Personality Assessment System - What if MBTI, but glowie?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The answers tend to be way too mutually exclusive and therefore result in inaccurate results. What if you're not really socially apt but just don't give a fuck until it goes back into being charming?
 
Echnaton said:
The answers tend to be way too mutually exclusive and therefore result in inaccurate results. What if you're not really socially apt but just don't give a fuck until it goes back into being charming?
Click to expand...
As stated before at greater length. This is a highly simplified multiple choice quiz informed by the same research. However a true PAS examination would be more akin to an IQ test where you are given logic tasks that can only be solved in one correct way. After a long series of these tasks under observation would the examiners be able to truly determine an effective personality type.

Or even classify you uniquely if you were a wild card type. Multiple choice wouldn't even be a factor in a real PAS exam.
 
Just_A_guy said:
It's only your primitive type which is like childhood and development stages. Take the basic type exam you might find yourself surprised with the result.
Click to expand...
1768176285005.png
 
I skimmed through a couple archived 4chan threads where people were taking this test, and someone claimed the real test was done with psychiatric patients, which if true would explain some of how the results are written and why some personalities have little written. It would mean this test was probably only mostly done on two groups:
1. Glowies who agreed to be tested for research.
2. Mental ward patients.

I found one declassified paper on Google writing about the results of testing involving the PAS on CIA niggers, and while I don't understand the full language and context, the important bit I see is that they didn't have one of every primitive personality type to test with. Probably they didn't have enough normies of every type working for them to research, and it's assumed that the psychiatric patients that are too combative or unresponsive to test are mostly in those remaining personality types, so hence the short descriptions that include saying they're untestable. The most negative aspects they write down could be read as "this is what your personality type likely looks like if you had a mental breakdown and ended up in a psych ward."
 
So since the glowies gave me IF*U, and by MBTI standards I'm usually an INTP (I can see myself being a really depressed or traumatized ENTP.) I guess I should start my cult dedicated to the Machine God!
 
I really like that the test makes a distinction between primitive and compensated attributes.
This is something no modern-day test would have the balls to do, let alone call you a faggot for it.
Based on the thread and the very informative notes of @Retarded Weeb it does appears that some personality types were well outlined by the test while many are way off.
With e*ru, I appear to belong to the former.
> extremely work-oriented
> His primary asset is his ability to learn mechanical-procedural tasks in a highly efficient manner.
> non-responsive to flattery and other involving attempts because such activity represents no threat to him
> Alcoholism, particularly solo drinking, and hypo-chondriasis are common neurotic manifestations of the maladjusted e*ru.
The one thing that sticks out as false is the assessment that I have no creativity what-so-ever, but since my scores weren't radical, that seems like a reasonable mistake.

Miragestallio said:
>While the e*ru [IcRuUu] may rape with little awareness of the object -- he may be guilty of sexual assault of an aged woman or necrophilia -- the iru is more prone to compulsive masturbation.
Click to expand...
Uh, that is something the description for e*ru itself fails to mention.
What else was left out? :stress:
 
parsnip said:
@Chemex Thank you for the reply. I read it again and figured it out. It's because we're too normal to be clinically interesting 🤷
Click to expand...
It might be more due to the fact that this thing is actually not fully developed yet. Hence, if you visit the site, there's this:
1768196450668.png

That would explain why the description for our particular subtype is like that (it doesn't excuse how poorly written it is, though). If you haven't fully fleshed out something, it's a normal method to simply describe the particular group that subcategory is in. Add some comparisons with other categories, and voila! you get long wall of text that seems meaningful, but is actually not. See how much it looks like the description for our particular subtype?

Considering that this thing is actually pretty old, and yet is STILL not finished, I think it's pretty much an abandoned project. Then again, I guess it's pretty obvious from the start...
 
agent_donkey said:
I really like that the test makes a distinction between primitive and compensated attributes
Click to expand...
As much as I think this test and others like it are mostly just fun self-indulgence. That part is something I genuinely think they were on the right track with: differentiating instinctive behaviors that one has leaned into vs learned behaviors that they have developed over time, those are going to turn out to be completely different people.

Look at the U/A primitive dichotomy, assuming extremes:
A's were children who always "understood the assignment" in social settings and had no trouble getting along with the other kids and teachers. If left uncontrolled, the Au risks becoming a social chameleon/spineless people pleaser.
U's, were the weird kids that didn't understand or care about social expectations and might find themselves shunned or punished while they were genuinely incapable of comprehending what they did wrong. Uncontrolled, the Uu's could end up literal drooling autists.
An Ac isn't gonna be like a Uu since they instinctively know what their expectations are, but have chosen to defy them for any number of reasons.
And Uc's aren't going to be anything like Au's since their ability to perform socially came about from a series of lessons they took to heart.
 
Chemex said:
Considering that this thing is actually pretty old, and yet is STILL not finished, I think it's pretty much an abandoned project. Then again, I guess it's pretty obvious from the start...
Click to expand...
Or it was finished and its so good that the glowies did not want to release it.

But yeah, without the contact factors its really only half-finished. I know from experience that a lot of people were socialized and adapted against their type. Like, I know a genuine schizo who was raised an an adopted, sullen, extremely inward, autistic kid with numerous issues but his parents did not allow him to fuck toasters or watch sonic all day, and continuously kept pushing him into therapy and social situations and acceptable interests so he is now a very socially competent, married man, very articulate, very observant, has a sense of humor, able to hold down a job, able to small talk, able to function in every way without tension, except for having utterly bizarre hobbies, like collecting sardine cans, paintings of dolphins and making paintings himself as part of art therapy with screaming, demonic dolphins merging into crowds of humans and buildings. He also likes collecting WW1 postcards and letters and obsessed with the concept that "this could have been someone's last letter!". You still get that bizarre feeling that you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of a person, that he would still be just an non-communicative schizo left alone. bit his parents helped him to build up enough ice so there is an actual person above the infinite howling darkness now.
 
I disagree when the assessment said I would carve my name into a prostitute. Prostitutes don't deserve to have Kofi Drinka on their soiled fleshed. And why would I stick needles into women on the street? What do I gain from it?

Test is pretty accurate minus the serial killer traits.
 
agent_donkey said:
I really like that the test makes a distinction between primitive and compensated attributes.
This is something no modern-day test would have the balls to do, let alone call you a faggot for it.
Based on the thread and the very informative notes of @Retarded Weeb it does appears that some personality types were well outlined by the test while many are way off.
With e*ru, I appear to belong to the former.
> extremely work-oriented
> His primary asset is his ability to learn mechanical-procedural tasks in a highly efficient manner.
> non-responsive to flattery and other involving attempts because such activity represents no threat to him
> Alcoholism, particularly solo drinking, and hypo-chondriasis are common neurotic manifestations of the maladjusted e*ru.
The one thing that sticks out as false is the assessment that I have no creativity what-so-ever, but since my scores weren't radical, that seems like a reasonable mistake.


Uh, that is something the description for e*ru itself fails to mention.
What else was left out? :stress:
Click to expand...
It's also important to note any inaccuracies could be theoretically compensated for by the contact portion of the exam which is not ready for use atm. That one is how your basic type has been modified further through your maturation and adulthood.

I look forward to the third part of the test but I am interested enough I'd be willing to volunteer for some feds to poke at me.
 
I've took the test multiple times and I've noticed that it will mark you as autistic or schizoid if you express any indifference towards the feelings of others or general human suffering. I think that the test does not handle this sort of thing accurately because there are levels to this kind of stuff. For example one might not care about a misfortune of some stranger who lives on the other side of the globe while caring for the misfortune of their next-door neighbor. Same with the questions about accidentally offending someone, if it's a person I respect it will bother me, if it's someone on the internet then who cares. In both cases it seems like it's not possible to give a truly truthful answer and yet at the same time the answers seem to change the outcome rather drastically.
 
SIMON THE PIEMAN said:
I've took the test multiple times and I've noticed that it will mark you as autistic or schizoid if you express any indifference towards the feelings of others or general human suffering. I think that the test does not handle this sort of thing accurately because there are levels to this kind of stuff. For example one might not care about a misfortune of some stranger who lives on the other side of the globe while caring for the misfortune of their next-door neighbor. Same with the questions about accidentally offending someone, if it's a person I respect it will bother me, if it's someone on the internet then who cares. In both cases it seems like it's not possible to give a truly truthful answer and yet at the same time the answers seem to change the outcome rather drastically.
Click to expand...
It's a binary questionnaire. There's lots of questions you can't answer in the way you want to, because it's not black and white. But the way you answer those also builds into your personality type. "How do you answer a question with no totally correct answer" is a good way to judge people's personality type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom