calime | Check. Mate. Gack. And asses. (Reply)

A Black Bishop

You scored 2 Power-Finesse, 3 Leader-Follower, 4 Unique-Ordinary, and 1 Offense-Defense!

You are conniving and sneaky, and often overlooked by your opponent. You are content to stay off to one side, allowing the bloodbath to ensue. Then, when the moment is right and the other king has let his guard down you strike! Your indirect approach to things gives your team more options. However, in the big picture you are expendable. No matter how hard you try, you can only reach half the squares on the board.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on Power-Finesse
You scored higher than 99% on Leader-Follower
You scored higher than 99% on Unique-Ordinary
You scored higher than 99% on Offense-Defense

Link: The What Chess Piece Are You Test written by Gundark27 on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

Sad, sad limitations. I can only take over a half of the world. Unless I cheat.

Asses Wild

Raw score: 29% Big Breasts, 54% Big Ass, and 40% Cute!

Thanks for taking the T and A and C test! Based on your selections, the results are clear: you show an attraction to smaller breasts, larger asses, and sexier composure than others who've taken the test.

Note that because you scored small on breasts but large on ass size, it might appear you like girls bottom heavy. That's probably not the case. What's more likely is that you notice curvy, voluptuous asses, and they turn you on. Breasts are hit or miss, though, and besides, extremely large ones are just saggy and gross, in your opinion.

My third variable, "cuteness" is a mostly objective measure of how innocent a given model looked. It's determined by a combination of a lot of factors: lack of dark eye makeup, facial expression, posture, etc. If you scored high on that variable, you are either really nice OR you're into deflowering teens. If you scored low, you are attracted to raunchier, sexier, women. In your case, your lower than average score suggests you appreciate a sluttier look. Kudos!

Recommended Celebrity: J-Lo, when she's looking extra sexy. Probably not when she's acting.

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 9% on tit-size
You scored higher than 46% on ass-size
You scored higher than 11% on cuteness

Link: The Tits, Ass, and Cuteness Test written by chicken_pot_pie on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

Exotic bad-ass

You scored 65% masculine, 58% athletic, 54% exotic, and 25% refined!

You want everything in a man at the same time! Masculine, built like a Greek god, exotic and mysterious and even some bad-ass in there too. I think you would really like Freddy Ljungberg, the Swedish soccer player. He's the guy on the right. But let's face it, the whole point of this was to look at a bunch of hot guys. If you liked what you saw, please rate my test!

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 50% on masculine
You scored higher than 24% on athletic
You scored higher than 64% on exotic
You scored higher than 1% on refined

Link: The What type of MAN turns you on Test written by thinkandcome on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

Capitalist Pig

You are 71% Rational, 57% Extroverted, 71% Brutal, and 28% Arrogant.

You are the Capitalist Pig! This means that you are less emotional than most, focusing more on logic. You are also more selfish, greedy, and care very little for the well-being of others, hence you probably hold capitalistic political views. This also means that you are particularly swinish, willing to grouse in any amount of shit for your own gain, and obese with greed. You are also an extrovert, like most of the people in the hallmark capitalistic country of America. Despite these traits, you are surprisingly not very arrogant, tending to view yourself as equal to others, just like the principle of Democracy in America. Which seems strange given that you are so mean and brutal to others at times. But despite your intentions to see others as equal, and to not be an arrogant twat, it must always be remembered that while all animals are created equal, some are more equal than others--the pigs being more equal. So while you may not be full of yourself, you certainly don't treat others with the respect they deserve. So like any farmyard pig, you are greedy, noisy, and don't care about others. The only difference between you and a pig is that you are more rational and intelligent. In conclusion, your personality defect is that you are a bit too logical, rather unemotional, way too extroverted, and also very brutal in regards to others. You may even be a bit insecure about yourself, little piggy. But at least you're not a platypus. It must suck to be a platypus, you know? All those identity issues.

To put it less negatively:

1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.

2. You are more EXTROVERTED than introverted.

3. You are more BRUTAL than gentle.

4. You are more HUMBLE than arrogant.

Compatibility:

Your exact opposite is the Starving Artist.

Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Smartass, the Braggart, and the Spiteful Loner.

If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits.

The other personality types:

The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.

The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.

The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.

The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

Be sure to take my Sublime Philosophical Crap Test if you are interested in taking a slightly more intellectual test that has just as many insane ramblings as this one does!

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on Rationality
You scored higher than 99% on Extroversion
You scored higher than 99% on Brutality
You scored higher than 99% on Arrogance

Link: The Personality Defect Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

N-S-R

You scored 88% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!

You are an N-S-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.

Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism (Idealism or Realism)
In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences. My test recognizes two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.

1. Idealists believe that reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we can ever know is the world of sense experience, thought, and other phenomena which are only distorted reflections of an ultimate (or noumenal) reality. Kant, one of the most significant philosophers in history, theorized that human beings perceive reality in such a way that they impose their own mental frameworks and categories upon reality, fully distorting it. Reality for Kant is unconceptualized and not subject to any of the categories our minds apply to it. Idealists are non-reductionists because they recognize that the distinction between phenomenal reality and ultimate reality cannot be so easily discarded or unified into a single reality. They are separate and distinct, and there is no reason to suppose the one mirrors the other. Major philosophical idealists include Kant and Fichte.

If your views are different from the above, then you may be a Realist.
2. Realists deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.

*****

Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism)
In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and Subjectivists.

1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism, knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.

If the above did not sound skeptical or idealistic enough to reflect your own views, then you are most likely a Subjectivist.
2. Epistemological Subjectivists, like idealists, believe that all our knowledge is ultimately of our own making because it is filtered through our subjective perceptions. Unlike an idealist, though, a subjectivist doesn't believe in any universal categories of "truth" that apply to the phenomenal world, because each individual can create his own truth. Either that, or he will hold that society or custom creates its own forms of truth. A subjectivist will tend to regard scientific inquiry as a game of sorts--science does not reveal truths about reality, but only gives scientists pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems of the scientific community's own devising. It is a type of puzzle-solving, but the puzzle isn't of reality. The definition of truth to a subjectivist may be one that recognizes a proposition's usefulness to an individual. William James is one such subjectivist, who believes that we can "will to believe" certain propositions so long as we would find them useful. The example he gives is being found in a situation where you must leap over a chasm in order to survive. The true belief, in such a situation, is that the leap will be successful--this truth is certainly more useful to us, and in believing the truth we become more willing to commit to the jump and make it successful. So, in essence, knowledge of reality is possible for a subjectivist because they never make reference to any objective reality existing outside of our own perceptions and beliefs--we can have knowledge of reality through having knowledge of ourselves, and that is all that we should ask for. Famous subjectivists include Kuhn, Feyarabend, and James. Another famed critic of Absolutism is Hume.

*****

Ethics: Relativism (Subjectivism or Emotivism)
My test measures one's tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism in regards to ethics. As a moral Relativist, you tend to see moral choices as describing a subject's reaction to a moral object or situation, and not as a property of the moral object itself. You may also feel that moral words are meaningless because they do not address any empirical fact about the world. My test recognizes two types of moral relativists--Subjectivists and Emotivists.

1. Subjectivists see individual or collective desires as defining a situation's or object's moral worth. Thus, the subject, not the object itself, determines the value. Subjectivists recognize that social rules, customs, and morality have been wide-ranging and quite varied throughout history among various cultures. As a result, Subjectivism doesn't attempt to issue hard and fast rules for judging the moral worth of things. Instead, it recognizes that what we consider "good" and "right" is not bound by any discernable rule. There is no one trait that makes an act good or right, because so many different kinds of things have been called good and right. In regards to the definition of "good" or "right", a Subjectivist will tend to define it as whatever a particular person or group of people desire. They do not define it merely as "happiness" or "pleasure", for instance, because sometimes we desire to do things that do not produce pleasure, and because we don't consider all pleasurable things good. Furthermore, Subjectivists recognize the validity of consequentialism in that sometimes we refer to consequences as good and bad--but they also recognize that our intentions behind an action, or the means to the end, can also determine an act's moral worth. Again, there is no one rule to determine these things. Hence the relativism of moral Subjectivism. The most well-known of the subjectivists is Nietzsche.

If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Relativist--the Emotivist.
Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense, because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action. Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical) verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses to certain events. Famous emotivists include Ayer and other positivists associated with the Vienna Circle.

*****

As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an N-S-R. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an R-A-O.