Southerncalinarcissisticmatrimonialociou s

Southerncalinarcissisticmatrimonialocious

Comments

Southerncalinarcissisticmatrimonialocious

Comments

Profile

Latest Month

Links

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab

Teunciness

Breakfast

Tronkies

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages

The Global Village

Tags

Page Summary

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oct. 19th, 2003 at 11:02 PM

banazir

OK,

istari_ala decided to test her auto-compatibility, so I did so as well:





	
	
	
				erebrandir
				
		110%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				crypthanatopsis
				
		91%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				hfx_ben
				
		89%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				gondhir@
				
		87%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				mirabehn
				
		85%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				istari_ala
				
		84%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				starfish82
				
		80%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				evil_nick
				
		78%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				hsuwh@
				
		65%
		
		
		
	
	
	

How compatible with me are YOU?

Hokaz... so of lal my friends, I'm least compatible with myself.
Hrm.
I feared it was so. :-D

Sexual compatibility was less of a surprise (as Ala said, a moment's reflection will explain the last result, although 0% isn't quite accurate either, I suppose):





	
	
	
				mirabehn
				
		56%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				istari_ala
				
		23%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				gondhir@
				
		0%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				evil_nick
				
		0%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
				hsuwh@
				
		0%
		
		
		
	
	
	

How sexually compatible with me are you?
Take the NEW sexual compatibility quiz at LJMatch!

--
Banazîr

Current Mood: surprised
Current Music:Patty Loveless - You Can't Run Away From Your Heart

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

istari_ala

Oct. 20th, 2003 08:49 am (UTC)

Ahh! When using the LiveJournal username method didn't show a compatibility score for myself I assumed everyone would get 100%. Apparently knot. So I checked, and I'm 110% with meself :)

although 0% isn't quite accurate either, I suppose
Looks to me like you ticked the "definatly knot sleep with men", and the test knocked out the score. I'd been wondering if it'd do that.

Link | Reply | Thread

banazir

Oct. 20th, 2003 03:22 pm (UTC)

So I checked, and I'm 110% with meself :)
Wow, excellent! "This above all: to thine own self be true." (Heh... fater all, I'm Hamlet, knot Polonius nor Ophelia, see.)

Looks to me like you ticked the "definatly knot sleep with men", and the test knocked out the score. I'd been wondering if it'd do that.
Yep, exacterly.
Lalthough there are a lot of questions in the "(dknot) sleep with men" category.

The quiz is almost certainly not designed to be used for self-compatibility, since some acts have a different denotation (e.g., what is "mutual" anything when interpreted that way?).

Also, Kinsey Scale 0 males (exclusively heterosexual) will tend to score 0% with each other, whereas it looks as if the same is not true for females. I noticed you score about the same with Kinsey 0-2 female LJ friends. Some of these are self-reported, but the others could just be the error of my surmise - e.g., maybe it's a 1 or 2 scoring > 0% with a 0.

Also, it could be that if P1 says she definitely doesn't like X but P2 says she does, it scores 1 point out of 2 or 1 out of 4... it is a match. Curious.

--
Banazir

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

istari_ala

Oct. 20th, 2003 06:12 pm (UTC)

Looks to me like you ticked the "definatly knot sleep with men", and the test knocked out the score. I'd been wondering if it'd do that.
Yep, exacterly.
Lalthough there are a lot of questions in the "(dknot) sleep with men" category.
Err.. by 'knocked out the score' I meant immediatly ignored all those m/m questions, so I'm not sure why you think the number of questions is relevant.

The quiz is almost certainly not designed to be used for self-compatibility, since some acts have a different denotation (e.g., what is "mutual" anything when interpreted that way?).
I think you've misunderstood what the self-compatibility is testing. It's assuming there are two identicle yous (perhaps due to a transported accident where two of you materialiased) and assesing how compatible the two of you would be.

Funnily enough FotC have a song about a mean villianous man who meets another man identicle to himself who's been doing the exact same mean villianous things. They end up settling down together on a ranch, and at the end of the song Bret & Jem as the audience to contemplate what they would do if they met themselves. Would you like yourself? Hate yourself? Have a relationship with yourself?

Also, Kinsey Scale 0 males (exclusively heterosexual) will tend to score 0% with each other, whereas it looks as if the same is not true for females. I noticed you score about the same with Kinsey 0-2 female LJ friends.
Regarding that scale thingy, only the 0 people wouldn't be scored against their gendar. In the test, Definatly, Somewhat, Would like to try, and Indifferent are all willing to do it, and so would not be completly incompatible with someone who wants to do it.
Regarding my female LJ friends who took the test, none of them ticked Definatly Not, and I ticked Definatly. You did indeed make an error.. the error being making an assuption to prove your case for inconsistancy, rather than taking the inconsistancy as an indication that such an assuption might be false. As a logical person (you that is), I'm suprised you still put the assuption forward as most likely even though there was no evidence for it in the first place. Maybe it would be a good exercise for you to pay attention to the assumptions you make for a while? You might find it interesting. (I don't mean to sound superior here, I've done similar exercises myself and found many silly faults.)

Also, it could be that if P1 says she definitely doesn't like X but P2 says she does, it scores 1 point out of 2 or 1 out of 4... it is a match.
No, if one doesn't like it and one does, that's an incompatiblity. ('Giving' questions having been matched to 'receiving' questions first, obviously)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

banazir

Oct. 21st, 2003 12:30 am (UTC)

Err.. by 'knocked out the score' I meant immediatly ignored all those m/m questions, so I'm not sure why you think the number of questions is relevant.
Oh, OK. You are probably right in that everyone who answered "male" was rated 0% against such a respondent. I thought it might have ignored only questions that really required a partner, but that was just my flouting of Occam's Razor.

I think you've misunderstood what the self-compatibility is testing. It's assuming there are two identicle yous (perhaps due to a transported accident where two of you materialiased) and assesing how compatible the two of you would be.
Good point, and you are right, but that still isn't the same as compatibility with another (nonidentical) member of the same sex who gave the same answers as you did. At least, not for everyone (see the title of my post).

Funnily enough FotC have a song...
Vert interesting.

Regarding that scale thingy, only the 0 people wouldn't be scored against their gendar. In the test, Definatly, Somewhat, Would like to try, and Indifferent are all willing to do it, and so would not be completly incompatible with someone who wants to do it.
Right - it just hadn't occurred to me that it was all tied to the first question. The real question is whether you would get 0% even if you put "definitely not men" for the first question and "definitely" for everything else. (I don't know; I put "definitely not" for the first and treated the rest independently up to and including Feanorism options.)

Regarding my female LJ friends who took the test, none of them ticked Definatly Not, and I ticked Definatly.
OK. As I said, some of the Kinsey Scale info is self-reported by (our mutual) female LJ friends - just the > 0, as it turns out, so I had no basis for guessing that there were any 0s.

It's a small sample, though. I might have assumed instead that the 2 men in my quiz must have put down "definitely not" in any places where I allowed for Feanorism. (That would be another failure to use Occam's Razor, but it isn't that implausible given what I recall of my responses.)

You did indeed make an error.. the error being making an assuption to prove your case for inconsistancy, rather than taking the inconsistancy as an indication that such an assuption might be false. As a logical person (you that is), I'm suprised you still put the assuption forward as most likely even though there was no evidence for it in the first place. Maybe it would be a good exercise for you to pay attention to the assumptions you make for a while? You might find it interesting. (I don't mean to sound superior here, I've done similar exercises myself and found many silly faults.)
No offense meant, no offense taken. My mistake was figuring that 0% (all Kinsey 0s) for 3 men and 25+% for 5 women (which means Kinsey >= 1) at a random sample (or conditional sample of LJ, even LJ friends of you and me) was statistically unlikely. Chalk it up to small sample statstics. The spurious conclusion I reached, as you pointed out, was that LJmatch was treating men's and women's answers differently (not zeroing out women's based on the first question).

Challenging one's own assumptions is a terrific idea, BTW.
As

mirabehn writes:
Never put people in nutshells. Especially yourself. You'll leak out, and the squirrels will get you.

--
Banazir

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

December 2008