Home
登錄
註冊
學習內容
Loading...
Here's Why Personality Tests ALWAYS Work* - Video học tiếng Anh
聽力練習
聽力練習
/
Video
/
SciShow
/
Here's Why Personality Tests ALWAYS Work*
Here's Why Personality Tests ALWAYS Work*
選擇學習模式:
查看字幕
選詞
重寫單字
Highlight:
3000 Oxford Words
4000 IELTS Words
5000 Oxford Words
3000 Common Words
1000 TOEIC Words
5000 TOEFL Words
字幕 (283)
0:00
Here at SciShow, we like to get to know our viewers.
0:02
And we know that the people who find our videos are pretty special.
0:06
So we decided to do a little market research
0:08
to get to know you all better.
0:09
We found that SciShow fans are extremely likely
0:12
to identify with the following statements:
0:14
You have an analytical mind, though you also might space out at times
0:18
You pride yourself as an independent thinker,
0:20
and don’t accept other people’s statements without good proof
0:23
You love variety and tend to rebel against
0:25
too many restrictions and limitations
0:27
You don’t always reveal all of yourself to others,
0:29
and finally,
0:30
You have a great desire for other people to like and admire you
0:33
That sounds a lot like you, doesn’t it?
0:35
Except, we’re just kidding.
0:36
We didn’t actually do any research,
0:38
and we made up all of those statements.
0:40
But we’re willing to bet that some of you
0:41
really did feel a connection to them.
0:44
Why is that?
0:44
Personality tests and profiles take advantage of a weird
0:48
psychological tendency that also benefits everything
0:51
from horoscopes to fortune tellers to Buzzfeed quizzes.
0:55
Here’s how it works, why we fall for it,
0:57
and what to look for so you don’t get duped.
1:00
[♪INTRO]
1:03
Before we can get into why these profiles are so easy to believe,
1:06
let’s step back and get into the history of personality tests.
1:10
The first modern standardized personality test was the
1:13
Woodworth Personal Data Sheet, also know as WPDS,
1:17
which came out in 1917.
1:20
It was designed to predict which soldiers were vulnerable
1:22
to shell shock, or what we now call PTSD.
1:26
However, right when it was set to launch, World War 1 ended,
1:29
so this particular test never got passed
1:31
around at scale among soldiers.
1:33
The first version of this test consisted of
1:35
around 125 yes or no questions.
1:38
These included things like, “Have you ever fainted away?”,
1:41
“Are you bothered by fluttering of the heart?”, and
1:44
“Do you think you have hurt yourself by going too much with women?”
1:48
All very relatable questions, if you ask me.
1:50
And while this version of the test never got widely used,
1:54
Woodworth’s later work on personality testing started a craze of
1:58
people wanting a test to tell them about themselves,
2:01
and the WPI WPDS helped set the standards
2:04
for personality testing going forward.
2:06
Academic institutions, employers, and psychologists soon
2:10
began devising and using tools to assess people’s tendencies.
2:14
These early tools have roots in capitalistic,
2:16
industrial interests, and were obsessed with the
2:19
concept of adjustment in early personality test design.
2:23
In this context, adjustment refers to how adaptable people
2:26
are to the norms of the era, including the rules
2:29
and decorum expected of a booming workforce.
2:32
Basically, they wanted to find tests that would weed out the people
2:35
who couldn’t get in line, or worse, wanted to get on the picket line.
2:39
Because we all know, a unionized workforce is bad for business!
2:44
From there, these tests found broader popularity,
2:46
including glowing coverage of a widely used test called the
2:49
Humm-Wadsworth Scale, in a 1942 Reader’s Digest article.
2:53
The story, titled “Fitting the Worker to the Job,”
2:56
explained to readers that these tests were used by
2:58
companies like Lockheed Aircraft as a
3:00
so-called scientific way to fit people to their jobs.
3:03
There were questions like “Do you like to pass along a good story?”,
3:07
“Do most of the people you meet interest you?”,
3:09
and “Do you like to see the villain punished?”
3:11
The results supposedly revealed personality traits,
3:14
like a tendency to be overly emotional or whether
3:17
you’re more of a lone wolf than a team player.
3:20
But, there’s often a difference between something seeming
3:22
sciencey and being based on, like, actual high-quality research.
3:27
And in 1949, a researcher and college professor named
3:30
Bertram Forer~ expressed his doubts about
3:33
all this personality testing hullabaloo.
3:35
He even said that most of the time, personality profiles weren’t
3:38
any more specific than saying that a person has opposable thumbs.
3:42
Meaning that the profile might say things that are true about
3:46
whoever’s reading it, but they’re also true for like, everybody else.
3:49
Which is when Forer decided to experiment on his students.
3:53
He passed out a personality questionnaire
3:54
in his intro to psychology class, and told them all that
3:58
he’d be analyzing the results and creating
4:00
unique personality profiles for each of them.
4:02
Everyone received their assessments in the classroom,
4:05
seated far enough apart that they couldn’t read others’ papers.
4:08
The students then reviewed and rated their personality summary
4:11
for accuracy, and even scored each bullet point in the list of thirteen.
4:15
Only one student rated their results below a 4 out of 5,
4:19
so basically the entire class felt that their scores were pretty accurate.
4:22
But you may have anticipated the twist here.
4:25
Those assessments were not in fact tailor-made for each student,
4:28
and instead, they all got the exact same list.
4:31
Actually, you did too, because all those statements from the start
4:35
of this video were basically paraphrased versions of
4:38
what Forer told his students. Sorry, by the way.
4:40
Forer made a list of general, vaguely flattering,
4:43
and universally relatable statements.
4:46
So why did everyone believe that their list
4:48
was so perfectly tailored to them?
4:50
Well, that’s the Barnum effect.
4:52
The Barnum effect was named after PT Barnum,
4:55
the iconic and problematic showman known for his ability to captivate,
4:59
and often manipulate, an audience.
5:01
The Barnum effect is the phenomenon where
5:03
if you give someone a personality test,
5:05
they’re pretty likely to believe that the results are true and accurate,
5:09
regardless of how hard the profile-maker actually tried.
5:12
There’s something about taking the test itself that
5:14
makes an audience more likely to believe the end result.
5:17
All of these different generic personality assessments are
5:20
called Barnum profiles, and they’re all show, no substance.
5:24
Other experiments have been done after Forer
5:26
dunked on his intro class, with similar results.
5:29
Humans just have a tendency to fall for Barnum profiles.
5:32
It’s still not entirely clear why this happens.
5:34
Some researchers think that the broad and highly generalizable
5:37
statements do apply to all or most people, just like Forer said,
5:42
and the reason so many people put stock into them is that
5:44
they’re written to be pretty one-size fits all,
5:47
but that’s not obvious to the test-taker.
5:49
Multiple studies have also shown that some individuals
5:52
will even believe that a Barnum profile applies more to them
5:56
than to the general population, which means that even though
5:59
the statements are really vague and non-specific,
6:02
the recipient doesn’t see it that way.
6:04
It could also be that people want to believe favorable statements
6:06
about themselves, which is why even the more negative parts of a
6:10
profile usually come with a compliment or positive spin at the end.
6:13
Like this morning, CoStar told me your temper gets the better
6:17
of you sometimes, but deep down you have a heart of gold.
6:19
There could also be confirmation bias at play.
6:21
This is when someone affirms statements or evidence that support
6:24
their pre-conceived notions, while overlooking what doesn’t fit.
6:28
It’s pretty likely that some or even all of these reasons are
6:31
part of what makes a Barnum profile so believable.
6:34
Once you know what to look for, you can see how our tendency
6:37
towards buying into the Barnum effect has been around in many forms
6:40
for ages, in everything from horoscopes and fortune telling to how
6:44
ChatGPT and other Large Language Models tap into the
6:48
Barnum effect to make its vague statements seem believable.
6:51
And the likelihood of somebody believing that their Barnum profile
6:54
is a perfect fit for them might be related to a few key traits.
6:57
For instance, studies have looked at how self-image might influence
7:00
whether people believe these vague personality descriptors.
7:03
The idea is that if you have a weaker sense of self,
7:06
you tend to look to other people to tell you who you are,
7:09
and one of those other people might be your local astrologist,
7:12
or a litany of online personality quizzes.
7:15
People with an external locus of control,
7:17
which means they don’t feel they have a lot of control
7:19
over their own lives, also tend to accept Barnum profiles.
7:23
Moreover, if you give someone a personality test
7:25
and they like what they got, they’ll end up believing
7:28
that the entire test itself is a really accurate test.
7:31
Like, let’s say I’ve invented “Madelyn’s Ultra-Awesome
7:34
Personality Matrix” and gave you that test,
7:37
and your results say you’re smart, and funny, and nice,
7:40
and really pretty, and you have great hair.
7:42
Then when you go tell your friends about my test,
7:45
you’ll be like “that personality test was amazing and super accurate,
7:49
and totally worth it, you should give it a try!
7:51
It only cost me eight bucks!”
7:52
Hang on, this is giving me an idea for a side hustle…
7:55
Some research also suggests that people tend to accept their
7:58
Barnum profiles if the assessment tool uses lots of data,
8:02
or at least, if the recipient thinks they did.
8:05
For instance, you’re more likely to believe your horoscope
8:07
if it’s based on the specific date and time of your birth,
8:10
rather than just the month and year.
8:12
Or, you’d be more likely to love your Ultra-Awesome Personality
8:15
type if the test is fifty questions long instead of just ten questions,
8:19
even if the actual results are the same either way.
8:21
Which is good news, because my new and improved
8:23
questionnaire is eight hundred questions long. Bring snacks.
8:27
There’s still a lot to tease out around the various types of Barnum
8:30
profiles and the factors contributing to people’s acceptance of them.
8:34
Despite Forer’s early work exposing this effect,
8:37
personality tests are still super popular today,
8:40
and even claim to be based on lots of their own data and research.
8:43
Have we cracked the code on making accurate
8:45
personality tests in this modern era?
8:48
It’s… complicated.
8:49
One of the most common personality tests out there is
8:52
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment, or MBTI,
8:56
which has been around for over half a century.
8:58
It’s a proprietary questionnaire that sorts people into personality types
9:02
based on four binary categories: introversion vs. extroversion,
9:07
sensing vs. intuition, thinking vs. feeling, and judging vs. perceiving.
9:11
The assessment groups people into one of the two tendencies for
9:15
each category, so someone can be INTJ, or ENFP,
9:20
which means there are sixteen possible personality profiles in total.
9:23
It’s gone through many iterations over the years,
9:25
and the current version available online is 93 questions long.
9:29
Remember what I said before about the illusion of more data
9:32
giving you more accurate results? I know you remember.
9:35
You have a great memory — of course you do.
9:37
They even offer training courses so you too can become
9:40
certified to administer the test and interpret the results.
9:43
Their big thing is using MBTI in the workplace
9:46
to understand the dynamics on a team,
9:48
so you can pair the right personalities together for the best outcomes.
9:51
So you’d think that if this company has poured so much
9:54
time and effort into refining their test, it’s gotta be good.
9:58
Unfortunately, that’s not really what the
10:00
evidence from non-MBTI-affiliated studies says.
10:03
See, when researchers want to see how well a certain assessment
10:07
tool, test, or survey actually works, one thing they’ll do is have
10:11
the same people take the same test multiple times.
10:14
If they get the same score each time,
10:15
we’d say that tool has good test-retest reliability.
10:18
And in studies of MBTI where participants took the
10:21
assessment multiple times, up to half or even more test takers
10:26
received a different result for at least one of the four letters.
10:29
Not a problem with the Madelyn’s Ultra-Awesome Personality test,
10:32
I assure you.
10:33
It’s not clear what percentage of people who take the
10:35
MBTI assessment accept the accuracy of their results.
10:38
But the internet is rife with people singing its praises,
10:41
both about how well their profile fits them,
10:44
and how well MBTI scores fit their friends.
10:47
Whether or not the data supports it, MBTI is an extremely popular
10:51
and well-liked system to try to categorize people’s personalities.
10:55
Which brings us to the question of whether
10:56
or not it’s even possible to use a survey or
10:59
questionnaire to accurately evaluate someone’s personality.
11:02
Like, is this whole thing a losing game?
11:05
Well, researchers don’t all think so, and there have been quite a few
11:08
attempts to make a statistically validated personality testing tool.
11:11
One example is the Big Five Personality Trait model,
11:14
which gives people a low, medium, or high rating in five dimensions:
11:19
extroversion, neuroticism, openness,
11:22
conscientiousness, and agreeableness.
11:24
These tests, and newer variations that include subcategories
11:27
of these five, do seem to show better test-retest reliability.
11:31
One major reason that newer tests based on the Big Five are
11:34
more reliable is that they’re based on accumulating data
11:37
from multiple long-term studies from the 1990s onwards.
11:41
And they’re rooted in the principle that, if a personality trait
11:44
exists in humans, languages will adopt words to describe it.
11:48
The more cultures and languages there are that talk about,
11:51
say, extroversion, the more likely it is that
11:53
that’s a valid metric on which to assess people.
11:56
So these Big Five studies looked at the actual language
11:58
that participants and cultures all over the world use
12:01
to describe personality, in multiple languages.
12:04
However, there’s a problem. Pretty much all the data we have on
12:08
the BIg Five comes from what researchers call “WEIRD countries”.
12:12
That stands for Western, Educated,
12:14
Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.
12:17
Researchers have come up with this framework to basically remind
12:19
themselves that people in these highly educated, industrialized
12:23
societies are so different from the vast majority of human history that
12:27
they’re not a great proxy for understanding everyone, everywhere.
12:30
Which means that if you only study WEIRD countries,
12:33
you can’t assume that your results are universal for everybody.
12:36
And yeah, it seems that the evidence says that the
12:38
Big Five doesn’t really work for non-WEIRD populations.
12:41
So there’s definitely a lot of work left to do if we want to figure out
12:44
how to understand personalities for everyone, WEIRD or not.
12:48
Plus, there’s a concern that even the best test out there
12:50
might be flawed just by the nature of what a test is.
12:54
When you have to answer every question from a list of
12:56
predetermined options, it’s called a forced-choice measure.
13:00
These tests are easy to administer and to grade,
13:03
but the downside is that they’re really rigid and can flatten nuance,
13:06
including how people’s personality traits can change
13:09
due to the passage of time and other variables.
13:11
We’ve all stared at a multiple-choice question
13:13
and wished there was an option to check “other.”
13:16
So trying to make a questionnaire-style test that can accurately
13:19
gauge anybody’s personality might be kind of impossible.
13:22
In any case, if you’ve ever found yourself putting a lot of stock in
13:25
your horoscope or MBTI or any other personality test,
13:30
it’s not a unique intellectual failing on your part.
13:33
It’s just human nature.
13:34
Personalities are so much more varied and dynamic
13:37
than we’re led to believe, and it’s hard to reduce them to types.
13:40
After all, I’m far too complex to be summarized by one single test.
13:44
My Ultra-Awesome Personality Matrix report told me so!
13:48
[♪OUTRO]
