Mm, there've been manual-listing Johari Windows spreading around for a bit, but you're in on the ground floor of the automated one, since mine is the root livejournal of it (chap one room over just put the page up a few minutes ago).

(Reply) (Thread)

Ah. Well, I suspect I just gave his/her traffic a fairly exponential boost.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So you're saying you have an order of magnitude more readers than I do? :P

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

there are a few not-so-positive ones (tense and nervous). I'd be very interested in seeing a much more comprehensive list. though that would make the meme a lot longer to take and outside the attention span of most LJers:)

(Reply) (Thread)

We actually thought that a trimmed list would make for a more informative result. The presense of near-synonyms for some words but not others skews the balance.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

True. What I find more troubling is the lack of negative traits, which is what I'd be much more interested in, but I can see the reasons for the design.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That was exactly my thought; even the ones that are arguably negative are distinctly on the mild side. I guess everyone who plays is above average :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree. I think I'm intelligent, other people think I'm clever - I don't think that tells me a lot...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That's the one that irked me most as well. After some discussion with friends, we determined that the connotations we each take from intelligent, clever and ingenious are quite different. I've clarified my own definitions down to putting them in terms of problems:
Ingenious solves problems before they arise and then relaxes.
Intelligent gets hit with a problem and then solves it efficiently.
Clever avoids the problem without solving it.

A later addition was that "Wise" sees the problem coming and picks which of ingenuity, intelligence or cleverness will be the best to use, and "Sensible" is where you actually do the thing that "Wise" told you to.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Y'see, given half an hour to make up some differences between them all, I could have come up with something like that - but it's pretty darn arbitrary.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Mm, arbitrariness aptly demonstrated by different people given the same descriptions and adjectives to pair up assigning them to different ones. Language sucks - you don't just have to read between the lines, you don't even just have to read between the words, you have to read extra crap inside each word too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Cool stuff is meant to steal! As long as doing so doesn't get you put in prison...

(Reply) (Thread)

but... but... but...

"SHMOOPY" isn't in the list anywhere! :(

;)

(Speaking of which... my friend is a non-mushy person who has a husband who, much like you, is super-shmoopy, and it annoys her to no end. I introduced her to your very fitting term and now she wants to start a support group... "Spouses Of the Shmoopy" or "SOS". Heh!)

(Reply) (Thread)

Except my wife likes it.

Careful! Your friend might wind up starting a support group of women who want such a thing, and would steal her schmoopy husband away! You never know!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

pfft, it only lets me pick six. screw that. :-P

(Reply) (Thread)

I wonder if listing negative traits would result in flaming.

(Reply) (Thread)

They certainly would.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I note that this window does not include any negative terms, only positive ones.

And that's a shame, really. It'd be kind of cool if it worked more like tags, where people enter in five or six "tags" and the most popular show up as the group consensus.

(Reply) (Thread)

That wouldn't work at all. As witness the chaos of my open-source tags.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It would if there was a custom dictionary of adjectives, and wouldn't allow you to submit until they corresponded with terms in the dictionary.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Most interesting. I left my own response to it, and, of course, had to create one of my own.

I think what'll be interesting with this one in regard to LJ is to see who's willing to take the time to put it up anyway precisely because it doesn't have the uber-wifty "Cut-no-copy to paste this result into LJ!" function.

(Reply) (Thread)

I think you killed it.

(Reply) (Thread)

Ditto. It's also popped up five seperate times on my friends list. Poor, poor thing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yep, I think it's dead. It's been "theferretted."

(Reply) (Thread)

One day, Ferrett's gonna break the internerds.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry, the server is severely overloaded. Please try again tomorrow.

*lol*

(Reply) (Thread)

I think it would be interesting (at least for me it would be) to see ... if one could split the results between people who know me in RL and on LJ only.

I doubt that anyone who knows me in RL would describe me as extroverted, whereas someone who knows me from LJ land only might.

(Reply) (Thread)

html "post this in your journal" has been added. be ready for a lot of colored 4-squares on your reading list.

(Reply) (Thread)