For those who don't know what it is, you take a test which categorizes you into a type based on your dominant traits, which are either:
Extroverted or IntrovertedSensing or IntuitionThinking or Feeling Judging or PerceivingYou can take the test here: http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/Of course it isn't perfect, being an online quiz. I find that I could answer some of the questions either way depending on the context of it and my mood at the time. I think it's meant to show how you process information, and what they can infer from that.My result was INTP. I find that I can relate well to a lot of things said about their personalities. But I am awful at maths, when INTPs are knows as the engineers. Something else I wanted to talk about was religion. I am curious about what you believe. I have always been a Christian but having philosophised about things, I'm pretty much borderline agnostic but I am not comfortable about leaving my faith altogether. I'm kind of vague about it now, I say things that seem logical to me, but it doesn't line up with my faith. I suppose it would have to do with my open-ended 'perceiving' trait, with the more rational 'NT' part of me. The Ne (extroverted intuition) and the P would make me more likely to see things from different perspectives, and say things with a type of detachment. There was a profile that articulated this better than I, but I suppose it's useless saying that since I am too lazy to look for it. Okay, that was just me rambling. …I thought I may as well add this:
And no, my name is not Eunice >.< It's my internet name that I use sometimes when signing up for things.
@ ussername:
"Significance" indicates a sphere in which we place ourselves. In effect, the scale of significance is the maximum region over which we can "see the big picture," to put our actions into context with everything (and everyone) else within that sphere. I think we all agree that to do good within this bubble should be the only goal, hence, within this sphere all parties should be working to change the conditions of what lies therein. Whether this change is for the better or for the worse is unimportant.Human significance then must mean that this particular sphere is of size somewhere around the size of humanity. You assert that this is all that matters - I do not agree. I believe that human significance is the most commonly appreciated size of bubble but that, in reality, the family scale is the most important and in fact the very root of significance itself.If human significance is all that matters than the purpose of our actions becomes particularily hard. Space exploration isn't, on the face of it, for the good of mankind. It was originally a way to extended military dominance over near-Earth orbits, not great for saving lives and so on. However, astronautics has stimulated high-end technologies and new ways to package food to save lives in famine-stricken countries. Something seemingly so arbitary has indeed been proved "significant" within the human scope. How does one judge what is justifiable within this humanity-wide scope? I'm not sure there ever is a way to judge, therefore, even externally profitable actions (external to the human scope) are potentially worthwhile thus the system is self-defeating: human significance requires the significance of a whole lot else. This must mean that a suitable upper bound to significance must lie at infinity, or at least as big as the universe can get.I am insignificant to pretty much all of China. I am a middle-class, white, capitalist pig who buys their goods and lets them earn pitiful wages for the honour of supporting the global disparities in living standards. But I am human, therefore, I should be significant. The scale of the boundry of significance could simply be smaller than one would expect. The Chinese family living in Shanghai is primarily concerned about the family unit's well-being, how well is it fed and how much sleep are they getting et cetera. In order to do this, both adults need to work to earn money.The factory owner needs to work to earn money for his family as well, so he employs workers whilst walking the tightrope between profitability and governmental corruption. Communist Party members understand that their economy is driven by aggressive expansion and partial exploitation of one billion people to dominate the global market. Hence, the status quo prevails because we have stages of small social boundries that overlap in the best interests of everyone involves. This clearly can make a ladder from the core of significance and build it, one rung at a time, to extend to a humanity-wide scale. Is this totally analoguous to a wider, global, social conscience?No, it isn't. As soon as problems start occuring, this entire system of heirarchal social strata utterly collapses. A family is dire need of food has no concern about its place within the wider context of that famine. If people see that a stronger system to keep their small, core region of personal significance exists, they will jump at the chance to take it. The global conscience fails catastrophically. It simply becomes untenable to maintain a stable society and the global context is lost in the maelstrom.Whilst saying human significance is all that matters, you have scaled the system down from universal significance to a global context. I have shown in my first point that a global scale does not work because it is difficult to draw an upper bound on what constitutes actions that aid humanity, we cannot see what technologies may evolve out of apparently useless science. Equally, we cannot utilise a global scale when humans are constantly competing for basic resources and hence the lower bound must logically be the family unit. This encompasses, well, everything.The solution, in my opinion, is simple. Humans are primarily concerned with their immediate families. Due to the overlapping of mutual needs, this simple rule (family first) gives birth to a complex tree of areas of significance eventually ending up with a universal perspective. Yet, this tree can and will collapse when competition for resources becomes too strong, severely reducing the scale of our perspective. Like many things in nature, it is a matter of probability - thanks to globalisation, I'd say that the scale of significance is very frequently global due to feedback that the standard family feels from events in other countries. However, both sides of the bell curve exist, those whose perspective extends to a universal scale and those who cannot let their mind venture further than their front door.Human significance is not the only thing that matters, it is the most common thing that matters.Fucking hell, I wrote all that?
tl;dr
All that time wasted..Just kidding. I read every single word of it. But it is much to long for my feeble mind to wrap around and dissect. I.. think I vaguely understand. So what is significant to humans is their own families without looking at the big picture? Of course we're not significant to everyone in the world, but we can be significant to a certain amount of people. Am I using the word significant out of context, because it doesn't apply to everyone in the world? I am confused..I defined the term significance as the "region" in which things have meaning. Ignore dictionary definitions for it since we're speaking in a manner that isn't using the usual definition.
Okay sure. We are utterly insignificant to this world, the universe, and the vast majority of life forms.
xD
yay!
>.<
Interesting test, I guess. I'm not sure how perceiving and judging are opposed to one another, though… I would think one would be dependent on the other.
Anyway, I am "the engineer", apparently, which doesn't sound right, but then, I thought the questions were too black and white. Often I would have selected both options or neither…Anyway, though, it looks like I am 84% introverted, 58% intuitive, 84% thinking and 58% perceiving.