 |
| |
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:31
|
|
John says:
morning
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Morning
John says:
so how's that roleplay intro coming?
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Haven't had time to edit it, I wasn't home all night
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
And today I'm back to working on my thesis
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
the proposal is due next week and i need to get the readings done by then in order to be able to start on the paper itself
John says:
okay I understand
John says:
goodluck with that
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Thank you, though it isn't really all that difficult
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I'm doing mine on nuclear deterrence
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
The concepts are easy to understand
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Except I need to asses the viability of these concepts
John says:
ahh
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
To put it simply, does nuclear deterrence work.
John says:
"terriorist threats to deter nuclear war"
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
In order to understand that, one needs to see if nuclear war can actualy be waged.
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
?
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
elaborate on that statement
John says:
you need to create your own mircocosom
John says:
I was just thinking of ways to deter nuclear war
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
But I must apply this to the real world, if we were dealing with perfectly rational actors then yes it would be easy, but there are a considerable number of factors to take into account
John says:
since all the supply lines may have been destoried
John says:
after a war
John says:
you would need some elite team doing terrorism or something
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Ah
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
How would that deter nuclear war?
John says:
well even if you manage to wipe someone out with nuclear weapons
John says:
their elite teams will still continue to damage you
John says:
so it's not a decisive victory
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
You're missing the point
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
War always carries with it political motivations
John says:
*nod*
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
In a nuclear war there are no gains to be made
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
other than both the destruction of the enemy and oneself
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
that's the essence of nuclear deterrence
John says:
well if you can destory the enemy before yourself
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
the problem is
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
one side may thing they can take out the response capabilities of the other and would strike first in the hopes of doing that
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
indeed
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
but
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
that carries risks
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
great risks
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
the essence of nuclear deterrence is that the risks associated with nuclear war as so great
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
that they negate all political motivations
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
but
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
the problem is what about cases of accidental launch, limited nuclear war, etc.
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
how do you ensure that you don't start one by accident
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
you see
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
what i'm trying to argue
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
is that nuclear deterrence can preserve peace
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
of at least pervent war
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
if they're the same thing
John says:
hrmm okay
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
the point is to demonstrate that accidental nuclear wars, and limited nuclear wars, as so unlikely
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
that nuclear deterrence still works
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
which reminds me
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
can you do me a small favor
John says:
kay?
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Do this test and tell me your results: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
it's yes no questions, ~70
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
take it seriously
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
It is rather accurate in terms of describing ones personality, at least it proved to be so in my case.
John says:
alot of that is neither no or yes
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
indeed
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
all of them are yes no
John says:
hrmm?
John says:
some of them are inbetween for me
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Try to answer as best you can.
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I know it may be difficult
John says:
having trouble clicking score
John says:
Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging
Strength of the preferences %
56 56 11 11
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Ah
John says:
You are:
moderately expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
slightly expressed feeling personality
slightly expressed judging personality
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/infj.htm
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Here's a description of that personality type
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
read it and tell me if it sounds anything like you
John says:
I would have to read all the personality types
John says:
because I know better to read just 1
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
lol, that is what I did, well more or less, though I was surprised at the accuracy of my description
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
it described my thought patters, modes of thinking, motivations, etc. dead on
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I'm an INTP
John says:
that one sounds like me too
John says:
so INFJ sounds like me and INTP too
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Well you could be close
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
since your score on FJ as 11% for both
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
perhaps you are borderline
John says:
maybe
John says:
probably
John says:
there's like always one line that sounds like me in all of the things
John says:
their habit comments seem generic
John says:
their personality comments are more specific
John says:
but then they gathered information on the personality, not the habits
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Indeed
John says:
*shrug* we had a course that went into that sort of stuff
John says:
They talk about habits many people would have
John says:
Personally I believe that people can't be divided as easily as that.
John says:
Also when you're in a different mood you'll be switching between personalities
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I would assume as much, the answers to some of those questions on the test will differ according to emotional state
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Nonetheless I was surprised how accurate the description of my personality type was, granted I scored rather high on all of the 4 traits
John says:
I accidently did one personality test twice
John says:
and came up with different results
John says:
it was 6 months betwen the tests though
John says:
one was at the start of the semester and the other was near the end
John says:
I had a huge personality shift according to the test
John says:
but that was just because I was relaxed at the start of the semester, and one of my friends was conducting the test.
John says:
and the 2nd test was being conducted by my manager and we had deadlines and exams coming up
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I still think that there exist general trends in human behavior
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
which we may not be able to measure
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
but over long persiods of observation
John says:
I agree
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
we should be able to classify
John says:
but I think that classifying them as a percentage in each area is probably better
John says:
rather than saying you're definitely these personality types
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I agree
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
These types are established as archetypes
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
most people fall in between two or more
John says:
just wondering, how much of our personality do you think is genetic, and how much enviromental?
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Tough question
John says:
Hrmm we need more discussion threads in the Hive forum
John says:
*decides to post it*
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I do believe that genetics plays a predominant role in determining certain aptitudes of individuals.
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
As for personality itself
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
I think that it is shaped by the environment
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
but limited by genetics
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
for example
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
the NT types
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
form a very small % of the total population
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
~1%
John says:
NT?
John says:
mind if I post this discussion
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
They tend to be the scientists, philosophers, great thinkers, etc. And I think that their innate biological intelligence makes them predisposed to being of a particular personality.
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Not at all
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Intuitive-thinking
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
As in INTP
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
In fact post a link to the test as well
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
See what the Hive memebrs are.
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
Also http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/personhome.htm
WWJD - for a Klondike Bar? says:
They can look up the descriptions there
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jamski
|
 |
lol ED&D is officially full PvP LOL
May 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
HEY! I'm a mastermind! Excellent! I followed the link to a wonderful article 
quote:
The Portrait of the Mastermind (iNTj)
Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition it is the contingency planning or entailment organizing role that reaches the highest development in Masterminds. Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on.
It is in their abilities that Masterminds differ from the other Rationals, while in most of their attitudes they are just like the others. However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will. They are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population. Being very judicious, decisions come naturally to them; indeed, they can hardly rest until they have things settled, decided, and set. They are the people who are able to formulate coherent and comprehensive contingency plans, hence contingency organizers or "entailers."
Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind's well-defined goals. Natural leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds. On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy. |
I highlighted the points I thought were really relevant
-Jam
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2003 03:46
Sadly that's probably true; I would honestly be surprised if we even have any extroverts, let alone capable leaders.
Think harder.
|