another one of those
http://personaldna.com/report.php?k=wxnBxQXTtDCGHUe-GK-AADCA-723e
From the link you can figure out how to try it yourself. But these are a silly self-indulgence by now, since they never tell me anything I don't already know, or if they do, then I dismiss the information in favor of my own assessment. Guess I'm hopeless that way.
Invariably I have some complaint; maybe for this one it's their axis of functional/aesthetic. Form/function (e.g. in biology), style/content (e.g. in poetry), these are more than interwoven (that implies separate threads) they define each other, they form feedback loops. (haughty "hmmph" from me here.) the personaldna seems to measure this axis with lots of "how things work" vs "how things look" questions... i decided to read "work" in the aesthetic way, as in "ew, that green doesn't work with that red" in which case I prefer the activeness of "work" than the passiveness of "look" (certainly they don't mean how things look out and see other things! because that would be way too deep.)
Invariably I realize, duh, of course these little questionairres make simplifications that irk me. Actually, what I was happy to see in this one was the use of two-dimensional measurements. I thought the "bucket" method of assigning proportions was lame, but in retrospect maybe that's OK, too. If one were taking physical measurements, these ways of asking would be equivalent to a series of individual one-dimensional questions, but I think asking in this way makes a difference for psychological questions, when my mood might change between page 1 and page 2; it helps people control the relations between their answers all in one instant. oh this is inadequately explained. if you're in the mood for a time sink you can try it yourself and see what i mean.
From the link you can figure out how to try it yourself. But these are a silly self-indulgence by now, since they never tell me anything I don't already know, or if they do, then I dismiss the information in favor of my own assessment. Guess I'm hopeless that way.
Invariably I have some complaint; maybe for this one it's their axis of functional/aesthetic. Form/function (e.g. in biology), style/content (e.g. in poetry), these are more than interwoven (that implies separate threads) they define each other, they form feedback loops. (haughty "hmmph" from me here.) the personaldna seems to measure this axis with lots of "how things work" vs "how things look" questions... i decided to read "work" in the aesthetic way, as in "ew, that green doesn't work with that red" in which case I prefer the activeness of "work" than the passiveness of "look" (certainly they don't mean how things look out and see other things! because that would be way too deep.)
Invariably I realize, duh, of course these little questionairres make simplifications that irk me. Actually, what I was happy to see in this one was the use of two-dimensional measurements. I thought the "bucket" method of assigning proportions was lame, but in retrospect maybe that's OK, too. If one were taking physical measurements, these ways of asking would be equivalent to a series of individual one-dimensional questions, but I think asking in this way makes a difference for psychological questions, when my mood might change between page 1 and page 2; it helps people control the relations between their answers all in one instant. oh this is inadequately explained. if you're in the mood for a time sink you can try it yourself and see what i mean.
posted by fragments of angry candy at 8:41 PM
2 comments
