Personality Prism

[Wyote]

Here's what INFJs across the full PRISM dataset have been getting:

I would have guessed Weaver as my secondary so this checks out
And Inhabitant also makes sense, with some infp crossover
Thanks for sharing this info, pretty cool

 

[PersonalityPrism]

I would have guessed Weaver as my secondary so this checks out
And Inhabitant also makes sense, with some infp crossover
Thanks for sharing this info, pretty cool

It's interesting to hear about your Weaver connection. I'm still thinking that the connection there might be a mood/state shift where you drift more into the Weaver type when faced with certain situations, stimuli, etc. Hopefully when I add the mood/state constellations the data will help point to what might be going on

 

[Krypton]

Interesting type for an INFJ. Did you get a chance to read your results and possibly visit the Polymath type page at personalityprism.app/types/polymath ? What did you think of what it said there?

I didn't read the full results yet but I can do that if you like.

I'm not INFJ though I don't think.

 

[PersonalityPrism]

I didn't read the full results yet but I can do that if you like.

I'm not INFJ though I don't think.

That's up to you, but I sure would be interested and would definitely find it helpful to hear I'd appreciate it. What type do you think that you are?

 

[Krypton]

That's up to you, but I sure would be interested and would definitely find it helpful to hear I'd appreciate it. What type do you think that you are?

Re: The Polymath description.

I don't tend towards long explanations first off. I actually try to be concise. That said I was more long-winded about certain things when I was younger--usually RPG related things.

I'm not sure if I link different themes together in one answer. I think unless I'm really knowledgeable about it I tend to fall back into general heuristics (i.e.: if someone asks me what I think about a current event I don't know about, I would just give my opinion on that type of event generally). Often I'm not really sure what there is to say about a given thing otherwise.

I definitely would see myself as a generalist for most things, but that could be because the things I might be able to say I specialize in don't come up outside of specific hobbyist conversations.

It's pretty easy for me to switch perspectives and question my own positions though. Plus maybe to think of things as having a root cause that I can mess with as opposed to the surface stuff. Some of that is trained though.

Overall I think Polymath kind of fits me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Type, not sure really. People often type me NTP though.

 

[aeon]

I type as ENFP, but NeNiFiTi top functional usage may play into my Mirror results, as do early life (traumatic) experiences, level of cognition, and (years ago) extensive use of psychedelic entheogens.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[PersonalityPrism]

Re: The Polymath description.

I don't tend towards long explanations first off. I actually try to be concise. That said I was more long-winded about certain things when I was younger--usually RPG related things.

I'm not sure if I link different themes together in one answer. I think unless I'm really knowledgeable about it I tend to fall back into general heuristics (i.e.: if someone asks me what I think about a current event I don't know about, I would just give my opinion on that type of event generally). Often I'm not really sure what there is to say about a given thing otherwise.

I definitely would see myself as a generalist for most things, but that could be because the things I might be able to say I specialize in don't come up outside of specific hobbyist conversations.

It's pretty easy for me to switch perspectives and question my own positions though. Plus maybe to think of things as having a root cause that I can mess with as opposed to the surface stuff. Some of that is trained though.

Overall I think Polymath kind of fits me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Type, not sure really. People often type me NTP though.

Thanks for the detailed feedback.


On being concise: that's not necessarily contrary to Polymath. The type has three subtypes: the Universalist, the Synthesizer, and the Generalist. From what you're describing about looking for what's actionable, switching perspectives, and tracing things to root causes, the Generalist subtype description might be the closer read.


On whether you link themes together: honestly, that varies across Polymath reads. Some emphasize cross domain connections more than others.

 

[Wyote]

It's interesting to hear about your Weaver connection. I'm still thinking that the connection there might be a mood/state shift where you drift more into the Weaver type when faced with certain situations, stimuli, etc. Hopefully when I add the mood/state constellations the data will help point to what might be going on

That's exactly along the lines I was thinking.
I used the term secondary but then moments later I felt that "alt" was a better term.
Which is also more in line with how the test itself functions.
Looking forward to seeing how you build things out more fully and I hope you come by here periodically to talk more about it.

 

[PersonalityPrism]

I type as ENFP, but NeNiFiTi top functional usage may play into my Mirror results, as do early life (traumatic) experiences, level of cognition, and (years ago) extensive use of psychedelic entheogens.

Cheers,
Ian

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Ian. Your comment itself is doing the Witness pattern in real-time. You're seeing yourself get typed and immediately stepping back to a second layer of analysis about functions and life context and substances. The Witness subtype description says "You see yourself seeing. The act of observation is never invisible to you, and that second layer of awareness is where most of your real processing happens." Your engagement with your own result is that second layer happening live.


Thanks for the original post and link here btw. Did you first find PRISM on one of the Reddit posts? It's interesting that you are an ENFP and admin an INFJ site. Are there other type sites like this?

 

[aeon]

Thanks for the original post and link here btw. Did you first find PRISM on one of the Reddit posts? It's interesting that you are an ENFP and admin an INFJ site. Are there other type sites like this?

Yes, I found your Reddit PRISM post in the ENFP subreddit.

Other admins must have found me reasonable, and they most certainly are by any reasonable measure.

There are other type sites, but not like this one, and that’s down to the people, and not anything to do with type. Inasmuch as this is true, I do not visit other sites unless I am trawling for posts relevant to my inquiry.

One last thing, which you may find interesting given your research—I am diagnosed as ADHD, primarily inattentive, severe presentation.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[PersonalityPrism]

That's exactly along the lines I was thinking.
I used the term secondary but then moments later I felt that "alt" was a better term.
Which is also more in line with how the test itself functions.
Looking forward to seeing how you build things out more fully and I hope you come by here periodically to talk more about it.

Sounds good. I'll come back periodically. Thanks for taking the time to engage with all of this. It's been genuinely useful conversation.

 

[PersonalityPrism]

@aeon I got the same result as you. Some differences in the scores of the individual aspects but the same overall type.

I'm sorry I missed your comment. What did you think of the Mirror type?

 

[PersonalityPrism]

View attachment 102342

View attachment 102343

View attachment 102344

Sorry I missed your comment the first go round. What did you think of results and the Inhabitant type?

 

[PersonalityPrism]

YOUR PRISM TYPE
People-First

Guardian​

The Realist
You saw what wasn't right.
You ask who else needs to be heard. You work within structures rather than testing them.
Based on 4 passages of analysis
You see what's wrong and you want it fixed. Something isn't working the way it should and that bothers you before you've even decided who it affects.
You care about outcomes for people without leading with the emotional dimension. The concern is real but it shows up as problem-solving, not as feeling.
You think about how things work and who they affect in roughly equal measure. Neither dominates consistently.
You connect to others experiences without always routing through your own. The empathy is direct, not reflective.

Cool. Did you get a chance to read over the results and the Guardian type page?

 

[Fruiteloop]

Cool. Did you get a chance to read over the results and the Guardian type page?

I read the PDF but I am not in particular interested in how each cognitive style sees the other cognitive styles.

What I am interestested in is in how this is related to psychology to the effect that I never seen this way of viewing people before.

I knew people pay attention to different things but I don't know why they do this, I always assumed it be because of some perception judgment type reason. So I do not know exactly how this new psychology system classifies people. It is the theory of why people do what they do that I want to know more about. Are different brain areas doing different things? Like vision or the left right brain or the frontal brain regions? This would tell me more of what I want to know since I do not know what goes on behind the scenes, I am perfectly fine with how I interact with people and this could help me interact better but I get better practicing talking to people in real life than reading about people's thoughts.

please excuse me, I am going to go off topic a little:

Right now I am reading a math book, I have trouble with math because I cannot do arithmetic well, yet the subject is on bayes theorem. I looked for other books at my local library and this is the most advanced one for adults but off course it is only useful to me because I looked at internet memes to explain other math concepts to me before. So what I am saying is that it is trying to tell stories and not explain math equations. The rest of the books are highschool books that expect you to add up 50 bajillion numbers in order to make a simple curve. But I don't want to do that. So like I never had a good math teacher and I am not a computer programmer, I use excel from ten years ago, the free one. This makes it hard to do statistics because by the way I think, I never have seen anything that explains how I think. That is why I have been interested in personality tests. I tried to understand them because its all obscure to me like math is. Or how I been trying to understand cognitive neuroscience. Allegorically I am stuck between looking at books that explain to me how Atari pong is a great computer game and that the PS5 exists without explanation but All I want to do is make a simple physics engine which has existed since the 1980s. So I look up how CPU's work and get nowhere. (This is all money dependent but that is a separate issue) Sorry about the rant.

I just do not understand how I think and it be useful to know because I never find materials at my level of understanding, I feel like a middle child when it comes to intellectual stuff.

 

[John K]

I'm sorry I missed your comment. What did you think of the Mirror type?

I’m not sure at the moment. I tend to read and respond differently to things that have secondary motives, such as a need to respond for purposes other than the surface, than I do to the everyday flow of life. I tend to do the opposite of Mirror for example when I’m reading a novel or good non fiction book, or watching a drama. I immerse myself in the created world and if the concept is a good one I simply do not notice the scaffolding, or the bumps and warps if the authors technique is lacking in some way.

It’s only if I’m asked that I go into meta-analytical reflective mode. It takes me quite a lot of effort to do that and it’s a bit like trying to describe a landscape over the telephone without using any images. My inner sense of something complex is often like a landscape I see instantaneously as a whole without any words at all.

 

[John K]

@PersonalityPrism Some more thoughts.

It's really interesting looking at a psychological model that runs orthogonally to the ones we usually come across. I find it refreshing to look at transactional analysis from time to time, which is another such and is a big one. How are you finding PRISM is working out in practice? Have you had chance to look and see if it predicts well the way folks with known type talk to each other?

I decided to take the test again and got a different result this time - Weaver.

I always respond differently to a simulated situation where I'm being 'watched' than I would in the actual situation in real life. In my days of work, I found role-playing exercises on courses hopeless for me because of this. In the case of the passages on your site, I tried to respond to them the second time through on their own terms rather than as contrived for a psychological test that is more about me than about the subjects.

Looking through the descriptions that go with these two types - Mirror and Weaver - I can see something of myself in both of them, certainly more so with Weaver than Mirror. I definitely feel more at home with Weaver as well, but maybe such feelings are not so relevant in this context. Maybe this ambivalence is consistent with my Enneagram type, 5W4, where I can readily flip back and forward between these two as much as blend them together. I would have to absorb a lot more information about the other PRISM Types to be sure, but it's possible I 'inhabit' a space mapped out by two or three related types rather than a single one, but with a definite centre of gravity - I think this is rather like @Wyote suggested. Unfortunately I didn't download the results of my first test so I can't compare the polygons to see if they have related appearance, but from memory they don't look wildly different so I guess there's some family resemblance between these two within the space mapped out by all your types.

It might be interesting if your results indicated how close someone is to the boundary between one type and another.

 

[Wyote]

it's possible I 'inhabit' a space mapped out by two or three related types rather than a single one, but with a definite centre of gravity - I think this is rather like @Wyote suggested.

Kind of along the lines of my thinking yes.
From what the creator said, it seems to be that based on certain modes/orientations one's type will possibly shift.
Whether it's due to stressors or other things remains to be seen.
But my sense is for many but not all, there would be a "home base" of sorts.
Some people are oriented towards more shifting than others, I imagine.
Both with more numerous types, and/or frequency.
I can see myself getting Weaver and Inhabitant at times,
but I also would need to engage in all the types more thoroughly to really know where I might land.
Guardian does feel like home for me.