alt Hacker NewsShow HN: Try Archetype 360 – AI‑powered personality test, 3× deeper than MBTI
Hi there, are you familiar with MBTI, DiSC, Big Five? Well I'm experimenting with a new kind of personality test, Archetype 360, and I'd love for you to try it for free and tell me what you think.
- 24 traits across 12 opposing pairs -- that's three times more dimensions than MBTI or DiSC, so you get a much more nuanced profile. - A unique narrative report generated with AI (Claude), written in natural language instead of generic type blurbs. - Your role, goals, and current challenges are blended into the analysis, so the report feels relevant to your real‑life context, not just abstract traits.
It's an "ephemeral app" so your report only lives in your browser, there's no login, and we don't store your data. Make sure you save the report as a PDF before you close the page.
What I'm looking for is honest feedback on your archetype and report:
- Did it feel accurate and "wow" or just meh? - Did you learn anything unexpected about yourself? - What did it miss or not go deep enough on?
I'll use your feedback to refine the prompts and the underlying model. Just comment here or use the feedback form in the app.
If there's enough interest, the next step is to combine Archetype 360 with a variation of Holland Codes / RIASEC (vocational interest areas) to create a full‑power professional orientation report.
What else would you love to see? Ideas welcome!
Best wishes, Daniel
Comments
The dimensions seems very "profession"-oriented (as a contrast to other personality inventories that can also be used in professional psychology).
Questions:
1. Where did the 12 dimensions come from?
2. Are they ~independent (ie. don't have huge correlations making them redundant)?
3. Are they high-entropy? (ie. they split the population into roughly equal-sized groups and have predictive value)
>the next step is to combine Archetype 360 with a variation of Holland Codes / RIASEC (vocational interest areas)
Shouldn't the next step be actual validation (which looks nothing like asking people what they think about the reports)?
Without validation, it's just a nice-sounding horoscope.
It is interesting enough, but the report kind of feels very AI generated and generic. Most of the questions present the choices in a good vs bad way, i.e it sounds bad saying I disagree and sounds good when I say I agree. Other test usually have postive versions of both ends of the spectrum which is missing here. I also agree that there needs to be some validation of why these dimensions, how the correlated internally etc.