Dead Outside's SCS Questionnaire Answers
Hello you guysI am curious what you guys think for my type based on my answers to this SCS questionnaire!
Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!
Ti
What would you understand as an individual’s basic needs? Are these the same for everyone? To what extent do people rely on others to get their needs met? At what points does this become overreliance or underreliance?
Basic needs are whatever is needed for survival and they are mostly the same for everyone. Everyone needs a certain amount of energetic intake in order for their body to survive. Everyone needs water for their body to function. Humans mostly rely a lot on other people to have their needs met, because in our advanced society we have farmers and grocery stores to provide food and water, we mostly do not farm, hunt or actually gather the water for ourselves and have a chain of other people do these things for us, who themselves rely on other people to have certain needs met. It becomes an overreliance when it is an excessive strain on the people who provide for us or puts us at peril of losing access to the good we are used to receiving through these means, when we have not acquired sufficient competencies to take care of them for ourselves in times of provider specific crises or are a burden to society in the name of sheer convenience. It becomes an underreliance when we choose to waste our time to cover every need ourselves when modern society is built in such a way that we can reliably and with high certainty predict that our access to the most basic necessities will likely be secure as it should ideally be everyone's top priority to preserve the functionality of these things.
How do people gain leverage, power, and respect from others? Is it sometimes necessary to use threats, fear, and punishment to accomplish this? Why or why not?
People gain leverage, power and respect from others by making connections with other people, proving themselves to be worthy of respect for their charisma, competency or strength, accumulating resources and climbing social and work hierarchies. It is only necessary to use threats and fear when the person(s) you're speaking to are ignorant to explanations as to why it is necessary or beneficial for you to cooperate to achieve this goal. It is generally not a good idea to rule through fear because people will start to scheme against you and try to overthrow you. Painting the image of a villain of yourself is not very beneficial for reaching goals. Generally, you obtain power by being friendly and competent. You can enforce reasonable rules for as much cooperation as possible that will depersonalize and obfuscate your plans and distract from the fact that you are seeking power. Basically, a good powerplayer also looks the part of a good leader, even if their intentions do not actually reflect that
One commonly used idiom is that “Everything has its place.” What does this mean to you? How do things being “in their place” contribute to orderliness? Do you agree with the idiom? Why or why not?
I believe that situational awareness within cultural and social settings is important, but attempting to force the implementation of a type of social order in an excessively short period of time not only usually lacks transparency in the fundamental reason behind these standards to the average person but also ironically leads to degenerate, overzealous and haphazard judgment and condemnation that destroys the logical nuance required to arrive at a sensible and humane order. To me, yes, things have their place, physically, culturally, socially and logically but strict division leads to a lack of progress in the long run. There needs to be a balanced nuance between conservatism and progressivism that simultaneously eliminates / significantly reduces degeneracy as well as haphazard or excessively severe judgment for people on the basis of not fitting into tradition. Nuance is the God that allows us to find the correct path, not the path that will advance our personal lives the most nor the path that feels the most satisfactory, but the path that establishes that not only does everything have its place, but that, positively speaking, there is a place for everyone, provided that they do not harm or victimize others.
What makes hierarchies work? When are they appropriate to use, and what do they provide to people? Should they always strive for equality and justice? Why or why not?
Hierarchies ideally function on the basis of the competencies of each person involved being exhausted to the fullest, no matter if such competency is of higher or lower complexity. There is a natural hierarchy of intelligence and capacity to acquire certain competencies and those who have competencies of higher complexity should get compensated more because of their scarcity and their demand. This is simply a fact within modern human society that won't change. Hierarchies are appropriate to use to enforce nuanced and humane social order without giving excessive powers to the leaders, being within a democratic exchange where everyone can speak their mind and utmost transparency is the price the people atop the hierarchy have to pay in order to legitimize their position at the top. Hierarchies provide order and a place for everyone, even if these places are not equal, but that is because we are, as a matter of fact, not equal and have intraspecific differences. They should therefore always strive for justice but not always for equality. Everyone should be equal in their ability to express themselves in the democratic process and get the chance to create conditions for themselves that show their true potential even if their "base stats" are not deemed ideal. A child slacking in elementary school should therefore not immediately be categorized as worthless, because there are multiple factors that can contribute to the image of the individual being a failure. It is important to understand how and under what circumstances humans function in what kinds of ways before placing them into a hierarchy. A naturally gifted person could have many invisible risks attached to them we do not know of that makes them a poor candidate to be atop the hierarchy and a seemingly poorly performing person may have special unexplored talents that are not understood because the person is not being properly cared for.
What does it mean for something to be logical? Is this the norm? Provide an example of something logical and illogical, and compare what makes the first logical and the second not.
For something to be logical it has to be consistent with the logical framework we are applying to it, starting with fundamental rules based on our observations of how reality works and then progressing towards more complex formulaic logic that respects these same fundamentals. "Logical" can thus be interpreted as consequential within a framework of rules for comprehending reality. Sensibility and logicality are two different things. Sensibility for human progress, survival and ethics may not be interpreted as the norm, but most observable things can be consequentially dissected and prove the fundamentals of reality correct with their reliable repetition. It is logical to assume that if I have observed a specific atom to appear in a certain type of substance, it will reliably appear within the same substance again, or otherwise we are not dealing with the same substance, but a similar looking substance B that has superficial resemblance of substance A but is exposed as substance B because the atomic level beats the superficial level in the logical hierarchy of what the substance is defined as.
Fi
What does it mean to be emotionally close to or distant from someone? In what ways can you adjust your “emotional distance” to someone else? For what reasons would you decide to do this?
There are multiple pillars to emotional closeness. The first is trust, the second is psychological comfort around them, the third is social compatibility and the fourth is a shared relational vision. To truly be close to someone means to have all of these relational markers checked from your perspective, as well as theirs. Relationships function on the basis of reciprocity and never when more than 2 of these parameters are highly dysfunctional. All of these pillars are necessary for a healthy and honest exchange within a relationship of ideally shared expectations. I can adjust my emotional distance from other people by demonstrating my disinterest in them, avoiding them, setting a boundary, limiting my interactions with them to specific situations (social compartmentalization) and for the positive, I can be kind to them, show interest in their lives, moderate my need for social interaction with them to render myself more socially attractive and less like a pushover and talk about ways in which I do or do not relate to them. I would decide to do this to show someone I do or do not want to pursue a social relationship such as a friendship with them, to subtly demonstrate that we should most likely just remain coworkers or such, to create a relational signal that is supposed to indicate where I desire to be with another person.
Share some thoughts on how you view love and desire. What makes a person desirable? Is this the norm? Are some people more deserving of these than others? Why or why not?
I like spreading love but desire tends to disgust me. I generally like interesting, integrous and kind people, however. Good intentions, a sense of humor and divine respect for themselves and others / holding people to a high standard are socially attractive. This may not be the norm but it very well should be. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and everyone should be given the chance to show their colors and make themselves appealing to others. I think people who are malicious or lack these qualities themselves should learn from the consequences of their attitude or actions that they must behave differently to be "worthy" of participation.
Describe what morality means to you. What does it mean for something or someone to be good or bad? What does it take for something bad to become good? Are some things truly irredeemable? Why or why not?
Morality is the foundation of cooperative and compassionate thinking in society and elevates us above animals, as well as exercising reason. Morality is based on the social nature of the human race which has made us advance as a species throughout history. I personally see morality as an intuitive understanding of what is socially necessary for the achievement of the greater good within a given context. Something is good when it pursues the most ideal path of action to take without being radically evil in the process, since the ends do NOT justify the means when there are more ethically sound alternatives available that produce the same effect. Someone is bad when they are completely incapable of reason, ethics and only seek to destroy that which others have built just for the sake of their own gratification. For someone bad to become good they have to start comprehending that the world is greater than they are themselves and that a certain level of social cooperation is necessary for not only others but also for themselves to not have to suffer. For something bad to become good it has to be thoroughly studied with an open mind and purified from its intentfully defective and malicious parts, so that reformation through nuance can occur.
How are people shaped by their relationships with their friends and family? How do these differ from romantic ones? Are non-romantic relationships more important than romantic ones? Why or why not?
People are shaped by their relationships with their friends in family in that people naturally try to fit in or adhere to the social standards provided by their social environment. The closer the relationship, the stronger the need to live up to their expectations, which is why familial upbringing in particular is very powerful in the process of creating one's worldview. Beyond that, people's social reactions, self-esteem and confidence in particular abilities are tied to feedback of those around them. Another pivotal thing to consider is the amount of affection and encouragement provided to a person by their initial social environment will determine how functional this person is going to become and how much they can live up to their potential. These relationships share some qualities with romantic ones and differ in other aspects. Aspects that can be shared are social expectation from and of one's partner, encouragement and feedback or lack thereof. Things that differ in romantic relationships are potential for sexual intimacy and ideally how the partners agree to shape their future. Non-romantic relationships have the capacity to be more important than romantic ones because closeness is not necessarily determined by physical intimacy and other forms of relationships can be similarly important in shaping one's future, even if romantic relationships have the potential for one to procreate and have a unique relationship with one's children that contributes to the development of society and change one's familial role from just being a son/daughter to also getting to experience being a father/mother. Romantic relationships have more consistently strong potential for purpose on paper but can also be a lot more destructive than other types of relationships.
What can establishing new relationships with people do for someone? Is making new contacts with others as important as deepening the ones people already have? Why or why not?
Establishing new relationships contributes to social exploration and expanding one's horizon in terms of one's personal social compatibility. It can also be useful for business opportunities, as well as gathering new interests and people to occupy one's time with. Making new contacts is important in earlier stages of social development because one may be oblivious to the potential quality of relationships to be had with people one has yet to get to know. However, when one has explored the social realm sufficiently, it may be more beneficial to deepen the relationships one already has to ascertain a reliable social network.
Te What would you consider to be productive work? How would you measure this? What are some factors that may affect someone or something’s efficiency? Provide some examples.
I believe that productive work is work that is equally efficient as it produces a desirable result. I can therefore measure the productivity of work using the parameters of time and quality, as well as the combination thereof. Factors that affect someone's efficiency are the person's competency in the field, the ability to get the task done at all and the ability to complete the task quickly. If a person is responsible for a workload with many different facets of which he is only equipped to efficiently manage 50%, other people who are more specialized in the other areas should be employed to facilitate a more efficient process. Efficiency is therefore granted through division of work and specialization, unless you are dealing with a highly competent individual who does not tend to burn out quickly from having to manage multiple tasks that are different in nature at once.
Think of a time where you needed to complete a difficult task. How did you approach managing the workflow? Why? How can you tell apart logical and illogical workflows or methods of action?
I fully dedicated my attention to the task at hand and came up with better ways to organize the information as time went by since I struggle with ADHD and have problems doing so instantly. I managed the task by starting with the fundamental base requirements and then worked my way up to the more complex and difficult work that necessitates the existence of the simple work having been done as a blueprint in the first place. Going by layers of complexity greatly helps me organize information. Logical workflows and methods of action respect that maximum efficiency can only be achieved if one is fully aware of one's competencies and what kind of organization of information is required for one to progress. I ask myself this question when working on something complex: At what given time does what work process have priority to facilitate achieving the desired result as quickly as possible without neglecting the quality of the result at all?
How can someone make a set of rules or instructions easy to follow? When people aren’t properly following directions or procedures, how do you correct them? When should you?
They can make a set of rules or instrunctions easy to follow by adjusting their language to the level of the person's pre-existing information level and intelligence. I correct the person by asking them at what point they stopped comprehending how to tackle the problem or task at hand and instruct them from there to get them onto my level of understanding in step-by-step fashion. I should do this whenever it is required for me to do so in my profession.
What would you consider a normal level of activity? Is it always necessary to maintain this? Why or why not? How can you tell if someone is overexerting or underexerting themselves?
A normal level of activity is balanced between work, recreation and hobbies. I personally believe people should have high levels of activity to bring themselves closer to their desired ideals, as well as humanity's ideals. For me there is a strong drive to maintain a high level of activity even if my mental health does not permit for me to do so at all times. I can tell someone is overexerting themselves when they ruin the work that they do by making themselves burn out to the point of losing access to their original prowess of competency. I can tell someone is burnt out by their capacity to regulate their emotions, their physical health and general well-being.
Think of an activity you’re interested in which requires certain physical or mechanical skills. How would you differentiate a good and bad technique? What makes these techniques effective or ineffective? How aware of you of your own performance?
So, I am interested in gemstone faceting, also called lapidary. I can tell someone is set up for failure if they have poor equipment, poor technique and so on. I can tell they have poor technique if the facets of the gemstone are not symmetrical and do not match the intended shape or if I observe them being impatient, excessively pressing the gemstone onto the spinning disk in a desperate attempt to accelerate the work. A good technique in gemstone faceting requires experience, a high level of information / acquired competency on the topic and most importantly patience. It is better to start slow and approach the ideal speed by slowly becoming quicker, rather than starting quick, having bad experiences and then giving up the hobby entirely. One's level of performance is reflected in the polish and symmetry of the gemstone and is therefore undeniable.
Fe
To what extent does someone’s emotional state affect a person’s being? How does your emotional state affect your everyday life? When does your true emotional state differ from what you express?
A person's emotional state affects a person's being greatly and has the capacity to change how they view the entire world. It can change the trajectory of one's life, depending on in what kinds of moments the emotional state is being experienced. A positive emotion in a negative scenario can lead to hope and perseverance, a negative emotion in a positive scenario can ruin the moment for the individual entirely, lead to disappointment and despair because reality does not live up to expectations. My emotional state affects me greatly in my everyday life and I try to pursue activities that keep my emotions within a specific desired range depending on the situation, such as motivation, excitement, happiness or anger. My true emotional state differs from what I express when I am just trying to be polite but am actually depressed or when somebody asks me how I am doing, I do not do well but I do not want them to worry about me so I say that I were fine in order to avoid even more negative emotions in myself and others.
How important is it for someone to be inspired and excited about what they’re doing? Why? How can people actively inspire others?It is the most important thing to me that people are inspired about what they're doing.
It is important because one's appreciation for life should be particularly intense and I want to experience this appreciation for life as intensely as possible and also spread it to others. People can inspire others by making them aware of their potential, their power and their ability to change their own lives and those of them around them to create a better world for everyone. A speech can be inspirational, but even something as small as a well-written letter or a demonstration of appreciation can do the job as well. People can also be an inspiration to others simply by showing them that they themselves can be greater and provide others with a blueprint for a better life.
What role do negative emotions, including anger, play in people’s lives? What causes them? Are they intrinsically valuable? Why or why not? What can be learned from negative emotions?
Negative emotions are oftentimes a necessary evil to make people aware of problems in their lives, as well as other people's lives or society at large. Negative emotions are caused by negative responses to one's environment, being disappointed, things not going one's way and things not living up to one's expectations. Negative emotions are just as valuable as positive ones and are not necessarily a bad experience if the situation calls for them. Negative emotions teach us that there is value and purpose in life that is worth being upset, sad, disappointed and enraged for, things that are worth fighting for and not giving up.In your view, what does it mean to be calm?How can someone reduce the amount of emotionality happening in others around them? When would it be appropriate to adjust this?
Being calm means being composed and having a relatively balanced temper. One can reduce the amount of emotionality happening in others around them by showing them ways in which a given issue can be solved without increasing one's stress level in the process. It would be appropriate to do this when people are not contributing to the solution of a problem and are losing control of themselves, endangering others and themselves.
How can you tell how someone is feeling? Describe some signs to look for. What are some giveaways that someone’s internal state is different from what they’re expressing on the outside?
I can tell how someone is feeling by their expressions, their microexpressions, their body language, by the words they utilize and how they look when I catch them off-guard and not adjusting their expression to anyone around them. Giveaways that someone's internal state differs from what they are expressing are that they are not ready to do things they would usually do when in a good mood, hints in their microexpressions and body language, as well as their plans contradicting their expressions.
Se
To what extent does an individual’s appearance and external presentation affect them? How aware are you of the way you come off? Should people always consider how they look? Why or why not?
An individual's appearance and external presentation affects them because they are essentially what builds the person's first impression in other people's heads. Studies show that people's initial judgments of people based on their first impression of them rarely changes, so therefore having a desirable appearance is very important. One's appearance and presentation also corresponds with the person's confidence and ability to feel good about themselves. A person in expensive clothing with a good appearance who is properly groomed is much more likely to think highly of themselves than somebody who is unkempt. I believe to be quite aware of how I come off and like to play with it. Ideally, I want to come off like a divine royal figure but I am sorely aware that this ideal can never be achieved. People should consider how they look but that doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to look the same, because that would be boring and stupid, since it would be reductive of the expression of their personality.
Describe your view on money. What can it do for someone, and how does access to it affect people? What are your thoughts on riskier approaches to attaining it, such as risky investments or criminal activity?
I have a love-hate relationship with money. I think it is a tool that facilitates a lot of evil in the world, but it is of course pleasant to have to spoil myself and make myself feel important, as well as indulging in expensive food and luxurious items. Money can help someone become secure, it can help them become independent from others, but it can also corrupt them in excessive amounts. Rich people always have an easy time becoming even richer because money buys the tools necessary to exploit people that are not as well-off. I believe risky investments are fantastic as long as the risk is calculated since they are exciting, criminal activity to acquire funds are usually stupid, however, and should only be considered when there are no other options available or one is being abused by the state.
What would you consider your short and long term material goals? How do they compare to the goals of others? How can you tell if someone is striving for the right goals?
My short term material goals are of higher importance to me than my long term material goals, even if I do not wish to neglect either. My short term material goals include luxurious items such as jewelry and gemstones, my long term material goals are basically already covered since I have no materialistic aspirations beyond a house, a car and luxurious items. Apart from the luxurious items, my material goals are pretty much the same as anybody's. A certain level of financial freedom, with some luxurious indulgence, however, to make myself feel like a king. I can tell someone is striving for the right goals if they pursue freedom for themselves but don't exploit other people in the process. I think people should always avoid excessive reliance on other people when it comes to money and work towards financial independence.
What makes a person or organization look “put-together”? Are these people and groups more able to exert their will over others? Why or why not? What makes a person good at organizing and directing the will of themselves and others?
A person looks put-together when their outfit has a configuration that is appropriate for the occasion. Usually these business-styles bore me, such as shirt, suit and tie, black pants and black shoes, however, they do elicit respect from other people within business settings. These people do have higher capacity to exert their will over others because they dress the part of a "respectable person" but will be mocked and made fun of in the wrong place because they will be considered arrogant. A person is good at organizing and directing the will of themselves when they appear confident, eloquent and competent. A person who is particularly charismatic and low in neuroticism should excel in this area.
One famous English adage is that “If there is a will, there is a way.” Do you agree? Why or why not? To what extent an individual’s will affect their ability to accomplish their goals?
I do agree for the most part that if there is a will, there is a way, but in some situations there simply is simply no way out and one is depressingly forced to adjust their goals. A person scheduled for execution with dozens of armed guards around him should not expect to be pardoned last second, but they can adjust their goal to making their last words impactful. A person's will is almost everything when it comes to their ability to accomplish their goals, because one's will is the very starting point for every other process it takes to accomplish the goal.
Ne
What would you consider to be the essence – or meaning – of existence? Should life’s meaning be personal or collectively shared by humanity? Why?
The meaning of existence is consciousness itself. Preserving and expanding consciousness, feeling alive. I think that life's meaning should be individually enjoyed, even if it's, in my view, undeniable we have collective meaning since we share the same earth and universe. And are all a part of the same source essence, divided by containers of consciousness.
What makes someone have potential? What makes an individual more capable at something than others? When is it important to consider these capabilities? Can a person be truly hopeless? Why or why not?
Someone has potential if their brain and body is set up in such a way that they can probably accomplish certain tasks. An individual is more capable at doing something than others based on the gifts of their nature and development, as well as their personality traits. Someone can also exhaust their potential by attempting to acquire competencies in fields they field confident in. It is important to consider these capabilities from the moment an infant is born, to observe and see these traits manifest in them and nurture them to greatness. A person can be objectively doomed and still make the most of it from a subjective perspective, but it is far less common than we might be led to believe. Most people are definitely not hopeless, since they give up before even having explored their potential.
What must an individual understand to physically and spiritually develop themselves? Is it more important to recognize the flaws or the strengths that people are given? Why?
An individual must understand that we do not know if we only have one life or multiple lives and that being alive is a special gift that should be used for positive rather than negative. Both, strengths and flaws should be acknowledged, so that the flaws can be mitigated and taken into account to make the individual excel in their strong points.
How would you determine how good an idea is? Do these ideas need to be realistic to be worthwhile? How would you differentiate a promising opportunity from a dead end?
I would determine how good an idea is by how much positive change it would bring to reality. These ideas don't need to be realistic because they can just serve as entertainment and still be worthwhile. Also, what is not realistic in our current day and age may seem much more realistic later in the development of humanity. I differentiate a promising opportunity from a dead end by how many positive factors are involved for the opportunity to flourish.
What does it mean for someone to understand the “essence” of something? When should someone prioritize understanding the core characteristics of a phenomenon? Think of a topic or field of interest you are knowledgeable in. What do you think lies at the essence of it? What does this suggest about the way people should approach it?
For someone to understand the essence of something, one purifies the object to all of its definitive details, removing all unnecessary trivialities that are, well, non-essential for its definition. One should prioritize the core characteristics of a phenomenon when we are speaking in general terms and scenarios where trivial factors are highly likely to be irrelevant. I think the essence of gemstones are atomic/molecular structures on a physical level and aesthetic shapes and colors on a more shallow level. This suggests that people should look at the different levels objects are relevant in different spheres of reality.
Ni
How do people’s relationship to the past, present, and future influence the way they currently live their lives? To what extent does this affect them? How does this influence your own life?
People's relationship to the past shapes how they will view the future and the present. If a person has only gotten negative feedback from life for their existence, they are highly unlikely to have high aspirations for themselves and fight their way out of the negative feedback loop unless something in the present happens that convinces them that their lives can change in the future. I tend to focus which I am lacking but do so in a positive way, so when I think about the development of my own life and purpose I remain aware of what I can become, simply knowing what I have endured and what I can overcome, still.
What does it mean for a person to be at a certain “phase” of their life? What puts people into the phases they’re currently in? How does this affect the way people navigate their lives?
A person being in a certain phase in their lives is determined by intrinsic and environmental factors determining what kind of situation the person finds themselves in for a prolonged period of time. Among these things are level of social and physical development, financial and materialistic circumstances and the development of personality traits inherent to the individual coming together. People navigate different phases of their lives differently because the personality and competency inventory they are equipped with varies.
How do you anticipate events unfolding? How can you observe them unfolding in your environment? How do you adjust yourself towards the way things are developing? Provide some examples.
One can anticipate the unfolding of events by tracking crucial factors within thereof over time and recognizing how the development of these variables will respond to new variables within the equation. I can observe the ups and downs of the relationship of my mother and my stepfather and determine whether they will stay together or not and I can determine likely crypto and stock outcome on the basis of social media traction and historic graph movements, I can also determine the development of my motivation over time and its strength increasing or decreasing depending on what kinds of scenarios occur. I adjust myself towards how things are developing by remaining nuanced and not tending towards extremes, as for instance in the American presidential election of 2024, where I would consider myself a moderate and can assess which candidate is closer to being a moderate in reality than the other by tracking their statements over time.
Think about the way you experience the pace and rhythm of your life. What dictates the speed in which time flies? Why do you think people experience time passing at different rates?
I believe that what dictates the speed at which we experience life is not just determined by pain or pleasure, but also by how purposeful we experience the moment and how much it resonates with what our souls were made for. People experience time passing at different rates due to cognitive introversion and extraversion, repetition in their daily lives that make their experience of life seem dull so they "tap out" of the experience, people do not challenge themselves sufficiently in their daily lives so life becomes very simple and doesn't require much brain activity, which is necessary for one to experience life intensely.
Consider each of the following feelings people have about time: hurriedness, anxiety, optimism/pessimism. What causes people to experience these feelings? What role do they play in our lives? To what extent are these feelings beneficial?
People are hurried because they feel that they have no time to waste in their existence on planet earth and given that a lot of our experiences are not ideal or desirable we tend to be hurried to achieve things that get us closer to this same ideal. Anxiety can also be a result of a chronic lack of individual purpose. Anxiety about the passage of time is natural given that we are all headed towards certain death and it is a natural experience, it should, however, not overtake our perspective on life entirely because then we waste our actual time being dysfunctional and emotionally distressed. Optimism is a fantastic outlook to have but I prefer what I like to call "negative optimism" - knowing that things can go wrong and aiming for the best possible performance or experience anyway. Pessimism on the other hand can be useful in times of crisis and alongside the emotion of anxiety can help us avoid the worst possible outcome. That said, there is hopeful pessimism as much as there is negative optimism and people should strive to not get blindsided by either full on optimism nor full on pessimism.
Si
One of the key themes in the bestselling book Atomic Habits is that what people have in their surrounding environment is the greatest subconscious driver of how they live their life. Do you agree? Why or why not? How can changing the environment around someone impact the way they live their life?
I believe that one's environment can be an indicator of one's perceived self-dignity and this can tremendously impact the psychology of an individual and turn them into a husk that lacks any self-respect or concept of how to obtain what they should ideally look like.
How should people approach managing their health and well-being? How does this compare to the way you approach your own? When should people be taking their health and well-being into account? Why?
People should strive towards perfection when managing their health but particularly their well-being, I personally believe psychological well-being is more important than physical well-being but acknowledge that both are tied together and important. I approach my physical health very poorly, since I have a poor and indulgent diet even if I do go to the gym. People should be taking their health and well-being into account when they feel physically weak and incapable of getting their life together, since nutrition and fitness can be a major factor.
Think about the way sensations, both good and bad, shape the way people live and experience their lives. How important are experiencing good sensations in one’s life? Is there a limit to how much one should chase these? What role do negative sensations play in our lives?
I personally do not believe that negative sensations matter at all unless they impede us on a day-to-day basis to the point of disability. In that case aide needs to be provided. Good sensations, however, such as the appearance of a fine gemstone, a good rollercoaster that gets me excited or good food are all very good. Negative sensations, such as itches, mosquito bites and so forth are just minor inconveniences that should not be granted excessive attention, because that type of stress is just self-destructive. There is no need for excessive attention to negative sensations.
Choose one of the following: art, clothing, photography, graphic design. What makes something well-designed in that area? How do the individual components work together to generate the experience?
I choose clothing. Clothes are well-designed if they either fulfil the purpose of the appearance of a certain social archetype such as a businessman or a bride particularly well, or if they are simply beautiful. I think something is well-designed if it's both beautiful and original, hard to replace and creates a strong and lasting impression on people with intense colors and interesting patterns. The individual components of for instance black pants, dark blue shoes and a black/red patterned top make for an edgy and interesting style that I very much appreciate. These colors just function well together and are pleasant to me.
Describe what your living & working environments are like. How do they affect you? Would other people be similarly affected in the same environment? Why or why not? What changes could you make to improve it? How would these be beneficial?
My living environment is pretty cool aside from the fact that I do not habitually take care of them, so they can look a little messy. They do not affect me very much, but they would certainly impact many other people I know who are more easily affected by sensory chaos. In order to improve it, I could simply enforce a strict cleaning regimen. They would perhaps make me feel an enhanced level of dignity, but I do not really care.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DeadOutside
🌈 🦄 ✨️
