Quiz Result

[rinue]

Seer:

You are exactly what your name implies. You see what other people miss. You are the intellectual of the personality types, as well as the philosopher. You possess a cool and rational nature and take things in stride. You are concerned with the "big picture" as well, and you always know what's going on. You know people better than they know themselves, and it makes them nervous sometimes. You know exactly what people don't want you to know about them, but fortunately you are a pacifist and don't (usually) use it against them. But take care not to get too detached through the lens of that powerful microscope of yours. You can be a little cool towards people and you sometimes need to remember that you need a heart as well as a brain.

The ULTIMATE personality test

Comments

[twiggymolly.livejournal.com]

Interesting! Do you think the test was accurate? You would seem like a very powerful soul to be around.

[rinue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, actually, it seemed pretty dead-on. (Another friend of mine took the test and got results that were accurate to him as well.) In fact, I was surprised by its accuracy - that's why I posted it. I don't know how powerful it is, though. A lot of times I see things that I think are very obvious, but I can't convince other people to see them. So after bad stuff happens, people always say "hey, you were right," but by then it's too late - bad stuff has already happened, *plus* people feel stupid for not listening to me. Other times, I notice things that I know I can't affect, and it's pretty depressing - I wish I *hadn't* noticed, you know?

But mostly, I get frustrated when other people don't notice things - well educated, intelligent people who draw *completely* incorrect conclusions. For example, my city recently outlawed panhandling - begging for money on the streets. If you do that, police will stop you, maybe fine you, maybe throw you in jail. And it's easy to get caught, because to get money from people you have to be in a place where a lot of people see you. The mayor and the city council were excited about the new law, because you can feel pretty threatened when somebody comes up to you asking for money - it's sometimes a thin line from demanding money. They thought it would improve tourism by cleaning up the city, and maybe cut down on muggings because people wouldn't let strangers approach them. A lot of journalists wrote scathing criticizms of the law, questioning whether it was fair to penalize the least affluent citizens for the comfort and profit of the most affluent citizens. Both sides seem to make good arguments, right?

They both missed the main problem, because they both accepted the assumption that stopping panhandling would lower the violent crime rate. Our crime rate *jumped* - we now have more per-capita violent crime than anywhere in the U.S.. Why? Because:

1. The penalty for panhandling is similar to the penalty for robbery.
2. You're much more likely to get caught as a panhandler.
3. You make more money as a robber.
4. You still need money, because the underlying reasons you were panhandling instead of working have not changed.

My point here is that things aren't hard to see - they're right *there*, out in the open - but people can get so caught up in righteous arguments that they blind themselves. It's sort of like . . . movie revenues dropped 4% this year even though ticket prices rose, for the simple reason that less people went to the movies. (Both of these trends - the rising prices, the lower audiences - have been going on for several years, but revenues have been holding steady up 'til now.) Hollywood spokespeople have said "oh, clearly we're starting to get affected by piracy, like what happened with the music industry, and we need to start cracking down on streaming-video cell phones and illegal download sites." The Wall Street Journal has agreed with them, with the caveat that studios have been releasing some pretty disappointing stuff - sequels of sequels with litte thought put in.

Thing is, there's no way it's piracy. People go to movies in the theater because they like seeing things on a big screen. If people don't want to see it on a big screen, they're going to wait until it comes out on video, not download a crappy camcorded copy. It's not because the movies are bad - people go see bad movies, and people watch bad movies on TV "because they're on." The answer is *right* *there* - your audience has dropped every time you've raised the ticket prices. You've hit the point where you've lost more audience then you're maiking from high prices. This is *basic* economic reasoning.

So, in conclusion, "seeing" things can be very useful when I'm looking for business opportunities, but makes me crazy most of the time. ::laughs:: Thanks for the compliment, though.

cheers,
Romie

[achates.livejournal.com]

I got this one as well. Even changed around some of my wishy-washy answers, but it stuck.

-C

[rinue.livejournal.com]

Ah, we noble, perceptive few. :) Miss you. Have new board game that I think you and Tom will like.

love,
Romie

[twiggymolly.livejournal.com]

You brought up a subject that is very dear to my heart. Homelessness. Well, no, you actually mentioned panhandleing, but one is often the other. I have always thought that if the "Trickle down effect" the republicans put so much faith in really worked, that there should be less of a gap between the haves and have nots.
I do not understand why a city will spend so much on on a public work of art or a sports arena when people are having to ask for food on the streets. I mean, these are human beings. Not something to regard as an inconvient eye sore, or a menice to society. All right, the people who panhandle are soemtimes doing harm to themselves and others, but not all of them, and it is NOT our right to take away compassion to an individual if they do not have it all together. In My faith, that is for God and only God to do. I grew up believing that you love and forgive unconditionaly. That means I am to give and help the less fortunate no matter what. If they are doing something like drinking or stealing, that does not give me a right to not give to them. Heck, it is not my place to judge if they are doing wrong (Unless they are hurting others, and then action must take place to protect the victim), but it is my place to help out all people irregardless of anything. Also if we were more equipted to take care of those with phycological disorders, a lot of people would be more able to care for themselves instead of becoming homeless and then panhandlers.

Anyways, I have always had a very simplified view on this matter. I am a optimist. But I know I just do not have enough detailed knowledge on this matter to justify my arguement. I have always loved the quote from George Bailey from "It's a Wonderful life" when he praises common everyday workingclass people. " Is it too much to ask that they work and slave in two rooms and a bath?".
What would happen if we went without city funded entertainment for a while and housed the homeless. Gave them clothes and a place to live and basic stuff they needed to live and give them city funded jobs and health care and watch how many survive. yes, some will drink it away, which is why a good mental health support system is vital, but I just can not help but think that most of these people will become better, self supporting voting citizens. Society is not only rid of a few panhandlers but they now have more people to buy thier goods, right?

O.K. this is of the opinion of a woman who has observed the world for 33 years, and still has faith in the goodness of people. However, I only got in a year and a half on college before I had to go and earn a living for a family.
So, You are very well read and educated, what is your opinion on this matter?
I am very eager to hear your response, but I understand that you are probably too busy to write anything very long. Or anything at all. Anyways, off I go!
Thanks for letting me ramble on here.

Twiggymolly

Part 1

[rinue.livejournal.com]

The first thing you said was dead on: trickle-down economics does not work, because of something we'll call the savings function. With every dollar you get, you have to make a basic choice: how much of that dollar do you want to spend, and how much do you want to save? This answer is different for different people. Somebody saving up for retirement, or for a new car, may have a very high savings function, while a college student may have a very low savings function. That is, if I give one person a dollar, he may keep 50 cents and spend the other 50 cents; if I give another person a dollar, she may keep only 10 cents.

During times of economic uncertainty, people have higher-than-usual savings functions to insulate against the risk inherent in the near future. (In layman's terms: if my job is secure, I'm more likely to sign a lease on a large apartment. If I'm worried about losing my job, I'm going to try to save as much money as I can *and* I'm going to sign for a smaller apartment in case I'm fired and can't continue to make large monthly payments.) The very wealthy similarly tend to have high savings functions during recessions, for similar reasons - they don't want to invest money when they think they might lose it. They may spend just as much on vacations and clothes and things, instead of cutting corners the way some of us have to, but this represents only a small part of their finances. Even if money is not an object, there is only so much one wants to buy. So, if you give a billionaire an extra million dollars, and that billionaire afraid to invest, a hundred percent of that million is going to go into a savings account.

Even assuming that millionaire *does* invest, it's almost certain that he'll be investing in a corporation which is downsizing so as to be lean and mean and ready for the tight markets of today, because this is the company that is the least risky financially and the most likely to return a profit on the investment. So the money is *still* going to stay in a very few hands, because companies are trying to return it straight back to the investors, plus some.

On the other hand, if you're very very poor and I hand you $5000, I can almost guarantee that you will spend that entire amount this month. You will pay off your credit card debt. You will restock the pantry. You will buy new clothes for your children. You will finally take your car in to the mechanic. And when you spend all that money, you'll be giving it to other people, who will *themselves* spend some of it and save some of it, and so on and so on. (This is called the Money Multiplier.) In particular, if you buy from small, independently-owned businesses, (as opposed to franchises which have to satisfy investors,) you're keeping that money in the community - keeping it in circulation instead of funnelling it up to people who will just lock it away.

This is called trickle *up* economics, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense, as you were quick to observe. Unfortunately, most governments are loath to employ it because of the pervasive attitude that giving money to poor people is a "handout" which discourages them from working - despite all evidence to the contrary. There's also a belief that they will spend it "irresponsibly" on drugs and alcohol - as though rich people never do that. But most of all, the people who make these kinds of decisions tend to be the rich people, and all their friends tend also to be rich - but since these are the only people they know, and because they are aware that there are people *richer* than them, they think of themselves as "middle class" like the "typical American" - even if they're in the top 5% of income earners. Hardly the middle.

Part 2

[rinue.livejournal.com]

But on to your comments about helping the homeless. . . Something you seem to realize is that the majority of long-term homeless are severely schizophrenic. In other words, these are not people who have never had the opportunity to rejoin society - they're people who are completely unable to. Schizophrenia is one of the few illnesses we have had no luck in healing - maybe a quarter of the patients respond to medication, but in the majority of cases, there's nothing you can do. *Nothing*. It's scary. One theory is that a virus actually ravages the brain, destroys parts of it, and makes other parts grow wrong. But pretty much all we know to do is preventative - is stuff you have to know to do *before* the schizophrenia sets in. (For example, late-onset schizophrenia often strikes during periods of unusual stress - during a war, or during college - so people who have a high genetic risk are often encouraged not to take on too much at first.)

The other thing about schizophrenia, particularly paranoid schizophrenia, is that you can have a conversation with somebody and not notice there's anything wrong with them. It's only hours later, when they refuse to wash their hands because "that's how the aliens get to you - through the water supply". . .

This is a problem faced by a lot of homeless shelters and soup kitchens - some of which are government-funded, and some of which are private. A lot of sane homeless people avoid these because they're simply *too* *dangerous*. You might get knifed while you sleep, or because you looked at somebody funny. Shelters struggle to find a solution, but it's not easy. Even if you *can* seperate the crazies from the hard-on-their-luck, is it ethical to do so? That is, if you're effectively turning away one or the other, which one do you pick, and how do you implement this decision?

As far as I can tell, the only way to help both groups would be to implement large-scale public assylums for the insane. But this is a very dangerous thing to do, mostly because it has a history of abuse. Mental institutions, by and large, are more like prisons than like doctors's offices, especially when they're dealing with an inmate population that they have no hope of curing. Aside from that . . . some people *choose* to be homeless, and some people would rather live under a bridge, raving about government conspiracy, then live drugged in a white room, raving about government conspiracy. Do you deprive them of the one thing they have left? Do you deprive them of their freedom?

So, basically, what I'm saying is . . . there will always be a homeless population, and it will be very hard to reduce it through social programs targeting the already homeless. The best thing to do may be to fund programs for those "at risk" - marriage counseling, debt-relief, subsidized housing, job-training programs, small business loans, veterans' pensions. (An alarming percentage of the homeless population consists of ex-soldiers.) In other words, instead of trying to pull people *out* once things have gotten very bad, it might be better to intervene while things are still good, but shaky - to stop people from going *in* in the first place. This won't get everyone - like I said, a percentage of the population is always going to be incurably crazy - and so you still fund shelters and soup kitchens, but your major focus might be the people who are still holding on to the low rungs of society - not those that have fallen out.

Just an idea, and I admit not a very original one. In a lot of cases, these kinds of programs are already in place - but the people who need them don't know about them. Or if they do know, they can't get there; it's hard to visit someone's office during business hours when you're *working* during business hours and can't possibly afford to miss a day.

There's a reason every society has this problem, and has always had this problem. ::sigh::

cheers,
Romie

[valancy.livejournal.com]

This is absurd. I took the test, and all my answers were all girly and sex-oriented. And I got the same answer as you!

*shakes head at test*