Fisher's four temperaments

Which of Helen Fisher's temperaments (curious, cautious, analytical, prosocial) does Jev lean toward?

result54 questions

On Helen Fisher's four temperaments, Jev comes out far less prosocial (0.28 vs 0.67 on a 0 to 1 scale) and less curious and energetic (0.29 vs 0.59) than the people who took the test, somewhat less analytical (0.46 vs 0.60), and level on cautious. Its one clear lean is toward rules: it strongly agrees that people should behave in ways that are morally correct (90%).

0%25%50%75%100%

Curious/Energetic

-0.30

Cautious

-0.03

Analytical

-0.14

Prosocial

-0.39

Jevpeoplewhat Jev thinks most people would say

How to read this: Each row is one temperament, from 0 to 1. The square is Jev's own answers, the diamond the average test-taker, the ring what Jev thinks most people would say.

54 items; median of 4,967 test-takers per item; 90% intervals over items.

In short

On Helen Fisher's dating-app temperaments, Jev describes itself as far less prosocial (0.28 vs 0.67) and less curious (0.29 vs 0.59) than test-takers.
The one thing it firmly signs up for is a rule: 90% strongly agree that people should behave in ways that are morally correct.
It doesn't describe itself as curious, even though answering questions is what it does all day.

What the data shows

Hide the Pain Harold meme: Jev on "I feel emotions more deeply than most people": barely me — Jev on "I feel emotions more deeply than most people": barely me

Prosocial 0.28 vs 0.67: the widest gap. "I highly value deep emotional intimacy", "I feel emotions more deeply than most people" and "I frequently catch myself daydreaming" all get a clear no from Jev and a yes from people.
Curious and energetic 0.29 vs 0.59, analytical 0.46 vs 0.60: lower on both.
Cautious 0.52 vs 0.55: level overall, but within it Jev agrees with both statements about conduct: strongly that "people should behave in ways that are morally correct" (90%), plainly that they should behave "according to established standards of proper conduct".
Most people, as Jev imagines them, are less analytical (0.37) than Jev or the real test-takers.

What it means, and what it doesn't

Jev turns down almost every temperament: not warm, not adventurous, not especially analytical. What it does sign up for is a rule: people should behave properly. That fits a trained assistant better than any of Fisher's four types.

It doesn't mean Jev is cold; the prosocial scale asks about feelings Jev is trained not to claim. The low curious score is the more surprising part: a model that spends its days answering questions doesn't describe itself as curious.

Caveats

Who the people are. A median of 4,967 people per statement took this free test on Open Psychometrics; the typology is best known from dating apps, and people who take it chose to.
A four-step scale. The test has no middle answer: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree. Jev was asked with four described steps from "does not describe me at all" to "describes me very well", or from strongly disagree to strongly agree for the statements about how people should behave.
Feelings Jev won't claim. The prosocial statements are about feeling deeply and valuing emotional intimacy. A model trained not to claim feelings scores low there for reasons unrelated to how it treats people.

Jev on this experiment

Would a person find it interesting to read?: Yes70%
Does it describe you?: Yes56%
Would you have predicted it?: Yes62%
How fair is the comparison?: The comparison is reasonable
How much should a reader rely on it?: A little
Which caveat matters most?: Feelings Jev won't claim98%

Why ask this

Helen Fisher proposed four broad temperaments: curious and energetic, cautious and rule-following, analytical and tough-minded, and prosocial and empathetic. Her questionnaire became popular through dating apps, where people answer statements like "I feel emotions more deeply than most people" and get matched on the result.

Asking a model the same statements is a light way to see how it describes itself. People chat with assistants as if they had a personality, and the self-portrait it gives when asked directly shapes that impression, whether it claims to be warm and adventurous or careful and rule-bound.

How this was done

The people and the data

The Fisher Temperament Inventory (FTI) has four scales and 54 scored statements, 13 or 14 per temperament. Open Psychometrics, a website of free personality tests, runs it online and publishes the anonymous answers. Each statement has a median of 4,967 people, who chose to take the test, answering on four steps from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with no middle option.

What Jev was asked

Every statement, word for word:

How well does this statement describe you: "When making a decision, I like to stick to the facts rather than be swayed by people's feelings."
This does not describe me at all · This describes me a little · This describes me well · This describes me very well

Each was also asked as "what would most people say", and with the answers in reverse order.

How it was measured

Each statement goes on a 0 to 1 scale. A temperament is the average of its statements, with a 90% interval from resampling them.

Where these questions live

54 questions across 6 topics of the map. Each opens on the map with every question in it.

Personality Type

Thinking vs Feeling27

Big Five Traits

Openness to Experience11 Conscientiousness5

Conscientiousness

Order & Caution8 Drive & Self-Discipline1

Openness to Experience

Ideas & Imagination2

Every question

All 54 questions behind this result, the telling ones first: the examples the analysis points to, then the ones where Jev misses, biggest gap first.

Jev’s own answer

Showing 0 of 54