Thank you, UK.

Thank you, France.

Hat trick, USA?

Putin getting nervous.

Thanks for the fair comment. Would you mind elaborating on “control the context to eliminate bias and gaming” under this situation?

To your second point, yeah I could’ve made that more clear. At that point in my comment I was still unpacking what veracity and validity could mean in the context of a personality test. For example, it’s hard to discuss repeatability in the context of personality that can change under life circumstances. If you take the most reputable personality tests out there (and they’re all with a grain of salt), they will of course be impacted if you take it, for example, the day after your mother dies. Or you are exhausted from an 18 hour shift. Or you just had a newborn child, etc. These are more extreme examples just to convey the idea. Naturally one can say, “well of course if you choose the same answers and your personality is consistent, then yes the test itself will be repeatable.”

For the same reason people will say, “But (scientific) polls of elections aren’t accurate!” it’s because they view them as predictive and immutable when they, like personality tests, are explicit snapshots in time.

The more substantive question to me is: do the questions asked by this test sufficiently cover most aspects of one’s personality? That’s hard to say. Obviously the more questions asked, the more granular the results can become, so I’ll grant that.

This relates to your final point: What would I consider to be the test’s objectives? For me, it’s an exercise in gleaning insight into one’s own personality; to help with reflection and introspection. To identify your strengths and weaknesses. In some sense, to provide some identity. I can’t tell you how I felt understood. I actually teared up while reading the analysis for the first time. As something of an outsider for much of my life it was like it filled in the missing pieces I long suspected and yet always doubted. Like I said I can’t speak for what others got out of the test, but it was the best therapy I ever received. (And for context, I read every other generalized group to make sure it wasn’t generalized astrological bullshit where every description could match every person, for which nothing came close).

For those who wish to try to get something out of these tests, I advise:

• Take the test multiple times over weeks, months, years; see if you find a pattern or what comes up at your most neutral, baseline, normal, average state of mind on an average day in your life.

• Ask yourself if it feels like this test is you, but also:

• Ask close friends, loved-ones if they believe this is you (better yet, give them a control, then give them the actual results for you). Alternatively do it alongside your partner so you get external feedback.

Tangential note: this is another reason why Biden must step down. He’s dragging the youth vote down in lieu of his association with Israel.

Well naturally, I think that’s the entire point of such tests, is it not? Entertain me for a minute, please:

First of all, you would agree that you can aggregate clusters of people based on how each answer a variety of probing questions, right?

Naturally, one must say, “yes, of course.”

To which the next question is, “So once you’ve arranged clusters of similar responses under banners, how can you interpret those results?”

Well once you actually pool a group of people into these boxes and see where these subsets are, you can then analyze these population subsets further, right? To which most would say, “of course. Scientists do this all the time.”

… And if those subsets are analyzed and their commonalities generalized, what would be the problem with that?

… To which any reasonable person would say, “Nothing, really, except for how that may impact edge-cases,” which is fair.

Now those clusters coalesce and find community with each other and reflect, “Hey wow, yeah I can totally relate to that, too!” It’s kind of remarkable to see.

The only substantive arguments that I’ve seen made – and the only “debunking” aspects to this test revolve around veracity and validity – which is understandably concerning. But let’s unpack that: Do the results bear repeatability, and do what the results say reflect the reality of who that person is?

Edit: I should say there is legitimate concern that the overlap can lead to crossover into other categories quite easily.

This is of course difficult because a lot of people get some things wrong about said tests: These tests are not immutable. People are fluid; they can change. Moreover if you take the test when not at your emotional and cognitive baseline with average sleep, average temperament, and no major life events influencing this, then of course that will change from when these are not accounted for. Similarly, some people struggle to take the test honestly: They respond with whom they want to be as opposed to who they are. In this case, sometimes it’s good to take the test side-by-side with a loved-one who knows you intimately and can see you from the outside-looking-in. Some answer candidly but get results they don’t like. Reality contradicts who they want to be. So they get upset.

All of these are of course suggestive that it’s not a one-size-fits-all test and should be taken with a grain of salt but the vast majority of criticism resides under user error and a misunderstanding of the test’s objectives.

At this point I can only speak for myself, but it’s a harmless test that impacts nobody else and it was deeply, emotionally revealing for me. I’ve truly never felt more understood in my whole life and my wife looked at it confirmed every piece of it while her own test reflected her to a T.

Now I’m a non-religious trained Engineer who pushes away superstition and things like astrology, balks at homeopathy and pseudoscience and broscience alike but I’m telling you, there’s something worthwhile here, even if science hasn’t sufficiently shined a light onto what.

Now if I missed anything, please, by all means.

Fair enough. Thanks for the elaboration and discussion.

Okay I see what you’re saying, I think. I went back to re-read your comment:

This, to me, is less important than the fact that this woman is publicly talking about how someone can do a bad thing but still be a public good, something not talked about enough in a world where when someone does something bad, it makes people ignore everything else they’re doing.

So your general perception of Assange is that he is an irredeemable rapist asshole who’s done good work and you respect his accuser for distinguishing those in the same respect you view the character of Rowling as irredeemable and a hateful bigot who’s done good work. Do I have that correct?

Well now I’m a little confused. Did I find a point of cognitive dissonance in you? In one breath you defend Assange under fire for sexual assault and to consider nuance, but this is too far?

And since when do we care what Elon Musk has to say? He called someone a pedophile, too, remember? Should we jump on the bandwagon with that just the same?

Sure, substitute whichever word you’d like in place of misguided. I’m not sure if that changes the rest of my points. Especially within the context of this entire thread discussing nuance and not painting people in black-and-white.

In what realm does a personality test compare to predicting the future with horoscopes and star patterns, lol?

I’d be happy to discuss because you don’t seem particularly informed on this subject. Perhaps be a bit more humble? I find it kind of amusing how worked up this can get people. Did I ever tell YOU to subscribe to it? lol.

Now sure nobody should view such things as utterly conclusive or written in stone, but it was honestly incredibly eye-opening for me in terms of introspection. More helpful than therapy in my case. To each their own.

Yeah I’m not necessarily in disagreement there. Though I respect those whistle-blowers who are willing to be a martyr for a cause they believe in. Ellsberg faced justice head on, for example. Meanwhile Snowden fled to one of the most corrupt countries in the world with a vendetta against the USA, and Greenwald is now parroting Kremlin propaganda strangely. Assange is somewhere in the middle for me.

At the end of the day, Assange effectively did face justice and came out the other side, so I give credit.

The Rowling shift is a gut punch in particular for me because I also long admired her specifically. A single impoverished mother writing her drafts on napkins while taking the train to work. Her work for Amnesty International. Her fierce rejection of right-wing extremism and fascism…I remember saving her Harvard commence address as being the most powerful one I’ve ever heard. The road to hell is paved with good intentions? I don’t know. Frustrating because INFJ-to-INFJ I relate to her personality type.

Meanwhile her books were incredibly impactful of my upbringing and my relationship with my mother as well.

Controversial though this may be I don’t view her as some evil anti-Semitic trans-lynching nazi in lieu of her views. Misguided, sure, but in the aggregation of all she is I’m still struggling with the mixed bag of her character. Maybe that’s my own cognitive dissonance; maybe it’s hers.

Edit: Side-note, Ender’s Game and Ender’s Shadow were incredible books. I’m only heartbroken that the opportunity was missed to have Anton Yelchin cast as Ender in a better film adaptation we shall never see.

Sorry for the delay in response. That you are Russian yourself, I figured it worth giving pause to what you say and myself tie to process and sufficiently respond, as it’s not every day an American gets to speak to a Russian in these times.

I completely agree that a huge part of Ukraine’s future is dependent upon continued aid from the West. But I think it’s self-evident that Zelenskyy feels – at least for the moment – that there are now long-standing agreements both with Europe and the USA that can ensure something of long-term planning. Of course, we are ALL – Europe, America, Zelenskyy, Putin, the world – holding our collective breaths to see what the outcome of the US Presidential election will be. Thus far it’s a mixed max on the world stage in terms of leadership. I hope that Germany maintains some semblance of sanity; and it looks like the UK certainly will. The big question is whether the USA can. I think that will determine major decision-making for both Zelenskyy and Putin.

As a Russian, what do you see as the most probable course for change in Russia? I understand Putin is drafting from ethnic minority groups far away from St. Petersburg and Moscow to ensure the upper middle-class isn’t impacted too greatly… But do you think there will come a time he does? What is the tipping-point?

No idea, honestly. But historical precedent would suggest that he would ignore it even if he did.

That’s fair. That isn’t where my own head is currently but I do appreciate nuance for once. People can be complicated, and I’m certain she knows the real Assange better than most.

If you’re saying this tongue-in-cheek to note that it’s flatly obvious that Putin is a corrupt imperialist tyrant, true I agree. But there is always more damaging information to be revealed not just to the world but internally to the people of Russia within the echo-chamber. For instance, more on Putin’s personal finances. More on Aleksandr Dugin, Putin’s neo-nazi Rasputin, etc.

What about the 3rd man, who espouses his organization isn’t an arbiter of information, and yet, repeatedly prevented Russian leaks from being published? 🤔

And with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where is wikileaks now?

Cozy Bear really appreciated having such a loyal publisher, I imagine.

What does duration have to do with anything? Why are you speaking on behalf of Ukrainians who are actually the ones defending their families and doing the fighting and who know what Putin is like from personal experience?

Real guarantees of protection like a pathway to NATO? Yeah, Russia kind of interrupted that my guy.

I say again: All I want to know is if Corbyn is so confident in his ceasefire plan that he’d put himself on the Frontline if he’s wrong. If he’s right, then he has nothing to fear… Riiiighhht?

Ending a war by… Giving up? Conceding land? Letting the aggressor regroup and attack again?

… What?

All I want to know is if Corbyn is so confident in his ceasefire plan that he’d put himself on the Frontline if he’s wrong. If he’s right, then he has nothing to fear… Riiiighhht?

Translation for #1: He’s telling them to give up because resistance is futile. Every conflict in history could find a peaceful solution if the oppressed simply gave up at the first sign of trouble with the oppressors. Clearly, that tends to be a losing strategy.

Translation for #2:

As for the Crimea where Russia is now moving in, it has historically been separate from Ukraine. It was a theatre of war between Western Europe and Russia during the 1850s, a fact which should be a warning to us today. Then, as now, empires fought for space and influence. Its Tartar population was treated disgracefully by Stalin, and wholesale deportation followed the end of World War II.

Eventually many [Russians] returned to the Crimea and they now make up an eighth of the population. Most of the rest are Russian speakers who came there during the Soviet period.

Obviously, without question, establishing a finders-keepers narrative.

I’m sorry but I do not buy either argument. It does not detract from the notion that Corbyn is trying to tell the defender, the victim, how they should be willing to fight back and how much they should be willing to lose.

I just want to know if Corbyn would volunteer for the front-line should Russia simply regroup following a ceasefire and attack again.

True but it’s also true that if Ukraine high command believes they have good odds at pushing Russia back and crippling Russia akin to what Afghans did to the USSR, then they will maintain the fight.

It seems self-evident that the victim shall decide what cards they want to play in this moment, and they’re resolved to fight. That’s nobody’s decision but theirs.

I’ll add that Ukraine has clearly shown what Intelligence and Technological Superiority can do to offset manpower advantages.