There’s plenty of teaching in what I do, but it rarely follows a fixed syllabus. We’ll explore ideas, ask questions and argue about what they mean. I enjoy explaining things, and I want you to feel comfortable questioning my explanations. That suits some people enormously and leaves others cold, so it’s better to find out before we begin.
What this is
Twenty-eight statements about how you like to think, which give seven readings. It isn’t measuring ability or how much philosophy you know, and nothing is being graded.
There’s no answer I’m hoping for. Answer as you are, not as you think you should be.
At the end you’ll see your seven readings and, more usefully, where two of them pull against each other.
I won’t say what it’s looking for until you’ve answered, because knowing that changes the answers. The explanation is at the end.
This is a fit check I designed, not a validated psychological test. Treat the result as the start of a conversation, not a verdict.
Your reading
The shape of it
Seven readings, each from 0 to 100. The overall shape matters more than any single number.
There’s no good shape. An even profile and a lopsided one are both fine: they just want different things from a conversation.
The seven readings
Each bar runs between the two descriptions under it. Neither end is the better one.
Where the friction is
Where two readings pull against each other. This is the part you’d feel in the room.
One more question
What this is actually measuring
Where the seven come from
| My name for it | What it draws on |
|---|
Since last time
Keep it
Bring this to a first conversation. If a reading looks wrong to you, say so: that usually tells me more than the reading.
If this resonates
However it came out, this opens a conversation rather than settling anything. If something landed, or you think it read you badly, I’d like to hear which.