Your personality?

[Adrianis]

Response for YC, thoughtfully represented in spoiler form to minimise building of walls

Spoiler below!

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 understand this paragraph... The percentages are what they are, arbitrary numbers attempting to assign a discrete value to what is, as far as we know, an analogue system. There are not infinite possibilties for actions, but again you are talking about actions and not personalities - there are of course not an infinate number of permutations for an action, but there are potentially an infinite number of slight variations between 54% and 55% Introvert (as the test defines it), such as 54.5, 54.555, 54.9458374235243525 etc ad nauseum. This is why I say the tests can be interesting but are not an accurate way of deriving personality, in addition to the inherant innaccuracy of self reported data as Chronofox pointed out

I also take issue with your assertion that 'The conscious is always the starting point for human action', if you know that then you should write a paper on it and become extraordinarily famous for having worked out the origin of human action. How do you account for split-second instinctual actions?

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.

Therein lies the problem. I am talking about personalities and the tests that try to uncover them, and why we can't see the personality from the action. You are talking about human behavior, of which personality is a part, and you seem to be inferring the personality from the action. I have stated previously that I have no problem with personalities or the words we apply to them.

The inability to change that i spoke about is the process that generates action from a person ..... etc

Apologies for splitting your speech previously - my points were relevant to a specific part so I split your comment for readability. Anyone who wants the original in full, please see YC's comment.

What you don't seem to be accepting here is that the process itself changes, as the environment around the person changes - new variables come into play that were not relevant before - such as a decision on whether to eat being affected by a famine, having family members to provide for etc.
However, the entire following paragraph is referring desires as a driving force for action, not how it relates to personality or how personality factors into an action. It is worth noting that desires do indeed change with age - perhaps they always existed, but at certain ages certain desires are not factored into the decision making process.

I do not understand what you mean by action/non-action. If I understand the context correctly, that is, things a human can do, there is no 'non-action', everything is an observable action with - albeit unclear - motivations, even sitting down and 'doing nothing'

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.

The problem is that the data will remain unsatisfactory in that the validity cannot be certified, without mathematical accuracy the results are not reliable. It seems to be enough for many psychologists for sure, but they are in a position where quantifiable facts are currently not available, and therein lies my problem with it. Research is cool, but we can't rely on something like this test to tell us what our personalities are.

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.

Do we know that they thought their actions were logical? How? Could they even explain how a logical conclusion is made? Even if we did know for certain that they thought their actions were logical, and that they could explain how logic works to a degree where we can be sure they are making an accurate assessment, how is it then possible to work out what was the internal thought process?

Edit Disclaimer: I realise I may be speaking too absolutely there - in the future, when we are capable of simulating the very sub-atomic structure of a human being right up to the macro level, we will surely be able to figure out what goes into decision making in the human mind, and whether or not it is a logic structure like a computer. Perhaps we will get there before then, but not now - right now, this is all conjecture.

[PutraenusAlivius]

OFF-TOPIC:
Who is YC? He is a Genius! He has complete control to variables and stuff! WHO ARE YOU?!

[Tiger]

OFF-TOPIC:
Who is YC? He is a Genius! He has complete control to variables and stuff! WHO ARE YOU?!

YourComputer...

[Your Computer]

I suppose i'll put the spoiler tag to work as well.

Spoiler below!

I also take issue with your assertion that 'The conscious is always the starting point for human action', if you know that then you should write a paper on it and become extraordinarily famous for having worked out the origin of human action. How do you account for split-second instinctual actions?

I don't see split-second instinctual actions as a by-product of the unconscious, since that wouldn't make any sense to me. There may be bodily reactions that occur independent of the conscious, but i wouldn't place these reactions on the same level as instinct-based actions. I take it that the main reason why you take issue with my statement is perhaps because you may not see the conscious as something that exists. Though, i'd rather not get into a deep discussion on whether mind is over matter or matter over mind. (Maybe some other time, perhaps in some other thread.)

What you don't seem to be accepting here is that the process itself changes, as the environment around the person changes - new variables come into play that were not relevant before - such as a decision on whether to eat being affected by a famine, having family members to provide for etc.
However, the entire following paragraph is referring desires as a driving force for action, not how it relates to personality or how personality factors into an action. It is worth noting that desires do indeed change with age - perhaps they always existed, but at certain ages certain desires are not factored into the decision making process.

Humans are limited to how they receive information and also on how they can react to that information. But the reason why they chose to react is do to desire to respond to the input. Personality would be what prioritizes the desires people have. Indeed, over time someone who wasn't normally in tune with other people's feelings (a.k.a. a strong Thinking type) may learn to take better notice of other people's feelings or needs. Nevertheless, i don't see this as a change in how one processes information and reacts to that information. Change in personality? I'm inclined to say, no--simply because i never believed that people were incapable of any one personality, even though they prefer certain personalities over the other (even though this may further confuse things).

I do not understand what you mean by action/non-action. If I understand the context correctly, that is, things a human can do, there is no 'non-action', everything is an observable action with - albeit unclear - motivations, even sitting down and 'doing nothing'

I realize that some people consider that doing nothing is doing something--regardless of how self-contradicting that may sound--, like sitting. But i'd rather not play loosely with these terms. For now, consider anything concerning action involves effort. Anything that doesn't require effort is not an act. I don't see it impossible to sit down without requiring any effort to maintain their position (since a lot of chairs are designed to carry the body), therefore essentially doing nothing (a non-action).

Do we know that they thought their actions were logical? How? Could they even explain how a logical conclusion is made? Even if we did know for certain that they thought their actions were logical, and that they could explain how logic works to a degree where we can be sure they are making an accurate assessment, how is it then possible to work out what was the internal thought process?

Edit Disclaimer: I realise I may be speaking too absolutely there - in the future, when we are capable of simulating the very sub-atomic structure of a human being right up to the macro level, we will surely be able to figure out what goes into decision making in the human mind, and whether or not it is a logic structure like a computer. Perhaps we will get there before then, but not now - right now, this is all conjecture.

We would know that they thought their actions were logical because they reveal it to us after the fact. Failure to prove that their actions were indeed logical doesn't discard the previous fact. If they thought that their actions were logical, it should therefore be made known that they had at least one reason for attempting the act. This and any other reason they may have had would (should) be enough to workout the internal thought process (assuming any information shared is in fact true).

I'd go as far as to say that any research done on particle interactions that accumulate to physical, human action will never show any real information on any decision-making process of the human mind. If anything, the only thing i feel it can reveal is what is already known, one of them being that there can only be a limited number of actions.

[Adrianis]

Tried to keep it short because ultimately we're never going to resolve the discussion, as I lack the hard evidence to back up my argument (incidentally, if you are drawing from source material I'd quite like to know what it is)
It's also turning slowly but surely into an argument of semantics, which is never fun for anyone.

Spoiler below!

I don't see split-second instinctual actions as a by-product of the unconscious, since that wouldn't make any sense to me. There may be bodily reactions that occur independent of the conscious, but i wouldn't place these reactions on the same level as instinct-based actions. I take it that the main reason why you take issue with my statement is perhaps because you may not see the conscious as something that exists. Though, i'd rather not get into a deep discussion on whether mind is over matter or matter over mind. (Maybe some other time, perhaps in some other thread.)

No, I definately believe that there is such a thing as 'conscious', as well as 'sub-conscious' - it makes sense to me that that is where the decision making for instinctual actions takes place, but that is my opinion. I also concur that we should not get into that, this discussion has already spilled way out of it's origins in personality tests and why they do/do not suck.

Humans are limited to how they receive information and also on how they can react to that information. But the reason why they chose to react is do to desire to respond to the input. Personality would be what prioritizes the desires people have. Indeed, over time someone who wasn't normally in tune with other people's feelings (a.k.a. a strong Thinking type) may learn to take better notice of other people's feelings or needs. Nevertheless, i don't see this as a change in how one processes information and reacts to that information. Change in personality? I'm inclined to say, no--simply because i never believed that people were incapable of any one personality, even though they prefer certain personalities over the other (even though this may further confuse things).

That makes a lot more sense. I see where you are coming from now - am I right in saying then, that you think that there is no change in personality because everyone is capable of all of those personalities anyway, and its therefore just a preference of one over another at any given time? That pretty much explains my position on it anyway - now when you look at it in terms of these tests, which take a static one-time slice of this system of preference, it appears that over time your personality 'changes' because the percentages shift, which is why I use the term.

I realize that some people consider that doing nothing is doing something--regardless of how self-contradicting that may sound--, like sitting. But i'd rather not play loosely with these terms. For now, consider anything concerning action involves effort. Anything that doesn't require effort is not an act. I don't see it impossible to sit down without requiring any effort to maintain their position (since a lot of chairs are designed to carry the body), therefore essentially doing nothing (a non-action).

When I'm sitting in the dark, no music, staring into space, I am not doing nothing. I am thinking, this is very distinct. I don't want to play loosely with the term either, which is why i think the notion that a human can be doing nothing is ludicrous, I don't think we are capable of doing nothing. In terms of what we are discussing, thinking is very much something that factors into personality types - indeed the reason I do just sit and think is because I'm an Introvert. Perhaps action is the wrong word to use, but the problem is that as 3rd parties we can only observe actions - we cannot observe thinking, and yet it is a critical 'action' that someone can perform that factors into our observations on personality

We would know that they thought their actions were logical because they reveal it to us after the fact. Failure to prove that their actions were indeed logical doesn't discard the previous fact. If they thought that their actions were logical, it should therefore be made known that they had at least one reason for attempting the act. This and any other reason they may have had would (should) be enough to workout the internal thought process (assuming any information shared is in fact true).

I'd go as far as to say that any research done on particle interactions that accumulate to physical, human action will never show any real information on any decision-making process of the human mind. If anything, the only thing i feel it can reveal is what is already known, one of them being that there can only be a limited number of actions.

People are not always aware of how their desires and motivations affect their actions. I think you are probably right, but that doesn't discount the fact that we cannot know this for certain until we can fully quantify motivation, desire, emotion and the chemical balances in the brain that constitute them.

This is why I say we can know it once we can fully simulate the brain, body and all it's workings. At that point, we will be able to draw clear conclusions from watching the chemical and electrical changes in the brain and how they correspond to certain actions, and once we can simulate memory and any other brain functions that may factor into 'desires' and 'preferences' for certain things. We will be able to test it and recreate it millions of times in order to get accurate, reliable data based on quantifiable evidence - without with, the results remain up for debate.
Thats also why I say we may not have to simulate it ALL, right down to the sub-atomic level, because much of this is being done now, just in a limited way

[Your Computer]

Spoiler below!

That makes a lot more sense. I see where you are coming from now - am I right in saying then, that you think that there is no change in personality because everyone is capable of all of those personalities anyway, and its therefore just a preference of one over another at any given time? That pretty much explains my position on it anyway - now when you look at it in terms of these tests, which take a static one-time slice of this system of preference, it appears that over time your personality 'changes' because the percentages shift, which is why I use the term.

Yeah, as far as i'm concerned, humans are just being human; can't really call that a change.

People are not always aware of how their desires and motivations affect their actions. I think you are probably right, but that doesn't discount the fact that we cannot know this for certain until we can fully quantify motivation, desire, emotion and the chemical balances in the brain that constitute them.

This is why I say we can know it once we can fully simulate the brain, body and all it's workings. At that point, we will be able to draw clear conclusions from watching the chemical and electrical changes in the brain and how they correspond to certain actions, and once we can simulate memory and any other brain functions that may factor into 'desires' and 'preferences' for certain things. We will be able to test it and recreate it millions of times in order to get accurate, reliable data based on quantifiable evidence - without with, the results remain up for debate.
Thats also why I say we may not have to simulate it ALL, right down to the sub-atomic level, because much of this is being done now, just in a limited way

Recalling to myself some of the theories following from socionics (for example, facial structure and features hinting at personality type), i can see why anyone would claim that personalities, or at least the strong preference to any personality, could be an attribute of the physical self rather than the other way around. In fact, such research would make these personality tests play a major role in the research (albeit, the percentages may be tossed out). Nevertheless, i don't think that would make me retract anything that i've said. It would at least explain why people have a strong preference for any personality type, which was what i was lacking in my previous responses.

[No Author]

Spoiler below!

That makes a lot more sense. I see where you are coming from now - am I right in saying then, that you think that there is no change in personality because everyone is capable of all of those personalities anyway, and its therefore just a preference of one over another at any given time? That pretty much explains my position on it anyway - now when you look at it in terms of these tests, which take a static one-time slice of this system of preference, it appears that over time your personality 'changes' because the percentages shift, which is why I use the term.

Yeah, as far as i'm concerned, humans are just being human; can't really call that a change.

People are not always aware of how their desires and motivations affect their actions. I think you are probably right, but that doesn't discount the fact that we cannot know this for certain until we can fully quantify motivation, desire, emotion and the chemical balances in the brain that constitute them.

This is why I say we can know it once we can fully simulate the brain, body and all it's workings. At that point, we will be able to draw clear conclusions from watching the chemical and electrical changes in the brain and how they correspond to certain actions, and once we can simulate memory and any other brain functions that may factor into 'desires' and 'preferences' for certain things. We will be able to test it and recreate it millions of times in order to get accurate, reliable data based on quantifiable evidence - without with, the results remain up for debate.
Thats also why I say we may not have to simulate it ALL, right down to the sub-atomic level, because much of this is being done now, just in a limited way

Recalling to myself some of the theories following from socionics (for example, facial structure and features hinting at personality type), i can see why anyone would claim that personalities, or at least the strong preference to any personality, could be an attribute of the physical self rather than the other way around. In fact, such research would make these personality tests play a major role in the research (albeit, the percentages may be tossed out). Nevertheless, i don't think that would make me retract anything that i've said. It would at least explain why people have a strong preference for any personality type, which was what i was lacking in my previous responses.

This thread just got my eye stuck to it.

[owlsigh]

ISTP
Introvert(44%) Sensing(25%) Thinking(1%) Perceiving(33)%

• You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (44%)
• You have moderate preference of Sensing over Intuition (25%)
• You have marginal or no preference of Thinking over Feeling (1%)
• You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (33%)

[failedALIAS]

I dislike playing the "I've studied this so I know more than you" card, but having taken a few higher psychology courses, I am well aware that Jungian tests are hardly accurate indicators of one's personality.

To put it simply, self-report data lacks validity. Information found through surveys or questionnaires pretty much always have the potential to suffer from confirmation bias, self-serving bias (or modesty bias if your cultural paradigm leans towards collectivist), and possibly also demand characteristics. The most credible indicators of personality are found through observations of behaviour within either controlled conditions (but not too much, since laboratory experiments suffer artificiality), or through strong correlations identified by field observations. Furthermore, this personality test makes use of only nominal data at best because its only possible answers were "yes" or "no", which basically throws you into black-and-white regions of categorization.

That said, quizzes like these are still very fun and I like to see where my own confirmation bias takes me.

Edit: Perhaps "confirmation bias" isn't the best term to describe the idea that self-report data has little validity. What I basically mean is that the way a question asks you to judge yourself could cause you to lean towards certain expected ways of self-perception that may or may not be true of how you actually behave.

You just made me wet. . .

I've observed significant fault in various determinant tests. Why, the first IQ tests, when used on immigrants, -- all of which had travelled to America at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution -- got shockingly low scores. A key factor to this might of been that the tests were all in English. Others(countries, that is) vary, in their education, country to country, and what each one values in terms of educational focal points. The United States, for instance, values Mathematics and English as the higher of core curriculum. While another country may value Sociology; thus creating a boundary in what they are suited best for, and what the test focuses on.

The same might be said for any personality test. The big focus we have on personality only started because of the ideal image of the business man or salesman, either in them sitting at the conference table discussing the terms of agreement for the next transaction, or going door to door, making the resident at each need and want the product they're selling.
The woman of the household had to present themselves as interesting though traditional, to all the other housewives in the neighborhood. Thus personality became power. It was how one moved up in the world; likable but demanding.

Or some shit.

[wubwub]

i very very happy person, there no use sad.. we only 1 life, no use sad all time