I don’t think I’m being very provocative when I suggest that many of Facebook’s most popular personality tests seem rather simplistic, ham-handed, and somehow designed to reflect the self-image one carries into the test.

It is a form of confirmation bias, the filtering of information along lines already determined by the searcher to be the case, or desired by the searcher to be the case ultimately proven … ain’t it?  Included here is a screen grab from the results of  the Winnie the Pooh character test. I took this one twice in succession just a night or two ago, aiming to be an Eeyore the first time and a Tigger the next. Two more obvious opposites there cannot be (typical of FBPT’s, I should be able to take comfort in either characterization).  And I was successful each time. The questions and answers are laudably cooperative when the aim is the sort of mischief I like to make. For example:

When faced with a difficult situation you tend to:

• Become annoyed and irritable worrying about making the correct decision
• Try to figure out how to get out of it by any means
• Take time to figure out what the situation means to you
• Quickly assess the best, most expedient options
• Accept it as a matter of course and approach it with bravado and a sense of humor
• Contemplate various solutions and carefully consider the pros and cons of each
• Contemplate the worst case scenario

How much thinking is necessary to come up with either an “Eeyore” answer or a “Tigger” answer here, given that one is familiar with the denizens of Pooh Corner (and that should be a given; who would be attracted to the test otherwise)? A.A. Milne’s story – like most character-driven ensemble pieces – presents almost all identifiable types, exaggerating them, the more clearly to show, in the end, that all sorts are welcome and in some sense crucial in the tapestry of their community.

The FBPT formula relies on this.  Most individuals wish to put a certain image out there, and might avail themselves of these quizzes usually featuring ensembles of characters they know well to (it is hoped) garner the recognition they ought to receive from their friends (“boy, that’s you, alright!”).  Whether they know it or not, they are taking advantage of their familiarity with the characters to get the results they want. Playing around with the format I have been Eeyore and I have been Tigger. I have been the Professor and I have been Ginger. I have been 100% mean and have been 100% nice. Have been Butch and Alfalafa, Brian and Peter.

Of course, a more nuanced formula would tend to reveal that personalities are blended, that characteristics of all types shift about and influence the behavior of pretty much all of us.  In a lot of ways, Butch is just a bigger, stronger version of Alfalfa. His fears and anxieties are expressed through more aggresive behavior, largley because they can be. If Alfalfa were a bigger fellow he might be more of a bully too.  Is that either here or there? Probably not.  Intricacies of character are really only presented collectively, writ large, as worked out by absolute types in the fictional series and narratives that are popular in Facebook.  It seems to me that individual FB users tend to unwittingly conspire (if such a notion makes sense) to make it work out the same way in their favorite social networking app.