In the name of “research”, I am sometimes obligated to give into temptation and take random quizzes to for example, find out “how much of a geek I am.” Apparently, I’m only 57% geek.

This didn’t seem too alarming until I realized that everything else that defined me would have to share the left over 43% of me: good & bad habits, my sense of humor (or lack of), where I work, the way I do the things I do, and why, etc… According to this estimate, I love machines so much, that every other quality about me, significant or insignificant, is less significant than technology. And what would be the ranking of someone like Robert Scroble? Assuming there is some logic to the rating, I think it’s safe to say that he would blow the 100% scale pretty easily.

It’s not so cool if a quiz that’s supposed to make me feel good, actually makes me look like a degenerate technophile who cares solely for the well being of his machines. The saddest thing about it is that geeks (the target audience) love quizzes like this, and some would even love to wear the “dysfunctional geek” badge on their sleeve with pride (I’ll confess, I vaguely remember trying to manipulate the results so I would rate a little higher).

Obviously that’s excessively unreal, but since you can’t exactly measure and quantify something as general, and vague as “geekiness” or “karma” with just 10 random questions, wouldn’t it be better to present a more believable estimate?

What about percentiles? Wouldn’t it be easier (and more fun and social) to compare people’s love for technology, and every piece of brand-spanking-new machines ever created (or their fear of same) to that of others? It would certainly be easier (for both the tongue and reputation) to boast of knowing more about technology than 75% of the population, rather than a vague “57% geek”, or the obscure “Total Geek” title.

Sure, at the end of the day, the quiz does the job: time died that day, and you’ll never see it again; but will I go back? Probably not, because it would be nice to have learned, or achieved something, even when procrastination reigns supreme, and time is being wasted (I personally prefer to think of it as research).

In lieu of painting an accurate picture, why not appeal to vanity, and paint the rosier option as the more likely scenario? After all, isn’t reality more accurately perception?

Interesting Extra: Did you know that the unit of geekiness is defined as a Zelda? Neither did I. While that sinks in, check out Wired’s Geekster Handbook for a primer on what it is to be “geek”.