My previous-knowledge-proof test and/or survey

[unefille]

1)
It is far better to be on your own than with someone just for the sake of not being alone. That applies to friendships as wells as relationships.

or

On the contrary, very often I need to be with someone as loneliness is unbearable. On such occasions, I can’t be too picky about who the “someone” is.

I honestly can't pick an option. If pushed, I think, to most people my behaviour would look like option 2, but I actually don't like option 2 people, because I don't think behaviour like that is fair to other people in the relationship and I generally prefer to be the person that is more 'invested' in the relationship. But my behaviour is very contradictory. I don't like being alone. I start to lose a sense of self and things become quite...meaningless. I'm not too 'picky' about my company, but I'm very 'picky' about my friends. And infinitely worse for relationships. Moreover, I refuse to define relationships and will use any ambiguity to my advantage in eluding definition.

Actually, thinking about this more, I'm always told that I seem intimidating and difficult to approach, like I wouldn't give most people the time of day - so maybe I come off as being picky about company? And I spend a lot of time alone, but only if I want to be alone. No, I have no idea how to answer this question.

Ok, how about this: I like to be in control of the company I keep. I don't like circumstances (such as loneliness) dictating what company I keep. I would hang out with someone I objectively thought an 'arsehole' if I decided they would make good company for the time being, but I would never just...drift along, looking for company and not caring who it was.

2)
To proclaim my understanding and competence on a subject, and then change my mind on it because my understanding was shown to be incorrect, it’s embarrassing for me, especially in public, as I fear it makes me look stupid. I prefer to avoid this and usually wait until I am sure of my understanding and knowledge before I start talking about it.

Agree? Disagree? Neither? Etc --

Agree, although it's gotten better over time. Very pernicious when young. If I'm shown to be wrong, I need to 'reconcile' myself with it, figure our where the mistake was made, and then move on. But I don't know if that why I make sure of my understanding and knowledge before I start talking. I generally think people should think their positions through and not demonstrate too much abject stupidity. Also, if the reason I was incorrect is funny, I think I might just laugh about it. Sometimes, it's been funny - due to a typo somewhere or something.

Usually with discussions, if I'm unfamiliar with the terrain so to speak, I will listen to other people talk first to gauge the level of the discussion. I like to know my position - am I an amateur in this group, or an expert? Then I will behave accordingly: with deference and modesty as an amateur and with certainty and a touch a magnanimity if an 'expert' because a haughty-know-it-all is the worst of all.

3)
I am naturally sceptical of second-hand information and whenever possible prefer to trust my own experience to reach a conclusion about something.

or

On the contrary, I think any one person’s experience – including mine – may be too narrow or limited, and I prefer to broaden it by getting as much second-hand information as I can.

I'm as happy with second hand knowledge as I am with first hand knowledge - you just have to be careful with your sources and the extent to which you incorporate them literally. You have to 'reason' through it and 'test' it, of course, but it's not inferior just because it's second hand.

4)
If I need to learn something quickly, my first instinct is to ask someone I see as knowledgeable on the subject, rather than find my own way through it in books, the net, etc.

Agree? Disagree? Etc

I usually like to do my own research, create a 'foundation' of knowledge, then seek someone knowledgeable to 'test' or 'correct' my foundations. I don't like going in blind because then you have nothing to gauge your source against either.

5)
I have a very good idea about my level of sexual attractiveness (or lack thereof) in relation to others around me.

or

Hmm, no. I am never sure about such things.

I'm generally uncertain (rather than insecure). I need constant affirmation, dammit (so I get accused of being vain a lot...meh - it's just uncertainty). I've gotten better with age as well...well, I'm not sure if I've gotten better with age, or just with more affirmation. Ha.

6)
Especially in moments of crisis, I am inclined to be paralyzed by indecision and tend to wish, later, that I had acted more quickly.

or

On the contrary, I am far more likely, on such occasions, to act impulsively and to later regret my decisions taken so rashly.

I've yet to regret an action as rash, though I've regretted inaction often. When I do act, I usually approve them, post-hoc.

7)
I worry far more about appearing stupid and/or ignorant among others than I worry about being awkward when dealing with people.

or

On the contrary, I don’t worry too much about appearing stupid/and or ignorant – I am more likely to worry if I am being boring, inconvenient, rude etc when dealing with others, collectively or individually.

For example, if a conversation or discussion is stalling, I'm more than willing to say something stupid just to get the conversation going again. It doesn't bother me because I am being entertaining and that sort of comes first. And if people judge my intelligence on the flip things I say to engage or smooth things over, then I just think they're judgemental. Actually, I don't mind appearing stupid in front of others if I've chosen to behave that way. It's always better to be underestimated anyway. Although I have to say that 'being thought stupid' hasn't been the bane of my life in any way or form BUT 'letting people underestimate me' has often backfired badly. A lot of people seem to react as though I've 'fooled' them in a condescending fashion, which of course I want to avoid, but ' some people' (not everyone of course) generally are too easily intimidated and project their own insecurities, and I think (often unwisely) that it's better to accommodate insecurity than to just say 'well, they're projecting.' It's a bit touch and go sometimes, but I've become much better over the years with controlling how I present myself and adjusting for different people. Part of this is self-concerned with making an 'impression', I suppose, but I do genuinely want people to feel as comfortable around me as possible as well.

8)
It is a very common state of mind for me to feel that, whatever I have done with regards to a task, or when doing something for someone, I could have done just one bit more.

or

On the contrary, I usually tend to think I am already doing, or have already done, enough anyway – unless it is something that depends on a very specific standard that has to be met, in which case I meet it.

I could also do better, do more, try harder, achieve more etc. I have no concept of 'enough'. Usually, if I'm exhausting myself and you want me to stop, the only way is to hit me over the head and knock me out.

9)
I respect, even admire, people who don’t back off from confrontations, even physical ones, and who take physical risks (not necessarily at the level of some Jackass stunts, but I think you get the idea).

or

Sometimes I may even wish I was better in such things, but normally I think that those who take physical risks (or risk getting into physical confrontations) easily are just being silly.

I hate cowardice. I mean, I'm not some gangster's moll who like thrills at the sight of a brawl and I hate senseless violence, but I respect people who aren't afraid physically. But the word 'risks' makes me hesitate a little. I like someone whose physicality is accompanied by a good sense of risk assessment. Recklessness is generally not something I respect. Good judgement paired with physical confidence is.

10)
I enjoy poetry and often wish I could write it myself.

or

Poetry may be nice and all, but it’s ultimately pointless – I prefer writings that actually communicate something in a more straightforward language.

I do write poetry and most of my fiction is 'poetic' rather than 'straightforward'. I think communication is important, but so is the aesthetic value of writing. Writing should move people. It should impart some sense of beauty, as well as stimulating the intellect. Eh, sometimes I've over-focused on the aesthetic quality of academic essays, which was really...not bright. English Lit appreciates it, but Political Science less so. Still, there's a lot of value in writing well.