Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Your Online Profile Actually Tells a Lot About You

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the explains-my-dating-life dept.

The Internet 272

An anonymous reader writes "Despite all the media reports that your Facebook profile is giving the wrong impression, a psychological study shows people really can understand your personality from your online profile. Turns out you're not giving the wrong impression with your profile; you're giving the right impression to the wrong people. You can actually learn more about someone's Agreeableness from their online profile than from a first date."

cancel ×

272 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995397)

fp unless someone beats me to it which they will!

Re:fp! (-1, Offtopic)

philspear (1142299) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995419)

We tied actually, although you were first modded down so I guess you do win.

Duh (2, Funny)

philspear (1142299) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995401)

The findings, in a nutshell, are:
People get each other
SNW profile owners are generally seen by others as they see themselves (i.e. impression agreement was substantial)
People on Facebook get each other
Impression agreement was associated with context (agreement was stronger on the basis of Facebook profiles than on YouJustGetMe profiles)
Women are better guessers and easier to guess than men (random assignment)
within the context in which raters were judging unknown targets (i.e., YouJustGetMe profiles), women were better raters than men and were rated with higher levels of agreement than men
Some profile elements provide better clues than others
several specific elements of the profiles were associated with increased or diminished levels of impression agreement.


The only remotely suprising thing was that women were both easier to understand and understood people better through profiles. Which is somewhat suprising, given the fact that 90% of people who use the internets are perverts and stalkers.

Some profile elements are more revealing than others? No shit. Of course my "favorite movies" is going to reveal more about me than my birth date. Assuming as I do that astrology is crap.

Re:Duh (5, Interesting)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995509)

The only remotely suprising thing was that women were both easier to understand and understood people better through profiles.

For me it isn't, but maybe just 'cause I'm a girl who's spent far too much time in heavily female online communities. I think it's just an extension of how people work in the real world; women, just by generally being more communicative (not being sexist so much as that's what most studies find), drop more hints, and probably 'cause they drop so many know what to look for.

Re:Duh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995677)

Seems to be a few new studies that simply find that women want to talk, not communicate. A couple go so far as to posit that women *need* to talk. I tend to think their vocal chords are connected neurally to the parts of their brain that think whereas men can think without their vocal chords moving. Just my take, not being sexist so much as offering a theory.

Re:Duh (1, Interesting)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995833)

Yeah, but when they talk they tell you things if you know how to parse the string-drop this chatter, highlight that word 'cause of intonation, flip those two, etc,. Men are similar, (and studies suggest they talk just as much as women), but the parsing works a bit differently.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996105)

reading your post actually gave me a headache. I can't make heads or tales of your words.. what the hell is a string-drop? even your sig makes my eyes go crossed.

Re:Duh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996175)

I think she wants to have sex with me.

Re:Duh (3, Funny)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996187)

That's a design flaw in your parser-it should know to recognize "-" as the preface to a new dependent clause.

My sig is ADD+sparkles, so I'd be surprised if it didn't make people go cross eyed.

Re:Duh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996267)

My parser only recognizes em dashes as the preface to a parenthetical thought — like this one — while hyphens are reserved for hyphenation.

Re:Duh (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996357)

sorry, too used to using - for an em-dash 'cause I can't even find an em-dash on my laptop.

Re:Duh (1)

JeffAMcGee (950264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996427)

The em-dash key is hidden—it is spread out between several keys. If you want an em-dash in Slashdot (or html), type — which becomes — .

Re:Duh (1)

g0at (135364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996335)

I think you have confused a hyphen with an em-dash.

Re:Duh (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996367)

Sorry, see my response to the ac above. I wonder why I've never been called on it before, guess open office or word corrects for it or I've got lazy professors.

Re:Duh (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996071)

women, just by generally being more communicative, drop more hints

I knew all of those years of playing Final Fantasy would pay off one day.

Of course this assumes that when you filled it out (5, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995405)

you were being completely honest. I know that I certainly would never think to put a fake age, fake name or fake job when I fill out a profile online. ...nosireebub.

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (4, Insightful)

Perseid (660451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995433)

It also assumes that you put a decent amount of effort into it. What does a sparse profile say about me? That I'm lazy? That I don't really care about MySpace? Who knows?

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (4, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995935)

Or maybe that you actually cared about your security and the concept of identity theft. Or maybe you just prefer meeting gurls in real life, as opposed to some vague flirtation online that could easily have been with someone lying about their details.

Or maybe you are just way to busy spamming slashdot and raiding Sunwell (or whining on the AoC forums) to care about some stupid MySpace/Facebook page.

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (5, Insightful)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995529)

The fake answers are just as interesting in some ways. When I see a fave album list that looks too carefully constructed (that perfect mix of obscure and popular, with those two horrible but the entire planet loves songs) that tells me as much about the person as an honest list would.

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (4, Funny)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995917)

what if i actually like obscure and popular music, and have bad taste, you insentitive clod!

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (1, Funny)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996057)

You're my soul mate? I like the pretentious stuff everyone says they like but nobody really does, the popular stuff nobody wants to admit to liking, and everything in between. (Well with respect to movies more so than music.) I figure most people are like that. It's all in that mix and the stuff you choose to highlight.

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996295)

Nope. Most people, in my experience, genuinely like the 10 generic songs they hear on their favorite pop radio station. They might also like other stuff, but they won't like it any more no matter how good it is, so what's the point?

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996423)

What's the nope in response too? I'm sort of failing to see where we disagree. I agree with you that quality doesn't impact taste in the least, but I've seen a lot of online profiles that don't want to admit that. (It tends to be a certain type of people who have those profiles, which is why they're important even while being untrue, but still.)

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (4, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995891)

That is why on the NYT registration page I am a 16 year old female attorney from Afghanistan named Osama Bin Laden. Honest!

Re:Of course this assumes that when you filled it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996307)

yes.. details certainly can be fake, but not everybody is as paranoid as your average slashdotter. The majority of people I know who use Facebook have a disgusting quantity of true details, without so much as a second thought as to why they should or should not be there.

Whoa there! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995413)

You can actually learn more about someone's Agreeableness from their online profile than from a first date.

This is going to go over a lot of Slashdoter heads. We need to rephrase this. How about:

"You can actually learn more about someone's Agreeableness from their online profile than from the geekiness of their t-shirts."

or

"You can actually learn more about someone's Agreeableness from their online profile than from the quality of their soldering."

or

"You can actually learn more about someone's Agreeableness from their online profile than from the quality of their code."

Oh, wait. The last one is probably wrong.

Now I remember.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995427)

...why I nuked that account. That and the mass collecting of private data...douchbags...

Don't you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995859)

...douchebags?

Re:Don't you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996383)

No, douchbags. They're like douchebags except they have spikes all over the outside.

Re:Don't you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996461)

Touch. I mean, I'd say touche' but, you know...

Just another case of... (5, Insightful)

eharvill (991859) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995439)

People post too much crap about themselves online. Facebook has some decent "security" features about whom can see their profiles, but people tend leave the option checked "anyone in my network" can see my profile without realizing the ramifications. Anyway, yeah, does the FA really surprise anyone???

I agree (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995445)

It says you're the kind of person that has a Facebook profile.

I disagree (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995563)

I only found out that Mandy was male when I tried to grope her.

Re:I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995799)

You tried to grope her? A literal abortion. You must be a hit with the ladies.

Re:I disagree (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996311)

I only found out that Mandy was male when I tried to grope her.

You should have payed attention to the fact that "Lola" was listed as her favorite song in her profile, (and read her blog post about anally raping unsuspecting men).

Re:I agree (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995607)

It says you're the kind of person that has a Facebook profile.

and thereby, most surely, are a target market.

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996405)

the smugness is palpable.

I call BS (1, Insightful)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995471)

You might be able to correctly guess someone's personality via their profile, but you could also get it completely wrong -- there just isn't enough info there and people can be complicated.

Re:I call BS (1)

me at werk (836328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995673)

Don't make me stalk the shit out of you

Re:I call BS (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995861)

The closest you'll get to a profile is my CV. I generally leave profiles blank, and I'm not a FaceSpace or MyBook fan.

Re:I call BS (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996097)

We should talk some time, what's your email address ?

You can also learn alot from someone's home (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995503)

What's on their bookshelf? What pictures do they hang up? The difference is, we usually don't let strangers wander around our homes looking at these things.

I beg to differ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995511)

There's no way you can tell if you'll be date raped without going out on that first date.

lightweight article (2, Insightful)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995605)

TFA is pretty lightweight in its scope. Attempting to generalise about all online profiles is a big call. I will say however, that my facebook profile is pretty accurate - the big difference being that my facebook friends are my actual real life friends, so I can't create a new alter-ego because my friends will call BS.

Re:lightweight article (3, Interesting)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995725)

to clarify my post - the difference with facebook is that you have to use your real name - which then has implications as to the types of people you make friends with (ie people who you know in real life). As to all the other online sites (flickr, last.fm, /., etc) my experience is that I might post up stuff relevant to that site, nothing more. If you're on myspace, well that probably does say something about you....

Re:lightweight article (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995877)

> to clarify my post - the difference with facebook is that you have to use your real name

Just as a matter of idle curiousity, how do they know your real name?

Re:lightweight article (4, Informative)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996319)

They don't. You can lie. There are a quite a few Facebook profiles for fictional characters. I know a few people who only list their first name and last initial. But that's not the point. If you have a Facebook profile it is because you want people to be able to find it and contact you. Lying about your name would just be pointless, especially if you are signed up on a college network which will list your .edu e-mail address which could be easily looked up in a directory anyway. I have no problem with pesudo-anonymous social networking, but that is not what Facebook is for.

Re:lightweight article (4, Interesting)

Cyvros (962269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995951)

Ah, but you don't actually need to use your real name - just a given name and a surname. As an example, I used to call myself "Devoc Winter" before I deleted my account. Nothing whatsoever like my real name, so some of my real life friends did call BS at first, but quite a few of them don't use their real names either.

As you said, though, it does come down to whom you befriend on Facebook - your real life friends, your online friends or a combination.

Employers look! (0, Troll)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995619)

I can tell you as an employer, we scan all the popular "social networking" sites before looking at someone as a possible employee. You kids out there who think it is cute to have suggestive crap on your site be forewarned...employers look at these sites too, not just the 18-30 year old hotties you are trying to seduce.

Re:Employers look! (2)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995679)

That's okay. We don't want to work for you anyway.

Re:Employers look! (4, Informative)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995745)

My facebook profile is hidden from all searches, you can't find it unless I add you first.

Just go to Privacy > Search

There choose:
Search visibiliy > Friends

Uncheck all boxes and Save changes.

I suggest to everyone looking for a job to do the same.

Re:Employers look! (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995871)

and that's secure, like that 17gb torrent [wired.com] that was floating around recently with all the "friends only" pictures they collected from everyone's profiles.

Re:Employers look! (1)

bjackson1 (953136) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996237)

Oh, wait, that's Myspace, not Faceboook.

Re:Employers look! (2, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996287)

That's a security flaw, sure.

But somehow I don't think many competent small businesses and HR departments going to ThePirateBay to find out what pictures you and I might be taking. In fact, I don't imagine them spending more than a couple minutes trying to find possible MySpace or Facebook profiles.

Re:Employers look! (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996125)

I suggest to everyone looking for a job to do the same.

Or better yet, make a fake facebook profile that totally fluffs all the stuff an employer would be looking for -- photoshop yourself in to pictures with important people in your field, talk about your work on important projects, talk about your social connections with management at potential customers, venture capitalists, etc. The kind of stuff you might not put on a formal resume, but the kind of stuff that would make you appear as a very valuable asset.

Just make sure NOT to mention it to them at all, let them find it on their own and let them make assumptions on their own. If questioned about it, just blow it off as a personal thing that they should not take seriously.

Re:Employers look! (2, Insightful)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996191)

And a select subset of my profile is available for all to see. If a potential employer looks me up they will see a perfectly normal socially adjusted person who likes watching soccer.

I consider my public profile as an additional resume.

Re:Employers look! (1)

vipz (1179205) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995939)

What exactly does one's online profile say about his or her ability to do a certain job?

Re:Employers look! (4, Interesting)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996085)

I can tell you as an employer, we scan all the popular "social networking" sites before looking at someone as a possible employee.

Hell, that's what I'm counting on - my own personal website has a far more diversified list of my projects (as well as source code, schematics, and other bits and pieces) than you'll ever get from a resume. Of course then again it's not on some trendy "social network" site - it's my name, as a domain, that I've owned for years. I figure, if they're going to look, why not show off? (And not in the suggestive 18-25 girl sense - though being single again, I wish our recruiters would look for that sort of thing.)

Interesting (1)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995625)

I set up a profile at classmates.com, but it really just contains a "puzzle encrypted" email address and a picture (not of me) from hotchickswithdouchebags.com [hotchicksw...hebags.com] to add a little je ne sais quoi.

Re:Interesting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996045)

Duh. That profile tells me you're a pseudo intellectual douche-bag wanna be that still lives in mom's basement. How hard was that? :)

Or is there some other explanation? Is there something else I should know about clams?

The In-security Blanket (4, Interesting)

Bones3D_mac (324952) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995639)

It's really surprising just how much we disconnect ourselves from our many social inhibitions when communicating over the internet versus when we're actually interacting with others in public, even when we're fully aware that the internet is far less private than physically going outside to any real-world, public location. On a sub-conscious level, mere text on a screen is somehow far less threatening to us than seeing another person or hearing their voice, even though the opposite is probably more true. (Likely due to the lengthy delay in reaction to our own actions, in addition to severely limited feedback accompanying those reactions.)

Perhaps if we retired text communications in favor of real-time teleconferencing, where you actually have to see who you're talking to, you'd see people become a lot more careful about what they say and do on the internet from day to day.

Re:The In-security Blanket (3, Interesting)

MilesAttacca (1016569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995845)

On the other hand, perhaps this lowering of inhibitions is beneficial for our self-expression. I bet you'll see a lot of people who have problems interacting "normally" in real life carrying on conversations online that are indistinguishable from those of the socially well-adjusted. And personally, I find myself more able to talk with friends and new acquaintances about issues that are important and worthy of being brought up, but still seen as too taboo or embarrassing for public discussion (example: I find it easier to keep a level head when talking about religion when I can quickly skim over and reflect on what I'm about to say). All we have to do is learn how to rein it in properly and we're golden -- and if we can translate that newfound talkativeness to real life as well, so much the better.

Re:The In-security Blanket (5, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995963)

It's really surprising just how much we disconnect ourselves from our many social inhibitions when communicating over the internet versus when we're actually interacting with others in public

I know what you mean: I'm naked while typing this.

Re:The In-security Blanket (3, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996325)

I shudder to think where you work.

Re:The In-security Blanket (3, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996455)

I shudder to think where you work, at 10PM, on a Sunday.

Re:The In-security Blanket (3, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995973)

Our intuitions about safety don't work because there may be nothing to trigger our alarms.

My advice to minors about posting personal information is to ask themselves whether they'd be OK with having the creepiest person in the neighborhood see it. The creepiest person online is obviously a lot worse, but the creepiest person in the neighborhood is a concrete concept that their brain's safety module has already sized up.

I have only one thing to say to that: (1)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996073)

SHITCOCK!

Re: parent is referring to the Gabriel's G.I.F.T. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996331)

It goes the other way, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996137)

I'm actually much more careful about my online persona than my offline one. Love, AC

Gold star for you (5, Funny)

i love pineapples (742841) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995651)

So you've figured out from my facebook page that I'm an antisocial loser with no social skills. HOLY CRAP; are you some sort of detective?

Re:Gold star for you (3, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995751)

I also found out that you seem to like this particular tropical fruit/berry.

Re:Gold star for you (1)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995779)

Quit misusing the word "Antisocial". Antisocial means you're a psychotic criminal who harms people or goes against society. The word you want is "Asocial".

Re:Gold star for you (1)

BobNET (119675) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995793)

Antisocial means you're a psychotic criminal who harms people or goes against society. The word you want is "Asocial".

Who says Facebook users can't be both?

Re:Gold star for you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995893)

Quit misusing the word "psychotic". Psychotic refers to psychosis, e.g. as seen in schizophrenia. The word you want is "sociopathic".

Re:Gold star for you (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996027)

Uh, I think you may be messing up subset with equality.
So notation: If a(b) then b is a subset of a:
anti-social(anti-social personality(sociopath(psychopath)))

Some people who are anti-social have anti-social personality disorder, but the average delinquent is anti-social and may very well not have a disorder. A sociopath is someone who has anti-social personality disorder, but not all sociopaths are psychopaths. Some of 'em are very successful business men. The psychotic who harms people or goes against society-he's the psychopath.

Re:Gold star for you (1)

srjh (1316705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996321)

Actually, sociopath and psychopath are pretty much synonymous. Psychosis, on the other hand, is where one loses contact with reality. Neither psychosis nor sociopathy are subsets of one another.

Re:Gold star for you (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996399)

Not quite-a psychopath isn't grounded in reality, whereas a sociopath may be. I didn't put psychosis anywhere in my heirarchy 'cause I know it isn't. (A schizophrenic has psychotic episodes, but often isn't a psychopath.)

Re:Gold star for you (2, Informative)

srjh (1316705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996443)

Wrong. Psychopathy has nothing to do with psychosis or a grounding in reality.

It, along with sociopathy is an obsolete term for what the DSM-IV classifies as antisocial personality disorder.

Re:Gold star for you (5, Funny)

Noland150 (847733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995821)

So you've figured out from my facebook page that I'm an antisocial loser with no social skills.

It was only a hunch until you posted on Slashdot as well.

Re:Gold star for you (2, Funny)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995885)

HOLY CRAP; are you some sort of detective?

DUH... That's what my profile says, isn't it?

Re:Gold star for you (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996387)

No, it says youre a millionaire real estate tycoon in dubai.

Re:Gold star for you (1)

Stevenovitch (1292358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996003)

Actually, if anything everyone I know with these online profiles tend to me overly social. In my book having 100 "close" friends is just as broken as having no friends.

Hmmm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995653)

That's funny. I don't even have a Facebook profile. It's a rather lame thing to have. I prefer to do my 'social networking' in the real world.

Re:Hmmm (1)

srjh (1316705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996475)

I prefer to do my 'social networking' in the real world.

If you assume Facebook users don't, you've almost comletely missed the point.

_Psychology Today_ LIVES! (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995789)

I bet these guys believe in the MMPI, too.

Re:_Psychology Today_ LIVES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996471)

Is that the same outfit that diagnosed me with MMPD (Massive Multiple Personality Disorder)?

/Anonymous Coward

--
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

I'm sorry; I can't go out with you. (4, Funny)

Repton (60818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995865)

An analysis of your posting history shows too many "Informative" mods and not enough "Funny". I'm looking for someone a little less serious-minded, someone who's not afraid to risk a "Troll" mod in the spirit of adventure.

Re:I'm sorry; I can't go out with you. (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996195)

How you doin'?

Re:I'm sorry; I can't go out with you. (-1, Troll)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996371)

Bitch please. You must have a mental disease.

More than a first date huh? (1)

Stevenovitch (1292358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23995993)

Talk about setting the bar high. Maybe if they had said third date I could save some money.

By Neruos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23995999)

Yup,
---1 music player bumping the track "the thong song"
---4 flash movie players showing boy bands, men kissing and the finding nemo kung fu crab clip
---39 hotlinked images from music, tv, friends and familys, funny pictures to animated gifs
---10 different personality tests including whos your lover, best matched, which celeb looks like you, etc
---300+ friends that you know nothing about beyond what is on thier page
---the blog that contains why your last 3 relationships failed, why so emo and why did biker week turn out the way it did.
goes on and on and on...

Oh, all this from a nurse with a 4 year degree? Lets hire her!

lmao, I can learn alot about you..

mod Up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996067)

AMERICA) might be BSDI IS ALSO DEAD, End, we nned you

Re:mod Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23996199)

So this is what happens to all posts where the connection is dropped because the feds just busted in on the poster as he was posting to /.

As If You Care .. (1)

Axe4ever (1155411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996245)

I dnt think that people who see my profile are so interested in knowing me .. thats y i wrote in the "About me" column as "As if you care sooo much " ..

So that's why... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996253)

I should remove the bloodninja [bash.org] quotes from my facebook profile. No wonder I don't get any dates :'(

You won't learn about me from my online profiles (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996261)

I made up the whole Orion Blastar space pirate ninja from 4096AD profile to use to be anonymous on the Internet and not allow anyone to learn anything about me, long ago.

If you think I am really Orion Blastar, I got the Brooklyn bridge to sell you really cheap. Because you are the most gullible person alive if you actually think my online profiles are true and not fiction.

Re:You won't learn about me from my online profile (2, Insightful)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996433)

Well, we know a few things about you. One, that you like space fantasy fiction, at least somewhat. Also you're a computer oriented geek, because you chose a power of two for the year (4096). Geeks know their powers of 2 forwards and backwards.

Rand(om) but somewhat applicable (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996353)

Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life.

Summary incorrect. (5, Informative)

kklein (900361) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996441)

This paper is not about Facebook. It's about a Facebook personality-assessment app ("YouJustGetMe") that allows people to do a personality self-assessment, then create a profile with the app based on likes and dislikes. This "YouJustGetMe" profile would then appear on the user's Facebook profile.

So the research question is not "Can people assess others' personalities based on their Facebook profiles," but, rather, "Can people assess others' personalities based on their own assessments of their own personalities," a very different thing. It then looked for interrater agreement between the writer of the profile and the viewer of the profile.

This is a salient point because what is revealed in a real Facebook profile is very little, and can actually be nothing (like mine--I just use it to keep tabs on my friends strewn around the world who use it). It's totally uncontrolled. The researchers addressed this by placing much tighter controls on the profile creation, limiting it to personality-specific items.

The research is still interesting, but not as interesting as the Slashdot summary makes it sound. It does, however, seem to have some major selection flaws (not a random sample), but I can't seem to load the paper to check on that.

Lies... (3, Insightful)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23996493)

I don't think these psychologists have read the chapter on how people lie about everything they put online. The only thing you can get from a Facebook profile is that the person is lame enough to *have* a facebook profile.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?