#witchknights

First off, I found the possible answers really limited and limiting. For example #7 -Which option best describes what’s more important to you? Understanding yourself, and fully knowing who you are? Or thinking rationally, and making strong decisions?-is a false choice/dichotomy. Leaving aside the questionable adjective-choice of “strong”(I mean: wth does a “strong” decision even mean???), rational decisions require information, and the more the better; specifically, they require knowing yourself. To make a “rational” choice is to make a choice from reasoning, which is to say “based on reasons” using “Reason”(working from one point to that which it implies). If you are unaware of yourself and your interiority -your biases, your wants, your tendencies, your susceptibilities, your emotions, your impulses, your psychological needs, etc- then you can’t make rational decisions because you aren’t aware of, and aren’t considering, how the “irrational” architecture of your personality and behavior could be influencing your reasoning, nor are you making explicit(to yourself or others) the full set of potential reasons for why you are making the decision the way you are. Indeed, not only are these two NOT opposite extremes and NOT mutually exclusive, they are mutually Necessary. Just as one must “know thyself” to rationally know the world and rationally navigate it, so too must one be able to look at oneself rationally -to dispassionately assess oneself as a subject, as if with the eyes of another; judging your behavior, wants, and biases as a stranger might- to “understand yourself and fully know who you are”. Meaning to do good is irrelevant if you do harm and, if your concept of “good” requires the harm of another, then obviously they will not judge you as “good” and you will not be good, regardless of how you feel about it. The true answer to this question is that you can’t achieve either without achieving both, but that doesn’t fit into the simplistic(and sadly too common in Euroculture) Manichean dualism this quiz is built around -in this instance that emotion/interiority is the opposite of “Reason”/Intellect. And, more broadly, that the specific/practical and general/ideal are at odds- and so it isn’t a choice.

Many of the available answers to the questions are equally limited; some by false dichotomy, some by, just, insufficient choice-scope:

In #6: what if the result sought by the project is learning the process??? 

In #2: what if you prefer to help people learn through the Socratic method; by asking questions? Are you showing them, in that you are modeling for them the process of reasoning their way to an answer with the information available to them, or are you encouraging them, in that you are asking them to collate the information they have and extrapolate from it and doing so non-explicitly?

 #1: what if you see yourself as a protagonist of your story, but also understand that everyone sees themselves as the protagonist of their own story? What if you see “Society” as the emergent, evolutionary outcome of an inevitable “Egotism of Being” coming into contact with innumerable iterations of Self? What if you conceive of your existence as fundamentally lonesome but also of society not as a natural and essential aspect of environment, but as a natural and essential aspect/expression of personality, such that the equal personhood of all “characters” is inescapable, such that “lonesomeness” is a social act/choice just as much as “ensembleness”, and such that “protagonism” can only be understood as a purely narrative conceit and choice? These povs don’t really fit with the choices available.

#3: can’t it be both things? Can’t mystery inspire you to both learn and invent? Can’t learning lead to the realization of new mysteries, which is part of why Curiosity is so satisfying to you in the first place?

#8: to understand the consequences of your behavior is to understand your potential; to understand your potential is to understand what consequences your behavior can effect.

#9: What if your strong convictions are precisely what drives you to deconstruct arguments which said convictions deem inaccurate, limited, and poorly reasoned? What if you deconstruct arguments not because you find them particularly offensive, but because you hold a strong conviction that “Knowledge” is much more difficult or complicated than people tend to think it is, ala Socrates, or even impossible to attain by your own efforts, ala Medieval Christendom and anti-empiricism? “Can’t Decide” implies an ambiguity, indecisiveness, and moral disinterest in the question that would be inaccurate to these mindsets.

#10: doesn’t choosing “burn it all down” imply that one considers “burning it all down” to be a “better” state than the status quo? Wouldn’t it, then COUNT, as “A Plan” and “something better” waiting in the wings??

#11: what if your desire to help others is driven by an instinctive empathy and moral-revulsion towards situations which cause suffering, and allowing suffering to continue? The answers frame the choices as in opposition and empathy as something either to prevent or which prevents action, rather than compelling it.

Ok I’ll stop, but you get the idea.

Second, I thought the lean of each question was really obvious; to the point that you could practically score each available answer along a scale between the two binary choices the question engaged with(probably because this is exactly how the test works). The result of this is that the Test is easily gamed, and thus not really “impartial” or “rigorous” in any way. This is somewhat complicated by the test’s Built in Biases(Hat Tip to @the-awkward-goldfish for chasing this down), which basically require you to “no opinion” every non-Aspect-related questions to get anything “below” Light, but even that just goes to show how partial and contrived the test is, and thus how bad an assessment of one’s “Nature”, or affinity to the Aspects as presented in canon, it provides.

Which, you know, OBVIOUSLY -it really isn’t MEANT to be those things(well, one could reasonably expect it to be decent at Aspect-Affinity)- but this is a central problem of “personality tests” in general, and I’m going to rant about it for a second. When a test asks about The Thing it appears to be asking about, Social Animals will give it either a)the answer they think it wants, b)the answer they feel fulfills their social “role” in the test/situation, c)the answer they would like to be true about themselves(or would like you to think is true about them), or d)the answer they feel creates the least social stress in the situation, rather than an honest answer. Similarly, test-makers will, with stupefying regularity, render their own biases implicit within the tests they create if collaboration and strict oversight are not a part of the test design process. This is because Social Animals are Social Animals, and part of being Social Animals is 1)a near-instinctive awareness of The Rules of whatever Social “Game” happens to be being playing at any moment, and 2)an instinctive desire to project ones personal “Rules” onto the world[1]. This makes gaining an honest assessment of Social Animals(and even asking Honest Questions about them), independent of their own objectives and social assumptions, difficult. This is why modern psych studies are neither upfront about what they’re really studying, nor obvious in their design, and why the question of Method and Test-Design is so important to the field.

None of this matters when personality tests are seen as just A Fun Thing to Play With, but unfortunately lots of people take them really seriously(I will not speculate as to why), so I kinda feel like the huge biparagraphic spiel above about social psychology and why it means personality tests are A Crock is sort of necessary. Though, Ironically and completely tangentially, this also all means that the ominous and impenetrable Voight-Kampff machine and Turing Test it is used to administer from Bladerunner are actually closer to what an “accurate” psychological test should look like than most of the “personality tests” people are familiar with.

Third, I found the Test really unsatisfying from a canon-perspective. Some of them fit, others kind of fit but with important provisos, and others are just wildly far off. For example:

Sagittarius. Equius might count as an enthusiast, but inconstant? His interests are long-term and rigid. Expansive? He is self-effacing to the point of suicide. Magnetic? Everyone but Nepeta and Gamzee find him repulsive(though Aradia is attracted, at times, by her disgust for him). Rebellious? 8/ Optimistic? 8/ 8/ Surprising? 8/ 8/ 8/ Not Knowing his own Strength? He obsesses over it. Skeptical? He accepts Alternian Convention without question or complaint(Aradia being the notable semi-exception). Secretive? While he doesn’t put himself forward, neither does he keep his opinions -no matter how offensive- to himself, ever. A stronger argument could be made for this description fitting Roxy, but even then she’s rather single-minded and constant in her interests and feelings, and, contra the description of Derse-dreamers, not terribly self-aware, as symbolized by her dream-self -a metaphor for her self-knowledge- being asleep, albeit ambulatory, until she dies(minus seeing Rose once). Her most important arcs are about seeking answers, not accepting mysteries(Rose and Calliope).

Sagiries&Sagipia: Again, the Sagittarius description, specifically the “enthusiast” and “inconstant” bits, don’t really fit either Dave or Rose. While they ARE “enthusiastic” about their interests, those interests are rather constant, focused, and rather than trying to teach or pull others into those interests, they display them through creative endeavor. “Derse” fits them both pretty well, minus the “self-awareness”, and their approach to hiding insecurity is the opposite of “self-deprecating humor” and “false humility”; they do it through “evincing hyper-competence” and “false arrogance”. Dave is certainly a “Fighter”, but against Fighting, and while he can be goal-oriented he much prefers perambulation, even to the point of contributing to problems which he then must rush to fix. Really I’d say the description for Space fits him better than Time(though this Time description entirely ignores the repeated recycling/recontextualizing/remixing theme in Time characters in HS). Light fits Rose better, but it ignores how her interest in mystery and the unexplained drives her interest in learning, how personal and not “for its own sake” her seeking is, and how actual knowledge can petrify her if she is in the wrong place emotionally.

Sagigo: This is nitpicking, but I wouldn’t describe Jade as “careless”, and she, mostly successfully, struggles to remain tactful in the face of universe-ending levels of buffoonery and extra-amphibian-interference.

Leo: Again, Nitpicking, but I don’t think Nepeta can be described as having herself as her “favorite subject”. I think the rest fits well though

Gemini: Sollux isn’t preachy, nor railroady in conversation, nor difficult to understand, and his interests -at least what we see of them- are all about computers, networks, and the internet. The description of Doom I’m iffy on: it certainly describes him, but his willingness to drop everything and dedicate himself to a project he believed would save his planet, even though he hates it, doesn’t really fit with it.

Pisces: “Forget to actually do things”, “enigmatic”, “recalcitrant”(i.e., not being open about their feelings), “worrier”, and “trouble with follow-through”, are not things I would describe Feferi with. Meenah clashes even worse with this description.

Scorpio: “Blue Signs are the ones to watch”? Yes for Vriska, Aspirational for Aranea. “Those bound to the aspect of Light are the universe’s knowledge-seekers. They are, above all, driven to learn and understand”? “learn about it” certainly, but I don’t think either Vriska or Aranea feel any real impulse to understand anything. They’re more about hoarding information and manipulating it to their advantage/purposes, and Vriska’s interest in knowledge is highly selective, personal, and instrumental. “Marked by a flexible optimism”? For a given, and extremely idiosyncratic, definition of “optimism”; and provided it allows for bouts of deep negativity, and an intense, arrogant cynicism about the world and others. “They have a mask for every occasion”?More so for Aranea given he secretiveness about herself, but Not Really for either of them as Aranea really just has the one. “They often resent those they see as more well-positioned than they are”? This fits Aranea well, but I never got the sense Vriska was envious of her “social betters”; she seemed to be more envious of people with healthier relationships to less overbearing Lususes, and who had an easier time forging relationships.

I’m not going to go through all of these obvsl. There are those -like John’s, Terezi’s, and Kanaya’s- that fit near-to-perfectly, and those -like Eridan’s- that fit thematically while being wildly off-base on the specifics, but mostly I found them disappointing.

Fourthly, I object to it aesthetically. The signs are well designed; what I mean is that I very much dislike the idea that this is a complete Troll Symbology. If it were, it would make the Troll world and society much smaller and less creative than I would like it to be. There’s not enough signs here for a population as large as the Trolls would need to support a galaxy-spanning empire, and certainly not enough for sign-repetition in the context of such a vast population to be so rare as to become a mythical sign of genetic reincarnation. There’s not enough room here for imagination and invention. Part of what I liked about the Homestuck Fandom, and still like, is the empty places in it for the fandom to fill in. Presenting this as a complete list of signs, based on a complete Hemospectrum(and yes, I also object to the canon Trolls having the only canon blood-colors; minus Lime which apparently Karkat is now, which doesn’t make any sense[2]), makes the Homestuck Universe a far, far, smaller pond to swim in, which is less fun from a fan perspective.

And it also, through the “True Sign” designations, makes the canon Trolls far larger and more obvious fish than they(minus Feferi and Kanaya) ought to be. If the rest of the signs are seen as derivative of the “True Signs”, as the phrase and the EZ’s naming conventions imply, and the signs are associated with specific ancestors, then it’s reasonable to assume that the Ancestors associated with those signs would be seen as “Truer”, or perhaps more Significant and Primary to Troll History, than the ancestors of the other signs. Those who inherited them would then be inheriting not just the unfinished business of their immediate predecessor, but a historical heritage that every Troll would be taught to consider “Truer” and “More Significant” to Trolldom than that of the other signs. I don’t like this idea. The Betas were hardly social coded in a way that would have made them completely representative of Earthican culture, so why would the Trolls? And also: why wouldn’t any of the signs bear any resemblance to their writing? But this is getting into worldbuilding :T

So, basically, I think it’s a fun thing to play around with. But, I also find it a bit inconsistent, more than a bit biased, a bit limited, somewhat backwards and somewhat derivative(all signs derived from 12 prefixes and suffixes, themselves derived from the Earth-Zodiac, which was only made up of the signs of those Trolls who played The Game? Really??). As additional fan-fodder, it’s ok; as something comprehensive that invalidates fan-signs and fan-theories, I take exception.

[1]a weird sort of “Personification”. Coincidentally, we also see this in philosophy, where the pronouncement that moral decisions “declare a rule for all” can be found from Kant to Sartre.