For some reason I’m also finding the “pro-nice” side more stereotypically feminine.
Definitely. Nice == sugar and spice. Not nice == snips and snails and a fascination with dinosaurs. With repeated emphasis on the word “stereotypically”. Most people are a mix. I notice I have become more nice with age—a process which I analyze as becoming less insecure about whether I am perceived as sufficiently macho.
Some additional random comments:
Comedy can be either nice or not nice. Same goes for tragedy.
Is this a 5th dimension to add to the 4 Meyers-Briggs dichotomies?
Would an OkCupid test be an easy way to collect empirical data?
Would this make an interesting case study to supplement EY’s old postings about “rubes” and “bleggs” and naive Bayes classifiers?
The predictive power: people who have “pro-nice” tastes in one arena of life ought to have “pro-nice” tastes in others, and vice versa.
Definitely. Nice == sugar and spice. Not nice == snips and snails and a fascination with dinosaurs. With repeated emphasis on the word “stereotypically”. Most people are a mix. I notice I have become more nice with age—a process which I analyze as becoming less insecure about whether I am perceived as sufficiently macho.
Some additional random comments:
Comedy can be either nice or not nice. Same goes for tragedy.
Is this a 5th dimension to add to the 4 Meyers-Briggs dichotomies?
Would an OkCupid test be an easy way to collect empirical data?
Would this make an interesting case study to supplement EY’s old postings about “rubes” and “bleggs” and naive Bayes classifiers?
It would be interesting to find out for sure …