Connection personality type - type of play.

[Tobias]

I'm just looking for referrals here, but has anyone ever done some matching of the personality model that distinguishes three types of Quotient/personality (IQ, EC and CQ), with G, N, or S?

(There are many abbreviations out there - but I mean 'intelligence quotient', 'social intelligence' quotient and 'creative intelligence' quotient. I would paste a link, but I've only found Dutch ones (since that's been my introduction to it))

(Referral/link to other 'personality tests' and GNS preference are also welcome - and yes, I've seen the "that kind of games am I" test before).

Thanks

[apparition13]

I haven't run across that model.  The one I find myself using the most is this one.  Bounce around it a little.  The website explanation is a bit vague but you can get a decent sense of Kiersey's formulation.   I found this thread on Kiersey's personality sorter here on the forge.   I actually think a discussion along these lines would be pretty useful.  The threefold model, GNS (and by extension the Big Model) seem to me to come from a basic observation about role-players, namely that there are differences in role-playing preferences within the community, and seem to be attempts to describe those differences and, where the big model is concerned, to provide  a tool for more focused game design.  What they don't do is ask  why different players have different preferences.  Why does one player prefer gamist games and another narrativist?  The "duh!" answer is because they are different in personality;  theories of personality type can help illuminate those differences.

So how can this relate to GNS, CAs and the Big Model?  Well, Alan took this stab at it in the aforementions thread:

The Kiersey Temperaments sort the 16 MB types into four categories. These cateogories may relate to GNS preferences. Here's some hypotheses:

SP - Gamist preferences
SJ - Simulationist preferences
NT - Simulationist preferences
NF - Narrativist preferences

My version would be"

SP- (concrete and functional;  competitive and risk-seeking) Gamist CA
SJ-  (concrete and highly) social;  anecdotal {actual play}, like to sit around telling stories)  Narrativist CA
NT-  (abstract and functional;  least social,  rational and analytical, verisimilitude)  Sim (objective?, Turku simulationist)
NF-  (abstract and social;  mystical, self-actualisation, authenticity and the search for meaning)  Sim (subjective?  Turku immersionist)

Of course this would also involve splitting simulationism, but I'm hardly the first to think that's a good idea.  Incidently, this approach can help explain the tendency to collapse four CAs into three.  SJs  will tend to lump the abstract NT and NF CAs together while NTs will throw "those character guys" (NF and SJ) CAs together.

[Tobias]

Thanks for that.

Wow - a return to MB. It's been a while. And let me shatter both those category assumptions by noting that I am ENTP and am a gamist/narrativist hybrid. One ENTP friend from my group is a diehard gamist. I could look up the others, maybe.

But I'll recommend the test to anyone. It's good fun, at least. Post your results and GNS preference, anyone, if you would. :)

[Alan]

Hi Apparition,

I proposed that correlation between CA preferences and the Myers-Briggs four temperaments.  Since that time, my anecdotal evidence has not confirmed the hypothesis.  In particular, iNtuitive Thinkers (NTs) are statistically over-represented in gaming circles, but I find my NT friends have no particular CA preference: one may prefer simulationist while another likes narrativist play, etc.  Some correlation with MB types may exist, but I don't think it's at the level of the four temperaments (SP,SJ,NT,NF).    

Likewise, my perception of my own anecedotal evidence makes me believe these's no correlation between intelligence, social eptness, or creativity and creative agenda preferences.  (I think that these quotients actually lump too much into single categories to be terribly useful for seeking such correlations anyway.)

I was going to say that I suspect most roleplayers can find enjoyment in all three CAs.  Yet, I know that I have a hard time enjoying a game that consistently puts simulationist priorities first.  I do in fact prefer either gamist or narrativist focus.  Now, whether that reflects my NF personality type or my lifelong conditioning, I can't tell.  

Frankly, I think the question of personality type correlation is unanswerable without a scientific survey.  The two approachs would be assessement of test subject behavior by trained observers - which requires too much person-power, or a reliable way to test creative agenda preferences with survey questions - a method which has yet to appear, despite several attempts here at the Forge.

[apparition13]

Hi Tobias, you wrote

And let me shatter both those category assumptions by noting that I am ENTP and am a gamist/narrativist hybrid. One ENTP friend from my group is a diehard gamist.

I don't look at the MB/Kiersey (I'm much more familiar with the Kiersey version) categories as clearly bounded.  Each of the letters is one of a pair and represents a postion one side or the other of the midpoint of a line.  Ie:  on the scale representing introversion/extraversion and I could represent a score of 100-0 or 51-49.  I regard an analogy to a colour wheel,  in this case four dimensional, with all the blurring of boundaries that implies is a more useful way to look at psychological types.  I also thing "colour wheel" would be a useful way to look at CAs as well;  the boundaries seem somewhat fuzzy from how I see people using them here.

Hi Alan,  it's apparition13 by the way, not  Appartition.  I know there is an Apparition12, and I presume there were Apparitions 1 thorugh 11, though I don't know what happened to them.  That's neither here nor there though.   You wrote:

Since that time, my anecdotal evidence has not confirmed the hypothesis. In particular, iNtuitive Thinkers (NTs) are statistically over-represented in gaming circles,

so that's where the stereotype comes from

but I find my NT friends have no particular CA preference: one may prefer simulationist while another likes narrativist play, etc.

also not a surprize.  Last couple times I've done the Kiersey test I've come out INxP, split the T/F meter down the middle (though I think I tend to lean T), but I'd rather be playing soccer than anything else, and sports is about as S (specfically SP) as you  can get.  I'd say the colour wheel idea works here.

I was going to say that I suspect most roleplayers can find enjoyment in all three CAs. Yet, I know that I have a hard time enjoying a game that consistently puts simulationist priorities first. I do in fact prefer either gamist or narrativist focus. Now, whether that reflects my NF personality type or my lifelong conditioning, I can't tell.

As for gamism, well many people like a bit of competition now and again.  With regard to narrativist play I'm curious as to what about it appeals to you.   Is it specifically addressing premise, or is there something else you like?

On another note,  I wrote above

The threefold model, GNS (and by extension the Big Model) seem to me to come from a basic observation about role-players, namely that there are differences in role-playing preferences within the community, and seem to be attempts to describe those differences and, where the big model is concerned, to provide a tool for more focused game design. What they don't do is ask why different players have different preferences. Why does one player prefer gamist games and another narrativist?  

This "why" question is what I find particularly interesting.   I proposed psychological types as an explanation because it seemed a place to start.  Any other suggestions on how to go about investigating this question?

[M. J. Young]

I wrote above

The threefold model, GNS (and by extension the Big Model) seem to me to come from a basic observation about role-players, namely that there are differences in role-playing preferences within the community, and seem to be attempts to describe those differences and, where the big model is concerned, to provide a tool for more focused game design. What they don't do is ask why different players have different preferences. Why does one player prefer gamist games and another narrativist?  

This "why" question is what I find particularly interesting.   I proposed psychological types as an explanation because it seemed a place to start.  Any other suggestions on how to go about investigating this question?

If in fact (as seems to be the emergent description at the moment) creative agenda are best understood as that which is "fun" about the game for a particular player, we should be able to learn something by analogy to other things people like to do.

I like to play music. I hate sports.

There really is no mystery to this. When I was young, I suffered temporarily from a crippling illness (acute nephritis, had me hospitalized and bedridden, then wheel-chair bound, for what to a preschooler is a long time), and so was physically underdeveloped compared to my peers. In other words, I sucked at athletics, and didn't like sucking, so I didn't like being forced to be involved in playground games where everyone would laugh at my inability. This snowballed, as I would not improve in these areas without practice and I would not participate without being better. I certainly dreamed of being great at such things, but I didn't want to be actively involved in them. On the other hand, I always excelled in music, so I was always praised for my participation there, so I enjoyed it.

There's nothing personality-related about it, at this level. People enjoy doing that which they do well and for which they are rewarded. Some people like to show off their abilities at problem solving (whether tactical, puzzle-based, or something else), because they're good at this. Some people like to explore issues, because it's something they do well and so find reward in pursuing. Some people like to explore imaginary worlds because they have strong imaginative abilities and want to exercise these.

I would be very surprised if Personality Typing of any sort trumped these simple explanations of what people find fun.

But I'm certainly open to it.

I vaguely recall testing as INTP, and I think the I was close to the middle, but it's been a while; I play and enjoy all three agenda with varying games or groups.

--M. J. Young

[inky]

(M.J., I would submit that although clearly circumstances shape personality, personality type helps shape how you respond to circumstances -- eg, people who throw themselves into athletics all the harder because they weren't athletically capable as kids)

This is drifting pretty heavily off-topic, but I think that you simply aren't going to find a lot of S-type roleplayers -- by definition S-type folks tend to be interested in physical hands-on stuff they can see, not speculative mostly-abstract things. I'd guess that they'll be rare enough that you can't generalize much about which agenda they end up with; it'll depend a lot on what they're getting out of the agenda.

This gets into the other difficulty here, which is that agendas say what you enjoy, not why you enjoy it. You can provide a reason why any personality type might enjoy (say) Gamist play -- while this is probably useful for convincing a particular person that they might enjoy it ("C'mon, it's cool to see the looks on their faces when you kick their ass" vs "C'mon, it's this whole system you can try and find the optimal build for") I don't think it provides that much insight into the agenda itself.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

What Dan said.

Best,
Ron

[Alan]

This is drifting pretty heavily off-topic, but I think that you simply aren't going to find a lot of S-type roleplayers -- by definition S-type folks tend to be interested in physical hands-on stuff they can see, not speculative mostly-abstract things. I'd guess that they'll be rare enough that you can't generalize much about which agenda they end up with; it'll depend a lot on what they're getting out of the agenda.

If you're referring to Myers-Briggs Sensor types, you have to consider that 75% of the American population falls into this category.  I think you may be confusing those who prefer kinesthetic rewards with MB Sensors, who are concrete thinkers.  Not that they can't think in abstract ways, but that their preferred approach is fact-based.  

In my experience, iNtuitives are indeed over-represented in role-playing groups, making up perhaps 50% of all the roleplayers I've know - maybe more, because, as an N myself, I tend to self-select into groups with more Ns.  

But Sensors are by no means absent from the hobby.  For example, one trait of sensors is reporting facts without (to an iNtuitive) any higher point - doesn't that resemble many a long ramble about character facts and activities you've heard over the years?  I imagine that sensors can enjoy the concrete competitiveness of applying Feats and rolling dice (they make up a lot of gamblers, you know).  I also suspect that certain sensors really enjoy "being" their character - many actors are sensors.  I also suspect that sensors can enjoy the rewards of narrativist play, if we separate the act of addressing premise from the act of talking about it (which I do think is an iNtuitive preference).

So I think MB types can explain roleplaying preferences.  However, as I said before, I don't think the relationship is as simple as SJs like X and NTs like Y.  I have observed some tendencies (which is what MB types are about after all), but no exclusionary rules.

[apparition13]

M. J. Young wrote:

There's nothing personality-related about it, at this level. People enjoy doing that which they do well and for which they are rewarded...
I would be very surprised if Personality Typing of any sort trumped these simple explanations of what people find fun.

Kiersey would entirely agree with this.  To put words into his mouth, personality types are self-reinforcing pre-dispositions.  People enjoy doing what they do well because the are pre-disposed to enjoy enjoy certain things, and they do those things well because the enjoy doing them.  To put it somewhat differently, if you are pre-disposed to enjoy math, or sports, or gossip, or writing you will invest time and develop skill, making it more enjoyable to pursue that very activity.  If you aren't pre-disposed to  enjoy something, you won't do it and won't become proficient.  Either way a self-reinforcing feedback loop is formed.

Hey Alan, you wrote:  

So I think MB types can explain roleplaying preferences. However, as I said before, I don't think the relationship is as simple as SJs like X and NTs like Y. I have observed some tendencies (which is what MB types are about after all), but no exclusionary rules.

and I agree;  tendencies but not exclusionary rules.  Given that, would it be accurate to say SJs tent to like X, and NTs tend to like Y?  What tendencies have you observed?