Need Clarification (Applies to all personalities) (1 Viewer)

[roar84eighty]

Obviously the trend in Personalities: part (b) for the past three years is a general statement/view to test your understanding of and present an evaluation of your particular personality.

Many of the questions are quite historiographical and even philosophical in nature (e.g. events shape people vs. people shape events).

Simply, is this just a framework or 'scope' to delve into the critical evaluation of your particular personality? For example, in "history is about winners" is it merely seeking an answer that addresses/critiques the 'highs' and 'lows' or successes/losses per se of this figure?

I guess that I just don't want to waste time sitting in the exam hall contemplating these epistemological conundrums (lol) if the question is simply something to direct my essay.

 

[jellybelly59]

No it essentially isn't a critical evaluation of your particular personality. People have gotten very low marks for section b of the personality section simply because they aren't asking you to critique the personality on the basis of the event but rather or not the quote can be applied to your personality. e.g. history is about winners --> was your personality on the winning side or losing side----> if on winning side then you can say yes he was on winning side and etc. etc. or conversely i have to do leni so i would say history isn't about winners because despite leni being a 'loser' she was still able to shape history because she was able to revolutionise culture internationally in the 1930s. In that, i wouldn't have analysed her role as a propagandist or delve into her role into the being a nazi which is what a critical evaluation would do... instead i answered it in response to the quote...

All in all... no it isn't a critical evaluation of your personality but just address the quote and question in response to your personality.

P.S. cem is great in this section... would be best to ask her.

 

[roar84eighty]

No it essentially isn't a critical evaluation of your particular personality. People have gotten very low marks for section b of the personality section simply because they aren't asking you to critique the personality on the basis of the event but rather or not the quote can be applied to your personality. e.g. history is about winners --> was your personality on the winning side or losing side----> if on winning side then you can say yes he was on winning side and etc. etc. or conversely i have to do leni so i would say history isn't about winners because despite leni being a 'loser' she was still able to shape history because she was able to revolutionise culture internationally in the 1930s. In that, i wouldn't have analysed her role as a propagandist or delve into her role into the being a nazi which is what a critical evaluation would do... instead i answered it in response to the quote...

All in all... no it isn't a critical evaluation of your personality but just address the quote and question in response to your personality.

P.S. cem is great in this section... would be best to ask her.

i used the phrase "critical evaluation" loosely (any response has implicit evaluation), don't attack a straw man. thanks for the clarification though.

note: most (if not all) of the personalities can be considered in at least one stage of their career as 'losers'.

 

[tku336]

It's a mini-essay about that statement in comparison to your person.

Just prepare a couple of stock responses, because they can only ask so many - outside forces, history's interpretation ect - and just mention the quote a lot.

 

[jellybelly59]

i used the phrase "critical evaluation" loosely (any response has implicit evaluation), don't attack a straw man. thanks for the clarification though.

note: most (if not all) of the personalities can be considered in at least one stage of their career as 'losers'.

lol sorry i didn't mean to come across as aggressive oh and note taken on losers

 

[roar84eighty]

lol sorry i didn't mean to come across as aggressive oh and note taken on losers

no worries lol
goodluck

 

[Kujah]

Part B's an interaction with the specified quote/statement, an evaluation of certain issues and historiography.

 

[Zak Ambrose]

part B separates band 5 and 6 kids.

usually you can take into consideration the different historical perspectives of the personality.
e.g. im doing Trotsky, and his role in history depends on the perspective [western cold war, post-cold war, Stalinist view, etc.]

 

[spazamataz]

So this is pretty much an extension-like question?
Blah i hate extension responses, means i actually have to think! lol