Are You Depressed?

I got very depressed this morning.

I found that Bill Gates is planning to mass inject covid19 vaccine recipients with a personal tracing cell, that will be able to account for everyone’s whereabouts.

Brave new world future shock here we go.
He did appear on tv to soothe nerves, but who knows about people that protest too much?

That reminded me about Eisenhower’s warning about the danger that the military-industrial complex posed for American democracy, as well as the other chickens coming home to roost, among them:

The Warren Investigation whitewash, the Watergate, the Pizzagate, the Red scare, the Dome scandal, MM’s something’s gotta give, Mommy Dearest, whatever happened to Baby Jane? - , who dared call it a conspiracy, now this, -the swamp, the Russian interference in elections, the China virus, are there really aliens among us?, area 54, is Jesus coming back to save us in the last days? Nostridamus, & what if he was right? Apocalypse, the Doomsday clock, will anyone be able to afford that coming trip to Mars?, Was the moon landing a hoax? Was Epstein murdered because he could not have taken his life since he had too much to live for? Is the gay agenda infiltrate bastions if manhood such as the boy scouts and the US marine core? & other unassamabke goodies.

Who wouldn’t feel depressed?

I got very depressed this morning.

I found that Bill Gates is planning to mass inject covid19 vaccine recipients with a personal tracing cell, that will be able to account for everyone’s whereabouts.

Brave new world future shock here we go.
He did appear on tv to soothe nerves, but who knows about people that protest too much?

That reminded me about Eisenhower’s warning about the danger that the military-industrial complex posed for American democracy, as well as the other chickens coming home to roost, among them:

The Warren Investigation whitewash, the Watergate, the Pizzagate, the Red scare, the Dome scandal, MM’s something’s gotta give, Mommy Dearest, whatever happened to Baby Jane? - , who dared call it a conspiracy, now this, -the swamp, the Russian interference in elections, the China virus, are there really aliens among us?, area 54, is Jesus coming back to save us in the last days? Nostridamus, & what if he was right? Apocalypse, the Doomsday clock, will anyone be able to afford that coming trip to Mars?, Was the moon landing a hoax? Was Epstein murdered because he could not have taken his life since he had too much to live for? Is the gay agenda infiltrate bastions if manhood such as the boy scouts and the US marine core? & other unassamabke goodies.

Who wouldn’t feel depressed?

I wouldn’t say there’s anything choleric about your temperament.

What would you have him down as, then?

What’s your temperament, Magnus?

There is no such thing as “extraverted philosopher”. Philosophers are, by definition, introverts. And whoever is active on this board (either as a reader or a poster) is at the very least interested in philosophy to such an extent that they cannot be anything other than an introvert.

Both me and FC are rather interested in philosophy, so both of us have introverted personalities.

There is also no such thing as “choleric introvert”. Cholerics are by definition extraverts. The quoted definition from several pages ago states precisely that.

Introverts are either melancholics or phlegmatics (just as extraverts are either cholerics or sanguines.)

So FC is either a melancholic or a phlegmatic.

But it’s not just that philosophers are introverts, they are also predominantly phlegmatics, since phlegmatic temperament is conducive to philosophical thought.

To determine whether FC is a melancholic or a phlegmatic, one has to take into account the fact that phlegmatics are big picture (a.k.a. synthetic) thinkers and melancholics are detail-oriented (a.k.a. analytic) thinkers.

So what do you think, is FC more of a big picture thinker or is he more of an analytical thinker?

I think the answer is pretty straightforward, given FC’s attitude toward analysis.

He’s a phlegmatic, isn’t he?

Phlegmatic / choleric perhaps, which roughly translates to INTP in Myers-Briggs personality model.

As for me, I’ve done personality tests (a number of them, in fact) several times in a number of different ways and each time I got the same results. So I have no doubts about myself.

Big Five / OCEAN: O+, C+, E-, A+, N+
HEXACO: H+, E-, X-, A-, C+, O+
Holland: AISREC
Myers-Briggs: INFJ
Four temperaments: Melancholic / Phlegmatic

All of the results agree with each other (except for HEXACO result which suggests I’m an INTJ but this is because I’m T almost as much as I am F.)

(Know who else was an INFJ? Adolph Hitler.)

Meno, why is this the clearest of all your posts? and yes, I wouldn’t trust Gates to mow my lawn, let alone develop a product that will go into my body.

Good question.
Will try some time. But later.
Not now., yet. …

Just not yet.

I dont wanna sound a jerk but, welcome to the Conservatives, Meno.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U[/youtube]

(of turning tables)

Whoever is in control of education and media … don’t trust em
it used to be the semifascist law and order types on the right, since the 70s however its been reversing and we’ve reached the polarity’s other outer ranges now.
(Study said impostors affiliations! Draw the web. Some people, like myself, will be revealed to you in a less puzzling light)

everybody knows that there is truth to grouping people into personalities and temperaments
but it’s difficult to be scientific about something when you don’t even know what you’re testing for
mostly because the traits that go under these two words are a mixed bag of things
may as well assign a zodiac sign like ares or something, for a choleric, pisces for melancholic etc
example, i don’t think it is as cut and dry as cholerics cannot be introverts
it’s not even entirely true that introverts can’t be social
which is why the best way to go about it is statistical psychometrics (Big5)
so that you arrive at the essential nature of the traits
it helps to understand extraversion as a combination of enthusiasm and assertiveness

my own example is that I’m pretty fucking assertive
but my enthusiasm is very very low
which lands me at introvert
so when i need to go somewhere and achieve a goal of any kind, i do it, because it is what i want
regardless of my lack of desire to be there, or contempt or lack of interest for the people there
when I complete my objective I just leave
and if by any reason I find myself enthusiastic about something
I am indistinguishable from an extrovert

there’s a great variety of possible personality trait combinations
and the fact that many of them tend to be accompanied by others
does not rule out the existence of unusual combinations
which is a lovely thing
because sometimes you come into an exchange expecting something
and then they surprise you
it’s like finding truffles

I agree. That’s why I wish psychologists were more rigorous with their definitions. It doesn’t seem too difficult (even though it takes more effort), so I have no idea why they aren’t doing it.

Nonetheless, one can put all of that aside and simply focus on test results without interpreting them. And to this end, only consistency matters. You want consistent results, and if you can’t get that, you hope for inconsistent results within consistent bounds. All that is necessary is to cross-check by taking as many different personality tests in as many different ways as possible (self-report one way, self-report another way, get someone who knows you to do an observer report, etc.)

Exactly.

“Mixed bag of things” sums it up pretty well.

And what about capricorns?

Perhaps FC can help us with this.

I’d say that introverts can be social, it’s just that they are less social than extraverts. But I don’t think that introverts can be choleric (and I believe that’s strictly definitional limitation.)

HEXACO is more interesting precisely because it has more traits (six of them) each one of which is divided into four aspects. For example, extraversion trait (represented by “X”) is divided into “Social Self-Esteem”, “Social Boldness”, “Sociability” and “Liveliness”. Much richer than OCEAN model (which reduces extraversion to assertiveness and enthusiasm, completely disregarding sociability for some reason.)

Definitions alone can restrict certain combinations.

For example, there is no shape that is at the same time a square and a circle (the so-called square-circle.) This is entirely due to the manner in which we define “square” and “circle”.

at the risk of starting a conversation about meanings of words
which i will not engage in
wittgenstein is an example from the top of my mind
of someone who was choleric and introverted
choleric-ness it its classical definition is more about assertiveness and ill temper
than it is about social outgoingness

the catch is that you want to allow for distinction of differences
but without making the mistake of not realizing that two might actually be the same thing
to what extent might the traits “Social Self-Esteem”, “Social Boldness”, “Sociability” be redundant?
that is why OCEAN only has 10
it is not a simplification, but a condensation

but of course, they all have their merits and can be used in parallel to solidify an analysis

this is truer in geometry than it is in psychology
which is why one is an exact science
and the other sits on the line of science and humanities
therefore your example does not apply
unlike a square which cannot be a circle
a person can be both happy and sad

…then I would suggest that most would fluctuate between a/any combination of the four Types throughout the day… so two or more, of the four types.

I don’t know about his Myers Briggs typology, but I’d say that you got his Temperament personality-type combination right, though… to be fair, this thread was about depression and not about typology per se.

You do keep such company, don’t you Magnus… ha ha!

I think I’ll take some of those above tests that I haven’t taken before, and see how they tally-up with those I have.

Why do you think Ludwig was a choleric?

He looks like a regular melancholic to me.

I think the key component of choleric temperament is speed. If you do not think and act fast, you’re not a choleric. Even if you are assertive and ill tempered, if you’re not a fast paced thinker, you are not a choleric. And since the mind of an introvert is constantly processing huge amounts of information, the introvert is necessarily a slow paced thinker, and thus, something other than a choleric. (Putin is an example of an assertive melancholic and Hitler is an example of an ill tempered melancholic.)

It applies wherever words are used. And they are used in both geometry and psychology. The fact that psychologists are less rigorous doesn’t mean they are free to contradict themselves.

A much better defense of your position would be to claim that the word “choleric” does not mean what I think it means and that the term “choleric introvert” is not a contradiction in terms.

It comes down to what one needs. I have no idea what the authors of the OCEAN model wanted to do with it, but given its public availability, one can ask how useful it is from the POV of general public. And if you ask me, it’s completely useless. It says absolutely nothing that might be of use to me. The same applies to all other popular personality models – completely useless piece of shit models. To make it worse, you can’t even figure out what is it that they are saying because the authors didn’t bother to define the terms clearly. And that’s despite the fact I can think of a number of ways in which a personality model can be more than useful.

the whole hitting kids in the head with a cane thing and threatening peers with a red-hot fire poker

yours is definitely not an orthodox definition
as by the word’s very definition and etymological heritage it means anger and bile
but like I said
I don’t engage in discussions about meanings of words
precisely because you can take a word and say that to you it means this or that
or whatever you want
and I will not convince you of otherwise because I can’t
and also because I don’t care

a square and a circle are very simple geometric shapes with clearly defined formulas
which is allowed by their simplicity
evidently by cutting out the corners of a square repeatedly
you change that shape from square to octagon, to hexadecagon, etc etc
and you can continue to section of edges infinitely
until from a macro perspective the shape is indistinguishable from a circle
but it is still not a circle
thus the shape is at any given point moving closer to being a circle and having as its ascendant a square
though by definition it is neither
even if it looks just like one
and that is just a 2D shape

a human being’s emotions, behaviors, propensities
are a “shape” of multiple axis and infinite graduations from one side of each spectrum to another
you could hardly know enough about that shape to even consider naming it
this is a subject in which words fail
you give me a word such as cholera, which to you has a topographic coordinate determined by your personality
and it arrives to me in a completely different coordinate
and yet we will talk about it with the assumption that we both mean the same thing
cuz it’s the best we’ve got
words are unfortunately our only vehicle for making magic brain stuff come out

the role of the statistical analysis provided by psychometric
is to minimize the role of the ambiguity of language
from the study of personality traits

i did make that argument
i guess it was too subtle
it was here

Choleric intoverts are more rare, but they exist.

Processing huge amounts of information, as Magnus claims introverts do, does not entail thinking slowly. Mull that over for a moment and that should be obvious. You might be processing a small percentage of that information at a certain time, but there is no reason it has to go slower. The focus is different than the extroverts. And then, well, if you are processing huge amounts of information, it is more likely that you will be processing fast sometimes, to keep up.

He also suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies beside being interested in a very narrow set of subjects that typically appeal to melancholics.

His anger does indicate choleric temperament but I don’t think it indicates that his primary temperament is choleric. (Keep in mind that when we say that someone is “choleric” we mean that his PRIMARY temperament is choleric.)

That’s not the right thing to do but it’s your choice.

Alright.

That’s a rather poetic way of saying that the concepts that we use to describe human behavior are so complex it’s difficult for us to verbally describe them.

THat’s cool.

I take this to mean that you are not willing to define your words and that you prefer to remain vague.

Introverts spend a lot more time figuring out what’s the right thing to do than extraverts do. Do you disagree?

You actually made a claim that psychological concepts are different from geometric ones and that logic does not apply to them i.e. that there is no such thing as contradiction in terms when it comes to psychological concepts. But logic applies to all concepts – psychological concepts including.

By saying “I am a choleric introvert”, you are assigning certain meaning to the word “choleric” and certain meaning to the word “introvert”. From this, it automatically follows that the term “choleric introvert” is possibly, but not necessarily, a contradiction in terms. The complexity of the terms “choleric” and “introvert” as well as whether or not you can verbally describe them is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not you are using them consistently.

Of course, a personality test might tell you you’re both introverted and choleric but only due to the fact that these tests are designed by taking a group of people who self-identify as certain psychological type and asking them to rate a number of statements on a scale from 1 to 5 based on how applicable they are to them. This is an inferior approach to designing personality tests, for obvious reasons, and the extent to which you can use such tests against what I’m saying is limited.

And here’s the clinch: even if “choleric introvert” is not a contradiction in terms, one can still wonder what kind of results FC would get by taking widely accepted personality tests in a honest manner.

A person could alternatively decide to choose
their type, by look.
I think I’ll pass…

6FAC1D46-EEE1-42CF-BAF8-B86B972C3670.jpeg

A different take, on the look of each type… I’d say,
that I exhibit traits from each of those, so not any
one type or thing…

35D7C891-6C3F-4214-9B32-493D21A7A528.jpeg

A case of being what you eat…

Wikipedia: Most formulations include the possibility of mixtures among the types where an individual’s personality types overlap and they share two or more temperaments (i.e. chemical systems regulating human behaviour). Greek physician Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 370 BC) described the four temperaments as part of the ancient medical concept of humourism, that four bodily fluids affect human personality traits and behaviours. Modern medical science does not define a fixed relationship between internal secretions and personality, although some psychological personality type systems use categories similar to the Greek temperaments.