Cetra wrote:No, that is not what "I am saying essentially". You lack the correct logical derivation there. The reactions Broly has - not to mention that mentioning "reactions" were simply an example; you very skillfully ignored the obvious fact that just because I use the word "reactions" but there is more than just reactions alone - require him having a personality in the first place. The way he acts and reacts to things is the direct result of Broly's organismic experience and the way he copes, the way he adapts/responds/et cetera to that. What you say with "so in essence you say reactions make personality" is flat out wrong because it would mean I said "reactions <=> personality" and I never said that (even though it is not 100% wrong either) but that you can conclude he has one from his reactions alone. I have not made a biconditional statement and if you understood that you were clearly misinterpreting. Deriving that he has one because I watch him act and react is not the same thing as saying "because he reacts like that he establishes that personality from those things" as you claimed with the "make personality" part. Don't even try to twist my words because it was not what I essentially said. You are forcing some disturbance of communication here. Also I strongly dislike how you purposely focussed on me mentioning reactions alone. I should not need to tell you there is more than that. On top of that, I am not merely talking about behaviourism, treating the brain as a black box but actually also talking about cognitive psychology as well.
I'm sorry but you were the one that reduced it to how he reacted in the story. Not me. I was merely stating that the writers simply making a character react to elements of the story does not mean that character has any personality. If you want to bring the point of saying other elements show he has character then that's fine but all you said was he must have personality because of the way he reacted in the story.
If that is all you can contribute to say he had personality it is easy for me or anybody else to say that you're saying reactions equals personality. Because that's all you offered as your argument. Saying what you mean actually helps give context to what you're saying. If you omit things you leave yourself open to being misinterpreted.
Cetra wrote:No, it does not mean that and if you would have any knowledge about psychology you would know that it is literally impossible for a person to have no personality. It starts with the dynamics of personality that every person has - every person - and then you start compiling more and more characteristics that make you the person that you are with this of course being a continous process. A person can say about a piece of fiction that a shallow written character has no personality to express that personis extremely shallow but there is still the requirement of personality existing for anything that happens with that person. "Person x has no personality" is a hyperbolic statement the same way when I say "Dragon Ball has no story" just because it is very, very shallow. If you think there is 0 personality, then no, you are as a matter of fact wrong.
It is impossible for a person to have no personality but we aren't talking about people, we're talking about fictional characters and I will have to disagree with you that the characters have to have require some personality existing for anything to happen to that character smarter people than myself constantly talk about characters having no personality in stories if it were simply impossible to have no personality in stories then the blanket statement would not exist among people who review literature. To say that there must be some form of personality for anything to happen suggests that it is impossible to write a story about, say, robots with literally no personality. Because no matter how hard you try the it must have a personality but that isn't the case.
Cetra wrote:While it is interesting that you try to get personal by half-veiled insults along the line of "you probably suck at what you have learned" yes, it gives me and other people who are also knowledgable in their own area of expertise a lot more credibility. In no way that means people are infallible and that was never part of my statement. You are just once more trying to get off the actual point. That you start off by thinking a person literally can have no personality at all and surely have not even heard of half the stuff I could roll out because of that but won't because you just would not accept it anyway and probably counter with some stuff like "you know-it-all, I already told you I don't agree with you and that you can be wrong etc" shows me this already is wasted time. And yes, very obviously my experience about that helps a lot because you clearly have no knowledge here and come to wrong conclusions, purposely twist what I say by making false statements like I said something about biconditional logic. Now of course the probabilities are high and this does not phase you at all because you once more write for the argument alone instead of a chance of coming to an agreement but whatever - I won't waste my time for that.
Sorry if you saw it as an insult but it wasn't intended as one. I'm just stating that you saying you have a degree doesn't mean anything because I don't know you. For all I know you are just someone who works at McDonalds and never got a degree. Or you could be a professor who's teaching kids psychology and computer science.
And I'm sorry that you feel I'm trying to get off the point but it was you who brought up that you had a degree in psychology, not me. If you want to stay on point then maybe you should keep on point yourself instead of, what it seems like, one upping me by trying to invalidate my points because you have a degree in psychology and I don't. And again, you're bringing in "People" into this debate when we're talking about fictional characters. This is literature, not the real world. Of course it's possible to write down a character without personality. People who are creating novels and other stories are always fighting to give their characters personality and seem real. If it were so simple to create a character with personality there would be a lot more writers in the world.
Honestly it seems like you're the one who's getting offensive here and being pretty blatant about it. And it doesn't seem like we'll come to any sort of agreement because you've already made your mind up about me and I don't think you'll budge on your opinion because as you said "I clearly have no knowledge here and come to wrong conclusions". If that's how you treat someone in a debate I want no part of it, thanks.
