Checkmate

Typology Test (ISTP)

I took this test several years ago and it came to the conclusion that I am an ISTP-type (Introverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving). I recently took the same test again (and also a different test at another site - similar result) to see if it came out to the same result; it did.

The link to the first test is here. The second, here. You have to answer as truthfully as you can in these tests though!

[Note: The second test does not give you your exact type unless you pay (which I didn't) but if your result in the first test is the same as one of the four given to you in the second, it is probably accurate.]

Below is just some of the information about my type (ISTP):

Like their fellow SPs, ISTPs are fundamentally Performers (note the capital 'P' :-) ), but as Ts their areas of interest tend to be mechanical rather than artistic like those of ISFPs, and unlike most ESPs they do not present an impression of constant activity. On the contrary, they lie dormant, saving their energy until a project or an adventure worthy of their time comes along - and then they launch themselves at it. The apparently frenzied state that inevitably ensues is actually much more controlled than it appears - ISTPs always seem to know what they're doing when it comes to physical or mechanical obstacles - but the whole chain of events presents a confusing and paradoxical picture to an outsider.

ISTPs are equally difficult to understand in their need for personal space, which in turn has an impact on their relationships with others. They need to be able to "spread out" - both physically and psychologically - which generally implies encroaching to some degree on others, especially if they decide that something of someone else's is going to become their next project. (They are generally quite comfortable, however, with being treated the same way they treat others - at least in this respect.) But because they need such a lot of flexibility to be as spontaneous as they feel they must be, they tend to become as inflexible as the most rigid J when someone seems to be threatening their lifestyle (although they usually respond with a classic SP rage which is yet another vivid contrast to their "dormant," impassive, detached mode). These territorial considerations are usually critical in relationships with ISTPs; communication also tends to be a key issue, since they generally express themselves non-verbally. When they do actually verbalize, ISTPs are masters of the one-liner, often showing flashes of humor in the most tense situations; this can result in their being seen as thick-skinned or tasteless.

Like most SPs, ISTPs may have trouble with rote and abstract classroom learning, which tend not to be good measures of their actual intelligence. They tend, sometimes with good reason, to be highly skeptical of its practical value, and often gravitate towards classes in industrial arts; part-time vocational/technical programs can be useful to even the college-bound ISTP. In terms of careers, mechanics and any of the skilled trades are traditional choices, and those ISTPs with strong numerical as well mechanical gifts tend to do extremely well in most areas of engineering. Working as paramedics or firefighters can fulfill the ISTP need to live on the edge; they are at their best in a crisis, where their natural disregard for rules and authority structures allows them to focus on and tackle the emergency at hand in the most effective way.

ISTPs with more sedate careers usually take on high-risk avocations like racing, skydiving, and motorcycling. While aware of the dangers involved, they are so in touch with the physical world that they know they can get away with much smaller safety margins than other types.

Pal: ESTP
Complement: ISTJ
Contrast: ESTJ
Supplement: INFJ
Anima: ENFJ
Suitemate: INTJ
Cohort: ENTJ
Companion: ISFP
Tribesman: ESFP
Advisor: ISFJ
Pedagogue: ESFJ
Enigma: INFP
Novelty: ENFP
Neighbor: INTP
Counterpart: ENTP

To read more about my type, you can view this .doc file I put together from various resources on the internet (some of it was given to me by a friend) here.

Probability versus Free Will

After re-reading Scott Adams' book, I've come to the conclusion that I cannot comment on the book on an acceptable level. It is too difficult to comment on all the arguments and ideas presented. Instead, I will try and take certain arguments and ideas presented by the book and put my own twist on the them. This will not be done in a single post. Also, keep in mind that I am not trying to repeat the exact same conclusions presented by the book. It is chance if my conclusions are identical.

What is probability? By definition, probability is the likelihood that something will occur. What then, is free will? Most people will agree that free will is the ability to make choices without being influenced by something else. If that is the case, do we have free will?

Almost every action we take is determined by wants and needs. Is it really free will when one takes an intentional detour to avoid a traffic jam (ie. choosing between the normal route and the detour)? The person who took the detour must have cared enough to avoid the traffic jam. In other words, that person was influenced by either the want or need to avoid the traffic jam. If the person did not take the detour then, would that be free will? The most likely reason would be that the person had some reason (want or need) to stay in his normal route. Essentially, that same choice was influenced by something.

By now, you must be thinking that everything we do could technically be considered forced then. This is where probability steps in. If you were the person trying to decide between the normal route and the detour, which would you choose? You will probably consider many factors, all of which are based on the practicality of the choices presented to you. In other words, do you want or need to take the normal route? Do you want or need to take the detour? That is not free will - at least, not fundamentally. You can argue that it was you that made the choice but is that true? Were you not just a "slave to your desires"? No, I argue that free will is only true for the choices that we are indifferent to; choices that can be made with a flip of a coin.

I will stop here for now but leave you with a question: If something could predict your exact future, would you still think you had free will?

Too Reliable

Heh, I'm too reliable it seems. I miss a few phone calls and people start to worry. Well, it's nice to know people care. ^_^

Lately, I've been very busy because the professors decided to assign extra homework (not graded) to make sure we understand the material. Basically, we have to have each set done by the next class. Don't worry though, even if I'm busy, I'll get back to you. Just leave me a message. :P

Have you ever wondered what life would be like if you only lived until 30? Have you ever wondered what life would be like if you never died? There are so many things I wonder about. Sure, there's no real point but it's fun. Besides, if you can imagine a different world, you just might have the power to change the one we live in. There are many who go through life and wonder "what if" and never try to show the worth of their dreams to people. The artist draws the world they imagine , the author writes about the world they imagine, and the musician plays for the world they imagine, yet these are only a few examples. What can you do to prove that your dreams are worth a damn? Reach for the stars but never forget your roots. Prove to the world that your world is alive! Imagination is a powerful thing, it gives people a sense of wonder and curiosity. If others can imagine the same world you are thinking of, you've already changed the world.

Anyway, I realize I haven't updated in a while but I still plan to post my thoughts on the book from the previous post. I will probably do so in the next few days.

God's Debris

I've actually had this book in my collection for quite a long time. In fact, I've had it since Scott Adams, the author of this book and the creator of Dilbert, first released it free to the public. If you can keep an open mind and don't mind reading this book off a computer screen, consider reading this book.

Since I'm not very good at describing books like this, I will just place his entire introduction here and let you make the final decision as to whether or not you would be interested in reading it.

This is not a Dilbert book. It contains no humor. I call it a 132-page thought experiment wrapped in a fictional story. I’ll explain the thought experiment part later.

God’s Debris doesn’t fit into normal publishing cubbyholes. There is even disagreement about whether the material is fiction or nonfiction. I contend that it is fiction because the characters don’t exist. Some people contend that it is nonfiction because the opinions and philosophies of the characters might have lasting impact on the reader.

The story contains no violence, no sexual content, and no offensive language. But the ideas expressed by the characters are inappropriate for young minds. People under the age of fourteen should not read it.

The target audience for God’s Debris is people who enjoy having their brains spun around inside their skulls. After a certain age most people are uncomfortable with new ideas. That certain age varies by person, but if you’re over fifty-five (mentally) you probably won’t enjoy this thought experiment. If you’re eighty going on thirty-five, you might like it. If you’re twenty-three, your odds of liking it are very good.

The story’s central character has a view about God that you’ve probably never heard before. If you think you would be offended by a fictional character’s untraditional view of God, please don’t read this.

The opinions and philosophies expressed by the characters are not my own, except by coincidence in a few spots not worth mentioning. Please don’t write me with passionate explanations of why my views are wrong. You won’t discover my opinions by reading my fiction.

The central character in God’s Debris knows everything. Literally everything. This presented a challenge to me as a writer. When you consider all of the things that can be known, I don’t know much. My solution was to create smart-sounding answers using the skeptic’s creed:

The simplest explanation is usually right.

My experience tells me that in this complicated world the simplest explanation is usually dead wrong. But I’ve noticed that the simplest explanation usually sounds right and is far more convincing than any complicated explanation could hope to be. That’s good enough for my purposes here.

The simplest-explanation approach turned out to be more provocative than I expected. The simplest explanations for the Big Questions ended up connecting paths that don’t normally get connected. The description of reality in God’s Debris isn’t true, as far as I know, but it’s oddly compelling. Therein lies the thought experiment:

Try to figure out what’s wrong with the simplest explanations.

The central character states a number of scientific “facts.” Some of his weirdest statements are consistent with what scientists generally believe. Some of what he says is creative baloney designed to sound true. See if you can tell the difference.

You might love this thought experiment wrapped in a story. Or you might hate it. But you won’t easily get it out of your mind. For maximum enjoyment, share God’s Debris with a smart friend and then discuss it while enjoying a tasty beverage.

If you are still interested in reading this book, you can get the .pdf from me here. Please keep in mind that this is not my work. Scott Adams deserves all the credit (for the free book too :P ).

On a completely different topic now, if you're a friend and would like to get in on the Windows Live Messenger Beta, please contact me and I'll send you an invite. Invites are limited though, so get'em quick. ^_^

You're probably also wondering why I'm not commenting on the Oscars. Well, I'm just not that interested.

Anyway, I'll be posting my thoughts on this book soon but I'd like to give others a chance to read it first. Enjoy! ^_^

Tests are OVER!

Woohoo! Tests are over for me for the semester! I've got nothing left (even assignments) except classes until final exams. If anybody still has assignments/tests, good luck to you.

I'm considering going to watch the Blue Man Group sometime in the next few weeks. The show is supposed to be amazing but the costs are pretty steep as well. Each ticket is about CDN$59 (plus taxes) and it doesn't make a difference where the seats are. It doesn't even matter when you get the tickets. ^^;

Ah well, still debating it with friends. On the other hand, David Copperfield is making a return to Toronto. Hm....

Anyway, there are still a few movies I'm interested in seeing, but probably not in the theaters. Just as an example, UltraViolet. Looks fun to watch but the movie doesn't seem that great.

I'd also suggest to those who can understand Mandarin (as this movie is not subtitled yet) to watch Fearless. It's Jet Li's last major martial arts film.

And how about this weather we're having in Toronto, eh? It's like we had no winter whatsoever. In a few short weeks, it will officially be Spring. Tell me, where did our winter go? I miss snow. *lol*

I'll be posting again soon, I've got a few thoughts going through my mind that I'd think would be interesting to share. Until then.... ^_^