Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term 'good character' has different meanings. I take it that you imply the term to mean that you were honest in regards to trusting you with cash. Honesty tends to give some honest folks a prickly nature, which usually doesn't score well on a personality test. At the same time, honesty at a time when a person's credit rating shows record of financial difficulty may be evidence of integrity as well as honesty, both traits that would be more valuable tham a sweet temperament when handling a lot of cash is the nature of the job.
While I'm not saying you lack character, or that you do, I'm just point out that the word may be different for the guy who hired you than it is for you.
I'm fairly sure you are honest for the same reasons I am… you never have to worry about what you said, because what you said was either the truth or an unintentional falsehood, and you're honest because honesty never keeps you awake at night wondering if you a bad thing you did will be found out.
Reference to personality test, post above this one: My personality changed over the years. Funny to see it, but I did when I took the test about 6 years ago. About half way through the test I recognized that I am not as optimistic as I once was and that's okay as it only showed that I needed to find the work environment better suited to the changes.
It has been said that the job hunt (what color is your parachute, 1997) is much like the search for a soul mate. A person goes on the interview (date) to find if their personalities/skills/experience are a good match to the potential employer. The interviewer is present and uses their skills, their personal knowledge in determining the 'character' of the person applying for the job.
That personality test impedes personal interaction and once it is done, pass or fail, it is there now, online and will knock out perfectly good productive workers for companies. A person can possess the skills (Chrysler) to take a company from millions to billions, but if they fail that test, they may never realize their full potential in the work place. It is of my belief that production in this country and others has been hindered because we fail to recognize good solid work ethics and have replaced those with the interpersonal personality tests. They make think they have streamlined the hiring possess, but in reality the cost in doing business that way is in the dollars and cents. Some things are just better left to personal interaction, and giving a person a chance to prove themselves, like going on a date with a potential soul mate.
Now can we use those tests on presidential candidates? I was being factious. The debates is where we determine the person of good character or not. If we fail to judge appropriately, unlike a business, we can't fire them even though we'd like to. The debates are the personality test, just more personal as it should be. It is there too, inconsistencies can be revealed.
In answer to your above post, honesty for me is never having to remember the lie. If I never tell a lie, then I don't ever have to worry about inconsistency if the same question arises again. Same as unintentional falsehoods which of course you know is a lie...same thing and I would embarrass myself if ever there was an inconsistency and I hate to be embarrassed! I've had my ex-husband (when I was married to him) and my ex-mother-in-law work on character assassinations and they found they were hard pressed to get that done. And I never want it to be any other way...ever. My ex-husband he showed me it was never about love for me for him, but about control. If I was any other type of person, I may not have ever caught on.
So...honesty, there is no better way of being as it shows us so much about who we are and those around us. So if a company didn't want, or doesn't want to hire me, I count myself lucky, because I probably would become disgruntled with them anyway. The hiring process is a two-way street, most fail to recognize this as we should vet the company and make sure they are honest, as well.
There's conservatism and then there's this -- a yearning for the world that existed 140 years ago. Wow. Now that's conservative for you. I have never seen a job ad for a "good man" and don't expect to in my lifetime. Jobs require technical skills these days, so yeah .. you're pretty much going to need to acquire skills and knowledge to get a good job. Church attendance isn't going to get you very far in the 21st century. It may have been okay for the 19th, but the times have moved on. I suggest you do too.
People in the church have businesses outside the church. One never knows that may be, the person sitting next to them in the pew at church could be their next employer. If a person wants to be surrounded in the work place by people who believe as they do, then the church is an excellent source for work prospects. Again a place were interpersonal communication takes a backseat to the more personal approach and a good man for the job can also find a good company to work for.
Was it his determination to undo wrong and clean up corruption?
Was it his leadership, where he took on hard things and excelled?
Was it his character, demonstrated in absolute integrity?
What was it? Well, tell us.
Because in any test of ANYTHING, Palin's 50,000% better than Barack H Obama.
So, tell us, what was it? Why did Obama win the Democrat primaries?
Because he looked good on camera. And before you think I am being factious, I'm not. Studies show that the American people, what they look for in a president is that he photos well. The other thing they look at is if they feel they can sit down and have a casual drink with that person. How personable are they and how do they come across on camera is how we determine who to vote for.
Since I read that, I look at the candidates to see who America is going to vote for and it's true, that's the profile they pick, every time.
Had I not made the payments, they would have lost money. I think you don't comprehend risk.
The dealership didn't have to trust me. The check I handed them was from the bank, they trusted the bank.
LOL! That's just hilarious. Did you notice we had a debt crisis recently?
Tell me, what risk did the car salesman take? None. All that person needed was someone to agree to buy and sign the papers and hand over money.
LOL! Wow... So much you don't know, but think you do.
The debt crisis we just endured (and still are) is proof that not lending on character, but on paper metrics and political theories doesn't work well.
Ron Paul stayed within his budget during his run for the presidency; did any one notice? Not that I know of...Ron Paul made a point and the media made sure the public awareness of this was few and far between.
People don't want to hire other smart people, may be smart people intimidate 'em some how.
LOL. Sure he did. Because you looked like an honest kid and banks routinely just hand checks over to kids who look honest.
You've got to love the Internet, where people can invent anything and claim it is the truth. Unfortunately for you, for a fabrication to fool people it has to at least be believable on its face. This fiction of a bank simply writing a check and handing it over because you "looked honest" doesn't even begin to rise to that level of believability. (I suspect you may have left out a fact or two, like maybe Daddy was there to co-sign for you, and his employment status was already known to the bank from accounts and/or previous transactions??)
Nice try, but don't quit your day job to become a fiction writer. You kinda suck at it.
If I wasn't 53 years old and I hadn't seen the social changes of over the last 30 years, I'd probably think the same way. However, I believe pnwmdk because people were more trusting of others then, than they are now.
Today its like the moral and ethical compass is just spinning out of control and doesn't know how to point to true north or south.
America use to (1940-50's) trust their government. Hard to believe but true. Times have changed; people have as well and I'm not to sure it is for the better, when a 'good man' is hard pressed to find a 'good job'.
I'm not. Jimmy Carter is fundamentally honest, and Ronald Reagan was a pathological -- though, toward the end, unwitting -- liar, who habitually conflated his fantasy life with factual history.
Which one of them, in your opinion, was the better President?
Now can we use those tests on presidential candidates? I was being factious. The debates is where we determine the person of good character or not. If we fail to judge appropriately, unlike a business, we can't fire them even though we'd like to. The debates are the personality test, just more personal as it should be. It is there too, inconsistencies can be revealed.
The public is quite badly out of practice in the art of recognizing integrity.
One of the most needed life skills USED TO BE figuring out whom to trust. Did you trust your banker? Did you trust your employer? Did you trust anyone you did business with?
Those were everyday essentials.
Today, we have government to absolve you of those responsibilities. And, we have thereby deprived people of said skills, enabling politicians to be of no integrity whatsoever, and few notice.
Ron Paul stayed within his budget during his run for the presidency; did any one notice?
His run or his budgetary discipline?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
