There is a class of personality test characterized by their common origins in Jung typology. While the most commonly recognizable manifestation of Jung typology tests is probably the MBTI, that is just one formalized descendant of the concept of personality testing according to Jung typology, which classifies personality archetypes according to a two-tier hierarchical system of characteristics.
I/E: You are either an Introvert or an Extrovert.
N/S: You are either iNtuitive or Sensing.
T/F: You are either Thinking or Feeling.
J/P: You are either Judging or Perceiving.
From these, a series of personality archetypes are constructed. In the course of my life, I have taken Jung typology personality tests several times. The dominant result is INTJ, though I have on occasion come up INTP. This is significant in part because they are among the classic “intellectual” archetypes (xNTx), and more specifically they are the two “systems” types. INTPs and INTJs are both systems thinkers: the INTP is the systems analyst, and the INTJ is the systems integrator.
My INTP leanings definitely show through in my tendency to always want to learn the theory of programming language design and grasp the basics of new and interesting languages. I want to learn how to implement the same things I already know how to do, all over again, in new languages to provide a basis for comparison and to stretch my mind. I want to Learn all I can about principles of such systems theory, and I want to distill these principles to their most fundamental expressions so that I may best understand how, and perhaps most importantly why, they work. I also want to learn and analyze similarly with regards to other complex systems, such as socioeconomic networks, sociopolitical structures, and security systems design.
My INTJ leanings arise in my desire to contemplate extensions of such systems, refinements of them, and recombining of their principles into best-case new system concepts. I am a synthesist: from existing principles, I design theoretical frameworks for new complex systems that are as effective and efficient as possible.
Unlike many with my proclivities, who are often content to pick an area of focus and devote significant attention to it, to the exclusion of other potential foci, I tend to use my leanings and my talents to examine the principles that underly the principles inside such complex systems, and to analyze the relationships between complex systems, and even to develop an understanding (accurate or not) of how these differing areas of focus compare with one another on a judgmental level. What are the most important systems problems to solve? What are the easiest and, thus, perhaps the most deserving of short-term attention? How can I leverage work on solving one set of problems to transfer to solutions for other sets of problems?
I have, so far as I’ve been able to determine thus far, pretty much solved the most important of them — also perhaps the easiest to solve, as it requires the least formal education to understand enough of the foregoing work to develop a system for solving it. I refer to the problem of secular, comprehensive social ethics. A happy accident, it seems from the manner in which I originally approached the matter, is the fact that efficient solutions for other systems problems seem to agree on the whole with the ethical solutions I’ve developed and refined over the years.
I’m still refining, challenging, and logically stress-testing my ethical system solutions (of course). I’ll probably be doing so for the rest of my natural life, at least. As a working assumption, strong enough in my estimation to be relied upon for daily interactions, the comprehensive ethical system I have reasoned through serves admirably. Its implications are still being sorted out a little at a time.
What effect this will have on my programming pursuits in the long run is a question for which I do not have much of a predictive answer. I have my hopes and preferences, of course, but only time will even give me a vague idea of it, as far as I can tell. Anything else would just be guessing.