Unpopular opinion: personality tests are astrology for people who think they're too smart for astrology
MBTI. Enneagram. Even CliftonStrengths, which costs $60 and is basically the corporate version of the same thing.
Millions of people take these, get a 4-letter code or a top-5 list, feel a little seen for 20 minutes, then go back to being exactly as confused about their career as before.
Nobody ever got a job, chose a major, or started a company because a website told them they're "INFJ."
We got tired of watching this happen to people we actually know. So we built PotenAI differently: no personality label, no vague type. You answer a structured set of real questions, our AI analyzes the actual pattern in your answers, and it tells you your real strengths and career fit — then gives you an actual roadmap. Concrete next steps. Not a vibe.
Is this harder to build than a 16-question quiz with a nice UI? Yes. Is it more useful than another "you're a Type 3" result? We genuinely think so, and we're betting the whole product on it.
We're bootstrapped, pre-launch, building the waitlist right now.
Disagree? Think structured assessments are just as much theater as MBTI? Tell me why in the comments — I'll actually respond.
Having worked on the engine behind a defunct matching site using personality tests, I am going to have to agree on this take. While there is some degree of reliability, there is no check for validity in personality tests. They are lots of fun to talk about, but no real actionable data worth trusting major decisions on. If they were highly reliable and valid, major companies would be using them for hiring decisions.
This is genuinely validating to hear from someone who's actually built the engine behind one of these. You've put your finger on exactly why we didn't want to build "MBTI but with AI" — reliability without validity is basically a party trick, not a decision tool. It's a big part of why we're not just re-labeling people, we're trying to tie the output back to actual actionable steps that can be checked against real outcomes, not just internal consistency.
Really appreciate this — if PotenAI ever gets something wrong here, I'd love to have someone with your background telling us where. The waitlist is open at nopick.site, and once we launch, early waitlist members get notified first — would genuinely value your eyes on it before anyone else.
https://nopick.site
The MBTI comparison is spot on, but replacing 4 letters with AI recommendations still runs into the same issue: proving the advice actually works in the real world. How are you validating that these 'roadmaps' lead to better career outcomes than just traditional networking or trial and error?
Fair — and honestly, we don't have a fully proven answer yet, which is exactly why we're pre-launch instead of making big claims. Our plan is to track whether people who follow a roadmap step actually take real action within a short window (not just read it and forget it), and over time compare outcomes against a baseline. We're not claiming to beat "years of networking and trial and error" out of the gate — we're claiming to compress the starting point of that process, so people aren't beginning from zero guesswork.
We'll be transparent as we gather real data on this instead of just asserting it works. If you want to see how this plays out, the waitlist is open at https://nopick.site — early members will be the first to know the moment we launch and the first to help us pressure-test whether this actually holds up.
The interesting shift is moving from "who are you?" assessments to "what should you do next?" decisions.
What would convince users that PotenAI's roadmap is trustworthy enough to influence a real career decision, rather than being another interesting self-reflection exercise?
That's the exact question we're trying to earn the answer to, not assume it. Right now our honest thinking is: trust comes from specificity tied to the user's actual answers (so the roadmap references something real about them, not generic advice that could apply to anyone), plus showing real outcomes over time rather than just confident-sounding output. We don't think we'll win trust by claiming it upfront — we think we'll win it by being checkable.
Really appreciate you framing it this precisely — it's the standard we're going to hold ourselves to. The waitlist is open at https://nopick.site, and the moment PotenAI is live, waitlist members will be the very first to know and the first to actually test whether this earns that trust or not.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your thinking.
I'd be interested in continuing the conversation by email if you're open to it. What's the best email to reach you on?
Absolutely, happy to continue this over email — always glad to go deeper with people who are actually thinking critically about this.
You can reach me at abdullahhuseynli12@gmail.com.
Looking forward to it!