<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"><updated>2006-08-03T14:07:20Z</updated><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/johari-window</id><title>Comments for blog.limedaley.com/post/johari-window</title><entry><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/245/889</id><title>Comment #889</title><updated>2006-08-03T14:07:20Z</updated><author><name>SursumCorda</name></author><link href="https://blog.limedaley.com/post/johari-window#isso-889" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/johari/johari_window.html" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;This version&lt;/a&gt; of the Johari Window has better labels, I think (Open, Blind, Hidden, and Unknown, avoiding the judgemental-sounding &amp;quot;Facade&amp;quot;), but the main problem is being restricted to so few attributes.  That can be useful, I suppose, in forcing you to decide which descriptions are more important, but falls down in falsely excluding valid characteristics.&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry><entry><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/245/888</id><title>Comment #888</title><updated>2006-08-03T12:29:54Z</updated><author><name>joyful</name></author><link href="https://blog.limedaley.com/post/johari-window#isso-888" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;I also had to narrow down from a longer list.  I chose dependable as I figured trustworthy fit into that.  I also have trouble with the description &amp;quot;Facade&amp;quot; because I do think those describe Jon, they just weren't in my top 6.&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry><entry><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/245/887</id><title>Comment #887</title><updated>2006-08-02T14:18:31Z</updated><author><name>SursumCorda</name></author><link href="https://blog.limedaley.com/post/johari-window#isso-887" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Well, that was sort of fun.  I selected a dozen characteristics before narrowing them down to six.  Although Peter and I had no intersections at all, I could easily have picked what he did, plus more.  So much depends on context.  I certainly could have said &amp;quot;intelligent&amp;quot; but chose the more-inclusive &amp;quot;able.&amp;quot;  And though I chose &amp;quot;tense&amp;quot; because I see that aspect of your personality and think it's important (as is the fact that you fight it), I could also have picked &amp;quot;relaxed&amp;quot; because you &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; more relaxed in your reactions than most people.  As you can guess, I'm always frustrated with surveys that don't give me a chance to include a long-winded explanation. :)&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry></feed>