2-Variable Intuition Test Results
by Jon Shea
Oct 10, 11:02 PM
The results are in. If you would still like to take the test email me the results or post them in the comments, and I’ll add them to this chart. This post will be perma-linked to the front page. The results are in no particular order.
| Name | Science | Emotion |
| Kat Anderson | 85% | 62% |
| Bill Carty | 70% | 70% |
| Michael Fromberger | 70% | 70% |
| Jon Shea | 70% | 70% |
| Joran Elias | 62% | 77% |
| Dan Keeley | 77% | 62% |
| Evan Skow | 77% | 62% |
| Tom Temple | 77% | 62% |
| Mitch Webber | 77% | 62% |
| Anthony Bramante | 70% | 62% |
| Cosmo Catalano | 62% | 62% |
| Scott Meek | 62% | 55% |
| Brayton Osgood | 62% | 55% |
| Jourdan Able | 62% | 47% |
| Knut-Eric Joslin | 30% | 69% |
| Allegra Love | 82% | 17% |
| David Etlinger | 25% | 25% |
Oct 11, 10:13 AM
Allegra has no emotions!
Kat Anderson is more scientific than Tommy T!
Oct 11, 10:26 AM
Indeed, Evan. Truly, it is a strange world we live in.
Oct 11, 10:52 AM
Science – 62% Emotion – 77%
A new emotional record?
Oct 11, 12:25 PM
...could be. You could probably teach Legs a thing or two. That is, if you’d stop crying all the time.
Oct 11, 12:27 PM
62% Scientific, 55% Emotional
Oct 11, 01:15 PM
Evan wrote: You could probably teach Legs a thing or two.
Heh.
No comment.
Oct 11, 03:58 PM
Am I the only person who got partial credit (and didn’t lie about their_(singular)_ score)? I don’t think you can get a %72.
Yeah, dude. I just did it again with the same answers and I got a %77. You’d better make some more room on the podium for me.
Oct 11, 04:32 PM
I don’t know what you mean by “partial credit,” but I didn’t lie about my scores—I just copied-and-pasted them into an e-mail message and forwarded them to Jon.
Do the results really vary if you leave your answers exactly the same? Or do you just think you answered the same the second time?
Oct 11, 05:54 PM
I’ve got your original email, Tom, and it said 72%. That said, I’ve been wondering about that number all day, and I agree that your explanation is the likeliest.
Oct 12, 05:57 AM
Actually Tom when I took it I believe I got a 72 sci / 62 emo. But I like Jon’s numbers better. They’re more creative. This 15 minute test is obviously a very accurate measure of personality and worth posting on this site.
Oct 12, 08:14 AM
Everyone else’s score has a 13 in the denominator. Except 55% has some wonky rounding.
And you’re right, I don’t remember who I picked for the suicide one so I just guessed. But seeing how the emotional score didn’t change, I think I picked the same girl. (“I’m so miserable” as opposed to “I’m so desparate”)
The funny test was… funny. I’m curious about Stephen’s score for that one.
Oct 12, 12:16 PM
Here is a much more comprehensive personality assessment.
Oct 12, 12:42 PM
Dan, sorry dude. I couldn’t find your results in my inbox—they probably ended up in an email with the wrong subject. And, I figured putting you just ahead of Mitch would goad him into actually taking the test. You’re fixed.
Michael, I’m calling BS on your test. It’s asked me if I value being able to enjoy April Fools Day enough that I think it is an April Fools Day joke. Maybe it doesn’t have an end.
Oct 12, 02:23 PM
You’re right—it’s an endless test. In fact, if you look it up on Google, you will find that it contains an explanation of itself at the top (which doesn’t show up on the version you hit directly—a trivial abuse of JavaScript, I think).
How many questions did you answer before you decided it was fake? I’m kind of slow, it took me till 100 to finally give up, although I started getting suspicious after 50.
Oct 12, 07:49 PM
I went to almost 150. Maybe I should have been more suspicious, but I was really gunning for speed. I don’t feel bad about falling for it that long, though. It isn’t like life is some kind of “suspiciousness contest” and you win by being the most suspicious.
Life, rather, is a contest you win by having the best combined emotional and scientific intuition.
Oct 12, 10:54 PM
Jon wrote: “It isn’t like life is some kind of `suspiciousness contest’ and you win by being the most suspicious.”
I agree completely. Nevertheless, it’s often startling how large the gap is, in retrospect, between the point at which you have sufficient evidence to reach some conclusion, and the point at which you actually reach said conclusion. “Startling” is not “bad,” just noteworthy.
Oct 13, 12:20 AM
Just retook the test after all these months… same science, but 100% emotional. Obviously, I’m getting what I need to out of Poetry School.
Dec 6, 11:18 AM
I got 92% scientific, 77% emotional. A most excellent test.
May 12, 01:36 AM
Hi, <a href=https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5967586877232414188&postID=5687115525111815898>Buy Generic Levitra Cheap</a> [URL=https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5967586877232414188&postID=5687115525111815898]Buy Generic Levitra Cheap[/URL] https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5967586877232414188&postID=5687115525111815898