This is one of those things that is exactly right except when it's totally wrong.
I'm finding that to be the case with their profiles in general. The test doesn't manage things like context or nuance very well, like most of these silly quizzes.
And, as I noted in my own journal, take any of the "negative" male descriptions and look at the female ones for the same attributes, and, well...
But seriously, once you get past the stupid initial test and go through all the "improve matches" questions it does wind up making some surprisingly accurate observations. It just takes a while to answer 700+ questions, but that at least can be done in as many or as few sessions as you like.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 07:24 am (UTC)I'm finding that to be the case with their profiles in general. The test doesn't manage things like context or nuance very well, like most of these silly quizzes.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 04:35 pm (UTC)But seriously, once you get past the stupid initial test and go through all the "improve matches" questions it does wind up making some surprisingly accurate observations. It just takes a while to answer 700+ questions, but that at least can be done in as many or as few sessions as you like.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 07:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 08:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 09:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 09:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 09:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 08:28 pm (UTC)I like the way they've parodied the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 09:49 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 01:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 11:00 pm (UTC)