Press "Enter" to skip to content


  1. Bob
    Bob September 4, 2015 9:54 am

    I need one after those patterns.

  2. Claire
    Claire September 4, 2015 9:59 am

    Bob — Enjoy a tall one on me.

    Yep, some of those tests got a little challenging in their latter parts, didn’t they?

    Good thing you didn’t have the beer before. 🙂

  3. jed
    jed September 4, 2015 10:42 am

    I think I’ll just skip the tests, and go straight for the beer.

  4. J Lyn Morris
    J Lyn Morris September 5, 2015 8:31 am

    Well, seems I’m better at details….but not the overall big picture. Hmm…will think about that with a cup of coffee, skip the beer for now. LOL

  5. LarryA
    LarryA September 5, 2015 9:35 pm

    Apparently I’m much better at details. I scored “Better than 0 out of every 10 people who took the test.”

    I’ve done enough studies to know that isn’t bad, but the researchers need to word it better.

  6. Claire
    Claire September 6, 2015 5:57 am

    Hm. Do we have a trend here? On the “forest vs trees” test I also found the details much, much easier to see than the big picture — which apparently they consider unusual. It’s clear they assume the big picture is easy, the details hard.

    I agree that they should have reported the results for that test much better than they did. In the fine print they say seeing the details better isn’t bad just a different style of perception. But their “better than 0 out of 10” does make a person feel like a retard.

    Also wish they could have given some insight into what it means for we (apparently few) who perceive the small stuff so much more easily than the big.

  7. Pat
    Pat September 6, 2015 8:56 am

    One thing I’ve noticed is that writers (also artists, character actors, and impromptu musicians who “see” with their ear) are better at details than many other people. The more detail (characterization, description, or action), the better the book as a rule. The detail doesn’t have to be long, just significant.

    For myself, I see the broad picture rather than details. I can look right at a person and not remember if s/he’s wearing glasses. I do remember faces, however. But I’d make a bad witness at an accident unless I remember to look for particulars.

  8. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty September 6, 2015 2:07 pm

    I tried the first one… detail oriented, obviously. 🙂 I generally dislike these kind of things intensely, so didn’t continue.

    I have found my attention to and memory of details to be much better than it was earlier in my life, and attribute that to constant practice of situational awareness. I’m looking for things that “don’t belong,” so I obviously need to know pretty well what does belong… in any situation. That requires attention to detail, as well as careful discernment. Almost anyone can do better with a little practice, but one’s emotional state plays a big part in being able to use that skill in an emergency.

Leave a Reply