3 ms·
So i suppose there is "science" against it? I don't know the science surrounding it. But i took a test through work once and most seems to be correct. I don't
by NicoJuicy 5y ago
So i suppose there is "science" against it?
I don't know the science surrounding it. But i took a test through work once and most seems to be correct.
I don't think it would be "popular" in businesses if nothing would be correct. That's exactly what suprised me the first time, so I'm hesitant to call it bs.
If there is another correlation it could be that the test was pretty positive for me. Perhaps it was the contrary for you? ( I'm just guessing and trying to find differences in experience here)
- coliveira 5y agoPerhaps you should consider the main idea in the article: pseudo-psychology operates stating the obvious with different words, to make it sound important. The tests that you took are tautologically true, because they ask questions about you and then give one or more names to that set of responses (blue, sanguineous, etc). Moreover, you rarely get a clear answer, and the creators of these test know that is very difficult, so they disclose that as a known "feature". It gets even worse when they start to pontificate about the meaning of these tests, because there is no scientific or social basis for what they propose.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago> Moreover, you rarely get a clear answer Weirdly enough, i actually got more than I bargained for. So whatever the pseudoscience is. It was applicable and useful to me.