A famous psychologist once said: "We are what we think others think we are." What he meant was we often model ourselves according to how we think others perceive us.
But more often than not, we don't really know how others perceive our behavior.
The coommon question is:
- What can you say about personality?
Main goal to consider is human traits:
- Why do we like a one person and don't like the other?
- How do you estimate your colleagues?
- And what about humans community, whether you would like to work in any team-group or as freelancer?
Or, for example, if you have to work with any person, which personality traits you would like to see at your colleagues?
Question 1: - How would you discribe this person?
Img. 1. A Manager
Img. 2. A Boss
Img. 3. A team worker
Img. 4. Emotional conversation
Vocabulary Word List: A - ability, accepting, altruism B - benevolence, appreciating, aptitude, asset, attitude, bonding, bravery C - caring, cheerfulness, citizenship, civility, cleanliness D - dedicated, compassion, considerate, control, cooperation, courage, dependability, dignity, diplomatic E - empathy, discrete, donor, enthusiasm, equity F - fairness, faithfulness, forgiving G - goodness, friends, gratitude H - helpfulness, hardwork I - industrious, honesty, honorable, inspire J - just(ice) K - kindness, integrity, inventive, kinship L - listening, lawfulness, legitimate M - manners, love, loyalty, mastery, merit, moral N - noble, nice O - orderly, obedience P - politeness, observant, ownership, patience, patriot, peace Q - quality R - respect, perseverance, philanthropy, pride, principles, punctuality, rational, reasonableness, regard, reliance S - sharing, resolute, responsibility, sacrifice, self-control, self-esteem, self-reliance, selfish, special, sportsmanship T - trustworthiness, supportive, sympathetic, teamwork, temperate, thrift U - understanding, tolerance, truth, unique, united, unity V - values, valiant, valor, veracious, veracity W - welcoming, volunteer, watchful, worker, worthy X - (e)xcellence Y - yourself z - zest
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places.
What makes someone a person and not a thing? Can such differentiation even occur? Do these questions matter, and if so, why?
The differentiation of persons and things bore great significance for Martin Luther King, Jr. for matters of morality. In his estimation, moving from a culture of things to persons would help us confront well such problems as economic exploitation, racism, and militarism (Please listen here to King’s critique of the Vietnam War along such lines).
While I don’t know precisely how King would define person, I do believe seeking to differentiate persons from things proves beneficial for morality, especially in our scientific age and consumer culture in which all too often reality is reduced to material, measurable phenomena that is valued solely for economic benefits.
In my estimation, the following questions bear upon the present discussion and are bound up with seeking to differentiate persons from things. Perhaps you can think of other question. Please feel free to set forth what these questions are in the comment section.
First, is it necessary to believe in humans having souls to differentiate persons from things? Other questions arise in this context. If we maintain (as I do) that there is a soul (and that it is permanent), is the soul the mind, or is it something else, something more? Is the mind simply the brain? If the soul is the mind, and the mind is the brain, is there anything to humanity other than material reality? If there is not anything beyond material reality, is the human simply a thing? If so, then what happens to morality? What difference would it make if there were different kinds of materiality and the human soul were a certain form of materiality? And what if the soul exists, but is not permanent or immortal? How would this position bear upon the discussion?
Second, does freedom in whole or in part differentiate a person from a thing? Now if there is no such thing as freedom (however it is defined), and everything is the result of necessitating preceding factors, what would this state of affairs entail for consideration of personhood? Could we safeguard the existence of freedom or freedom of choice on some level if we appeal to concurcus or combatibilism, where necessity or determinism and freedom on some level coincide?
Third, how do the affections or passions bear upon the discussion of persons and things and moral freedom? If one were simply a mixture of blind emotions without rational engagement where one’s choices are simply the result of base passions, what would differentiate such an individual human from certain beasts? Moreover, if one were forced by passions to choose, how could one be morally responsible for one’s actions? From the other end of the spectrum, if one were only a reasoning entity without passions, would this individual be anything other than Star Trek’s Mr. Spock? What kind of human does not think in view of competing residing affections in evaluating which course of action to pursue?
Fourth, can a human truly be personal apart from other individuals? And what makes for personal relationships? Does it entail differentiating grasping from non-grasping in our engagement of others? With this last question in mind, can we also approach non-human entities such as rocks or plants or motorcycles in personal or relational ways that safeguard against objectification of things as things? Back to humans, how do contractual vs. non-contractual forms of relationship (contractual is here defined as treating fellow humans as mere means to one’s own ends or society’s ends; non-contractual is here defined as treating people as more than mere means to one’s own ends or society’s ends) bear on this discussion of differentiating persons from things?
I bet you wish I had never asked the opening question about persons and things, especially given all the questions that followed. And for those in relationship with me, perhaps you are considering dissolving the “contract” as a result of the barrage of questions? But perhaps necessitating preceding factors made me (whatever “me” is) do it. If so, how could you blame “me”?
What is a person? The English term, "person," is ambiguous. We often use it as a synonym for "human being." But surely that is not what we intend here. It is possible that there are aliens living on other planets that have the same cognitive abilities that we do (e.g. E.T: The Extraterrestrial or the famous "bar scene" from Star Wars). Imagine aliens that speak a language, make moral judgments, create literature and works of art, etc. Surely aliens with these properties would be "persons"--which is to say that it would be morally wrong to buy or sell them as property the way we do with dogs and cats or to otherwise use them for our own interests without taking into account the fact that they are moral agents with interests that deserve the same respect and protection that ours do.
Thus, one of our primary interests is to distinguish persons from pets and from property. A person is the kind of entity that has the moral right to make its own life-choices, to live its life without (unprovoked) interference from others. Property is the kind of thing that can be bought and sold, something I can "use" for my own interests. Of course, when it comes to animals there are serious moral constraints on how we may treat them. But we do not, in fact, give animals the same kind of autonomy that we accord persons. We buy and sell dogs and cats. And if we live in the city, we keep our pets "locked up" in the house, something that we would have no right to do to a person.
How, then, should we define "person" as a moral category? [Note: In the long run, we may decide that there is a non-normative concept of "person" that is equally important, and even conceptually prior to any moral concept. At the outset, however, the moral concept will be our focus.] Initially, we shall define a person as follows:
PERSON = "any entity that has the moral right of self-determination."
Many of us would be prepared to say, I think, that any entity judged to be a person would be the kind of thing that would deserve protection under the constitution of a just society. It might reasonably be argued that any such being would have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
This raises the philosophical question: What properties must an entity possess to be a "person"? At the Mind Project, we are convinced that one of the best ways to learn about minds and persons is to attempt to build an artificial person, to build a machine that has a mind and that deserves the moral status of personhood. This is not to say that we believe that it will be possible anytime soon for undergraduates (or even experts in the field) to build a person. In fact, there is great disagreement among Mind Project researchers about whether it is possible, even in principle, to build a person -- or even a mind -- out of machine parts and computer programs. But that doesn't matter. Everyone at the Mind Project is convinced that it is a valuable educational enterprise to do our best to simulate minds and persons. In the very attempt, we learn more about the nature of the mind and about ourselves. At the very least, it forces us to probe our own concept of personhood. What are the properties necessary for being a person?
Many properties have been suggested as being necessary for being a person: Intelligence, the capacity to speak a language, creativity, the ability to make moral judgments, consciousness, free will, a soul, self-awareness . . and the list could go on almost indefinitely. Which properties do you think are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for being a person?
At one time the general view in some religious societies was that people had souls, which, when they died went to heaven or hell, or else were reborn. The soul was considered the essential core of what a person was. This idea is perhaps less fashionable now, but it forms the basis of most religious beliefs. This belief in the separation of mind and body is known today as dualism.
Current scientific thought tends toward the alternate view: monism. Bodies are viewed as complex biological entities responsible for all behaviors and thought processes they express. Since no evidence for a soul exists, only the physical entity remains for consideration. To say that X now and Y then are the same person is to say that there is bodily spatio-temporal continuity between them.
The question of personal identity, which was first raised by Locke and later expanded on by Leibniz, would at first seem trivial in nature. When looking at a person or an object one can easily trace that person throughout his life. If I place a pen behind my back and then pull it back out again it is obviously the same pen. Problems arise when we discuss cases where this is not so straightforward.
Let us return to the example of the person; from the time you are born to the time you die you change a large portion of the matter in your body, are you then the same person? A tree that grows from a nut shares the same thing in common throughout its entire life, mainly its origin, however is it always the same 'tree?' How about when it is just a nut, or firewood behind my house. When does an object cease to be an object and become a different object?
Perhaps the most famous historical example comes from the ship of Theseus. The ship of Theseus has 100 parts to it, and within the hold are contained 100 replacement parts. The ship sets sail on a voyage and on the first day out the captain discovers there is a problem with a piece of the boat so he replaces it with the one in the hold. The next thing happens on the next day, and the next, etc. At the end of 100 days the ship returns to port with every piece of it having been exchanged with its correlating piece in the hold. Is the ship the same ship? What if the captain emptied the hold and built a new ship with the parts that were originally the ship of Theseus, would those be the ship of Theseus or would it be the ship he sailed into port with?
Concerning personal identity at what point does a person cease to be a person? If your arm is chopped off are you still a person, still the same person? What do I need to remove in order to take away your personhood?
The question of what makes a person is charged with all types of implications. For example, is an unborn human a "person?" Ask a pro-lifer and you will likely get one answer; conversely, ask someone from Planned Parenthood and you will almost inevitably get another. If an unborn human is a "person," at what point does it become recognizable as a person? Is it, perhaps, implicit in the being? What, then, differentiates between an unborn human from an unborn chicken? Both contain similar levels of sentience at the time, it would seem. Many questions like these are raised no matter which definition of personhood is used.
Any one person is part of some community.
A community is a social unit of any size that shares common values, or that is situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a village or town). It is a group of people who are connected by durable relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties, and who usually define that relationship as important to their social identity and practice. Although communities are usually small, "community" may also refer to large groups, such as national communities, international communities, and virtual communities.
Community development is a process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems. Community wellbeing (economic, social, environmental and cultural) often evolves from this type of collective action being taken at a grassroots level. Community development ranges from small initiatives within a small group to large initiatives that involve the broader community.
Effective community development should be:
a long-term endeavour
inclusive and equitable
holistic and integrated into the bigger picture
initiated and supported by community members
of benefit to the community
grounded in experience that leads to best practices
Community development is a grassroots process by which communities:
become more responsible
organize and plan together
develop healthy lifestyle options
reduce poverty and suffering
create employment and economic opportunities
achieve social, economic, cultural and environmental goals
Community development seeks to improve quality of life. Effective community development results in mutual benefit and shared responsibility among community members. Such development recognizes:
the connection between social, cultural, environmental and economic matters
the diversity of interests within a community
its relationship to building capacity
Community development helps to build community capacity in order to address issues and take advantage of opportunities, find common ground and balance competing interests. It doesn’t just happen – capacity building requires both a conscious and a conscientious effort to do something (or many things) to improve the community.
Personal identity is the unique identity of persons through time. That is to say, the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time. In the modern philosophy of mind, this concept of personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity. The synchronic problem is grounded in the question of what features or traits characterize a given person at one time.
Identity is an issue for both continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. A key question in continental philosophy is in what sense we can maintain the modern conception of identity, while realizing many of our prior assumptions about the world are incorrect.
Proposed solutions to the problem of personal identity include: continuity of the physical body, continuity of an immaterial mind or soul, continuity of consciousness or memory, the bundle theory of self, continuity of personality after the death of the physical body, and proposals that there are actually no persons or selves which persist over time at all.
Hint: Fair, Discreet, Independent, Optimistic, Gregarious, Persistent, Capable, Precise, Confident, Reliable, Helpful, Suave...
Hint: Application analyst, Computer scientist, Database administrator, Network administrator, Programmer, Security engineer, System Administrator,..
for example, strong logical thoughts fit Programmers, Computer Scientists.
- What they might be? Which computer occupation they might have?
For instance. Application analyst.
An application analyst is someone whose job is to support a given application or applications. This may entail some computer programming, some system administration skills, and the ability to analyze a given problem, diagnose it and find its root cause, and then either solve it or pass the problem on to the relevant people if it does not lie within the application analyst's area of responsibility. Typically an application analyst will be responsible for supporting bespoke (i.e. custom) applications programmed with a variety of programming languages and using a variety of database systems, middleware systems and the like. It is a form of 3rd level line technical support. The role may or may not involve some customer contact but most often it involves getting some description of the problem from helpdesk, making a diagnosis and then either creating a fix or passing the problem on to someone who is responsible for the actual problem area.
- What He might be? Which computer occupation He might have?
For instance. Computer scientist.
A computer scientist is a scientist who has acquired knowledge of computer science, the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation and their application.
Computer scientists typically work on the theoretical side of computer systems, as opposed to the hardware side that computer engineers mainly focus on (although there is overlap). Although computer scientists can also focus their work and research on specific areas (such as algorithm and data structure development and design, software engineering, information theory, database theory, computational complexity theory, numerical analysis, programming language theory, computer graphics, and computer vision), their foundation is the theoretical study of computing from which these other fields derive.
A primary goal of computer scientists is the development (and validation) of models—often mathematical in nature—for estimating the properties of computer-based systems (processors, programs, computers interaction with people, computers interacting with other computers, etc.) with an overarching objective of discovering designs that admit for improved performance (faster, better, cheaper, etc.).
- What He might be? Which computer occupation He might have?
For instance. Network administrator.
A network administrator maintains computer infrastructures with emphasis on networking. Responsibilities may vary between organizations, but on-site servers, software-network interactions as well as network integrity/resilience are the key areas of focus.
The role of the network administrator can vary significantly depending on an organization's size, location, and socio-economic considerations. Some organizations work on a user-to-technical support ratio, whilst others implement many other strategies.
Generally, in terms of reactive situations (i.e.: unexpected disruptions to service, or service improvements), IT Support Incidents are raised through an Issue tracking system. Typically, issues work their way through a Help desk and then flow through to the relevant technology area for resolution. In the case of a network related issue, an issue will be directed towards a network administrator. If a network administrator is unable to resolve an issue, a ticket will be escalated to a more senior network engineer for a restoration of service or a more appropriate skill group.
Network administrators are often involved in proactive work. This type of work will often include:
- Network monitoring
- Testing the network for weakness
- Keeping an eye out for needed updates
- Installing and implementing security programs
- In many cases, E-mail and Internet filters
- Evaluating implementing network
- What He might be? Which computer occupation He might have?
For instance. Computer operator.
A role in IT, computer operators oversee the running of computer systems, ensuring that the machines and computers are running properly.
The former role of a computer operator was to work with mainframe computers which required a great deal of management day-to-day, however nowadays they often work with a variety of different systems and applications. The computer operator normally works in a server room or a data center, but can also work remotely so that they can operate systems across multiple sites. Most of their duties are taught on the job, as their job description will vary according to the systems and set-up they help manage.
The role also includes maintaining records and logging events, listing each backup that is run, each machine malfunction and program abnormal termination. Operators assist System administrators and programmers in testing and debugging of new systems and programs prior to their becoming production environments.
- What He might be? Which computer occupation He might have?
For instance. Security engineering.
Security engineering is a specialized field of engineering that focuses on the security aspects in the design of systems that need to be able to deal robustly with possible sources of disruption, ranging from natural disasters to malicious acts. It is similar to other systems engineering activities in that its primary motivation is to support the delivery of engineering solutions that satisfy pre-defined functional and user requirements, but with the added dimension of preventing misuse and malicious behavior. These constraints and restrictions are often asserted as a security policy.
In one form or another, security engineering has existed as an informal field of study for several centuries. For example, the fields of locksmithing and security printing have been around for many years.
Due to recent catastrophic events, most notably 9/11, Security Engineering has quickly become a rapidly growing field. In fact, in a recent report completed in 2006, it was estimated that the global security industry was valued at US$150 billion.
Security engineering involves aspects of social science, psychology (such as designing a system to 'fail well' instead of trying to eliminate all sources of error) and economics, as well as physics, chemistry, mathematics, architecture and landscaping. Some of the techniques used, such as fault tree analysis, are derived from safety engineering.
- What She might be? Which computer occupation sye might have?
For instance. Web designer.
A web designer is someone who is both creative and technically inclined, and uses both these attributes to build or redesign websites. The web designer has the ability to understand what is needed to make a website functional and easy to use, but at the same time make it aesthetically appealing to the user.