eh, like I said, I'm very skeptical. It might make sense on some intuitive level that, say, the animal you choose is some sort of representation of yourself. But this in itself is really no guarantee that there is any real deep meaning to all of this. From the link I posted earlier about the Rorschach ink blot test:
Now I'm not aware of any real evidence that's been collected on the questions posed in this thread, but the thrust behind them seems to be the same as the Rorschach: a plausible interpretation of the associations one makes used to infer something about one's personality or psychology. But plausibility alone means little, apparently especially so in the case of psychological probes like this, since the Rorschach test is so plausible but has not been shown to be very useful.
And really, for what it's worth, I think the Rorschach test is much more plausible than this test-- why is it at all plausible that one's attitude towards bodies of water should correlate with one's sexual attitudes? If this comes from Freudian or Jungian traditions, the same problem crops up of actually grounding the theory in experiment and fact.
It might even well be that for at least some of the questions, for some of the people who answer them, there is something going on that makes the intended inference valid, e.g. for a particular person it might be the case that that person's psychology is such that the animal adjectives he chooses really do reflect his self-attitude, for whatever reason. But even if this is the case occasionally, I highly doubt that there is some universal, intercultural (or even intracultural) mechanism of human psychology that makes these intended inferences valid across all, or even most, people.
Poor hypnagogue is trying to be serious here. Shape up, floppy. 
What's wrong with a little chortle?? *nervous titter*
