is zerg, while the race that's played the least is zerg. I think that the other 2 races have a lot more extroverted personalities behind them, it's just that they don't like posting on TL. If you look at the statistics at sc2ranks, zerg is the least played race, so this data isn't necessarily the most accurate. It's maybe a good representation of TL, but not all sc2 gamers.
Interesting, I do have some questions though that belong into the OP:
Who are you doing this research for and why?
What are the merits of the Myers Briggs type indicator and why do you (and those responding seriously) accept it to be accurate and to measure anything?
What were your expectations when you started this?
On February 08 2011 19:43 Lucid90 wrote: funny how the race with the most statistics behind it is zerg, while the race that's played the least is zerg. I think that the other 2 races have a lot more extroverted personalities behind them, it's just that they don't like posting on TL. If you look at the statistics at sc2ranks, zerg is the least played race, so this data isn't necessarily the most accurate. It's maybe a good representation of TL, but not all sc2 gamers.
It is interesting how few terran players are on teamliquid. This explains why it always seemed like there was so much zerg whining in comparison to the other races, its not that zerg players like to whine more than any other players, there are just more of them on TL.
On February 08 2011 20:11 ico wrote: Interesting, I do have some questions though that belong into the OP:
Who are you doing this research for and why?
What are the merits of the Myers Briggs type indicator and why do you (and those responding seriously) accept it to be accurate and to measure anything?
What were your expectations when you started this?
You're probably right - I should make an FAQ. :-)
I'm doing the research for the SC2 community and for fun. I'm not hired, enticed or persuaded by any entity. I'm motivated by curiosity and by the community's response thus far. Those who have joined the effort of analyzing the data have stepped up out of their own curiosity as well. I've funded web hosting in hopes that this will become an Open Community project and because it will be much easier to collaborate with those who have already offered and provided their assistance.
The merit of Myers Briggs MBTI is it's popularity. I don't expect it is more valid than any other test, nor do I expect it to be accurate. It's simply the easiest means to collect a large pool of data with which to analyze potential personality correlations. Ideally, I would Love to see someone with psychometric analysis experience step up and help us to design an SC2-targetted personality survey which could be hosted on sc2persona.com - but that would require a consistent stream of interest to collect enough data. Myers Briggs is an ideal starting point. Many people know their MBTI, and those who don't can take a non-invasive 2 minute test.
I'm not sure what you mean by my expectations. I certainly hoped to obtain data, which has already been more successful than my expectation of initial turnout. My "vision", I suppose,.. as in my ideal ultimate goal - would be to see this turn into an Open Community project - with autonomous community moderation and contribution. Data would be collected by a form and submitted to a database; the database would be fleshed out with related data by querying the sc2ranks API; that data would become available to anyone with "Contributor" access to analyze in whatever way works for them (Excel, Python, PHP, Perl, etc).
On February 08 2011 19:43 Lucid90 wrote: funny how the race with the most statistics behind it is zerg, while the race that's played the least is zerg. I think that the other 2 races have a lot more extroverted personalities behind them, it's just that they don't like posting on TL. If you look at the statistics at sc2ranks, zerg is the least played race, so this data isn't necessarily the most accurate. It's maybe a good representation of TL, but not all sc2 gamers.
It is interesting how few terran players are on teamliquid. This explains why it always seemed like there was so much zerg whining in comparison to the other races, its not that zerg players like to whine more than any other players, there are just more of them on TL.
I'm really really hoping I can entice some Terrans by sharing our project in the Battle.net chat rooms,... or something. I'm getting the impression that our average Terran player just isn't interested in data the way the rest of the community is.
It's absolutely true that the sample we have thus far is only from forum visitors (half from TL and half from the Battle.net NA forums). I'm trying to determine a means to change that, but haven't built enough inertia to run entirely on word of mouth (it may not even happen,... perhaps only forum-goers are the personalities interested in this kind of analysis). *shrug
On February 08 2011 19:43 Lucid90 wrote: funny how the race with the most statistics behind it is zerg, while the race that's played the least is zerg. I think that the other 2 races have a lot more extroverted personalities behind them, it's just that they don't like posting on TL. If you look at the statistics at sc2ranks, zerg is the least played race, so this data isn't necessarily the most accurate. It's maybe a good representation of TL, but not all sc2 gamers.
Agreed. The data is definitely only a representation of forum users (We have Battle.net [NA] forum data as well in the collection). I agree with your assessment that the high "I" turnout is likely due to more interest from an introverted personality in this type of study,... along with the strong likelihood that a forum user is more often an introvert.
Vaux is doing an excellent job weighting the race statistics by comparing to actual population from sc2ranks data, however. He has even found a means to establish more accurate representation of the Terran data, despite low turnout (because it seems a LOT of people who play just 20 games and quit tend to play as Terran [presumably from the campaign experience]) and when accounting for that, the resultant analysis is much more plausible.
I'm very excited to see his next report.
I'll get the TL spreadsheet updated shortly.
Battle.net interest dropped - I'll likely try to re-spark the contributions there once a little time has passed and there is a fresh set of posters/readers.
Many Thanks again for all of the contributions. I'll update the thread again once Vaux has his full analysis complete. :-D
Awesome data Would be best if more people would do the test so you can get a nice sample of say, 10k people, and add the leagues present. Maybe it could be that a certain personality does significantly worse with a specific race, and should consider swapping to their personality-optimal race :D
On April 06 2011 20:24 Cade wrote: INFP Zerg Master League
I see our wonderful thread has been re-discovered. :-D
Quick reminder, guys: I need Character name and Code too, in order to [hopefully] be able to reference sc2ranks API on the players who still show by char code (We're working on that part now)
If you're uncomfortable submitting the information publicly, send it to phinix@sc2persona.com
On April 06 2011 18:21 Meborg wrote: Awesome data Would be best if more people would do the test so you can get a nice sample of say, 10k people, and add the leagues present. Maybe it could be that a certain personality does significantly worse with a specific race, and should consider swapping to their personality-optimal race :D
It would be very interesting indeed if someone were to find they are more proficient in another race after reviewing our data. I only really expect to review what race certain personalities gravitate toward, though. My expectation is that it's more of a "preference" thing than it is "proficiency",... Of course, that's simply my assumption and by no means does that make it accurate. :D
If you have any suggestions for increasing the sample size, please let me know! I'd like to get some interest beyond forum contributors too, so we can see if different sources result in different distribution. Briz will have a submission form for the site sometime in the near future - so the contributions wont necessarily have to come through a forum post or E-Mail (though it certainly still can!)
On April 08 2011 05:29 Mintastic wrote: INTJ Terran
Another reminder - we need name and character code to be able to utilize your data. You can submit to phinix@sc2persona.com if you don't want to post it publicly.
On May 27 2011 22:34 SoftMachine wrote: The science behind myers briggs is not valid, it's created by two amateur psychologists, yet it's used in workplaces and in medical care sometimes.
With that said, have fun with it
Yah - totally aware. :-D Since it is just for fun, we feel the MBTI is easier to acquire than a proprietary test. With Myers Briggs, we can get a larger sample and have some fun with the data analysis.
Also, hello again, thread! Looks like DeltaG got some MBTI polling action going on too, so you guys might be seeing some new efforts come back around. I've been kind of waiting before poking and seeing if interest would climb again, but it looks like Delta found a good time to poke for me. :-D
Again, anyone is welcome to help with the project or play with the data. I've got hosting and a MySQL database up at sc2persona.com - just send me an E-Mail or a PM and let me know how you'd like to involve yourself.
Hello again, TL - I have updates that I'd like to bring to the community's attention!:
------- Newest Updates (6/28/11) -------
We have a Submission Form - Submit your MBTI You can now submit your MBTI yourself. I am desperately hoping that this link will be shared, so that we can get contributors from outside the forum communities. We believe this will help round out the data sample (and relieve me from the manual data entry!).
We have Forums - Forum.sc2persona.com If you're interested in this project, please come visit the forums and discuss the data in our MBTI Analysis board!
You can Query the Database - SC2persona Query Thread Read Only access to the database is available through a simple Query form.
7/27/11 Update We are now working on a Five Factor Model (NEO) test!!
The plan is to modify the test in such a way that it reflects in game personality, while also allowing for better international consistency by using StarCraft II as the cultural norm. As such, we're looking for anyone interested in helping to develop the Big 5 questionnaire. If you have a Love for SC2, and an interest in psycho-metrics, please give us a shout here:
We only want a portion of the sc2persona community involved, so that the remainder can assist in testing the test, so to speak.
We are, of course, still hoping to see more MBTI submissions. Please see below, or visit http://www.sc2persona.com/submit.php for the Myers Briggs portion of the project.
The way you fix this is just increase your understanding of the different types. Whatever fits you best is your type... I know it's an old post.. And I'm sorry for bumping it if nobody wants to discuss this further... I'd rather not make a new thread, anyways... But I didn't see any posts mentioning that more than likely, you will not test accurately the first time you take it... For example, apparently Sensory characteristics are practical and realistic; whereas intuitive characteristics are conceptual. When i first took the test, i thought I was on the border because I felt that you couldn't really be realistic without being conceptual; that is, starting with an idea or a notion to work off of. Turns out that is EXTREMELY intuitive. The way we perceive the questions may tamper the results; Also, the idea of introversion versus extroversion may confuse a lot of people, since in MBTI, introversion simply means you get your energy back by being alone, where as extroverted individuals will get there energy back by being with other people. Common knowledge says that introverts are anti social, extroverts are social; which isn't the way MBTI looks at it at all. It's about perception. Therefore, I do think it's more accurate to just read about the different types and see what fits you best, as i stated earlier..
INFP CtrLZerG.867 Diamond Zerg
EDIT: I also misread just HOW old these posts were... I thought the thread was created in February of THIS year... sorry
EPT
.
