litphoria

As per some discussion in discussion about personality traits I propose changing definition of Temperament trait to

Character's innate aspects of personality

and getting rid of current two categories that are there. This move is a prelude to suggesting more proper categories for the trait, which (as per discussion) be things like Choleric, Melancholic and the like.

Also, as this involves changing something that was previous endorsed and accepted, will need endorsement points to show support.

If you read the descriptions like according to Four temperaments (en.wikipedia.org), Choleric is suddenly some type of character that you could actually want to certain roleplays. Overall, I have the feeling that most of personality traits will end up as informative rather than search-oriented.

What would you suggest as a way to name the categories then, Keta? I thought it wouldn't be that big of a problem if we have the descriptions, but I am not going to push for specific names if they are going to be deemed bad/not useful/not straightforward.
But am interested in what would the alternative be.

Probably the difficulty in picking any of those is that these temperaments are meant to represent a large package of adjectives and attributes, and there simply is no equivalent in everyday language.

Yes, we've had issues in the past with non-obvious category names (see: anything to do with nipples and male profiles).

I think I am more than fine in getting essentially the same/similar descriptions while having names that would be a bit more user-friendly. After all, we are interested in actual content, not the names themselves (unless they have unwanted connotations).

So, I have to ask this, and similar applies to other personality traits: is there some reason we genuinely want this and would benefit from this as an interest? We have a description field that allows us to define our characters' personalities in any words and levels of detail we like. The reason to have a trait in particular is to make it searchable and to make it easily available. Do these terms really make it more available, and are we really going to search for these?

My thinking is that the advanced terms are too heavy on jargon. They're the kind of word a psychologist brings up, and then he explains what it means or waits for you to ask, or hands you a piece of paper with a paragraph or two explaining what it means. The everyday words aren't going to capture something as useful. This makes information obscure.

Further, I'm unlikely to pick a personality trait that sounds as gross as "choleric" even if it applies to me (I don't know), and I'm unlikely to use this stuff for search because the people I'm attracted to are much smaller than a specific 1/5th temperament-based chunk of the population. I know people with wildly different temperaments and I'm attracted to small portion of people with some temperaments.

I bring this up because I fear people are losing the plot while being driven by the thought: This is a thing, so surely there must be traits for kt

It*. Basically, not everything we can say about our character necessarily needs or should have a trait.

Also I meant benefit from this as a trait. Apparently I can't type worth a damn on a very sleepy morning. :)

So much we know for sure we want to know if person is good or evil, so probably Alignment is going to be there.
There is that whole Morality or Ethics or Motivations or whatever you call it that can be relevant.
I know some who advocate strongly for keeping the Introvert/Extrovert scale, and I would agree it is useful for specific cases.

I am starting to lean towards the opinion that these three are probably close to all we could realistically fit in there? Maybe this Temperament thing, though it seems to stir a lot of controversy. But I can see how one could want to search for the choleric-type (however we end up calling it) out of need for bossy and short-tempered character.
Especially since we do need to remember those have to have some relevance and be of perfect use for non-sexual searches, as the site currently lacks important search-terms for people who are not interested in exploring bedrooms.

Argument could be made for Archetype but after brief talk on chat I am leaning towards saying that it is too broad of a deal to even consider (amount of possible categories).

Keta, I agree, somewhat. The ultimate use of personality profile traits should be allow you to filter for/out specific kinds of profiles you want. Such as, a story-driven person looking for a thief who will likely betray them at some point due to selfishness and greed, or finding a noble knight who would never hurt a fly. I think there's utility in being able to find such things, I just don't think we've found the right language to appropriately describe them.

Traits should be fairly simple and only have a few categories in them each. Ideally, they should be immediately self-evident, or as much as possible, and be something in which one person could not reasonably exist in multiple categories without something like magic. They should be atomic, composeable, easy enough to type or remember, and hopefully not controversial.

So, in the most ideal scenario, I'd be able to :

find female, criminal, selfish, evil profiles into theft to get example one and
find male, noble, kind, selfless profiles into guarding to get example two

find female, criminal, selfish, evil profiles into theft to get example one and
find male, noble, kind, selfless profiles into guarding to get example two

These have the issue of stuff like noble or kind being very hard to translate to traits. I once poked at the thought of maybe needing a "cloud of personality traits" which would be more of a container for stuff like noble, charming, shy and all the other ones, instead of a trait, but that is probably trying to generate something like miniature Interests part and... probably not worth it?

being very hard to translate to traits

Right, this is a given considering the considerable length at which these issues are discussed. However, I don't think this is a reason to not keep trying, as there's a level of expressive zen when we find the right labels.

For example, shy is obviously intro/extrovert. charming would be charisma. kind would be empathy. selfish would be in selflessness (or similar). noble is the only one I had any difficulty putting into a trait because it describes really a set of admirable traits, like generous, kind, honorable. It would be better served then as multiple categories with possibly an inspiration to get all of them together in one label.

I feel like this direction is being, again, the one where we start to generate more traits than we would like to have. There is some use in knowing who is introvertic and who is extrovertic, but then we come to Charisma which is quite poor, because you usually want to denote that you want a charismatic character - ones that are not? Apart from very niche scenarios, they wouldn't appear, so we end up with Trait that exists 95% of the time to communicate only one of its categories.
I don't like trying to be atomic about personality because, apart from a few selected things, we are going to crash land on pile of small, relevant only in case of 1-2 categories they have but tedious to fill and unnecessarily expanding the profile things.

because you usually want to denote that you want a charismatic character

Really? Certainly saying you are charismatic is something people would do, but I can think of people looking for just as many characters who aren't charming rogues.

I don't like trying to be atomic about personality because,

Then this is probably why there is so much thrashing from some people around these, as treating this anything other than atomic will result in considerable pain with categories. The whole system was designed to be used in a certain way, and it seems at best unwise to special-case this for personality.

Due to latest developments about atomic traits and the like, I am tempted to completely edit this into suggestion about deleting Temperament.
We had voices that current one (probably even with added categories) is not too useful, while newer version wouldn't fit atomic approach. Thoughts?

I won't miss them, but it would probably be better to start a new feedback item for that.

The trait this is talking about, temperament, is no longer a thing. Closing.