Your personality?

[Adrianis]

If you're against descriptions like "introvert" or "extravert", why should "happy" or "sadness" be acceptable?

Because happiness and sadness are emotional reactions relevant to a particular period of time. The point of these tests is to define a personality that, whilst they can change as you say, are definitive to the 'core' of someones personality. The exact problem we are referring to is that Introvert and Extravert are supposed to define the core personality, instead of being reactions relevant to the environment and a period of time as they should be, as Happiness and Sadness are (though one is emotional, the other is personality, linked but not the same)

I very much disagree that history shows us personalities are defined and generally remain unchanged, I think history shows us absolutely nothing of peoples true personalities. I happen to think that I do not fully understand my own personality, and that likewise you do not fully understand yours, and especially that we cannot possibly know each others even if we had known each other personally for an extended period of time. Looking back at loose parts of information about someone provides so little insight into personality that anything we do comment on (in terms of personality of historical figures, famous or not) is assumption.

"The truth is people rarely change"
The truth is something so completely abstract that neither of us could say what it is. Currently, we do not fully understand the human mind, let alone be able to quantify emotions and personalities to the point where we could say whether people 'truly' change or not. Truth requires certainty, and certainty requires absolute proof, not simply logical deductions from assumptions.

As a kind of disclaimer, I do think these tests can be useful to a point, they get people thinking about what their motivations really are, why they act the way they do. I think however that too often they are used as a definitive answer, instead of simply a piece of the puzzle.