No, it is no hidden meaning behind the question. It is just a question me and my friends argue about all the time, and I just want to know what other people think.

I am gonna use a different twist to see if that makes the question more understandable.

Will you say that a person that is outgoing and open with their feelings are more themselves than people that are shy and timid?

Define shy:sarc:. Not all those who aren't constantly talking are afraid of other people. Yes, this is an issue for me.

Quote

And Fizzyboy I don't understand, are you saying would I ever do something that is completely different my normal self(personality)?
If it is the case then I would say yes there are a couple of times of which I have done the complete opposite of what I usually do and who I am normally. But it doesn't mean that I am not the same person, unless you really wanted to change everything that you are(personality) and what you stand for I think that there are limitations by which you can change who you are.

I believe that although certain decisions may *seem* like they are out of the ordinary; everything you do is an indication of being yourself. It is impossible to do something that is out of character because your actions are what DEFINE your character.

First I will say that it is very hard to define shy, since it depends very much from person to person. But I am going to try to explain my opinion as good as I can.

I will disagree a little with you Nighthawk, cause I mean that people that are "afraid" to talk to other people can be defined as shy. But I am not saying that it is bad to be shy, cause I think that shyness is a part of a person's personality.

I aplogize for taking this thread off topic again. Though I agree with that definition of shyness, most people confuse it with introversion, which seems the same to a lot of people, but is really very different. I will also say that there is a difference between being afraid to converse with others, and simply choosing not to. However, it can be hard for others to tell the difference, leading to misunderstanding and stereotyping. Shy people are almost always introverted, but introverion does not equal shyness.

I don't see going offtopic to be a problem as long as it is related and worth talking about.

Nighthawk has a point here and a rather excellent one - a little shyness in a charactr doesn't hurt at all but when it's too much it really leads ti introversion ... when a character closes up in himslef that means no good, it's alonely life and it can lead to things much worse!:|

That isn't what I was saying at all. Being heavily introverted myself I take mild offense to that :p. Intorverts get more out of doing things on their own than with groups. What is wrong with that exactly? I don't like it when people speak of introversion as a disease that needs to be fixed, it is merely another way of dealing with the world. Do you really think that I should change the way my brain works just because it doesn't work like yours does? I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you personally here, but you struck a nerve a litle more than ElYoungDiablo did. Not quite what I was looking for, but it should give you a better idea of some distinctions:

"Some Characteristics of Introverts:

· Are territorial - desire private space and time
· Are happy to be alone - they can be lonely in a crowd
· Become drained around large groups of people; dislike attending parties
· Need time alone to recharge
· Prefer to work on own rather than do group work
· Act cautiously in meeting people
· Are reserved, quiet and deliberate
· Do not enjoy being the center of attention
· Do not share private thoughts with just anyone
· Form a few deep attachments
· Think carefully before speaking (practice in my head before I speak)
· See reflection as very important
· Concentrate well and deeply
· Become absorbed in thoughts and ideas
· Limit their interests but explore deeply
· Communicate best one-on-one
· Get agitated and irritated without enough time alone or undisturbed
· Select activities carefully and thoughtfully

Some Characteristics of Extraverts

· Are social - they need other people
· Demonstrate high energy and noise
· Communicate with excitement and enthusiasm with almost anyone in the vicinity
· Draw energy from people; love parties
· Are lonely and restless when not with people
· Establish multiple fluid relationships
· Engage in lots of activities and have many interest areas
· Have many best friends and talk to them for long periods of time
· Are interested in external events not internal ones
· Prefer face-to-face verbal communication rather than written communication
· Share personal information easily
· Respond quickly"

The article is good and describes a lot of things well, but at times it paints introverts as fragile and in need of constant nurturing (it is mainly about giftedness in introverts, but I certainly would not put myself in that category). However, here it is if you are interested: http://cfge.wm.edu/documents/Introversion.html

This part especially rings true to me :

"Many teachers report being extraverts. It is very difficult for an extravert to understand an introvert. Therefore the teacher may see the introverted student as someone with a problem, not as simply someone with a different personality type. This may lead to attempts to get them to be 'friendlier,' to work in larger groups, to talk more often and more spontaneously, and to be more outgoing and interactive. There is nothing wrong with being an introvert. It does not need to be cured. It simply needs to be understood and accepted. Of course teachers need to be able to tell when the introversion (or extraversion) is dysfunctional, but introverted students don't need to be changed to match other students. If social skills are lacking, teach them."

And another:

"Introversion is not a pathological condition; it is not an abnormal response to the world. It is simply a personality trait found in a small percentage of the total population."

A few more very good articles that should be read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introversion (A little generic, but good info.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch (A personal favorite of mine, and a recommended read.)
http://observer.thecentre.centennialcollege.ca/life/introvert102302.htm (More scientific in basis, so also recommended.)

Hopefully I have that out of my system now :sheep:.

Nighthawk, is those characteristic points copied from an article or made by yourself?
If it is self made I can understand it, but is it from an article I think it is very doubtful by the writer.

Well after reading those points I see that I may have some characteristics from an introvert, but that don't really bug me, since I see myself as me nomather what.


I apologies if my question sounded judging against shy people since I see that Nighthawk may have thought that was what I meant. Cause that not how I see it at all. I think that shyness or introvertsy are a part of a person's personality and there will a shy and timid person be as much themselves as outgoing extraverts. But I can understand that people mean that people that don't show their feelings aren't being totally themselves.

Anything in quotations is from a reserach article I found, and I do give a link to the article so it is not plagiarized. It was more an aggravated response to Chloe than directed at you. Introversy and extraversy are a continuum, you don't necessarily fall into one camp or another. I happen to be more heavily introverted, but still have a few characteristics that are not. It still seems hard to get across that shyness and introvertedness are not completely realted though. As is mentioned in the 2nd article at the end of the last post " Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not." If nothing else, all I ask is to for you and everyone else accept this concept . To further quote from athat article :

"Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. ...Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping."

Reading the other articles, aside from the wiki, clarify that a little bit more. Speaking to another introverted person on the site varified almost everything mentioned, so I believe that you are having a slight disconnect that all extraverts have on the subect. As the articles mention, extraverts have far more difficulty seeing things outside of their own prism, which may also be why you doubt the writer, because it does not fit your own paradigm. You also seem to imply that being introverted is a problem in some way, which I question of you. I still get aggitated by people who call me shy because I don't wish to talk with them. I will say that I am reserved and don't wish to be bothered, which I hardly call 'shy', but I actually prefer face to face conversation as long as it is only with one or a few people.

A quote from the third article is also very descriptive: '
“We’ve all grown up in an extroverted society,” Olsen Laney said. “It really is quite a concept of negativity attached to introverts.”'

However, I think this tangent has gone on long enough, and that the topic should return to the debate over Heaven, Hell, and the soul, though I admittedly have next to nothing to contribute to that argument myself.

My longest response yet, it's probably a BAF record!

Quote

I believe that although certain decisions may *seem* like they are out of the ordinary; everything you do is an indication of being yourself. It is impossible to do something that is out of character because your actions are what DEFINE your character.

I would have to disagree with you Fizzyboy, if you told me to do something or act a certain way that I would probably never do in a million years I would do it or at least try to complete the task....ONLY as long as there are no consequences as a result. We are all unique but that doesn't mean that we cannot act differently if we choose.

If you disagree could you provide an example to support your belief/claim. And by character are you linking that to your personality?
For example- I'm considered to be shy in public, and I like to be by myself a lot.

Quote

Will you say that a person that is outgoing and open with their feelings are more themselves than people that are shy and timid?

I would have to disagree as my first reaction to reading this but I will give it deeper thought later. You maybe have something on--about an outgoing person is the more open with their feelings. But the part about not being myself..... I keep my feelings to myself a lot, and how would that be considered not being myself?!

I myself like Nighthawk8799 consider ourselves to be in the shy category. A lot of times I don't want to be around people. I'm shy in a verbal conversation and a being around people, I like being by myself and not around anyone most of the time. I spend time with myself away from people to think aobut philosophy and life itself. I don't like to get into face to face conversations with people because I might offend, say something that I shouldn't say, and most of all becasue I can never can find things to talk about; and things like that.

Now the reason I talk a lot on forms and stuff is because I try to explain what I mean to the detail. On message boards they give me a chance to think and I don't feel like people are judging me as much.

Nighthawk8799 is right on the idea-that it is hard for a person to understand other people and the way those people may act. It's hard because- you think that just because you don't do or act like that person they are weird or different.

Quote

now the topic is getting deeper and deeper...

Lanz we are only scratching the surface!!....... Let's see how far the rabbit hole of philosophy, the understanding of the meaning of life, and the possibilities of other forces(spiritual) goes!!


ssetbob7(me)

Quote

"Then we come to this- without a spiritual realm after death everything that we ever did and will do is worthless because we wouldn't exist anymore!"

Fizzyboy's reply(I just now saw this response)

Quote

"The actions we take will be remembered by those around us. That is worth something."

Now EVERYONE think about this deeply and logically don't just respond to what you think of right away, please. I have thought the living daylights about the meaning of life and stuff like that. Now if there is divine intervention then the purpose is life living for that Divine Being would it not or something of that origin,......now if you don't believe in Spiritual Realm and/or Being then you come to the belief in the process of evolution.

Now the evolution conclusion:
REALLY READ THIS PART! Now here is where I said that "everything that we ever did and will do is worthless" if you do not believe in life after death (which I do believe in life after death) the reason is because you would not care that you are remembered because you would not exist anymore to care that you are remembered. How is it really worth something if you don't exist to care for it? People are forgotten as if they have never existed and life moves on.

And you come to another conclusion, based on that life is random the chance that life on this planet just happened to begin by random chance, sad to say life is pointless and meaningless-but only to be lucky to live once on this "Privileged Planet". I mean the odds of and chance to have a planet that has the right conditions to support life is well in of itself astronomical at best to exist ever. Then you have and add the possibility of that planet then creating by chance all these many different creators, plants, and life forms just adds numbers into the equation several folds. There are many books that talk about the odds. Even if it was possible the complexity of the Amoeba itself, considered by scientists to be one of the oldest living forms of life-if not the oldest, and its DNA makes it hard to believe that it spontaneously appeared from non-living matter. Evolotion itself even breaks scientific laws so how can it be considered to be scientific?

And you would also come to the conclusion which is the grave. I think it is sad for the idea to believe that everything ends at the grave. Memory is volatile(which means it doesn't last forever it will disappear).

ooh...interesting...

That I have to disagree with you ssetbob!
I don´t think life ends in a grave...that is what I fully believe...
What is your purpose here? Live and die?
I think that every step of your life means something. It doesn´t end here.
Or else, we could just stop by and leave anytime.
If it is needed, I can talk about this...
It is because I´m afraid I´m being off-topic.

You misunderstood, I was if anything speaking from a point of view IF I did not believe in life after death and what would be the result if there wasn't life after death. I said at the end that I thought it was "sad" to believe "in the idea" that life ends at the grave. I edited some of my last post to correct the confusion.

And this is not really getting off topic in the sense because it involves a possible after-life which would involve a Heaven or Hell.

aah! Okay! Now I understanded what you wanted to say!
Sorry for being slow!

I think it is an important discussion about after-life, but I didn´t know if it was going to be something bad for someone. Nowadays, everyone must have thought about "what are we doing here" or something similar to that.
I think also that the acceptance of the after-life theory makes it easier to believe in free will.
(If anyone shows interest I can talk about it next time).