Reality, reality alone, determines what is true. The laws of logic may have been described by ancient Greek philosophers but were existing and functioning in reality even if they had not described them. The same way that gravity was in effect even prior to Newton. Your posts mention concern about some issues. Logic is what allows one to demonstrate what beliefs on these subjects are justified, and which are emotional reactions. Btw, your example of "group X is taking your jobs" is an example of an emotional reaction (fear). It is set up to look like a logical argument but is not logical.

The test seems faulty.

It concludes with:

JERK.

Not to derail too much but I can only partially agree with this. It still, kinda, grinds my gears. I try to explain. The rest of your comment is common sense. However, if someone feels fear then the person still felt fear so with that in mind isn't that also "reality", even if its caused by circumstances that aren't grounded in reality as we both understand it?

Anyways, its simple to understand but reality, more than often, is far more complicated than this simple saying. There is a reason its really easy and compelling to believe stuff like flat earth is the truth simply because the real truth requires more intricate knowledge and even then the statement "The Earth is round" is not really "objective truth" at all. It all boils down to making proper explainations by using and comparing axioms but I'm sure you know about this stuff already.

Anyway, back when I was much younger I actually thought about what might account as "real truth". Do you know what a frostum is? If truth would be on the top of a pyramid and anything that makes truth murky gets put directly below it. Humans, and their understanding of truth, would probably be on the lower/middle half of this Pyramid. Our minds and senses are simply just not developed enough to see the top of the frustum. Saying that reality is truth then is kinda like giving infinite a number, it simply doesn't can't follow universally established axioms.

We can know and can understand a degree of what is true and what might not be true at all. However, truth as a concept, unlike us, operates in a entirely different realm as we do. It literally is the subject of many believe systems and philosophies for a good reason.

Lets create a simple example. Human eyes can observe colour in many different ways. However, Eagles scientifically can see a wider range of colors than us Humans. So Eagles can natually see a "deeper truth" in colour because of their abilities. Since truth is a state rather than a scale there can only be one truth and anything else is either boils down to be an oversimplification or a lie. Which then means that both the eyesight of the Humans and the Eagles are underdeveloped to see the truth, its just that the gap between us Humans and them the Eagles that also creates this logical bridge, which then helps you to compare these two things together.

But since you can not use the same axiomatic principles to create the same bridge with reality/truth as that would require you to compare it with something of the same scale. You can only compare truth with itself, anything else you must scale, which in turn makes the subject loose some of its reality as it is percepted by us. If you know about Plato you probably heard about the Forms, its exactly what Plato was getting at with that idea of the forms. Truth simply cannot exist within the realm of the perceptable but instead it must be reduced to a concept in name only.

If anything, only a degree of truth can exist in our world until we're ready to understand propper reality, which requires us to understand anything at once (again, reality is a binary state and not a scale, anything that oversimplifies it then pushes reality out of such a state). Nowadays, only machines might incompletely help but philosophy is still a pretty new subject for us humans after all. 3500 years of advanced cultural development is not a long time IMHO. Its also why I'm posting this kinda, simply because its too early for us to talk about reality unless we're just talking about some concept that might be related to it but judging from my supposed understanding of reality and the history of epistemology it really isn't.

What I mean is, our understanding of truth is only slightly more developed as it even was 2300 years ago. Epistemology as a tool can only take you so far after all. Understanding truth requires an almost (?) impossible amount of factural understanding of reality which is beyond the realm of possibilities, thats all I want to say with this post. This stuff can be quite complicated, yo.

EDIT: I also think people persueing truth are a commendable bunch. It takes a lot of self-criticism, knowledge and wisdom to becomes someone like this and even then those people can and will be prone to biases. I personally doubt we will ever reach the point of "understanding reality" unless we manage to create something that can perform such a task for us instead and where dogmaticism also can't be applied.

I think your post of yours is superb, yo...still unpacking it.

To add just a few clarifications in response,

I believe emotions are generally worth being acknowledged within their own context even if there is not a logical basis (e.g., if someone has an irrational fear of a thing, they are nonetheless feeling this fear even if it is unfounded. How is it determined whether or not the fear is rational? By examining reality the best we can).

To further illustrate, imagine a child is convinced that a monster lives in the closet (we will say it is a visible one, rather than a "ghost", for simplicity's sake). Surely, all empirical observations would be that a monster does not live in the closet. The child's belief that it does, doesn't morph the monster into a real being.

It is true of course that humans do not have full grasp of reality and truth. It is possible (highly likely?) that humans will never see the top of the frustum, as you put it. I do not mean to give infinity a number so to speak, so much as to use the high numbers, and, more importantly, the methods, that we already have available.

But, I also recognize that in this area and elsewhere, there are places I want to shore up things philosophically. Like you say, it's complicated stuff...

You don't. Whatever the explaination might be you must take it at face value. Humanities aren't really grounded in reality and depend on a lot of cultural factors, thats a objective fact :P!

Peoples emotions are very unlogical, but it doesn't mean that they ain't real. In fact, if one would try to deduct reality by using math it probably would share a formula with other things on it as well. Like other humanities it certainly plays a role, after all, all sciences are also done by people.

Yes, these thoughts aren't "based on reality" but the matter is that these are still real feelings, and thus play a factor that add into reality. A lot of people forget that they themselves still play a role into reality (we exist after all). A world without people would therefore become a world without reality. As there is right now only one reality which happens to include us, also also must mean that you can't just remove people of the equasion. This simply just means that we're also part of the universe, so we also must take ourselves into account to it aswell, including our lack of logic.

So the answer I would give is that this irrational fear is real and saying it happened is the truth but the contents that caused the fear is based on irrationalities (which would also be a factual statement). The follow up question to this that I have is whether or not people are capable of having "logical reality based emotions" that are based on reality and truth which is already something philosophers and scientists already answered a couple of centuries ago up until the last 80 or so years, which very much has a tendency to be "no" :).

As with the rest of your post, the tools to evaluate things in a epistemological sense are simply based on what people have already figured out prior. The stuff that will come after the technologies that we now have to "deduct truth" will therefore simply be the next step in an longer process that may or may not reach to a conclusion.

I took that test 1-2 years back at the request of the friend.

I got the same personality type as Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa, whatever that was. Difficult people to live up to if you ask me.

I think I'm a CSTB (Confused and Slightly Tired Bat) which I think is pretty accurate.

IMHO the MB test is a great way of starting an inner conversation of self-discovery... an entrance into introspection. It isn't meant as an excuse for hatred or bigotry or pigeon-holing others. And, although I've seen it be extremely accurate on many -- and in fact worked with the test at a past job -- I'm willing to concede that my personal experience is anecdotal.

A test of 50 - 100 questions cannot determine your life or every aspect of your personality. It can at best give a snapshot of your personality at any given time under unspecified circumstances. But with any personality test...

... it is only as "good" as how it is used. If the MB test pushes you to learn more about yourself, it's a positive. If it inspires introspection and an examination of your life, that's a positive.

For me, it illustrated both my best -- and worst -- traits and inspired me to both better understand and work on those bad traits. That's all... nothing more.

I understand the mistrust of the use of a personality test... or any test that defines a population... but that's in how people use the test, not in its creation.

IMHO I see much more issue with DNA tests which have great application for tracing origins but the terrible possibility of creating a biological reasoning for segregation... or worse. Where a simple personality test can highlight possibilities, DNA spotlights very concrete / real biology.

At the end of the day I guess the question is... can humanity accept its imperfection? Can we strive to be better despite our inherent flaws... or are we destined to "weed out" problems and strive to be perfect systems / living computers? Humanity lacking humanity.

I'am a turbulent adventurer!

It can be both. The problem is that them taking jobs may or may not actually be true. Once you accept the notion that you don't have a job because it's been stolen, then measures meant to prevent foreign people from taking jobs are likely logical depending upon the specific measure..

"Logical" and "Emotional" can both lead to tyranny and evil. Unless you're suggesting Antifa ilk are driven by logic rather than by emotion.

Either way you're getting off topic and political on what's an otherwise interesting thread about personalities.

No stupid... I think politics are political. This thread is about personality... yet somehow we're dragging Nazis into it.

Also, I don't want things 'banned'... I want consistency.

That is a very, very true statement. Agree 100%
Well, let's try to stay civil, yes? But yes... not particularly seeing the politics in a personality test.

I can understand people fearing how any test that divides people into groups can be used by unscrupulous leaders or groups, but I tend to think the MB test is rather tame and not an effective tool of evil. IMHO I'd be much more wary of DNA tests that can easily be accessed and stored on databases (and has been used by law enforcement to find criminals).

Wants to accuse me of being for censorship/banning he isn't going to get civility. Especially after I've explained my stance a multitude of times to him. Then again, what should I expect from him when he thinks abortion isn't a political issue... let alone a religious one.