TBH, my feeling about this stuff is that it belongs in nazi research labs and Cosmopolitan magazines, rather than as a screening tool in business where you want the best people. If I was considering applying to anything (Y, a job at a company), being presented with this would disappoint me and set off Dilberty alarms.<p>Now, this is fun stuff to burn some minutes while procrastinating! Here are my results:<p><a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1125255845&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1125255845&user_list_id=6</a><p>Some things that the test got backwards:<p> - I'm more a listener than a talker,<p> - I never smoked (I clicked on the hemp pic because I like intense green :),<p> - I think I'm more into books than my score there suggests,<p> - I like mild food rather than spicy,<p> - I do like and have pets,<p> - I'm not really that urban. I'm more comfortable in villages or small towns.
<i>'You may have someone with a very high IQ but has low interpersonal skill .. cannot relate to other people very well. Cannot understand other people. This can be a real liability for organisations who are looking for leadership .. looking to promote people with high intelligence'</i> [0]<p>Interesting. I posted a similar post this week on the characteristics found in entrepreneurs ~ <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=7459">http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=7459</a><p> <i>'... all we'll care about is one measure: how close one comes
to the best founders. We don't care what atoms are in that
molecule ...'</i><p>But testing for characteristics of <i>'high achievers'</i> then correlating test scores against potential applicants is fraught with problems. Is the correlation against the best enough? [1]<p>I'm sure you might get some correlation but it's pretty unimaginative [2]. So what could be a better tool? What about direct testing of skill? Wouldn't a better technique be simulation? Why not build a <i>'startup simulator'</i> where applicants are given tools to <i>simulate</i> tasks they actually will have to do? Then you have a controllable scenario where you really can measure results against successful founders.<p>You could test <p>
- <i>the conception of an idea</i><p>- <i>the building of a (simple) prototype</i><p>- <i>quickly find an audience</i><p>- <i>find a way to make money off it</i><p>
Wrapped up in a framework [3] where you test the <i>execution</i> of these tasks you could get a better grasp of the <p>
- <i>skills</i><p>- <i>determination</i><p>- <i>entrepreneurial audacity</i><p>- <i>passion</i><p>- <i>humour</i><p>- <i>leadership skills</i> needed to succeed. <p>- <i>risk taking, emotional intelligence</i><p>There is a long history of simulators in testing & refining of skills, competency and execution are required. Even Captain Kirk at Starfleet Academy trained, passed (and cheated) on simulators.<p>Who knows it might even be fun.<p>Reference<p>[0] Professor Con Stough, Brain Sciences Institute, 'Director, Centre for Neuropsychology, Swinburne Institute of Technology'<p><a href="http://www.swin.edu.au/bioscieleceng/neuropsych/stough.htm">http://www.swin.edu.au/bioscieleceng/neuropsych/stough.htm</a><p>[1] But I do like the simplicity of just looking at a simple set of parameters to make a <i>Gladwellian</i> decision.<p>[2] In a competitive environment the difference between getting the attention of the right candidates could be the tools used to measure how they stack up against the best .. but actually doing something, learning and getting some feedback. <p>[3] The framework could be a game, or simply a panel of dials. The key thing is you can have a back room with founders, past entrepreneurs twiddling the dials checking to see in RT how candidates handle things like a person leaving, stressing system etc (like the LEM tester in the Apollo missions). It also allows for candidates to learn from failure with less risk & pass on the best decision making skills to candidates that have passed.
Is this comparison with respect to all Y combinator founders or only with respect to those who have succeeded? Have you identified any personality differences between those who succeeded and those who did not?
I found it relatively inaccurate, but oddly, it was always very precise; i.e. when it got things wrong, it got them profoundly, diametrically wrong.<p>One thing I wonder is whether there is any logic to deal with confounding variables--for instance, if someone picks every photo that has a bike in it, maybe they just like bikes, and those data points should be excluded. <p>On the whole, though, the pairwise people have probably as good a shot at anyone at making a not-suck personality analyzer.
Absolutely ridiculous test. There weren't even any books in it, for example, yet they claim to be able to tell if I am into reading books or not? Sorry, but I don't believe their tests are scientifically sound. The sheer number of traits they claim to identify - almost as many traits as there were "questions", I don't think it can work. <p>Why don't you just use a classic IQ test if you are into that kind of stuff, or the Myer-Briggs test?
This doesn't seem to work at all for me. Its assessment of me seems to have pretty much zero correlation with my self-assessment.<p><a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1449411178&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1449411178&user_list_id=6</a>
ok, my observation is that, the GREEN of most attributes is somewhere in the middle (with some nearer to some side), which means that there is a diversity between to those who you are compared, with 3/4 of the samples to define that side. This means that someone can be in right opposite but it doesn't mean that personality is excluded.but be in the 1/4 of the samples. So, with all this diversity, how valid and helpful is this test?<p>I think the attributes of the test, should be more questions of type, what you do in specific situations, and be compared to what YC would prefer as answer.<p><i> update<p>or am I wrong, and GREEN is the range of answers of the samples?
This is in the same category as astrology. 'The Brain' got less than 50% things about me correct. It said that I like dogs better than cats, not true. It said I like to work individually, not true... I prefer working as a part of a team.<p>The premise that pictures and the choice of pictures determine anything about yourself is simply silly. I have different experiences than someone else. I have been to and seen different places than someone else. Different imagery will provoke different emotion in different people.
This is interesting, I was on the same side in every category, and it seems fairly accurate, although I found some things remarkable far off, most notably "like to read" where I scored a decisive: "aren't much into books."<p>I found it weird that Y Combinator founders generally fell in the "aren't much into books" category.<p>Here's Mine: <a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=509484655&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=509484655&user_list_id=6</a>
Great, another test I have to study for! :-)<p>Seriously, what impact does this have on getting funded by YC? (I'm sure everyone wants to know the answer to that)
<a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1029869490&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1029869490&user_list_id=6</a><p>Does anyone remember The Spark's gender test? It's a specific case of this kind of test: <a href="http://community.sparknotes.com/gender/">http://community.sparknotes.com/gender/</a> (use bugmenot.com for login)
Looks like I'll be accepted if I just cross dress while smoking and pulling sarcastic pranks on people:<p><a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1627867125&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=1627867125&user_list_id=6</a>
Gender: Girl<p>I am too depressed to read any further:) But I did - it only gets worse: <p>"read books voraciously"...I'm as far from that as you can get. <p>"a religious person"...tell that to my mom<p>"have or want pets"...can't stand most pets!<p>
That was fun, some where spot on, other were a bit fuzzy, a link to my results below: <p><a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=918442805&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=918442805&user_list_id=6</a>
Weird. I'm not a smoker, but I was, for a LONG time. <p>And it knew that. That's really strange and freaks me out. What I once thought was my complicated little unique snowflake of a brain turns out to just be the combination of 21 values.
I am fairly certain that telling me the test was going to compare me with Y Combinator startup founders affected what was going on in my brain when I decided what images to pick. I'd do the test differently under different conditions.
I've always been fascinated by likebetter.com and would like to see related work. As a start, see this:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting</a>
And mine:<p><a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=596593159&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=596593159&user_list_id=6</a><p>So is it good to be on all of the edges?
Here's my result:<p><a href="http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=556637953&user_list_id=6">http://www.likebetter.com/quiz/results?quiz_id=556637953&user_list_id=6</a>
Thanks for all the comments, good and bad. They help us refine our test. Keep in mind that we're attempting to figure you out in 40 pairs of pictures. We did this so that lots of people could take it, just to introduce the idea.<p>A <i>real</i> test would have more like 200 pairs, which is what the YC founders took when we assessed their attributes in the first place.