Your personality?

[eliasfrost]

That you've been feeling and acting the same for 3-4 years may be specific to you, but I change all the time (and so does most of the people I surround myself with), one week I'm happy happy and the next week I'm down, but I can't say I have any kind of "personality traits" for that matter (like being introvert or extrovert, it depends on my mood) and to me it's weird that people refer to themselves with terms like intro- or extrovert and then ultimately live up to that definition of themselves (not saying you do but that's been my personal observation over the years), instead of just letting every side of you shine independently.

Mood swings are not evidence of real change. Even i, being an introvert, can act like an extravert when motivated by other extraverts. But at the end of the day, i'm still me. The truth is people rarely change, as history has shown. There are blatant patterns to human action--even non-human action--, hence why many things can be predicted.

It's not that people define themselves as either-or, but, rather, they recognize that they match the description of these terms. Indeed, why would you claim you're "happy" or "not happy"? It is no different than claiming to be an introvert or extravert. If you're against descriptions like "introvert" or "extravert", why should "happy" or "sadness" be acceptable?

Just to clarify, I'm not against personality, I'm more opposed to the idea of labeling them, instead of recognizing people for what they are, because ultimately labeling spawn bias (most importantly self-bias). That is what I'm opposing, I have never said that people don't have a personality, I think they do and I think they change frequently (I'm basing on personal observation).

The difference between happy/sad and intro/extravert is that the former is feelings while the latter is labels constructed by the human brain to easier categorize people. I'm sure you know that.

[Your Computer]

The difference between happy/sad and intro/extravert is that the former is feelings while the latter is labels constructed by the human brain to easier categorize people. I'm sure you know that.

Why aren't the former "labels constructed by the human brain to easier categorize people"?

[eliasfrost]

The difference between happy/sad and intro/extravert is that the former is feelings while the latter is labels constructed by the human brain to easier categorize people. I'm sure you know that.

Why aren't the former "labels constructed by the human brain to easier categorize people"?

Because you can't feel a label. Now you are just overthinking it.

[Your Computer]

Because you can't feel a label. Now you are just overthinking it.

A type of feeling is no more and no less a reflection of character than a type of personality. They're both by-products of the mind, each referenced by a label decided upon by society. Indeed, if i were to call a happy person a sad person, the only reason anyone would have a question mark over their head from such a statement is because i misused the label "sad." Likewise, if i claim someone to be an introvert as i watch them act like a monkey in a subway train.

This is an average degree of thought for me; it is not me over-thinking. I would see over-thinking as something that requires effort, rather than something that comes plainly to me.

[eliasfrost]

Whatever. I say you are dead wrong though.

[Adrianis]

In other words, you're against the tests and not the terms themselves. The tests merely measure what you're more inclined to do in certain social situations, hence the percentages at the end. What do you consider the percentages to mean?

The terms and percentages are inadequate in the same way - they are both attempts to assign a discrete value to an analogue system. The terms are necessary for us to discuss general themes rather than the specifics, but that's quite common and not really a problem for me.

To say I'm against the tests may be a little strong, too, I don't want you to think I am against research in this area, any progress is progress right? It's just that the test is a tool that can be interesting, but can be misused in the same way that IQ tests have been in the past. The authors of the theory stated ethical guidelines for it's usage, and I have personally observed these guidelines not being followed because the people using the results of the tests did not understand the theory and the ethical considerations.

Continual action implies a pattern, and, obviously, these patterns provide insight and knowledge on human action. We would not be able to provide descriptions on the personality types if these things could not be clearly and continually observed in the first place. Even if the conclusion is merely an assumption, shouldn't it stop being an assumption upon agreement between the observer and the one being observed? Union should lead to full understanding, surely? I wouldn't think that we would forever remain ignorant of our own selves (singular).

I don't believe that a union between the observer and the one being observed would automatically lead to full understanding, because the means of communication between them (and us, as a third party observer to the research) is going to be language, and language is to some degree inherently ambiguous. Something as complex as personality needs something more than that to ensure accuracy. Patterns can give us a glimpse of insight, but again we can only observe certain outward actions, not the thought process running behind it.

Continual action can only be observed through history. From which you'll find many patterns in the way humans interact with each other and the way an individual would act on their own. Would it be any wonder why something like religion would be picked as a prime example for stating obvious human patterns? (Could you not even predict what would happen by merely mentioning the word "religion" in these forums, though i'm not desiring any discussion on religion?)

Patterns can be observed in the way humans interact with each other and the world, yes, but as with my above statement the actual observations we can make are extremely limited even in direct observation of a living person. Consider how reliable our sources actually are in terms of peoples personalities, derived from a loose series of recorded actions from even 100 years ago, let alone 500, 1000 etc. We can make assumptions, but there are few facts to be had.

Whether or not major religions created a series of common interactions, or were created by a series of common interactions is up for debate, but personally I do not see it as a useful subject for exploring personalities in history, only social interaction.

Fully understanding the human mind may touch on areas beyond determining personalities, so i wouldn't be inclined to admit that as a necessity for describing, let alone predicting, human action.

Human actions are observable, the personalities that contribute to the action are not - they must be derived from the action, and I consider this test to be frightfully incapable of doing this, due to the reasons Chronofox refers to.

While it may be true that truth contains no falsehoods, and that two contradicting things cannot be both true at the same time, i wouldn't be so quick as to pass off truth--albeit, doing so in this case may be a red herring. In fact, thinking about it more, i'm inclined to retract my previous statement and say that people do not change at all.

I think your taking it too far here. It is clear that personalities can be radically changed by extremely traumatic events. I appreciate you may mean, changing of their own accord, but I think all changes to personality, emotion etc are always affected by environment, so suggesting that there is no change at all -from birth til death, regardless of events during life - is inaccurate.

There is one thing i've observed across every human being, and that is all humans act logically. As simple and as counter-intuitive as that may sound, i've found it to be consistent. However, this is not to say that what they did at the time was in fact logical, but that to themselves at least it was logical and that every action is driven by desire; even if their response is, "I don't know," when asked, "Why did you do that?" As i see it, all actions to have ever been committed by humans have spawned from this one thing. While it may allow for many possibilities, that is, many actions, it most certainly isn't an infinite amount of possibilities.

Therefore, i would argue all the things that a human is capable of doing has either already been done or is merely trivial in difference.

Fair enough. I can't account for your experiences, but mine do not suggest logic is being used at every step of human action. Logic is a very specific structure which draws a conclusion from a set of premises, but the premises must be complete enough for a final conclusion to be arrived at with absolute certainty. I frequently observe people misusing this structure, as well as people using it accurately, but only during discussions - there may be some internal premises being considered for other physical actions, perhaps subconsciously, but I do not know what they are, so I can't comment on whether the action itself is logical or not. Unfortunately, I don't think you can either.


Edit: Sorry for the wall, guys

[The chaser]

What I think about it:

They remark and they usually shape you well enough, but there are lots of variables (thousands, perhaps millions) which differ from the test. You just don't know who you are with a few questions, you would need a kilometric test for that.

Human mind is weird and complicated.

[Deep One]

Human mind is weird and complicated.

Not nearly as weird as Dolan's mind.

[Your Computer]

The terms and percentages are inadequate in the same way - they are both attempts to assign a discrete value to an analogue system. The terms are necessary for us to discuss general themes rather than the specifics, but that's quite common and not really a problem for me.

But how are the percentages that much different than what you said, that how a person acts is relevant to the situation they're in? I don't see a person acting infinitely different to any given scenario (though, mostly since it is physically impossible for them to do so). The conscious is always the starting point for human action. We know that the conscious is capable of human feelings, but we also know that it is capable of avoiding human feelings. We know that a person will not act without the desire to do so. Etc. The personality types imply these things.

I don't believe that a union between the observer and the one being observed would automatically lead to full understanding, because the means of communication between them (and us, as a third party observer to the research) is going to be language, and language is to some degree inherently ambiguous. Something as complex as personality needs something more than that to ensure accuracy. Patterns can give us a glimpse of insight, but again we can only observe certain outward actions, not the thought process running behind it.

Patterns can be observed in the way humans interact with each other and the world, yes, but as with my above statement the actual observations we can make are extremely limited even in direct observation of a living person. Consider how reliable our sources actually are in terms of peoples personalities, derived from a loose series of recorded actions from even 100 years ago, let alone 500, 1000 etc. We can make assumptions, but there are few facts to be had.

Human actions are observable, the personalities that contribute to the action are not - they must be derived from the action, and I consider this test to be frightfully incapable of doing this, due to the reasons Chronofox refers to.

Perhaps not an all-encompassing full understanding, but i would assume certainly full understanding on the matter at the time, where both parties are willing to share complete information. Indeed, communication is an issue, but i wouldn't claim any language barrier to be the reason but the unwillingness to share information itself. This communication is what will grant us the knowledge behind the thought process. The fact that a third party may act differently would be irrelevant to the two active parties, since the third party is not the one being observed (except perhaps at a later time). I would figure that over a thousand years of communication would generate very reliable material.

I realize your arguments concern mostly the personality tests, which i would agree suffer from artificiality, since they do not cover every single possibility of human action and simply touch on minor social interactions. However, my arguments do not concern the tests themselves, since it was not these tests that brought about the personality types which these tests themselves are based on.

I think your taking it too far here. It is clear that personalities can be radically changed by extremely traumatic events. I appreciate you may mean, changing of their own accord, but I think all changes to personality, emotion etc are always affected by environment, so suggesting that there is no change at all -from birth til death, regardless of events during life - is inaccurate.

Fair enough. I can't account for your experiences, but mine do not suggest logic is being used at every step of human action. Logic is a very specific structure which draws a conclusion from a set of premises, but the premises must be complete enough for a final conclusion to be arrived at with absolute certainty. I frequently observe people misusing this structure, as well as people using it accurately, but only during discussions - there may be some internal premises being considered for other physical actions, perhaps subconsciously, but I do not know what they are, so I can't comment on whether the action itself is logical or not. Unfortunately, I don't think you can either.

The inability to change that i spoke about is the process that generates action from a person. (You split up that part of my speech, but i had intended it to be taken as a whole.) As i see it there are only two possible outcomes: action and non-action. Since action requires effort, it should be obvious that non-action is the default, preferred choice for people. Non-action is simple, bearing only one possibility: "nothing." Action is complex, bearing a long range of possibilities, but are nevertheless limited--and because they are limited it can only be the same acts. So, what is it that causes people to act? Desire: be it a need or a want. This is unchanging between conscious entities--hence "people don't change at all." Even if a person has many desires, the greater desire will be picked first--yeah, even if it endangers the person's life.

That (the entire paragraph) is the primary reason why i say people act logically. To a much lesser degree, another reason would be because they themselves thought their actions were logical at the time--but this lesser degree can be discarded safely in many cases. However, since we know that what they thought they were doing was logical, we know that it is not impossible for us to figure out what was going through their mind at the time even though their actions, in hindsight, were in fact illogical.

[PutraenusAlivius]

The wall of text up there ^ makes me sleepy.