Your personality?

[Your Computer]

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)

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?

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.

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).

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?)

"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.

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.

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.

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.