Comments on: Considerate Creator http://www.amyallcock.com/blog/2006/03/01/considerate-creator/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:10:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Amy http://www.amyallcock.com/blog/2006/03/01/considerate-creator/comment-page-1/#comment-257 Amy Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:11:58 +0000 http://www.amyallcock.com/blog/?p=75#comment-257 Thanks for the comments. I agree with you that it doesn't handle opposing traits very well. This was something that came up while doing my own test as well as the test for others so I'm not sure how rare it is. Or perhaps I've been exposed to a unique sample of the population. ;) I agree with you that self-assement is a difficult thing to do, however, I do have trouble with the notion that others can provide a more authentic view of the self. Certainly I have learnt a lot from how others have assesed me, but I would say that what I have learnt has to more to do with their opinions of me and less to do with my 'authentic' self. Perhaps another way to look at it would be that their assement has shed light on my public self which is a part of the authetic self, along with my private self, etc. Regardless, I think that we are all in agreement in that persoanlity tests such as this act as a vehicle for limited yet entertaining self-discovery, and provide a good excuse to play around with cool animations and interfaces. ;) Thanks for the comments. I agree with you that it doesn’t handle opposing traits very well. This was something that came up while doing my own test as well as the test for others so I’m not sure how rare it is. Or perhaps I’ve been exposed to a unique sample of the population. ;)

I agree with you that self-assement is a difficult thing to do, however, I do have trouble with the notion that others can provide a more authentic view of the self. Certainly I have learnt a lot from how others have assesed me, but I would say that what I have learnt has to more to do with their opinions of me and less to do with my ‘authentic’ self. Perhaps another way to look at it would be that their assement has shed light on my public self which is a part of the authetic self, along with my private self, etc.

Regardless, I think that we are all in agreement in that persoanlity tests such as this act as a vehicle for limited yet entertaining self-discovery, and provide a good excuse to play around with cool animations and interfaces. ;)

]]> By: Mark http://www.amyallcock.com/blog/2006/03/01/considerate-creator/comment-page-1/#comment-256 Mark Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:58:45 +0000 http://www.amyallcock.com/blog/?p=75#comment-256 Very interesting. Seems like a mix of the AMPM and the Myers Briggs. For what it's worth, I'm a benevolent creator. And of course that seem right, to me at least - but, well, of course it would: I took the test! So what's nice about this is the ability of friends to cross-evaluate a subject, hopefully yielding a more interesting picture of the subject. One small critical comment: as with most of these instruments, it assumes that 'oppossing' traits are rare, or can be quantitifed by a 2-order matix relationship. Suppose someone really is both calm and hot-temperred, and also both happy and tempted to inflamed moments of fill with a sense of injustice at the world. Given only the possibilty to select one of these traits at a time (or, even less useful, some middle ground between them) precludes the accurate representation of such a person in the test. So a methodological assumption made with these tests is that such trait distribution is rare. It seems like a reasonable assumption, but, interestingly, it would be interesting how they could measure the prevelence of such trait combinations - for they certainly couldn't use this test! Another more fun worry, one sustained by the more Freudian sides of psychology, is that agents are terrible at self-assesment. Their own opinion of their selves may be flawed, or built out of some domininant ideology or archetype (think of gender), and thus possibly not reflective of their own 'authentic' nature. Probably this kind of thinking isn't right; but it sure would be cool to be an online personality test that had some way of engaging in the 'hermunetics of suspicion', in order to 'uncover more authentic modes of being.' That would be one hell of a flash animation! Very interesting. Seems like a mix of the AMPM and the Myers Briggs. For what it’s worth, I’m a benevolent creator. And of course that seem right, to me at least - but, well, of course it would: I took the test! So what’s nice about this is the ability of friends to cross-evaluate a subject, hopefully yielding a more interesting picture of the subject.

One small critical comment: as with most of these instruments, it assumes that ‘oppossing’ traits are rare, or can be quantitifed by a 2-order matix relationship. Suppose someone really is both calm and hot-temperred, and also both happy and tempted to inflamed moments of fill with a sense of injustice at the world. Given only the possibilty to select one of these traits at a time (or, even less useful, some middle ground between them) precludes the accurate representation of such a person in the test. So a methodological assumption made with these tests is that such trait distribution is rare. It seems like a reasonable assumption, but, interestingly, it would be interesting how they could measure the prevelence of such trait combinations - for they certainly couldn’t use this test!

Another more fun worry, one sustained by the more Freudian sides of psychology, is that agents are terrible at self-assesment. Their own opinion of their selves may be flawed, or built out of some domininant ideology or archetype (think of gender), and thus possibly not reflective of their own ‘authentic’ nature. Probably this kind of thinking isn’t right; but it sure would be cool to be an online personality test that had some way of engaging in the ‘hermunetics of suspicion’, in order to ‘uncover more authentic modes of being.’ That would be one hell of a flash animation!

]]>