Kickle said:

CosmicJoke said:

Kickle said:

You must suck at multiple choice problems

---

  Depends, I'm freakishly good at standardized tests in say scholastics, especially with the process of elimination, etc.  But I'm far more indecisive at things like the MBTI......  I feel so many of those answers are sometimes, but not always.  When it comes to matters of personal preference, being boxed into multiple choices might just be inine.

---

I do something like the MBTI the same way as you do standardized tests -- process of elimination, or selecting the best answer even though it may not be the only answer that seems to apply.

---

I'm more like Disorder in his first post, I want more information, I see right through personality assessments, like questions that determine whether you're an introvert or an extrovert, say where you choose to stand in a party, and I want to know what kind of party because I've been enough parties to know that the different kind of vibes of the party determine where I'll be standing and sometimes I'm off in a corner talking w/ one or two people and other times I'm being exalted like a porn star, well, yanno if I'm party n' playing at some sort of leather rendezvous .

Quote:

Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who have seen the nature of the good, that it is beautiful, and of the bad, that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me, not only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, For we are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away.

Marcus Aurelius

---

Quote:

If, then, you confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse. But if you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched. Remove aversion, then, from all things that are not in our control, and transfer it to things contrary to the nature of what is in our control...

-Epictetus

---

Cognitive_Shift said:

Which is better?  And does it even really matter?

---

You bet it matters to each person. Or all the ones I know.  Having been seriously depressed has taught me that it's worse than a lot of physical pain that can bring most to their knees. I'll take delusionally happy any day. 

Cognitive_Shift said:

Or is life suffering and any happiness a biological trick of delusion to keep you alive?

---

I know depression. I've known happiness. Let me be tricked. That's the difficult part. I'm too logical to be happy.

In the end if life is meaningless or we cannot know its meaning, imo it's better to float like a butterfly than be stung by a bee.

CosmicJoke said:

See that does sound like happy times to me,  at least making the best of a bad situation.  A logical person would be good at solving their own problems, no?

---

Cognitive_Shift said:

Which is better?  And does it even really matter?

---

sudly said:

Life is life and happiness is a biological trick of choice.

Two people can react differently to the same stimuli.

---