Seems about right…ish. I disagee with some dichotomies they had, like emotion is part of rationalism - even walking employs the amygdala; so does math. It’s how we’re wired, so that’s a pile of b.s. to place emotion and rationalism on opposite sides. Melodrama and rationalism, sure.
Buuut anyway…mostly on target results
Cheers,
Jayson
I kinda disagree with most of the dichotomies in the displayed results. The opposite of materialism is not necessarily spiritual, there are things like egoistic altruism and altruistic egoism, pragmatism can be based on idealistic foundations and so on… and I don’t like the questions. Imho the test kinda compares to philosophy like a “Are you in a good relationship? Answer these 50 questions and find out!” test compares to love. Not saying it can’t be fun, just playing the advocatus diaboli here 
The main thing I learned from studying philosophy is that I don’t know jack shit, and neither does anyone else. But at least I know that I do not know.
Philosophy is full of great questions, with lots of sophisticated and convincing answers that contradict one another. So I sought refuge in logic, only to have Quine make me question even that. Let’s just go with the turtle thing and be done with it.
Sorry, I think the last personality test I did was in a magazine like 20 years ago. But I’m gonna keep an eye out! ^^
In Buddhism the personality is generally regarded as an illusion we create with our thoughts, and seeing this for yourself (by watching your mind at work) is considered an important step on the path to enlightenment.
If a big magazine like “People” or “Good Housekeeping” ever decides to publish a 50 question personality-test, that somehow makes anyone who takes it realize that their personalities are in fact not real, - it could potentially trigger a major spiritual breakthrough throughout western culture.
It’s also possible that people would just get angry and stop buying the magazine, though.
Some studies report that some philosophical dimensions, more specifically “more complex and creativity-generating thinking styles (e.g., legislative, judicial, and liberal [as well as anarchic and external according to the results])”, correlate with higher self-esteem (see here) and, somewhat related, that the belief in free will predicts job performance (see here). But imho it’s not really a well-researched topic and causal directions (if any) are completely up for debate.
”Riding and Wigley (1997) contended that there seems to be a potential overlap between thinking styles and personality”
(quoted from Li-Fang Zhang’s article in link 1)
Riding and Wiglet must have missed the "50 questions that make you realize that your personality is just thoughts arising in your mind" magazine test;)
In a Buddhist context, the quote from the article becomes almost meaningless, since it’s comparing “thinking” (in general) with a specific kind of thinking (thoughts about your personality), - and concluding from this, that there is “a potential overlap” between the two.
It’s like comparing a bucket of water with water.
Of course there is an overlap!
But I agree – thoughts can indeed overlap.
Let’s say you eat a sandwich and watch a seagull at the same time.
Choosing which thoughts are “just thoughts” - and which ones represent “your personality”, is not exactly easy.
If your sandwich-related thoughts are “just thoughts”, while your thoughts about the intimidating seabird represent “your personality” - it would make you a bird-watcher, eating a sandwich.
But if it’s the other way around, - you’re a sandwich-eater, watching a seagull.
Can you be both?
There is an overlap.
Am I eating the sandwich or the sandwich eating me and is it a thought of the seagull? I like the analysis and couldn’t resist the temptation to twist it slightly. It becomes almost a Zen koan.
Thought tangents aren’t personality to me; e.g. thoughts about a seagull or sandwhich.
That you had thoughts means nothing in terms of personality so far.
What those thought forms were, however, is the personality.
Expression.
A solution is different than an expression of a solution.
It is not that we can play chess, but how we express our playing of chess in our play of it which defines the personality.
Of course there is overlap between methods of thought processes and expression of thought processes; every thought passes through the amygdala - even benign image processing of looking at yourself in the mirror brushing your teeth passes through the amygdala.
And every such event is weighted prior to expression by emotional value and priority.
After every expression, an audit repasses through the amydala to determine if the expression was succesful or not (liked/disliked, etc…).
The results of which are used to influence precognitive network processes and amygdala weighting for future thought and expressions.
There’s not so much overlap as literal feedback looping between the two.
Cheers,
Jayson
Imaginationland…
It’s just my imagination
That I
imagine all the people living life as if for today
What if human consciousness is just a more general form of imagination, i mean think about it do you think that a honey badger weighs the ethics and morality of the decision to fight a fucking snake…I’m gonna take a guess and say I think not…
but theres also this to contradict my previous position
Which suggests some other things but is most likely due to occams razor that koko the gorilla could be just parroting the message so…I dont know its interesting to say the least…
Drink dos equis
