Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544282741 Timestamp) SEX DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY – REFERENCES

    1. Buss DM. Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. Am Psychol. 1995;50:164–168. [PubMed]
    2. Del Giudice M. On the real magnitude of psychological sex differences. Evol Psychol. 2009;7:264–279.
    3. Eagly AH. The science and politics of comparing women and men. Am Psychol. 1995;50:145–158.
    4. Eagly AH, Wood W. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am Psychol. 1999;54:408–423.
    5. Ellis L, Hershberger S, Field E, Wersinger S, Pellis S, et al. Sex differences: Summarizing more than a century of scientific research. New York: Psychology Press; 2008.
    6. Fausto-Sterling A. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (2nd ed.) New York: Basic Books; 1992.
    7. Geary DC. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.
    8. Halpern DF, Benbow CP, Geary DC, Gur RC, Hyde JS, et al. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8:1–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    9. Hyde JS. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2005;60:581–592. [PubMed]
    10. Lippa RA. The gender reality hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2006;61:639–640. [PubMed]
    11. Lippa RA. Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Pers Soc Psychol Compass. 2010;3:1–13.
    12. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1974.
    13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
    14. Hedges LV. What are effect sizes and why do we need them? Child Dev Perspect. 2008;2:167–171.
    15. Davies APC, Shackelford TK. Two human natures: How men and women evolved different psychologies. In: Crawford C, Krebs D, editors. Foundations of evolutionary psychology. New York: Erlbaum; 2008. pp. 261–280.
    16. Schmitt DP, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94:168–182. [PubMed]
    17. Trivers RL. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1972. pp. 136–179.
    18. Kokko H, Jennions M. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol. 2008;21:919–948. [PubMed]
    19. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles. 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.
    20. Ashton MC, Lee K, Pozzebon JA, Visser BA, Worth NC. Status-driven risk taking and the major dimensions of personality. J Res Pers. 2010;44:734–737.
    21. Bourdage JS, Lee K, Ashton MC, Perry A. Big Five and HEXACO model personality correlates of sexuality. Pers Indiv Diff. 2007;43:1506–1516.
    22. Del Giudice M, Angeleri R, Brizio A, Elena MR. The evolution of autistic-like and schizotypal traits: A sexual selection hypothesis. Front Psychol. 2010;1:41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    23. Haselton MG, Miller GF. Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Hum Nat. 2006;17:50–73. [PubMed]
    24. Jonason PK, Li NP, Webster GD, Schmitt DP. The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. Eur J Pers. 2009;23:5–18.
    25. Lee K, Ogunfowora B, Ashton MC. Personality traits beyond the Big Five: Are they within the HEXACO space? J Pers. 2005;73:1437–1463. [PubMed]
    26. Markey PM, Markey CN. The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. J Res Pers. 2007;41:1199–1212.
    27. Miller GF, Tal IR. Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophr Res. 2007;93:317–324. [PubMed]
    28. Nettle D, Clegg H. Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2006;273:611–615. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    29. Schmitt DP. The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. Eur J Pers. 2004;18:301–319.
    30. Schmitt DP, Buss DM. Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the big five? J Res Pers. 2000;34:141–177.
    31. Schmitt DP, Shackelford TK. Big five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evol Psychol. 2008;6:246–282.
    32. Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. J Consult Clin Psych. 1978;46:1053–1070.
    33. Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:27–40. [PubMed]
    34. Nettle D. Individual differences. In: Dunbar R, Barrett L, editors. Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 479–490.
    35. Wiebe RP. Delinquent behavior and the five-factor model: Hiding in the adaptive landscape. Indiv Diff Res. 2004;2:38–62.
    36. Hyde JS. Gender similarities still rule. Am Psychol. 2006;61:641–642. [PubMed]
    37. Costa PTJ, McCrae RR. Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Assess. 1995;64:21–50. [PubMed]
    38. Ashton MC, Lee K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11:150–166. [PubMed]
    39. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:757–768.
    40. DeYoung CG. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;91:1138–1151. [PubMed]
    41. Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1246–1256. [PubMed]
    42. Musek J. A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. J Res Pers. 2007;41:1213–1235.
    43. Just C. A review of literature on the general factor of personality. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:765–771.
    44. Rushton JP, Irwing P. The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In: Chamorro-Premuzic T, von Stumm S, Furnham A, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences. London: Blackwell; 2011.
    45. Saucier G. What are the most important dimensions of personality? Evidence from studies of descriptors in diverse languages. Pers Soc Psychol Compass. 2009;3:620–637.
    46. DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93:880–896. [PubMed]
    47. Cattell RB, Cattell HEP. Personality Structure and the new Fifth Edition of the 16PF. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55:926–937.
    48. Cattell HEP, Mead AD. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, editors. The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Personality Measurement and Testing. London: Sage; 2008.
    49. Costa PTJ, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:322–331. [PubMed]
    50. Hough LM, Oswald FL, Ployhart RE. Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. Int J Select Assess. 2001;9:152–194.
    51. Lucas RE, Deiner E, Grob A, Suh EM, Shao L. Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:452–468. [PubMed]
    52. Powell DM, Goffin RD, Gellatly IR. Gender differences in personality scores: Implications for differential hiring rates. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:106–110.
    53. Weisberg YJ, DeYoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Front Psychol. 2011;2:178. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    54. Booth T, Irwing P. Sex differences in the 16PF5, test of measurement invariance and mean differences in the US standardisation sample. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:553–558.
    55. Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100:330–348. [PubMed]
    56. French BF, Finch WH. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006;13:378–402.
    57. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525–543.
    58. Widaman KF, Reise KF. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant KJ, Windle M, editors. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997. pp. 281–324.
    59. Church AT, Burke PJ. Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big 5 and Tellegen’s 3-dimensional and 4-dimensional models. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:93–114. [PubMed]
    60. Harner EJ, Whitmore RC. Multivariate measures of niche overlap using discriminant analysis. Theor Popul Biol. 1977;12:21–36. [PubMed]
    61. Reiser B. Confidence intervals for the Mahalanobis distance. Commun Stat-Simul C. 2001;30:37–45.
    62. Zou GY. Exact confidence interval for Cohen’s effect size is readily available. Stat Med. 2007;26:3054–3056. [PubMed]
    63. Huberty CJ. Mahalanobis distance. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC, editors. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
    64. De Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometr Intell Lab. 2000;50:1–18.
    65. Noftle EE, Shaver PR. Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. J Res Pers. 2006;40:179–208.
    66. Merz EL, Roesch SC. A latent profile analysis of the Five Factor Model of personality: modeling trait interactions. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;51:915–919. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    67. Conn SR, Rieke ML, editors. The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champagne, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc; 1994.
    68. Rossier J, Meyer de Stadelhofen F, Berthoud S. The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. Eur J Pers Assess. 2004;20:27–38.
    69. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2010. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org.
    70. Archer J. Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behav Brain Sci. 2009;32:249–266. [PubMed]
    71. Biernat M. Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. Am Psychol. 2003;58:1019–1027. [PubMed]

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544292535 Timestamp) (HINT: What I am doing is teaching you how to deflate that form of law, education, and indoctrination we call religion into constituent parts, and therefore give you the vocabulary to discuss it as operations rather than ideals.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544298380 Timestamp) WHAT DO THESE RELIGIOUS TERMS MEAN? You won’t like the answers…. What do the rituals mean? Membership Fees. What is sacrament? Debt Creation. What is atonement? Debt Repayment. What is baptism? Debt Forgiveness What is the priesthood? Accountant. I told you that you wouldn’t like the answers. All these ‘fancy words’ are code words for debt for creatures who are extremely sensitive to proportionality. (reciprocity). Christianity consists uniquely of just the rules I stated, respect for the women and slaves, in retaliation against tripartism and aristocracy, and nothing else. Everything else is simply our pre-literate western tradition

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1544282456 Timestamp) CORE RESEARCH – DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY BETWEEN GENDERS Summary: “only 10% overlap” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3251566/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544291275 Timestamp) —The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency. —Doolittle *NEVER FORGET THAT Rousseau, Kant and the Continentals were the Abrahamist reaction against Hume’s resurrection of Greek reason. (h/t: Ahmed Reda for repeating)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544296151 Timestamp) FYI: James Fox Higgins is streaming his Christmas Special containing our talk from this morning at at 4:00am EST (GMT/UTC-5) on Christmas Day. And apparently it’s lots of hours of entertainment mixed together. So it’ll be sometime during that period.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a video.

    (FB 1544289678 Timestamp) HOW TO TEACH BOYS THE RIGHT WAY https://www.facebook.com/HistoryBuzz/videos/785359615144630/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544293231 Timestamp) I just want to point out that Anglo Christians run away like cowards when challenged. Russians don’t run. They watch. They correct errors. They listen. They learn. They hold their faith. Why? Because faith is not something to argue like the law. Orthodoxy didn’t malinvest in christianity, because christianity never was the source of Russian corruption of oppression or parasitism. It certainly was in europe. One simply performs christian rituals and learns from them. One does not treat them as logic, law, or science. And one does not cower from the the dissonance between faith, reason, and science. Germans are similar in that they all too often cannot conceive of the difference between the moral, good, and true. They straddle the world. However, they are the most ‘correct’ of the civilizations – at least prior to the world wars under which their prussianism was conquered ‘unjustly’. So again, the high trust west, lower trust catholics, lower trust orthodox, and lowest trust east asians. A division of labor of the circumpolar peoples. High risk and innovation to low risk and conservation. Christianity is weak because christians are weak.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544289574 Timestamp) IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION? Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to deny that religion did serve as a (very) cheap (simple) universal (available to morons) education (training) in mindfulness (and sacredness – non-consumption ), and in the positive laws (manners, ethics, morals, rituals, traditions) in an era where only the privileged could get an education. The only difficult education in that list is mindfulness and stoicism was clearly the best of all methods of mindfulness discovered in both the ancient world and the present (cognitive behavioral therapy). The rest is just ordinary education through repetition (ritual) and oath (prayer). There is nothing else other than the act of doing all that repetition and oath in public. There is some advantage and giving that oath to a proxy (ancestor, king, hero, god) rather than to each other – those with whom we have material conflicts. That abrahamism and the abrahamic religions are outright evil is not to say that the category of training (education) religions provided is not both beneficial, and very likely, necessary – because it’s as unnatural as reading and math. The question is how can we convert the depreciating asset that is our existing religious infrastructure into a new asset that is appreciating, and removes the vulnerability and harm of the past.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544292814 Timestamp) —“I’ve had enough of your heresies. Time to part ways.”—Matthew McLester In other words: “I’m taking by room-temperature-iq-ball and going home, because disapproval and rejection is my only substitute for argument.” I don’t write for simple people. I write the law that governs all people, not just the simple. 😉