I predict the results to stay near to where they are (at N=20) however what this means for how we might better model people is unclear. (it might be reasonable to think this subset of population is in fact a collection of unusual thinkers but I would say its safe to assume that this is representative of most of the population in this case)
Do we need to start modelling people as more to ourselves (as we all seem to feel like we have unusual though processes) or less (as we might have unusual processes in different directions to each other)? would doing either make us more effective at life?
Honestly, I suspect that the average person models others after themselves even if they consider themselves to be unusual. So this poll probably shouldn’t be used as evidence to shift how similarly we model others to ourselves, one way or another.
That was awesome—thank you for posting the poll! The results are quire intriguing (at N = 18, anyway—might change with more votes, I guess).
N=50 we appear to be making a bell curve. Also no one thinks they are typical.
I predict the results to stay near to where they are (at N=20) however what this means for how we might better model people is unclear. (it might be reasonable to think this subset of population is in fact a collection of unusual thinkers but I would say its safe to assume that this is representative of most of the population in this case)
Do we need to start modelling people as more to ourselves (as we all seem to feel like we have unusual though processes) or less (as we might have unusual processes in different directions to each other)? would doing either make us more effective at life?
Honestly, I suspect that the average person models others after themselves even if they consider themselves to be unusual. So this poll probably shouldn’t be used as evidence to shift how similarly we model others to ourselves, one way or another.