Personality Types (was Anarchy Online (was Community Feeling

[Dave Kennerly]

Steven Daniels wrote:

> "Competitor" is a much preferable term than "killer". However,
> "Cooperation" is not its opposite. Group competition is both
> competitive and cooperative. There are lone-wolf competitors and

Has there been discussion or article comparing Bartle types to
Myers-Briggs personality types?

For about a year and a half, I have been curious if there has been a
discussion or article that compared the Bartle types to the
Myers-Briggs personality types. I haven't found any yet. I've read
this list for a while and Bartle's original article, but I haven't
read Bartle's article's references.

I imagine a comparison helps, but I also imagine this thought has already
been discussed by someone somewhere in insightful depth. I've read a tiny
sample of the wealth written on Myers-Briggs personality types, its origins
and applications (Carl Jung, Medieval Alchemists, the Tarot, and more).

Myers-Briggs (Temperament) : Bartle

SP : Killer
SJ : Achiever
NT : Explorer
NF : Socializer

HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS,
Richard Bartle

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

HUMANMETRICS : Jung - Myers-Briggs Test

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

Just a quickly found example of the Myers-Briggs test.

Dave


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 11th August 2001, Dave Kennerly wrote:

> For about a year and a half, I have been curious if there has been
> a discussion or article that compared the Bartle types to the
> Myers-Briggs personality types. I haven't found any yet.

Write one?

Richard

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Ian Collyer]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Kennerly

> Has there been discussion or article comparing Bartle types to
> Myers-Briggs personality types?

The Bartle Test at andreasen.org (www.andreasen.org/bartle/) asks
for MBTI type after you have taken the test, but I couldn't find any
stats on MBTI on the site.

For the record my MBTI type is INTJ (with _very_ strong T) and my
Bartle type is EAK (E 80%, A 46%, K 46%, S 26%). So quite a good
correlation between my T/F bias and my Explorer/Socialiser scores.

Though I'd like to think that my i'N'tuative MBTI tendency helps me
with complex PvP 'Killer' situations more than being a 'S'ensing
type would.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Ola Fosheim Grstad]

Dave Kennerly wrote:

> I imagine a comparison helps, but I also imagine this thought has
> already been discussed by someone somewhere in insightful depth.
> I've read a tiny sample of the wealth written on Myers-Briggs
> personality types, its origins and applications (Carl Jung,
> Medieval Alchemists, the Tarot, and more).

For those that don't know the MBTI, it consists of 4 dimensions:

Extrovert (E) / Introvert (I)
Sensation (S) / Intuition (N) ("details" vs "the whole")
Thinking (T) / Feeling (F)
Judging (J) / Perceiving(P) (outcome/winning vs process/participation)

I am not sure how useful this is, and of course, people behave
differently under different conditions. Introvert people might
become extrovert when online in a safe context and soforth...

Anyway. Let's try to use the four MBTI dimensions even if it doesn't
quite fit:

* Extrovert / Introvert

This seems to map to the people/world axis, thus killers and
socialisers are extrovert. Except, of course, if killers tend to
be of few words then you have a contradiction... But then again,
they do get their energy from dealing with other people and
organizers/leadertypes (one of the killers) are obviously
extrovert.

* Sensation / Intuition

This one is more difficult to apply. Explorers are sensation
oriented, they want to understand thing on a micro
level. Socialisers are intuition oriented, they are likely to
care about the larger social framework. Killers are probably
intuition oriented as they are opportunistic and go with the
general trends...? Achievers are probably again more on the
micro level.

* Thinking / Feeling

Again socialisers/killers seems to be more bent towards feeling
and achievers/explorers towards thinking.

* Judging / Perceiving

This one look easy, but is still a bit difficult to
apply. Achievers are obviously judging and socialisers
perceiving. Exploreres and killers are more difficult to
place. It is tempting to say that killers are judging and
explorers are perceiving.

Of course, there are plenty of other dimensions that might be
interesting, for instance the adoption vs innovation dimension (by
Kirton):

* Adoption (A) / Innovation (V)

Killers are clearly innovative, they don't adopt, they challenge
the existing. Achievers are highly adopting. Socialisers are
probably adopting. Explorers are probably bent towards the
innovative.

Then we get (low cap indicating weak correlation)

enFJV Killer
IsTJA Achiever
IsTPv Explorer
ENFPA Socialiser


> Myers-Briggs (Temperament) : Bartle

> SP : Killer
> SJ : Achiever
> NT : Explorer
> NF : Socializer

I seem to disagree with you on the killer and the explorer.

> HUMANMETRICS : Jung - Myers-Briggs Test

Ugh...

Disclaimer: I am (slowly) working on a paper "problematizing"
(challenging/discussing) player type classification. This, however,
isn't it.

--
[color=#666666]Ola - http://www.notam.uio.no/~olagr/

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Trump]

On Friday 10 August 2001 06:54 pm, Dave Kennerly wrote:

> HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS, Richard
> Bartle


This reminds me of a really cool system for generating motivations
for NPCs. It was in a PnP RPG called Twilight 2000.

The system involved pulling 2 normal playing cards, the first was
the primary motivation, the 2nd was the secondary. If you pulled a
spade, then a club it meant the NPC was pirmary interested in
gaining power, but he was also into violence and will freely use it
to gain power.

The value of the card also had meaning. Pulling a 2 of hearts,
followed by a 10 of hearts might mean that the NPC is a really
friendly person and likes to meet people (of both genders), but also
has a very strong sexual desire for the opposite sex.

The face cards had specific meanings, egomaniacs, stalkers, etc.

It was a nice, quick way to generate fairly deep NPCs.

This sort of thing might be very helpful to the designers out there.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Koster, Raph]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Collyer
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Kennerly

>> Has there been discussion or article comparing Bartle types to
>> Myers-Briggs personality types?

> The Bartle Test at andreasen.org (www.andreasen.org/bartle/) asks
> for MBTI type after you have taken the test, but I couldn't find
> any stats on MBTI on the site.

> For the record my MBTI type is INTJ (with _very_ strong T) and my
> Bartle type is EAK (E 80%, A 46%, K 46%, S 26%). So quite a good
> correlation between my T/F bias and my Explorer/Socialiser scores.

I have a very strong E and S bias on my Bartle type, but on Myers-Briggs and
most other tests of their type, I end up smack in the middle (literally, not
unusual to be at 49%-51% split one way or the other on each axis. Which is
odd; seems like there ought to be more correlation.

-Raph
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Marc Fielding]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koster, Raph

> I have a very strong E and S bias on my Bartle type, but on
> Myers-Briggs and most other tests of their type, I end up smack in
> the middle (literally, not unusual to be at 49%-51% split one way
> or the other on each axis. Which is odd; seems like there ought to
> be more correlation.


Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me, but I'm somewhat reassured by the
relative rarity of "K" in the profiles of admins and
famous/accomplished people on the Bartle Test result page:

http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi

Presumably world creators by their very nature shun the disruptive
actions of the Killer. On the other hand, it *could* be merely a
sampling error: the Killer Admins were simply too engrossed in their
single-minded treachery to complete the survey. ;)

Marc
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Ling Lo]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Ian Collyer wrote:

> The Bartle Test at andreasen.org (www.andreasen.org/bartle/) asks
> for MBTI type after you have taken the test, but I couldn't find
> any stats on MBTI on the site.

I have reservations about the above test. Mainly that it uses
leading questions and the questions tend to be very similar to each
other. It's almost like having the same questions reworded.

Not being the psychologist type, can anyone give a better critique
of the survey's design?

--
| Ling Lo
_O_O_

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Kristen L. Koster]

on 8/14/01 12:07 AM, Marc Fielding at mfielding@bluefalcon.com wrote:

> Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me, but I'm somewhat reassured by
> the relative rarity of "K" in the profiles of admins and
> famous/accomplished people on the Bartle Test result page:

> http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi

> Presumably world creators by their very nature shun the disruptive
> actions of the Killer. On the other hand, it *could* be merely a
> sampling error: the Killer Admins were simply too engrossed in
> their single-minded treachery to complete the survey. ;)

In a lot of ways I think the people who go take tests like that are
self-selected. But I also agree with what Ling said, the questions
are funky (how's that for a scientific critique?). There are several
I'd like to choose more than one answer for and a couple I want a
NONE option. For some reason I took it twice and I know I didn't
score the same both times because of things like that. It wasn't
widely different but enough to notice.

-Kristen Koster
Kaige @ LegendMUD

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Hans-Henrik]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Ling Lo wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Ian Collyer wrote:

>> The Bartle Test at andreasen.org (www.andreasen.org/bartle/) asks
>> for MBTI type after you have taken the test, but I couldn't find
>> any stats on MBTI on the site.

> I have reservations about the above test. Mainly that it uses
> leading questions and the questions tend to be very similar to
> each other. It's almost like having the same questions reworded.

> Not being the psychologist type, can anyone give a better critique
> of the survey's design?

If all the questions are similarly leading and very similar in
wording, you get the least interference. If you tried to make
imaginative wording for each type of question, you would suffer
under different questions being more leading than others. Making
leading questions would give you some kind of 'extreme value
distribution' on the answers, as more people would answer toward the
lead as not.

Usually the more questions you have, the more such interference
would even out. What would be neat would be to have a survey with a
thousand questions, and do a components analysis to see which
questions were answered similarly. As i only took the test once, i
do not know if the order of questions were shuffled. This is usually
a good idea to eliminate the noise from previous questions.

Hans Henrik Stærfeldt | bombman@diku.dk | work: hhs@cbs.dtu.dk |
Address: |___ +45 40383492 __|__ +45 45252425 __|
DTU, Kemitorvet, | Scientific programmer at Center for Biological |
bygn 208, CBS. | Sequence Analysis, Technical University of Denmark|

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Marc Fielding]

Kristen Koster wrote:

> In a lot of ways I think the people who go take tests like that
> are self-selected. But I also agree with what Ling said, the
> questions are funky (how's that for a scientific critique?). There
> are several I'd like to choose more than one answer for and a
> couple I want a NONE option. For some reason I took it twice and I
> know I didn't score the same both times because of things like
> that. It wasn't widely different but enough to notice.

I have no problem with "funky" as a scientific critique, but to
really give it that scientifically pretentious aura, find out how to
say it in Latin. ;) (Unfortunately, a brief search of several online
English-Latin dictionaries turned up nothing)

On a more serious note, what you and Ling saw as "funky" is actually
a standard aspect of psychological quizzes. Oftentimes these quizzes
will re-ask the same question over and over again from slightly
different angles. The purpose is detect and characterize any nuances
in the psyche of the test-taker. Another use is to trip up those who
are trying to portray themselves as something they are not. The
latter type of testing frequently occurs in employment exams
administered to job applicants for (mostly) lowlevel jobs in
companies like Target, KMart, WalMart, etc. (at least that was my
experience when jobhunting as a teen).

I bet WalMart is more interested in hiring Achievers and Explorers
rather than Socializers and Killers. ;D

Marc



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 15th August 2001, Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt wrote:

> What would be neat would be to have a survey with a thousand
> questions, and do a components analysis to see which questions
> were answered similarly.

I really do not like questionnaires that do that, they mean you have
to remember what you answered the first time. I once did a test at
school with, ooh, it must have been well over 500 questions. On page
30 there was some question that was the same as one on page 18 but
with the sense reversed - instead of "put these vegetables in the
order you most like them" it was "put these vegetables in the order
you least like them". It took me a good 10 minutes to find what I'd
put the first time so I could make their software think I was more
consistent than I was...

As to the "Bartle Test", well obviously it's not meant to be
anything more than a bit of fun. A serious version of it might try
asking questions that differentiated along the axes, along "aha,
they prefer the game over people and acting over interacting, that
makes them an achiever" lines.

Richard

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Adam Martin]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristen L. Koster" <kkoster@austin.rr.com>

> In a lot of ways I think the people who go take tests like that
> are self-selected. But I also agree with what Ling said, the
> questions are funky (how's that for a scientific critique?). There
> are several I'd like to choose more than one answer for and a
> couple I want a NONE option. For some reason I took it twice and I
> know I didn't score the same both times because of things like
> that. It wasn't widely different but enough to notice.

My problem with Myers-Brigg is that I get that "need a NEITHER
option" problem in a big way. I've taken the test a couple of times
and got very different results. I think its probably just the same
problem that sometimes happens with the Belbin team roles testing
(which gives you roles such as: inventor, manager, project-manager,
negotiator, high-initiative-person, etc) - because the roles
themselves describe a person, people tend to think of themselves as
that stereotype - but the stereotypes are intended to be only a
facet of your character, and you are expected to show more than one
of them, and even to change significantly over time and in different
situations. But at least the results of Belbin show that, giving a
separate score for your correlation with each and every role.

Adam M
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[John Hopson]

At 02:58 AM 8/16/2001, Richard A. Bartle wrote:
> On 15th August 2001, Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt wrote:

>> What would be neat would be to have a survey with a thousand
>> questions, and do a components analysis to see which questions
>> were answered similarly.

> I really do not like questionnaires that do that, they mean you
> have to remember what you answered the first time. I once did a
> test at school with, ooh, it must have been well over 500
> questions. On page 30 there was some question that was the same as
> one on page 18 but with the sense reversed - instead of "put these
> vegetables in the order you most like them" it was "put these
> vegetables in the order you least like them". It took me a good 10
> minutes to find what I'd put the first time so I could make their
> software think I was more consistent than I was...

Um, I'm not sure this is a good objection. Basically, you're saying
that redundant questions make it harder to mislead the test. Which
is, as I understand it, part of the point of asking redundant
questions. If we're building a survey to accurately judge how
people think about online gaming, we want it to be hard to cheat.
And as you said, it lets us get an idea of how "hard" their opinions
are. We don't necessarily want players to be rock solid consistent,
we want a clear picture of what the player thinks. There may be
legitimate reasons why a certain kind of player answers question A
one way and question B another, even if those two questions are
really similar. The difference might even turn out to be important
to our understanding of players.

The other thing to remember is that having redundancy helps evaluate
the questions as well as the respondent. If we designed a good
test, we should be able to split the test in half and the respondent
should get the same score on both halves. If we group players by
their types, we can then look at the way different groups score on
each questions and thereby get an idea of which questions best
define the types.

John




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev

[Marc Fielding]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard A. Bartle

> I really do not like questionnaires that do that, they mean you
> have to remember what you answered the first time. I once did a
> test at school with, ooh, it must have been well over 500
> questions. On page 30 there was some question that was the same as
> one on page 18 but with the sense reversed - instead of "put these
> vegetables in the order you most like them" it was "put these
> vegetables in the order you least like them". It took me a good 10
> minutes to find what I'd put the first time so I could make their
> software think I was more consistent than I was...

The problem with questions like these is that they often come down
to incredibly subtle shades of preference. I mean, I can readily
admit my preference for oranges over bananas, but ask me to rank
plums and nectarines, and I'll have to get back to you. ;)

As I mentioned in a previous post to this thread, questions are=20
asked and re-asked in different ways to determine the taker's true
opinion. The example Richard mentioned above is simply bad test
design. The taker shouldn't be able to easily determine which=20
questions are requeries. Asking the same question in reverse is just
begging the taker to go back and copy his answers, thus=20
invalidating the entire point of asking the question again!

Marc

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev