Holocaust

If, hypothetically, someone said to me that he did not believe in the Holocaust, I would not agree or disagree. To say that I have a very strong opinion on the matter would be a blatant lie. I am a realist, and I interpret data based on facts to which I have previously been exposed. I would not defensively insult the person and his opinion, because I believe in the viewpoint of the great philosopher Voltaire: even though I may not agree with what one is saying, I still respect his right to say it. Therefore, I would not agree or disagree with the other party, but I will hear him out on what he has to say.

As for the other party, there is no concrete way to know if he is right or wrong. Though there is evidence that greatly supports the existence of the Holocaust, one does not truly know the facts unless he has been there himself and experienced the implied horrors. Again - and I feel that I must clarify this -, I will not say he is wrong, nor will I say he is right. For all that we know as human beings, we could both be wrong, and there could be a third way. Even if it was concrete that he was wrong, I have accepted the fact that I can do nothing to change his opinion. One of the major lifelong lessons to be learned is that one does not have complete control over everything and everyone, especially not in a way that can give one the ability to manipulate another's thoughts and beliefs. Therefore, my final verdict is for him to believe whatever he wants to believe, at least until there is concrete, perfect evidence of the Holocaust occurring.

Instructions

The instructions for life basically tell that every once in a while, one should be in wonder and awe at something he has discovered. One discovers something because he is observant in his life, and more often than not, what he will be discover will be new and interesting.

I have helped to teach second grade Sunday school for three years, and since the structure of the Sunday school had changed since I went, there were a lot of new materials and concepts that even I didn't know, being a teacher. Therefore, when some of the lessons were shown to me, I was filled with as much awe as most of the students were, because I was learning along with them. This is one of the objectives in teaching the Montessori method, because it is not the teacher who primarily does all of the teaching, but the teacher also has a chance to learn.

Blog prompt #674

Of course, I believe that physical appearance can have an effect on one's personality. It can be a big factor when it comes to creating self-image, as physical appearance may be all that peers see. Though most of the time physical appearance can play a huge factor in personality, there are certain times when physical appearance does not affect personality and self-image much. It is in the latter type that false snap judgments can be created, as it results in people not being read so easily, and therefore not conforming to stereotypes. I would say nine times out of ten physical appearance has somewhat of a reflection on personality, although there can and will be the occasional exception.

If everyone's personality was related to their physical appearance, the world would be even more centered around stereotypes than it is now, since there is a greater likelihood that these stereotypes would be true to the person. Nearly every snap judgement and accusation would most likely be true, and there would be little to no diversity.

Article

I think I am somewhere in the middle - I'm a spender by default, but I would like to start saving more, especially if there is a way I could increase my savings exponentially, like in a bank. A good percentage of my money goes untouched, and often it stays dormant, and since I don't have a paying job (not anymore, anyway, since the season's over), there is little to no way for the amount to increase without financial assistance. I think, with a little more training and motivation, I could learn to save more and only spend when I have enough.

I agree fully on the views presented by the article. The sources used are very intriguing, plus it was fascinating to read the results and the layouts of all of the tests performed. Plus, I can see how patience and a willingness to earn more in the future can connect to social benefits such as being happily married or staying away from drugs and alcohol. I doubt there is a single thing in this article that I disagree with, mainly because it was just so cool and that the opinion was supported very well.

On the topic of aspects of the article I agree with, one of these is most definitely the view of our generation as being very impulsive, mainly based on the environment we are growing up in. Everything is simply right at our fingertips, so it is natural that we are a very demanding group of people, and therefore we are less likely to save our funds.

I am in X tribe. I am also in Y and Z tribes.

What is this?

Well, according to family history, I am one sixteenth Chippewa on my mother's side, and I forget the entire list of what's on my dad's side. Now go away.

..........

What?

Not the literal version?

Bug.

Well, I guess I'll just have to start listing.

I am part of the Haunted Mansion lovers' "tribe", and also the Little Shop of Horrors "tribe". Not so much in the Phantom of the Opera "tribe" as I was around this time last year, but for the sake of context, I'll add that here, too. I am also a part of the Playing-Pokemon-on-Game-Boy-Advance "tribe", and was recently initiated in the Obsessive-Fans-of-Gargoyles "tribe", also having been on the Pirates of the Caribbean "tribe" since this past June (IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE. HURHURHURHURHUR). I am also a faithful member of the Team Starkid "tribe", the Italian "tribe", the Craving Chocolate "tribe", the Wishes-She-Was-In-Disney-World-Right-Now "tribe", the Hufflepuff "tribe", the Pigfarts "tribe", the Tim Burton "tribe", the Crash Bandicoot "tribe", the Epic Mickey "tribe", the Used-to-Play-Animal-Crossing "tribe", the Clutching-Giant-Chocolate-Bars-to-Chest-and-Weeping-For-Days "tribe", the Intentionally-Makes-Everything-She-Draws-Look-Like-Roadkill "tribe", the pink sunglasses "tribe", the Echo Smartpen "tribe", the Desperately-Searching-for-Something-That-Resembles-Any-Sort-of-Tribe "tribe", the Making-Stuff-Up-as-She-Goes-Along "tribe", the What-the-Bug "tribe", the I-Should-Be-Getting-to-Bed-Now "tribe", the I-am-Weeping-for-Humanity "tribe", the Was-Raised-on-Tony-Hawk's-Pro-Skater "tribe", the Magical-AFI-Hoody "tribe", and-

Bug, this is going NOWHERE.

This might surprise you.

On whether I am an introvert or an extrovert, I feel I am most definitely an introvert. Even though I can be very shy, this alone does not determine intro- or extroversion. Introversion or extroversion can be determined also by personal preference of exposure to people. Even though social ability is a factor in determining this part of personality, it is a very small factor. I am very creative and outgoing, but at the same time I am very selective about the amount of people I spend time with.

There really isn't any particular group that has it "easier", because either trait is "easy" to their respective person. People who prefer to spend time with other people most of the time enjoy spending time with other people, and the same case for people who prefer to spend time alone. 

The world would not be much different if everyone was an extrovert. Yet although the world would be much more interactive and connected, there would be a significant decrease in technological progress as not as many of the brilliant ideas for new technological innovations would come to mind to people who are extroverts, and even if they did, they often would not involve as deep of thought.

If everyone was an introvert, it would be the exact opposite: there would be a lot more technological progress in the various sections of the world, but yet there would be little to no connection among countries except for necessary tasks like trade. For the most part, countries would be isolationists, but within those countries there would be strong innovations.

I think a mix of introverts and extroverts are good, because even though one would want someone similar to him as a friend, it is also nice to have a variety of friends to expand one's comfort zone.

Extroverts tend to be better leaders in my opinion because they have the social skills and the motive necessary to  address a crowd of people. It is possible for introverts to do this as well, although there likely will not be as much motive. The case is the same for teachers.

Introverts tend to be better writers because in the absence of socialization, they can be affected by many other influences besides people, making their writing more varied and colorful. Plus, with the lack of socialization, there would be more time to think and to reflect upon less material matters.

In the matter of better neighbors, there are pros and cons to either one. Introverts are not as likely to socialize openly, but can be faithful friends when one needs them most, not to mention they make more "personalized" friends than extroverts. Extroverts, however, can be very outgoing, almost to the point where they're a pain to have, but one can't help but to enjoy being around them.

All in all, I think introversion and extroversion matter, because they make up a good part of a person's personality. Introversion and extroversion affect how a person acts, how he is around other people, how creative they are, how innovative they are, and to an extent how much of a good friend a person is.

Also, on an unrelated note, posting right before midnight. BECAUSE I CAN.

Here.