There are certain things that people tell you and you extrapolate the information to form a psychometric profile of that person from one tiny detail.
For example if someone likes dogs, I assume they like to control things – they like companionship, but on their terms and are they not fond of unpredictability. They may be insecure or find it difficult to make friends, but they are loyal and will sustain strong relationships. They require something that loves them and depends on them and needs them. They will probably go on to have children.
If they prefer cats, they are possibly slightly arrogant and unreliable. They like their freedom and don’t like to be tied down. They change their mind at the last minute and are tempted by the best offer rather than the first commitment. They like beautiful things and are happy to observe without having to hold. They will probably not want to have children.
If someone likes deciduous trees, I assume they like change. They believe in renewal and they are prepared to take risks and make mistakes because they can forgive, forget and move on. Life is an experience to be lived to the full and they can laugh at failure because failure leads to growth.
Those who prefer conifers like consistency. They are more likely to vote conservative and they are resistant to change. You know where you are with these people; they don’t have rapid mood swings and they avoid confrontation. They like tradition – there is a proper way to do things and they get frustrated when people break the rules.
Of course, these are wild generalisations and totally unscientific. But we do this all the time. And so, I have devised my own compatibility psychometric test, using this theory.
Here’s how it works: You fill it out, and then give it to a prospective partner, friend, or employee. There are 40 questions. A perfect partnership should have a compatibility quota of 25-35. If too many answers are the same, you will agree on everything and that’s boring, but if you don’t have anything in common, then why are you together in the first place?
Maybe I should patent this device. What do you reckon? If anyone has any other top ‘either/or’s, and what their extrapolated implications please let me know. See next post for the list!
For example if someone likes dogs, I assume they like to control things – they like companionship, but on their terms and are they not fond of unpredictability. They may be insecure or find it difficult to make friends, but they are loyal and will sustain strong relationships. They require something that loves them and depends on them and needs them. They will probably go on to have children.If they prefer cats, they are possibly slightly arrogant and unreliable. They like their freedom and don’t like to be tied down. They change their mind at the last minute and are tempted by the best offer rather than the first commitment. They like beautiful things and are happy to observe without having to hold. They will probably not want to have children.
If someone likes deciduous trees, I assume they like change. They believe in renewal and they are prepared to take risks and make mistakes because they can forgive, forget and move on. Life is an experience to be lived to the full and they can laugh at failure because failure leads to growth.
Those who prefer conifers like consistency. They are more likely to vote conservative and they are resistant to change. You know where you are with these people; they don’t have rapid mood swings and they avoid confrontation. They like tradition – there is a proper way to do things and they get frustrated when people break the rules.Of course, these are wild generalisations and totally unscientific. But we do this all the time. And so, I have devised my own compatibility psychometric test, using this theory.
Here’s how it works: You fill it out, and then give it to a prospective partner, friend, or employee. There are 40 questions. A perfect partnership should have a compatibility quota of 25-35. If too many answers are the same, you will agree on everything and that’s boring, but if you don’t have anything in common, then why are you together in the first place?
Maybe I should patent this device. What do you reckon? If anyone has any other top ‘either/or’s, and what their extrapolated implications please let me know. See next post for the list!
No comments:
Post a Comment