Personality Disorder Test

My big problem is that all questions are yes or no with no other options, such as i don't know. That tends to skewer results and make them inaccurate.It also doesn't factor in cause and effect and other personal experiences. For example, I know for a fact that people do talk about me behind my back. I've had too many people come up and ask me if something was true or not. And I've had people who take a strong disliking to me purposefully spread rumors and lies against me.

My results were:

Paranoid: Very High
Schizoid: High
Schizotypal: High
Antisocial: High
Borderline: Moderate
Histrionic: Moderate
Narcissistic: Moderate
Avoidant: High
Dependent: High
Obsessive-Compulsive: High

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
My big problem is that all questions are yes or no with no other options, such as i don't know. That tends to skewer results and make them inaccurate.It also doesn't factor in cause and effect and other personal experiences. For example,

This particular test is probably not scientifically accurate, but the form itself is. Have you ever taken the MMPI (Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory)? Same idea with forced answers. These have "V" scores for validity and are much more sophisticated, but forced answers are valid. It doesn't matter what your personal experiences are. They shape your personality. If your personal experiences have pushed you to be paranoid, well, then, you're paranoid!

Congrats on an excellent score! I'm not sure how to structure the Boring Quotient here. I tend to think a non-boring individual, such as yourself, should have a high (inverse) score to match the Karma and Wats. So a high score means you're off the charts and a low BQ, like me, means you, i.e.: me, are utterly boring.

So, whaddya think? Low gets no points. Moderate gets one point, high gets two, very high gets three, so your BQ is equal to 18.0 and my BQ is (sigh) 1.0. we'd have to test the test to see if you can get higher than very high, but I think we've got the basic concept down. Insomniac gets a 2.0. Hey, this can work!

reply to post by schuyler


I really think your on to something here! The BQ score would be more tangible than the apparently obscure WATS and Karma scores. Maybe the mods could feed the idea upwards?

Insomniac (BQ 2.0)

Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by schuyler

 

I really think your on to something here! The BQ score would be more tangible than the apparently obscure WATS and Karma scores. Maybe the mods could feed the idea upwards?

Now I can help you with W & K:

KARMA (K)
I’m indebted to member Sherlock Holmes for figuring out these formulas. As far as I know, ATS management has never been explicit about the scores. I believe Sherlock may have back engineered the formulas mathematically. I’m not really sure. In any case,

It's ((stars x 15) + (flags + applause) x 10)) / posts. So if you take the following, which is my scoring today, you get:

7466 stars 3979 posts 524 flags 87 applauses
((7466 stars * 15) + ((524 flags +87 applauses) * 10)) / 3979 posts
(111990 + 6110)/3979
118100 / 3979 = 29.68, rounds to 30

So my K score is 30. Note that the overwhelming variable here is stars, which are multiplied by 15. You get much less for flags (starting threads) or ‘exceptional’ posts that earned applause, both of which are multiplied by ten. Applause, which can earn you 500 points a whack, are counted the same as a single flag here. So right off the bat flags and applause are worth two-thirds of what stars are. But the whole thing is divided by number of posts, which means the more posts you have, the lower your Karma Score. If you had 5,000 posts instead of 3979, your Karma Score would be 24. If you only had 2000 posts your Karma Score would be 59, twice what it is. Therefore, making posts that do not earn stars is to your detriment. It is better to make one pithy post than two throw-away comments that don’t add to the conversation.

WATS (W)
It's (number of posts ÷ 600) + (number of flags ÷ 80) + (number of stars ÷ 170). My score today is:

(3979 posts / 600) + (524 flags / 80) + (7466 stars / 170)
6.63 + 6.55 + 43.91 = 57.09, rounds to 57

So my Wats score is 57. Here you see an opposite (and far simpler) sort of formula. Here stars are worth half of what flags are and posts themselves are worth about an eight of what flags are. Flags are dominant. Here my nearly 4,000 posts earn me 6.63 points and my mere 524 flags earn me almost as much at 6.55 points. But since there are so many stars, even though they are worth half of what flags are, it still gives a boost. But clearly, flags, earned for starting threads, is the dominant theme here. Also, in this score posts don’t hurt you because they are added in, not a part of a ratio. In the previous formula, lowering your post count raised your score. In this formula, lowering your post count lowers your score.

reply to post by schuyler


Wow! Thanks for that... A lot of thought really has gone into the formulas for the wats and karma scores! Like so many things on ATS, it's all in the stars!

Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by schuyler

 

Wow! Thanks for that... A lot of thought really has gone into the formulas for the wats and karma scores! Like so many things on ATS, it's all in the stars!

Tell you what. I'll work on a proposal, the Insomniac/Schuyler BQ Index a little later. Gotta go for now.