What do you consider a litmus test of a person's character?

[raccoon]

I consider the way s/he treats wait staff, clerks, and others who are in a position of less power to be one such test.

[jonnyblitz]

1. what you said plus how they treat animals. nt

[roguevalley]

61. whether or not they do good when no one is looking. especially to

people who have no power over them and to animals.

[MercutioATC]

2. How they take responsibility for their actions (especially their mistakes)

and how willing they are to admit their shortcomings.

[vadawg]

3. i consider the way they treat me as the most important thing

if they are a jerk to others i can deal with as long as not to me...

[raccoon]

4. IME, a person like that will sooner or later be a jerk to me. nt

[vadawg]

7. then we deal with it when it happens, i learned a long time ago that you can still be friends

and learn a lot from someone the rest of the world considers a pariah..

[Fumesucker]

5. So you don't have a problem if someone is a jerk to your mother?

Spouse, child?

Personally that pisses me off more than if someone is a jerk to me..

[vadawg]

9. depends in what way, there is just being a jerk and then theres stealing or beating etc

through experience ive learned that some people just have personality clashes, you may think someone is the biggest jerk on the planet but someone else will totally not see it.

[Fumesucker]

12. Most times I think that's just a matter of insufficient exposure..

I've met plenty of people I finally concluded were jerks who didn't come off that way at first..

[lonestarnot]

6. Do my dogs like 'em? And then there are the cats!

[Blue State Blues]

32. the Cat-scan is always a good test.

As long as you remember that to a cat, indifference is a sign of approval.

[AspenRose]

40. Babies are good judges of character too.

[Burma Jones]

8. I'm with you on this one......

For a while, I was a courier and really noticed the difference in the way I was treated by different Office Managers/receptionists etc.

Courtesy and respect for everyone is non-negotiable in our household......and I see that reflected in our Kids, and that's a very good thing.

[TwilightGardener]

10. The way people behave when no one is watching. No fear of punishment, no hope for

praise or recognition--just a matter of doing the right thing or the wrong thing through internal motivation/conscience/morals and nothing else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Problem with that is, you can get in real trouble

trying to see what they are like when no one is watching.

Tall bushes help.

[TwilightGardener]

26. Heh. OK, I'll modify that into "when they THINK no one is watching".

[saltpoint]

11. I like your test as one of the ways to gain insight into character.

Treating older folks and younger folks with compassion also would rate pretty high.

I tend to trust people who are good with animals -- horses, dogs, etc. If horses and dogs could speak they would tell us which people are truly kind.

And as a hard-fast rule, I don't trust anyone who doesn't own and frequently listen to PIECES OF THE SKY, by Emmylou Harris.

[snagglepuss]

18. LOL your Harris remark. Do I dare I say I don't know that particular song

or listen to her though I do like her her music. That said I definitely understand judging/trusting people according to musical taste. Actually its more of a gut response to someone rather than a judging response but it does affect my opinion.

[asdjrocky]

39. Lol... I feel the same way....

But it's the Dropkick Murphy's. :hi:

[saltpoint]

63. -- --

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Echo In Light]

13. How they choose to confront and interact w/others online

Think for a moment about the times when you've encountered open hostility in an online forum/blog, or have witnessed others being the target of it, and ask yourself.. if that were a real life discussion, would some of the more belligerent ones actually be engaging others in such a combative, hostile manner? ...could you imagine people in real time screaming and name-calling others the way they choose to do online? Very doubtful ... and telling, given how such types are often the ones accusing everyone else of being 'crazy.'

The point being, within an anonymous medium, it must be an irresistible temptation for certain personality types to use it as a vehicle for expressing their hatred of those who don't think/believe exactly as they do, or for those who they see as a mark, per their subjective psychologic makeup. And since that path of least resistance is so commonly used, I usually take note of posters who avoid participating at that level, and chalk it up to the notion that, how one interacts w/others online should be no different than how one would act w/others in real, face to face time. So, basically, a circumstantial variation on the Golden rule.

[closeupready]

14. How religious someone is.

I find people who are deeply religious don't use their brains. That's a huge turn-off for me.

[dawg]

15. I'm religious ...

and I use my brane.

[ret5hd]

21. but not spellcheck

[tabasco]

51. That was a pretty obvious joke.

Get with the program.

[closeupready]

27. Do you believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ?

n/t

[closeupready]

31. Because if you do, then did you use your brain in coming to that belief?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I use depth of religious belief as a litmus test.

[dawg]

35. Yes

I believe it as a matter of faith, although I can understand others being skeptical. I accept the supernatural elements of the faith, because I feel that the truth of Christ's message of love and forgiveness points to him being something different, and vastly superior in every way, to what I am.

[closeupready]

36. Are there others who speak truthfully of love and forgiveness?

If so, then how is his message unique from their's?

And I don't understand what you mean when you say Christ's differentness - as evidenced by the truth of his message of love and forgiveness - supports belief in the supernatural holdings of the religion? And if he was mortal, is it not possible that he erred?

[dawg]

45. Of course there are others ...

who speak truthfully of love and forgiveness. I am a person who believes there is much good to be learned from many different religions and belief systems. But Christ's message resonates with me in a unique way that other teacher's messages do not. It's not easy to put into words exactly why. To me, the sacrificial nature of both his teachings, and the way he lived his life, speak to me in a way no other religious traditions do.

[closeupready]

47. But then you aren't using your brain, are you? Emotion, yes,

feelings, yes, but you are not examining the doctrines of your faith critically and objectively.

And also, if your faith held, for example, that slavery is godly (as churches did in times past), how could you claim to reject slavery?

[dawg]

52. I said that I use my brain ...

I didn't say that was all that I use. Of course I allow my feelings and emotions to color my perceptions of the world. That doesn't mean, however, that I am unable to critically examine my beliefs. I have spent plenty of time considering and re-considering what I believe, and what I don't believe, with regard to the specific teachings of my religion.

I understand that Christianity has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities throughout history. That obviously continues, in a very real way, to this day. I try, although I often fail, to react to situations as Christ taught. If I am to truly love my neigbor as much as I love myself, then how can I approve of oppressing him?

[closeupready]

53. Okay, well you may be an exception, but I find MOST religious people think like zombies.

"Whatever the Vatican says." And if it says you have to do three cartwheels at 4:30 a.m. every November 12th blindfolded, or else you're going to hell, you'll find them doing SIX cartwheels, 'just in case I miscount'. :eyes:

And also I find most religious people claim that they can look at their religion's doctrine critically, but when YOU do it, they get angry at you. No thanks.

[vadawg]

42. +1,000,000

[AspenRose]

41. Yes, Jimmy Carter totally lacks character and has no brain.

[closeupready]

49. If he were someone on my level, I would have no interest whatsoever in socializing with him.

And I'm sure he's a wonderful Democrat - actually, I know he is, and he's a great liberal leader, but in terms of what the threadstarter was referring to, his religion would set off warning bells in my head.

And by the way, smartie pants, yes he does use his brain - he recently spoke out against the subjugation of women despite the Southern Baptists' Convention affirming same.

[CBGLuthier]

56. the feeling would be mutual

rude person that you are.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. That says a lot more about you than it does about Jimmy Carter

[spoony]

64. I think you just failed the test.

Game over.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. i agree. on a larger scale, the way they treat oppressed people too

[Cid_B]

17. Reminds me of Heinlein...

"A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual" -- find out how he feels about astrology. "

[snagglepuss]

29. That question might be good litmus test for pomposity but hardly to

determine intellectual worth. I've certainly met my share of people who disdain astrology to appear to be a serious intellectual. I'm not defending astrology, I'm just of leery of judging intellectual worth with such a test. I know people who have what would be considered wierd notions but are sharp as a pin.

[Swede]

19. That's the test I use.

Lots of people are short and dismissive of waiter staff,it is a real eye opener.

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. Whether they will have sex with me is a good test

Just teasin'!!!

Or, as Groucho once said, "I would never join a club that would have me as a member!"

[Gregorian]

22. Whether they listen or not.

To me this is crucial. I run into people who don't have time, or some other excuse. When someone consistently begins their sentence just as you are finishing yours, they were most likely not listening. People who just answer a question with yes when they haven't thought about what you said.

Listening is more than ears. It's even more than brain. It includes heart.

The Bush administration didn't listen.

[Johonny]

23. rubbing paper on them and seeing if it turns blue or red?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Question: with that test, how do you tell the conservatives from the commies? nt

[Johonny]

37. they're both acidic

[Orsino]

25. How they treat fellow travelers from whom they have nothing to gain. n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

30. Litter.

How one handles that tiny bubblegum wrapper can say alot.

[asdjrocky]

33. That's a good tell.

First of all, you have to be stupid not to treat people who are preparing and bringing your food well. I mean, who likes spit in food? It's the smart thing to do and it's the nice thing to do. Win-win. If I have a dinner date with someone and she is rude to the staff, it will be the last date.

How they treat animals and kids is up there too.

Also, I look for how people act when things go wrong. Do they freak out? Do they get angry or fall into a heap? That's a big clue.

Mostly, I just want to see people be nice to each other, even when they disagree, and do what they can to help each other out. Pretty simple minded philosophy, but it's gotten me through life so far.

And I hate bullies, just hate 'em.

[debbierlus]

34. Honesty

[Festivito]

38. Lend them a twenty.

You cannot get that kind of information at ten times that price.

[grasswire]

43. what they do with their money

Generous people have generous spirits and compassionate natures. Up-tighty people about money are usually authoritarians with issues about their parents.

[vadawg]

48. rofl, or the up tighty people know what having no money means so they save like bandits....

[sl8]

44. People that judge others by litmus tests?

Not really, I just had to throw in a little snark.

Judging things, events, and people is a natural and probably necessary trait, e.g, is that pothole dangerous, why do I see so many brake lights on the cars in front of me in front, why is that guy ahead confronting strangers on the street?

Over the years, I've found that it bites me in the ass when I judge a person's character, particularly when it's based a one or two incidents. Using your example, I also find it distasteful when someone mistreats service people, but, as it invariably turns out, I don't know the whole story. Is the person in question a complete and utter asshole, or are they someone that contributes regularly to the local food pantry and volunteers at homeless shelter and just happened to be having a really bad day when I saw them? Even with people that I interact with every day, I have no idea what they do that I never see. I find it very humbling, and even disturbing, to find out that people I've found wanting ethically, by my standards, behave very ethically by standards that I'd never before considered, or considered unimportant. If they had judged me by their standards, I'd be the one that was found wanting.

Also, toward what ends are we applying a litmus test to another person? If we're deciding whether or not to make that person a part of our daily life, I'd say that that falls under the natural and necessary clause. It's still not good when we misjudge someone, but we all have to decide who to associate with based on something. If we're applying a litmus test for the sole purpose of making ourselves feel superior, then I think that we've probably committed a greater error than the person we're judging.

Reading what I've written, I know that I sound very preachy and that's not my intent. The only reason I'm aware of these things is because I've unfairly judged, and still unfairly judge, people around me. I'm just trying to identify and stop this behavior and your post struck a chord within me.

[Unvanguard]

46. Their attitudes toward homosexuality. It's an excellent gauge of obnoxiousness. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

55. +1

:thumbsup:

[AlienGirl]

50. Does my bird like them? --but there's no one litmus test

My bird easily notices subtle hostility, and he will be wary of anyone who is hostile, aggressive, or has a cruel streak. It's different from the caution he has toward people who are made nervous by birds, or the care he takes toward children and very ill people, and I can see the difference in his body language.

How the person treats servcice workers is huge. Also how they treat kids and homeless people.

The best person I know is best partly because of the way he keeps caring about people who've wronged him. Even after he has cut them out of his life and told them not to talk to him anymore, if they come around later and say they understand what they did wrong and they apologize and *mean* it, he'll re-connect with them. This is important to me because sooner or later I'm bound to make a mistake or be careless and hurt someone, and I want to know that doesn't mean I'll be shut out forever.

Tucker

[stranger81]

54. Their degree of concern for others not in their immediate family. NT

[proteus_lives]

57. There is no one litmus test.

Too many variables. You have to spend time with a person.

[snagglepuss]

66. That is absolutely true and to think otherwise is dangerous.

I speak from experience.

[WildEyedLiberal]

58. Their sense of humor

People who enjoy mean-spirited or cruel jokes are almost always rotten, nasty people. I'm not even talking about racist or sexist jokes, necessarily, although those certainly fall under the umbrella. I dated a guy who thought all sorts of things that made me uncomfortable were just fucking hysterical, and if I expressed any discomfort, I got the - you guessed it - "lighten up, it's just a joke!" response. And, inevitably, he ended up being a cruel asshole.

The sorts of things someone finds amusing in a "joke" says a LOT about who they are.

[JBoy]

60. My wife said she knew I was a catch by the way I treated my mother.

[raccoon]

65. Someone on her posted once she'd been given the advice, "Never marry a man who hates his mother."

I strongly agree.

Sounds like your mom and you had a good relationship so your wife knew you'd be a catch.

[Berry Cool]

62. Definitely how people would behave if they believed they could behave badly and get away with it.

That's the ultimate test. Everything else could be for show, for all you know; you just have to hope it's not.

People treating their parents well (assuming their parents were good to them) is a bare minimum expectation.

And how people treat animals is only a measure of whether or not they're sociopathic--as in, if they mistreat animals, they're sociopathic. Otherwise, their attitude toward animals means little. Animals are fairly easy for most people to love or, at bare minimum, treat well. Don't forget, the Nazis and the white supremacists loved their dogs and horses.

Edited to add: Treatment of children is yet another "sociopath" test, as in their mistreatment tells you far more about a person than their treatment. Even hardened lifers in prison hate someone who hurts children.

[madokie]

67. When meeting someone new I listen to what they have to say

and usually within a short time I will know a lot about them not so much by what they actually said as to what they say, do they talk in inuendo, in lies, in truths, way out there or down to earth. Very seldom if ever am I misled by this approach.

[NaturalHigh]

68. I've always told people that...

"if you treat the janitor like an asshole, then you're an asshole." Anyone can be nice to someone who can do something for them, but your true character shows when you interact with someone who will never be able to help you in any substantive way. That goes for the janitor, the delivery guy, or the guy on the street corner asking for spare change.

By the way, the people who said that your character can be measured by how you treat animals is also dead-on.