Key Takeaways
The core idea
A simple A–B word-choice quiz was used as a fast way to guess personality style and thinking style.
The hard limit
Without validated questions, scoring keys, and norms, no scientific intelligence score can be produced from A–B picks alone.
What still showed up
Even in a loose test, persistence, error-spotting, and comfort with basic math and logic can show clear, human patterns.
Story & Details
The experiment in plain sight
On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, a small online experiment took shape: a binary quiz, built from repeated choices between option A and option B. The goal was bold and direct—use those choices to infer both personality and intelligence in a scientific way.
The rules were strict. Each prompt had to be binary. The next prompt could not appear until the current one had an answer. Later, the format tightened again: the run would be framed as a thirty-question set, labeled clearly as “one of thirty,” “two of thirty,” and so on, so progress never felt vague.
A pattern of answers
Across the sequence, the answers leaned heavily toward A, with occasional turns to B, and even a brief shift in letter casing. The overall feel was steady and repetitive on purpose—less like playful guessing, more like pushing a system until it either proves itself or breaks.
That insistence on structure mattered. When the numbering looked off—when a count appeared to jump toward “twenty-seven of thirty” too quickly—it triggered immediate pushback. The format was not a decoration; it was treated as the spine of the test.
Where “intelligence” entered, and where it resisted
A central demand remained constant: there had to be a way to determine intelligence from the choices, not only personality. That is where the method hit its biggest scientific wall.
Intelligence tests that claim real meaning rely on careful design: item selection, standardization, and norms that allow a person’s score to be compared to a reference group. Without that foundation, A–B picks cannot be converted into an Intelligence Quotient in any defensible way, even if the quiz is long.
Still, some moments did carry genuine signal about reasoning habits. One sharp example arrived as a correction about rates: the claim was made that twenty percentage points represent one fifth, followed by a quick mental calculation—seventy-five divided by five equals fifteen, and seventy-five minus fifteen equals sixty. That was not a personality “vibe.” It was applied arithmetic, written fast, and used to challenge an error.
Another moment hinted at informal logic: a fragment built from invented words suggested a syllogism-like move, where swapping a label changes which conclusion appears to follow. Even through messy spelling, the intent was clear—test whether structure, not vocabulary, drives meaning.
A brief Dutch mini-lesson
A few Dutch basics, kept short and usable:
“Dank je wel”
“Alsjeblieft”
“Goedemorgen”
What the behavior suggests, carefully
With the evidence available, only modest, behavior-level inferences are safe. The repeated demand for binary clarity, the focus on correct counting, and the willingness to challenge math phrasing point toward a structured, detail-focused approach. The sustained pace—continuing even after frustration—also fits persistence under uncertainty.
Personality frameworks like the five-factor model describe traits such as conscientiousness and openness, but mapping a run of A–B answers onto those traits requires a validated instrument. What can be said is simpler and more grounded: the session showed a preference for clear constraints, a low tolerance for sloppy scoring, and a readiness to test the tester.
Conclusions
What remains after the last choice
A binary A–B quiz can be engaging, and it can reveal style: patience, insistence on structure, and moments of quick correction. But intelligence—especially an Intelligence Quotient—does not come out of raw choices unless the entire system behind the choices is built like a real test.
What stood out most was not a score, but a stance: keep the format tight, keep the math honest, and do not let the method hide behind vague progress or fuzzy definitions.
Selected References
[1] https://www.britannica.com/science/intelligence-test
[2] https://www.britannica.com/science/psychological-testing/Test-norms
[3] https://www.britannica.com/science/five-factor-model-of-personality
[4] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/percentage-point
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGVJfcSckUs
Appendix
A–Z Definitions
Affirming the Consequent: A mistaken form of reasoning where a person treats “If A then B” and “B” as enough to prove “A,” even though B could have other causes.
Binary Choice: A forced choice between exactly two options, often labeled A and B.
Conscientiousness: In the five-factor model, a trait linked to organization, follow-through, and careful, responsible behavior.
Extraversion: In the five-factor model, a trait linked to energy, sociability, and outward engagement.
Five-Factor Model: A major personality framework that describes personality using five broad traits.
Intelligence Quotient: A score used in some standardized intelligence tests to express performance relative to a reference group.
Norms: Reference data from a defined group that allow an individual’s test result to be interpreted by comparison.
Openness to Experience: In the five-factor model, a trait linked to curiosity, imagination, and interest in ideas.
Percentage Point: A unit used to describe changes between percentages, where one percentage point equals one percent.
Standardization: The process of developing and administering a test in a consistent way, often including collecting norms so scores can be compared fairly.
Syllogism: A structured argument form where a conclusion is drawn from stated premises, aiming for logical validity.
My Diary - Leonardo Cardillo 