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

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

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

apparition13 wrote: 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., 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.

Hiya,

What Dan said.

Best,
Ron

inky wrote:
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.

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.

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.