Author Topic: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.  (Read 2703 times)

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2008, 06:50:59 am »
INTJ.

I don’t even need to take the test. I always score INTJ.

Ramsus has a point: The accuracy of these tests is dependent upon the test-taker’s honest and thoughtful responses. Nonetheless, he is mistaken to go so far as conclude that all such tests are merely reflexive statements that yield no new information. Given a competent test-taker, the MBTI-II is a powerful sorter whose results are useful in helping diagnose and properly treat those with psychological problems. Outside of a formal therapeutic setting, this and other such tests also have considerable “fun” value, as evidenced by this thread—a value which can even be used educationally or professionally. I took my first such test in my high school’s career center. I was dumbstruck by how accurate the test was—and, far from telling me nothing new, the phrasing and structure of the test helped to improve my own language when discussing myself and others in temperamental terms.

Ramsus also has a point about the imprudence of invoking famous names. Footnotes are one thing, but letting other people speak in place of oneself is sheer foolishness. Judge ideas on their own merits, and not the reputation of the source. Good advice! (Didn’t I make this very point in the Satanism thread?) However, I once again would not go so far as him as to use this premise to disregard the utility of personality sorters. Just because the test is professionally constructed does not, in and of itself, invalidate it. Nor does taking such a test necessarily demean oneself, as he seems to imply.

Go easy on BROJ. Just because he’s not as far along as you intellectually or in maturity, Ramsus, doesn’t mean you should fault him for making the effort to engage.

Quote from: Krispin
…blah blah blah...skepticism is useless…blah blah blah…gravity is easily disproved…blah blah blah…science is faith-based…blah blah blah…believe the experts because they’re the experts…blah blah blah…

Yeah. Nicely put. :roll:

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2008, 07:40:23 am »
Sorry for the delay--other pressing matters.

I suppose I'd better end this escapade.

That was directed towards MsBlack.

I didn't even address it, so why the concern? Actually, I find it somewhat awkward that you feel the need to break down everything I write into little discrete parts to address individually. Why not take the unifying whole for what it is and just forget the unrefined details?

Quote
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?

Then keep your responses to separate people more clearly separated.

Quote
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?

I still don't see why this has to be split up like this...

When were you asking me for a better argument? And an argument of what? If you don't agree with my criticisms, then you don't agree with them, you explain how, and I try to see how you see things. If you don't understand some aspect of my criticism and choose to point it out specifically, then I attempt to rethink and reword them as to explain myself better. Eventually I come to see what I was really getting at, and what you were saying. Where is the battle to guard ones honor?

Also, this part seems like it should have been unified with the rest of your post, so that you could have made a more cohesive point of saying something meaningful, like, "I see how you might have categorized me according to the trend you mentioned, but that isn't the case. Really I was just addressing your criticism out of a disregard for fallacies, of which I felt your criticisms might have been based on."

Maybe that's not what you mean, but in that case, I really don't see what it is you're trying to say. As in, what's your main point again? This also makes me worried that I've been too verbose and loose in my thinking, leaving you with no clear idea of what the main point is in my replies... and maybe that's the reason you've resorted to splitting up my posts like this and addressing minor details.

Quote
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.

I've offered my thoughts and criticisms completely honestly and openly as I see them. This isn't a private issue, and there are no direct questions that came to mind in this case. You can't ask someone about the subconscious aspects of their thinking, as they can only be revealed by forcing their thinking into the open. Don't think I haven't found problems with my thinking in these discussions either.

Quote
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.


Are you calling everything you quoted just then fallacy? Or did the offense of suggesting the wrong motive make the rest of the paragraph -- the main point -- completely worthless of addressing? Or do you accept the main point, take offense at the suggested motive, and merely reply as to clarify yet another minor detail?

Were you trying to tell me something or simply throw out some catchy rhetoric so that this part you've divided but don't intend to seriously address isn't simply omitted?

In fact, if you split up another's post to reply, then why not quote only those specific parts that you are replying to? I'm beginning to question if I understand you at all by this point. A short and clear summation of how you see things and what you think of the thoughts we've shared here would be very helpful

Quote
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.

I don't understand what you mean by your arguments' rub, but certainly the loose style of writing I've fallen into as of late must bother you to a degree. I dislike the tone it carries, but I keep to it as I don't have time to edit as much these days.

Quote
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]

The labeling of oneself with mere adjectives and nouns doesn't necessitate a reflective nature, but merely that you have a general idea of what kind of person you are (or were). If you are deeply reflective, then why not say, "Every day I think of the things I do, the people I meet, and things I see, and I consider the span of time given to me, the meaning of my life, and use it those specific experiences to understand my nature, and the very way that I think to the point where I know in detail why I think what I think and feel what I feel and do what I do, and thus have the power to change."

That is the only reason I would question the sincerity and depth of your self-reflection.

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.

The purpose of your words -- of most of your posts -- is to scorn and embarrass. Maybe you think you're being insightful, but all you do is spew rhetoric and only on things you think you have the upper edge on.

In that sense, you're only pretending to be right, as you are needlessly self-righteous, because you have no real purpose justifying your posts other than your own selfish desire to knock down others.


...

I used to criticize Josh for using too many words to express his thoughts, but you take it twice as far. My apologies, but it might be some time before I reply to that, as I'd like to read it carefully first.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 09:08:04 am by Ramsus »

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2008, 08:16:26 am »
Go easy on BROJ. Just because he’s not as far along as you intellectually or in maturity, Ramsus, doesn’t mean you should fault him for making the effort to engage.

If I've been rather rigid and extreme, it's because my thinking this evening has been rather messy and moved by emotion, otherwise I'd have been clearer and properly moderate in my criticisms and analysis.

Also, my original criticism was much sharper than it might have been had this particular site not been coasting on the reputation of carefully crafted official MBTI tests and a deeply involved types theory that they turn into yet another everyone-wins feel-good personality quiz. Sure, it's fun, but for really understanding oneself, one should at least take the real thing and read something with some real detail that describes the results.

There's nothing to even suggest that the questions on this site's test have been subjected to any amount of statistical study, that there's a sufficient number of them, and that the test isn't skewed by the questions you don't feel you can decide on but can't skip and thus have to choose arbitrarily.

The idea that being similar in form to the real thing automatically gives this anywhere near as much validity simply buys into the marketing spin designed to make that site money and bothers me to the point where that I temporarily shift my opinion to something of an extreme. Being that I'm pretty critical of this category of test to begin with, extreme means throwing it all out the window for the day and attempting to completely debunk the real thing too.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 08:20:05 am by Ramsus »

Ramsus

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2008, 09:07:19 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.


Deep reflection requires us to constantly reflect upon every action of significance on a regular basis, usually daily, so that it be integrated into the very act of doing in and of itself. That way, everything we think, feel, and does not go untouched by our consideration, and we carry out each of these with understanding.

In this way, it's important to reflect not just on things we regret, as we might miss important strengths to make future habit as well as unknown weaknesses we aren't inclined to notice.

Also, I think you misinterpret what it is that I'm doubting.

The idea that a concept has authority for being long-standing only holds value when there have been many great people of understanding around to question it. Would a shallow-rooted tree be considered sturdy and strong if it lasted a thousand years, only because there was no gust of wind or torrent of rain to knock it down and pull it from its roots? I would not consider such a tree to be well "established."

But when possible, I choose to understand than to lend authority to some other person, and if I should have to do the latter, I am very careful in who and what I lend authority to.

And honestly, I don't trust very many people to have found an understanding of personality psychology (though, my particular area of distrust is developmental psychology). I'm not discounting any idea for the sake of doubt, but because I simply don't agree with it somehow.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 09:14:19 am by Ramsus »

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2008, 03:16:24 pm »
Quote from: Ramsus
Quote from: Daniel Krispin on Today at 03:17:49 AM
...


I used to criticize Josh for using too many words to express his thoughts, but you take it twice as far. My apologies, but it might be some time before I reply to that, as I'd like to read it carefully first.

Sorry about that. :( But thanks for the reply nonetheless. I'll try to be more brief in my replies in the future, if I can, or at any rate more to the point.

Thanks for the explanation. That does make sense, and I see what you mean. What you meant was rather more subtle than I'd taken to it be on both accounts. It's a very, very good point you make regarding the authority of an unquestioned expert.

Quote from: Lord J
Quote from: Krispin
…blah blah blah...skepticism is useless…blah blah blah…gravity is easily disproved…blah blah blah…science is faith-based…blah blah blah…believe the experts because they’re the experts…blah blah blah…

Yeah. Nicely put.


Aw, come on. I didn't say it quite like that. All that I meant was I'm aware that there has to be a certain bit of irrationality in making a knowledge claim about anything. That doesn't, in my mind, invalidate it, but it's neccessary for expedience. I'm just saying, in a matter where you know less than someone who has studied it, it isn't shameful to believe them because they are an expert. They might be wrong, but they have definitely studied it more than you, so have a higher chance of being right. Being an expert doesn't always mean something, but often does. There is a reason in papers that quotes of peer reviewed sources are better liked than, say, a quote off of wikipedia. However, I see now that Ramsus is right in what he said. If the authority has been mostly unchallenged in its progression, then skeptcism is warranted. Nor did I say skepticism is useless, Lord J. Do you have to take everything I say to the absurd extreme of it? I was only, in my ignorance of Ramsus' meaning, admonishing a more proper use of skepticism. I think this is part of why you hate me so: everything you read by me you see to be far more total and judgemental than I say it. As it is I didn't say, nor believe, any of those points (expect gravity, but I wager you took the statement wrong) you interspersed with ... . Indeed, I'd say them to be figments of your imagination, and as such it might well be a sort of imaginary character that you usually combat in me. That's alright, I suppose, but you've set me up as far more potent than I am. Make you more frustrated in the answering, and me more frustrated in the rebuttle.

By the way, gravity IS easily disproved, so far as an invisible force goes. That's not me being 'unscientific'. It still is a very useful way of thinking about things. I was running around the other day with considerations of gravitational fields in my head, as I said. But every time I say that I think you think I mean that I'm doubting the corpus of our evidencial learning. I'm not. Or, at least, I understand full well that a concept like gravity is a very useful tool. But the fact remains, and this is a point I learned in philosophy, the idea of 'gravity' is rathter like a 'God of the gaps.' Why do you need an invisible force that causes things to fall? That is, things do fall with regularity given certain conditions, that observation cannot be doubted. But what gives us to assume that there is a grand, invisible force, touching everything, that causes this to happy? Why does it require an EXTRA cause beyond mere cause and effect? In essence, gravity is overcomplicating things. Understand what I mean by that? I'm not saying the observed effects don't exist. They most certainly do. But what proof do we have for a force? None. We can only prove that there is the effect, and that it is standard everywhere. Anyway, I'm just recalling this to you. You know your philosophy, you've probably come across this idea before. I think this comes up in Kant, which is probably where I get this thought from. I know you've read Kant, so you probably know this yourself. You probably just misunderstood me.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2008, 07:36:12 pm »
I've taken the time to reflect upon what I 'value' and shall strive to be. These, in no certain order, are the values that I have learned over the course of my life─some of which have been learned here, implicitly and explicitly, from Josh, Ramsus, Thought, and others.

Balance in All Things: To know that without 'balance', things such as Reason, Peace, and Progress are not truly possible.

Nobility through Freedom: To know that one has a place in the order of things and that one can only be worthy through proving oneself.

Illumination: To never stop 'growing'─learning and expanding in all areas of intelligence.

Curiosity: To not fear the questioning of things simply because they are.

Courage: To engage with resolve and confidence, even when knowing the consequences, and to know that without it, very few things are possible.

Wisdom: To only participate in things that have potential victory, even if it entails defeat; and to avoid things that aren't capable of such ends. Also to know what one is capable of before engaging.

Clarity: To know the relationship between thought and action and how to control both.

Empathy: To understand the goals, methods, and intentions of others and to help others become fulfilling in themselves and in their actions that affect, yet further others.

Honor: To respect the said and unsaid rules agreed upon in any engagement. However, it is important to know that the  style of an engagement and rules of said engagement are mutually inclusive─i.e. if the rules change; so to, does the engagement.



Quote from: Lord J
Ramsus also has a point about the imprudence of invoking famous names. Footnotes are one thing, but letting other people speak in place of oneself is sheer foolishness. Judge ideas on their own merits, and not the reputation of the source. Good advice! (Didn’t I make this very point in the Satanism thread?) However, I once again would not go so far as him as to use this premise to disregard the utility of personality sorters. Just because the test is professionally constructed does not, in and of itself, invalidate it. Nor does taking such a test necessarily demean oneself, as he seems to imply.
I see my error, but know that I meant to use the precedence of the theories as redundant backup; this does not exemplify me, however, but I shall try to use other's works as tools rather than vehicles from now on.

To Ramsus: I'm sorry for my convoluted, over-complicated writing previously. I seek no unwarranted mercy; however, I've been running on very little sleep lately and MsBlack's posts did nothing to help me focus on your legitimate queries. Please take this post in lieu of my previous statements and, if you want to, continue your questions of me─I have been considering your criticisms and have 'seen' things about myself that I had not noticed before.

Edit:
Quote from: Lord J
INTJ.

I don’t even need to take the test. I always score INTJ.
I figured as much; when I read the overview, I saw the description quite iconic of you. :)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 09:47:19 pm by BROJ »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2008, 08:16:30 pm »
Quote from: Krispin
As it is I didn't say, nor believe, any of those points (expect gravity, but I wager you took the statement wrong) you interspersed with ... . Indeed, I'd say them to be figments of your imagination,

Uh huh. I’m just making these up:

Quote from: Krispin
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.

Quote from: Krispin
By the way, gravity IS easily disproved, so far as an invisible force goes. That's not me being 'unscientific'.

Quote from: Krispin
All that I meant was I'm aware that there has to be a certain bit of irrationality in making a knowledge claim about anything. That doesn't, in my mind, invalidate it, but it's neccessary for expedience.

Quote from: Krispin
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.

I am compelled to reason that you either do not read what you write, or do not understand it. Let’s take ‘em point-by-point:

1. Where skepticism is concerned, you are seemingly speaking only to the special case of “overmuch” skepticism. However, like most religious-thinking folks, you cannot seem to separate the absolute certainty of religious knowledge with the tentative nature of scientific theory. In the real world, we have to be skeptical. We express confidence in well-established scientific concepts simply because, like you said, the base objection “How do you know?” is not an adequate criticism. Where the evidence is concerned, we don’t have to “know,” in the sense of possessing real certitude. Any scientific theory is deemed plausible so long as it does not contradict evidence and does not stray from its point. But all of this is tentative. Skepticism is the default position in science, as it ought to be in all matters of life where objective determinations take precedence over artistic or emotional preferences. There is nothing wrong or “useless” in being skeptical about nearly everything. It’s no shame to admit “I don’t know.”

When we do talk about scientific truths, it is because we have a near-absolute understanding of the subject matter. We know the number of protons in iron. We know the bond energy of water. We know that pressure drops inside a fluid flow. We “know” these things because we have measured them and can make accurate predictions based upon the measurements. At this point, any inaccuracy in the associated knowledge would require the introduction of new information, the existence of which cannot be presumed logically.

2. This brings us to your second statement, that gravity is easily disproved. For evidence, you offer:

Quote from: Krispin
Why do you need an invisible force that causes things to fall? That is, things do fall with regularity given certain conditions, that observation cannot be doubted. But what gives us to assume that there is a grand, invisible force, touching everything, that causes this to happy? Why does it require an EXTRA cause beyond mere cause and effect? In essence, gravity is overcomplicating things. Understand what I mean by that?

I do understand what you are saying, nor is it complete gibberish, at least conceptually. But try to take that to any 5th grade science teacher and use it as “proof” that the theory of gravity is flawed, and you’ll either be patiently corrected or laughed out of the classroom. The mere proposal of an idea that is possibly logically plausible does not count as empirical evidence for or against anything, nor is yours properly structured as a theory—meaning that not only can it not disprove, but it cannot even compete. Yet you have now stated and affirmed your belief that you, Daniel Krispin, have cornered gravity. You mentioned that you learned your wonderful ideas in philosophy class. Well: Beware of philosophers who try to criticize advanced scientific theories.

Next we come to your statement that science is faith-based. In fairness, you didn’t actually say that. However, what you did say is far worse: You said that all knowledge is faith-based because it requires “a certain bit of irrationality.” Not only are you stupendously wrong about this, but, even in some parallel universe where misery had conspired to make you right, you would still be wrong!

Every person is required to make one leap of faith in their life: This is the affirmation of “I think, therefore I am,” which allows one to parlay one’s own consciousness so as to be able to accept one’s experiences as valid in some undefined context. But this is a leap of faith only in the logical sense that it rejects the extreme conclusion of nihilism, and covers a thin area in philosophy. From a practical standpoint, accepting one’s own existence is the default position.

3. Now, to go to the point of accepting one’s experiences to the farther point of accepting any portion of the knowledge gleaned from those experiences, requires nothing more than the rejection of solipsism, which, unlike the nihilistic claim, is vulnerable to charges of absurdity. Whatever the nature of the reality around us, it is the reality we experience, and our experiences are reliably communicable to those with whom we interact, not to mention consistent with our environment. This is why I say you would be wrong even if you were right: The aforementioned “undefined context” of one’s experiences (i.e., is it a true reality, or a dream, or some kind of Matrix…) nevertheless functions as a plausible objective reality, and, absent contradicting information, objective and subjective overlap here well enough to use them interchangeably—for the very same reason that the question “How do you know?” is not legitimate in and of itself. This is one of the best instances to invoke Occam’s Razor, although I wouldn’t bother.

Having accepted one’s existence and the legitimacy of one’s experiences, no further ambiguities are required, ever. One could go to the grave having never said anything more logically egregious than “I believe in myself.”

4. Lastly there is your statement about accepting authority because it is authority. Well, that’s easily debunked. Look once again at your quote:

Quote from: Krispin
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.

What you are effectively saying is that it is not appropriate to disagree with authority until one has the means to do so coherently. (You say “cogently,” but misuse the term here.) This is, of course, a fallacy, because the knowledge of the questioner has no bearing on the integrity of the claim of the authority. This is why a skeptical stance is so important in the life of a thinking person. Also, I notice that this simple ethic is the kind of tentative thinking that religious-thinking people have the hardest time understanding. Fascinating.

Interesting comments from BROJ, too. But I'll leave that for Ramsus.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2008, 10:15:30 pm »
Removed pending revision.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 11:02:24 pm by Daniel Krispin »

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2008, 03:56:44 am »


"INFJs are gentle, caring, complex and highly intuitive individuals. Artistic and creative, they live in a world of hidden meanings and possibilities. Only one percent of the population has an INFJ Personality Type, making it the most rare of all the types."

"INFJs enjoy a greater clarity of perception of inner, unconscious processes than all but their INTJ cousins. Just as SP types commune with the object and "live in the here and now" of the physical world, INFJs readily grasp the hidden psychological stimuli behind the more observable dynamics of behavior and affect."

"creative, smart, focus on fantasy more than reality, attracted to sad things, fears doing the wrong thing, observer, avoidant..."

"INFJs tend to be devoted to what they believe in and seek work where their needs, values, and ideals can be deeply engaged. They move on the wave of their inspirations and are determined to see that their values are worked out in their lives. They will work toward their goals individually and, when needed, will put together a team of other highly dedicated people like themselves."

~

Well, let's get to fulfilling those desires, shall we...

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2008, 05:01:56 am »
A visionary attribute for ZeaLitY. Bit surprise there, eh?  :lee:

Kebrel

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Magical Dreamer (+1250)
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
  • नार्य काम संस्कृत
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2008, 05:51:47 am »


So bored right now.

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #41 on: August 02, 2008, 08:41:23 pm »
Again I find myself apologising for presenting juvenile inanities after further contemplation. I apologise, BROJ, for my abrasive presumptions in this thread.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #42 on: August 02, 2008, 08:50:22 pm »
It's alright, I hold no harsh feelings─water under the bridge, as it were. :)

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2008, 01:10:13 pm »
I'm a bit late to the party, but in reading over things I was a bit too amused not to post. I've taken these tests (Myer's-Brigs, and others) several times over the years and I am usually INTP. Usually... but not always; probably around 60-80% of the time. The rest of the time I'm an INTJ. It is always those two, never anything else. Given the other INTJ here and our interactions with each other, you might realize the cause of my amusement.

However, there are two things that I never liked about personality tests.

One is that so often they act like third rate fortune tellers; that is, the personality tests usually flatter the test taker based specifically on what the person wants to be true and not necessarily on what is true.

For example, if the Myers-Briggs test is to be believed, then I am usually an "Architect" and architects are "the most logically and verbally precise." I agree with the tests insofar as I think being logical and verbally precise are wonderful qualities to have and ones that I would like to possess. But the question is, then, if I, and not just architects in general, am logically and verbally precise. The test, being multiple choice, has no way of actually determining my own abilities in those areas (one would need an essay test at the least); it merely defines what I would value and, by stating that Architects usually fulfill those ideals and that I in turn am an architect, flatters me by suggesting that I am those things. To put things “logically,” the tests usually lead us into the following thinking: some B are C, A is B, therefore A is C, where A is the test taker, B is their result, and C are the values that A holds in high esteem.

This inherent flattery in the system is also part of the reason why, on occasion, some individuals do think that the tests have a "correct" result. The result we get most closely suits our particular desires. Because we value the ideals the test implies that we have, we also undervalue the ideals that the test does not imply that we have (for example, I am not sad in the least that I am not “Sensing”). Thus, when one gets a result, one will naturally be very pleased with it and think it a good and fine result. It is a small step from there to then think that that result is the best and the others are the booby prize.

The other thing that I dislike about personality tests is that they so seldom include the negative aspect of each type. Using myself again as an example, supposedly I am an architect who is "logically and verbally precise." I highly suspect my written verbosity is partially a result of my attempts to be precise. But therein resides a problem. By attempting to be precise, I fail most miserably at being concise, which is very divisive to the goal of being understood (and if one is not understood, then it doesn't matter how precise one is).

There was a third thing I used to dislike about these tests, but I got over that. I chafed at the idea that someone could so easily define me and that, what worse, they could group me in with other people. These tests in some way rob us of the idea that we are utterly unique in the world, that we defy explanation. In short, these tests can hurt people emotionally. It took me a while to overcome that flaw in myself, but I like to think I have been successful for the most part. I certainly no longer hate personality tests for that reason.

But now to turn from dislike, one of the things I like about personality tests is that they help us understand ourselves a little better. It is unlikely that a personality test will ever tell a person something about themself that they didn't already know, but the test might put that "something" into words where the individual had only a vague conception that they never pegged down. These sorts of tests can provide us with new ways of looking at ourselves. But having said that, these new ways are only the beginning. We might have a new way of looking at ourselves, but unless we actually take the time to look and follow what we find to where such an investigation might lead us, then it is really a waste of time

Katie Skyye

  • Poet of El Nido
  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 575
  • And you'll never catch her...
    • View Profile
    • Katie Skyye's Deviantart
Re: Official MyPersonality Thread─post your personality profiles here.
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2008, 02:26:14 pm »
Quote
INTJ - The "Strategist" Jung/Myers/Briggs Personality Types (Free Test)

INTJs are introspective, analytical, determined persons with natural leadership ability. Being reserved, they prefer to stay in the background while leading. Strategic, knowledgable and adaptable, INTJs are talented in bringing ideas from conception to reality. They expect perfection from themselves as well as others and are comfortable with the leadership of another so long as they are competent. INTJs can also be described as decisive, open-minded, self-confident, attentive, theoretical and pragmatic.


They are also the types to stay in the background and have others do their work for them...as I've known several people like this, including myself. It's not really something to be proud of, but I've found it's easy to manipulate people when they think you're intelligent.

I try not to do it any more...