In a world where people search for identity in many different places, Professor Katie Paxman says that we should be careful what we choose to identify with—and how we use that identity.
Do you know what Hogwarts house you belong in? How about what love language fits you best? If so, you probably learned that information from an online personality quiz. While these online quizzes may be fun to take, it turns out that they may not actually say much about you—whether you took the quiz on BuzzFeed or got it from a trained psychologist. On October 23, 2024, Professor Katie Paxman (Early Modern Philosophy) led a discussion on that very topic during one of the Philosophy Club’s weekly meetings. During her lecture, Paxman argued that these quizzes should not be used on their own to establish identity, but they can be a fun way to make connections if they’re not taken too seriously.
Paxman’s interest in studying personality quizzes came from her interest in taking them. She loved that each quiz, no matter how silly, could tell her fun tidbits about herself, and she felt she could get to know people in obscure or odd ways, like learning what kind of pizza they would be. While some of these online quizzes obviously had no scientific basis, Paxman wanted to better understand the philosophical implications of creating and taking quizzes that were grounded in scientific theories.
Her first example of one of these personality quizzes came from a book called The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, which includes a quiz that categorizes people based on how they both show and receive love: through touch, words of affirmation, gifts, quality time, or acts of service. But, after she looked into how love languages came to be, she found that no actual scientific study went into this claim; this system of categorization came from a pastor who acted as counselor for married couples. While this pastor probably gained insight from working with many different types of relationships, Paxman doesn’t think that his work can be empirically tested, and this sentiment doesn’t end with the love languages. Paxman says all categorization systems—from the Hogwarts House you belong in to your love language to even your Meyer’s Briggs personality type—should be considered theories; they can’t actually say anything concrete about any one person.
In some cases, people can use their personality quiz results to control others in relationships.
Beyond exploring the validity of these online quizzes, Paxman also studies the moral implications of categorizing people based on their answers to a few questions. Paxman argues that, in some cases, people can use their personality quiz results to control others in relationships. For example, someone who takes a quiz that tells them their love language is touch might manipulate a romantic partner into having a more physically intimate relationship by claiming that they can’t feel love any other way. She says that manipulating a partner in this way “is obscuring dimensions of the relationship and that can be actively harmful.”
While such categorization can cause harm, Paxman says that we love these systems because, though they may be too simple to be completely accurate, they can be a useful way to connect. In a world where people constantly search for identity, personality quizzes provide an easy and quick way for people to find exactly that.
When it comes down to it, Paxman doesn’t think that these quizzes cause inherent harm—as long as they’re not taken too seriously. And while they might not be accurate, they can allow people to find connection despite the differences we each have. Paxman encouraged members of the Philosophy Club to explore all different kinds of classifications but to not to get too caught up in any one specific system. She says, “I like playing within systems; I like seeing how the theory tries to explain something, and I don’t think we should take the whole thing too seriously at the end of the day.”
If you want to keep updated on Philosophy Club meetings and special events, click here.