Author Topic: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.  (Read 2702 times)

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2008, 11:48:43 pm »
Now that I don't base my behavior on theories, but like you, reflection. Math, logic, and the arts are my strengths. Philosophy, history, and composition are weaknesses--all of which I am currently strengthening. I, merely, hate when people 'officially' pose a counter argument with actually having 'earned' the right to do so vis a vis actual studies and evidence.

Do you really devote that much time to understanding yourself in reflection? Given that you immediately consider strengths and weaknesses in terms of academic ability as opposed to behaviors, habits, virtues, or characteristics, you probably have a lot more use for a test like this than you know.

Also, unlike you, I won't defer just to credentials or standings. Einstein may be regarded as a genius, but I judge relativity by merit of understanding it, and then call Einstein a genius. I consider one's research after I know their methods, and then with an eye for criticism, wait to see those results replicated. There is simply too much flawed research and too many who have studied things superficially and know only the names of things without understanding their meaning to take anyone as authoritative.

As such, throwing famous names around and saying, "based on the work of X and X" doesn't mean much to me, mostly since that entails the added requirement that the people doing the basing understood X and X properly to begin with. Not until I've read those works, invited their thoughts as they might have seen them into my own thinking, looked over how they did their research, and checked the responses of critics and supporters will such attributions hold any meaning to me, and then with the added benefit that I can judge just how well something is really "based on the work of X and X."

That you would rather take things as authoritative by virtue of having been acclaimed for some short span of half a century is something that bothers me much more than someone who would honestly criticize the ideas themselves, especially when in that same half century there has been much similar criticism.

You should judge ideas on their own merits, and not the reputation of their source.

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2008, 11:49:55 pm »
(Originally appended to reply #14, but now added as a separate reply due to Ramsus' subsequent message)

Ah, BROJ's most recent post highlights something: 'ad hominem' is an abbreviation (as I'm sure many of you know) of 'argumentum ad hominem', which is a fallacy referring to when an argument is stated or suggested to be false due to the nature of the one proposing it. Defamation by itself does not constitute 'ad hominem'.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2008, 11:59:58 pm »
Do you really devote that much time to understanding yourself in reflection?
Why not, I often do things I regret--why skate around the issue.

Given that you immediately consider strengths and weaknesses in terms of academic ability as opposed to behaviors, habits, virtues, or characteristics, you probably have a lot more use for a test like this than you know.
Merely examples. If you'd like something else; I'm sometimes hot-headed, insensitive, and down-right stubborn. Need more? I value Honor, Justice, Freedom, Curiosity, Self-Awareness, among others.

Also, unlike you, I won't defer just to credentials or standings. Einstein may be regarded as a genius, but I judge relativity by merit of understanding it, and then call Einstein a genius. I consider one's research after I know their methods, and then with an eye for criticism, wait to see those results replicated. There is simply too much flawed research and too many who have studied things superficially and know only the names of things without understanding their meaning to take anyone as authoritative.
Credentials, no. Support is more like it; like prepackaged 'back-up' for my statements.

Ramsus, I've no reason to argue with you as the argument means nothing as I'm... not in disagreement with you.


I suppose I'd better end this escapade.

Quote from: x_XTacTX_x link=topic=5592.msg101320#msgIdle101320 date=1214620454
Why are you trying to start conflict? As BROJ said, if you don't like these kinds of things, then simply leave the thread and don't participate. Nothing good comes from hanging around to heckle at it.

'If you don't like my kind of posts, then simply ignore them and don't comment. Nothing good comes from posting around to heckle them.'

Quote from: Wikipedia
Heckler
A heckler is a person who shouts an uninvited comment, usually disparaging, at a performance or event, or interrupting set-piece speeches, for example at a political meeting. A heckler is almost always regarded as unwelcome by the person with justifiable claim to be the centre of attention. The audience too usually finds the interruption an unwanted distraction; however they may sometimes find the interjection amusing or apposite.
Ah, BROJ's most recent post highlights something: 'ad hominem' is an abbreviation (as I'm sure many of you know) of 'argumentum ad hominem', which is a fallacy referring to when an argument is stated or suggested to be false due to the nature of the one proposing it. 'Personal attacks' do not constitue an ad hominem.
Quote from: Babylon English Dictionary
directed at a person's emotions or personal sensitivities as opposed to rationale or objective facts (especially as in a court trial, whether in appeal or in attack)

Edit:I'm going to leave my profile here as the arguments contained herein are moot. Way to troll and ruin a thread!

« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 12:14:15 am by BROJ »

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2008, 12:22:47 am »
I think I see: I do some things that might lower your 'e-cred', so I'm automatically in the wrong.

Your accusations of ad hominem with your provided definition are ambiguous, so I'm 'not even gonna go there'. And then there's the accusation of heckling. Assuming your definition, your accusation unravels because my comment is not any more uninvited than your making this topic, disparagement is not inherently wrong and I'm not hindering the proceedings. So, trying to beat me with the good book (the dictionary, naturally) failed.

Feel free to stop playing the victim and trying to make me seem like the bad one (or perhaps I should say, 'Chaotic Evil one'). Ah, but wait -- you must maintain your e-cred. Carry on.

(And of course, while writing this reply, I see BROJ has taken the moral high ground, I'm now also a troll and I'm apparently a thread ruiner. Shame on me.)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 12:25:11 am by MsBlack »

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2008, 12:28:01 am »
Do you really devote that much time to understanding yourself in reflection?
Why not, I often do things I regret--why skate around the issue.

Given that you immediately consider strengths and weaknesses in terms of academic ability as opposed to behaviors, habits, virtues, or characteristics, you probably have a lot more use for a test like this than you know.
Merely examples. If you'd like something else; I'm sometimes hot-headed, insensitive, and down-right stubborn sometimes. Need more? I value Honor, Justice, Freedom, Curiosity, Self-Awareness, among others.

Also, unlike you, I won't defer just to credentials or standings. Einstein may be regarded as a genius, but I judge relativity by merit of understanding it, and then call Einstein a genius. I consider one's research after I know their methods, and then with an eye for criticism, wait to see those results replicated. There is simply too much flawed research and too many who have studied things superficially and know only the names of things without understanding their meaning to take anyone as authoritative.
Credentials, no. Support is more like it; like prepackaged 'back-up' for my statements.

Ramsus, I've no reason to argue with you as the argument means nothing as I'm... not in disagreement with you.


I suppose I'd better end this escapade.


You really don't have to say that this isn't an argument, because that isn't what I see it as either.

I would have simply posted my first post as some honest criticism, and maybe some results of the quiz if I had gotten over some of those criticisms, but I was intrigued to read things like, "to call them mere bunk, is to discount long-standing theories of personality and intelligence," and, "I was actually surprised how 'well' I had fit into the Intellectual category," and some others things you've said here. As such, I wanted to probe you a bit and drag your thinking out into the open. Something about it reminded me of some of the disturbing modern trend for people, particularly students, to accept things superficially with nothing more than shallow thought and grant unquestioned authority to established thinking and ideas, and especially those of revered individuals and institutions (despite many of those same individuals being quite the opposite themselves), and I wonder if you might fall into the same trend in your readiness to defend convention and keep things "on topic."

However, my diversion seems to have done nothing more than antagonize you to the point of despair (something along the lines of, "I just want to have fun, so why are you making me talk about this nonsense?" I'm guessing...) and invite others to jump in an jeer, as though this were some silly game of wits to pad egos.

Also, your examples as far as reflection and understanding yourself goes still seem shallow and lacking, and my questioning of how much time you spend in reflection was one of doubt, as in to say, "I really don't think you spend much time at all in deep reflection." I am reaffirmed in this belief by your association with reflection as a mere reaction to regretful action.



INFP - The "Dreamer"

INFPs are introspective, private, creative and highly idealistic individuals that have a constant desire to be on a meaningful path. They are driven by their values and seek peace. Empathetic and compassionate, they want to help others and humanity as a whole. INFPs are imaginitive, artistic and often have a talent for language and writing. They can also be described as easygoing, selfless, guarded, adaptable, patient and loyal.


(Originally appended to reply #14, but now added as a separate reply due to Ramsus' subsequent message)

Ah, BROJ's most recent post highlights something: 'ad hominem' is an abbreviation (as I'm sure many of you know) of 'argumentum ad hominem', which is a fallacy referring to when an argument is stated or suggested to be false due to the nature of the one proposing it. Defamation by itself does not constitute 'ad hominem'.

Your posts are so limited in scope as to be insignificant in meaning and nothing more than inflaming in content. I'd appreciate it if you didn't add your noise when I'm trying to have a discussion, especially when it contributes nothing more than you pretending to be right about everything.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 12:41:24 am by Ramsus »

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2008, 12:42:59 am »
Your posts are so limited in scope as to be insignificant in meaning and nothing more than inflaming in content. I'd appreciate it if you didn't add your noise when I'm trying to have a discussion, especially when it contributes nothing more than you pretending to be right about everything.

Actually, I initially wished to attempt to find out BROJ's intentions in creating this thread and see if my initial suspicions were correct, which, if your posts are acceptable, would apparently be acceptable. Of course, I went about that in a blunt way which caused BROJ to take offence and make him start sputtering a load of hot air. I suspect that by 'adding noise' you mean 'causing a disturbance', which seems a pretty silly complaint. All of my messages had a point, just as all the others in his topic did. If I'd just been slagging BROJ off with base insults, perhaps you'd have a valid complaint, but it seems all the 'noise' has actually been due to BROJ's 'decisions' to become antagonised by my replies.

I'm pretending to be right about everything? Care to demonstrate that? The ball's in your court.

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8340
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2008, 12:48:58 am »
*starts to think Kebrel's post was actually much better than MsBlacks*

"The ball's in your court"? Seriously? Being blunt=/=being an a-hole about it. If you didn't like it or didn't understand his intentions in posting a personality quiz...maybe you should have just said that instead of beating around the bush and being generally douchey...C'mon, this isn't the Analysis forum here...it's just a GD personality quiz...The actual personalities are kind of interesting to read & such, but that's what it boils down to...

But what do I know? Maybe I'm misinterpreting...

x_XTacTX_x

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2079
  • I got myself a Paper Clip.
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2008, 12:58:26 am »
*starts to think Kebrel's post was actually much better than MsBlacks*

"The ball's in your court"? Seriously? Being blunt=/=being an a-hole about it. If you didn't like it or didn't understand his intentions in posting a personality quiz...maybe you should have just said that instead of beating around the bush and being generally douchey...C'mon, this isn't the Analysis forum here...it's just a GD personality quiz...The actual personalities are kind of interesting to read & such, but that's what it boils down to...

But what do I know? Maybe I'm misinterpreting...


Thank You.

Kebrel

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Magical Dreamer (+1250)
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
  • नार्य काम संस्कृत
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2008, 01:06:28 am »
I thought my post was a good post, its about personality and that one line is chalk full of personality.

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2008, 01:20:21 am »
"The ball's in your court"? Seriously?

Yes.

Being blunt=/=being an a-hole about it.

I'm glad you at least understand that.

If you didn't like it or didn't understand his intentions in posting a personality quiz...maybe you should have just said that instead of beating around the bush and being generally douchey...

What made you create this thread, I wonder?

C'mon, this isn't the Analysis forum here...it's just a GD personality quiz...The actual personalities are kind of interesting to read & such, but that's what it boils down to...

The intention of the thread is (to me, at least) suspicious and the apparent premise questionable.

As an aside, after finally realising that registration on the site wasn't confirmed immediately on-screen and registering about 10 accounts, I can't log in anyway.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2008, 02:26:10 am »
Sorry for the delay--other pressing matters.

I suppose I'd better end this escapade.

That was directed towards MsBlack.

You really don't have to say that this isn't an argument, because that isn't what I see it as either.
I realize it was criticism; notice how I took(and am taking) a different stance to you as opposed to MsBlack?

I would have simply posted my first post as some honest criticism, and maybe some results of the quiz if I had gotten over some of those criticisms, but I was intrigued to read things like, "to call them mere bunk, is to discount long-standing theories of personality and intelligence," and, "I was actually surprised how 'well' I had fit into the Intellectual category," and some others things you've said here.
And I gave my counter-reasoning, no? I analyzed the category I was placed in with my apriori understanding of my ego and the parameters were quite similar--that's all. And why is it so dishonorable to ask for a better argument?

As such, I wanted to probe you a bit and drag your thinking out into the open.
Try more direct questions; I'm being honest with you. Why not return the favor? Actually, why not take this into the PM sector, if it's alright with you.

Something about it reminded me of some of the disturbing modern trend for people, particularly students, to accept things superficially with nothing more than shallow thought and grant unquestioned authority to established thinking and ideas, and especially those of revered individuals and institutions (despite many of those same individuals being quite the opposite themselves), and I wonder if you might fall into the same trend in your readiness to defend convention and keep things "on topic."
Don't confuse my disregard for fallacies for fear of going off topic.

However, my diversion seems to have done nothing more than antagonize you to the point of despair and invite others to jump in an jeer, as though this were some silly game of wits.
That is not the case. The rub my arguments were due to the abstractacademic nature of MsBlack's poison to this thread.

Also, your examples as far as reflection and understanding yourself goes still seem shallow and lacking, and my questioning of how much time you spend in reflection was one of doubt, as in to say, "I really don't think you spend much time at all in deep reflection."
Please don't insinuate my values were selfishly developed to promote a 'demi-god'-like appearance(I could care less if you think I'm some shallow, see-thru lemming). All my values were developed, unfortunately, after the expense of others. I cannot change the past unfortunately, and I can't probably control the future either(but I will try by controlling the present.).


Quote from: MsBlack
'm pretending to be right about everything? Care to demonstrate that? The ball's in your court.
Here we go; let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes...
Quote from: MsBlack
The intention of the thread is (to me, at least) suspicious and the apparent premise questionable.
Quote from: MsBlack
All of my messages had a point, just as all the others in his topic did. If I'd just been slagging BROJ off with base insults, perhaps you'd have a valid complaint, but it seems all the 'noise' has actually been due to BROJ's 'decisions' to become antagonised by my replies.


And if I need evidence to back up my allusions, here:

Quote from: MsBlack
What made you create this thread, I wonder? I'm guessing (even if you don't want to admit it or you don't even realise it) that you want to gain some satisfaction by flaunting your own results and perhaps some smugness by seeing others get 'worse' ones* (the Dungeons & Dragons alignment thread comes to mind)*.
That two in one reply.
Quote from: MsBlack
Interesting cop-out there. Why don't you create a thread to compare penis length/vaginal depth while you're at it?*
and that's three.
Quote from: MsBlack
Ah, BROJ's most recent post highlights something: 'ad hominem' is an abbreviation (as I'm sure many of you know)* of 'argumentum ad hominem', which is a fallacy referring to when an argument is stated or suggested to be false due to the nature of the one proposing it. Defamation by itself does not constitute 'ad hominem'.
Oooo; ouch--ad populum. I leave that one out, as it's not what I'm emphasizing.
Listen, I've not ruined any of your threads, but you seem to find it acceptable to do it to me; why is this?
It would seem quite obvious that you are trolling intentionally and...

Quote from: MsBlack
Actually, I initially wished to attempt to find out BROJ's intentions in creating this thread and see if my initial suspicions were correct, which, if your posts are acceptable, would apparently be acceptable.
his are not of the attack archetype.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 03:24:28 am by BROJ »

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2008, 02:42:34 am »
C'mon MsBlack, admit it -- you're just uber bored after Sora's departure.  :wink:

But anyway, I see little grounds for believing that such a harmless thread is born of some sinister self-aggrandizing plot on BROJ's part. Rather, taken in context with the "Which videogame character are you?" and "Where you're coming from" threads, among others, it seems to be an effort at building community; the more we divulge about ourselves, the less cold and distant we seem across the vast chasm of Cyberspace.

Internet communities create a paradox to some extent. In real life, we interact with the people we meet face-to-face and can immediately gauge their personalities to some extent, and if we happen to like those people we can talk about random stuff over a good beer. However, it's extremely difficult to find "real life" people who share one's specific interests, the Chronoverse in our case; and thus we turn to the Internet, which can gather all the disparate Chrono fans the world over into one place. Our commonality should allow us to connect very easily and foster significant new friendships, yet all we see of each other are avatars that imperfectly communicate what we're all about. Our online lives are essentially one big costume ball, and threads like this serve to lift the masks a bit I suppose.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 03:11:08 am by FaustWolf »

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2008, 03:17:33 am »
Faustwolf, you pretty much just summed up my argument and in respect to your statement, I'm going to leave the topic open.
Just, MsBlack, please stop; I'm asking you nicely and out of common decency.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2008, 04:17:49 am »
Quote from: Ramsus
Also, your examples as far as reflection and understanding yourself goes still seem shallow and lacking, and my questioning of how much time you spend in reflection was one of doubt, as in to say, "I really don't think you spend much time at all in deep reflection." I am reaffirmed in this belief by your association with reflection as a mere reaction to regretful action.

Really? I didn't read that from his reply whatsoever. I think it would be quite impossible to gauge one's own character in reflection and not garner that understanding as a response to action. We come to understand ourselves by understanding how we are wont to act and react, and that requires often action that is regretted, as it speaks most clearly to that understanding. Indeed, the fact that he calls himself 'sometimes hot-headed' does not in any way show a lack of relfection. I must add that to merely reflect without having actions to reflect on might lead one to in fact build up some concept of oneself that is entirely based in unreality. As such, I think the far superior form of reflection is in reaction (or, at the very least, solid hypothetical reasoning about how one would react in a given situation), and that to do so in isolation of reaction garners no benefit other than an illusion of oneself not based on truth but rather one one's self-image. But isn't the nature of self-reflection to understand one's self in truth and dispell mistaken self-image? See, Ramsus, I would say that one of the chief goals in reflection is to understand one's flaws so that they can be overcome. And how else rather than in response to regretted actions can that be realised? Just a thought. I don't think BROJ was very much mistaken.

As for your skepticism of the authority of teachers... it might be valid, but where do you draw the line? That is, you've not yourself proven many of the scientific theories you take for valid, yet still believe them. Why is that? There is a certain level of reasonable trust you can put in authority. True, it might not always be correct, but overmuch skepticism garners nothing of use. For example, one can very reasonably disprove the existence of any force of gravity (a simple philosophical point that there is no need for some 'invisible' force to create the effect we observe, and in fact just makes the idea overly complex; it might be useful for prediction, but has not real existence)... yet are you willing to take that sort of skeptical leap, or merely make use of something expedient? The same might go for a thousand other highly proven theories you take for granted. I'd admonish you not entirely admit doubt in the authority of teachers. Convention, Ramsus, is convention for a reason, and usually it's right. If you think it's not, you'd better have a darn good reason other than just generalized doubt for doing so. Otherwise you get into the fringe theories of things, of which sort we have those people who complain about the mainstream historians who don't take seriously their ideas of Atlantis and the like. From what I have found in my time in academics, Ramsus, true, there might be disagreement amongst the 'experts', but that doesn't mean we should despair of putting our trust in them. Most of the time what is 'conventional' does hold up to scrutiny, what is established is established for a reason... at least, that is what I've found in the fields that I have expertise in. If you want to doubt it in the off chance they're wrong, fine... but remember that you can't prove the existence of anything you see, either... all your senses are merely self-affirming data. By the standard you seem to favour, you can't trust that either.

My apolgies, but I have a slight bit of antagonism for the concept that academic authority shouldn't be take for what it is. Yes, it can be questioned, to an extent, but there's a point of absurdity as well. At any rate, the experts have a higher reliability of understanding than the rest. Why not take them as the ground standard? There is nothing wrong in this. Most don't have the ability to intelligently question their knowledge claims (at least not without degenerating into juvenile 'how do you know that' questions ad absurdum), and those who do will do so in a peer reviewed setting. Till such a time as the expert thoughts are found to be in error, there is nothing inherently wrong with taking taught information at face value, at least in a field where you are at that point unlearned and unable to cogently disagree. And since we cannot be experts in all fields at once, there are times in which we will have to simply, for the sake of expedience, assume the correctness and infallibility of our teachers. 

You seemed to be disconcerted by BROJ's reply that it's silly to discount long-standing theory just for the sake of doubt. I, however, will continue to stand by him on that. Unless you can give a specific reason why said theory should be doubted, I will not, nor should I, consider them for flawed. That they are long standing and reputable means far more than you are willing to credit. After all, by what standards to you judge what you see and feel to be real, and no illusion? Amongst the most important discriminating factors, Ramsus, are that the things you experience are 'lasting'... that you see your computer now, and will expect to see it again in an hour. It is likely 'real'. The same criteria might be applied to a theory... if it is long-standing, then it has held up to be 'lasting', and the assumption that it is to be taken for weighty is no different than that which you use to discriminate between a visual observation that something is real and a mere rogue figment of the mind. This is, too, what bounds us in the field of 'reason.' After all, what keeps us adhereing to the theories of Einstein? Of Darwin? What else but that they are established and long-standing, having little yet to shake their foundations (at any rate, nothing to entirely discount them as yet.)? We might not have absolute infallible understanding that these things are true, but there is a certain expedience to believing them. Again, in short, there is a reason things become 'established.' Often it's because they're pretty well the best idea we have in the given point. If you think it's wrong and have a better idea regarding it, by all means, academics is free to criticism. But you better have some strong reasons, because those things became established on strong reasons themselves, and it will take something equal or greater to overcome them. It does happen: the old form of Classicists who believed in the singular genius of Greek culture - this greatness which arose out of nowhere to enrich the world - has been debunked, but that took long generations of work and evidence and study. To merely have been skeptical of the authority of the previous thinkers would have been foolish and useless.

I'm not sure if I've made myself clear. I've got a bloody bad way of rambling, I know, but I get a little wary when people talk about this tyranny of the intellectual authority. That seems to me only one step away from that Zeitgeist video, you know. The problem of merely doubting what authority says is evidenced in that... doubt by people who have no bloody clue what they're talking about. From all that I've experienced in my seven years of academics, I'll say that sometimes it's just expedient to use the best theory at hand. I guess I simply must ask, Ramsus... if this test is flawed, what's a better variant?

But maybe I've misunderstood you. I've kind of tired my mind out lately, and it is rather late. Please, if you feel like it, enlighten me as to your thoughts on the matter.



And to Ms Black, I highly doubt he had any self-aggrandizing motive behind this, unless you count the worth of one character form higher than another. If you do that, it is by and large the product of one's own biases, which might just as well cause one to think the same way apart from the test.

By the way, I'm of the 'Engineer' character type. Interesting. Unfortunately these tests have a slightly difficult time reading me, as I'm too criss crossed. I'm not one of those that can identify securely in sciences or arts, in feeling or thinking... I am usually jumping from one to the other. Mentally ambidexterous, as it were. Sometimes, when I'm writing poetry, I feel more; when I'm designing mechanical systems, I think more. I honestly can't say that I entirely favour arts or sciences more... my heart is drawn to the arts, I suppose, but, say, these last few days... I've been running around with my head in the clouds thinking of the nature of gravitational fields. As such, classifying me is a little difficult. But meh, Engineer is as good as any, I suppose. Though I must add that, as fun as a quiz might be, I generally have an aversion to Psychology, and consider it a sort of bastard child of Philosophy.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 04:20:48 am by Daniel Krispin »

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8340
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2008, 05:02:12 am »
If you didn't like it or didn't understand his intentions in posting a personality quiz...maybe you should have just said that instead of beating around the bush and being generally douchey...

What made you create this thread, I wonder?

That's right, a MODIFIED quoted quote to answer a quote to answer a quote (...quote...?)...! BEHOLD! Everything's at the bottom of the sea! Gone is the magical kingdom of teh Compendium, and all the dreams and ambitions of its people...:P

But anyways, to add a few clichés, 'the cards are all on the table', so let's all just agree 'no harm, no foul' and forget about all this nonsense, eh? >_>