4 ms·

I'm intrigued by the analysis of emotions and dualities and priorities. (I didn't understand the concept of "beats", but maybe I would if I read it again.) I st

by eszed 2y ago

I'm intrigued by the analysis of emotions and dualities and priorities. (I didn't understand the concept of "beats", but maybe I would if I read it again.) I strongly affirm the framing that "all emotions [even the strong, 'negative' ones, like anger and disgust] have value". I didn't think much of the outcome of the quiz. I answered honestly, and was assigned "Dragon Slayer" (interestingly, like the author of this post). I plausibly recognized myself in most of the descriptions. Then I clicked on the "random" button, and read another breakdown of another personality type. I plausibly recognized myself in most of those descriptions, too. I think this trades on the technique that makes horoscopes and tarot readings attractive: write gnomically, and positively, and your audience will fill in enough blanks to make anything plausibly applicable to themselves. But, maybe that's just my analytical Dragon Slayer archetype talking. :-) I'm happy for anyone who derives psychologically-useful insights out of this framework.

Varriount 2y ago
Even if it isn't scientifically rigorous, I feel it's ( slightly) better than a horoscope in that it at least provides an opportunity for self reflection. On the whole, one of the difficulties with tests like these is that we tend to have multiple "roles" we take on in different situations (there's a psychological term for this that I can't recall). We might be analytical and impartial at work, but emotion-driven when interacting with friends and family. It's difficult for tests like this to take into account the fact that we might feel differently about a question depending on the role we are currently in.
- eszed 2y ago
  That's a good insight, and I agree with everything you wrote. Side note about horoscopes, or something similar. My sister is pretty far out on the 'woo' side of things, and one of her side gigs is doing 'readings', based on some method that (as far as I can tell) she largely made up. She's a bit canny (at least with me!) about the extent to which she believes in the fortune telling side of it, but she firmly believes that the process opens people up for self reflection, and that the conversations she then has with her clients (some of whom have been with her for years) provide real value. I believe her about that! She's a wise person, and I value her advice a great deal, even though I excuse myself from the 'woo'. All that's to say that self-reflection is useful and good, and deep conversations with trusted people even better. I try not to be too critical of anything someone finds leads them to those valuable experiences. (Unless, of course, it costs life-changing amounts of money, or otherwise damages other parts of participants' person or identity. There's a special hell - or should be - for people who prey on vulnerable people in those ways.)

by eszed 2y ago

Varriount 2y ago

Even if it isn't scientifically rigorous, I feel it's ( slightly) better than a horoscope in that it at least provides an opportunity for self reflection. On the whole, one of the difficulties with tests like these is that we tend to have multiple "roles" we take on in different situations (there's a psychological term for this that I can't recall). We might be analytical and impartial at work, but emotion-driven when interacting with friends and family. It's difficult for tests like this to take into account the fact that we might feel differently about a question depending on the role we are currently in.

eszed 2y ago
That's a good insight, and I agree with everything you wrote. Side note about horoscopes, or something similar. My sister is pretty far out on the 'woo' side of things, and one of her side gigs is doing 'readings', based on some method that (as far as I can tell) she largely made up. She's a bit canny (at least with me!) about the extent to which she believes in the fortune telling side of it, but she firmly believes that the process opens people up for self reflection, and that the conversations she then has with her clients (some of whom have been with her for years) provide real value. I believe her about that! She's a wise person, and I value her advice a great deal, even though I excuse myself from the 'woo'. All that's to say that self-reflection is useful and good, and deep conversations with trusted people even better. I try not to be too critical of anything someone finds leads them to those valuable experiences. (Unless, of course, it costs life-changing amounts of money, or otherwise damages other parts of participants' person or identity. There's a special hell - or should be - for people who prey on vulnerable people in those ways.)