Quiz Results

The first thing worth mentioning is that I neither like nor trust these types of quizzes. I find that they're so unscientific, vague and inaccurate that any results have no real value. I did the quiz twice, answering honestly both times, and even left a day in between to help myself forget exactly what I answered on particular questions. Once, I got Karl Popper, and once Jürgen Habermas. Although in some cases I did remember which answer I had given the first time, and chose something else as a result, I never did answer dishonestly.

With this quiz in particular, I found the questions to be far too constrictive, and also far too vague. In some cases, there were multiple answers that fit, which as in my case lead to multiple results, while in others there was nothing that really adequately let me answer the question. The second question in particular was more than a little problematic. None of the answers fit how I tend to see history, which I studied for my undergrad, and most of them seem to focus on spreading a particular view or method. Even though many of them appear to be worthwhile goals, an unwillingness to completely abandon a viewpoint or method in light of new evidence seems to entirely defeat the purposes of actually doing research. In looking at the example question, whether I lean towards discovery or towards finding definitive answers, helps clarify why I suspect I feel this way. I find myself drawn more to strongly to discovery focused research, although definitive answers would be nice, if a good and accurate way of getting them can be found.

The short explanations of the people and their views at the end of the quiz, however, were actually both useful and interesting. Reading about their views, and considering different research methods in light of those views is quite helpful. Attempting to classify yourself as being one or the other, though, seems counterproductive. All of these people are part of the quiz results specifically because they contributed meaningfully to this particular area. Taking worthwhile ideas from as many as is possible and necessary, and altering assumptions and ideas in response to the questions and challenges they raise, seems like a much more useful thing to do then trying to categorize methods according to their views.