Personality tests are bad epistemics.

Personality tests are fun

I’ve taken a lot of personality tests over the years. Occasionally I’ve had to do them for an employer. Sometimes I’ve done it for research. Quite often I do it for fun.

If you’ve never taken one of these, they can be thought provoking. Here are a few I like:

• CliftonStrengths - first took it in college, took it again when I became suddenly unemployed to help rewrite my resume - high quality but isn’t free

• Cake - discovered while researching for a career-building application that I currently work on - free

• Vizzy - discovered during research and not a test in itself but has an interesting one built in built by Clarity4D - free

  Subscribe

I’ve taken (and built) others. Taking one is kind of fun but taking several and seeing how they juxtapose is fascinating.

These tests aren’t trying to find your skills. They won’t tell you that you’re good at computer programming or road construction. Instead, they’re trying to identify qualities that make you you and differentiate you from other people.

This idea is really compelling to me because I think the most interesting aspect of people is their mindset and worldview. Less so what they do with it.

But, our personalities don’t work like this

There is an assumption built into these tests that they can capture a truth about you that is consistent and fundamental. Yet, take these same tests a few times and you’ll probably get different results.

I’ve taken the Cake test four times. I’ve received Tiramisu and Donut each twice. There is some consistency there, of course. Yet it suggests that I am focused sometimes and exploratory at other times. Now, that may be true. In fact, I think it is very true. But how and when does this shift? Can I control it?

In the fall of 2024, after being laid off, I took the CliftonStrengths report to help me rewrite my resume. My results suggested that I tend to be stronger in ideation, adaptability and fixing things. I’m a conceptual problem solver who is very empathetic. I agreed with that and I still do.

It’s kind of in line with Donut.

But then, before writing this I decided to drop the sixty bucks and take it again to see if it would come up different. This result is different in some critical ways.

It now says I’m much more about doing things and individual contribution. I suspect there have been some actual shifts in that direction. But, can I be sure? Or do I swing back and forth between conceptual exploration and acting on that exploration? I think that’s closer to the truth. And that aligns with Cake’s swing.

This result is much less about being empathetic, which is an aspect of my personality that I don’t think has shifted over this time.

Personalities are fluid

These tests rest on an the idea that personalities are a concrete aspect of a person’s identity. This is an idea in pop psychology too. You can change aspects of yourself but your personality is immobile.

There may be some truth in that but personalities are also very fluid. I know this is true for myself. The things I care about and the way I approach the world ebbs and flows over time. My philosophies and values change. There are probably common pillars but a lot flows around them.

A more honest version of these would track personalities over time. By doing that you’d likely be able to identify the common pillars and the ways your personality shifts. Without capturing this element, personality tests plant a stake in the ground that may not be there.

You may be saying “who cares?”

Vizzy uses a personality test as part of a professional profile to hire people. I have taken personality tests as part of an application process. Once I “failed” but was hired anyway because I knew the hiring team. They can have very real consequences.

So, we could make them more honest by tracking personality over time. Then, maybe, they would be useful in hiring. But who wants to take one of these weekly or monthly? Probably nobody. The best ones are long and they aren’t that fun.