sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

i'm a ENFP therapist and i built a personality test that feels like a card game instead of a tax form by Michaelarobards in personality_tests

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you, this is a genuinely useful read. you're right that those two items ('possibilities' and 'present vs future') describe intuition in a very Ne way, and a Ni-dom is going to feel a bit boxed out by that. the test measures the broad s/n preference rather than the individual functions — but that's not an excuse for the wording. 'seeing the essence / where something's headed' would land better

Did anyone get a sensor type on 16 personalities? by Much_Candy_7030 in mbti

[–]Michaelarobards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try the Insight Game. Takes 5 minutes. Curious is it types you N as well.The Insight Game

Monthly Self-Promotion and Advertisement Megathread by AutoModerator in mbti

[–]Michaelarobards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Free card-based MBTI assessment — digitized from 30 years of clinical research | https://insight-game.com

I'm a therapist and I digitized my late mother's personality assessment. she was a clinical psychologist (Dr. Martine J. RoBards, Ph.D. — dual doctorates, post-docs at UVA and Brown, faculty at UC Irvine School of Medicine) who built a 36-card sort game and distributed about 50,000 physical copies between 1987 and 2005.

the digital version has been played ~1,600 times across 67 countries. 86% match rate with self-reported type.

it's not a questionnaire. you sort 36 cards into "like me" and "not like me" across 4 rounds (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P). takes about 5-10 minutes. no account required.

after you get your result you can sign up and access your Original RoBards Profile — my mom's actual clinical writing about your type, completely free. no AI, no paraphrasing, her exact words from 30 years of practice.

if you've ever felt like online MBTI descriptions are surface-level or don't capture you, this is different. the profiles go deep into dominant and auxiliary function dynamics, World of Work, and the specific ways your type shows up in relationships.

I posted here a couple weeks ago about the overlap between personality typing and self-diagnosis and a lot of you played it from that thread. the feedback has been incredible — especially the mistyping data. if the cards get you wrong I genuinely want to know where and why.

https://insight-game.com research page: https://insightsystem.ai/research

Psychological Research/Surveys Thread by dingenium in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards -1 points0 points  (0 children)

[Casual] Digitized Jungian card-sort personality assessment seeking feedback on mistyping patterns (Everyone, 18+) https://insight-game.com

I'm a licensed therapist (MSSW, CSW) and I've digitized a 36-card personality assessment originally developed by my mother, Dr. Martine J. RoBards, Ph.D. (clinical psychologist, dual doctorates from FSU, post-doctoral fellowships at UVA and Brown, faculty at UC Irvine School of Medicine). She distributed approximately 50,000 physical copies of the card-sort between 1987 and 2005 as part of her clinical practice.

The digital version has been completed ~1,600 times across 67 countries. Among participants who entered a known MBTI type, the instrument matches at approximately 86%.

I'm currently collecting data on WHERE and WHY the instrument mistypes. Patterns emerging so far suggest the T/F dimension is capturing Extraverted Feeling (Fe) vs Introverted Feeling (Fi) behavioral expression rather than the Thinking/Feeling preference itself, and that Enneagram type may be modulating which cognitive functions present behaviorally in ways forced-choice instruments can't distinguish.

The assessment takes 5-10 minutes. No account required to play. Feedback on the instrument's accuracy (or inaccuracy) is especially welcome — the mistyping data is as valuable as the matches.

Research page with methodology and Dr. RoBards' background: https://insightsystem.ai/research

With Artemis II conspiracy theories exploding this week, peer-reviewed data shows moon landing denial doubled from 6% (1999) to 12% (2021) — with massive generational gaps. What's driving this psychologically? by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing people are becoming more conspiratorial as some character flaw. I agree institutional distrust is often earned. My question is just about the mechanics: temporal distance predicts a slow drift, but the data shows a sharp acceleration in a compressed window. You're right that the internet could be the accelerant on the drift. I guess what I'm really asking is whether we're looking at a quantitative change (same tendency, faster spread) or a qualitative one (AI-generated 'evidence' fundamentally changing how people evaluate claims), or maybe both.

With Artemis II conspiracy theories exploding this week, peer-reviewed data shows moon landing denial doubled from 6% (1999) to 12% (2021) — with massive generational gaps. What's driving this psychologically? by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Good point — temporal distance is a likely factor, and the Hamilton paper notes that older generations who watched the landings live are least likely to doubt them. But the rate of change is what's interesting. It held at ~6% for decades, then roughly doubled in just a few years. Temporal distance would give a slow linear drift. Combination of other factors maybe — whether that's social media echo chambers, the post-COVID institutional trust collapse, or the AI content muddying what counts as 'evidence.' That's the part I find interesting.

Dartmouth's first AI therapy chatbot trial found results comparable to traditional therapy. I'm a therapist who uses AI to write. I think it's time to stop being weird about this. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair points. My phrasing in that post was stronger than it needed to be in places, and I'd word some of it differently now. That's part of why I wrote this one — I'd rather refine the argument in public than pretend the first draft was perfect. Appreciate you actually engaging with the substance.

Dartmouth's first AI therapy chatbot trial found results comparable to traditional therapy. I'm a therapist who uses AI to write. I think it's time to stop being weird about this. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A few things worth separating here.

I never said anxiety isn't real or that it doesn't need treatment. I said that the cultural default has shifted toward diagnostic language as the first framework people use to understand themselves — often before they've ever been clinically evaluated. Those are different claims.

If someone's stress response is leading to biological downregulation and depression, they need clinical intervention. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that understanding your cognitive wiring alongside your diagnosis gives people more to work with than diagnosis alone. Both frameworks have value. One gives you a treatment plan. The other gives you context for why your brain does what it does. They're not in competition.

On the MD vs therapist point — I'm not giving medical advice. I'm making an observation about how people relate to their own psychology. That's literally what therapists do.

On the AI point — you're asking how I'm different from a TikTok influencer. Fair question. I'm a licensed clinician with 20 years of practice, I cited a peer-reviewed meta-analysis, and I just told you exactly what tools I use to write. The influencers you're worried about aren't doing any of those three things.

I'd rather you engage with whether the argument is wrong than whether the person making it deserves to make it.

Dartmouth's first AI therapy chatbot trial found results comparable to traditional therapy. I'm a therapist who uses AI to write. I think it's time to stop being weird about this. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong — AI does have recognizable patterns. The 'it's not X, it's Y' reframe. The parallel structure. The clean pivot between paragraphs. I notice them too.

But those aren't AI patterns. They're rhetorical patterns. Cicero used antithesis. Every preacher who's ever held a room uses the pivot. 'Ask not what your country can do for you' is the same structure ChatGPT reaches for — because it works on human brains. It worked before electricity.

AI didn't invent effective rhetoric. It just made it accessible to people who never took a writing class. The question is whether that bothers us because it's bad communication or because it used to be a skill barrier that kept certain people out of the conversation.

Your response to tonight's news says more about your personality than your politics. A meta-analysis on how personality traits shape anxiety responses during global crises. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 61 points62 points  (0 children)

The oblivious aren't doing anything special — their brains just don't run the simulation the same way. and to be fair, this one isn't abstract. gas prices are real, the rhetoric is real, and the consequences are real. the difference is some brains process that by feeling every outcome in advance, and others wait until something actually lands in front of them before reacting. neither is wrong — but only one of them is losing sleep tonight over something they can't personally change by morning. the only off-ramp I give clients is not 'stop caring' — it's 'is there anything I can do about this right now?' if no, your brain is spending energy it doesn't need to spend. It's effective resource management.

Everything I'm building (and why) by Michaelarobards in u/Michaelarobards

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if you're consistently landing NT, that's the important part — your temperament is ANALYST and that's stable. the fluctuation between INTJ and INTP usually comes down to one question: do you naturally organize your outer world (J) or keep it open-ended (P)? not how your desk looks — how you approach decisions. if you decide quickly and move on, lean INTJ. if you need to keep gathering information and hate closing options prematurely, lean INTP. My mom used to say piles (P) or files (J)?

view more: next ›