[mbaytas]

> “In the exercise, someone picks a number of adjectives from a list, choosing ones they feel describe their own personality. The subject's peers then get the same list, and each picks an equal number of adjectives that describe the subject. These adjectives are then inserted into a two-by-two grid of four cells.”

> “Room one is the part of ourselves that we and others see. Room two contains aspects that others see but we are unaware of. Room three is the private space we know but hide from others. Room four is the unconscious part of us that neither ourselves nor others see.”

I wonder how the fourth room, which neither the subject or their peers see, is populated…

[wazzer]

If I understand correctly, with the remaining words from the list. Guess it’s meant as a point of reflection, whether, and in what way, those adjectives might apply.

[derbOac]

It's an interesting idea to me, and something I hadn't thought of before. Usually in these kinds of round-robin self-peer rating paradigms the peers are thought of collectively as a kind of oracle, especially as the number of peers increases.

Theoretically I guess there might be some pattern of behavior that goes unnoticed by everyone participating in the exercise. You could imagine, for example, some AI program that analyzes daily recordings of everyone in an organization (admittedly dystopian in its own way but relevant), and identifies some clear pattern in a person that goes unrecognized by everyone in the organization. Whether the AI would "count" in the Johari window exercise is where things get blurry but to the extent the exercise is about human cognition and its consequences I can see how it would apply.

[zakki]

I guess if we look into the list for the possible personalities[1] everything not fall in the first three windows are in the forth window.

[1.] provided by disillusioned user: https://kevan.org/johari