(July 6, 2015 at 10:15 am)Napoléon Wrote: Maybe it's using a different definition to open than what it originally meant. When I saw your other descriptors, I actually agreed with the 'open' bit until I saw how it defined it. I thought the mediator description was pretty good.
Like you say though, all of these kinds of tests are flawed IMO due to the fact it relies on you answering both honestly and with some degree of realistic self-observation. It also has a touch of the barnum effect going on.
The mediator is probably a pretty good description for me the more I think about it, but the fact that I didn't show up as skeptical has me scratching my head. I was raised to be skeptical. It was ingrained into as a child, and I've always thought I've done a pretty good job of exercising it. I mean, people get pissed at me, because I'm so anal about questioning what they say and their conclusions.
I just felt on several of the questions that I needed clarification or more information to truly answer properly. Except for the "open" part, I guess the rest was a pretty decent description of me.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
