Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • PRACTICAL UTILITY OF PERSONALITY TESTING: A YARDSTICK IS ENOUGH TOPIC: Arbitrary

    PRACTICAL UTILITY OF PERSONALITY TESTING: A YARDSTICK IS ENOUGH

    TOPIC: Arbitrary precision (general, generalizable rules), and the cost of increases in precision versus the utility of increases in precision.

    I have been involved in personality testing since 1981, and have researched the work back into the 1950’s, and IQ back into the first world war, and I stand by the Meyers Briggs as the least precise, yet most useful tool precisely because it is the least precise.

    When I worked with Predictive Index, I had to carry around something on the order of fifty index cards listing each personality type. In our company all management had to take the training. Then we had to try to figure out everyone’s personality in the company. The President would then tell us if we had it right or not, given the individual’s results.

    Even in that test I would vary greatly on introversion/extroversion, but not at all on dominance, patience, or fear of blame. And knowing that variation was very interesting, because it was true – I vary a lot.

    The Minnesota Multiphasic is useful, despite its framing, largely because it is exceptional at lie detection. But it’s like 600 questions or so. And it’s very negative. It forces you to obsess on the negative.

    The Big 5 is part of the fucked-up, pseudoscientific drivel of Freudian psychology – an elaborate system of framing in order to justify authoritarianism and demonize non-conformity to authoritarian (Jewish) ideology. This suits the kind of people who pursue psychology – to find a source of dominance.

    If we constructed a test with Nietzschean framing, and with as many questions, and as much lie detection, we would find a different and more useful LIBERTARIAN rather than authoritarian distribution of results.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to eliminate all this nonsense by framing all analysis as measures of means of acquisition, and the (a) production or non-production, and (b) truth or deceit we use to acquire. A Propertarian analysis would not lead to authoritarian framing, but instead, to moral framing: how suitable an individual is for cooperation.

    Propertarianism is the replacement for psychology. We can test that because all moral propositions are decidable.

    But Propertarianism is pretty analytically challenging to learn.

    Conversely, for most people, and for forecasting performance in the work place, MBTI can be constructed from as few as 30 questions, and as many as 100. And it’s all positive. It frames the questions as how you interact with others in public.

    Now, if I want to measure 5 attributes, and I ask 100 questions on each, with `100 additional lie detectors (20% more questions for the purpose of lie detection) I am going to get pretty accurate results if carefully administered.

    If I want to measure 4 attributes, and ask only 30 questions, with no lie detection, then I am going to get a pretty noisy set of answers. But if I ask 30 questions, then I attempt to frame everyone (practice it) that I interact with, then I will be soon able to develop a similar framing for the ascertainment of the motivations and means of cooperating with others in the workplace – if not in life.

    Now, we have really good data that MBTI is a great predictor of relationship compatibility. And we have really good data that shows that people can learn and use it, without a great deal of sophistication. And it’s cheap to administer. And over time you will understand yourself and others within the supplied frame.

    So, what I tend to tell people, is that it is the best extant tool.

    I would like to develop a similar questionnaire for Propertarianism. Because in Propertarianism we test what we know are the causal properties of human behavioral differences. And that would be the MOST scientific data set that I think humans could yet develop.

    But I also think it is for the purpose of TRUTH and I think MBTI is for the purpose of UTILITY, and while truth is useful, rules of thumb are just as useful if the PRECISION afforded by truth is at the expense of practical utility. In other words, we still use Newtonian mechanics in most of life, and very few of us more precise calculations. Because more precision isn’t useful. And its a lot more work.

    What this little comment has done, is convinced me that I need to work with some people to produce a Propertarian values test. Which is pretty easy really. But in Oversing, we will use a jungian analysis, for the simple reason that PEOPLE CAN USE IT TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 06:18:00 UTC

  • WEALTH AND IQ We have lost three points due to immigration already. Two more poi

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/national-wealth-and-iq/NATIONAL WEALTH AND IQ

    We have lost three points due to immigration already. Two more points and there is no way that our norms and institutions can compensate for it.

    Now, I usually put it this way: all verbal IQ over 106 provides the ability to express ideas and to repair machines. Below that people must learn by imitation. So the less of your population is below 106 (which is a sort of magic number) the better off you will be. The further below 106, the worse off that you would be.

    Northern Europeans were about on par with the Ashkenazim in 1850. We have lost our comparative advantage, and we are about to lose our relative advantage.

    Progressive idiocy aside: breeding matters. And good people don’t breed as much as not-so-good people.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 12:55:00 UTC

  • “By early middle age, individuals > 90th percentile in IQ have, typically, more

    —“By early middle age, individuals > 90th percentile in IQ have, typically, more than twice the wealth of individuals who are of average IQ.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 01:55:00 UTC

  • WORDS OF THE DAY – REPRODUCTION! 🙂 Consanguinity, Consanguinous, or Panaluan (g

    WORDS OF THE DAY – REPRODUCTION! 🙂

    Consanguinity, Consanguinous, or Panaluan (genetics): mating within an extended family, excluding only one’s children. (in theory the prohibition on reproducing with one’s children evolved as a stage, but no culture practices it any longer.)

    Inbreeding(genetics): mating with individuals that are closely related genetically. Specific case is Father’s Brother’s Daughter or Cousin-marriage. Antonym:outcrossing

    Near-breeding(genetics): mating with extended relations but with a prohibition on cousin marriage (out to some minimum number of generations.)

    Endogamy (norm): the practice of mating within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group.

    Homogamy: (norm) mating between individuals who are, in some culturally important way, similar to each other. Homogamy may be based on socioeconomic status, class, gender, ethnicity, or religion. (I avoid this term, and rely on ‘endogamous’.)

    Outbreeding(genetics): Mating by choice with those outside of near genetic relations.

    Exogamy, Exogamous (norms): mating only outside specific ethnic group, class, or social group.

    Assortative Mating(selection bias): a nonrandom mating pattern in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

    Hypergamic, Hypergamy (selection bias): Seeking to mate with genetic(desirable), social(status) and wealth(consumption) superiors.

    Panmixia, Panmixis, Panmitic: random mating. A panmictic population is one where all individuals are potential partners.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-13 06:13:00 UTC

  • Why do members of the opposite sex cause us to do stupid things?

    Why do members of the opposite sex cause us to do stupid things?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-12 08:16:00 UTC

  • “good jokes offend someone”–Taleb Jokes : the production of chemical reward for

    —“good jokes offend someone”–Taleb

    Jokes : the production of chemical reward for unexpected free associations.

    Hierarchy:

    1-Jokes that improve relations reduce separateness between group members.

    2-Jokes that bind members and increase separateness between group members and non members.

    3-Jokes that bind members and increase relative status increase trust.

    Jokes are gifts of chemical exchanges of rewards for increasing group cohesion.

    So technically speaking, Nassim is correct. Good jokes – that is jokes that offend others and increase binding among group members – are more valuable and therefore better than those that do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 04:45:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY, NOT THINKING Our weights are different not

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsT9XTwsn0SEX DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY, NOT THINKING

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsT9XTwsn0

    Our weights are different not our processes.

    – Female value in harmony, consensus, compliance or submission. The female reproductive strategy. Female reproductive strategy is not to draw ire, and to ensure the success of her offspring at all costs – regardless of merit.

    vs

    – Male value in change, leadership, differential advantage or dominance. The male reproductive strategy. Male intuition is to protect and improve the tribe – the brother’s ability to keep and pair off with females – by consciousness of merit.

    We measure and value different outcomes. We do not apply different reasoning. This is why the regions of the brain differ..

    Propertarianism provides greater explanatory power that psychology.

    Cheers.

    (HT Roman Skaskiw)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 12:40:00 UTC

  • IN FAIRNESS TO BOTH SEXES – WE MISREPRESENT EACH OTHER’S PERSPECTIVES> So true.

    IN FAIRNESS TO BOTH SEXES – WE MISREPRESENT EACH OTHER’S PERSPECTIVES>

    So true. Women want, and often need, to vent their emotions. And to organize them, so that they can self-correct them. It’s much harder to be a woman than a man. Our minds are much less cluttered. I think of our function in a relationship as helping women bail out the boat, so that it’s floating on it’s own enough that they can pilot it in the waves. Once we’ve bailed out the boat, you can often suggest ideas. but it is important that women feel the solution is their own, and that they do not have to fight their emotions to adopt it. A woman cannot suppress the chaos in her mind and emotions, any more than we can suppress our anxiety about various threats. In our case we need care-taking so that we can restore our energy and therefore will to continue fighting. Women need to have their emotions bailed out so that they can think straight. It’s the same problem for both sides. It’s just that our stress is low level and pre-cognitive, and theirs is high level and dominates their ability to think. So we both need ‘restoration’. The problem in both cases is to provide one another with the energy with which to deal with stresses. It is not in itself to solve the problem. We can usually solve our problems if we have the emotional wherewithal to solve them. It is this wherewithal that we give to each other. Albeit in different ways.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 04:58:00 UTC

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.