Bwahahahaha.  "asshole" subtype. . . 

 

most people are shocked that i am an introvert
not very many are shocked that i am an asshole...

most people are shocked that i am an introvert
not very many are shocked that i am an asshole...

ISTP-A  Decided to recheck my @sshole quotient.

Still good I suppose, hope my anti-social score is still up there.

Yeah, I tire easily of his emotional feelings about things with no basis in reality.

Fairly well sums up most rabid liberals and too many democrats.

Often wonder what Harry Truman would think of the current democrats.

I'm INFJ-A
introverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging
Funny that I suceeded in the engineering professions
software and electronics.  I must have mellowed with age.
The test suggested I become a doctor with my personality,
I thought about becoming a doctor when I was younger,
but decided I really didn't
like people all THAT much.
I wanted to fix/make things that didn't talk back or complain.
I don't think the test means much.

Just for grins I went back and took test giving the answers
I would have given at age 17
I came back as ISTJ-A
Mac and I have something in common.

That’s the “F” side coming out. You sound very much like a female marine biologist I used to work with.

It’s not about the meaning of the test. Well, at least not for determining career path. The point I was making it is CAN shed light on different perspectives of people.  In the work context, as well as life. Not end all be all of meaning.

Interestingly my profile changed from when I first took the test maybe 10+ years ago to recently. Then also it changes if I respond from a work context to personal.

most people are shocked that i am an introvert
not very many are shocked that i am an asshole...

not shocked that you’re an introvert. Totally shocked that you’re not a -sa

“Super” 

That’s the “F” side coming out. You sound very much like a female marine biologist I used to work with.

It’s not about the meaning of the test. Well, at least not for determining career path. The point I was making it is CAN shed light on different perspectives of people.  In the work context, as well as life. Not end all be all of meaning.

Interestingly my profile changed from when I first took the test maybe 10+ years ago to recently. Then also it changes if I respond from a work context to personal.

"it changes if I respond from a work context to personal"
That is exactly what I did with the test.
First score was from my work perspective.
Second was from my personal perspective.
Good observations on your part.
I want to be an asshole, but rarely do you get
ahead in the world if you go through
life acting that way.

It’s rare that it happens but people change.

Life experiences such as parenthood is a life changing experience.  Omnigun, you won’t know parenthood from that perspective until you one day have to care for and be responsible for someone who is completely dependent on you for their survival such as a tiny baby which you call a parasite.  Some people count this experience as growing up.  You won’t really know this strong bond of parenthood until you have one of your own.  Some  people become parents but never develop this strong bond, but others do. 

What goes around comes around.  Helpless children eventually grow up and some take care of their parents.  It’s important to instill strong family values as it is what makes the world go around. 

Omnigun, don’t be so fast to to discount people’s religious beliefs just because it is not yours.  Religion is not an “opiate for the masses” just as babies are not “parasites”.   A belief in the almighty is a great source of strength and hope for people, just as a baby brought up well can be an asset instead of a liability to you and your life. 

This greatly depends on your attitude, perspective as to how you see your reality and the world you live in.

Consider a story from the Bible of Saul of Tarsus who was one of the greatest and fanatical prosecutor of the “radical followers of Jesus”.  He pursued the early Christians until he ran head on into Jesus, became blind and was restored. He did a complete 180 degree and became one of Christianity’s strongest advocates writing a lot of the epistles in the New Testament. An encounter with the divine is a life changing experience and your life changes when you have one of those.

"it changes if I respond from a work context to personal"
That is exactly what I did with the test.
First score was from my work perspective.
Second was from my personal perspective.
Good observations on your part.
I want to be an asshole, but rarely do you get
ahead in the world if you go through
life acting that way.

I never put much stock in these standardized personality tests

Personality and other traits are usually situational.  Solutions can be technical, creative, objective, subjective, logical, emotional, etc, etc.

Context is king.  I find others, as well as myself, will adapt to the situation in order to better understand the problem and assess a proper set of potential solutions.

If someone is failing at work, it might be fixed with training.  Or they may be having personal problems affecting performance, which may require professional counseling or simply taking time to talk to them.  They might even be unhappy with you or the other employees.  If they can't communicate with you what the actual problem is, maybe a move to another office, or even leaving, is the best solution (doesn't solve the underlying problem, but sometimes you have to sever the limb to stop the infection).

Working in an office takes a different set of skills than being on the road all the time.  So does working alone versus supervising a large team.  Too many scenarios to list.

It all comes down to your ability to adapt to a given situation and apply what you already know.  Just because you tested in a mostly technical, logical, analytical quadrant does not mean you lack the emotional, feeling, empathetic characteristics.  A good leader and manager is well-rounded, having a broad range of knowledge. 

Jack of all trades, master of few.

These tests are mostly for managers.  These are blunt tools that let managers pigeonhole employees so they might better understand what is needed to motivate their workers and whether a person is more suited a given task over others. 

You manage things.  You lead people.

It’s rare that it happens but people change.

Life experiences such as parenthood is a life changing experience.  Omnigun, you won’t know parenthood from that perspective until you one day have to care for and be responsible for someone who is completely dependent on you for their survival such as a tiny baby which you call a parasite.  Some people count this experience as growing up.  You won’t really know this strong bond of parenthood until you have one of your own.  Some  people become parents but never develop this strong bond, but others do. 

What goes around comes around.  Helpless children eventually grow up and some take care of their parents.  It’s important to instill strong family values as it is what makes the world go around. 

Omnigun, don’t be so fast to to discount people’s religious beliefs just because it is not yours.  Religion is not an “opiate for the masses” just as babies are not “parasites”.   A belief in the almighty is a great source of strength and hope for people, just as a baby brought up well can be an asset instead of a liability to you and your life. 

This greatly depends on your attitude, perspective as to how you see your reality and the world you live in.

Consider a story from the Bible of Saul of Tarsus who was one of the greatest and fanatical prosecutor of the “radical followers of Jesus”.  He pursued the early Christians until he ran head on into Jesus, became blind and was restored. He did a complete 180 degree and became one of Christianity’s strongest advocates writing a lot of the epistles in the New Testament. An encounter with the divine is a life changing experience and your life changes when you have one of those.

As with my recent summarization.  https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38106.msg340489#msg340489 I most mostly fighting for the "rights" of others/everyone.  I've never had to use abortion services and I never plan to.  Parasite language was a bit harsh i was heated.   I will see if being a parent which I hopefully will be with my GF one day will change me but even if does.  I don't believe I will ever change fighting for someone else's right to get an abortion.  Even if I personally one day find god, discover some science or get a change of heart.  Its more of a freedom principle thing. Much like free speech and the right to own firearms.  If I do change on that view I just become another hypocrite. You cant be pro gun and anti abortion.

On a side not even if I have kids I have no expectations for them to be forced to take care of me.  I am happy to go to a care home. Family values don't have to be religion based.  I plan to raise my children agnostic but if they find religion as long as its not a cult that's their own freewill.

While religion can be a force for good, it can also be a force for evil just as easily.  I remain neutral, others can practice it and I will find out the truth if I die. 

Not if but when. 

Death is the only certain thing.  And taxes. :Shaka:

Not if but when. 

Death is the only certain thing.  And taxes. :Shaka:

  Lowkey I hope technology advances to a point I am no longer mortal.  Via robotics or uploading my consciousness. Its not out of realm to solve death in my timeframe.

You cant be pro gun federally and anti abortion state supporter.

I would re-think this assumption as there are a lot of people who are strongly pro-gun who are also pro-life (anti-abortion).

I would re-think this assumption as there are a lot of people who are strongly pro-gun who are also pro-life (anti-abortion).

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38106.msg340489#msg340489

TLDR you cant be pro states rights for abortion but anti states rights for gun control.  Its a bit hypocritical to be both.

If you believe the state should have the undeniable rights to regulate abortion, theoretically you should support its rights to gun control. 
If you want to guarantee the rights of all to firearms, you should guarantee the rights to pro-choice for all.

You cant be pro gun and anti abortion.

I'm pro-gun because I believe in protecting life.

I'm pro-life for the same reason.

You need to stop trying to speak in absolutes.  You're not very good at it.

Gun rights are natural, god-given rights protected under the Constitution.  Therefore, a federal issue.

Abortion is not a natural, god-given right, nor is it protected under the Constitution.  Therefore, a state issue.

As Ginsburg said, the Roe decision affirmed the right of DOCTORS to perform abortions.  It in no way affirmed a woman's right to have an abortion.  Maybe a distinction without a difference to you, but it demonstrates the Liberal pro-abortion framing of the issue, and how the "Constitutional" right to privacy BS was just that.

Raising a child is not just about having a nanny to take care of you in old age.  I know of many good parents who take good care of their children and pay for their own care home in their old age. 

There are many rich experiences you get to have with your children as you grow up together, them as a child and you as an adult.  Responsibility for them and concern for their future is a very humbling experience and you realize how short of a life we have and how little we have control of anything. 

There’s another Greek proverb that come to mind.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

I'm pro-gun because I believe in protecting life.

I'm pro-life for the same reason.

You need to stop trying to speak in absolutes.  You're not very good at it.

Gun rights are natural, god-given rights protected under the Constitution.  Therefore, a federal issue.

Abortion is not a natural, god-given right, nor is it protected under the Constitution.  Therefore, a state issue.

As Ginsburg said, the Roe decision affirmed the right of DOCTORS to perform abortions.  It in no way affirmed a woman's right to have an abortion.  Maybe a distinction without a difference to you, but it demonstrates the Liberal pro-abortion framing of the issue, and how the "Constitutional" right to privacy BS was just that.

Just like I said previously and the other user pointed out the constitution isn't infallible and couldn't predict everything in the future.  Just like free speech the internet it can be interpreted for modern times.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.

A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 154.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.[54]

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 164.


You keep saying doctor, doctor, doctor.  I don't see this.  Its a personal privacy right protected under the 14th amendment.  Just like how internet speech is covered under the 1st.


TLDR both are Federally protected.

Raising a child is not just about having a nanny to take care of you in old age.  I know of many good parents who take good care of their children and pay for their own care home in their old age. 

There are many rich experiences you get to have with your children as you grow up together, them as a child and you as an adult.  Responsibility for them and concern for their future is a very humbling experience and you realize how short of a life we have and how little we have control of anything. 

There’s another Greek proverb that come to mind.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

I am not arguing against this.  I completely agree.  Kids can be very rewarding.  I wish to leave the world a better place then when I got here and for my kids to have a better future than myself. Its partly why I desire to have kids.

But one major thing is I want my kids to have more freedom than myself.  I feel we have lost a bit in my generation.  I want to regain that for them and for the next generation.

Just like I said previously and the other user pointed out the constitution isn't infallible and couldn't predict everything in the future.  Just like free speech the internet it can be interpreted for modern times.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.

A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 154.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.[54]

You keep saying doctor, doctor, doctor.  I don't see this.  Its a personal privacy right protected under the 14th amendment.  Just like how internet speech is covered under the 1st.

You're wrong.  The majority of legal scholars agree with me -- as did RBG.  The issue gave doctors the right to perform abortions.  By extension, it legalized the procedure for BOTH patients and providers.  How difficult is it for you to wrap your head around that FACT!!??

As for your CONTINUED harping on Internet free speech, it's the court's realm to rule on that.  It's a particular medium of communication at issue, not whether the right to free speech exists.

You have one thing you said half right:  the framers of the Constitution knew the document would not cover every possible question.  They therefore, in their humility and wisdom, left us an "escape clause:  The Constitution can be CHANGED.  They made the process difficult, so that it isn't changed by a tiny majority, but by the overwhelming majority of states.  If abortion is truly a right based on a woman's autonomous control over her own body AND NOTHING ELSE, then there should be an amendment put forth and debated.  I don't see that happening.  What I see is a bunch of activists screaming to hang on to the existing victory handed to them by the court with zero interest in addressing the underlying questions in open and honest debate.  They, like you, will always retreat to the same talking points, including "The Supreme Court said so!!"   

You're wrong.  The majority of legal scholars agree with me -- as did RBG.  The issue gave doctors the right to perform abortions.  By extension, it legalized the procedure for BOTH patients and providers.  How difficult is it for you to wrap your head around that FACT!!??

As for your CONTINUED harping on Internet free speech, it's the court's realm to rule on that.  It's a particular medium of communication at issue, not whether the right to free speech exists.

You have one thing you said half right:  the framers of the Constitution knew the document would not cover every possible question.  They therefore, in their humility and wisdom, left us an "escape clause:  The Constitution can be CHANGED.  They made the process difficult, so that it isn't changed by a tiny majority, but by the overwhelming majority of states.  If abortion is truly a right based on a woman's autonomous control over her own body AND NOTHING ELSE, then there should be an amendment put forth and debated.  I don't see that happening.  What I see is a bunch of activists screaming to hang on to the existing victory handed to them by the court with zero interest in addressing the underlying questions in open and honest debate.  They, like you, will always retreat to the same talking points, including "The Supreme Court said so!!"   

I will agree with both,  its a privacy right of the patient and the doctor.  What's wrong with that?  The government has no right to snoop into my computer much less the right to snoop into my medical files or procedures. It extends to both patients and doctors as intended.  And i think it perfectly fits in the 14th amendment.

I am completely open to changing the constitution to update to our times.  I think that would be a wonderful thing.  We can add to the second to clariy without a doubt all arms.  We can expand free speech.  We can guarantee the right to our own bodies.  We can cancel the patriot act and permanently restore more rights to Americans.

But for now, like the 1st and 2nd.  The 14th and all the prochoice it brings should be federally protected.  Until it comes to a time where we change the constitution to fit.  I hope we lean to a more freedom based changes but the prolife side like yourself might change it in that direction.

You're wrong.  The majority of legal scholars agree with me -- as did RBG.  The issue gave doctors the right to perform abortions.  By extension, it legalized the procedure for BOTH patients and providers.  How difficult is it for you to wrap your head around that FACT!!??

As for your CONTINUED harping on Internet free speech, it's the court's realm to rule on that.  It's a particular medium of communication at issue, not whether the right to free speech exists.

You have one thing you said half right:  the framers of the Constitution knew the document would not cover every possible question.  They therefore, in their humility and wisdom, left us an "escape clause:  The Constitution can be CHANGED.  They made the process difficult, so that it isn't changed by a tiny majority, but by the overwhelming majority of states.  If abortion is truly a right based on a woman's autonomous control over her own body AND NOTHING ELSE, then there should be an amendment put forth and debated.  I don't see that happening.  What I see is a bunch of activists screaming to hang on to the existing victory handed to them by the court with zero interest in addressing the underlying questions in open and honest debate.  They, like you, will always retreat to the same talking points, including "The Supreme Court said so!!"   

Seems like you had a 12-24 hr bug. . .