Form: Mini Essay

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42262255_10156650204327264_42410972

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42262255_10156650204327264_4241097243488157696_n_10156650204322264.jpg The distribution isn’t quite even.

    I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.

    Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.Andy CurzonGood ^^ (useful data).Sep 20, 2018 8:16amJames JensenEveryone said I was not living up to my potential… but, secretly I knew I was doing exactly what I could… in fact, when I really tried to reach beyond my home life and local environment I got lost down some dark hole… I think in circles, around and around… my wife is the smartest and stupidest person I have ever known… whenever I have an insight and share it with her she says something like “and, you have just learned that? I’ve known that since I was a child… you can’t be that dumb “… but it is new to me.Sep 20, 2018 11:34amJames JensenSep 20, 2018 11:36amHusam Aldahiyat100-110 can’t be “average” since IQ is by definition normed to have 100 as its reference point.Sep 20, 2018 12:43pmJames ArcherYou and I both know why they consider 85-115 to be average. If they didn’t, a whole group of people would be considered retarded or borderline retarded.Sep 20, 2018 1:05pmBryan Nova BreyIn line with your assessment here, I’d like to read your thoughts on this post by Jordan Peterson (I’m not a fan) and the most popular reply by TheDrogger who throws him off so much that he has to edit his original post.

    From my perspective JP is manipulating the IQ distribution and claiming 3 standard deviations for average population and only 2 deviations for Jews and then calculating the resulting populations. He also doesn’t compare Jews to Whites.

    Thought you’d enjoy ripping JP apart in an area of statistics, IQ, population, and disproportionate representation.

    https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/Sep 20, 2018 1:07pmJoshua SkeensVox Day did a VERY extensive rebuttal on this that got him started down the warpathSep 20, 2018 1:17pmBryan Nova Breylink? I’d love to read it.Sep 20, 2018 1:23pmJoshua Skeenshttp://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-eminent-person.html

    Check anything with the “Jordanetics” tag.Sep 20, 2018 1:28pmBryan Nova BreyI think @[11833594:2048:Eli Harman] did a great job ripping apart JP, though my comment is more specific to the argument JP made regarding the Jewish Question. I think Curt will articulate what JP is doing and how he fakes the IQ distribution.Sep 20, 2018 2:43pmWyatt StorchThanks for this. Stealing.Sep 21, 2018 9:02amEli HarmanJordan Peterson is a Jew; maybe not literally but in all other important respects…Sep 21, 2018 9:23amChristopher MatthewThere is a massive difference between 85 and 115.

    Not just in terms of criminality, but education, professional success, choice of mate, how many children, etc etc.Sep 21, 2018 10:00amAaron KahlandI just read Jordan Peterson’s response to the criticism provided by TheDrogger and there is a significant error in Peterson’s calculation.

    He claims that Jews with IQ’s of 145 or above are, in percentage terms, commensurate with their proportion of millionaires / billionaires. However his baseline for the total is merely the Jewish and White population.

    However, White Americans now make up little over 60% of the overall population. His baseline thus comprises only 63% of the total US population. Treating the remainder US population as he has done Whites would ought to reduce Jewish millionaire numbers to 25% of the total.

    Peterson’s calculation therefore only adds up if he assumes that there exist no 145+ IQs outside of the US’ White and Jewish populations.

    Although it might be argued that US adult population demographics are likely to increase the accuracy of Peterson’s baseline, it nevertheless remains considerably off.Sep 21, 2018 10:02amDylan BoswellWhew! Just in the 2.2% by a hair (4 points).Sep 21, 2018 10:36amCarl OnniThe fact that there still is a identifiable jewish people is proof enough of strong in-group preference. It is simply not possible to propagate through time as a minority without it.Sep 21, 2018 3:05pmAlex BirchThis is sort of why I quit following bell curve lit in college, whereupon I realized with each successive generation of dysgenics, authorities will simply readjust the curve to such a degree that the marginally gifted appear geniuses, and the highly gifted, threats to our civilization. After a while, the facts become impetus for action. There is only one sane response to this catastrophe.Sep 22, 2018 12:16amThe distribution isn’t quite even.

    I love how they take from 85-115 as average. that’s ridiculous. 106 should be the dividing line, so that we talk about quality more so thaan the flatness of the distribution.

    Really 95-105 is average and we need 100-110 to be average.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 08:14:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42182269_10156650164812264_407059420

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42182269_10156650164812264_4070594205842407424_n_10156650164807264.jpg MEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELLErik LukovskyIs it possible men care more on average because they just don’t think women have much more to offer other than looks?

    High status males often select for intelligent women too, but not too many exist so men just give up lookingSep 20, 2018, 8:40 AMAnjin Bodhisattva🙄Sep 20, 2018, 8:52 AMAnjin BodhisattvaMaybe intelligent women are looking for intelligent men?Sep 20, 2018, 8:53 AMMartin ŠtěpánAnjin Bodhisattva Yep. Not necessarily because of it but because intelligent men are much more likely to attain higher status.Sep 20, 2018, 9:08 AMErik LukovskyIf you want intelligent offspring, she has to at least be 115 or 120 IQ because of regression to the meanSep 20, 2018, 12:37 PMErik LukovskyI would love to see where that’s the case

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the stereotype of the ” stupid hot blonde bimbo ” is a stereotype for a reason

    Because it’s somewhat true

    Very pretty women have no reason to be immersed in subjects that matter

    That’s why usually a modest intelligent one seems biologically like a better catchSep 20, 2018, 12:49 PMErik LukovskyIf you look at all the smartest women alive(biologists, geneticists, inventors, or businesswomen) hardly any of them pass as supermodels

    If you look at the women most men crave physically(actresses and celebrities) then they are almost never above average IQ at bestSep 20, 2018, 12:51 PMWilliam J MullenSurveys on what people find attractive are useless, there are many motivations in play regarding their answers and truth isn’t very high on the list. Empiricism fails here due to an inability to measure the variables, thus we must turn to heuristics. This “data” is uncompelling to me, I still see looks as preeminent among male preference. Looks are preeminent among YOUNG female preference, fading in importance as they age when status then resources begin to play a larger role.Sep 20, 2018, 12:55 PMAnjin BodhisattvaConservative women do tend to be more attractive than liberals though 😉Sep 20, 2018, 12:58 PMWilliam J MullenPersonally, through experience I’ve learned that NOTHING trumps or replaces looks, the other stuff can only ENHANCE a woman who meets my physical standard. Without the physical lust, there is no “relationship”, just friendship.Sep 20, 2018, 1:46 PMWilliam J MullenOn the flip side, being very physically attractive but low in status (I have resources but typically hide this fact), I can’t help but notice that my attractiveness to women is reduced the older they are. Women 30’s+ don’t find me attractive whatsoever, with my baggage (3 kids) and appearance of low resources, whereas I can basically get any teenager I want.Sep 20, 2018, 1:49 PMErik LukovskyA few women being accomplished doesn’t change the general ruleSep 20, 2018, 1:56 PMErik LukovskyLook at Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Beyoncé, the list goes on and onSep 20, 2018, 1:58 PMErik LukovskyWell I said actresses and celebrities and yes, trust me, they do

    Most men think Scarlett Johannson is a 10Sep 20, 2018, 2:24 PMWilliam J MullenWomen to me offer nothing beyond their looks and ability to satisfy my sexual urges. They won’t be as smart, and the smarter they are the more prone they are to 1) arguing with me, and 2) getting butthurt when they lose those arguments. What matters most is subject matter interest… if they are interested in those things on which I am superior (which, face it, is everything since I’m a 48yo genius with incredible and unusual experience, and they are typically much younger and know nothing beyond their childhood home, some dumb university classes, and a Sex & the City career lifestyle) then we can get along, as we enjoy conversations where they mostly learn from me and entertain me with their own anecdotes.Sep 20, 2018, 2:26 PMWilliam J MullenThe hottest women are models; Hollywood has hardly any truly beautiful women, by my standard. I firmly believe that I could walk into any high school in America and walk out with 10 girls hotter than ScoJo, for example. There is Gadot today, there used to be Angelina… everyone else just seems to top out at around an 8, if you ask me.Sep 20, 2018, 2:27 PMWilliam J MullenI already have 3 kids, though, so I don’t have to worry about progeny. I do think Erik’s metric of intellect in a potential mother makes a lot of sense.Sep 20, 2018, 2:30 PMWilliam J MullenMeaning you don’t want to believe it, so it’s easier to think I’m just talking out my ear. Sure, believe what you like, it’s of no matter to me. Just offering my personal perspective.Sep 20, 2018, 2:38 PMWilliam J MullenI know I can, and it doesn’t cause me to exclude my children in any way. Your insults are predictable and banal… social shaming on emotional grounds. I’m never sure why my opinions and actions offend people in this regard, but fortunately I don’t really care about the opinions of the hoi polloi (just as I care little about the opinions of dogs).Sep 20, 2018, 2:45 PMWilliam J MullenSpeaking of Lohan, she once hit on me at a movie premier party. But I turned her down because she was chubby and gross at the time.Sep 20, 2018, 2:49 PMCarl EluMen want a pleasant woman that is not dumb. All extra IQ points over “not dumb” suffers from sharply diminishing returns.Sep 20, 2018, 4:58 PMMEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELL


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:49:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42182269_10156650164812264_40705942

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42182269_10156650164812264_4070594205842407424_n_10156650164807264.jpg MEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELLErik LukovskyIs it possible men care more on average because they just don’t think women have much more to offer other than looks?

    High status males often select for intelligent women too, but not too many exist so men just give up lookingSep 20, 2018 8:40amAnjin Bodhisattva🙄Sep 20, 2018 8:52amAnjin BodhisattvaMaybe intelligent women are looking for intelligent men?Sep 20, 2018 8:53amMartin ŠtěpánAnjin Bodhisattva Yep. Not necessarily because of it but because intelligent men are much more likely to attain higher status.Sep 20, 2018 9:08amErik LukovskyIf you want intelligent offspring, she has to at least be 115 or 120 IQ because of regression to the meanSep 20, 2018 12:37pmErik LukovskyI would love to see where that’s the case

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the stereotype of the ” stupid hot blonde bimbo ” is a stereotype for a reason

    Because it’s somewhat true

    Very pretty women have no reason to be immersed in subjects that matter

    That’s why usually a modest intelligent one seems biologically like a better catchSep 20, 2018 12:49pmErik LukovskyIf you look at all the smartest women alive(biologists, geneticists, inventors, or businesswomen) hardly any of them pass as supermodels

    If you look at the women most men crave physically(actresses and celebrities) then they are almost never above average IQ at bestSep 20, 2018 12:51pmWilliam J MullenSurveys on what people find attractive are useless, there are many motivations in play regarding their answers and truth isn’t very high on the list. Empiricism fails here due to an inability to measure the variables, thus we must turn to heuristics. This “data” is uncompelling to me, I still see looks as preeminent among male preference. Looks are preeminent among YOUNG female preference, fading in importance as they age when status then resources begin to play a larger role.Sep 20, 2018 12:55pmAnjin BodhisattvaConservative women do tend to be more attractive than liberals though 😉Sep 20, 2018 12:58pmWilliam J MullenPersonally, through experience I’ve learned that NOTHING trumps or replaces looks, the other stuff can only ENHANCE a woman who meets my physical standard. Without the physical lust, there is no “relationship”, just friendship.Sep 20, 2018 1:46pmWilliam J MullenOn the flip side, being very physically attractive but low in status (I have resources but typically hide this fact), I can’t help but notice that my attractiveness to women is reduced the older they are. Women 30’s+ don’t find me attractive whatsoever, with my baggage (3 kids) and appearance of low resources, whereas I can basically get any teenager I want.Sep 20, 2018 1:49pmErik LukovskyA few women being accomplished doesn’t change the general ruleSep 20, 2018 1:56pmErik LukovskyLook at Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Beyoncé, the list goes on and onSep 20, 2018 1:58pmErik LukovskyWell I said actresses and celebrities and yes, trust me, they do

    Most men think Scarlett Johannson is a 10Sep 20, 2018 2:24pmWilliam J MullenWomen to me offer nothing beyond their looks and ability to satisfy my sexual urges. They won’t be as smart, and the smarter they are the more prone they are to 1) arguing with me, and 2) getting butthurt when they lose those arguments. What matters most is subject matter interest… if they are interested in those things on which I am superior (which, face it, is everything since I’m a 48yo genius with incredible and unusual experience, and they are typically much younger and know nothing beyond their childhood home, some dumb university classes, and a Sex & the City career lifestyle) then we can get along, as we enjoy conversations where they mostly learn from me and entertain me with their own anecdotes.Sep 20, 2018 2:26pmWilliam J MullenThe hottest women are models; Hollywood has hardly any truly beautiful women, by my standard. I firmly believe that I could walk into any high school in America and walk out with 10 girls hotter than ScoJo, for example. There is Gadot today, there used to be Angelina… everyone else just seems to top out at around an 8, if you ask me.Sep 20, 2018 2:27pmWilliam J MullenI already have 3 kids, though, so I don’t have to worry about progeny. I do think Erik’s metric of intellect in a potential mother makes a lot of sense.Sep 20, 2018 2:30pmWilliam J MullenMeaning you don’t want to believe it, so it’s easier to think I’m just talking out my ear. Sure, believe what you like, it’s of no matter to me. Just offering my personal perspective.Sep 20, 2018 2:38pmWilliam J MullenI know I can, and it doesn’t cause me to exclude my children in any way. Your insults are predictable and banal… social shaming on emotional grounds. I’m never sure why my opinions and actions offend people in this regard, but fortunately I don’t really care about the opinions of the hoi polloi (just as I care little about the opinions of dogs).Sep 20, 2018 2:45pmWilliam J MullenSpeaking of Lohan, she once hit on me at a movie premier party. But I turned her down because she was chubby and gross at the time.Sep 20, 2018 2:49pmCarl OnniMen want a pleasant woman that is not dumb. All extra IQ points over “not dumb” suffers from sharply diminishing returns.Sep 20, 2018 4:58pmMEN JUST CARE MORE – BUT NOT A LOT MORE

    (why? as in all things, specialization and bias for genetic fitness of a woman vs bias for productive fitness of a male)

    Sex Differences in the Desire for Physical Attractiveness. Wrong Interpretation: Men just care about looks, women about other stuff. Right Interpretation: Both sexes care a fair amount about looks, but on average men somewhat more.

    Long-Term Mate https://books.google.com.my/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146

    SIGNALS MATTER AS WELL


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:49:00 UTC

  • September 20th, 2018 7:17 AM SORRY LADIES, IT’S ALL NATURE AND NO NURTURE Mother

    September 20th, 2018 7:17 AM SORRY LADIES, IT’S ALL NATURE AND NO NURTURE
    Mothers need to feel it’s nurture. But largely you can make your kids worse, but not better. So nurture is largely an effort not to let kids play in traffic. Otherwise it’s just genes.

    —“For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation.”—

    THIS IS A HUGE STUDY

    —“We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. “—

    I’m gonna amplify this a bit and say that your extra attention is making kids more fragile and literally driving them mad. https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285

  • JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN) Truth pertains to truth bearance

    JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN)

    Truth pertains to truth bearance (transmission of a claim which can be tested for “true-falseness”.)

    Meaning pertains to coherence to a frame.

    They can coexist, but truth pertains only to coherence with the existential frame (does it exist). Because it has this quality of coherence (to existence), we can ignore the limit (that it is limited to the existential frame) and then argue it on the merits of meaning.

    Meaningful statements may or may not be truth carriers – declarations on the state of affairs of existence, by definition, must carry truth or they are not declarations on the state of affairs of existence… they are not declarative statements.

    The declarative and truth pertain to one frame – that being the existential frame (does it exist or not).

    Dismissing this limit is what seals the opportunity to lie.

    ====

    To Expand on what Bill Said:

    Truth: the one most parsimonious frame of continuous, complet decidability.

    Gans is a marxist postmodernist in the french model, picking up after girard, and combining his ‘memes’ with chomsky’s generative grammar. Otherwise its just pete and repeat.

    The authoritarians cant use truth. The anti-darwinists can’t use truth. The irreciprocalists can’t use truth, so they follow the social constructionist method, which Girard argues is effectively a ‘frame war’ where parties compete for the best lies.

    Since such frames are not decidable only internally coherent (not even consistent), and not correspondent, there is no method of defeating them except by either superior lies (better market service of fantasy), or truth and law.

    Since truth is decidable and law is decidable it is possible to prosecute all frames other than truth, through coherence, consistency, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity and completeness, and it’s good.

    Nothing that can be produced by fraud cannot be produced by truthful contract. SO the only reason to lie is to avoid reciprocity and contract.

    Feminine justificationism of anything. Male adjudication of anything. conformity and comfort, truth and discomfort.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-19 17:53:00 UTC

  • Us, Our Gods and Our Heroes

      [A]ll our heroes are dead, like Achilles, Socrates, Alexander, Ceasar and Aurelius. Some of them are clouded in generations of myth like Arthur and Sigurd and even Charlemagne; and some of them like Odin – our original warrior and law giver – are so lost in the mists of myth and time, that we can only see vague reflections of their features by comparing the various versions of those myths to discover the similarities and differences. But all of them are worthy of asking wisdom, of thanking for their works and our debt to them, and of persisting their memories across the generations so that we imitate the greatness of their characters and ambitions. We are the people who worship (honor) the trees as connecting the sky, the earth, and the underground, as a connection between our past generations in the earth, those that live today on the ground, and those yet to be in our imaginations of the sky. Our ancestors buried their dead under hearth, and created monuments around them with rings of trees or stone. they built groves for the same purposes. They built temples for the same purposes. Church and education are unfortunately connected. For it is that thing we call religion that trains our civic intuition to habituate one set of choices over another set of choices. The question is whether like our current academy, we are told to worship the state, or supreme being as proxy for the state, or our ancestors and our line, and our people, and the state a facilitator of that nation. We are the people of sovereignty – the cult of non-submission. We had forced upon us a false religion of alien nature, and enforced illiteracy, forced indoctrination, and forced submission. Yet our very being resists this evil and seeks repeatedly to regain our sovereignty.. Transcendence through sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, truth, the cult of the law, and markets in everything that result from their use. We have a legion of gods, demigods, and heroes. We have the nature that sustained them. And the universe available to them. And it is correspondence to and consistency with that universe, that nature, and the gardening of each that is what makes us the gods we wish to be.

  • Us, Our Gods and Our Heroes

      [A]ll our heroes are dead, like Achilles, Socrates, Alexander, Ceasar and Aurelius. Some of them are clouded in generations of myth like Arthur and Sigurd and even Charlemagne; and some of them like Odin – our original warrior and law giver – are so lost in the mists of myth and time, that we can only see vague reflections of their features by comparing the various versions of those myths to discover the similarities and differences. But all of them are worthy of asking wisdom, of thanking for their works and our debt to them, and of persisting their memories across the generations so that we imitate the greatness of their characters and ambitions. We are the people who worship (honor) the trees as connecting the sky, the earth, and the underground, as a connection between our past generations in the earth, those that live today on the ground, and those yet to be in our imaginations of the sky. Our ancestors buried their dead under hearth, and created monuments around them with rings of trees or stone. they built groves for the same purposes. They built temples for the same purposes. Church and education are unfortunately connected. For it is that thing we call religion that trains our civic intuition to habituate one set of choices over another set of choices. The question is whether like our current academy, we are told to worship the state, or supreme being as proxy for the state, or our ancestors and our line, and our people, and the state a facilitator of that nation. We are the people of sovereignty – the cult of non-submission. We had forced upon us a false religion of alien nature, and enforced illiteracy, forced indoctrination, and forced submission. Yet our very being resists this evil and seeks repeatedly to regain our sovereignty.. Transcendence through sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, truth, the cult of the law, and markets in everything that result from their use. We have a legion of gods, demigods, and heroes. We have the nature that sustained them. And the universe available to them. And it is correspondence to and consistency with that universe, that nature, and the gardening of each that is what makes us the gods we wish to be.

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42158427_10156647277197264_15958858

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/42158427_10156647277197264_1595885877257568256_n_10156647277192264.jpg CLUSTERS OF SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS PRODUCE FOUR OBVIOUS TYPES:

    ASCENDENT FEMALE BIAS

    Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

    ASCENDENT MALE BIAS

    Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

    ESTABLISHED FEMALE BIAS

    Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

    ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS

    Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

    ABSTRACT

    —“Understanding human personality has been a focus for philosophers and scientists for millennia1. It is now widely accepted that there are about five major personality domains that describe the personality profile of an individual2,3. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4. Despite the various purported personality types described in the literature, small sample sizes and the lack of reproducibility across data sets and methods have led to inconclusive results about personality types5,6. Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types, extending and refining previously suggested typologies. We show that these types appear as a small subset of a much more numerous set of spurious solutions in typical clustering approaches, highlighting principal limitations in the blind application of unsupervised machine learning methods to the analysis of big data.”—

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-zJoel HarveyI don’t fall into any of these.

    I have 0 neuroticism, 0 conscientiousness and 0 agreeableness, but I’m in the 98th percentile for openness and extroversion.Sep 18, 2018 9:51pmCurt Doolittleit’s a description of four clusters of traits.

    I was pointing out that those clusters are just male and female stages of life.

    So that such clusters are rather obvious.Sep 19, 2018 9:11amJoel HarveyYes I understood that, I was just making conversation.Sep 19, 2018 9:22amCorbus AureliusUr like a baby?Sep 19, 2018 1:16pmJoel Harveyhow many babies do you know with 0 neuroticism?Sep 19, 2018 1:32pmCorbus Aurelius@[100023721587717:2048:Joel Harvey] neuroticism can probably only be evidenced in individuals who have attained some concrete operations. But I’m just making convo😉Sep 19, 2018 1:39pmCLUSTERS OF SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS PRODUCE FOUR OBVIOUS TYPES:

    ASCENDENT FEMALE BIAS

    Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

    ASCENDENT MALE BIAS

    Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

    ESTABLISHED FEMALE BIAS

    Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

    ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS

    Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

    ABSTRACT

    —“Understanding human personality has been a focus for philosophers and scientists for millennia1. It is now widely accepted that there are about five major personality domains that describe the personality profile of an individual2,3. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4. Despite the various purported personality types described in the literature, small sample sizes and the lack of reproducibility across data sets and methods have led to inconclusive results about personality types5,6. Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types, extending and refining previously suggested typologies. We show that these types appear as a small subset of a much more numerous set of spurious solutions in typical clustering approaches, highlighting principal limitations in the blind application of unsupervised machine learning methods to the analysis of big data.”—

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-z


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 19:58:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42158427_10156647277197264_159588587

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42158427_10156647277197264_1595885877257568256_n_10156647277192264.jpg CLUSTERS OF SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS PRODUCE FOUR OBVIOUS TYPES:

    ASCENDENT FEMALE BIAS

    Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

    ASCENDENT MALE BIAS

    Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

    ESTABLISHED FEMALE BIAS

    Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

    ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS

    Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

    ABSTRACT

    —“Understanding human personality has been a focus for philosophers and scientists for millennia1. It is now widely accepted that there are about five major personality domains that describe the personality profile of an individual2,3. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4. Despite the various purported personality types described in the literature, small sample sizes and the lack of reproducibility across data sets and methods have led to inconclusive results about personality types5,6. Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types, extending and refining previously suggested typologies. We show that these types appear as a small subset of a much more numerous set of spurious solutions in typical clustering approaches, highlighting principal limitations in the blind application of unsupervised machine learning methods to the analysis of big data.”—

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-zCLUSTERS OF SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS PRODUCE FOUR OBVIOUS TYPES:

    ASCENDENT FEMALE BIAS

    Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

    ASCENDENT MALE BIAS

    Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

    ESTABLISHED FEMALE BIAS

    Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

    ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS

    Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

    ABSTRACT

    —“Understanding human personality has been a focus for philosophers and scientists for millennia1. It is now widely accepted that there are about five major personality domains that describe the personality profile of an individual2,3. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4. Despite the various purported personality types described in the literature, small sample sizes and the lack of reproducibility across data sets and methods have led to inconclusive results about personality types5,6. Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types, extending and refining previously suggested typologies. We show that these types appear as a small subset of a much more numerous set of spurious solutions in typical clustering approaches, highlighting principal limitations in the blind application of unsupervised machine learning methods to the analysis of big data.”—

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-z


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 19:58:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42158427_10156647277197264_159588587

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/42158427_10156647277197264_1595885877257568256_n_10156647277192264.jpg CLUSTERS OF SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS PRODUCE FOUR OBVIOUS TYPES:

    ASCENDENT FEMALE BIAS

    Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

    ASCENDENT MALE BIAS

    Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

    ESTABLISHED FEMALE BIAS

    Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

    ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS

    Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

    ABSTRACT

    —“Understanding human personality has been a focus for philosophers and scientists for millennia1. It is now widely accepted that there are about five major personality domains that describe the personality profile of an individual2,3. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4. Despite the various purported personality types described in the literature, small sample sizes and the lack of reproducibility across data sets and methods have led to inconclusive results about personality types5,6. Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types, extending and refining previously suggested typologies. We show that these types appear as a small subset of a much more numerous set of spurious solutions in typical clustering approaches, highlighting principal limitations in the blind application of unsupervised machine learning methods to the analysis of big data.”—

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-zJoel HarveyI don’t fall into any of these.

    I have 0 neuroticism, 0 conscientiousness and 0 agreeableness, but I’m in the 98th percentile for openness and extroversion.Sep 18, 2018, 9:51 PMCurt Doolittleit’s a description of four clusters of traits.

    I was pointing out that those clusters are just male and female stages of life.

    So that such clusters are rather obvious.Sep 19, 2018, 9:11 AMJoel HarveyYes I understood that, I was just making conversation.Sep 19, 2018, 9:22 AMCorbus AureliusUr like a baby?Sep 19, 2018, 1:16 PMJoel Harveyhow many babies do you know with 0 neuroticism?Sep 19, 2018, 1:32 PMCorbus AureliusJoel Harvey neuroticism can probably only be evidenced in individuals who have attained some concrete operations. But I’m just making convo😉Sep 19, 2018, 1:39 PMCLUSTERS OF SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS PRODUCE FOUR OBVIOUS TYPES:

    ASCENDENT FEMALE BIAS

    Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

    ASCENDENT MALE BIAS

    Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

    ESTABLISHED FEMALE BIAS

    Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

    ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS

    Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.

    ABSTRACT

    —“Understanding human personality has been a focus for philosophers and scientists for millennia1. It is now widely accepted that there are about five major personality domains that describe the personality profile of an individual2,3. In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4. Despite the various purported personality types described in the literature, small sample sizes and the lack of reproducibility across data sets and methods have led to inconclusive results about personality types5,6. Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types, extending and refining previously suggested typologies. We show that these types appear as a small subset of a much more numerous set of spurious solutions in typical clustering approaches, highlighting principal limitations in the blind application of unsupervised machine learning methods to the analysis of big data.”—

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-z


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 19:58:00 UTC