Following in the long line of advice givers ““ tarot cards,
horoscopes, Dr. Phil ““ comes www.journalgenie.com, a new Web
site that analyzes and responds to journal entries within seconds.
Whether this is every Bridget Jones’ worst nightmare or dream
come true, it is now a reality.
Launched last month, Journal Genie essentially takes everyday
live journal sites like Xanga and kicks it up a notch with
interactive feedback. The software program, developed from a
content analysis database acquired by founder and CEO Matthew
Klipstein, scans the journaler’s writing (at least 90 words)
for words and phrases that indicate underlying emotions in 15 major
categories such as anxiety, hostility, hope and human relations.
The categories are scored using a standard deviation consisting of
other users’ scores and presented in a paragraph summary.
“What (Journal Genie) tries to do is write a response that
explains … and gives some insight into what that emotional state
might mean,” said content developer Patti Testerman.
The content analysis database was started in 1969 and is based
on psycholinguistics, which serves to satisfy people’s
curiosity for finding latent meanings and reading between the
lines.
While many other journal sites are public arenas for users to
post their feelings and share ideas with each other, Journal Genie
submissions are completely private, and read only by the
program.
The site has received its share of positive reviews ““
especially from fans who appreciate the immediate feedback ““
but concerns about receiving psychological advice online have also
arisen.
“If I was a student writing to such a Web site, I would be
very cautious of this without getting more information from a more
informed party,” said social psychology Professor Bernard
Weiner. “If it looks too good to be true, it’s not
true.”
Testerman says he believes that Journal Genie is no more
subjective than any real-life psychologist because the latter may
very well be influenced by body language and speech patterns,
whereas content analysis deals exclusively with a person’s
written words.
Some question the site’s ability to adequately pick up on
psychological tendencies and think journalers shouldn’t take
the analysis too seriously.
“To understand people, to psychoanalyze people, you have
to know them relatively well,” said Lauren Zimmerman, a
third-year psychology student. “I’m really skeptical
because, how can a computer program know you and know everything
about your life?”
Journal Genie recently cut its two-week free trial to one week
and charges $4.95 per month after this period, leading to questions
about the site’s motives and validity.
“(The responses) give you a bunch of truisms, and tell you
that your sex life isn’t good enough, that you need to be
more creative. Then you’re thinking, “˜Oh my God, how do
they know this?’ And all they want is more money,” said
Weiner.
Another concern is that because the site judges what the
journalers write, then human nature may cause some people to
attempt to subconsciously, or even consciously, alter their
entries.
“People have a tendency to internalize what people suggest
to them as truth. It’s like the self-fulfilling
prophecy,” said Natalie Agabayani, a first-year
pre-psychology student. “When you think you are being
perceived by others, you change your behavior to fit what you think
others expect of you. Sketchy is a good word for it.”
Sketchy, or just a good time? With additional features, like
analysis of Sen. John Kerry’s and President George W.
Bush’s speeches during their respective campaign trails, as
well as responses to Martha Stewart’s public statements
throughout her trial, the site may serve as an amusing diversion
for users.
“It might not be bad and destructive, but I would also
take it with a grain of salt. I wouldn’t look for too deep of
a meaning in what they are saying,” said Zimmerman. “It
might be fun to do; just don’t take it seriously.”
Testerman agrees.
“At the end of the day, it is about entertainment,”
she said.