No, your empathic response to the innkeeper's situation: "Walk a mile..."
Fast Personality Test
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
No, your empathic response to the innkeeper's situation: "Walk a mile..."
Maybe so. I'm a Gemini, and Gemini don't believe in astrology.
You're going to have to explain yourself. I'm supposed to feel badly for the innkeeper because his business is so successful that he has no rooms available? I've never yet seen a businessman who is bemoaning the fact that he has more business than he can handle at any one time. An innkeepers goal in business is to be able to hang out his No Vacancy sign.... He is getting the maximum return on his investment when that happens, and somehow he is going to need compassion for the pain of that happening to him? He is going to greive because of his good fortune? You have lost me completely.
True to a 'T' you're under-estimating things by overanalyzing things.
Simply put yourself in his/her place - good, bad or ugly.
Once you realize this interaction was much more than a mere business transaction...you'll find yourself all-aboard the empathy train!
True to a 'T' you're under-estimating things by overanalyzing things.
Simply put yourself in his/her place - good, bad or ugly.
Once you realize this interaction was much more than a mere business transaction...you'll find yourself all-aboard the empathy train!
I did put myself in his place. The No Vacancy sign was out, so he spoke to no one who passed him by because he was full up. They knew that from the No Vacancy sign. There was no exchange between him or the person who got no place to stay in his inn. Are you trying to say an innkeeper sits and sighs and worries about people he has no reason to know exist? You're once again trying to create something that does not exist.
There is an old truism that fits his position: All you can do is all you can do. When he puts his No Vacancy sign out that is exactly what he is saying. I've done all I can. He has no reason to feel guilty about what he cannot do, or to worry about what is beyond his ability to do. Just what is there to emphathize with in that? Just how is that supposed to be painful for him? If it is he is neurotic and that will be displayed elsewhere in his life also, but that again is outside the scope of what was said about him.
It might or might not exist.
On what basis do you claim that this does not exist?
You (we) don't have enough information to make such an assessment.
You're assuming this individual thinks like you do thus you project your particular interpretation of this scenario onto the innkeeper. (As opposed to empathizing with.)
You've no grounds for doing so. You must broaden your palate...understand and examine how other's alternate (albeit alien to you) ways of emotionally experiencing a situation may differ from yours.
Last edited:
It seems to me that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. That I can't see a hypothetical that you insist exists, but the scenario gave to no evidence for, means I cannot understand or empathize with an innkeeper. That is just plain old false. But, you'll see it as you desire.
:idunno:
What doesn't exist that I keep insisting does exist.....the particular subjective experience of the innkeeper?
Are you solipsistic?
You keep on insisting that I need to empathize with the innkeeper. As this entire conversation has been about empathizing with those who are hurting your insistence that I empathize with somone to whom no harm was done, and has no reason for greiving in this scenario, is you insisting that something exists for which there is zero evidence. If anything, the innkeeper has reason to rejoice for his business is as successful as it is possible for it to be at this particular moment.
How do you know that no harm was done? (From the innkeeper's POV)
There is a whole spectrum of emotions this innkeeper can feel regarding this scenario.
You seem to take a logical approach to the innkeeper's situation, though the innkeeper may approach the situation completely different than you...as each individual is unique.
It's about possibilities not (what you project as to) what should exist or doesn't exist. Think of the innkeepers response to the situation as a variable, say X. You may sympathize with them logically and see that the innkeeper should not feel bad (because that's how you would view the situation.) But to empathize with him or her you need to understand the possibility of alternate responses. Accept that his or her X may drastically differ from your X.
What's so special about this one? (I took it BTW)
The full article is here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...izzes-are-junk-science-i-found-one-that-isnt/
The gist of it is this:
The most popular — used by the vast majority of scientists who study personality — is called the Big Five, a system that organizes personality around five broad clusters of traits: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience.
The idea behind the Big Five is that everyone’s personality has a little of all five trait groups. What the test does, essentially, is tell you where you fall on the spectrum of each of the clusters.
The Big Five, [Vazire] told me, has produced results that can be shown to remain largely consistent across a person’s lifespan and that can be used to predict at least some part of a person’s likely academic achievement, dating choices and even future parenting behavior. It has also been validated cross-culturally to some extent.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
This one could be fun.
This is an interactive version of the Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale.
Introduction: Following World War II there was a significant amount of interest in what was termed the "authoritarian personality". Psychologists wanted to understand the psychologies of fascist regimes and their followers. This line of research produced the California F-scale (F for fascist) in 1947. The Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale was developed by Bob Altemeyer in 1981 as a revision of the F-scale that improved its statistical properties.
Procedure: The test consists of twenty two opinions and for each you must indicate how much you agree with it. The test should take 3 - 5 minutes to complete.
Participation: This test is provided for educational use only. It should not be used as psychological advice of any kind and comes without any guarantee of accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose. Also, your responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed.
START
Source:
Altemeyer, Bob. Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba press, 1981.
Altemeyer, Bob (2007). The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba.
https://www.theauthoritarians.org
This is an interactive version of the Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale.
Introduction: Following World War II there was a significant amount of interest in what was termed the "authoritarian personality". Psychologists wanted to understand the psychologies of fascist regimes and their followers. This line of research produced the California F-scale (F for fascist) in 1947. The Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale was developed by Bob Altemeyer in 1981 as a revision of the F-scale that improved its statistical properties.
Procedure: The test consists of twenty two opinions and for each you must indicate how much you agree with it. The test should take 3 - 5 minutes to complete.
Participation: This test is provided for educational use only. It should not be used as psychological advice of any kind and comes without any guarantee of accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose. Also, your responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed.
START
Source:
Altemeyer, Bob. Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba press, 1981.
Altemeyer, Bob (2007). The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba.
https://www.theauthoritarians.org
Last edited:
Got a 24 on the authoritarian test. Somewhat surprised it was that high.
For some reason I got a blank page that wouldn't load. Maybe it's the weather.This one could be fun.
This is an interactive version of the Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale.
Introduction: Following World War II there was a significant amount of interest in what was termed the "authoritarian personality". Psychologists wanted to understand the psychologies of fascist regimes and their followers. This line of research produced the California F-scale (F for fascist) in 1947. The Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale was developed by Bob Altemeyer in 1981 as a revision of the F-scale that improved its statistical properties.
Procedure: The test consists of twenty two opinions and for each you must indicate how much you agree with it. The test should take 3 - 5 minutes to complete.
Participation: This test is provided for educational use only. It should not be used as psychological advice of any kind and comes without any guarantee of accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose. Also, your responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed.
START
Source:
Altemeyer, Bob. Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba press, 1981.
Altemeyer, Bob (2007). The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba.
https://www.theauthoritarians.org
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I've had both wifi issues and trouble logging into TOL today, but the blank page is all on me, I'll go fix the link.
It's fixed. Let me know what you get.
24%, mostly over the wording of a few.I've had both wifi issues and trouble logging into TOL today, but the blank page is all on me, I'll go fix the link.
It's fixed. Let me know what you get.
Also, I went into extra innings where they asked me to respond to statements made for me by indicating if I agreed or disagreed across a range.
One that stumped me went, "I see myself as anxious and easily upset."
I had to wonder if I responded "Strongly Disagree," would I be arguing against myself? :think:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It's always the wording, but at least this Likert scale has a neutral option, which I'd rather have, although opinions vary. Plus I'm already aware of what happens if I consistently pick "very strongly" over "strongly," so I can't even be sure I'm not biasing myself when I take it even if I try to just go with the first natural response.
Anyway. I took the test twice a few hours apart, the first time it was 15.15 IIRC, and the second time it was 20.45, and I think the difference was the second time I shifted to "strongly" from "very strongly" a couple times since I thought maybe I overreacted with a couple "very strongly disagree" based on personal animosity - and then a couple questions I answered with neutral because I didn't like the wording of the question, so I'm probably not the best test subject.