Personality Type?

Recently the idea of being a conscious debater was something best described as daunting; does always being right make me a debater? (img source:

Pure humour of course… but I digress.

As a starting point provided a good summary of what one could say was a good idea of myself. Clearly created with a sandwich critique set of arbitrary generalisations that are borderline horoscope level of “spot on.” I cannot deny that the traits attributed to myself ( Analyst & People Mastery) do fit my current self.

With strengths like:

(img source:
  • Knowledgeable — Debaters rarely pass up a good opportunity to learn something new, especially abstract concepts. This information isn’t usually absorbed for any planned purpose as with dedicated studying, people with the Debater personality type just find it fascinating.
  • Quick Thinkers — Debaters have tremendously flexible minds, and are able to shift from idea to idea without effort, drawing on their accumulated knowledge to prove their points, or their opponents’, as they see fit.
  • Original — Having little attachment to tradition, Debater personalities are able to discard existing systems and methods and pull together disparate ideas from their extensive knowledge base, with a little raw creativity to hold them together, to formulate bold new ideas. If presented with chronic, systemic problems and given rein to solve them, Debaters respond with unabashed glee.
  • Excellent Brainstormers — Nothing is quite as enjoyable to Debaters as analysing problems from every angle to find the best solutions. Combining their knowledge and originality to splay out every aspect of the subject at hand, rejecting without remorse options that don’t work and presenting ever more possibilities, Debaters are irreplaceable in brainstorming sessions.
  • Charismatic — People with the Debater personality type have a way with words and wit that others find intriguing. Their confidence, quick thought and ability to connect disparate ideas in novel ways create a style of communication that is charming, even entertaining, and informative at the same time.
  • Energetic — When given a chance to combine these traits to examine an interesting problem, Debaters can be truly impressive in their enthusiasm and energy, having no qualms with putting in long days and nights to find a solution.

And moreover weaknesses like:

(img source:
  • Very Argumentative — If there’s anything Debaters enjoy, it’s the mental exercise of debating an idea, and nothing is sacred. More consensus-oriented personality types rarely appreciate the vigor with which Debater personalities tear down their beliefs and methods, leading to a great deal of tension.
  • Insensitive — Being so rational, Debaters often misjudge others feelings and push their debates well past others’ tolerance levels. People with this personality type don’t really consider emotional points to be valid in such debates either, which magnifies the issue tremendously.
  • Intolerant — Unless people are able to back up their ideas in a round of mental sparring, Debaters are likely to dismiss not just the ideas but the people themselves. Either a suggestion can stand up to rational scrutiny or it’s not worth bothering with.
  • Can Find It Difficult to Focus — The same flexibility that allows Debaters to come up with such original plans and ideas makes them readapt perfectly good ones far too often, or to even drop them entirely as the initial excitement wanes and newer thoughts come along. Boredom comes too easily for Debaters, and fresh thoughts are the solution, though not always a helpful one.
  • Dislike Practical Matters — Debaters are interested in what could be — malleable concepts like ideas and plans that can be adapted and debated. When it comes to hard details and day-to-day execution where creative flair isn’t just unnecessary but actually counter-productive, Debater personalities lose interest, often with the consequence of their plans never seeing the light of day.

I find it hard to dissuade myself that I do not have one or more of each strength and weakness. However, one area I do disagree with, to a certain degree, relates to the level of insensitivity assumed all debaters inherently have. The idea that one would “…tend to hide their feelings and see efficiency as more important than cooperation,” although true, is only one shade of the possible conclusions that could be reached at any given situation.

The important idea is not to use such a site as the ‘be all and end all.’ More like a general outline of what could be a changing perspective within the next few weeks, months or even years.