Communications skills test

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=683


Snapshot Report
Insightfulness
80 (out 0f 100)

Your results indicate that you are extremely adept at interpreting other people’s words and actions and seeing things from their perspective, which likely results in very few misunderstandings. You seem to realize that empathy is an essential part of good interpersonal skills and therefore, will do your best to place yourself in other people’s shoes in order to better understand them. You can generally get a good sense of what others are thinking and will likely adjust yourself accordingly if the people you’re conversing with seem confused or perhaps uncomfortable. Good job!

Snapshot Report
Insightfulness
41
Your results indicate that you sometimes have difficulty interpreting other people’s words and actions and seeing things from their perspective. This may occasionally result in misunderstandings. Remember that insight is an essential part of good interpersonal skills; being able to place yourself in other people’s shoes and sense what they feel allows you to better understand them. With a little insight, you’ll be able to tell if someone doesn’t understand what you’re saying or if they’re uncomfortable about a certain topic and therefore, adjust your behavior accordingly. Although you can generally sense what others are feeling and thinking relatively well, there is some room for improvement. There may be times when you pay more attention to the message you’re sending rather than how it’s received. With some time and experience, you’ll likely be able to improve your insight even more.

I took the test when I resurfaced and the result was 61.

37 - same verbiage as DaDA

Snapshot report on insightful, I received a 98 out of 100. The description for my test results is the same as
Mayflow's.

87
Your results indicate that you are extremely adept at interpreting other people’s words and actions and seeing things from their perspective, which likely results in very few misunderstandings. You seem to realize that empathy is an essential part of good interpersonal skills and therefore, will do your best to place yourself in other people’s shoes in order to better understand them. You can generally get a good sense of what others are thinking and will likely adjust yourself accordingly if the people you’re conversing with seem confused or perhaps uncomfortable. Good job!

I second that, excellent job.

lightsun wrote:

Snapshot report on insightful, I received a 98 out of 100. The description for my test results is the same as Mayflow's.

This is incredible. How do you do it? I feel as if I am missing something significant here, yet my life proceeds in a satisfactory and fulfilling manner. Do you consider this test a good measure of what it is trying to look at?

Romana, I am a little surprised at the tests results. I knew I had insightful and emotionally
intuitive interpersonal communication skills. I'm just surprised by the score. As far as this
being a good & valid test, I think it is a good baseline. It is not long enough for it to be
totally thorough. Still it did not tell me what I did not already know. Again I am an INFP, and
the results of this test demonstrate one of the INFP's gifts and talents. We all of us, NF, NT,
SP, & SJ have unique talents. You stated you had a satisfying and fulfilling life. Believe me this is a gift and
blessing. As for possibly missing something, we have had this dialogue before. I suppose the
best way is to be the best NF, NT, SJ, & SP we can be. I remember in one of your posts, you
said to know our strengths and to work on our weaknesses. I'm sorry if I have not quoted
you correctly. I don't have a copy of your exact wording.

When I say I am missing something here, it is not the "polite" usage I have described to you. I really wonder whether my life is proceeding without some essential component that I am just too ignorant to miss, much as a lifelong deaf person cannot fully appreciate the sound they are missing.

done the test just now, and for the first (and last!) time:

insightfulness 80.

the test is about real people meeting / facing real people.

Snapshot Report
Insightfulness
98

Your results indicate that you are extremely adept at interpreting other people’s words and actions and seeing things from their perspective, which likely results in very few misunderstandings. You seem to realize that empathy is an essential part of good interpersonal skills and therefore, will do your best to place yourself in other people’s shoes in order to better understand them. You can generally get a good sense of what others are thinking and will likely adjust yourself accordingly if the people you’re conversing with seem confused or perhaps uncomfortable. Good job!

Romana, you know what I see in your test score...an inability for the questions to zero in on you. This world needs people that can hold sway against the emotional tide and ground the rest of us. You are a breath of fresh air and way more understanding than this test supposes. A test built for an artists mind versus a scientist mind. It is more important to understand you, as you have studied, cultured words to share.
However, inside of you I feel such a soft woman...how do you express it? One little poem I was so glad to see, you have no problem understanding, not everything is to be understood. A passionate avatar pic too. Some of the scientific groups of words you put together are wildy lyrical. You are a pleasure to understand and be understood by.

Prettybirds wrote:

Snapshot Report
Insightfulness
98

Your results indicate that you are extremely adept at interpreting other people’s words and actions and seeing things from their perspective, which likely results in very few misunderstandings. You seem to realize that empathy is an essential part of good interpersonal skills and therefore, will do your best to place yourself in other people’s shoes in order to better understand them. You can generally get a good sense of what others are thinking and will likely adjust yourself accordingly if the people you’re conversing with seem confused or perhaps uncomfortable. Good job!

in a homogenous environment.

18 points less and loss due to telescopic haze in pseudo-migratory flight.

Hi Lavender, you Romana and Dearlg1, Mayflow and Guest are all less likely to go insane!

This test only incorporates a minimum of situations all geared towards artistic, emotional/counseling type minds.
We must find one that deals with a more practical, assertive set of situational outcomes. In a test of this nature I bet it would be Dearlg1 and Romana who take the highest score. It wouldn't surprise me either to see Lavender score equally well in this area too for as creative and artistically inclined you are, you have a very interesting mix of practicality that influences your asbtract creativity. Quite unique.

Prettybirds wrote:

Hi Lavender, you Romana and Dearlg1, Mayflow and Guest are all less likely to go insane!

This test only incorporates a minimum of situations all geared towards artistic, emotional/counseling type minds.
We must find one that deals with a more practical, assertive set of situational outcomes. In a test of this nature I bet it would be Dearlg1 and Romana who take the highest score. It wouldn't surprise me either to see Lavender score equally well in this area too for as creative and artistically inclined you are, you have a very interesting mix of practicality that influences your asbtract creativity. Quite unique.

huh? Dearlg1 spoke in possible pluralis majestatis of being insane.

counseling via internet? oh sure, with all the new technology?
the totality of possibilities and the reality of "natural selection" makes me an angel, absolutely opposed to any compromise with hell.

Sympathy is a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings. Also known as empathic concern, it is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort.[1] Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non- fleeting concern for the other person.[2]

In common usage, sympathy is usually making known one's understanding of another's unhappiness or suffering, especially when it is grief. Sympathy can also refer to being aware of other (positive) emotions as well.


Theorists and their definitions
Empathy is an ability with many different definitions. They cover a broad spectrum, ranging from feeling a concern for other people that creates a desire to help them, experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions, knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling, to blurring the line between self and other.[5] Below is a list of various definitions of what empathy means:

Daniel Batson: A motivation oriented towards the other.[6]
D. M. Berger: The capacity to know emotionally what another is experiencing from within the frame of reference of that other person, the capacity to sample the feelings of another or to put oneself in another's shoes.[7]
Jean Decety: A sense of similarity in feelings experienced by the self and the other, without confusion between the two individuals.[8][9]
Nancy Eisenberg: An affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state or condition, and that is similar to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel.[10]
R. R. Greenson: To empathize means to share, to experience the feelings of another person.[11]
Alvin Goldman: The ability to put oneself into the mental shoes of another person to understand her emotions and feelings.[12]
Martin Hoffman: An affective response more appropriate to another's situation than one's own.[13]
William Ickes: A complex form of psychological inference in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others.[14]
Heinz Kohut: Empathy is the capacity to think and feel oneself into the inner life of another person.[15]
Carl Rogers: To perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without ever losing the "as if" condition. Thus, it means to sense the hurt or the pleasure of another as he senses it and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth.[16]
Roy Schafer: Empathy involves the inner experience of sharing in and comprehending the momentary psychological state of another person.[17]
Wynn Schwartz: We recognize others as empathic when we feel that they have accurately acted on or somehow acknowledged in stated or unstated fashion our values or motivations, our knowledge, and our skills or competence, but especially as they appear to recognize the significance of our actions in a manner that we can tolerate their being recognized.[18]
Edith Stein: Empathy is the experience of foreign consciousness in general.[19]
Simon Baron-Cohen (2003): Empathy is about spontaneously and naturally tuning into the other person's thoughts and feelings, whatever these might be [...]There are two major elements to empathy. The first is the cognitive component: Understanding the others feelings and the ability to take their perspective [...] the second element to empathy is the affective component. This is an observers appropriate emotional response to another person's emotional state.[20]
Khen Lampert (2005): "[Empathy] is what happens to us when we leave our own bodies...and find ourselves either momentarily or for a longer period of time in the mind of the other. We observe reality through her eyes, feel her emotions, share in her pain.."[21]
Since empathy involves understanding the emotional states of other people, the way it is characterized is derivative of the way emotions themselves are characterized. If, for example, emotions are taken to be centrally characterized by bodily feelings, then grasping the bodily feelings of another will be central to empathy. On the other hand, if emotions are more centrally characterized by a combination of beliefs and desires, then grasping these beliefs and desires will be more essential to empathy. The ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated imaginative process. However the basic capacity to recognize emotions is probably innate and may be achieved unconsciously. Yet it can be trained, and achieved with various degrees of intensity or accuracy

Just as there is but a fine line between genuis and insane, there is a fine line between empathy and sympathy. Empathy sides on insanity...not meaning to say that all empaths go crazy but the difference between our scores has soley to do with empathy and not sympathy. In terms of insanity factor, any less score is for the better within reason

thanks for all the quotes.

what is found subsumed under sympathy and/or empathy there, is within my interior design called interest and curiosity, almost open to any new reflections.

kindly consider an upbringing in a tradition of altruism versus the new zeitgeist of egocentric contemplation.

sometimes it seems to me that as the collective had to give up its geocentric mental program, the individual "balanced" that with ego centrism. a thought only, it appears to hinge itself on a song like this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLl7RgkfP-A

.... and confronts a merciless ~ perhaps earlier internalized ~ what? demon? ....

The term "Zeitgeist" is typically defined as "The general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The term "Movement" very simply implies motion and change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is essentially an organization which advocates change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time, specifically to values and practices which would better serve the well being of the whole of humanity, regardless of race, religion, creed, or any other form of contrived social status.

The Zeitgeist Movement New Zealand is a chapter arm of a global social network in the thousands all across the planet. We have a common goal and advocate a possible alternative solution to our current failing social experiment 'the monetary system'.
'the monetary system'.

The Zeitgeist Movement, is NOT a Political Movement, we do not recognize Nations, Races, Religions, Governments, Legal, Religious or Corporate Institutions, Social or Financial Class or Power of Position or the Monetary System.

Our understandings conclude that these are false, outdated distinctions which are far from positive factors for true collective human growth and potential. Their basis is in power division and stratification, not unity and equality, which is our goal.

We recognize and stand for Humanity, Compassion, Fairness, Peace, Abundance and Intelligent Advancement through Co-operation, Education, Nature, Science, Technology which leads us on our path of Spiritual Oneness.

The Zeitgeist Movement aims to make everyone understand that the integrity of human beings and the integrity of the Earth are directly related. Human creativity creates technology that makes our lives progress.

The system based on money, religion and politics is outdated and must come to an end. The Zeitgeist Movement offers awareness in ways that will allow us to achieve a social system which functions without politics or money. The old system will phase itself out and education will flourish allowing for the transformation of a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY (The Venus Project)

No human being can understand everything completely. The Zeitgeist Movement is not here to tell you what to believe. It may appear challenging to replace a system of distorted values which is currently running our lives but it must be started somehow.

The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture in the form of a resource based economy. There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society: unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth's ecosystems.

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resources, our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

This is very interesting and I will contemplate it kindly Lavender
Also contemplating the new balance of ego centrism...interesting thing to ponder...thanks

Criticism of the doctrine
Friedrich Nietzsche held that the idea that it is virtuous to treat others as more important than oneself is degrading and demeaning to the self. He also believed that the idea that others have a higher value than oneself hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence, and creativity. [6]

Ayn Rand held that one should pursue rational self-interest, and viewed altruism as an evil moral philosophy. She states that:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes."[7]

David Kelley, discussing Ayn Rand's views, says that "there is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational 'rationales,' on mysticism in some form..." Furthermore, he holds that there is a danger of the state enforcing that moral ideal: "If self-sacrifice is an ideal - if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action - why not force people to act accordingly?" He believes this can ultimately result in the state forcing everyone into a collectivist political system. [8]

Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Naess argues that environmental action based upon altruism — or service of the other — stems from a shrunken "egoic" concept of the self. Self-actualization will result, he argues, in the recovery of an "ecological self", in which actions formerly seen as altruistic are in reality a form of enlightened self-interest.[9]

Finally, one argument is strictly logical. If person A acts in B's interests, and B acts in A's interests, who will be the final recipient of their generosity? While altruism can be seen as a virtue, it by itself cannot settle matters of fairness. An alternative to pure altruism is impartiality, exemplified by the ethic of reciprocity.

As consequentialist ethics
Altruism is often seen as a form of consequentialism, as it indicates that an action is ethically right if it brings good consequences to others. James Fisher, in his article "Ethics" in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states the altruist dictum as: "An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent." Altruism may be seen as similar to utilitarianism, however an essential difference is that the latter prescribes acts that maximize good consequences for all of society, while altruism prescribes maximizing good consequences for everyone except the actor.

Altruism (ethics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The page is about the ethical doctrine. For other uses of the word, see altruism.
Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."

The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste [1], that:

[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that for Comte's altruism, "The first principle of morality...is the regulative supremacy of social sympathy over the self-regarding instincts." [2] Author Gabriel Moran, (professor in the department of Humanities and the Social Sciences, New York University) says "The law and duty of life in altruism [for Comte] was summed up in the phrase : Live for others." [3]

Various philosophers define the doctrine in various ways, but all definitions generally revolve around a moral obligation to benefit others or the pronouncement of moral value in serving others rather than oneself. Philosopher C. D. Broad defines altruism as "the doctrine that each of us has a special obligation to benefit others." [4] Philosopher W. G. Maclagan defines it as "a duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to...maintain quite simply that a man may and should discount altogether his own pleasure or happiness as such when he is deciding what course of action to pursue." [5] Some philosophers reject altruism, most notably Ayn Rand who advocated the moral philosophy of rational egoism.

Some things I'm pondering as I consider ego centrism...

thanks again, Prettybirds!

for taking me from point zero in two different directions, but only one step in either as if all thought would have to follow a logic that can only be linear, and hence broken .... a tiresome exercise of the intellect.
perception (maybe as jung describes it) comprises a synchronicity for which the logic-trained mind will not get the formula. this synchronicity, i know (which is more than assume or believe) is in order although it permits the full freedom of the individual: no sacrifice, but reason. again: reason is much wider than any narrow logic can take it in linearity.

so, logic appears to be an illusion. nice pastime for a grasping and, yes, greedy mind program. a mechanism.

and to put each and any human trait into question to have it "justified" or not is both out of sync and out of order.

this is the difference to the ancient cultures which our ethnologists and psychologists fail to recognize by their scientific methods of research and explanations. (imho, )

btw. did it ever occur to anyone what short- or farsightedness was to our ancestors before the invention of "spectacles"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Very interesting...good coverage

Yup, a headful for me too. Need to sleep on it lovely Lavender See you tomorrow...

Prettybirds wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Very interesting...good coverage

yup. see: it's now necessity vs. duty.

Prettybirds wrote:

Sympathy is a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings. Also known as empathic concern, it is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort.[1] Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non- fleeting concern for the other person.[2]

How about when one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her needs? This is more my style of compassion, or concern. I often cannot understand their feelings, but if I can understand what they need, will try to help.

Prettybirds wrote:

In common usage, sympathy is usually making known one's understanding of another's unhappiness or suffering, especially when it is grief. Sympathy can also refer to being aware of other (positive) emotions as well.

I am terrible at this. Perhaps the one thing that leaves me at a complete loss for words is to be confronted by someone else's grief.