Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Sacred Haven of DebaucheryAuto-translated
Now is the perfect time to share a personality test.
Oh, lol. I was just talking to Lizardu. I'm too lazy to rewrite everything, so here's the text.
I generally enjoy taking tests. It's almost like Arandor; I also sometimes like to answer questions about myself, which is logical on one hand, but illogical on the other. You know what the catch is? The thing is, very often, tests don't have an answer that I could choose. <...> Even when necessary, I find it difficult to tell someone something unpleasant – unless they really annoy me. I can calmly tell someone everything I think about them.
This is a typical example of answer options, none of which I would choose. 19:38:52 I went straight to question 20. It just depends on the person, my mood at that moment, what I think about the person, and so on. There are so many factors. Every case is unique. > I love communication. > I'm not against communication, of course.
This is just ridiculous. And where is the MAIN answer option?)) Therefore, the test was passed terribly, because it couldn't be otherwise. This is what I don't like about tests. Almost every question is like that, where I can't answer with the given options. It's better to have tests where you write your own answer instead of choosing one, and then a real person checks it. I even get mutually exclusive answer options here. I mean, one time I choose one thing, and then the opposite of that.
So, I took some kind of socionics test, and it gave me complete nonsense. It was almost the opposite of my personality. They wrote fifteen paragraphs, and none of it was about me.
What can you talk about?
About topics that interest us. Why would we talk about topics that don't interest us?
Tests aren't really necessary. They usually don't give an accurate result. One test called me both Huxley and Balzac. But I'm Hamlet, a hysterical (though rarely, and thankfully not online) poser who loves attention.
What? A psychotype is a combination of four Latin letters, and its description is usually very accurate.
"Silent people" like to deceive themselves, thinking that they are silent because they are bored of communicating, or people don't suit them, or "I like to withdraw into myself." In reality, as soon as they unintentionally join a conversation, all their great intelligence and subtle inner qualities will not allow them to keep the conversation going; silent people will remain silent, not knowing what to say, or they will awkwardly throw in something about the weather or school, like distant relatives who don't know what to ask the growing boy, except whether he is doing well in school. Can this be called stupidity? Lack of intelligence? Definitely not intelligence or aristocratic boredom.
I slightly disagree with you here. According to you, a silent person thinks to himself: "Oh, how wonderful it is to be silent, what else can I be silent about so that everyone thinks I have an incredibly refined inner world?" In reality, a silent person may not even know that he is silent, because he fully satisfies his need for verbal communication by saying to someone, "Yes, the weather is nice these days..." Longer conversations tire him out, but this does not indicate a poor inner world. He thinks a lot and about many things, for example.
"Silent people" like to deceive themselves, claiming that they are silent because they are bored of communicating, or people don't suit them, or "I like to be introspective." In reality, as soon as they unintentionally join a conversation, their great intelligence and subtle emotional qualities won't allow them to maintain the conversation; silent people will remain silent, not knowing what to say, or they will awkwardly bring up the weather or school, like distant relatives who don't know what to ask the growing boy, except whether he is doing well in school. Can this be called stupidity? Lack of intelligence? Certainly not intelligence or aristocratic boredom.
I completely agree with Locken in this statement. But Vis's problem is that he exaggerated the counter-argument, as if "everyone around is a boor," and he is the only D'Artagnan. Oh, come on, what's the point of such an obvious banality? If we talk about the wit of boors, I see such a connection: if a person is communicative and witty from birth, then they are more strongly influenced by the surrounding society and strive to merge with it in order not to fall behind life. That is, the environment is responsible for the content. But what if it promotes "boorish" values? That's what we get. Thus:
Boorishness is not a personal problem, but a cultural and historical one.
I believe that the person himself is not to blame; anyone can be corrected if they are instilled with higher cultural values. And if this happens, "witty" people achieve great success.
As for the "silent ones," they are less susceptible to social influence and adhere to more conservative values, so due to the mismatch of this layer, there is a misunderstanding among peers, and misunderstanding breeds shyness, etc. But, like everyone else, the silent ones must have their own advantages, although it is difficult to say what they are.... well, perhaps intelligence and skill. But still, their progress in modern society is practically impossible. Therefore, it is necessary to strive to "keep up with the times" if you want to succeed in life; otherwise, there is no other way.
What? A psychotype is a combination of four Latin letters, if that's what you mean. And its description often hits the nail on the head.
Oh, but not always. A psychotype only determines the basic structure of the psyche, and what a person is like depends on the content. There may be a boorish thug, a saleswoman, and the daughter of a president with the same psychotype, but this does not mean that they behave the same way, and it is very difficult to describe them "in the same way." It's just that, for example, their type has developed business logic (that is, making a profit), and then each of these people finds the best way to make a profit: the thug robs people of their mobile phones, the saleswoman raises prices, and the daughter of the president... well, I think she would advise her father on a solution to increase the country's income, because the priority of values is higher here.
Therefore, it is necessary to strive to get "in the flow" if you want to succeed in life, otherwise it is impossible.
You are partly right, but simply joining the flow and going with it will not lead to any success. A person needs an inner core, a set of principles; this is much more important than whether they are talkative or silent. And, of course, hard work.
Imaris
Ple-Sen
