Page 1 of 1

Child of our Time

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:38 pm
by Mike
BBC online personality survey. Interestingly I scored thusly

Openness - 4.5 / 5
Consienciousness - 4.0 / 5
Extrovertion - 3.9 / 5
Agreeableness - 3.0 / 5 :cry:
Neurotisicm - 2.1 / 5 :-)

I would hope that I am more than 3.0 in agreeableness but nevermind.

Anyone else willing to take / publish their results?

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:59 pm
by stimpsonslostson
Openness - 3.5 / 5
Consienciousness - 4.3 / 5
Extrovertion - 3.4 / 5
Agreeableness - 4.2 / 5
Neurotisicm - 1.0 / 5

I suppose its pretty much what I expected. (Although my concienciousness score will amuse anyone who knew me as an undergrad! But I've matured somewhat since then.) I suspect that the agreeableness is strongly correlated to my laid back attitude to everything.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:24 pm
by Andy
Openness - 4 / 5
Consienciousness - 4.7 / 5
Extrovertion - 2.9 / 5
Agreeableness - 3 / 5
Neurotisicm - 2.4 / 5

It was a moderately interesting analysis. (Oh dear, that must be my low agreeableness kicking in! ;-) )

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:57 pm
by Bambi
Openness - 3.6 / 5
Consienciousness - 3.9 / 5
Extrovertion - 4.1 / 5
Agreeableness - 4.4 / 5
Neurotisicm - 3 / 5

bang goes any idea of me being shy! ;-)
Reading the descriptions it sounds about right for me.I love doing stuff like that...... any kind of questionnaire that tells me what I'm like fascinates me! [-]
Cool experiment they must be getting a good response on the beebs website.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:50 pm
by mr_e
Openness - 3.9 / 5
Consienciousness - 3.7 / 5
Extrovertion - 2.4 / 5
Agreeableness - 3.8 / 5
Neurotisicm - 2.3 / 5

Heh. I think it's fairly accurate for me, but it's always difficult to be honest: sometimes people tend to idealise the answers they put for the multiple choice / grading tests, but I'm sure at least a couple of people who've already posted here can tell us about all sorts of possible ways the results could be biased.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:02 pm
by John Knight
Openness - 4.3 / 5
Consienciousness - 3.4 / 5
Extrovertion - 3.3/ 5
Agreeableness - 3.2/ 5
Neurotisicm - 3.3 / 5

Officially the most nuerotic. Apparently I work hard have fun and tell it like it is even if I know i'm shooting myself in the foot.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:41 pm
by liz.brownlloyd
Openness - 3.5 / 5.0
Conscientiousness - 3.7 / 5.0
Extroversion - 3.9 / 5.0
Agreeableness - 3.6 / 5.0
Neuroticism - 4.1 / 5.0

I think the only thing I disagree with is being an extrovert - I think I like the company of fellow humans without being gregarious.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:43 pm
by liz.brownlloyd
John Knight wrote:Officially the most nuerotic. Apparently I work hard have fun and tell it like it is even if I know i'm shooting myself in the foot.
Nope apparently that's me - by a long long way. :-0 I suppose nothing that I didn't know about.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:02 pm
by Mike
Oh no! I am joint last on the agreeability stakes! Shocking.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:11 pm
by Andy
Mike wrote:Oh no! I am joint last on the agreeability stakes! Shocking.
To Scrooge,
Bah Humbug.
Jacob.
P.S. I've a spare ball and chain lying around the place when you make it up here.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:17 pm
by Lizzie
Lizzie's results

Openness - 2.9 / 5
Consienciousness - 3.9 / 5
Extrovertion - 4.3 / 5
Agreeableness - 3.9/ 5
Neurotisicm - 3.0 / 5

Posted by secret Mike.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:44 pm
by mr_e
I've just realised Liz was the only one to spell conscientiousness correctly, whereas everyone else copied Mike's text to use as a template (there's some irony in there somewhere). And that I'm mostly surrounded by extroverts... not in the physical sense, unless I have a lot of extroverted ninjas hiding in my room.

Re: Child of our Time

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:51 am
by Mike
It is probably because everyone else copied my original (and wrong) spelling! :lol: