--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > Hmmm... > > > > I scored a 3. Â That's actually kinda pathetic; I definitely > > need to think more of myself. > > > > Barry, I did the test for your internet personality and only > > what I know and perceive of it in the limited time I've been > > here. I scored you at 21, giving you the benefit of the doubt > > that you don't like to look at yourself in the mirror and that > > you don't want to rule the world, and a few other things I > > had no idea about. > > > > Hmmmm....glad that your own personal assessment of yourself > > is so far from my perceived assessment! No hard feelings. > > I suggested the idea, after all. :-) > > Interestingly, when I did the same thing for Judy, > basing my answers purely on statements she has made > here or on alt.meditation.transcendental in the past, > and similarly assuming that she isn't big on vanity, > she scored a 30.
Gosh, I scored a 2. Maybe we should all fade into a gray background. What is interesting is that our evaluations of others differ so drastically from their own perceptions of themselves. Another idea is that the manner we speak on the forum may be rather different from the way we speak in person as certain psychological checks and balances of human interaction are absent on a forum. The monsters of the Id come forth here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#Id So which, if at all, is more accurate, the way we see ourselves or the way others see us? Each of these could just be a evaluative projection of our own selfish little minds, which of course will always favour our own ideation and disfavour all others'.
