Friday, April 15, 2005

Thinking Experiment

I found this link over at the Devils Advocate. It analyzes your name and tells you your personality based upon your name.

Part I
Try putting your name in and then read the 'profile.' Then come back and read part II.







Part II
So, how did you fair? The first time I read mine, I thought, "wow, fairly accurate." Then I thought about it some more and decided to be more analytical about it (after all, it said I am fairly analytical). Make two columns on a sheet of paper titled yes and no. Read through it again and break down each clause and for each one that definitely applies to you, mark yes. For each clause that does not apply to you, mark no. Don't fudge by trying to 'fit' yourself into a category. Be honest with your answers. I put in several names and found each has around 20 clauses. When finished, read part III.






Part III
What did you get? For me, after I broke it down, I had 10 'yes' checks and 11 'no' checks. But, the first time I read it, I thought it was fairly accurate. It turns out it was right down the middle. It is the same thing that allows fortune tellers to make a living. Human nature allows us to accept the things we want to and disregard the things we don't. When it comes to the political realm, we do the same thing. Whether it is the 'liberal media' or radio talk show hosts, we hear what we want to and filter out the rest.

18 comments:

Boomr said...

Yeah, it is a fairly worthless predictive tool. I put in "Russell," and noticed that the first half of the paragraph was mostly right, while the second half was almost completely wrong. I put in "Rusty" (because I go by both), and it was entirely different from "Russell," and was mostly wrong.

I entered both "Boomr" and "Boomer," but it didn't give me anything. I guess in the blogosphere, there are no predictors to behavior....

Michele said...

I followed all directions, yes, I am good at following directions, my personality forgot to mention that! It also claimed that I lack communication skills - so I told it where to go.

Teasing...
With the column test I had similar results as you - about a 50/50 split.

Great observation Dingo. And I agree, after having written countless political speeches the only thing I am certain of is that the listener will hear what they want to hear. Nothing more and nothing less.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

Michele sent me- HA! I'm wonderful- so the predictor works. Of course. Of course.

Then I entered Sigmund, Carl and Alfred...

Betsy said...

I have to admit that I was laughing so hard at the absurdity contained in the very first sentence - "The name of Betsy brings opportunities for success in business and financial accumulation" - that I really didn't pay much attention to the rest.

Did it say something later in the paragraph about being easily distracted...?

Robbie said...

The truly odd thing for me, Dingo, is that it was closer to 90% true. This is the first such tool that was almost spot on.

Roxy said...

I'm lazy so I didn't do the column thing, but I'm with you...on first read I was like that is so me, but after the second and third, I thought, uh, but I still think it is more on that 50%. I came via Michele. :)

kenju said...

It was fun to read; about 1/2 of it was fairly true, but the last 3-4 statements were way off the mark.

AverageMom said...

Hi, Michele sent me. I took the test. Apparently I'm rather generic.

aka_monty said...

Michele sent me as well.

I ended up with far more in the NO column...
but it was interesting to read. The first few lines were pretty accurate, which encouraged me to read more.
It's the hook that gets you every time. :)

Jugglernaut said...

Hi, Michele sent me.

My test was about 50/50, too. But the things that seemed accurate all came at the beginning, so my first impression was that the analysis was right on.

FunkyB said...

Amazing - I got one more in my "yes" column than in my "no" column.

And I like the way you drew comparison to politics

And I like your blog statement

And I came here via Michele

And I'll be back!

MaxedOutMama said...

That's extremely funny. Mine was extremely inaccurate. It's just like astrology, I think.

Regarding politics, I am not sure if it is the people reading or hearing the news who are filtering or if it is the people who write the news who do most of the filtering. They have to choose what to cover and from what angles and they have a limited number of seconds or column space to get across the points the reporter decides are important. Sometimes the tendency is to cover the factional angles and ignore the underlying facts, especially if they aren't thrilling.

I notice that if there is a story I'm interested in I get a much better idea of the underlying issues if I google it and try to read a number of different sources. If it is a story with broad coverage I try to read at least one international source. That's a habit I started in high school and it pays dividends.

Pearl said...

That was intriguing. I had the same experience of oh "wow, uncanny. Oh, uh, canned isn't it?" when looking closer. Thanks for the test.

pinksundrops said...

When I first read it the first part had me right on, and the second part I started going no, no, no that's not me. When I wrote it down it was the same, 9 from the first part yes, 9 from the second part no and 2 more yes's from the second part. Interesting seeing it down on paper though. I have never thought of it in that way, no wonder when you talk to some people they just don't get it, or when somebody's telling you something sometimes it's so hard to get. We're just hearing what we want to hear. I felt pretty good though that I realized the second half wasn't right on before I wrote it down though :) . PS Michele sent me.

Or think about this. Is some of this just us hearing what we want to hear again :D ?

Elle said...

Michele sent me, hello! I was buying, really, until I read the last sentence. Hair loss?? I have such a thick head of hair (it runs in my family) so I discounted the entire thing. Oh, wait, is that a tuft of hair on my keyboard?? Ahhhhh!
;)

panthergirl said...

Here via Michele...

Mine was right-on until the last two sentances. Then it said I was lacking in self-confidence (HA!) and can't make decisions (three marriages and three divorces? I can make decisions alright, good AND bad!)

Thanks though, that was fun.

ilona said...

I seemed to have made it here on my own. The file didn't have my first name- so I must be something of a cypher... but my middle name produced some results... some of which are applicable.

I have to wonder what it is based upon. My guess is it is traceable to some sort of numericle idea, but who knows?
We tend to believe what we want-but not always. I go with the idea of Goethe that we hear based on what we understand. Increase the understanding and we are more capble of hearing more than our own desires.....
OR it could all be the Grace of God which gives insight


you choose.or not

ilona said...

it forgot to mention that I am prone to typos....