October 27th, 2018 3:52 PM ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY (from Marginal Revolution) https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp Toward a theory of optimal personality? [I]f you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too? Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract: â¦researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on ânormalâ or âdesirableâ personality traits might be maladaptiveâ¦many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought⦠—CURT— What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits. Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.
Theme: Agency
-
On Optimum Personality
October 27th, 2018 3:52 PM ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY (from Marginal Revolution) https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp Toward a theory of optimal personality? [I]f you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too? Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract: â¦researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on ânormalâ or âdesirableâ personality traits might be maladaptiveâ¦many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought⦠—CURT— What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits. Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.
-

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44898909_10156736984502264_861848939
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44898909_10156736984502264_8618489398599614464_o_10156736984487264.jpg TOLD YA. MEN/CONSERVATIVE=NOUN (existence).
Female/Liberal = Verb (experience).Paul BardCurt, I’m curious how come neo-liberalism, and by extension the liberal tradition, is fatally flawed and limited?Oct 28, 2018, 3:34 AMCurt DoolittleThe form of government *necessary* for a people depends upon their demographic distribution, homogeneity, and the size of the middle class, because the middle class generates demand for rule of law, and the state generates demand for income from the wealth the middle class generates. So in the competition between rule of law and rule by man, demand is driven by conditions.
THis market is created by the competition for profits by the middle classes and their employees vs rents by the state and their dependents, with the principle difference being that the state can more easily concentrate startup capital and market advantage for heavy capital industries at the cost of corruption – and while the private sector cannot so easily produce the capital and market advantage through trade policy, the private sector can better utilize that capital and suppress state corruption since market competition suppresses rents.
For historical reasons (geography, militia order, and ‘competitive’ bipartite manorialism), the west evolved cross-family corporations rather than intra-family clans, and as such superior trust, superior ability to produce commons because of it, and as such superior ability to generate large scale private sector organizations with greater innovation and returns on capital.
Just as social orders became anchored (religion) during the age of transformation (the restoration after the bronze age collapse) societies became anchored during the industrial transformation after the Abrahamic Collapse (judaism,christianity,islam: the semitic – turkic invasion).
Fukuyama attributed the success of european bureaucracy to its development prior to democracy. Because, despite his stated positions, his analysis favors the sino tradition of monolithic bureaucracy.
Cheers.Oct 28, 2018, 10:19 AMTim Beckley-SpillaneInteresting that the findings argue against a personal need for structure as an adequate explanation of the preference, that is, argue against a biographical or conditional cause. To the extent that men demonstrate the noun preference and women don’t, to the extent that it can be shown to have a biological or genetic cause, it’s a nice corollary to what you’ve said about the divisions of reproductive labor.Oct 28, 2018, 8:29 PMMichael ChurchillThe centrality of the cultural commons … man … that is THE key insight that is completely missing from the entire policy-making matrix today.Oct 30, 2018, 10:55 PMCurt Doolittleyes. because they cant measure it and maintain the mythos.Oct 30, 2018, 10:56 PMTOLD YA. MEN/CONSERVATIVE=NOUN (existence).
Female/Liberal = Verb (experience).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 16:23:00 UTC
-

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44898909_10156736984502264_86184893
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44898909_10156736984502264_8618489398599614464_o_10156736984487264.jpg TOLD YA. MEN/CONSERVATIVE=NOUN (existence).
Female/Liberal = Verb (experience).Paul Bard@[741197263:2048:Curt], I’m curious how come neo-liberalism, and by extension the liberal tradition, is fatally flawed and limited?Oct 28, 2018 3:34amCurt DoolittleThe form of government *necessary* for a people depends upon their demographic distribution, homogeneity, and the size of the middle class, because the middle class generates demand for rule of law, and the state generates demand for income from the wealth the middle class generates. So in the competition between rule of law and rule by man, demand is driven by conditions.
THis market is created by the competition for profits by the middle classes and their employees vs rents by the state and their dependents, with the principle difference being that the state can more easily concentrate startup capital and market advantage for heavy capital industries at the cost of corruption – and while the private sector cannot so easily produce the capital and market advantage through trade policy, the private sector can better utilize that capital and suppress state corruption since market competition suppresses rents.
For historical reasons (geography, militia order, and ‘competitive’ bipartite manorialism), the west evolved cross-family corporations rather than intra-family clans, and as such superior trust, superior ability to produce commons because of it, and as such superior ability to generate large scale private sector organizations with greater innovation and returns on capital.
Just as social orders became anchored (religion) during the age of transformation (the restoration after the bronze age collapse) societies became anchored during the industrial transformation after the Abrahamic Collapse (judaism,christianity,islam: the semitic – turkic invasion).
Fukuyama attributed the success of european bureaucracy to its development prior to democracy. Because, despite his stated positions, his analysis favors the sino tradition of monolithic bureaucracy.
Cheers.Oct 28, 2018 10:19amTim SpillaneInteresting that the findings argue against a personal need for structure as an adequate explanation of the preference, that is, argue against a biographical or conditional cause. To the extent that men demonstrate the noun preference and women don’t, to the extent that it can be shown to have a biological or genetic cause, it’s a nice corollary to what you’ve said about the divisions of reproductive labor.Oct 28, 2018 8:29pmTOLD YA. MEN/CONSERVATIVE=NOUN (existence).
Female/Liberal = Verb (experience).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 16:23:00 UTC
-
We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What
We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What moves us is well understood. The question is why some of us are taught it via nonsense and some of us not. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 16:19:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056218758518321152
-

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44882467_10156736908502264_777000175
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44882467_10156736908502264_7770001755823144960_n_10156736908487264.jpg ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY
(from Marginal Revolution)
https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp
Toward a theory of optimal personality?
If you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too?
Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract:
…researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive…many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought…
—CURT—
What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits.
Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY
(from Marginal Revolution)
https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp
Toward a theory of optimal personality?
If you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too?
Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract:
…researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive…many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought…
—CURT—
What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits.
Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:52:00 UTC
-

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44882467_10156736908502264_77700017
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44882467_10156736908502264_7770001755823144960_n_10156736908487264.jpg ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY
(from Marginal Revolution)
https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp
Toward a theory of optimal personality?
If you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too?
Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract:
…researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive…many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought…
—CURT—
What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits.
Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY
(from Marginal Revolution)
https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp
Toward a theory of optimal personality?
If you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too?
Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract:
…researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive…many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought…
—CURT—
What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits.
Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:52:00 UTC
-
(DIARY: MINDFULNESS. ….. no… It’s ’cause I don’t confuse me myself, with my
(DIARY: MINDFULNESS. ….. no… It’s ’cause I don’t confuse me myself, with my job or my work. I take my work very seriously. My work requires a stance because that stance is part of the work. On the other hand, I don’t take myself very seriously at all. That’s because I don’t have anything to prove to myself or others. I’ve pretty much succeeded at everything I’ve wanted to in life and I have self confidence that doesn’t need defending. My brand does. My work does. Me? I’m just a guy who likes to cause mischief (chaos), watch normies run in circles, and enjoy the good little things in life. So there is a time for battle, and that is a serious subject. There is a time for everything else – which pretty much results in being a hobbit…. ergo, MINDFULNESS. I have it. Get Yours. It’s awesome. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 14:34:00 UTC
-
We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What
We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What moves us is well understood. The question is why some of us are taught it via nonsense and some of us not. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 12:18:00 UTC
-
WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’? —“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for w
WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’?
—“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for what qualifies as human?”– Joel Harvey
Well that begs the question standard for what purpose?
1 – For cooperating commercially (trade on means) – yes.
2 – For socializing (exchanging information – on ends) – no.
3 – For political organization (cooperating on ends and means) – absolutely not.
One does not let wild animals, domesticated animals, domesticated pets, children, or insufficiently domesticated and trained humans to influence that which they lack the agency to decide without harm to others.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 11:41:00 UTC