FAQ

Yes — and you almost certainly are. The full assessment gives you a top-5 ranked profile, not a single type. Most people have 2–3 roles that are close in score and genuinely co-active. The narrow gap alert on your results page flags when #1 and #2 are within 2 percentage points — a signal that both are equally valid starting points.

You choose. The free express is a ~2-minute teaser: a short read ranks your six role families, then you pick the concrete flavour yourself — an honest self-pick that gives you a rough top-3 direction, not a computed score. The full assessment is ~20–25 minutes (91 questions) and scores all 27 roles inferentially for a precise top-5 — and it validates or corrects your express pick (you might think you're one role; your full profile might say another). Start fast and go deep whenever you want — your express answers carry over, so you don't repeat them.

MBTI and Big Five measure stable personality traits — they're designed to be consistent across contexts and time. roletype measures role fit in a specific context: technology hype cycles. The dimensions (Pain Tolerance, Inspiration/Energy, Dispositions, Experience, Skills) map to what a specific ecosystem role actually requires, not to general personality. Two people with the same MBTI type might score very differently here because their experience profiles and risk tolerances diverge.

Personality doesn't change much, but circumstances do. Your Experience and Skills scores will shift as you build track record. Your Capacity flags will change if your financial situation, time availability, or risk tolerance changes. A good rule: retake after a major life change (new job, new country, exiting a company) or after a year of meaningful work in a new domain. Don't retake it weekly hoping for a different result — the questions are stable.

That's the full assessment (if you just want a quick read, the 2-minute express is right there). Shorter assessments are less accurate: 91 questions across 5 dimensions allow meaningful differentiation between 23 roles — if you only asked 20 questions, several roles would score identically. The questions are paginated in groups of 8, so it doesn't feel like one long form. Median completion time is around 20–25 minutes. The questions are also randomized to prevent order effects.

The playbook defines 23 roles across 7 categories — that's the headline number. Four of them split into two subtypes that follow genuinely different paths, so the engine scores them separately: the Scientist (Tech Genius / Working Researcher), the Founder (Micro-Founder / Scaler), the Consultant (Strategy / Implementation), and the Freelancer (Strategy / Implementation). That's why your results rank 27 distinct roles, which group back into the 23 on the overview. The 7th category, the Charlatan, is an anti-type — the pattern to recognize and avoid — and is never scored, so it never appears in your results.

Both are valid — that's the point of the narrow gap alert. Read both deep-dive descriptions carefully and ask: which one's failure modes do I recognize more in myself? Which one's first step actually excites me rather than exhausts me? The score is a starting point for reflection, not a verdict.

The first 9 questions (Section 1) assess your current situation — time availability, capital access, technical background, risk tolerance. Based on your answers, some roles may be flagged as hard-blocked (structurally incompatible with your situation right now) or soft-flagged (possible but with real constraints). Flags appear on your results page alongside each role card. They're not permanent — they reflect your current circumstances.

A score is criterion-referenced: 84% means your answers matched 84% of the maximum possible profile for that role. It is not a percentile — it does not mean you scored better than 84% of other people. And it is never rescaled: the top role is not forced to 100%, so your #1 can land anywhere (a strong match near 90%, a lukewarm one in the 60s). Because every role's maximum is fixed and identical for everyone, the scores are comparable across test-takers — the same answers always produce the same percentages, and answering more strongly on a role's questions raises that role's score. The ranking is simply your absolute scores sorted from high to low.

The report is generated once on first access and then cached. If it's your first time opening it, it may take 5–10 seconds to generate. If the page is blank after 30 seconds, try refreshing once. If the problem persists, contact us via the email that came with your confirmation.

The role framework is derived from The Hype Cycle Playbook by Dr. Bastian Brand — a structural analysis across four anchor cycles: Bitcoin/crypto, AI, the Linux/open-source wave, and desktop 3D printing (the hardware cycle that ran the full software-cycle script). The scoring methodology uses established psychometric principles: 7-point Likert scales, weighted dimensional scoring, and criterion-referenced normalization (each role scored against its own maximum, not against other test-takers or a population norm). The sources page lists the academic and commercial frameworks referenced.

The free full-assessment results show your top-5 roles with scores and a transparent breakdown of which answers drove each result (the 2-minute express gives a lighter free top-3). The paid report (€14) adds everything you'd actually act on: a personalized Intelligence Briefing, a deep-dive for each of your top 3 roles, where your field stands in the hype cycle (with dated evidence and a timing light per role), a Market Reality Check, the real companies and players in your region and vertical, your Entry Pathway and a 12-week action plan framed to it, synergy combinations, an honest "where you'd struggle" section — plus optional MBTI and character-strength lenses. The 'What's inside the report' page walks through it page by page.

It's an assessment and a mini-playbook in one — around 66 pages in three parts. Part 1 is your Personal Intelligence Briefing (the executive summary). Part 2, "Your Best Fit", is the personalized analysis: deep-dives on your top 3 roles, your Top Five × Your Personality (optional MBTI + character-strength lenses), where your field stands in the hype cycle with dated evidence, a Market Reality Check, the real companies and players in your region, your Entry Pathway, a 12-week action plan framed to it, synergy combinations, an honest "where you'd struggle" section, and an appendix scoring every role. Part 3 is the Methodology — the scoring model derived step by step, the framework, and the persona-lens primers. It's built to be used, not just read once.

Especially for you. This isn't a personality quiz that tells you your "color" and wishes you luck — it's a positioning tool. Being excellent at your craft and being well-positioned when a hype cycle turns are two different things, and the cycle doesn't care how good your code is. If you're established, read it less as "who am I?" and more as "where does my existing strength convert into leverage over the next few years, and what's the smallest move that gets me there?" The senior dev whose real edge is explaining, the hardware engineer whose maker following is bigger than their job title, the consultant one skill away from a productized offer, the operator sitting on an unmonetized network — that's who it's sharpest for.

No. The assessment scores your roles entirely from your own answers — MBTI is never part of the scoring. If you happen to know your 4-letter type (e.g. from 16personalities), you can enter it and the report adds an optional lens: how your type tends to show up in your top roles, plus a primer explaining the basics. If you don't know it or don't care, you lose nothing — the ranking and everything that drives it are identical either way.

VIA is an optional second lens, same idea as the MBTI one. If you tell us your top character strengths (from the free survey at viacharacter.org), the report overlays them onto your roles and explains what they mean. It's supplementary color, not part of the score. Leave it blank and the report simply skips that section.

Your answers are stored with your submission so your report can be generated and re-opened later from your link — that's the only reason we keep them. We don't sell your data and we don't share individual responses. If you want your submission deleted, email us and we'll remove it.

Payments run through Stripe — we never see or store your card details. The report is €14, a one-time payment, no subscription. Once payment clears you get immediate access to your detailed report and a downloadable PDF.

Yes. Every paid report has a PDF download button — it's the full ~50-page document, formatted for reading and printing. The online version and the PDF contain the same content.

No. It's a structured way to think about where you fit in a technology cycle, based on a framework and your own answers. It doesn't know your full situation, it can't see the future, and hype cycles are inherently uncertain. Treat it as a sharp input to your own judgment — not a decision made for you, and definitely not investment advice.

Very. The seventh category — the Charlatan and its subtypes — is an anti-type: the pattern every cycle produces and nobody should aim to become. It's never scored and never appears in your results as something to "be." Naming it precisely is the point: seeing the mechanism (extraction through deception rather than contribution) protects you twice — from being the mark, and from quietly deceiving yourself. The other 23 roles are entirely serious, functional positions.

No. Plenty of the 23 roles are non-technical by nature — Connector, Community Organizer, Educator, Capital Provider, Lawyer, Bridge Builder, Talent Scout. The assessment measures fit across all of them, so a non-coder can absolutely score highest on a role that thrives in a tech ecosystem without writing a line of code.

The role framework comes from The Hype Cycle Playbook by Dr. Bastian Brand — a structural analysis across four anchor cycles: Bitcoin/crypto, AI, the Linux/open-source wave, and desktop 3D printing (the hardware cycle that ran the full software-cycle script). The literature review and sources pages lay out the academic and commercial frameworks the assessment draws on.