First of all, it’s obviously measuring your own self-image, not the way you really are. The questions are: where to you rank yourself.
Second, some of the questions are really bad questions: are you a leader or a follower? Well, neither! Nobody follows me and I don’t follow anybody. I’m kind of “outside” of things. Or the question about: do you like to argue with people? Across the internet, yeah, but in person, no… sooo, which is it?
This is why I’m a jack of all trades. For most of the questions, I was like: Idunno. I’ll pick 3.
Actually gib may have an interesting test. What if a person is designated and the others take that test by giving their opinion of that person… interesting or no?
The validity of this test seem to exclude the + or - factor of possible error, some or all of which depend on the truthfulness of given answers. It may be a pure projection of an ideal sense of self, and it’s supposed correspondence with its interjected value.
The deflection may vary wildly, even when it appears to the test taker that it is his honest opinion of himself. It may not represent the degree of that, of which people over or undervalue each question, since some untruthfullness have been so deeply repressed.
A missing question such as ‘do I tend to over or undervalue myself’ should be relevant, and governing.
The test, even if posed by a psychic’s standard, seem too simplistic.
People always undervalue themselves. I was just chatting about this, it’s the reason that the world is so screwed up, that people do not understand their worth. If you find it difficult to value yourself, you will be unable to value elsewhere.
Again, it’s pretty even. Not knowing you very well meant a lot of 3’s down the page. Also, on the rare occasion when I felt I did have a definite answer, it went to the extreme (1 or 5). It seems there’s rarely any uncertainty in the minds of other when they think they know something about a person.