The Eristics Test: The Scariest Personality Quiz You'll Ever Take

I'm going to be transparent, when I read your post I assumed it was a dismissal that's a bit too shallow. Having read the article and taken the test, both sound uncomfortably like the writer has some sort of disordered thinking (e.g. has been really hitting the amphetamines). It's a little unhinged.

But as with all personality tests, it's fun to take. As with all such tests, the things they say are general enough that they apply to most people relatively well. It's like reading a horoscope - meant to entertain. The meaning ascribed to it in the article this post references is not something I could find.

Usually the proper way to handle this is to flag and/or send a mail to hn [at] ycombinator.com; probably just the latter because there are a minimum number of flags required for any story to be taken off the page, while the issue at hand is a bit serious.

(For this one, I just sent an email; and it might be a good idea to introduce a reason for flagging that might help set various thresholds for moderator actions on the story.)

I've also had that bit presented to me and it's similarly inaccurate.

CliftonStrengths were much more accurate and actually helped me understand one coworker better after we all took the test.

I received the same result, and similarly have strong spatial skills (among other divergences from the archetype). Taking a look through the others, none of them describe me particularly well. The author of the article touches on this when they mention how low-energy and emotionally moderated people find the personality test less interesting, but I would expand this to say that the results overrepresent 'type-A' and adjacent personality types, while the characterizations of those less goal-oriented, introverts, and so on are rather lacking.

My apologies. Your points are well-taken.

I confess I failed to properly familiarize myself with the HN guidelines. I absolutely did not intend to violate them. I will review and avoid violations in the future.

I have made some mistakes as a result of this semi-manic phase and I've taken steps to calm myself so they don't happen again.

All that said, I hope the material I shared is interesting regardless. It is ultimately just some interesting ideas, not a guaranteed way to become super powerful or anything silly like that.

This test should be subjected to rigorous scientific validation to make any objective claims about its utility. One place we want to start is a basic smell check of the Barnum effect. If that doesn't pan out, I believe that we (myself, the test creator, and any other individuals promoting the test) will own up to it. We are happy to be wrong and learn from it.

Even if you take it at face value, answers to the questions shift over time - is food a chore?

The point is not that it has full scientific rigor, but a certain theoretical beauty that IMHO invites further study.

Even if it isn't scientifically rigorous, I feel it's ( slightly) better than a horoscope in that it at least provides an opportunity for self reflection.

On the whole, one of the difficulties with tests like these is that we tend to have multiple "roles" we take on in different situations (there's a psychological term for this that I can't recall). We might be analytical and impartial at work, but emotion-driven when interacting with friends and family. It's difficult for tests like this to take into account the fact that we might feel differently about a question depending on the role we are currently in.