Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • THE “NAXALT” THREAD (illustration of one of the principle differences in gender

    THE “NAXALT” THREAD

    (illustration of one of the principle differences in gender perception)

    —“(Insert here one of my many generalizations about the differences between men and women, the fallacies of feminism’s equality, and the need for reciprocal exchanges given our differences.)”– Curt

    (There is nothing special about Ms.Olson. She is pretty much the product of western education justifying women’s intuition)

    >Kristina Olson

    All or nothing speech is extreme.

    Being extreme in ones views is unbalanced.

    Unbalance does not follow the laws of nature.

    Now, you put some in front of men and women, I’d agree with you. Otherwise this statement is completely invalid.

    >Curt Doolittle

    Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias?

    Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences.

    So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis).

    So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education.

    We are paid in no small part by our loyalty.

    > Alexander Zavialov

    We need to drop the notion that bananas are yellow

    > Kristina Olson

    Curt Doolittle I think you’re a very angry man, especially towards women. There’s my emotional biased judgement of the day lol. All or nothing speech is irrelevant; it’s simply not factual. Cannot be proven that ALL women or ALL men do anything of what you say. You go against science when you use statements such as these. Put many, most, or some in front of these and it would be perfectly stated. Can you accept constructive criticism? And fuck equality, I must be a man inside then considering I disagree with the entire ideology behind equality and could give a shit less about indifferences. I call things as they are, not how they pertain to my flaws or insecurities.

    You’re an intelligent man; doesn’t mean you are correct in all that you say or write.

    (CurtD: interjection – I always find these statements interesting because it’s not like women don’t (a) chase me, (b) try to keep me (c) despite the fact that I’m clueless when a woman is hitting on me or interested in me. (d) and I’ll bet I’m the most supportive, giving, and dedicated man most women will ever meet. (Although my life’s mission is as important to me as children are to a woman.) I’m just not into symbolism, and I can be very ‘detached’ from the ‘present’. Women like men who are on mission, charismatic and work hard.)

    >Ely Harman

    I had this one banana that was brown. I had another banana that was green. How does your generalization account for that!?

    >Alexander Zavialov

    Nobody said ALL women are X, he said women are X in general. Would you be just as hysterical as if he said women are sensitive?

    > Kristina Olson

    Alexander Zavialov not all women are sensitive so when you don’t put any other words in front of the word “women” then yes, it is stating all without saying it

    > Curt Doolittle

    My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job.

    My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people?

    Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct.

    What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality.

    We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life.

    > Kristina Olson

    Alexander Zavialov and I’m not hysterical at all lol; how can you decipher my tone and attitude thru writing?

    > Kristina Olson

    I’m actually getting quite a kick out of the over analyzing of women and men you’re putting on.

    > Kristina Olson

    Curt Doolittle once again, it isn’t truth simply because you say it is. I’m not lying and I don’t lie; no need to. You’re right in some regards. Wrong in others. Where is the science that backs up your argument and says “this is a fact”? There is none, it’s all theory.

    >Curt Doolittle

    It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years.

    These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

    As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand.

    In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale.

    I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior.

    I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice.

    Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want.

    Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one.

    But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form.

    Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do.

    OK?

    Thank you. 😉

    > Kristina Olson

    Justus Bryce They can be a few different colors; yellow usually means ripe, brown means the banana is dying but still useful when baking or cooking, and green means its not ready to be eaten.

    > Kristina Olson

    Curt Doolittle Understood and thank you.

    > Curt Doolittle

    Hugs

    > Kristina Olson

    Now as for this banana question? Why do I keep getting asked about banana colors?

    > Stephen Klostermeier

    Because you are being deceptive intentionally to appear rational.

    The answer is yellow. No need to pontificate or elaborate. Unless of course you are intentionally trying to obfuscate a generally accepted fact. Bananas are yellow. Just as the sky is blue and ice is cold. Further elaboration is a deflective tactic to avoid the topic directly and pretend that the objective is subjective.

    > Kristina Olson

    Stephen Klostermeier thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever read.

    >Kristina Olson

    Bananas do not start out yellow, just as humans dont start out as full figured bodies…although both are still what they are. A banana is still a banana whether it is ripe or not and a human is still a human whether beginning in the womb or walking around on earth.

    > Kristina Olson

    Justus Bryce Ok, so then in all actuality I’m more honest than majority of people because I do my best not to omit details which I see as important. Details are very important in all cases (to me). I assure you there is no deceit whatsoever though. Thats one thing I pride myself on is being honest even when it hurts, being loyal even if it isn’t deserved by the other party, and being honorable whether the other person is or not. I served in the military for a good amount of time; constantly told to pay attention to detail by men.

    > Kristina Olson

    Justus Bryce so you think I said what I said to purposely shut down the argument? Because that isn’t even close to my motive for replying with what I did

    > Greg Hamilton

    We aren’t landing on the moon. We don’t need to specify the exact percentage when speaking about humans.

    > Greg Hamilton

    It’s hairsplitting. It’s “not always” which is designed to paralyze thought and action by preventing rule making.

    Depending on the rule I only need certain levels of surety to call it a rule.

    Being able to make those rules allows me to act quickly. It limits friction among allies and allows faster responses to enemies.

    > Kristina Olson

    Yes, I know I over think during discussions, but when in situations which require me to think and act quickly, I do so without hesitation based on the training I’ve had. So far in my life, it has worked out well. The only reason I ask so many questions and require detail is because I like to understand EVERYTHING. If I dont understand I continue to seek out answers until I do and then I begin on a new subject. I don’t need exact numbers, but I do take words seriously, so if you state something I will most likely take it apart. I know my differences from men and I am secure with these differences, but I will call someone out if they are trying to make it seem as though these differences are a negative thing.

    > Gregory Gichev

    This entire thread is you proving his point.

    > Greg Hamilton

    It’s female communication.

    Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers.

    We know outliers exist we just aren’t willing to ignore the rule because of them.

    It’s not a lack of intelligence it’s a proof of discipline.

    Forcing someone to acknowledge every variation and outlier is to demand every person and situation be treated individually with no relation to the past. It’s an argumentative disease that has already nearly destroyed our culture.

    > Kristina Olson

    off subject: do any of you have wives? Or children? Not girlfriends (unless you’ve been with her for more than 5 years)

    >Howard Van Der Klauw

    Kristina Olson off topic. Yes. One current (wife) and one ex (wife) and four (ex girlfriends).

    > Curt Doolittle

    Greg Hamilton —“Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. “— Women evolved to think of individual children’s (and women’s) needs, while men evolved to think of the tribe (family) survival.

    Division of production cycles, division of temporal perception, cognition, calculation, and advocacy.

    > Greg Hamilton

    Curt Doolittle: yes

    > Charlton Ward

    Quite a lengthy way to say “NAXALT”

    > Greg Hamilton

    Charlton Ward NAXALT is always lengthy…

    > Greg Hamilton

    The higher the consequence cost the lower the bar is set to say “always”

    > Ely Harman

    All women take generalizations personally.

    > Greg Hamilton

    Ely Harman it’s almost like there is a word for that …

    > Trey Tepichin

    Curt Doolittle is putting on a clinic here. 🙌🏽

    > Curt Doolittle

    Like I said. Love women. Listen to them (it’s fucking hard to do that I know). Try to make them happy. Don’t argue truth falsehood good or bad, just what is possible or not. Women are the most awesome part of life I’ve found. But they aren’t men, and we aren’t women and we’re both much happier when we understand that. 😉

    > Charlton Ward

    Agreed CD, no matter how hard to current cultural narrative tries to deconstruct this, facts are facts. But back to Christianity, Christians are over all happier, and divorced less. This nation has back slid unbelievable and we are all suffering due to it.

    > Curt Doolittle

    Well yes but the question is whether we wouldn’t have MORE people doing that if we reconstructed christianity by means that didn’t make the vast majority of educated people eye-roll at the absurdity.

    > Dan Warren

    This thread proves a lot of things.

    > Curt Doolittle

    Dan Warren that’s why working this way is so fascinating…

    >Howard Van Der Klauw

    On topic. This was an interesting discussion. It’s the difference between distributions and individuals that we all need to understand.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 11:34:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON MBTI?” (repost from 2016) (You can learn a great

    Q&A: “WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON MBTI?”

    (repost from 2016) (You can learn a great deal from reading this)

    1) I am an INTP, In five factor I have very high agreeableness, average dominance, some introversion, action oriented (tad impulsive), very orderly, extremely high openness to experience, and high neuroticism (worry). Note the difference between the positive positioning of the INTP and the negative positioning of the 5Factor.

    2) The criticisms of MBTI come from the diagnostic community and they’re largely nonsense. Why?

    The five factor model is derived empirically from observed and reported phenomenon, and does not provide a theory of causality. It’s insufficient and it tells us almost nothing about children, which pretty much falsifies it. It’s also very hard to survey, focuses on ‘failings’ and is of little or no general use to the public.

    MBTI was developed from observation and a theory proposed. The theory is incorrect, but at least there is a theory/

    More importantly MBTI Is as precise and correspondent as is useful for people in ordinary life because it’s as complex as people can manage to use. And it’s demonstrated to be useful in assisting people in cooperating, because it assists them in understanding one another. IT is both a positive and useful measure. With practice, ordinary people can use it in daily life.

    3) The problem with any such test is the number of questions necessary to survey any dimension of a personality with any sufficiency. These surveys must generally be in the 100+ question range per personality dimension, plus they must include about 20% error checking, in order to return reasonably reliable results across variations in mood and context. However, 100 questions seems to be the limit of tolerance. So most survey (testing) organizations tolerate greater variation in results in exchange for greater adoption and necessity of interpretation.

    4) The MBTI is an OPTIMISTIC survey seeking to assist people in cooperating(Negotiating), and the 5 factor (like all Freudian thought) is a DIAGNOSTIC (pessimistic) totalitarian one for the purpose of determining variation from an artificial ideal.

    5) The underlying two-cause model of MBTI is false – the five factor is probably also false. However there is extremely high correlation between these tests on two factors given high weight in both, and lower correspondence between the Pessimistic Diagnostic model, and the Optimistic Negotiation model. To illustrate complex mental phenomenon just as we illustrate complex spatial phenomenon (Hawking’s slices of bread), we can instead take six paper-towel tubes and stack them vertically next to each other in a ring. We can then imagine a plane dividing the standing tubes horizontally. Or we can bisect this ‘ring’ all sorts of ways, creating a ring of tubes of various heights. This is analogous to how 5Factor of personality vs MBTI ‘weighs’ the amplitude of personality traits. The set of traits and the values attached to them are different but so is the purpose of the diagnostic vs the negotiator model.

    6) The underlying model of the mind is information processing not subjective experience, and while 5/6 Factor models do correspond to what we think we understand as brain structures, our understanding of those models are a REWARD system for processing information in a DISTRIBUTION, so that humans SPECIALIZE even within families, is problematic for the Diagnostic and Totalitarian thinkers (equality), and explanatory and useful for the Negotiation and Cooperative thinkers (inequality). So if we say that variations in personality reflect the necessity of using the same physical mental structure for the purpose of distributing information processing, then we describe man correctly, and we describe our industrial era norms as FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE.

    7) Given my present understanding, a reframing of personality as reward system for information processing:

    a) Dominance(male) vs Submission (female) spectrum provides insight but it’s also so obvious that we all but ignore it. Whereas it’s contrasting dominance and submission with the other traits that provides explanatory power in why we act and feel as we do.

    b) Impulsivity vs patience related to patience-worry in that we can worry but not act, or worry and act, and the correlation between impulsivity and neuroticism are predictive. Why? Because it appears that neuroticism (patience/worry/obsession), is the cause of creativity.

    c) Conscientiousness should be reframed as reward for completing opportunities and reward for discovering new opportunities. d)Agreeableness should be desire to adapt to others vs desire to preserve context (individualism).

    e) Openness to Experience should be reframed as desire for adapting to information vs stress from adapting to information.

    f) Neuroticism should be reframed as acceptance(watching) vs worrying(excitement) vs obsession(chasing prey), where worrying is itself a time preference (living in the certain moment experiences vs projecting an uncertain future conditions, vs in pursuit of prey or idea),

    g) the autistic(male)-solipsistic(female) spectrum provides greater insight than all except intelligence and extroversion, and we are just beginning to understand it, and almost no one interprets it as a problem of processing information in a group of males and females with different reproductive demands.

    h) Intelligence is as important as extroversion in personality traits, in no small part because it appears that the limit of our minds to exhaust opportunities across these personality traits determines out resulting behavior (this is profoundly explanatory).

    Now, I placed the properties in that list in a particular order. That order is informative. It means that very few causal properties are involved, and we are not quite achieving our goal of understanding them.

    CAUSALITY

    a) Rate of Sexual Maturity

    b) Depth of Sexual Maturity

    c) Gender Differences

    d) Gender Dimorphic Differences

    e) Status (biological/reproductive), Demonstrated/Observed, Self Percieved

    f) Sense of Safety / Security

    g) Intelligence

    h) Culture

    h) Education and discipline

    ALTERNATIVES

    I find that if we have:

    – personality survey

    – Intelligence test

    – Moral Survey (Moral Foundations)

    – Cultural Survey (cultural biases)

    – Preference Survey (‘likes’)

    we have a pretty complete and predictive profile of an individual

    CLOSING

    If we change how people are diagnosed and understood as deviation from an arbitrary (freudian, industrialist, socialist, feminist) ideal, then we can help them be happy and successful in life.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 11:11:00 UTC

  • RATIONALIZING MYERS-BRIGGS AND BIG5 (AND PROPERTARIANISM) (Repost from 2016) 1)

    RATIONALIZING MYERS-BRIGGS AND BIG5 (AND PROPERTARIANISM)

    (Repost from 2016)

    1) —“The Myers-Briggs rests on wholly unproven theories”—

    Well, it rests on observation of demonstrated motivations. So does all of psychology, and all of sociology, both of which are demonstrably pseudoscience created as pseudosciences by Boaz, Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, Freud, Cantor, Adorno’s Crew, and Mises, as an alternative to Darwin, Spencer, and the Marginalists in Economics. In fact, it appears that almost everything written by each of these authors is a fabrication of wishful thinking correspondent with reality. Right now we are in the process of overthrowing keynesianism because of its externalities. Hayek suggested that the twentieth century would be remembered as a new era of mysticism (which we call pseudoscience today). He was right.

    But all that said, the MBTI rests on a subset of observed preferences in behavior. These preferences exist, and are demonstrated in the work place.

    2) —“The Myers-Briggs provides inconsistent, inaccurate results”—

    So does a Big5 of 30-100 questions.

    A 20 question IQ test is however, pretty predictive. What does this mean? It is easier to measure intelligence, harder to measure neuroticism(big5), and harder yet to measure work behavior.

    The results are inaccurate because (a) there are too few questions, (b) most people don’t fit into an exact block but around the edges of one (c) the ‘dimensions’ being tested are difficult to test – and most importantly to test ‘positively’ (meaning without asking the survey taker to be too self critical.)

    The problem is that for a test of this nature to produce accurate results it must consist of something on the order of 600 questions, about one sixth of which detect lies, or uncertainties. MB is ‘good enough’ that over time one can take the simple test, evolve greater undrestanding of one’s self, and ‘narrow down’ one’s score.

    On the other hand the Big 5 judges these properties:

    a) Openness (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)

    b) Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)

    c) Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)

    d) Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached)

    e) Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

    These are DIAGNOSTIC categories that DO correspond loosely to what we understand may be brain functions.

    It should be fairly obvious to people that these spectrum can easily be mapped to the MBTI (See Attached table). And this table will tell you all that you need to know:

    i) MBTI Does not test for neuroticism – which we can consider good or bad. I consider it good because there is no way to spin it ‘good’ in all cases. But I believe this is one reason for variation between the two procedures.

    ii) There is very high correlation between:

    Extroversion-Introversion /Extroversion (.7)

    and

    Sensing-INtuiting/Openness, (.7)

    ….and less but still significant correlation between

    Thinking(criticizing)-Feeling(empathizing)/Agreeableness (.4)

    and

    Judging-Perceiving/Conscientiousness. (.5)

    As I understand it, the difference between Big5 and MBTI models is that TF and JP are heavily influenced by Neuroticism(insecurity vs confidence), and this is not accounted for in the brevity of the MBTI test.

    Ironically the MBTI axis of Judging(organizing) – Perceiving(Iterative) probably MORE predictive and useful than the Conscientiousness measure, since I am fairly sure the Big 5 model is incorrectly diagnosing what is an important part of our division of cognition. I always pair myself with and INTJ. Why? I will absolutely figure it out, no matter what it is. The INTJ will absolutely positively get it done, no matter what, and I won’t. This method of thinking is not directly visible in the Big5

    So the truth is that GIVEN THE CORRELATIONS and given that we are testing for very subtle differences, it is EXTREMELY hard to claim that the MBTI fails without saying the Big5 also fails.

    Except that the MBTI teaches you to understand how to work with people in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, and the big5 teaches you what is WRONG with people in some strange freudian utopia where there is an ideal type of person. And it is this fundamental totalitarian error of Freudianism that is buried in the Big5: the ideal type: one-ness. Universalism. Equality. Ideal. Whereas that was not the hierarchical division of labor that was central to the western tradition and central to Neitzsche’s work.

    Realistically it is the difference between the consumer model that is good enough for everyday work, and the professional model that requires precise measurement in order to perform medical operations.

    What I dislike about the Big5 is it’s hypothesis of a perfect (Feminist) individual. MBTI doesn’t do that. It just tells you how people are, and assumes you can tell the differnece between the secure and insecure becuaes they don’t wanna tell people using a consumer product that mostly they are insecure. When actually, using something like MBTI long enough will reduce a LOT of your insecurities.

    iii) The Dichotomy Model proposed by Jung is false. We have at least five if not six or seven major axis of personality that affect our behavior – which I won’t get into right now. But what does that mean? We’ll find out in a minute…

    BUT! This simplistic error of dichotomy helps us understand why personality testing is difficult, and why the simplified version of MBTI is ‘pretty good’.

    Humans really are terrible comparing more than a two dimensional representation of anything. We evolved to compare one thing with another. But most of our intellectual advancement has been the product of learning how to compare increasingly complex things.

    So if we can graph two functions on a plane we can visualize them. If we can take slow motion video of a horse running we can analyze what it’s really doing rather than guess – something which stumped artists for all of history until the era of photography.

    Statistics is rife with aggregates that falsely inform us. Left and right are insufficient models for analysis of politics. two dimensions are insufficient to capture all but four simple axis. Three dimensions can create a better nolan chart. It takes three dimensions and some work to create a class diagram.

    For those with rudimentary understanding of economics as a study of equilibria, supply demand charts are hard enough. but what about multiple supply demand charts? We have to create models at that point using software, because we cannot visualize the results.

    For those who are involved in Austrian economics, look at the difference between Hayekian triangles: how he worked to create a model of intertemporal production cycles.

    This is the problem when we talk about five or more dimensions of personality: we cannot represent them simply.

    Each personality trait represents a spectrum – a line with different variables, at each end of which are points of failure. And modeling multiple dimensions how they appear as demonstrated behavior is pretty difficult.

    So, lets imagine a bunch of tall tubes standing on end, arranged in a circle. We fill each with liquid measuring each of the 5+ personality traits. Now, even if marginal difference in behavior between the extremes is only say on a scale of ten on each one (and I think it’s more than that), that’s a lot of combinations of personality types available to us.

    But we could however, instead of combinations state ratios (intersections), or basically a truth table (binaries). And this is what MBTI tries to do. Produce binaries where there might be many in between, just so that we get ‘close enough’ to start working with people.

    The reason to do this is because the average human mind just cannot really manage to do more than that.

    Now back to our ‘tubes’, lets take our circular stack of tubes and draw a horizontal plane through all of them in the middle. This is the way that Big5 looks at personality measurement.

    But we can draw many planes at many angles, in order to treat some properties more or less importantly than the others. This is how MBTI looks at measurements: that each plane we draw, if we draw 16 of them, will produce an ideal type that we can use to understand others.

    So in this sense, MBTI USES 16 IDEAL TYPES that you empathize with, AND BIG5 USES ONE IDEAL TYPE and a lot of properties that you have to rationalize.

    Once you see this, and grasp that they are measuring 4 of the same properties, this makes sense.

    MBTI is a mass market teaching tool. And it works.

    As a ‘professional’ I use my own categories.

    3) —“The Myers-Briggs uses false, limited binaries”—

    This is a ‘feature’ not a bug. The reason MBTI is successful is that PEOPLE CAN USE IT, and you can take it over and over again and start to understand yourself and others.

    4) —“The Myers-Briggs is largely disregarded by psychologists”—

    So is IQ. So is Nature vs Nurture. And Freudian psychology was an non-empirical pseudoscience constructed by introspection and guesswork just like Jung’s – and arguably remains so outside of experimental psychology. It is cognitive science not psychology we follow today.

    Unfortunately, I’ve used pretty much every model on the market, and while I DO use a more predictive model, which produces graphs of the four major personality traits, (blame avoidance being my favorite), MBTI fits the GOOD ENOUGH model for 90% of the world’s work force. And that’s why it’s good. ‘Cause 90% of the ordinary folk in the world can learn how to use it until something better comes along.

    5) WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO SEE INSTEAD?

    I prefer:

    I) moral biases: feminine(left)/balanced(libertarian)/masculine(conservative),

    II) altruistic-trusting/balanced/not-trusting-selfish,

    III) extraversion/balanced/introversion,

    IV) autistic-analytic/balanced/empathic-solipsistic,

    V) rigid-organized(closing things off)/balanced/ intuitive(preserving options)-irresponsible,

    VI) endurance-patience/balanced/frustration-impulsivity,

    VII) paranoia-fearfulness/balanced/confidence-steadiness,

    VIII) verbal IQ in .5 std deviations from 100. (scale of -5 to +5 because more or less is irrelevant.)

    With those 8 measurements I am pretty sure we can lock down almost everything about a person.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 11:09:00 UTC

  • “WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING A SHOCK FROM GENDER ASYMMETRY IN INDIA AND CHINA?”— 1-

    —“WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING A SHOCK FROM GENDER ASYMMETRY IN INDIA AND CHINA?”—

    1- Economic opportunity is masking conflict – as it always does. The return of economic limitations restores group conflicts.

    2 – Substantial underclass populations still preserving family.

    3 – So there is sex pressure but still hope.

    4 – And there is marriage retention and still hope.

    5 – Unlike the west, they are not wealthy enough to destroy the economic security of the family.

    6 – Japan is the … oddity. (Low testosterone in asian men is not a good thing)

    In any society where the woman are capable of both single motherhood and middle class (technological) workplace substitution of men, we should see a retreat to serial marriage and excess males. Males are cost to a woman while raising children if they are working.

    This same effect won’t occur in populations with IQ’s below 95 (massive underclasses).

    And the upper classes will always find greater competitive and status value in dual incomes or high male income with supported females.

    Without eugenics either environmental, agrarian, or political, it is very hard to maintain human advancement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 10:53:00 UTC

  • MORE “LIFE’S POTENTIAL ENERGY (CAPITAL)” —“Everyone is born with X amount of p

    MORE “LIFE’S POTENTIAL ENERGY (CAPITAL)”

    —“Everyone is born with X amount of potential (genetic, cultural, material and technological capital). If they do nothing or pursue a hedonic lifestyle, that potential will be consumed and then one dies. Most people barely sustain it, maybe increase it marginally. Exceptional people increase it exponentially, and that’s why we have pareto distributions of success. The people that take advantage of the most opportunities and put their potential/capital to work gain the most potential/capital in return. Simple.”— @Yannis Kontinopoulo

    ( h/t: Simon Ström )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 10:41:00 UTC

  • BRINGING PSYCHOLOGY TO ITS FINAL CONCLUSION —“Curt Doolittle I noticed MBTI ha

    BRINGING PSYCHOLOGY TO ITS FINAL CONCLUSION

    —“Curt Doolittle I noticed MBTI has turned into a sort of religion for a-lot of people. Unfortunate how this always happens.”—Candice Mary

    As I’ve said elsewhere sixteen (4×4) with archetypal names, is about as complex as the average person can manage to ‘calculate’ with.

    I would much rather have people use MBTI and understand that we have different categories, relations and values, than to attempt to use the freudian model to dominate them into a uniform ideal, by casting everything as a ‘disease’ that doesn’t conform to that ideal. Freudianism is freaking evil.

    MBTI and Jung are crayons and fairy tales yes, but like fairy tales they contain a lot more than a grain of truth. Among my clan of people so to speak, big 5/6 factors and underlying dimensions we get greater precision but with the same empathy at the cost of losing the utility of archetypes.

    If you understand my work you lose empathy completely, and see people as clockworks, lacking nearly all agency.

    Then you are faced with having to just love people for the joy of it, and not blame them for their failings.

    Which is the optimum understanding that the very wisest of us (particularly catholics) eventually arrive at, and is one of the reasons the very top scholars in the world cease their irreligiosity while the public intellectuals preserve atheism.

    Hence my multi-year quest to understand how to produce a religion that free of abrahamic sophism, deceit, and immoralism, but achieves what we all desire from religion: the peace of mind and frequent elation that comes from surrender to running with the pack.

    It is wolves and dogs running in packs in the wild we should study – because it is precisely that emotion of safety in belonging and the sharing of perception and understanding by nothing but body language that we verbal and rational creatures long for.

    Domesticated wolves are our friends for this reason. Just as the wolfman is a subconscious archetype: we are the apes who hunt like wolves. We simply had the advantage of two feet and opposable thumbs, and extraordinary heat dissipation so we could pass those wolves and domesticate ourselves.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 10:16:00 UTC

  • PERSONALITY “TESTS” MBTI is the finger-paint version of the Big Five/Six(Minneso

    PERSONALITY “TESTS”

    MBTI is the finger-paint version of the Big Five/Six(Minnesota Multiphasic), which the crayon version of evolutionary biology, which is the painterly version of bio-chemistry, which in itself is the calculus of demonstrated behavior.

    Don’t get excited about precision. For some people finger painting and crayons suit their skill level and needs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 09:55:00 UTC

  • JUST LOVE THEM AND LIMIT THEIR INFLUENCE TO THEIR DOMAIN OF COMPETENCE Love wome

    JUST LOVE THEM AND LIMIT THEIR INFLUENCE TO THEIR DOMAIN OF COMPETENCE

    Love women, dont argue with them. Let them believe their feelings are sources of knowledge. they are overwhelmed by them and lack agency because of them. And cannot function if they cannot trust them. Those feelings are temporally and individually valuable. just deny their application to scale and intertemporal conditions where feelings are relevant to individuals but outcomes relevant to the group regardless of individual feelings. we made the mistake of universal enfranchisement. women are not bad they are wonderful. but their intuitions of scale (political) are as useless as are male intuitions about carrying, nursing, and caring for infants. The problem with universal enfranchisement, is that while women can deny us interpersonal influence we can no longer deny them political influence. we are compatible only through trade, and by trade we calculate the nash optimum despite our differences in ability and interest. and by including women in the political we eliminated the female market for marriage as well as the male market for politics.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 07:53:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN INTRINSIC VALUE OF WOMEN AND MEN The majority women are de facto

    DIFFERENCES IN INTRINSIC VALUE OF WOMEN AND MEN

    The majority women are de facto intrinsically valuable unless behaviorally costly as individuals. the majority of men are only intrinsically valuable as a team unless behaviorally exceptional as individuals. this asymmetry explains genetic asymmetry of reproduction of the genders, and the dangers of excess men explains the development of marriage, and the disappearance of groups with excess women.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 07:22:00 UTC

  • WIRED FOR GADGETS Men have a thing for ‘devices’ like women have a thing for acc

    WIRED FOR GADGETS

    Men have a thing for ‘devices’ like women have a thing for accessories. I can’t remember the study but basically the more gears and stupid stuff a thing has the more interested a male will be in it. Some test where they brought men into rooms and let them get bored for a minute and watched what they demonstrated an interest in, and the mechanical stuff just won every time. The whole transformers thing took advantage of this basic idea, and its why gaming and programming is so hypnotizing and consuming for men.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 18:11:00 UTC