Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Forer effect is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, and some types of personality tests.
In 1948, psychologist Bertram R. Forer gave a personality test to his students. He told his students they were each receiving a unique personality analysis that was based on the test’s results and to rate their analysis on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) on how well it applied to themselves. In reality, each received the same analysis:
(see original post; that was the ‘analysis’ given to each student word for word)
On average, the rating was 4.26, but only after the ratings were turned in was it revealed that each student had received identical copies assembled by Forer from various horoscopes. As can be seen from the profile, there are a number of statements that could apply equally to anyone.
@coathanger wrote:
Yes everything was normal in the lobby.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Nice work, coathanger :)
@yvonne wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47HoiM0Au8
has everyone seen this youtube video, and what do you think? she must have got an f in geography lol
That delightful specimen of humanity has now been arrested.
It’s her child I feel truly sorry for.
@irish_lucy wrote:
I liked the T*atrix stories, why isnt Mr. Anderson an option??
Thank you Lucy, but I have hung-up my pen. For now.
@tinks wrote:
=;
personally speaking………..the rock would have to be a lot bigger sweetie
:lol:
Was ‘rock’ a typo, tinks?
@best man wrote:
this mr anderson geezer,yknow him the prolific poster one
[bullshyte deleted]Q.E.D.
It’s impressive how you everytime you post something you make yourself look a little more stupid.
@best man wrote:
i find your spelling utterly appalling balloons
@bestman wrote:
my take on this is yeh ruby we are always going to get the grammar police on i:e su being the latest member,who think its clever to pull up evrybody on their latest spelling mistake.she has picked me up twice now 1,oxymoron,2 ,has
i think what su doesnt understand is,a lot of people type how we think ,ala accents
myself,ruby,and mad fooka were /are deft exponents of this
im not going to change my type of typing for her
if you dont like it su,dont read it its simps
maybe sue we arent all blessed with your superior intelligencePot. Kettle. Black.
It’s impressive how you everytime you post something you make yourself look a little more stupid.
@melody wrote:
@taffyfish wrote:
Hmmmm wonder wot 69 is going to be????
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
other than a number I have no eyed deer what else it could be :lol: :^o
@best man wrote:
any of you lot tried it? it can be quite invigorating,try it one day,and when youve acheived it i be here for you ok. unless you want to read annettes and thins bickering or ethe recipe thread how to boil an egg or make toast so be it,but hey im only a thread away,
Thus spake the most infantile – possibly to the point of undiagnosed learning difficulties – user ever to ‘grace’ the JC boards.
