Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that.
Hmmm... maybe it's my subconscious telling me that I don't really.... belong here?
Humble or Arrogant ~ How do you see yourself?
- Thread starter K'Ehleyr
- Start date
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that.
Hmmm... maybe it's my subconscious telling me that I don't really.... belong here?
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that.
Hmmm... maybe it's my subconscious telling me that I don't really.... belong here?
Well, someone's got to answer the door to the pizza delivery guy, and it sure isn't going to be me!
That we're all sci-fi nerds who hang out on an internet forum?
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that.
Hmmm... maybe it's my subconscious telling me that I don't really.... belong here?
Well, someone's got to answer the door to the pizza delivery guy, and it sure isn't going to be me!
Yay me and my people person skills.
Openness to Experience = 88
Conscientiousness = 1
Extraversion = 18
Agreeableness = 44
Neuroticism = 84
I have to admit I was rather hard on myself with the conscientiousness questions. I can be organized, but I don't follow through on things and see myself as rather flighty.
Conscientiousness = 1
Extraversion = 18
Agreeableness = 44
Neuroticism = 84
I have to admit I was rather hard on myself with the conscientiousness questions. I can be organized, but I don't follow through on things and see myself as rather flighty.
Openness to Experience = 20
Conscientiousness = 64
Extraversion = 96
Agreeableness = 93
Neuroticism = 5
Conscientiousness = 64
Extraversion = 96
Agreeableness = 93
Neuroticism = 5
You, too?It probably helps that I edit out all the times I write "you imbecile!" in a reply to some threads
Hmm, I like that. And it would make a good tee shirt.I'm not humble, I'm just polite
Let's see:-
Openness to Experience/Intellect - 40 (I do tend to be conventional, but have noting against experiencing new things. Not very artistic though so.)
Conscientiousness - 69 (Yeah, that sort of figures with how I see myself)
Extraversion - 15 (yeah, I can go with that. I'd have expected lower though)
Agreeableness - 30 (Yeah, I can be rather opinionated, but I try to be polite about it)
Neuroticism - 55 (I'd have thought I'd have got lower)
Openness to Experience/Intellect - 40 (I do tend to be conventional, but have noting against experiencing new things. Not very artistic though so.)
Conscientiousness - 69 (Yeah, that sort of figures with how I see myself)
Extraversion - 15 (yeah, I can go with that. I'd have expected lower though)
Agreeableness - 30 (Yeah, I can be rather opinionated, but I try to be polite about it)
Neuroticism - 55 (I'd have thought I'd have got lower)
It means you feel a greater need to seek company, and express yourself, and are more likely to feel revitalized (rather than drained) with company.
I don't think 4 statistics is enough to draw any conclusions
But it isn't a case that extraverts belong together at the exclusion of introverts. A combination can find harmony. For example, introverts are often good listeners, while extraverts prefer to be talkative.
Also extraverts prefer to spend a little time with many people, while introverts can feel drained if they have to spend a long time with people.
So they can suit each other's company.
I can imagine a message board does attract more introverts. It's one of the few ways that introverts can enjoy being part of a large crowd, because they're in full control of what they're reading and what they're expressing.
Also, the message board does provide the large crowd for the extravert to enjoy as well, but it does suffer from being a very filtered way of communicating. We can't see each other, so there is no possibility for body language or facial expressions. No possibility for spontaneous emotional expression, or vocal inflections, as everything we want to express has to be slowly typed in. Extraverts may find that too much of a straight jacket.
I used OCEAN120. This one you've linked to gives me different results:
O=70 ; C=51 ; E=35 ; A=46 ; N=5
Much lower N, slightly higher O, and slightly lower E. The C and A remain about the same.
That's the thing, though. I don't consider myself extroverted in that in real life I usually keep to myself - even during break times at work and during the times after work and in weekends - and I don't usually socialise or go out for drinks, etc. On the occasions when I do go out with many other people, I usually sit at the back and take in the conversations around me, occasionally chiming in when something important or relevant occurs in the conversation. However, I will admit that if something crops up in conversation that does pique my interest, I'll be centre stage, chewing the fat with the best of them, but that doesn't happen a lot.
It's like the great man said: there are many things I don't like, but what I do like, I love passionately.
Oddly enough, I feel the least comfortable when alone with some one other person (be it in person or chatting to someone online privately), as the conversations are either one-way-traffic (can be from either party) or full of awkward pregnant pauses. Yet interestingly, this is the only time I can be 100% frank and honest about my own feelings, naturally. Maybe I don't "do" that sort of thing well.
I don't think 4 statistics is enough to draw any conclusions
But it isn't a case that extraverts belong together at the exclusion of introverts. A combination can find harmony. For example, introverts are often good listeners, while extraverts prefer to be talkative.
I have found that much to be very true, yes.
But then conversations can still end up being very one-sided and unbalanced, and the talkative person may expect more feedback and reaction from the listener, leading to dissatisfaction from the conversation. It's a bit like the "other" form of intercourse, really (but then again everything is ): positive outcomes are more likely if both parties walk away satisfied. [Like you'd know anything about THAT, Ravescene - someone]The more outwardly expressive people do have other means to express themselves on message boards, be it elaborating in detail about what is on their minds (and cleverly formatting it so that it doesn't exceed the word limit) and using more inventive ways to convey the message, such as describing appropriate examples, linking to external material, posting pictures (when a thousand words need to be cut from their response
) and resorting to colourful metaphors (let's just say).Given the format of the message board, I see it as more of a level playing field of communication that hampers neither introvert nor extrovert. Yes, it means also that the non-verbal forms of communication are eliminated, but then again the creative extrovert may be able to get around those limitations in a way the introvert might not want to, e.g. posting a picture or a video of themselves.
Although if anything, what might annoy the extrovert is seeing scores of other more introverted people getting their say in more often and more frequently, and often more eloquently than the stereotypical extrovert, but then again that's the nature of the message board in helping people do exactly that by allowing the creation of an online persona of username and avatar and giving them the power to say as much as they want with added confidence and without the social or time pressures, whereas it might not be as compelling in a real life setting.
By the way, I like how this thread has taken a turn away from the humility/arrogance paradigm and shifted towards discussion of personality traits in general. It's an interesting change, although deserving of its own thread, surely...
How could I resist talking about me again?
Openness: 98 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is far more intellectually curious and sensitive to beauty than most. You might say that your beliefs are individualistic and frequently drift towards the unconventional, and that you enjoy your imagination and the exciting places it takes you!)
Conscientiousness: 79 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is a perfectionist. From your responses it appears that you prefer to plan everything to the last detail, which has consequently led to you being very successful and extremely reliable. From your responses it appears that more than most you enjoy seeing your long-term plans come to fruition.)
Extraversion: 60 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who enjoys and actively seeks out social occasions, but would say that they're not everything. You might say that sometimes it is nice to step back for a while and have a quiet night in.)
Agreeableness: 34 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is willing to make difficult decisions when necessary, and will point out when something is wrong no matter what other people might feel. Your responses suggest that you would say that you can be tough and uncompromising.)
Neuroticism: 14 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is extremely difficult to upset or stress out, since you rarely, if ever, react with negative emotions, and even when you are anxious about something the feeling quickly passes. Based on your responses, you come across as very calm and resilient.)
It's good to be (how I perceive to be) me.
Openness: 98 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is far more intellectually curious and sensitive to beauty than most. You might say that your beliefs are individualistic and frequently drift towards the unconventional, and that you enjoy your imagination and the exciting places it takes you!)
Conscientiousness: 79 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is a perfectionist. From your responses it appears that you prefer to plan everything to the last detail, which has consequently led to you being very successful and extremely reliable. From your responses it appears that more than most you enjoy seeing your long-term plans come to fruition.)
Extraversion: 60 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who enjoys and actively seeks out social occasions, but would say that they're not everything. You might say that sometimes it is nice to step back for a while and have a quiet night in.)
Agreeableness: 34 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is willing to make difficult decisions when necessary, and will point out when something is wrong no matter what other people might feel. Your responses suggest that you would say that you can be tough and uncompromising.)
Neuroticism: 14 (you seem to describe yourself as someone who is extremely difficult to upset or stress out, since you rarely, if ever, react with negative emotions, and even when you are anxious about something the feeling quickly passes. Based on your responses, you come across as very calm and resilient.)
It's good to be (how I perceive to be) me.
Now, when I tried the OCEAN test, I used the 100-question tool on Facebook for my results on the previous page(s).
Using the 45-question tool in trampledamage's link gave very different results: O59, C30 E27 A83 N84. Bear in mind that the latter test appeared to be (unlike the former) scaled to the relevant demographics, giving me a percentile score comparing me to similar people.
To be honest, I think it actually nailed things right on the head, question sample size be damned.
Does that make me arrogant or humble? I'll refer people to my original answer of "you tell me" as I still can't say for sure. I believe there's no real way of being sure of these things with even a small amount of subjectivity, unless I was being even remotely humorous on that matter. And besides,the old jokes about being "humbly arrogant" or "arrogantly humble" or "arrogant in my humble opinion" or similar other combinations, are all now well and truly worn out...
Using the 45-question tool in trampledamage's link gave very different results: O59, C30 E27 A83 N84. Bear in mind that the latter test appeared to be (unlike the former) scaled to the relevant demographics, giving me a percentile score comparing me to similar people.
To be honest, I think it actually nailed things right on the head, question sample size be damned.
Does that make me arrogant or humble? I'll refer people to my original answer of "you tell me" as I still can't say for sure. I believe there's no real way of being sure of these things with even a small amount of subjectivity, unless I was being even remotely humorous on that matter. And besides,the old jokes about being "humbly arrogant" or "arrogantly humble" or "arrogant in my humble opinion" or similar other combinations, are all now well and truly worn out...
"You are a generally anxious person and tend to worry about things"
No s***, personality test.
No s***, personality test
.Developing your analogy a little, we could imagine the joints as representing our specific mental states (beliefs, desires, etc.), and the metal strips representing relationships between these, such as how they support and feed off of one another. Which is something that could conceivably be mapped.
I'm sure that pessimism is useful to us (otherwise why would it exist). Returning to our discussion of idealism: when we see a negative, we see both an opportunity and a reason for improvement. For example, our ancestors being pessimistic about the damp and coldness of the cave is what motivated them to build huts and houses. We built civilization upon the premise of being dissatisfied with what we had.
If we could only see positives, we would be content with the present so much that we would be unmotivated to seek betterness. Were it not for pessimism, we'd all be vegetables.
If true, that would seem to be encouraging us to take unnecessary risks. But I wonder if the risk is being calculated properly in this clinical study though? Sometimes we need a few failed attempts at something in order to learn, and we're better off for that learning. In that sense, failing is not a completely negative outcome. (eg, consider the chance of the hunter-gatherer catching the wildebeest)
I suspect the learning experience wasn't factored into the clinical calculation of true risk as it benefits us in the grand scheme of things. I'd be surprised if it didn't balance things out somewhat, although it does depend on the types of questions used though.
The chance of freak disasters is probably more suitable type of question, which incidentally would be extraverted optimism if underestimated. The wildebeest thing would be introverted optimism, as it relates to ones own personal skills.
Last edited:
^ Well, the idea around the benefit of not being "hyper-real" is that if we were to truly understand and appreciate the odds facing us in daily life, along with the essential pointlessness of individual existence, we wouldn't be able to function as human beings, let alone propagate the species.
If depressive hyperrealism exists, then part of what they're seeing is actually true: from one point of view, there really isn't any point in being motivated and doing anything. The black pit of depression is an accurate nihilistic reflection of the essentially meaningless role of humanity, or of any form of life in general. The rose-tinted glasses we all wear in daily life help us put existential angst to one side, allowing us to temporarily be happy and reproduce. Happiness is our soma, to paraphrase Huxley. Love, religion, family, friendship, pride, etc, etc, all exist to create happiness and therefore optimism and therefore a desire to keep existing despite the truth being that there really isn't a point to it, beyond what we choose to assign value to.
The human race is built upon bad math, as it were.
I beg to differ...
What's interesting is that you have high C and N, whereas I have super-high C and super-low N. Revisiting the discussion between Jadzia and I about the likelihood of interdependence between all the variables these tests measure, you could theoretically suggest that the combination of high C and high N would lead to a self-critical perfectionism whereas highC/lowN would result in perfectionism that knows when to say "I now judge that this is good enough; I don't need anyone else to validate that". Maybe.
This also harkens back to my suggesting that the Humble/Arrogant dichotomy could be a complex of the A, C and N scores. HighC with lowN and lowA could well lead to someone being perceived as arrogant, though of the "delicious" kind. RJD's suggestion of such as thing as "beautiful" arrogance could well be highC with lowN but high A instead. LowC with low N and low A would be the "unpleasant" kind of arrogance I mentioned. And high C, N and A together might come across as humble? Note, I'm not suggesting these entities are on a spectrum/continuum but rather that they're "secondary functions" of core traits.
High O and low E would be minimising modifiers to all the above functions, lessening how much others perceive the arrogance in real life, so an otherwise arrogant person might come across as more humble. Whereas low O and high E would maximise the perception, making even a relatively humble person come across as more arrogant than they are when talking to others.
I leave it to someone more mathematically minded (and bored) to figure out whether there's a set of formulae to be number-crunched out of the above speculation!
And do remember, this is all just for fun. I doubt the paradigm can really be compressed in this fashion, but it's amusing to shoot the breeze on the topic.
If depressive hyperrealism exists, then part of what they're seeing is actually true: from one point of view, there really isn't any point in being motivated and doing anything. The black pit of depression is an accurate nihilistic reflection of the essentially meaningless role of humanity, or of any form of life in general. The rose-tinted glasses we all wear in daily life help us put existential angst to one side, allowing us to temporarily be happy and reproduce. Happiness is our soma, to paraphrase Huxley. Love, religion, family, friendship, pride, etc, etc, all exist to create happiness and therefore optimism and therefore a desire to keep existing despite the truth being that there really isn't a point to it, beyond what we choose to assign value to.
The human race is built upon bad math, as it were.
I beg to differ...
What's interesting is that you have high C and N, whereas I have super-high C and super-low N. Revisiting the discussion between Jadzia and I about the likelihood of interdependence between all the variables these tests measure, you could theoretically suggest that the combination of high C and high N would lead to a self-critical perfectionism whereas highC/lowN would result in perfectionism that knows when to say "I now judge that this is good enough; I don't need anyone else to validate that". Maybe.
This also harkens back to my suggesting that the Humble/Arrogant dichotomy could be a complex of the A, C and N scores. HighC with lowN and lowA could well lead to someone being perceived as arrogant, though of the "delicious" kind. RJD's suggestion of such as thing as "beautiful" arrogance could well be highC with lowN but high A instead. LowC with low N and low A would be the "unpleasant" kind of arrogance I mentioned. And high C, N and A together might come across as humble? Note, I'm not suggesting these entities are on a spectrum/continuum but rather that they're "secondary functions" of core traits.
High O and low E would be minimising modifiers to all the above functions, lessening how much others perceive the arrogance in real life, so an otherwise arrogant person might come across as more humble. Whereas low O and high E would maximise the perception, making even a relatively humble person come across as more arrogant than they are when talking to others.
I leave it to someone more mathematically minded (and bored) to figure out whether there's a set of formulae to be number-crunched out of the above speculation!
And do remember, this is all just for fun. I doubt the paradigm can really be compressed in this fashion, but it's amusing to shoot the breeze on the topic.
Last edited:
Given the population explosion and increasing wealth and longevity over the past 200 years, I'm sure that "the odds facing us" are nowhere near as weighty as the theory implies.
Also, I don't think we can rightly argue for pointlessness, when we don't understand the nature of existence in the first place. Why does the universe exist instead of nothingness? Nothingness would make a whole lot more sense, yet we don't have that. Maybe we are misguided? Until we understand existence, we cannot assert that it is pointless.
Using Trampledamge's link (thanks for that, really interesting!):
Openness to Experience/Intellect: 59
Conscientiousness: 74
Extraversion: 64
Agreeableness: 8
Neuroticism: 60
Apparently, I'm not very likeable, since my agreeableness is so low.
Openness to Experience/Intellect: 59
Conscientiousness: 74
Extraversion: 64
Agreeableness: 8
Neuroticism: 60
Apparently, I'm not very likeable, since my agreeableness is so low.
Aw nuts
Oh well, you're one of the few people I find it okay to lose too
Last edited: