A shared arrangement people can understand
Explore Tenya Iida through a shared arrangement people can understand, a concrete everyday example and comparisons with the other five classmates. Full unofficial result guide and scoring limits.
All 24 questions require one choice. Each explicitly mapped response adds one raw count to one character, with counts summing to 24. Each of six characters appears 16 times, four times in every option position; an absent character is not a rejected response. Every highest count receives its full guide. Choosing A throughout gives four counts each and all six guides. No name or list order breaks a tie. Counts are not similarity percentages, powers, skill levels or population ranks. One additional choice has no established psychological significance; close guides can be compared without inventing a tie or secondary identity.
The fictional reference
Tenya Iida is a disciplined classmate from a hero family. This edition takes a limited angle on clear, shared arrangements rather than assigning a rule-bound personality. Ordinary choices concern comparable starting conditions, fair turns and understood responsibilities. They do not certify morality, professional duty or the right to enforce rules on others. An agreed arrangement is something participants can discuss, not an identity one person imposes on the whole group.
What your count describes
If Iida leads, you more often selected a clear agreement about conditions, sequence or turns. That can reduce confusion when people think they are comparing the same activity but are following different assumptions. The tradeoff is preserving an arrangement after it has stopped serving the task. Consistency can be useful alongside a clear way to revise the rule. This count does not establish conscientiousness, fairness in real life or an administrative skill level.
Trying two versions fairly
Suppose a group wants to compare two rule versions. You suggest equal time and the same materials for each. Halfway through, someone points out that one version needs an extra minute simply to explain. Rather than insist that identical time must always be fair, discuss what the comparison is intended to show. You might separate explanation time from play time. The aim is an understandable comparison, not winning an argument about procedure.
Compare the other five approaches
Bakugo gives a personal attempt a target; Iida checks the shared conditions around comparison. Midoriya examines the observations, Todoroki considers a chosen route, Uraraka reduces a burden and Kirishima stays with an agreed part. Clear rules can support all of these. A lower Iida count does not mean irresponsibility, and selecting an organised option does not mean you cannot relax. The actual purpose and people may call for a looser arrangement.
Make one rule revisable
For a low-stakes activity, state one shared condition and one reason you would revisit it. You might say, “Let us use this turn order unless someone cannot access their turn this way.” Ask whether everyone understands it before treating silence as agreement. The experiment does not measure obedience or demand that you organise. No character count establishes legal judgment, maturity, rigidity or the correct procedure for a high-stakes situation.
Twenty-four choices and every highest tie
All 24 questions require one choice. Each explicitly mapped response adds one raw count to one character, with counts summing to 24. Each of six characters appears 16 times, four times in every option position; an absent character is not a rejected response. Every highest count receives its full guide. Choosing A throughout gives four counts each and all six guides. No name or list order breaks a tie. Counts are not similarity percentages, powers, skill levels or population ranks. One additional choice has no established psychological significance; close guides can be compared without inventing a tie or secondary identity.
Original fan edition and source scope
FermatMind independently authored this unofficial fan edition, including every question, mapping, explanation and example. My Hero Academia and its characters belong to their respective rights holders; no affiliation or endorsement is claimed. The official 2019 film character page supplies limited fictional names and context, not current final-story conclusions or questionnaire validation. No dialogue, subtitles, character art, competitor question bank or result text is used. These ordinary learning and shared-activity choices infer no diagnosis, trauma, powers, intelligence, moral worth, gender standard, relationship fate, MBTI type or career suitability. They do not justify fictional harm.