Personality VS Realism

[Muratus del Mur]

Personality means to view and act on things from your own point of view

Realism means to view and act on things from everybodys point of view

1. is that right? argument

2. - if so, how can you be a realist person with personality

- if not, how would you decribe personality and realism in just a few words like above

note: i might not have the right word for realism. what i mean is a person that tries to make things very very objective and according to the general perceived reality without beeing influenced by personal feelings and habits.

----

This is first School of Thought "lesson". I wont teach you anything, i will make you teach yourselves. Anyone is welcome to open new topics in similar manner if you feel you allready get the point on how this works. One reply per topic from each player would be ideal to keep thoughts list clear.

[Treehill]

Personality means to view and act on things from your own point of view

Realism means to view and act on things from everybodys point of view

1. is that right? argument

2. - if so, how can you be a realist person with personality

- if not, how would you decribe personality and realism in just a few words like above

note: i might not have the right word for realism. what i mean is a person that tries to make things very very objective and according to the general perceived reality without beeing influenced by personal feelings and habits.

----

This is first School of Thought "lesson". I wont teach you anything, i will make you teach yourselves. Anyone is welcome to open new topics in similar manner if you feel you allready get the point on how this works. One reply per topic from each player would be ideal to keep thoughts list clear.

1.Not so right,personality is okay yet from others posts you can see some of us talk about multiple personalities then it cant be considered a view one being but his conciousness,this mean that if i have more than one couciousness i have more tahn one personality and more than one point of view,second realism doesnt mean acting on thing from everybodys point of view but act from a common sense(its not the same),its like using logic,you throw a ball to another person and the other will catch it,right?Thats what means reality its foretelling what could happen and predict the best or worse course of something based on data reffering to the whole event yet it cant be only described as simple as that since those types of conceits can change from society and other events that may cause a drastic change in human behaviour.

Nuff said.

Obs.:The egg will die if you dont click....T_T

[GlorDamar]

Personality means to view and act on things from your own point of view

Realism means to view and act on things from everybodys point of view

1. is that right? argument

2. - if so, how can you be a realist person with personality

- if not, how would you decribe personality and realism in just a few words like above

note: i might not have the right word for realism. what i mean is a person that tries to make things very very objective and according to the general perceived reality without beeing influenced by personal feelings and habits.

----

This is first School of Thought "lesson". I wont teach you anything, i will make you teach yourselves. Anyone is welcome to open new topics in similar manner if you feel you allready get the point on how this works. One reply per topic from each player would be ideal to keep thoughts list clear.

I think your definitions may be flawed. Personality isn't really acting out of your own point of view, it's really more of a loose term defining the manner in which you react to certain situations. The more times you encounter a certain situation or a close analog, the more defined your personality becomes for that situation. As you encounter more and more situations, your personality broadens and begins to crystallize into a basic set of reactions that define how you act in most situations.

Realism is perceptual. What one person calls realism is fantasy to another. In an objective sense, realism is a pragmatic way of reacting to the world around you. It is colored by personality and depends on value judgements of a situation. A realistic approach means that a person measures an event carefully and does their best to divest themselves of emotion in judging a situation, but many elements of personality are either independed of emotion or so ingrained in a person's psyche that to the individual they are as emotionless as can possibly be achieved. Therefore, realism is not truely realistic, it is as emotionally neutral as a person's personality will allow them to be.

Personality is a person's response set to the basic components of all situations.

Realism is emotionally neutral response to a situation or situations as viewed through the lens of personality.

[Muratus del Mur]

thats so nice to watch your reactions

i never said i was correct or wrong, i am just observing your theories. The simple fact of thinking about this makes the point of this "school" and having a little ammount of doubts makes your reaction more energic than simply agreeing with me ... i sooo enjoy this

[Calyx of Isis]

thats so nice to watch your reactions

i never said i was correct or wrong, i am just observing your theories. The simple fact of thinking about this makes the point of this "school" and having a little amount of doubts makes your reaction more energic than simply agreeing with me ... i sooo enjoy this

You remind me of my grandmother, a Native American tribal shaman. She played this sort of thought game with me every day. I knew you were a wise man when I found the game. I did not have to meet you directly as your game described you in the first 20 minutes of interaction. What I found whn I actually talked with and work with you, very much fit the image I constructed.

I cannot play the game, as my answer would fill far more space than appropriate. I work with both connotative and denotative meanings. I always have. My grandmother broadened my perspective and then I found the writings of Samuel Hayakawa and they were widened even more.

Being strictly technical, I would agree with Morrel. Being familiar with a variety of philosophies I could make still other arguments, split hairs in five parts and all that. Or I could apply the Principles of Imagination and "common sense" and find justification for still more arguments.

In other words, to one degree or another, all views here are valid.

You have created a world in which Truth, Personality, and Reality are based on the integrity of each player. When our actions remain consistent with our character, deepest feelings (heart), and beliefs (mind), then this is Truth, it expresses individuality (Personality), and is Real. Integrity plus Imagination yields Manifestation. Read the adventure logs, the character support forums, and look around the world. You will find this truth to be self evident.

[GgSeverin]

Personality means to view and act on things from your own point of view

Realism means to view and act on things from everybodys point of view

How do I use those two weapons in a duell?

I search inside me, because I wanna prove my point over others, (personality)

I use knowledge because I want to win (reality)

I use both because i'm enlighteed and reality is the song of my personality; is inside me among everything else.

[Gargant]

Hi Mur I think what you are trying to say is an opposition of perspective.

Subjective is acting on your own opinion (The opinion of the subject)

Objective is acting for the whole (Acting for the objective)

It is my belief that you can be an objective person who acts in a Subjective way, you can act for the good of the group, and if your opinion is matching with that of the majority you can also benefit yourself so if you believe the same as the group you MUST be acting subjectively as it is also your opinion.

But it is also possible to act subjectively in a group situation where your opinion does not match the majority of the group, if you begin working objectively towards a common goal, you could actually work off your own opinions in order to satisfy your own goals.

As an example, objective/subjective is used a lot in advertising, in order for the product to be successful the advertisers have to think in terms of 'what message will our product put out', this is the objective, and also in terms of 'how will our target audience receive this', this is the subjective. This raises the question 'which is the correct way to think?' well it seems that over the many years of advertising, it is the products (and the people behind them) that managed to find a balance between the two.

The same is true in society, There is the group, the objective, that produces the society's 'majority', 'the norm' if you will, and sometimes it is necessary to conform to the majority but it is the characters who break away from this and seek to think subjectively who add variety to a society, the crux of the matter comes when you look at the balance. Too many objectives, the society can become stale and bland, no new ideas, always conforming. Too many subjectives and the society would be come anarchic. Thus a balance between the two ideologies is necessary in order to bring balance to a society.

With regards to your idea of Realism vs personality:

The two are somewhat interlinked as it is the personality of people that shape the reality we see. As Glor stated, reality is a mere perception, it is based on our daily interaction with the world and how we are interacted with by others, this is why people have various viewpoints on the world, some are optimistic and positive, others are pessimistic and negative.

But this throws up the question of Does Society (reality) Shape us (Personality) or do we shape society? (These do have specific two word terms but i can't remember them off the top of my head)

There are few answers to this but that does not mean it is easy to come to a conclusion.

Some argue that reality shapes us - For example we see something on TV and because of that we go out and buy the product (This is particularly evident in clothes, if you see someone in a magazine wearing something and think 'I like that' then go out and buy it)

Others argue that we shape reality - Those clothes in the previous argument must have come from somewhere, somebody created them, and the idea was directly from someone's brain,if their product has enough of an impact then it has the power to shape reality, a great example of this would be the PC, the PC shaped reality by allowing people a new way of thinking with regards to calculation (In the early days) and now the way we think about information exchange (with the internet)

These are both valid arguments but society is once again based on a balance between these two, people shaping reality come up with ideas that revolutionise, other people buy into the product (or even just the idea of the product) which means their individual reality is shaped and after the product has been inducted for some time, it becomes part of reality and begins to shape us.

The theory behind this is that it can be compared to the earlier arguments, the people who shape reality are the ones who think subjectively, those who are shaped by reality think objectively. So as you can see, society needs a balance of subjective/objective but it also needs a continuing loop of People shape reality/reality shape people, this is how the human society has always worked and in order to continue this chain must be kept up.

However there is now the idea that it is becoming harder and harder to shape society as more and more things are being invented. So when there are no advances to be made that shape society, surely there is no way for society to shape us.

These are my thoughts on Manu's debate.

What do you think of this?

Garg

Walker of words

P.S. I want to thank manu for starting this topic, i've needed something to keep my mind occupied since leaving university as I have no job

P.P.S. Sorry for the length, but we did this as part of my media degree so we had several lectures on it.

[Udgard]

I think that reality is how you perceive things around you. Personality is how you react to those things you perceive as true.

Thus,

realism : accepting what you perceive of your surroundings as true

personality : how you decide to deal with those things around you(that you see as the reality)

[Calyx of Isis]

I think that reality is how you perceive things around you. Personality is how you react to those things you perceive as true.

Thus,

realism : accepting what you perceive of your surroundings as true

personality : how you decide to deal with those things around you(that you see as the reality)

Well Said, Udgard. I concur.

[Muratus del Mur]

Personality means to view and act on things from your own point of view

Realism means to view and act on things from everybodys point of view

How do I use those two weapons in a duell?

I search inside me, because I wanna prove my point over others, (personality)

I use knowledge because I want to win (reality)

I use both because i'm enlighteed and reality is the song of my personality; is inside me among everything else.

"reality is the song of my personality" .. i couldn't say that better.

[Muratus del Mur]

when saying such complex things in a few words you always have to sacrifice part of the ideeas behind it and you do that by filling the empty space with art, poetry, intelligent contrast of words. making a short , VERY short explanation, is much more dificult than writing novels about it, because you have to make a choice about what ideea to sacrifice and what part to put in front from that complex ideea. This is one aspect you all knwo in the things i initialy said, but the obvious is sometimes to obvious to be noted

I was looking for a spark of genius, not a academic description of this. Gargant, your "article" is impressive, but as you can see i am teasing you with this reply, in an atempt to try to make you and others understand that complex thought are better described by much less complex explanations.

[Gargant]

Manu I agree but due to the way i've been taught I almost always feel the need to explain complex things like this in a very wordy manner (Padding out word limits on essays etc)

I also like GG's examination of the concept.

If you are looking for a short explanation then I think that GG worded it perfectly.

However as a scriptwriter (Not professional, more's the pity) I know how important it is to sift out the good ideas from a piece. But at the same time I find it very difficult to get rid of ideas and the reason my post (or essay if you prefer) was so long was I thought it better to be thorough in explaining all the possibilities of the theory before attempting to summarize it. It seems I got so carried away with my writings that I actually forgot to summarize it so I shall try below (though I doubt it will be as good as GG's):

Reality is my page, Personality the verse upon it.

[Morrel]

Short it will be.

Reality is what's left over if you trow away your personality.

Personality is an illusion created by reality.

[PenelopeLightMoon]

Personality means to view and act on things from your own point of view

Realism means to view and act on things from everybodys point of view

1. is that right? argument

2. - if so, how can you be a realist person with personality

1) No. Personality is the way in which we react to events or things, based on how they make us feel. Realism is seeing those same events or things in a subjective manner, based on fact and not personal feeling.

2)Yes, it is possible but difficult. It requires taking a realistic view of something, before giving your thoughts on the manner. Even simple things can be difficult to view realistically. When going to a new place we often may think it is: ugly, pretty, imposing, dingy etc. Not many people can take in the factual before forming some kind of opinion.

[GgSeverin]

Morrell I disagree:

"Reality is what's left over if you trow away your personality."

But if u can't throw it (try to throw your self! Come on do it!) See?

Then you do not reach reality. You can't know something you are a part of it.

"Personality is an illusion created by reality."

Again no. And here I won't argue ;

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUELL!!

(Glove throwen)

Somebody help me organize this.

I propose to fight a 24 hrs time. The looser start the game from zero.

(just a proposal, open to suggestions)

My representant in the negotiations about how the duell shall be org. is DST if he agrees.

Hey DST, would you make me the honour to be my second on this?

[dst]

Tell me what I have to do . And further more:do you trust me that I will do well in this contest/challenge?

[GgSeverin]

My goal is that Morrel retreat his post.

(i'm stuck in story mode what the hell shall I do?!)

If he wins i apologize public in forum. Or I reset my caracter if he agrees that would be the outcome of the fight.

What I would like much more is to create a rule fo settling in game forum-debates.

RULES OF A PUBLIC DUELL

The question from me to you is how some fights can prove which player is the best.

I KNOW!!! I KNOW!!! I KNOW!!!

We start another caracter (maximum speed), we take 1grasan 2 aramors and fight a well determined amount of time. (let's say 4 hours from 00AM till 04AM )Who gets the more wins is the winner of a PUBLIC DUELL

No, it takes too long.

I do not wanna apology to a player just because he came here 10 days before me!!

Oh, Yes I trust you completely. This is a matter of PERSONALITY !

Ha!

[Udgard]

A bit off topic (since the topic is about personality and reality), but I wish to reply to the previous posts:

I believe that disagreement in thought should be settled with the mind. So, i propose that the duel is an argument duel. Let's say... we set up 4-5 topics and each of you get 2 chance to post on those topics. Those who get the highest amount of people supporting their ideas on those topics win.

[GgSeverin]

Nice Idea, Thx Ugard!! What my second think about? DST?

I'm having soo much fun!

[dst]

I was thinking about the same thing. Fighting is not an option. There are too many variables to be taken into account. And even if you manage to do this a stroke of luck for your opponent or bad luck for you can ruin the hole experiment.

So I agree with Udgard: a fight of the minds would be better. A good warrior doesn't necessarily mean a good player and vice versa.

And no! I'm not scared (and most mp5s know this )but it's not that fair (again most mp5s know what I'm talking about ).

Btw: I will move the posts to the other topic...when I will find again 5 free minutes.

[GgSeverin]

Coming back to topic.

They told me "You have to" 1 000 000 times!

Ihad the feeling that they are wrong 1 000 times.

Just a gut feeling first and some arguments because of it after.

And I was wrong 999 times.

ONE TIME i heard: How the hell did you do it? Is that a kind of magik?

Since that one time I decided not to follow anything starting with "You have to"

Relax, I admit that I'm wrong, But only a-not-common ritual can defeat the loreroot guards!

[Morrel]

Morrell I disagree:

"Reality is what's left over if you trow away your personality."

But if u can't throw it (try to throw your self! Come on do it!) See?

Then you do not reach reality. You can't know something you are a part of it.

"Personality is an illusion created by reality."

Again no. And here I won't argue ;

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUELL!!

(Glove throwen)

Somebody help me organize this.

I propose to fight a 24 hrs time. The looser start the game from zero.

(just a proposal, open to suggestions)

My representant in the negotiations about how the duell shall be org. is DST if he agrees.

Hey DST, would you make me the honour to be my second on this?

See what happens with short answers.. Please throw the other glove as well so I'll have a pair

(try to throw your self! Come on do it!)

You jump to the conclusion here that your 'self' is your 'personality'. I didn't say throw your 'self' away. I refer to the next topic for that, the sound of an empty mind.

You can't know something if your are a part of it...

So If we can't know reality because our personalities are part of it, then what?

Then we have to throw away those layers of thought, memories and even individuality.

Once you do that one can see reality.

The second line is made to make you think about reality, if you understand the first line then the second will show you that your personality exists of illusions.

[GgSeverin]

Glove:

The custom says is a dishonor to wear somebody's else gloves unless you earn them with the sword.

Morel write:

""You jump to the conclusion here that your 'self' is your 'personality'.""

Do not try to rephraze what i said. I just chilled. I Just got over the Ideea that we do not gonna duell.

I do not consider this an answer to a challenge. I will claim that you do not want to fight unless you choose a representant who's gonna contactDST.

And my challenge is offtopic.

I apologize 4 that.

[wynken vanaril]

The two are somewhat interlinked as it is the personality of people that shape the reality we see. As Glor stated, reality is a mere perception, it is based on our daily interaction with the world and how we are interacted with by others, this is why people have various viewpoints on the world, some are optimistic and positive, others are pessimistic and negative.

But this throws up the question of Does Society (reality) Shape us (Personality) or do we shape society? (These do have specific two word terms but i can't remember them off the top of my head)

I don't understand how we arrive at the conclusion that reality is the perception of society. I think you're confusing some terms in there because, as I said in game, it seems like when you say objectivity, you're really talking about social subjectivism.

Let me provide some examples. You claim that reality is a function of the perception of the majority. That notion is actually a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populam. However it can be illustrated to be false simply. Consider the fact that at one point in history the vast majority believed that the Earth was at the center of the solar system, or that the Earth was flat, or that the universe itself was infinate and without beginning. In each of those three situations, we know that the accepted paradigm of the masses did nothing to change the objective truth, being that each of those three claims is and was false.

Now on the other hand, social subjectivism would be the acceptance of socially established and generally accepted paradigms but most people will have some difficulties accepting that as truth once they really consider the implications. If social subjectivism can establish truth or reality than one must accept that, at least in certain portion of the world, acts such as genocide, child sacrifice, and cannibalism are not only acceptable and moral but possibly necessary for survival...

Some argue that reality shapes us - For example we see something on TV and because of that we go out and buy the product (This is particularly evident in clothes, if you see someone in a magazine wearing something and think 'I like that' then go out and buy it)

Others argue that we shape reality - Those clothes in the previous argument must have come from somewhere, somebody created them, and the idea was directly from someone's brain,if their product has enough of an impact then it has the power to shape reality, a great example of this would be the PC, the PC shaped reality by allowing people a new way of thinking with regards to calculation (In the early days) and now the way we think about information exchange (with the internet)

These are both valid arguments but society is once again based on a balance between these two, people shaping reality come up with ideas that revolutionise, other people buy into the product (or even just the idea of the product) which means their individual reality is shaped and after the product has been inducted for some time, it becomes part of reality and begins to shape us.

You're talking about ideology or still social paradigms. It really has nothing to do with reality...only what is thought of by a community.

[Gargant]

The reason I wasn't talking about reality is because I was not using the terms that mur did, I was using the definitions that mur did. I think this is where the confusion comes from.