Personality? Tested, tried, and true

From Buzzfeed to buzzwords, social media regularly leads us down the path of virality with a new personality test entering the mainstream. But why do we complete, compare, and curiously follow the test results? Do we make the results our personality, or does our personality dictate our results?

Intrinsically, depending on what the quiz title is, all consumers subconsciously desire a specific or particular result, so reactions and acceptance of one’s result can vary

Starting with the ever-viral Buzzfeed, which is easily the most shareable and accessible of those that I intend to explore. The company is renowned for its ironic, unserious, and playful themes. If you haven’t done one of the Buzzfeed quizzes, no matter your favourite show or music artist, you’re bound to find something related to something that you’re passionate about or that informs your identity. The website capitalises on any and every pop culture trend which increases its virality, however niche. The site presents you with low-stakes, engaging quizzes with GIFs and easy shareability. It is even possible to collaborate as a group, as they can use a code and complete one quiz together, simultaneously receiving their unique results. Intrinsically, depending on what the quiz title is, all consumers subconsciously desire a specific or particular result, so reactions and acceptance of one’s result can vary. As the quizzes are so quick, you could take them over and over until you get your desired result to share and show off.

Comparably, fandom quizzes such as The Sorting Hat, inspired by Harry Potter, offer a sense of escapism back into the world of a book/show/film, while also nurturing a sense of belonging for the individual as well as to a wider fandom community. There’s almost a focused personalisation subject to one’s passions, which filters into identity. As a result, these types of quizzes make people feel part of something bigger (think the Comic Con of personality quizzes).

The Myers-Briggs test (also known as the MBTI), founded by Katherine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, is a psychological assessment that categorises people into one of 16 personality types. It’s a self-report that provides insight into behaviours which make up one’s personality output. It also utilises a framework for comprehending human behavioural differences. Some discount the test as it lacks rigorous science-based evidence, thus calling into question its reliability and accuracy. While it may be grounded in Carl Jung’s theories, there isn’t as much empirical research to support it. As a result, the psychology community don’t widely accept or endorse the test.

I find that the most confronting type is the one that is most like you (as much as it feels intrusive and too close to home)

Similarly, the 16 Personalities quiz took inspiration from the MBTI and negates the Jungian concepts, replacing them with the big five personality traits. These are more commonly found in contemporary socio-psychological research. The traits are energy (introverted/extroverted), mind (intuitive/observant), nature (thinking/feeling), tactics (judging/prospecting), and identity (assertive/turbulent). Depending on which side you lean heavily towards, this dictates what type of variant you fall into.  Then come the type groups or roles which are in association with specific variants and letter combinations, analyst, diplomat, sentinel or explorer. With this information, the test best reveals one’s perspective in consuming information, decision-making, communication style, as well as preferred social and professional working environment.

With both of these tests in mind, I wanted to conduct a minor experiment: would my MBTI results match my 16 Personalities results? Incidentally, while the 16 Personalities test has its own official website, when searching for free MBTI tests, they all led back to the 16 Personalities. When I did find one which I thought was different and uniquely MBTI, I then realised the questions list was an exact copy of the 16 Personalities test. I discovered I am an ENFJ-T (extrovert, intuitive, feeling, judging, and turbulent). I took the protagonist personality type, but the diplomat role. Although I would have to pay to get in-depth knowledge breakdowns, I found that my type means I’m “a charismatic and inspiring personality type who often feels called to serve a greater purpose in life. ENFJs feel a near-constant drive to expand, improve, and grow… often in the name of serving others. But it’s all too easy for ENFJs to feel lost when the results that they envision and strive for don’t manifest.” Bear this in mind as I proceed to explore and examine the next few test types.

As an avid listener of the ‘Unsolicited Advice Podcast with Ashley Nichole and Taryne Renee’, the pair repeatedly discussed and referred to the Enneagram Personality Test. Taken by my curiosity, I went down an Enneagram wormhole, even buying the book The Road Back to You that they referred to. The book acts as a practical guide through each of the nine types, including witty and personal stories, while also alluding to Christian spirituality. I find that the most confronting type is the one that is most like you (as much as it feels intrusive and too close to home). When I first took the test, I was a type 2, which is The Helper (type titles differ depending on the source, but are synonymous). This meant I was emotionally driven, considerate of others’ needs before my own, but also had an innate desire to be loved and needed. At the time, that was pointedly accurate! Upon doing it this year, my type has changed to a 7, The Enthusiast; extroverted, optimistic, playful, but also conflict-avoidant and uncomfortable with negative emotions (mark how this matches my MBTI). This test grants more self-awareness and personal growth; it’s not scientific due to occasional vagueness, but it is considered a pseudoscience as it is so subjective.

In an age of Love Island and too many dating shows to name, compatibility and the love languages test entered the mainstream of reality TV. The quiz determines one’s primary way of giving and receiving love, which can be one of five types: words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, and physical touch. These results aren’t limited to romantic relationships, but we see them proactively applied more so there. The theory was developed by Gary Chapman, who studied human relationships. While many debate the robustness of the test results as they can give mixed results (especially depending on the reliability of the source), some critics even attempt to undermine Chapman’s theories altogether. In this contemporary age, however, people have found it beneficial as it can help foster satisfaction and longevity in their relationships.

People are still doing them as they help self-understanding, behaviours, and career/professional development while also regulating your emotions

In a similar vein, there is the attachment styles test, which is more clinically research-based. There are four types: secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant. The test offers a guideline as to how you form and nurture relationships by identifying your dominant attachment style. Upon taking the test, I found I am an anxious-preoccupied, meaning I crave closeness but can also, as a result, fear rejection or abandonment. While not all the characteristics match my personality, emotional hypervigilance did and also aligned with my other personality test results.

So why do we continue to take personality tests? Why do they stay relevant or trendy? Partly because they can be validating while also giving one a sense of belonging and self-awareness, despite having to take the results with a pinch of salt, subject to the source and its accuracy. People are still doing them as they help self-understanding, behaviours, and career/professional development while also regulating their emotions. This is not to say you can’t also search and discover what pasta type or New Girl character you are. Either way, they are fun, informative and insightful.