I found a synopsis on practical psychology and remembered how they tested themselves at the institute:) There was such a trick, in order to better assimilate the material, we passed all sorts of tests, and then gave ourselves an assessment.
So that's what I found after 10 years. If I misjudged myself somewhere, if I changed beyond recognition, but the results obtained do not correspond to reality at all:)
I am more inclined to the first option, because everyone wants to embellish their personal qualities a little (or a lot), to feel like a hero:) It is almost impossible to give yourself an objective assessment, so the lesson can be said to be useless. The only thing is that it is better to understand the essence of the testing itself and it is remembered faster, so there was some benefit from this practice.
I know that there are psychologists here on the project and I think they also had such pairs, on which they studied new tests like Rorschach and Rosenzweig. But most of all I remember the joke with the Eysenck questionnaire:) Half of the stream, which is almost 35 people, spelled the name wrong. All there was, "a Survey of Nikitenko", then whinnying with teacher:)
But, returning to introspection, here are the thoughts that came to mind. When you read a question and answer options for it, you are always told not to think for a long time and choose the answer. As for me, this is not very correct, because still it would not hurt to think. Well, you can not answer the question without delving into it, without fully understanding the essence, because the answer is not quite correct.
As an example, my conclusion on temperament testing. I remember that we were allocated 15 minutes and had to quickly calculate the percentage of who you are, choleric, sanguine, etc. It turned out I have 50-50, cholera + phlegm:) And in fact, today I am 70 percent phlegmatic and 30 percent sanguine. And this result in 10 years, too, can be questioned...
Of course, I admit that at that time I was a little different, well, or positioned myself differently. Youthful maximalism, these "All at once, the sea is knee-deep..." But it's more likely that she just jumped to conclusions:) And in general, in my opinion, such tests should be passed three times in a lifetime: in youth, adulthood and old age. I am more than sure that the results will differ significantly.
It's still a cool thing, our psyche, and develops with us, and degrades, and also gets sick with us:)