Is this a Circle? - Psychology Perception

First topic message reminder :




You can also explain your reasons as to why you either think it is or you think it is not.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:It is that simple Rags.
Again someone less concerned by drugs being used, is less likley to be prejudiced against people, even those who abuse drugs. Again it is the standard people set and how much they keep to that standard that they have. You can use thisd methodology on anything really when you think about it. Its how we are ourselves set standards and how we apply them that can tell how prejudiced some people can be. Not saying its a full proof system, but it certainly does apply well to most situations. I mean its a no brainer that people less bother by something, are going to be less prejudiced about it. I mean we are all very bothered about child abuse and would view child abusers with the ultimate prejudice woud we not?

Someone who is less concerned about drug use clearly doesn't understand the effects of them - sloppy thinking again. One can disapprove strongly of that kind of thing, and have little sympathy for anyone who takes those drugs, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't help someone who got addicted. It would also depend on what type of drug we're talking about. I have zero tolerance for cannabis users at parties because they're very boring, but I wouldn't say much to a mate who used it at other times.

Leftie liberals tend to blame others for self-inflicted problems. They are no more tolerant, they just blame different people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:It is that simple Rags.
Again someone less concerned by drugs being used, is less likley to be prejudiced against people, even those who abuse drugs. Again it is the standard people set and how much they keep to that standard that they have. You can use thisd methodology on anything really when you think about it. Its how we are ourselves set standards and how we apply them that can tell how prejudiced some people can be. Not saying its a full proof system, but it certainly does apply well to most situations. I mean its a no brainer that people less bother by something, are going to be less prejudiced about it. I mean we are all very bothered about child abuse and would view child abusers with the ultimate prejudice woud we not?

Someone who is less concerned about drug use clearly doesn't understand the effects of them - sloppy thinking again. One can disapprove strongly of that kind of thing, and have little sympathy for anyone who takes those drugs, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't help someone who got addicted. It would also depend on what type of drug we're talking about. I have zero tolerance for cannabis users at parties because they're very boring, but I wouldn't say much to a mate who used it at other times.

Leftie liberals tend to blame others for self-inflicted problems. They are no more tolerant, they just blame different people.

Actually most drugs in moderate use are of very little harm and if manufactuired would be far safer. They are certainly in many cases less harmful than the legal ones we have.
So yes your standard is based on a perfectionist view that sees all as being very bad, where mine does not so. Hence you would be more prejudiced than I on this issue.
I find those who smoke Pot to be some of the funniest and silliest, so I guess it depends on a sense of humour I guess in that aspect.
I agree some regressive lefties very much in conflict in their standards.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Someone who is less concerned about drug use clearly doesn't understand the effects of them - sloppy thinking again. One can disapprove strongly of that kind of thing, and have little sympathy for anyone who takes those drugs, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't help someone who got addicted. It would also depend on what type of drug we're talking about. I have zero tolerance for cannabis users at parties because they're very boring, but I wouldn't say much to a mate who used it at other times.

Leftie liberals tend to blame others for self-inflicted problems. They are no more tolerant, they just blame different people.

Actually most drugs in moderate use are of very little harm and if manufactuired would be far safer. They are certainly in many cases less harmful than the legal ones we have.
So yes your standard is based on a perfectionist view that sees all as being very bad, where mine does not so. Hence you would be more prejudiced than I on this issue.
I find those who smoke Pot to be some of the funniest and silliest, so I guess it depends on a sense of humour I guess in that aspect.
I agree some regressive lefties very much in conflict in their standards.

If we're talking about stuff like heroin, I wouldn't advise anyone that it's harmless. That's very sloppy indeed.

Your experience of pot users is different to mine. In my youth, we banned them from our parties because they sat in a corner being boring, and also because we didn't want the police round.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

note I said precisionist...not perfectionist

one is a career trait the other is a psychological problem

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

so requiring accuracy and precision in order to make a device (whatever) run properly (and even perhaps work) is a psychological problem eh?

perhaps yoiu should hawk your idea around the precision engineering world

precisionist is a REQUIREMENT in some areas of engineering

I mean the chips you rely on to waffle on here HAVE to be acurate to some insane degree...like less than 1 micron otherwise they cannot be fabricated

when I make a circuit board i have to etch them to an accuracy of at least 0.1mm and in some cases 0.01mm

all done photographically (sort of)

so no, precisionist is a skill, rather than a psychological state, requiring knowlege and patience, and an understanding of the materials you are working with.

a precisionist may or may not apply the same thinking to people and situations as he does to his work...in whiuch case he enters the psychological state of "perfectionist " ....(and is a pain in the butt) and a few are more than boderline OCD.

but many "precisionist" engineers I know are absolutely rigid on quality and accuracy for their work, but basically a happy "mess" outside of it....

oh and dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about

precisionist isnt even given status in psychology..it is not a "state"

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

so requiring accuracy and precision in order to make a device (whatever) run properly (and even perhaps work) is a psychological problem eh?

perhaps yoiu should hawk your idea around the precision engineering world

precisionist is a REQUIREMENT in some areas of engineering

I mean the chips you rely on to waffle on here HAVE to be acurate to some insane degree...like less than 1 micron otherwise they cannot be fabricated

when I make a circuit board i have to etch them to an accuracy of at least 0.1mm and in some cases 0.01mm

all done photographically (sort of)

so no,  precisionist is a skill, rather than a psychological state, requiring knowlege and patience, and an understanding of the materials you are working with.

a precisionist may or may not apply the same thinking to people and situations as he does to his work...in whiuch case he enters the psychological state of "perfectionist " ....(and is a pain in the butt) and a few are more than boderline OCD.

but many "precisionist" engineers I know are absolutely rigid on quality and accuracy for their work, but basically a happy "mess" outside of it....

oh and dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about

precisionist isnt even given status in psychology..it is not a "state"

I agree. I'm not an engineer, but one small slip in my work could be a disaster. There's nothing wrong with being precise if the situation requires it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Actually most drugs in moderate use are of very little harm and if manufactuired would be far safer. They are certainly in many cases less harmful than the legal ones we have.
So yes your standard is based on a perfectionist view that sees all as being very bad, where mine does not so. Hence you would be more prejudiced than I on this issue.
I find those who smoke Pot to be some of the funniest and silliest, so I guess it depends on a sense of humour I guess in that aspect.
I agree some regressive lefties very much in conflict in their standards.

If we're talking about stuff like heroin, I wouldn't advise anyone that it's harmless. That's very sloppy indeed.

Your experience of pot users is different to mine. In my youth, we banned them from our parties because they sat in a corner being boring, and also because we didn't want the police round.

http://www.exchangesupplies.org/article_bad_heroin.php

To your last point I suppose it is also how interaction would also play a part on the stance and standards we all set.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If we're talking about stuff like heroin, I wouldn't advise anyone that it's harmless. That's very sloppy indeed.

Your experience of pot users is different to mine. In my youth, we banned them from our parties because they sat in a corner being boring, and also because we didn't want the police round.

http://www.exchangesupplies.org/article_bad_heroin.php

To your last point I suppose it is also how interaction would also play a part on the stance and standards we all set.

Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for those who encourage the use of drugs like heroin.

Anyway, are many people purely conservative or liberal/leftie. If I only spoke about hunting with dogs on here, I would come across as a raging leftie, yes?

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

so requiring accuracy and precision in order to make a device (whatever) run properly (and even perhaps work) is a psychological problem eh?

perhaps yoiu should hawk your idea around the precision engineering world

precisionist is a REQUIREMENT in some areas of engineering

I mean the chips you rely on to waffle on here HAVE to be acurate to some insane degree...like less than 1 micron otherwise they cannot be fabricated

when I make a circuit board i have to etch them to an accuracy of at least 0.1mm and in some cases 0.01mm

all done photographically (sort of)

so no, precisionist is a skill, rather than a psychological state, requiring knowlege and patience, and an understanding of the materials you are working with.

a precisionist may or may not apply the same thinking to people and situations as he does to his work...in whiuch case he enters the psychological state of "perfectionist " ....(and is a pain in the butt) and a few are more than boderline OCD.

but many "precisionist" engineers I know are absolutely rigid on quality and accuracy for their work, but basically a happy "mess" outside of it....

oh and dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about

precisionist isnt even given status in psychology..it is not a "state"

It certainly stems from perfectionism.
Are you claiming that it does not?
I mean how bothered would you be that something is not straight that you built or that it was even, precision made?
Sorry victor but you really fail to graqsp this field.
Again if something is fucntionable, does it really need to be precision made to work or function
Do you really want to go down that avenue?
Precision stems very much from perfectionism

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



http://www.exchangesupplies.org/article_bad_heroin.php

To your last point I suppose it is also how interaction would also play a part on the stance and standards we all set.

Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for those who encourage the use of drugs like heroin.

No need to apologise, but I do question how much you know or understand on heroin

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

so requiring accuracy and precision in order to make a device (whatever) run properly (and even perhaps work) is a psychological problem eh?

perhaps yoiu should hawk your idea around the precision engineering world

precisionist is a REQUIREMENT in some areas of engineering

I mean the chips you rely on to waffle on here HAVE to be acurate to some insane degree...like less than 1 micron otherwise they cannot be fabricated

when I make a circuit board i have to etch them to an accuracy of at least 0.1mm and in some cases 0.01mm

all done photographically (sort of)

so no,  precisionist is a skill, rather than a psychological state, requiring knowlege and patience, and an understanding of the materials you are working with.

a precisionist may or may not apply the same thinking to people and situations as he does to his work...in whiuch case he enters the psychological state of "perfectionist " ....(and is a pain in the butt) and a few are more than boderline OCD.

but many "precisionist" engineers I know are absolutely rigid on quality and accuracy for their work, but basically a happy "mess" outside of it....

oh and dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about

precisionist isnt even given status in psychology..it is not a "state"

It certainly stems from perfectionism.
Are you claiming that it does not?
I mean how bothered would you be that something is not straight that you built or that it was even, precision made?
Sorry victor but you really fail to graqsp this field.
Again if something is fucntionable, does it really need to be precision made to work or function
Do you really want to go down that avenue?
Precision stems very much from perfectionism

Some things need to be very precise to work or be functional though. If your car door was a bit off so it let all the rain in, would you be happy? You wouldn't want it to "close enough" would you?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for those who encourage the use of drugs like heroin.

No need to apologise, but I do question how much you know or understand on heroin

It's not up for discussion.

You wouldn't want your pharmacist to say - I can't read the doctor's writing very well, but I think it's probably such and such a drug so that's close enough.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


It certainly stems from perfectionism.
Are you claiming that it does not?
I mean how bothered would you be that something is not straight that you built or that it was even, precision made?
Sorry victor but you really fail to graqsp this field.
Again if something is fucntionable, does it really need to be precision made to work or function
Do you really want to go down that avenue?
Precision stems very much from perfectionism

Some things need to be very precise to work or be functional though. If your car door was a bit off so it let all the rain in, would you be happy? You wouldn't want it to "close enough" would you?

I agree some things do need precision to work, but others things do not.
Though a precisionist would not be happy unless it was peferct precision.
We can take this further from previous debates I have had with Victor based on his pessimism and how he places a standard on British values. I am far more flexible than he is, which to me stems from his precisionism. To me Victor views humans to this standard of precisionism. He may well correct me, but I think if he is honest he does hold people to very high standards.

It's strange perhaps, but if I get something new like a book I'm a bit precious about it, but if I get one second hand, I don't care if it's a bit battered.

See how precious people are about their brand new cars? Once they get a few scrapes they're not as bothered.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's strange perhaps, but if I get something new like a book I'm a bit precious about it, but if I get one second hand, I don't care if it's a bit battered.

See how precious people are about their brand new cars? Once they get a few scrapes they're not as bothered.

That is very true Rags, which again is how people set standards to many things as seen.
I love second hand books, as there is something about age that adds something extra to me in then buying.

When it comes to things like drug use, prostitution, obesity, I think it's not so much those things which some people disapprove of per se, it's why people got that way.

To me, someone who started using hard drugs for fun is irresponsible and short-sighted, so their stupidity would be the issue for me. If they blamed someone else, that would really irritate me. I don't judge people for being fat, but I might roll my eyes if they made excuses for it and blamed it on their hormones whilst stuffing their face with cream buns. It's really the excuses which people use which irritate me.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's strange perhaps, but if I get something new like a book I'm a bit precious about it, but if I get one second hand, I don't care if it's a bit battered.

See how precious people are about their brand new cars? Once they get a few scrapes they're not as bothered.

That is very true Rags, which again is how people set standards to many things as seen.
I love second hand books, as there is something about age that adds something extra to me in then buying.

And yet those books were once brand new, and I bet the owner was very careful until they spilt tea on them or sat on them.

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

so requiring accuracy and precision in order to make a device (whatever) run properly (and even perhaps work) is a psychological problem eh?

perhaps yoiu should hawk your idea around the precision engineering world

precisionist is a REQUIREMENT in some areas of engineering

I mean the chips you rely on to waffle on here HAVE to be acurate to some insane degree...like less than 1 micron otherwise they cannot be fabricated

when I make a circuit board i have to etch them to an accuracy of at least 0.1mm and in some cases 0.01mm

all done photographically (sort of)

so no,  precisionist is a skill, rather than a psychological state, requiring knowlege and patience, and an understanding of the materials you are working with.

a precisionist may or may not apply the same thinking to people and situations as he does to his work...in whiuch case he enters the psychological state of "perfectionist " ....(and is a pain in the butt) and a few are more than boderline OCD.

but many "precisionist" engineers I know are absolutely rigid on quality and accuracy for their work, but basically a happy "mess" outside of it....

oh and dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about

precisionist isnt even given status in psychology..it is not a "state"

As someone who has had experience in electronic engineering, most if not all of the above rings true.

Even in simple DIY assembly, you misalign one screw and it has a chain reaction that misaligns the rest.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

so requiring accuracy and precision in order to make a device (whatever) run properly (and even perhaps work) is a psychological problem eh?

perhaps yoiu should hawk your idea around the precision engineering world

precisionist is a REQUIREMENT in some areas of engineering

I mean the chips you rely on to waffle on here HAVE to be acurate to some insane degree...like less than 1 micron otherwise they cannot be fabricated

when I make a circuit board i have to etch them to an accuracy of at least 0.1mm and in some cases 0.01mm

all done photographically (sort of)

so no,  precisionist is a skill, rather than a psychological state, requiring knowlege and patience, and an understanding of the materials you are working with.

a precisionist may or may not apply the same thinking to people and situations as he does to his work...in whiuch case he enters the psychological state of "perfectionist " ....(and is a pain in the butt) and a few are more than boderline OCD.

but many "precisionist" engineers I know are absolutely rigid on quality and accuracy for their work, but basically a happy "mess" outside of it....

oh and dont tell me I dont know what I'm talking about

precisionist isnt even given status in psychology..it is not a "state"

As someone who has had experience in electronic engineering, most if not all of the above rings true.

Even in simple DIY assembly, you misalign one screw and it has a chain reaction that misaligns the rest.

If I had handing in my technical drawings and said, well, they are nearly accurante, all hell would have broken loose.

wrong didge...

how bothered I would be depends entirely on wht it was and how it was to be used

for instance a "proof of concept" idea could well be a right rats nest, and vibrate like hell, splutter and smoke ...

as long as it "sorta worked" then thats ok

however if it was then meant to do a job, it would have to be made to a precision which reflected that job, for reliability. If it was for showcasing an idea then the finish as well as the innards would have to be spot on, to satisfy whatever standards the would be market expects.

if it was a device for my own use then the finish wouldnt really matter as long as it was functional, weather tight and effective....

if it was a product for sale to one of you guys, the obvioulsy I'm going to make it as smart as I can...and if it has electronic innards they will be made to the highest standard I can...cos I dont want it back having failed becasue of a bad joint somewhere etc...

precisionist does not STEM from perfectionism, it stems from a need of the ITEM, to perform correctly, over a long period...

for instance...


I built a night vison scope adaptor for my rifle....

works great...looks like a bag of shite and requires a little messing with to get into the correct position...I'll sort that when I have the inclination

but then I'm not taking it to any shows....

the innnards are built to very high standards of engineering....the finnish however.......

made another for a mate, his is all neat matt black, not a wire in sight and locks first time every time into the right position

his is "precision made"

mine is part "thrown together", and is to a large degree still the "proof of concept" design

All the above is utterly irrelevant to what I said you place high standards to. You are least of all trusting towards people Victor more than anyone, due to how high a standard you place onto values.
Again you could not even be honest, as placing as you just did above irrelevance to the points at hand and how your precisionism crosses over to how you view people shows how you fail to grasp a single point being made.

Now this does not refer to you but people who places the highest standards and expectations on a relationship. Whether this be a partner or friendship have most unhappiest relationships with people. The standards they set are at a level which nobody is ever going to obtain and achieve. By doing this the individual who sets such out of reach standaards is always going to be unhappy.

Are you beginning to see the point yet?

So do you want to try again?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:All the above is utterly irrelevant to what I said you place high standards to. You are least of all trusting towards people Victor more than anyone, due to how high a standard you place onto values.
Again you could not even be honest, as placing as you just did above irrelevance to the points at hand and how your precisionism crosses over to how you view people shows how you fail to grasp a single point being made.

Now this does not refer to you but people who places the highest standards and expectations on a relationship. Whether this be a partner or friendship have most unhappiest relationships with people. The standards they set are at a level which nobody is ever going to obtain and achieve. By doing this the individual who sets such out of reach standaards is always going to be unhappy.

Are you beginning to see the point yet?

So do you want to try again?

Of course putting someone on a pedestal is dangerous as they're bound to fall off it at some stage, and it could be a long fall.

Is this circle?

Depends on the context of the question just like victor explained drawn behind a fag packet may be acceptable.

Drawn by a child then yes maybe

drawn by an adult nope

SEXY MAMA wrote:Is this circle?

Depends on the context of the question just like victor explained drawn behind a fag packet may be acceptable.

Drawn by a child then yes maybe

drawn by an adult nope

Very succinctly put.  Hi Honey xx

sassy wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Is this circle?

Depends on the context of the question just like victor explained drawn behind a fag packet may be acceptable.

Drawn by a child then yes maybe

drawn by an adult nope

Very succinctly put.  Hi Honey xx

Thanks x

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:All the above is utterly irrelevant to what I said you place high standards to. You are least of all trusting towards people Victor more than anyone, due to how high a standard you place onto values.
Again you could not even be honest, as placing as you just did above irrelevance to the points at hand and how your precisionism crosses over to how you view people shows how you fail to grasp a single point being made.

Now this does not refer to you but people who places the highest standards and expectations on a relationship. Whether this be a partner or friendship have most unhappiest relationships with people. The standards they set are at a level which nobody is ever going to obtain and achieve. By doing this the individual who sets such out of reach standaards is always going to be unhappy.

Are you beginning to see the point yet?

So do you want to try again?

Of course putting someone on a pedestal is dangerous as they're bound to fall off it at some stage, and it could be a long fall.

Indeed rags, so if someone places so many hugh standards on nearly everything, they are going to find many things problematic for them are they not?
So if there is little wiggle room on this, is such a person going to tend to be far more prejudiced than most on a great many things?

It's interesting that some people say the answer depends on who drew the circle rather than who is looking at it.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's interesting that some people say the answer depends on who drew the circle rather than who is looking at it.

I agree, and how they only made a choice on an adult and a child.
What about someone blind?
Someone who has no hands and only is able to use their teeth to draw?
So you have raised the very best point so far.
See how people already place a sterotype and standard on the circle itself?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's interesting that some people say the answer depends on who drew the circle rather than who is looking at it.

Indeed.

When a question is asked about what you think of something you don't tend to think of other peoples view just your own and how you perceive it rather than different people looking at the same view.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's interesting that some people say the answer depends on who drew the circle rather than who is looking at it.

I agree, and how they only made a choice on an adult and a child.
What about someone blind?
Someone who has no hands and only is able to use their teeth to draw?
So you have raised the very best point so far.
See how people already place a sterotype and standard on the circle itself?

I'm actually finding this thread interesting, despite the variations in interpretation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

I agree, and how they only made a choice on an adult and a child.
What about someone blind?
Someone who has no hands and only is able to use their teeth to draw?
So you have raised the very best point so far.
See how people already place a sterotype and standard on the circle itself?

I'm actually finding this thread interesting, despite the variations in interpretation.

So am I Rags.
It still would have been good to see though how people would have decided on whether they viewed this as a circle without knowing there was a study. Even if they view the study as possible or wrong.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm actually finding this thread interesting, despite the variations in interpretation.

So am I Rags.
It still would have been good to see though how people would have decided on whether they viewed this as a circle without knowing there was a study. Even if they view the study as possible or wrong.

I think that if I had read your first post only, I would still have difficulty choosing one of those two options. I would have said that I can see it's meant to be a circle but it's very sloppy.

At least that would have still been honest Rags if you had answered that way.
Like I say its a shame the thread did not allow for this from the start as the answers would have been very interesting

I put close enough... I Can tell what they mean

But Agree with Victor depends what it's for. If that was my tire for example, No it is not circular enough

I said it was a circle - that is was close enough, because you can clearly see that it's the shape and it's a circle!

I think if you said no, it might show a more literal and pedantic brain lol

eddie wrote:I said it was a circle - that is was close enough, because you can clearly see that it's the shape and it's a circle!

I think if you said no, it might show a more literal and pedantic brain lol

Or could just be that you paint, and know if you painted a circle like that it would look crap 

so, yes its a circle

but its a very bad one
its not circularly pure

wait...are we now being circularly discriminatory?

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:I said it was a circle - that is was close enough, because you can clearly see that it's the shape and it's a circle!

I think if you said no, it might show a more literal and pedantic brain lol

Or could just be that you paint, and know if you painted a circle like that it would look crap 

Nah. I think it's just being too literal. And I'm not.

Anyway, I like wonky circles

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Or could just be that you paint, and know if you painted a circle like that it would look crap 

Nah. I think it's just being too literal. And I'm not.

Anyway, I like wonky circles

i bet that is not the only thing you like wonky

will the circle appologists now crawl out of the wood work to justify its nasty non circularity
whilst the "squareists " reject and condemn it as creating terror in the world of polygons

Lord Foul wrote:will the circle appologists now crawl out of the wood work to justify its nasty non circularity
whilst the "squareists " reject and condemn it as creating terror in the world of polygons

Sorry, am an acute atheist triangle.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:will the circle appologists now crawl out of the wood work to justify its nasty non circularity
whilst the "squareists " reject and condemn it as creating terror in the world of polygons

Sorry, am an acute atheist triangle.

nasty pointy things triangles.....

always trying to stick their points in....

Yes technically its a circle A circle is a simple closed curve which divides the plane into two regions: an interior and an exterior

However it is not a perfect circle where all points are equal distance from the center

One could defined it as "circular"

pfft it looks to me like an attempt by the squareists to convert a circle


someone has been "squareing the circle"

a deplorable practice

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Or could just be that you paint, and know if you painted a circle like that it would look crap 

Nah. I think it's just being too literal. And I'm not.

Anyway, I like wonky circles

i bet that is not the only thing you like wonky

Oy Oy saveloy!