Topic: Personality Types

[Florestan]

I strongly encourage using Google for this one.  Hopefully, you end up on a site affiliated in some way with a US university.

The very first Google link that popped up gave me this:

A person who basks in the bitterness and misery of others.

Now, I am as imperfect and as sinner as a mortal can be and I can be accused of many things, rightly or wrongly --- but I strongly and indignantly reject the above. It's absolutely, completely and utterly unlike me.

[Todd]

The very first Google link that popped up gave me this:

A person who basks in the bitterness and misery of others.

Now, I am as imperfect and as sinner as a mortal can be and I can be accused of many things, rightly or wrongly --- but I strongly and indignantly reject the above. It's absolutely, completely and utterly unlike me.

But you must understand the context of the term itself.  It is associated with the pseudo-intellectual construct of "privilege", and therefore it is intrinsically worthless.

[Florestan]

But you must understand the context of the term itself.  It is associated with the pseudo-intellectual construct of "privilege", and therefore it is intrinsically worthless.

Oh, of course, I got all that alright. I just basked in a little leftist self-righteousness. 

[71 dB]

Blimey, I never knew I was Very Privileged (83.3%).

Are you too? Find out here: https://www.idrlabs.com/intersectionalism/test.php

Seriously now, if being a 48yo white heterosexual educated English-speaking thin male in Romania means being very privileged, then both "very" and "privileged" have lost any meaning whatsoever.

The test doesn't know you are Romanian. It assumes you are American. My score was 68.8 %

[Florestan]

The test doesn't know you are Romanian. It assumes you are American. My score was 68.8 %

I always answer any test from my Romanian perspective. America is not the be-all-end-all of the world. 

[Todd]

America is not the be-all-end-all of the world.

Incorrect.

[Florestan]

Are you a Libertarian? https://www.idrlabs.com/libertarian/test.php

My score: You are 0% Libertarian, which makes you Not Libertarian. In your case it is safe to say that you are *not* a libertarian. Whether because you prefer a greater degree of social discipline or economic regulation (or possibly both), you probably tend to find large swatches of the libertarian program to be far-fetched, extremist, and possibly even downright repulsive. If you are not the argumentative type, you had best stay clear of libertarians - they have a reputation for being insufferable in an argument.

The closest I got to being Libertarian is in agreeing that anyone with a driving licence and a car should be a taxi driver if he so wishes --- and that's because there was a flourishing black market in this respect during the Communist regime ---- I remember coming back with my parents from a holiday so many times, descending from the train and getting a guy with a car to drive us home at lower rates than the official taxis --- illegal, of course, but so widespread a practice that it was mostly tolerated byt the authorities. 

[Florestan]

Incorrect.

It might be incorrect on GMG. In the world at large it's correct. 

[Florestan]

If you are not the argumentative type, you had best stay clear of libertarians - they have a reputation for being insufferable in an argument.[/i]

The irony is that I am not a Libertarian yet some people might say I have a a reputation for being insufferable in an argument. 

[71 dB]

Are you a Communist? Find out here: https://www.idrlabs.com/communism/test.php

My score: 4%, not Communist. Your personal agreement with communism is low, indicating that you support few of communism’s principles as presented in classical Marxian literature. You most likely believe in the necessity of private property and private business, as well as the right to free economic association and individually-controlled production. You most likely also believe that individuals are more motivated by the prospect of personal gain than by serving the needs of some amorphous social group (such as “society”) that the individual perhaps never asked to be a part of.

My score is 47 % 

Your personal agreement with communism is moderate, indicating that you support some of communism’s basic principles as put forth by the classical Marxian literature. While you most likely agree with certain communist doctrines, such as the reduction of inequalities and a certain skepticism towards the free market, you most likely also find that other features of communism go a step too far towards collectivized power and control. You also might have noticed that your degree of agreement with communism has fluctuated across your lifetime in accordance with your self-perceived status at various points in your life.

The problem with this tests is it thinks there is only communism and capitalism and nothing else, but in reality there's only mixed economies resulting in a spectrum of systems that can be listen like this:

Communism/Socialism - Democratic Socialism - Social Democracy - Capitalism - Crony Capitalism.

This tests actually puts me in the middle of this spectrum which is Social Democracy which is correct as I am a vivid supporter of Social Democracy. 

[71 dB]

I always answer any test from my Romanian perspective. America is not the be-all-end-all of the world. 

The test doesn't know about your Romanian perspective! It assumes you answer based on American perspective. Being white in Romania is very diffrent from being white in the US for example. My score is probably too low because the test doesn't know I am Finnish. In the US I would be totally screwed! In Finland I am ok, struggling, but okay.

[Florestan]

What USA President Are You? https://www.idrlabs.com/big-five/test.php

My score:

Out of 25 U.S. Presidents, you are the most like:




James Madison - "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty."

Compared to the general population, you are:

    Above average on Openness
    Low on Conscientiousness
    Low on Extroversion
    High on Agreeableness
    Low on Neuroticism


According to a study done by Jeffery J. Mondak, Ph.D., your scores indicate that you are:

    Not likely to discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation. - Yes.
    More likely to be pro-choice rather than pro-life. - No, I'm staunchly pro-life
    Likely to feel trapped by the status quo. - No.
    Likely to enjoy complex and abstract discussions. - Yes.
    Likely to be more knowledgeable on academic topics. - Yes.
    Less likely to favor military intervention as a means of solving foreign policy problems. - Yes
    More likely to think that international cooperation will solve foreign policy problems. - Mostly, but not always
    Less likely to take an active interest in your community, preferring instead to go your own way. - Yes.
    More likely to be cosmopolitan in tastes and less likely to be patriotic and proud of your country. - I'm both a cosmopolitan and a patriot.
    Less likely to enjoy romantic fiction than the rest of the population. - If romantic fiction means Barbara Cartland drivel, then yes.
    Less likely to have a tolerant attitude towards smoking. - Yes.
    More likely to favor harsh criminal punishments over milder ones. - Yes with respect to rape and paedophilia
    Less likely to watch TV and read the news, preferring instead to follow your own interests. - Yes, except during election time.
    Less likely to mobilize your friends in your own interests, preferring instead to immerse yourself in your interests in solitude. - Yes.
    Someone who seems impassive to others, while being in fact quite sure of your own views. - Yes.
    Less likely to frequently change jobs and partners. - Yes.
    Less likely to end up in jail or to get in trouble with the law. - Yes.
    More likely to generally agree with your immediate friends and family. - Yes.
    More likely to simply avoid people who are hostile to you, or with whom you are in disagreement. - Yes.
    More likely to oppose capital punishment. - Yes in principle, some cases challenge me greatly
    More likely to take a favorable view of government welfare programs. - Yes in principle, some cases challenge me greatly
    More likely to enjoy fitness training and physical exercise. - No.
    More likely to nurture a few select beliefs that you regard as settled in stone. - Yes.
    Less likely to flirt with harm and danger. - Yes.
    Less likely to have insurance or to belong to a labor union. - Yes.

[Florestan]

The test doesn't know about your Romanian perspective! It assumes you answer based on American perspective. Being white in Romania is very diffrent from being white in the US for example. My score is probably too low because the test doesn't know I am Finnish. In the US I would be totally screwed! In Finland I am ok, struggling, but okay.

That's the limitation of all those tests, they always assume one is either American or aspiring to be one. 

I take them all just for fun, and so should you.

[ritter]

.... people might say I have a a reputation for being insufferable in an argument. 

You ? ? ? YOU ? ? ?  Noooooo ! ! !   

Good evening to you, Andrei.

[Florestan]

You ? ? ? YOU ? ? ?  Noooooo ! ! !   

Good evening to you, Andrei.

To you as well, Rafael!

Please be honest --- if I ever have been insufferable in an argument with you, just say it! Chances are I probably was. 

But then again, as I said multiple times to multiple GMGers, there's no disagreement whatsoever that can't be cured by having a drink together --- and I stand by it. so help me God! 

[greg]

Who says you are a trumpist? I have never thought you are one based on what you write here. Apparently I don't have Google drive access and I am not gonno ask for it just to see your link, sorry.

Oh, ok no problem then.
Mostly it was Herman, for a period of time, was constantly implying I was a Trumpist for disagreeing with some of the negative assessments of him.
The error of this assumption is that defending is not the same thing at all as supporting.
If someone around me kept repeating that Stalin was a pedo, and he wasn't, I'd say that I don't think they are correct.
And if there were signs of him (tons of red flags) but no hard evidence, then I'd say "he could be one, but it's not a 100% sure thing because there is no hard evidence."
And I would probably be called some names (in an alternate universe where this scenario would be a thing). 

[greg]

Blimey, I never knew I was Very Privileged (83.3%).

Are you too? Find out here: https://www.idrlabs.com/intersectionalism/test.php

Seriously now, if being a 48yo white heterosexual educated English-speaking thin male in Romania means being very privileged, then both "very" and "privileged" have lost any meaning whatsoever.

This makes you Exceedingly Privileged (91.7%).


Haha, suck it, losers!

But seriously, I like how "Wealthy" is just one factor of 12, when rich people, no matter what they look like, have so much power over your life and opportunities.
"Wealthy" is 90% of the privilege in the world, not <10%.
And they don't even ask about nation of birth at all, there is a worldwide privilege and a national privilege, two things that are way different.
Intersectionality truly is toxic bullshit.

[Florestan]

Oh, ok no problem then.
Mostly it was Herman, for a period of time, was constantly implying I was a Trumpist for disagreeing with some of the negative assessments of him.
The error of this assumption is that defending is not the same thing at all as supporting.

Herman implied / openly stated I was a Trumpist, too ---- actually, for him I was "one of the most vocal Trump supporters". He was assuming manifoild errors:

1. Whoever is not with us is against us. Typical Communist / Fascist / Nazi / authoritarian mindset.

2. Fact-checking is defending. As you said, stating that Stalin was not a paedophile amounts to defending Stalin's policies.

3. One can't be both right-of-center and honest. Left is automatically good, right is automatically bad.

[greg]

Are you a Communist? Find out here: https://www.idrlabs.com/communism/test.php

28% Not a Communist

Your personal agreement with communism is low, indicating that you support few of communism’s principles as presented in classical Marxian literature. You most likely believe in the necessity of private property and private business, as well as the right to free economic association and individually-controlled production. You most likely also believe that individuals are more motivated by the prospect of personal gain than by serving the needs of some amorphous social group (such as “society”) that the individual perhaps never asked to be a part of.

Herman implied / openly stated I was a Trumpist, too ---- actually, for him I was "one of the most vocal Trump supporters". He was assuming manifoild errors:

1. Whoever is not with us is against us. Typical Communist / Fascist / Nazi / authoritarian mindset.

2. Fact-checking is defending. As you said, stating that Stalin was not a paedophile amounts to defending Stalin's policies.

3. One can't be both right-of-center and honest. Left is automatically good, right is automatically bad.

Exactly! Great analysis.

[Florestan]

My score is 47 % 

Your personal agreement with communism is moderate, indicating that you support some of communism’s basic principles as put forth by the classical Marxian literature. While you most likely agree with certain communist doctrines, such as the reduction of inequalities and a certain skepticism towards the free market, you most likely also find that other features of communism go a step too far towards collectivized power and control. You also might have noticed that your degree of agreement with communism has fluctuated across your lifetime in accordance with your self-perceived status at various points in your life.

The problem with this tests is it thinks there is only communism and capitalism and nothing else, but in reality there's only mixed economies resulting in a spectrum of systems that can be listen like this:

Communism/Socialism - Democratic Socialism - Social Democracy - Capitalism - Crony Capitalism.

This tests actually puts me in the middle of this spectrum which is Social Democracy which is correct as I am a vivid supporter of Social Democracy. 

I am a fanatical Centrist. 

I fully subscribe to this:

“Motto: “Please step forward to the rear!” This is an approximate translation of a request I once heard on a tram-car in Warsaw. I propose it as a slogan for the mighty International that will never exist.

A Conservative Believes:

    That in human life there never have been and never will be improvements that are not paid for with deteriorations and evils; thus, in considering each project of reform and amelioration, its price has to be assessed. Put another way, innumerable evils are compatible (i.e. we can suffer them comprehensively and simultaneously); but many goods limit or cancel each other, and therefore we will never enjoy them fully at the same time. A society in which there is no equality and no liberty of any kind is perfectly possible, yet a social order combining total equality and freedom is not. The same applies to the compatibility of planning and the principle of autonomy, to security and technical progress. Put yet another way, there is no happy ending in human history.
    That we do not know the extent to which various traditional forms of social life–families, rituals, nations, religious communities–are indispensable if life in a society is to be tolerable or even possible. There are no grounds for believing that when we destroy these forms, or brand them as irrational, we increase the chance of happiness, peace, security, or freedom. We have no certain knowledge of what might occur if, for example, the monogamous family was abrogated, or if the time-honored custom of burying the dead were to give way to the rational recycling of corpses for industrial purposes. But we would do well to expect the worst.
    That the idee fixe of the Enlightenment–that envy, vanity, greed, and aggression are all caused by the deficiencies of social institutions and that they will be swept away once these institutions are reformed– is not only utterly incredible and contrary to all experience, but is highly dangerous. How on earth did all these institutions arise if they were so contrary to the true nature of man? To hope that we can institutionalize brotherhood, love, and altruism is already to have a reliable blueprint for despotism.

 A Liberal Believes:

    That the ancient idea that the purpose of the State is security still remains valid. It remains valid even if the notion of “security” is expanded to include not only the protection of persons and property by means of the law, but also various provisions of insurance: that people should not starve if they are jobless; that the poor should not be condemned to die through lack of medical help; that children should have free access to education–all these are also part of security. Yet security should never be confused with liberty. The State does not guarantee freedom by action and by regulating various areas of life, but by doing nothing. In fact security can be expanded only at the expense of liberty. In any event, to make people happy is not the function of the State.
    That human communities are threatened not only by stagnation but also by degradation when they are so organized that there is no longer room for individual initiative and inventiveness. The collective suicide of mankind is conceivable, but a permanent human ant-heap is not, for the simple reason that we are not ants.
    That it is highly improbable that a society in which all forms of competitiveness have been done away with would continue to have the necessary stimuli for creativity and progress. More equality is not an end in itself, but only a means. In other words, there is no point to the struggle for more equality if it results only in the leveling down off those who are better off, and not in the raising up of the underprivileged. Perfect equality is a self-defeating ideal.

 A Socialist Believes:

    That societies in which the pursuit of profit is the sole regulator of the productive system are threatened with as grievous–perhaps more grievous–catastrophes as are societies in which the profit motive has been entirely eliminated from the production-regulating forces. There are good reasons why freedom of economic activity should be limited for the sake of security, and why money should not automatically produce more money. But the limitation of freedom should be called precisely that, and should not be called a higher form of freedom.
    That it is absurd and hypocritical to conclude that, simply because a perfect, conflict-less society is impossible, every existing form of inequality is inevitable and all ways of profit-making justified. The kind of conservative anthropological pessimism which led to the astonishing belief that a progressive income tax was an inhuman abomination is just as suspect as the kind of historical optimism on which the Gulag Archipelago was based.
    That the tendency to subject the economy to important social controls should be encouraged, even though the price to be paid is an increase in bureaucracy. Such controls, however, must be exercised within representative democracy. Thus it is essential to plan institutions that counteract the menace to freedom which is produced by the growth of these very controls.

So far as I can see, this set of regulative ideas is not self-contradictory. And therefore it is possible to be a conservative-liberal-socialist. This is equivalent to saying that those three particular designations are no longer mutually exclusive options.

As for the great and powerful International which I mentioned at the outset–it will never exist, because it cannot promise people that they will be happy.”

From Leszek Kolakowski, Modernity on Endless Trial (University of Chicago, 1990).

[/size]