Character vs Personality

[LPolaright]

Sure, with got a lot of personality typing systems, such as MBTI, Socionics, Pod'lair, Enneagrams.

But what about character? as it is based on beliefs it is more prone to change but what qualities are there to "change"? knowing the qualities could benefit us for manipulation, communication, disband hostility and so on...

How can we define character typing? and if we do - would we do it each time we meet the person in question? (as it is dynamic) or could we find some "pivots" that are constants for the character of this person?

Given a character + personality could we find a pattern of behavior and decide how a person would act?

Anyone interested on taking this project?

 

[MissQuote]

Isn't Character Typing exactly what Religion and Psychiatry have always attempted to do?

Who is going to decide on what character traits are admirable and which are diabolical and which are damnable and which are all three and all the other things a character trait could be?

What is morality anyway?

Morality seems like a cultural figment to me. Structural phantoms meant to constrain the individual for the sake of the society. This is not an inherently bad thing though it can lead to witch hunts.

I am not sure I like or trust the person who decides to take up the yoke of deciding on a Character Compass Typing system. I would question their morality.

 

[LPolaright]

Isn't Character Typing exactly what Religion and Psychiatry have always attempted to do?

Who is going to decide on what character traits are admirable and which are diabolical and which are damnable and which are all three and all the other things a character trait could be?

What is morality anyway?

Morality seems like a cultural figment to me. Structural phantoms meant to constrain the individual for the sake of the society. This is not an inherently bad thing though it can lead to witch hunts.

I am not sure I like or trust the person who decides to take up the yoke of deciding on a Character Compass Typing system. I would question their morality.

I think religion tried to define several characters as "bad" and others as "good".
Psychiatry tries to define characters to dangerous behaviors or future mental damages in order to take care of them.

I'm not in favour of giving sentimental attributes to character such as "good" and "bad", I'd rather want to point out to see how character works, and how it affects are behavior. How can we organize the information we procure on daily basis to the system and eventually recognize patterns that will give us a deeper understanding. Objective deeper understanding.

Morality is rather dangerous - I agree, but all great and advancing inventions took this risk. By talking about this system we're already taking steps on developing it to an actual thing. If not us - others will surely invent it.

I can say that I suspect of Pod'lair to do exactly what I'm talking about and thus they are so private (almost as an occult). But I believe there should be a freedom of information - to make our species more advanced. Though from what I saw it bases itself a lot on V.I - which I have yet to figure out whether or not it is accurate enough.

Can you say Oppenheimer was amoral or untrustworthy?

I believe the pioneers, the inventors of the system would eventually define it's use.