Return to “Polls”

Do you know your Myers-Briggs type?

ESTP / ISTP
Total votes: 11 (6%)
ESFP / ISFP
Total votes: 4 (2%)
ESTJ / ISTJ
Total votes: 11 (6%)
ESFJ / ISFJ
Total votes: 5 (3%)
ENTJ / INTJ
Total votes: 18 (10%)
ENTP / INTP
Total votes: 32 (18%)
ENFJ / INFJ
Total votes: 6 (3%)
ENFP / INFP
Total votes: 13 (8%)
Extroversion
Total votes: 15 (9%)
Introversion
Total votes: 58 (34%)
Total votes: 173
Post

Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#1
We've been having some fun type-watching here in the Limit Theory forum over in the Myers-Briggs Personality Types thread, where ThymineC has been keeping a running tally of responses.

Since we've recently added this shiny new Polls section, though, I thought I'd try the Myers-Briggs inventory over here.

Because the poll creation system only allows 12 choices, there's not room for all 16 MB types. So let's do it this way: you can pick two answers -- one from the list of eight combined types, and one from the list of either Extroversion or Introversion. The percentages won't add up nicely, but I guess you can't have everything. :)

(For those who feel the Myers-Briggs model specifically or personality assessment generally are utterly broken, or who don't think your preferred style is represented adequately by the 16 Myers-Briggs types, please select the hidden "I choose not to participate in this poll" option. ;))

When you're done with this poll, why not head over to the Myers-Briggs Personality Types thread to discuss it and related psychological models?
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#3
With 95 votes in, the NT Rationals are still well-represented among forum participants.

I'm not surprised by the number of NF Idealists. But I am surprised at the somewhat larger number of SP Artisans compared to the quite low number self-identifying as SJ Guardians -- based on the general population, and on how the population of gamers is increasingly looking like the general population, I'd expect to see not very many Artisans looking forward to a single-player space game, and quite a lot of challenge- and achievement-oriented Guardians eager to dominate the gameworld.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, these proportions are probably due to what has been shown of LT so far, and how it's been talked about. Between the early updates on graphics and foundational code and the more recent work on the "macro" level of play, seeing a lot of Rationals lusting for LT isn't surprising. And the lack of examples of interacting with NPCs through conversation or story (i.e., not being able to feel any kind of emotional investment in the people of the world of LT) will keep it from appealing much to Idealists. (That could change depending on how much depth will be possible in querying NPCs for their goals, though.)

I assume the numbers for Artisans are about the action that's been shown so far. Guardians, though... that's a puzzle. There are just so many in the gaming world now that I'm surprised there aren't more of them in the forums regardless of any demonstrated game features. That said, now that we've seen commerce happening in a couple of video updates -- numbers that can be "owned" and compared to other players, even if they're playing their own games -- I will not be surprised to see the number of Guardians answering this survey increase slowly over the next month or two.

I also expect a spike in the numbers of both Artisans and Guardians here once combat gameplay starts to be shown off, and as LT gets closer to shipping and whatever pre-launch PR Josh chooses to do gets broadcast... and especially after LT launches, particularly if it gets distributed through Steam.

We'll see. :)
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#6
Flatfingers wrote: I also expect a spike in the numbers of both Artisans and Guardians here once combat gameplay starts to be shown off
One does not simply expect spikes in Sensing numbers! :)

There are two schools of thought on why exactly N's are far more common than S's in all kinds of Internet communities (and yes, they are), particularly relating to typology.

i) Sensing types, being apparently more practical than abstract, do not really bother with forums to the extent that N types do. Similarly, they don't bother with these sorts of tests unless they have to -- a situation reflecting the original application in MBTI in schools and workplaces, rather than the leisurely comforts of one's Internet-connected home.
ii) Being Intuitive -- and the manner in which tests present their questions wrt being classified Intuitive -- is cooler than being Sensing. It's empowering to hear that one is focused on the big picture, transcendental thinking, and almost-mystical intuitive revelations (plus, we all have shower thoughts). As such test-takers are more likely to fall in the confirmation bias trap, particularly the kind of test-takers that are suspectible to the ever-validating nature of MBTI (compare with the more sober approach of Socionics).

Anyway, Josh is an INTJ-type IMO. He's expressed having many conceptual breakthroughts, aha-moments and fundamentally transformative insights during the development of the game, and his description of them would point to the dominance of Introverted Intuition. Contrast with someone like ThymineC (he's the most immediate example I am able to give, nothing personal) who is all about the big, detailed, relentlessly enumerated Idea (recall his suggestiions) with little regard to actual Implementation and the picture of an INTP-type -- and dominant Introverted Thinking -- compared to an INTJ-type should become more clear.

Me, I'm a skeptical INFJ-type. You'll see that I explicitly state "INTJ-type" or whatever... I don't want to reduce anyone to their types, preferring to consider it a small facet of the gems they are/were/can be, but have seen it occur many times to my dismay. I believe that MBTI has the potential to turn into a tool for stereotypes, particularly as wounded people try to reclaim some sense of self from its ever-welcoming arms. I had the most involvement with MBTI and typology in 2007-2008 and witnessed many a fight and argument by people with differing types, coming to threads with preconceptions, suspicions about how they should or should not act, how they are or are not "true representatives of their type" (for lack of a better description). It's not really a tool for the Internet age, I fear.
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#7
alpan wrote:Anyway, Josh is an INTJ-type IMO. He's expressed having many conceptual breakthroughts, aha-moments and fundamentally transformative insights during the development of the game, and his description of them would point to the dominance of Introverted Intuition. Contrast with someone like ThymineC (he's the most immediate example I am able to give, nothing personal) who is all about the big, detailed, relentlessly enumerated Idea (recall his suggestiions) with little regard to actual Implementation and the picture of an INTP-type -- and dominant Introverted Thinking -- compared to an INTJ-type should become more clear.
Hm. Josh's result from the test was INTP, and I've consistently registered as as INTJ.
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#8
Ah, some good stuff here. :)
alpan wrote:There are two schools of thought on why exactly N's are far more common than S's in all kinds of Internet communities (and yes, they are), particularly relating to typology.

i) Sensing types, being apparently more practical than abstract, do not really bother with forums to the extent that N types do. Similarly, they don't bother with these sorts of tests unless they have to -- a situation reflecting the original application in MBTI in schools and workplaces, rather than the leisurely comforts of one's Internet-connected home.
ii) Being Intuitive -- and the manner in which tests present their questions wrt being classified Intuitive -- is cooler than being Sensing. It's empowering to hear that one is focused on the big picture, transcendental thinking, and almost-mystical intuitive revelations (plus, we all have shower thoughts). As such test-takers are more likely to fall in the confirmation bias trap, particularly the kind of test-takers that are suspectible to the ever-validating nature of MBTI (compare with the more sober approach of Socionics).
I favor "both of the above" as my response... up to a point.

To rephrase slightly: The proportion of Sensors on a game forum is related to both the proportion of Sensors who have entered the "gamer" culture as well as to the type of game that forum serves.

Myers-Briggs data for the U.S. population (the only one I know of for which there are large datasets; there may be others) indicates that Sensors constitute a majority. In the early days of gaming, though, they were a distinct minority; playing games was considered to be "childish" and was not peer-approved. Since then, as more people (including Sensors) have grown up gaming, gaming has gone mainstream.

Complicating this analysis is the way that developers of AAA design games to appeal to mass numbers. As more Sensors play computer games, to the point that I'm pretty sure they now constitute a majority of gamers, they become very vocal about the kind of the things they want and don't want in games. (Once they feel they have the numbers, Sensors start to feel more free to express their opinions as a way of obtaining validation for those ideas.)

As they speak up, game developers listen (which is just good customer service), and they start delivering more of the content forms that the Sensors ask for. (And when I say, "ask for," I mean "demand as though anything else would be stupid." ;)) Since about 2000, the kinds of games that get made have been increasingly about servicing Sensor preferences. In fact, the kinds of games that can get made, because AAA development is so insanely expensive that making one whose content appeals to anyone but the proven masses is nearly impossible, and Sensors are now the masses in gaming.

And complicating that somewhat is the reality that it's just plain easier to imagine and implement concrete content -- vehicles, weapons, armor, even forms of money -- than more abstract content like "knowledge" and "belonging" and similar intrinsic rewards that iNtuitives prefer. That's another force that has driven game development more toward Sensor-fun.

The result of these forces has been a decade+ of Sensors showing up, looking for the kinds of fun they prefer, developers creating more of those kinds of games, and that supply in turn attracting more Sensors to gaming. This most definitely includes Facebook and mobile gaming, which are additional conduits for mainstreaming gaming for more people. Until gamer penetration into the mainstream levels off (and we might be close to that, although I suspect there's probably another decade left on that clock), pretty much all the momentum is away from the post-arcade, worldy, thinking-and-feeling-focused, pre-2000 (pre-console) games that iNtuitives made for themselves and shared, and toward Sensor games... and Sensor-rich game forums.

So those are the external reasons why it's become unusual to see few Sensors on a game forum. The other reason is internal: the kind of game itself.

To the extent that actual Sensors play a particular game, they'll frequent the most popular forum for that game -- usually the official one, if there is one. So the numbers of Sensors you can reasonably expect to see on a forum also depends in part on the kind of game that forum is about. If it's got certain features, such as competition, action, and an emphasis on collecting and/or manipulating concrete objects, that's much more likely to attract Sensors.

This is the origin of both my views about who's on the LT forum: that there aren't many Sensors yet because LT has mostly been about abstract features, and that there will be more once more concrete features -- including an actual, shipping game -- are publicized.
alpan wrote:Anyway, Josh is an INTJ-type IMO. He's expressed having many conceptual breakthroughts, aha-moments and fundamentally transformative insights during the development of the game, and his description of them would point to the dominance of Introverted Intuition. Contrast with someone like ThymineC (he's the most immediate example I am able to give, nothing personal) who is all about the big, detailed, relentlessly enumerated Idea (recall his suggestiions) with little regard to actual Implementation and the picture of an INTP-type -- and dominant Introverted Thinking -- compared to an INTJ-type should become more clear.
Thymine as an INTJ I might give you... especially since that's how he's self-identified here. :) Working out the details of concepts so that they can be implemented is what INTJs do.

Josh, though... I question considering him an INTJ. (Sorry for speaking of you in the third person here, Josh; feel free to tell me to knock it off if this feels inappropriate to you.)

The fact that he's actually making a game is a point in favor of INTJ-ness. INTPs frequently have a lot more fun creating the initial high-level design for a system than actually implementing it. (This leads to INTPs being labeled as "lazy," despite the effort no one could see that went into conceptualizing a highly coherent design.)

But the kind of game that LT is trying to be is a point in favor of INTP-ness. By that I don't just mean the content; I mean the form of the game and the high-level vision and strategy that determine its form. "Something for everybody" is a common INTP goal. Thinking in terms of foundational systems first, and banging out concrete content later, is very definitely a behavior that's highly localized to INTPs. Conceiving and (to a lesser extent) constructing a complete system as a multi-dimensional graph of interacting sub-systems... that's an INTP all the way.

I suspect it is all of those things that has made LT catnip to the many self-identified INTPs in this forum. (Of whom I guess I should allow I'm one. I don't think that's colored my analysis much; I've done this long enough to be intimately familiar with both the benefits and drawbacks of the INTP style, as well as the gifts and typical difficulties of the other styles. I don't think I play favorites where personality typing is concerned, but I suppose I should lay my own cards on the table just in case.)
alpan wrote:I don't want to reduce anyone to their types, preferring to consider it a small facet of the gems they are/were/can be, but have seen it occur many times to my dismay. I believe that MBTI has the potential to turn into a tool for stereotypes, particularly as wounded people try to reclaim some sense of self from its ever-welcoming arms. I had the most involvement with MBTI and typology in 2007-2008 and witnessed many a fight and argument by people with differing types, coming to threads with preconceptions, suspicions about how they should or should not act, how they are or are not "true representatives of their type" (for lack of a better description). It's not really a tool for the Internet age, I fear.
This goes back to "any tool can be misused," but there's a larger point you're making here that I agree with, which is that it can be easy -- especially for people new to this stuff -- to misunderstand how it is correctly applied.

Specifically, it is wrong to look at some random individual and conclude they must "be" some particular type. A functional typology (and I would say MB is one of those, as is the Keirsey temperament model) doesn't work that way. A working system of type is about broad patterns in large aggregates of people. I think there are a few patterns of basic motivation that can be reliably observed in large groups... but the variation in motivation that any individual person can express swamps the variation among those large-scale patterns.

I happen to be a nearly stereotypical INTP. But not everyone fits so neatly into any style, and it's a mistake to try to force anyone into one style. If they're close to one, awesome; if not, they're not broken... and, importantly, that doesn't mean a typology is necessarily broken, either. Big patterns can exist without every/any individual person fitting neatly into one of those patterns.

So while I don't bother much with trying to "type" individuals (and guessing about Josh's or Thymine's or anyone else's type is just having a bit of fun), I do argue that some typing systems are very useful for game developers to know about. The more people you want your game to reach, the more important it is to understand the basic patterns of motivation -- what people want -- that will predispose one group to enjoy some game feature and another group to find that feature irrelevant, undesirable, or actively interfering with the gameplay they do enjoy.

Having some understanding of the basic human motivations doesn't guarantee you can make a game that anyone or everyone will enjoy. It just improves the odds a bit... and that's not nothing.

Why, yes, I could talk about this at some length -- why do you ask? :ugeek: :monkey: :lol:
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#9
A delightful morsel. Let's see. I apologize for the late response -- I haven't had much time to browse these forums recently.
Flatfingers wrote:Ah, some good stuff here. :)
I favor "both of the above" as my response... up to a point.

To rephrase slightly: The proportion of Sensors on a game forum is related to both the proportion of Sensors who have entered the "gamer" culture as well as to the type of game that forum serves.

Myers-Briggs data for the U.S. population (the only one I know of for which there are large datasets; there may be others) indicates that Sensors constitute a majority. In the early days of gaming, though, they were a distinct minority; playing games was considered to be "childish" and was not peer-approved. Since then, as more people (including Sensors) have grown up gaming, gaming has gone mainstream.
You're saying that Sensors were a distinct minority in the early days of gaming... I think I'll need some citations on that. :) I'm kidding of course, but I would nevertheless dispute this statement. I suppose this is dependent on how "early" you're thinking, but recall that the video game industry has already went through one crash. There's nothing to suggest that the audience back then was mostly comprised of Intuitives.
I feel your phrasing of peer-approval is also slightly inaccurate. I doubt that the peers of Sensor gamers back then (i.e. other Sensor children/adolescents or Sensors partaking in leisurely activity) disapproved of gaming, but I'm sure their parents did, which isn't really connected to the S/I divide.
Flatfingers wrote: Complicating this analysis is the way that developers of AAA design games to appeal to mass numbers. As more Sensors play computer games, to the point that I'm pretty sure they now constitute a majority of gamers, they become very vocal about the kind of the things they want and don't want in games. (Once they feel they have the numbers, Sensors start to feel more free to express their opinions as a way of obtaining validation for those ideas.)

As they speak up, game developers listen (which is just good customer service), and they start delivering more of the content forms that the Sensors ask for. (And when I say, "ask for," I mean "demand as though anything else would be stupid." ;)) Since about 2000, the kinds of games that get made have been increasingly about servicing Sensor preferences. In fact, the kinds of games that can get made, because AAA development is so insanely expensive that making one whose content appeals to anyone but the proven masses is nearly impossible, and Sensors are now the masses in gaming.
Your Intuitive biases are showing... "demand as though anything else would be stupid" -- come on! You're basically partaking in what I outlined in my previous post! I know you're saying this in jest, but still... :)
2000 seems like a rather premature date. What would those Sensor preferences be that get serviced? Visual fidelity? Sound design? Tactile user experience? Commonplace themes? Simple mechanics?
As for AAA development, again -- you're equivocating "the proven masses" with Sensors, and the "anyone but" is just... really? Regardless of Intuition and Sensing preferences, and like most things in life that get sold, games need hooks, elevator pitches. I think you'll find that some of the most successful games ever have similarly had briliant measures for such, regardless of their complexity. I'll give you that, due to the sheer numbers of gamers in general, Sensors have become the dominant segment. But I don't think they had anything to do with it, as opposed to the humongous budgets of games and the mismanagement thereof (i.e. marketing, the game industry aping Hollywood). :)
Flatfingers wrote: And complicating that somewhat is the reality that it's just plain easier to imagine and implement concrete content -- vehicles, weapons, armor, even forms of money -- than more abstract content like "knowledge" and "belonging" and similar intrinsic rewards that iNtuitives prefer. That's another force that has driven game development more toward Sensor-fun.
So... what would you say about The Sims? :)
Anyhow, I think this is completely off. Based on this definition -- mapping concrete stuff like vehicles and armor to Sensors and abstractions like knowledge and belonging to Intuition -- you'll find that games basically are Sensor-fun, and started off as such. Why? Because the technology didn't allow for that nuance in the first place. It didn't allow for a nice plot, it didn't allow for voice acting, moody music, tone. It allowed for monochrome displays, 8-bit sprites and beeps-boops. It allowed for a few lines of text and a score.* Your definition describes game development as finally taking baby-steps towards Intuitive-fun, not moving closer towards Sensor fun. Maybe I'm missing something? I suppose I can be more accommodating of this description if one incorporates knowledge and mastery over game systems into the "knowledge" reward you mention -- there's definitely a case to be made there (please don't disapprove of roguelike design :)). But even so you'll find that those systems have never been isolated from Sensor elements in the first place.

*Yes, I'm ignoring BBSes, MUDs and Text Adventures for the moment. :D
Flatfingers wrote: The result of these forces has been a decade+ of Sensors showing up, looking for the kinds of fun they prefer, developers creating more of those kinds of games, and that supply in turn attracting more Sensors to gaming. This most definitely includes Facebook and mobile gaming, which are additional conduits for mainstreaming gaming for more people. Until gamer penetration into the mainstream levels off (and we might be close to that, although I suspect there's probably another decade left on that clock), pretty much all the momentum is away from the post-arcade, worldy, thinking-and-feeling-focused, pre-2000 (pre-console) games that iNtuitives made for themselves and shared, and toward Sensor games... and Sensor-rich game forums.
You'll have to excuse me if I "meh." this paragraph away. :)
Flatfingers wrote: So those are the external reasons why it's become unusual to see few Sensors on a game forum. The other reason is internal: the kind of game itself.

To the extent that actual Sensors play a particular game, they'll frequent the most popular forum for that game -- usually the official one, if there is one. So the numbers of Sensors you can reasonably expect to see on a forum also depends in part on the kind of game that forum is about. If it's got certain features, such as competition, action, and an emphasis on collecting and/or manipulating concrete objects, that's much more likely to attract Sensors.

This is the origin of both my views about who's on the LT forum: that there aren't many Sensors yet because LT has mostly been about abstract features, and that there will be more once more concrete features -- including an actual, shipping game -- are publicized.
The point you're making about the LT forum demographics seems legit to me, but do keep in mind that the main hook of this game is currently very Sensing-oriented -- a series of lovely videos full of shiny (the other points, about Sensor forum browsing preferences, seem fairly arbitrary, but then we're discussing pseudo-scientific astrology, so that is to be expected. :)).
Thus I'm less inclined to chalk the divide into S/N (shit, I just realized I typed S/I in all previous instances...) than I am to T/F, to be honest. The game is pretty cerebral, made by one of the most cerebral fellows I've ever seen (he'd be the next Braben or Carmack, but it's 2014 after all -- it's all local now. Let's hope he doesn't end up a Silverman!) and most certainly it attracts a cerebral crowd. Please don't interpret this as stating that T's are smarter than F's!
Flatfingers wrote: Thymine as an INTJ I might give you... especially since that's how he's self-identified here. :) Working out the details of concepts so that they can be implemented is what INTJs do.

Josh, though... I question considering him an INTJ. (Sorry for speaking of you in the third person here, Josh; feel free to tell me to knock it off if this feels inappropriate to you.)

The fact that he's actually making a game is a point in favor of INTJ-ness. INTPs frequently have a lot more fun creating the initial high-level design for a system than actually implementing it. (This leads to INTPs being labeled as "lazy," despite the effort no one could see that went into conceptualizing a highly coherent design.)

But the kind of game that LT is trying to be is a point in favor of INTP-ness. By that I don't just mean the content; I mean the form of the game and the high-level vision and strategy that determine its form. "Something for everybody" is a common INTP goal. Thinking in terms of foundational systems first, and banging out concrete content later, is very definitely a behavior that's highly localized to INTPs. Conceiving and (to a lesser extent) constructing a complete system as a multi-dimensional graph of interacting sub-systems... that's an INTP all the way.
Note that I think ThymineC is an INTP. He's basically the high-level design guy of the LT-forums. I'd even poke fun at him by saying that, like you, he's basically engaging in "fruitless pseudointellectual theorycrafting" (and having great fun doing so) but I fear he'd take me seriously, as I'm not a very familiar face on the forums :) He's an MVP of the community, of course.

As for Josh, I'm sure you'll forgive me for saying that "Something for everybody" is also an admirable game design goal. :) As such I don't view this as compromising Josh's INTJ identity.
As for "that's INTP all the way" -- no, it isn't. The fact that he's actually making a game is not a point in favor of INTJness, because INTPs can also make a game (anyone can make a game). Instead, look at how he's making it. Examine how efficiently he's working. Think about how fluently he's organizing his ideas and insights to construct the system (Extroverted Thinking at work). More critically, [try to :)] count the times that he's had transformative insights, synthesis of ideas previously thought incompatible, fundamental simplifications, robust unfications (heck, the guy cites simplicity as his main interest -- because his perception of ideas drive him to that process)) -- that's Introverted Intuition.

I also see that you don't refer to the cognitive functions themselves -- any reason? I find them useful "constructs" (well, they are still astrology to me) to reason about types.
Flatfingers wrote: ... stuff I can sign my name beneath ...
Flatfingers wrote: So while I don't bother much with trying to "type" individuals (and guessing about Josh's or Thymine's or anyone else's type is just having a bit of fun), I do argue that some typing systems are very useful for game developers to know about. The more people you want your game to reach, the more important it is to understand the basic patterns of motivation -- what people want -- that will predispose one group to enjoy some game feature and another group to find that feature irrelevant, undesirable, or actively interfering with the gameplay they do enjoy.

Having some understanding of the basic human motivations doesn't guarantee you can make a game that anyone or everyone will enjoy. It just improves the odds a bit... and that's not nothing.

Why, yes, I could talk about this at some length -- why do you ask? :ugeek: :monkey: :lol:
I agree with this too, indeed I should note that this is all in good fun. And really I apologize if I came across as abrasive in any way... think of it as verbal/mental sparring. The handshake at the end is always the best moment -- and it's been... six years? since I've had one of these discussions. :)
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#10
Thanks for the thoughtful response. This note, mercifully, will be shorter. :) [EDIT: OK, marginally shorter. Yeesh. I am a bad person.]
alpan wrote:You're saying that Sensors were a distinct minority in the early days of gaming... I think I'll need some citations on that. :) I'm kidding of course, but I would nevertheless dispute this statement. I suppose this is dependent on how "early" you're thinking, but recall that the video game industry has already went through one crash. There's nothing to suggest that the audience back then was mostly comprised of Intuitives.
I'm not aware of any good longitudinal surveys of both game types played and personality styles since the 1970s, no. If that's what you require, then I can't satisfy you.

That said, here's some additional background on how I came to my conclusion. I break up computer gaming into four general periods:
  • 1974 - 1981: Arcade, early console, and early home PC
  • 1981 - 2000: Moderate console and widespread PC gaming
  • 2000 - 2010: Console dominance
  • 2010 - xxxx: Rise of mobile gaming
These aren't hard-and-fast dates; they're meant to give a general idea of large-scale changes in personal computing related to games. The key thing to note here is that, as computing devices -- including gaming-specific devices -- have become both more powerful and easier to use, the penetration of computing technology into usage by the general public has increased enormously.

With the exception of arcade games, which I might grant were more Sensor-friendly, early computer gaming was the province of people who liked computers, who understood things like what ROM and RAM were, who were, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty geeky. I have no problem concluding that most people who fit that definition were and are iNtuitives rather than Sensors.

iNtuitive games are, broadly speaking, about thinking and feeling (NTs and NFs), while Sensing games are about doing and having (SPs and SJs). The shift from thinking/feeling games to action/accumulation games can be pegged at around 2000 and the intro of the PS2, followed by the Xbox. That's when games on PCs, such as big worlds (an NT interest) and adventure games (with storytelling being a preference of NFs), began to be replaced by games on consoles that were easy to use by the general public. The very nature of those platforms encouraged the development and sale of easy to play games (i.e., that didn't require a bunch of thinking and feeling). From 2000 is when the popularity of action/accumulation games really took off, like Mario and Mortal Kombat and CoD and Halo and Gears of War, followed by simple "farming" and swiping games on mobile devices. How many adventure games have you seen released in the past decade, at least until indie developers started making a paltry few more of them specifically to appeal to the nostalgia of older gamers?

Now let's talk numbers. Since the early days, as computers have changed from being things that required technical prowess (a highly NT-specific interest) to pervasive appliances, a lot more people use them. As that number has expanded, the number of people playing games on them has also increased. Because the number of gamers who are Sensors constitute a majority of at least the U.S. public, that implies the number of Sensors playing games has increased since the early days of computer gaming.

I have no hard data confirming that Sensors are now a majority of gamers. But I think I can reasonably hold that viewpoint at least for the U.S. population given that 1) Sensors are a majority of the population, and 2) since around 2008, a majority of the U.S. population now play games (and that percentage is thought to be considerably higher if you're young).

If you're determined to try to find things to disagree with, you can certainly disagree with this conclusion that games have changed as more Sensors have become gamers, given that I can provide you with no utterly conclusive evidence for it. But for the reasons given above, I like to think I'm at least within the realm of reasonability in my opinion that Sensors didn't dominate computer gaming thirty years ago, but they do now, and the kinds of games that get made have changed as the marketplace of gamers has changed.
alpan wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:(And when I say, "ask for," I mean "demand as though anything else would be stupid." ;))
Your Intuitive biases are showing... "demand as though anything else would be stupid" -- come on! You're basically partaking in what I outlined in my previous post! I know you're saying this in jest, but still... :)
1. Please don't assume that because I can point to behaviors perceived as negative on the part of one personality style that I must be blind to the typical difficulties of other styles.

2. People with different styles, not just Sensors, do express disagreements on game forums. But I think they do so in different ways. iNtuitives (mostly Rationals) will write impenetrable walls of text to "prove" their beliefs (present writer guilty as charged). Sensors, on the other hand, frequently adopt an attitude of "what I personally prefer is self-evidently the Right Thing, lol" when expressing themselves. This has been an observable difference since I started reading on BBS systems what people think about how games should be.
alpan wrote:I'll give you that, due to the sheer numbers of gamers in general, Sensors have become the dominant segment. But I don't think they had anything to do with it, as opposed to the humongous budgets of games and the mismanagement thereof (i.e. marketing, the game industry aping Hollywood). :)
You don't think game publishers dictate features based on market research about what people actually buy?
alpan wrote:
Flatfingers wrote: And complicating that somewhat is the reality that it's just plain easier to imagine and implement concrete content -- vehicles, weapons, armor, even forms of money -- than more abstract content like "knowledge" and "belonging" and similar intrinsic rewards that iNtuitives prefer. That's another force that has driven game development more toward Sensor-fun.
So... what would you say about The Sims? :)
That it's popular because it's servicing the many people who aren't into the latest military shooter. That doesn't undercut in any way my point that concrete content (a thing) is easier to imagine and represent in a game than abstract content (an idea), and thus is one more reason why Sensor-friendly games have become more common.
alpan wrote:Note that I think ThymineC is an INTP. He's basically the high-level design guy of the LT-forums.
I'd be curious to hear his reaction to that. My feeling is that I'm more likely to babble about "strategy" and large-scale, high-level conceptual notions, whereas Thymine has an extraordinary gift for being able to represent his ideas in very specific, detailed terms... or do you think I'm not an INTP? :D
alpan wrote:I'm sure you'll forgive me for saying that "Something for everybody" is also an admirable game design goal. :)
Yes. :)
alpan wrote:As for "that's INTP all the way" -- no, it isn't. The fact that he's actually making a game is not a point in favor of INTJness, because INTPs can also make a game (anyone can make a game).
We'll have to disagree here. Visit an INTP forum and ask them whether they more frequently start projects than finish them. I'm confident I know what you'll discover.
alpan wrote:I also see that you don't refer to the cognitive functions themselves -- any reason? I find them useful "constructs" (well, they are still astrology to me) to reason about types.
Correct; I don't mention them because, having reviewed them, I find them nearly useless.

Splitting personality styles into sixteen types as MB theory does is already dangerously close IMO to starting to mistake noise for signal. Further complicating that model by tacking another combinatory system on top of it strikes me as somebody trying to make up something in order to sell books.

I don't bother with the cognitive function stuff because my view is that the path to better understanding and appreciation for different personality styles comes from simplification and unification of concepts (as Keirsey's temperament theory does), not in ginning up complex new systems or bolting baroque mods onto a relatively clean model.

Yeah, we probably don't need to go there. :lol:

OK, enough! There are projects I'm failing to finish because of this conversation. :D
Post

Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Types Survey

#13
At 141 votes, let's look at how the temperaments have been represented here over time.

Following my methodology that aligns temperaments with the Bartle Types, and rounding the percentages for clarity:
  • SP Artisan (the Manipulator): 16%
  • SJ Guardian (the Achiever): 17%
  • NT Rational (the Explorer): 45%
  • NF Idealist (the Socializer): 22%
I'm still not too surprised that there aren't many Artisans or Idealists here, since LT remains officially described as a single-player game without a built-in story.

And I'm still a little surprised that the SJ Guardian/Achiever numbers remain relatively low, but again I expect that to rise significantly after Limit Theory is released and the general gaming public hear about it and can play it immediately.

Meanwhile, it's still mostly NT Rationals making noise in the asylum. :geek: :P

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron