Sociopath Community

This is where the difference between personalities lies.

You are completely blind to the mechanics of this test if you say something like that. It does not matter what kind of word it ends up with–the more variety, the merrier–, however, your mind will always choose a certain way of processing the words because each word means something different. The words you choose and associate actually describe how you view (process) the world and not in the literal way, as you so eagerly wish it to be.

The fact that "big" words come as natural to some of us just gives you the clear difference in personality. It gives us a rich advantage in Word Search as your more sensorial list of words would never match up to our extremely abstract repertoire~ In fact, visual words like "tree, boat, water, fire" are less likely to come to me in simple form. I tend to think in meanings rather than "as-is" words: "towering, voyage, cleansing, destruction".

^And this already tells you I am an abstract thinker that perceives the world through meaning rather than take it as it comes. An intuitive type. Then again, my mind goes at 360km/h so it IS kind of difficult to make sense of which came first, water or cleansing? Chicken or egg? Senses or Meaning? Hmm, that may also mean that I am balanced in that matter. Or pretty indecisive. One of both.

People are different. Words are still words, no matter where they come from.

Dog is no different from Mirage~

Subconsciously, I would dare to say words that reflect you will appeal to you more, even if you didn't really think about it thoroughly. Words that you hate would tend to not go into the word map until the very end, where you tend to try to not discriminate between them. Neutral ones will be more acceptable in your mind and fill things earlier. I think the order of expected progression in this "test" would have been GOOD WORD (Box 1) to BAD WORD (Box 16).

And that is a pretty silly, yet predictable, expectation from the creators of this test.

Now, if this test had given us a randomized set of 16 words as a starting point, maybe that would be less biased. Methinks.

With a model like that, there's still an element of "control" over the subject doing the test. I guess there aren't as many possibilities now.

The Test With Your Words.

I had an MMO vibe going on there.

On a side note,

by TheSocio

Link - Estj this time? My personality type tends to jump around a little no matter what test i'm taking. I've gotten istp/estp the most overall, then estj/infp/enfj after that. Which makes little sense to me

 You and your ominous words. :p "What the fucking shit fuck are feelings and why do you feel them!?"

by Hayasa

The fact that "big" words come as natural to some of us just gives you the clear difference in personality. It gives us a rich advantage in Word Search as your more sensorial list of words would never match up to our extremely abstract repertoire~ In fact, visual words like "tree, boat, water, fire" are less likely to come to me in simple form. I tend to think in meanings rather than "as-is" words: "towering, voyage, cleansing, destruction".

 

 
Appears you found offence where none was intended but whatever.

Also appears that you mistake symbolism for abstraction - two different (although not unrelated) things. Symbolism taps into the so-called “common consciousness” (continuum), while abstraction is an internal individual cognitive process.
Take your "tree, boat, water, fire" / "towering, voyage, cleansing, destruction" example, running with water/fire for simplicity’s sake.
Both cleansing and destruction are equally applicable for both elements (water = destruction; fire = cleansing & vice versa). Thus either/both qualifiers (cleansing, destruction) are an associative link  (unifier)  between fire and water.
To abstract it a bit further away, both fire and water are  oxidants. There’s a neat associative link between cleansing and destruction in there: entropy  (as in “the degradation of matter and energy to an ultimate state of inert uniformity”) - purification and destruction in one self-same process. Oxidation = decomposition, decay, deconstruction, putrefaction (if we go full gnostic) - reverting to basic state = purification. In that context, fire & water can serve as an associative link between the two opposing chemical terms, oxidation and reduction ('reduction' used in the non-chemical, general sense), but in the big picture deconstruction / construction are just flipsides of the same circular coin.

As for tree & boat, a lot more tree specimens are non-towering than towering. Boats are hardly ever used for voyage ever since the dawn of railway, automobiles and cheap flights. Your “meanings” were plucked from symbolism, not a result of abstraction. But there’s a vast area where the two overlap (as well documented by shared iconography since the mesolithicum or so).

The words you choose and associate actually describe how you view (process) the world and not in the literal way, as you so eagerly wish it to be.

your more sensorial list of words

your more sensorial list of words would never match up to our extremely abstract repertoire~ In fact, visual words like "tree, boat, water, fire"

- those are not “visual” or “sensorial” words. They are exacting names of things (objects, phenomena). The “visual” and “sensory” part happens in your mind & there alone.

it IS kind of difficult to make sense of which came first, water or cleansing? Chicken or egg? Senses or Meaning?

A bit of healthy detachment (perspective) between self and language can go a long way to clean up that matter. Of course water came first (just ask MrOmega, LOL) - the symbolism attached to it came an awful lot later. Written language itself is in fact a reductive progress of symbolism via abstraction.

Seems like you picked the “ordinary” nouns/adjectives from my list to suit your agenda, bypassing the rest. Here’s another 2x8 list, this time trying to keep the “simple words” to a necessary minimum:

auditory / squander / however / hamstring / verbose / incorrigible / mortar / perfunctory

henceforth / evanescent / paroxysm / tepid / allusion / coniferous / upfront / bilateral

- & etc. etc. Any takers? You can churn them out on your own. After all the test called for ‘random words’ input, not for earnest self-reflection.

Anyhow, there’s an exceedingly good slab of text which may answer your questions  much better than I could ever attempt or bother with:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/prefaceOrderFoucault.pdf 

(the actual title is ‘The Words And The Things’, but ‘The Order Of Things’ translation isn’t too bad either. Personally recommend to Turncoat.)

by murderer

auditory / squander / however / hamstring / verbose / incorrigible / mortar / perfunctory

henceforth / evanescent / paroxysm / tepid / allusion / coniferous / upfront / bilateral

- & etc. etc. Any takers? You can churn them out on your own. After all the test called for ‘random words’ input, not for earnest self-reflection.

 How about you go ahead and do it and post your results? Since you have yet to do so. Unless the link somewhere in your gargantuan posts on the subject.

On an altogether different note - those who took the test, i would like to ask you to:

- make a list of the 16 words you use most often on an everyday basis (spoken or written); including all words (the, that, yes, no, shit, fuck, please, breakfast & etc.)

- take the test again with those words.

Question:

- is the most often used group of words any more or less relevant to your persona than your initial (supposedly random) pick of words?

- do the most often used words appear more (or less) random to you than the group of words you picked supposedly at random? 

by TheSocio

 How about you go ahead and do it and post your results? 

Meh, i'm doing the questioning here and you people are the ones on the self-discovery journey. 

It's the test's mechanism i'm into, not the results.

Since you have yet to do so.

Do i have to??   (What if i can't be arsed with?)

I take that was a form of speech. 

Unless the link somewhere in your gargantuan posts on the subject.

Nah, there isn't any.  The only link i posted was this:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/prefaceOrderFoucault.pdf 

- which may be of interest for anyone who took a fleeting fancy in the correlation of language & psyché.

gargantuan posts

Gargantua is my middle name, well spotted! 

It's just something what happens to interest me, that's all.