Personalities and IBM Watson

Now computer are analyzing the personality of other computers. Here is what IBM Watson thinks about this blog. I wonder how this post will affect the results?

Values

Conservation

78.00%

Self-enhancement

28.48%

Openness to change

26.22%

Self-transcendence

14.06%

Hedonism

3.67%

Needs

Challenge

72.72%

Harmony

69.07%

Love

64.42%

Structure

54.62%

Practicality

51.09%

Closeness

37.67%

Stability

31.77%

Curiosity

24.32%

Liberty

22.38%

Excitement

17.16%

Ideal

13.68%

Self-expression

4.13%

The Big 5

Openness

96.97%

Intellect

98.70%

Imagination

97.53%

Authority-challenging

97.38%

Adventurousness

87.09%

Emotionality

6.60%

Artistic interests

2.22%

Emotional range

49.09%

Fiery

52.38%

Melancholy

43.61%

Self-consciousness

30.78%

Immoderation

24.79%

Susceptible to stress

22.51%

Prone to worry

22.20%

Conscientiousness

36.67%

Cautiousness

90.99%

Self-efficacy

73.53%

Achievement striving

35.16%

Self-discipline

9.26%

Orderliness

8.21%

Dutifulness

6.54%

Extraversion

6.98%

Assertiveness

7.35%

Excitement-seeking

4.63%

Cheerfulness

4.10%

Outgoing

2.45%

Gregariousness

1.96%

Activity level

1.94%

Agreeableness

4.25%

Sympathy

94.29%

Cooperation

69.79%

Trust

16.17%

Uncompromising

5.64%

Altruism

2.23%

Modesty

1.76%

Innovation

I have been known to complain about the popular desire for 'change' regardless of what kind or direction of change. Would the substitution of the word 'innovation' assuage my concerns? My company includes both words in its vision statement. But traditionally (in the type of books I read) innovation was considered just as bad. Josephus, whom I've been reading recently in the 1737 translation, continually describes bad rulers as those desirous of introducing innovations. I researched the word on the Oxford English Dictionary, and found this usage to be general, e.g.:

1561   T. Norton tr. J. Calvin Inst. Christian Relig. Table Contents,   It is the duty of private men to obey, and not to make innovation of states after their own will.
1597   R. Hooker Of Lawes Eccl. Politie v. xlii. 88   To traduce him as an authour of suspitious innouation.
a1641   J. Webster & T. Heywood Appius & Virginia (1654) v. 57   The Hydra headed multitude, that only gape for innovation.
1641   (title)    A discovery of the notorius proceedings of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, in bringing innovations into the Church.
1796   E. Burke Corr. (1844) III. 211   It is a revolt of innovation; and thereby, the very elements of society have been confounded and dissipated.
a1862   H. T. Buckle Hist. Civilisation Eng. (1873) II. viii. 595   To them antiquity is synonymous with wisdom, and every improvement is a dangerous innovation.

In researching this post I discovered a 2015 book titled Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation Over the Centuries. It looks to be very poorly written, but the blurb confirms my point:

Innovation has become the emblem of the modern society and a panacea for resolving many problems. Today, innovation is spontaneously understood as technological innovation because of its contribution to economic "progress". Yet for 2,500 years, innovation had nothing to do with economics in a positive sense. Innovation was pejorative and political. It was a contested idea in philosophy, religion, politics and social affairs. Innovation only got de-contested in the last century.

These days innovation is again considered a dangerous word, but because it is not taken seriously enough. I refrain from commenting.