Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Q&A: “What Are Your Thoughts on MBTI?”

    (repost from 2016) (You can learn a great deal from reading this) 1) I am an INTP, In five factor I have very high agreeableness, average dominance, some introversion, action oriented (tad impulsive), very orderly, extremely high openness to experience, and high neuroticism (worry). Note the difference between the positive positioning of the INTP and the negative positioning of the 5Factor. 2) The criticisms of MBTI come from the diagnostic community and they’re largely nonsense. Why? The five factor model is derived empirically from observed and reported phenomenon, and does not provide a theory of causality. It’s insufficient and it tells us almost nothing about children, which pretty much falsifies it. It’s also very hard to survey, focuses on ‘failings’ and is of little or no general use to the public. MBTI was developed from observation and a theory proposed. The theory is incorrect, but at least there is a theory/ More importantly MBTI Is as precise and correspondent as is useful for people in ordinary life because it’s as complex as people can manage to use. And it’s demonstrated to be useful in assisting people in cooperating, because it assists them in understanding one another. IT is both a positive and useful measure. With practice, ordinary people can use it in daily life. 3) The problem with any such test is the number of questions necessary to survey any dimension of a personality with any sufficiency. These surveys must generally be in the 100+ question range per personality dimension, plus they must include about 20% error checking, in order to return reasonably reliable results across variations in mood and context. However, 100 questions seems to be the limit of tolerance. So most survey (testing) organizations tolerate greater variation in results in exchange for greater adoption and necessity of interpretation. 4) The MBTI is an OPTIMISTIC survey seeking to assist people in cooperating(Negotiating), and the 5 factor (like all Freudian thought) is a DIAGNOSTIC (pessimistic) totalitarian one for the purpose of determining variation from an artificial ideal. 5) The underlying two-cause model of MBTI is false – the five factor is probably also false. However there is extremely high correlation between these tests on two factors given high weight in both, and lower correspondence between the Pessimistic Diagnostic model, and the Optimistic Negotiation model. To illustrate complex mental phenomenon just as we illustrate complex spatial phenomenon (Hawking’s slices of bread), we can instead take six paper-towel tubes and stack them vertically next to each other in a ring. We can then imagine a plane dividing the standing tubes horizontally. Or we can bisect this ‘ring’ all sorts of ways, creating a ring of tubes of various heights. This is analogous to how 5Factor of personality vs MBTI ‘weighs’ the amplitude of personality traits. The set of traits and the values attached to them are different but so is the purpose of the diagnostic vs the negotiator model. 6) The underlying model of the mind is information processing not subjective experience, and while 5/6 Factor models do correspond to what we think we understand as brain structures, our understanding of those models are a REWARD system for processing information in a DISTRIBUTION, so that humans SPECIALIZE even within families, is problematic for the Diagnostic and Totalitarian thinkers (equality), and explanatory and useful for the Negotiation and Cooperative thinkers (inequality). So if we say that variations in personality reflect the necessity of using the same physical mental structure for the purpose of distributing information processing, then we describe man correctly, and we describe our industrial era norms as FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE. 7) Given my present understanding, a reframing of personality as reward system for information processing: a) Dominance(male) vs Submission (female) spectrum provides insight but it’s also so obvious that we all but ignore it. Whereas it’s contrasting dominance and submission with the other traits that provides explanatory power in why we act and feel as we do. b) Impulsivity vs patience related to patience-worry in that we can worry but not act, or worry and act, and the correlation between impulsivity and neuroticism are predictive. Why? Because it appears that neuroticism (patience/worry/obsession), is the cause of creativity. c) Conscientiousness should be reframed as reward for completing opportunities and reward for discovering new opportunities. d)Agreeableness should be desire to adapt to others vs desire to preserve context (individualism). e) Openness to Experience should be reframed as desire for adapting to information vs stress from adapting to information. f) Neuroticism should be reframed as acceptance(watching) vs worrying(excitement) vs obsession(chasing prey), where worrying is itself a time preference (living in the certain moment experiences vs projecting an uncertain future conditions, vs in pursuit of prey or idea), g) the autistic(male)-solipsistic(female) spectrum provides greater insight than all except intelligence and extroversion, and we are just beginning to understand it, and almost no one interprets it as a problem of processing information in a group of males and females with different reproductive demands. h) Intelligence is as important as extroversion in personality traits, in no small part because it appears that the limit of our minds to exhaust opportunities across these personality traits determines out resulting behavior (this is profoundly explanatory). Now, I placed the properties in that list in a particular order. That order is informative. It means that very few causal properties are involved, and we are not quite achieving our goal of understanding them. CAUSALITY a) Rate of Sexual Maturity b) Depth of Sexual Maturity c) Gender Differences d) Gender Dimorphic Differences e) Status (biological/reproductive), Demonstrated/Observed, Self Percieved f) Sense of Safety / Security g) Intelligence h) Culture h) Education and discipline ALTERNATIVES I find that if we have: – personality survey – Intelligence test – Moral Survey (Moral Foundations) – Cultural Survey (cultural biases) – Preference Survey (‘likes’) we have a pretty complete and predictive profile of an individual CLOSING If we change how people are diagnosed and understood as deviation from an arbitrary (freudian, industrialist, socialist, feminist) ideal, then we can help them be happy and successful in life.

  • Q&A: “What Are Your Thoughts on MBTI?”

    (repost from 2016) (You can learn a great deal from reading this) 1) I am an INTP, In five factor I have very high agreeableness, average dominance, some introversion, action oriented (tad impulsive), very orderly, extremely high openness to experience, and high neuroticism (worry). Note the difference between the positive positioning of the INTP and the negative positioning of the 5Factor. 2) The criticisms of MBTI come from the diagnostic community and they’re largely nonsense. Why? The five factor model is derived empirically from observed and reported phenomenon, and does not provide a theory of causality. It’s insufficient and it tells us almost nothing about children, which pretty much falsifies it. It’s also very hard to survey, focuses on ‘failings’ and is of little or no general use to the public. MBTI was developed from observation and a theory proposed. The theory is incorrect, but at least there is a theory/ More importantly MBTI Is as precise and correspondent as is useful for people in ordinary life because it’s as complex as people can manage to use. And it’s demonstrated to be useful in assisting people in cooperating, because it assists them in understanding one another. IT is both a positive and useful measure. With practice, ordinary people can use it in daily life. 3) The problem with any such test is the number of questions necessary to survey any dimension of a personality with any sufficiency. These surveys must generally be in the 100+ question range per personality dimension, plus they must include about 20% error checking, in order to return reasonably reliable results across variations in mood and context. However, 100 questions seems to be the limit of tolerance. So most survey (testing) organizations tolerate greater variation in results in exchange for greater adoption and necessity of interpretation. 4) The MBTI is an OPTIMISTIC survey seeking to assist people in cooperating(Negotiating), and the 5 factor (like all Freudian thought) is a DIAGNOSTIC (pessimistic) totalitarian one for the purpose of determining variation from an artificial ideal. 5) The underlying two-cause model of MBTI is false – the five factor is probably also false. However there is extremely high correlation between these tests on two factors given high weight in both, and lower correspondence between the Pessimistic Diagnostic model, and the Optimistic Negotiation model. To illustrate complex mental phenomenon just as we illustrate complex spatial phenomenon (Hawking’s slices of bread), we can instead take six paper-towel tubes and stack them vertically next to each other in a ring. We can then imagine a plane dividing the standing tubes horizontally. Or we can bisect this ‘ring’ all sorts of ways, creating a ring of tubes of various heights. This is analogous to how 5Factor of personality vs MBTI ‘weighs’ the amplitude of personality traits. The set of traits and the values attached to them are different but so is the purpose of the diagnostic vs the negotiator model. 6) The underlying model of the mind is information processing not subjective experience, and while 5/6 Factor models do correspond to what we think we understand as brain structures, our understanding of those models are a REWARD system for processing information in a DISTRIBUTION, so that humans SPECIALIZE even within families, is problematic for the Diagnostic and Totalitarian thinkers (equality), and explanatory and useful for the Negotiation and Cooperative thinkers (inequality). So if we say that variations in personality reflect the necessity of using the same physical mental structure for the purpose of distributing information processing, then we describe man correctly, and we describe our industrial era norms as FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE. 7) Given my present understanding, a reframing of personality as reward system for information processing: a) Dominance(male) vs Submission (female) spectrum provides insight but it’s also so obvious that we all but ignore it. Whereas it’s contrasting dominance and submission with the other traits that provides explanatory power in why we act and feel as we do. b) Impulsivity vs patience related to patience-worry in that we can worry but not act, or worry and act, and the correlation between impulsivity and neuroticism are predictive. Why? Because it appears that neuroticism (patience/worry/obsession), is the cause of creativity. c) Conscientiousness should be reframed as reward for completing opportunities and reward for discovering new opportunities. d)Agreeableness should be desire to adapt to others vs desire to preserve context (individualism). e) Openness to Experience should be reframed as desire for adapting to information vs stress from adapting to information. f) Neuroticism should be reframed as acceptance(watching) vs worrying(excitement) vs obsession(chasing prey), where worrying is itself a time preference (living in the certain moment experiences vs projecting an uncertain future conditions, vs in pursuit of prey or idea), g) the autistic(male)-solipsistic(female) spectrum provides greater insight than all except intelligence and extroversion, and we are just beginning to understand it, and almost no one interprets it as a problem of processing information in a group of males and females with different reproductive demands. h) Intelligence is as important as extroversion in personality traits, in no small part because it appears that the limit of our minds to exhaust opportunities across these personality traits determines out resulting behavior (this is profoundly explanatory). Now, I placed the properties in that list in a particular order. That order is informative. It means that very few causal properties are involved, and we are not quite achieving our goal of understanding them. CAUSALITY a) Rate of Sexual Maturity b) Depth of Sexual Maturity c) Gender Differences d) Gender Dimorphic Differences e) Status (biological/reproductive), Demonstrated/Observed, Self Percieved f) Sense of Safety / Security g) Intelligence h) Culture h) Education and discipline ALTERNATIVES I find that if we have: – personality survey – Intelligence test – Moral Survey (Moral Foundations) – Cultural Survey (cultural biases) – Preference Survey (‘likes’) we have a pretty complete and predictive profile of an individual CLOSING If we change how people are diagnosed and understood as deviation from an arbitrary (freudian, industrialist, socialist, feminist) ideal, then we can help them be happy and successful in life.

  • The Role of Emotions

    Emotions are information. They inform us as to past, present, and future changes in state of capital (resources) environmental, physical, mental, social, and emotional. Our struggle in transcending from animal to human is knowing when that information is true, and when it is false for the circumstances. Since evolution seized the opportunity to surrender that choice to cognition, when possible. For those that have not transcended the animal, emotions remain their primary source of information. For those that have transcended the animal, our remaining emotions provide failover for when reason and calculation fail. It’s so that under temporal and resource pressure our decision making can ‘degrade’ gracefully. Unfortunately for women, raising infants, toddlers, children, and each other is for all intents and purposes irrational given the time between investment(action) and return (consequence). Just as for men, the value of those emotions and the time to integrate and react to them was a death sentence, given the high return on taking risks. So, particularly upon entering puberty, those emotions (information) are accentuated, while in men those emotions are destroyed – hence that strange feeling of ‘darkness’ during male tenage years without the excitement of war and the hunt. Gender specialization covers the entire spectrum of perception, memory, time, cognition, labor, advocacy, and negotiation. Our similarities are irrelevant for our cooperation, but our differences profound in choosing what we cooperate upon. In that division of perception, cognition and labor we produce a nash equilibrium of trading, thereby producing a pareto distribution of influence, and collectively defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance, in the slow incremental transcendence of man, from beast, to human, to the gods we imagine.

  • The Role of Emotions

    Emotions are information. They inform us as to past, present, and future changes in state of capital (resources) environmental, physical, mental, social, and emotional. Our struggle in transcending from animal to human is knowing when that information is true, and when it is false for the circumstances. Since evolution seized the opportunity to surrender that choice to cognition, when possible. For those that have not transcended the animal, emotions remain their primary source of information. For those that have transcended the animal, our remaining emotions provide failover for when reason and calculation fail. It’s so that under temporal and resource pressure our decision making can ‘degrade’ gracefully. Unfortunately for women, raising infants, toddlers, children, and each other is for all intents and purposes irrational given the time between investment(action) and return (consequence). Just as for men, the value of those emotions and the time to integrate and react to them was a death sentence, given the high return on taking risks. So, particularly upon entering puberty, those emotions (information) are accentuated, while in men those emotions are destroyed – hence that strange feeling of ‘darkness’ during male tenage years without the excitement of war and the hunt. Gender specialization covers the entire spectrum of perception, memory, time, cognition, labor, advocacy, and negotiation. Our similarities are irrelevant for our cooperation, but our differences profound in choosing what we cooperate upon. In that division of perception, cognition and labor we produce a nash equilibrium of trading, thereby producing a pareto distribution of influence, and collectively defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance, in the slow incremental transcendence of man, from beast, to human, to the gods we imagine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CAUSALITY

    a) Rate of Sexual Maturity

    b) Depth of Sexual Maturity

    c) Gender Differences

    d) Gender Dimorphic Differences

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

    f) Sense of Safety / Security

    g) Intelligence

    h) Culture

    h) Education and discipline

    ALTERNATIVES

    I find that if we have:

    – personality survey

    – Intelligence test

    – Moral Survey (Moral Foundations)

    – Cultural Survey (cultural biases)

    – Preference Survey (‘likes’)

    we have a pretty complete and predictive profile of an individual

    CLOSING

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

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

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

    RATIONALIZING MYERS-BRIGGS AND BIG5 (AND PROPERTARIANISM)

    (Repost from 2016)

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

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

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

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

    So does a Big5 of 30-100 questions.

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

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

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

    On the other hand the Big 5 judges these properties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ii) There is very high correlation between:

    Extroversion-Introversion /Extroversion (.7)

    and

    Sensing-INtuiting/Openness, (.7)

    ….and less but still significant correlation between

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

    and

    Judging-Perceiving/Conscientiousness. (.5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As a ‘professional’ I use my own categories.

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

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

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

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

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

    5) WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO SEE INSTEAD?

    I prefer:

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

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

    III) extraversion/balanced/introversion,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wisdom Literature Past and Present: Units of Measurement

    WISDOM LITERATURE PAST AND PRESENT: UNITS OF MEASUREMENT (very, very, important piece) So, you know, how some fiction author creates a ‘universe’ and writes multiple books using that universe? Well, some authors write stories for other authors’ universes. And then publishers combine these stories into a compendium of short stories (anthologies)? Paul (Saul of Tarsus) created a fantasy ‘universe’, just like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Saberhagen’s Berserkers, Herbert’s Dune, Martin’s Song (Game of Thrones), Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, the Arthurian Legends, or the greek and roman myths, or any of our original natural mythologies. And a lot of other authors made up stories and attributed them to paul’s characters. (And whomever converted christian literature to islamic). Then the only debate was over which stories were included in the anthology (bible). These stories consist of a rather small set of archetypal characters and archetypal plots, in a host of circumstances. And we use these characters, circumstances and plots as units of measurement for making decisions in the kaleidic complexity of real life. And in this sense we do need stories the same way we need logic, mathematics, weights and measures, norms and laws. So these stories are no less important than any other system of measurement and standard of weights and measures. The differences is we do not see the consequences (and externalities) of mass use of these systems of measurement, and we are unable to correct these stories once we release them into the ‘wild’ (market). In other words, while in most systems of measurement (what we call ‘weights and measures’) we can prohibit fraudulent systems of measure, and fraudulent exchanges. It’s not so much that we need to create standards (while we do for the purposes of commensurability, and as such for the prevention of fraud by incommensurability), it’s that we must ensure that our weights and measures are not fraudulent or harmful either directly, indirectly, or by externality. In the ancient world, modernity was disrupting tribal hierarchies and traditions, and as such nearly all the underclass (vast majority of peoples) lost any hope of expressing dominance, success, or excellence. They lacked the genetics, agency, knowledge, and institutions to produce the confidence necessary to make decisions in a kaleidic universe undergoing dramatic change. They were losing their ability to calculate a feeling of success at whatever level of success or failure they were achieving. And this is a serious problem, because evolution provided us with a set of cognitive biases to keep us pursuing lifespan even in the most hopeless of circumstances. And in order to prevent in the ancient world what middle age white men are doing today (committing suicide) young men are doing today (withdrawing from society), and women are doing today (forgoing children, then taking anti-depressants), they inverted the heroic legends of dominance with an heroic legend of submission and resistance – primarily resistance against the roman-greco-persian and less so egyptian empires: the people of fertile crescent slavery and impoverished pastoralists, against the people of armies, metal, reason, mathematics, farm, and trade. In the recent era, we have seen Marxism and it’s suite of literatures, the continuation of Democratic literature (anti-aristocratic literature), Postmodern literature (all of these meaning the political literatures), and Science Fiction(our modern aryan mythos), Medieval fantasy, the War story, the Western, and the spy and detective story (the personal literatures). We have devolved into effeminate literatures (Japanese), and childish literatures (superheroes) – an attempt to create heroes without armies. And we have seen the active suppression of our ancestral literatures – of armies – as the democratic, marxist, and postmodern seek to erase them, just as the jewish, christian, and islamic sought to erase them in the ancient world – and all but succeeded. Now, creating a conflationary wisdom literature that combines a fictional world, archetypal characters and plots, into stories and from stories into an anthology as a mythology( pseudohistory), that includes prescribed rules (pseudolaw), and a method of argument (pseudo rationalism), and justifies it by some sort of magic (pseudoscience), is to some degree necessary to create commensurability between the units of measurement (stories). The difference is that the west began with sovereignty, and divided into specialized literatures: logic, mathematics, science, history, law, philosophy, literature, mythology – and all competed against each other using different terminologies and sometimes different languages (in english: german, french, latin, and greek). The chinese reacted to greek reason with confucian, dao, and eventually buddhism – a class based set of logics rather than a discipline base set of logics. The Persians reacted to greek reason and greek reason to persian, with a cult that slowly transformed the sky god into mithra. The semites reacted to greek reason by inverting every single dimension of the markets and creating a mandatory monopoly system of thought. The west’s use of competing markets of measurements (stories) rather than chinese hierarchy of stories, or semitic authoritarian monopoly stories is a natural consequence of western sovereignty. However, while the western system can adapt to changes faster than all others – it can be defeated by Overloading (immigration, conversion, propaganda) precisely because the underlying system of measurement (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) was never written down – only practiced out of habit in our traditional (pre urban) (indo-)european law. Had this underlying system of weights measures and values (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) been articulated, the market for disciplines (grammars and semantics) would have remained possible. The reason being that our aryan system of weights and measures and values, (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) is purely via-negativa. It does not tell us what to do, only what we may not. As such each discipline may compete for what we should do, even though we prohibit discretion in what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets. And while our law contains implicitly a record of decisions using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets, our law does not articulate the mandate for truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. So what I have tried to do for my people, and perhaps if they wish to use it, the rest of mankind, is to articulate those first principles in a formal logic, as a via negativa, so that those markets for stories (systems of measurement) may continue to compete via positiva, but so that we can prohibit stories (systems of measurement) that violate those first principles of formal logic that make the rapid adaptation and therefor rapid innovation, and therefore rapid wealth, of western aryan civilization possible. In this way I seek to modify (amend, rewrite) our constitutions such that they make explicit these first principles in formal logic, and their objective and purpose as a via negativa commensurable system of decidability, across all competing grammars, as a defense against another abrahamic dark age that inverted those values, and the marxist-postmoder-feminist age that seeks through immigration, takeover of the academy, the media, and the state, to replace that system once again- and deliver us and mankind into another dark age like the jewish-christian-islamic, and the loss of another thousand years, and the suffering that is produced, by the inversion of the first principles of western (aryan) civilization. The cost of this defense against the second abrahamic dark age is the criminalization of literatures that violate truth(scientific truth), sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. In other words, we will be able to suppress invasion by fraudulent systems of measurement that seek to create monopolies by which we undermine and replace markets. And the cost of persisting that prosperity is the upward redistribution of reproduction and the downward redistribution of compensation, in order to maintain a polity that is far more invulnerable to desirable monopoly frauds. And the reversal of underclass immigration and forced integration the purpose of which is to achieve through culture-cide and genocide that which could not be achieved by the veracity of their ideas.

  • Wisdom Literature Past and Present: Units of Measurement

    WISDOM LITERATURE PAST AND PRESENT: UNITS OF MEASUREMENT (very, very, important piece) So, you know, how some fiction author creates a ‘universe’ and writes multiple books using that universe? Well, some authors write stories for other authors’ universes. And then publishers combine these stories into a compendium of short stories (anthologies)? Paul (Saul of Tarsus) created a fantasy ‘universe’, just like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Saberhagen’s Berserkers, Herbert’s Dune, Martin’s Song (Game of Thrones), Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, the Arthurian Legends, or the greek and roman myths, or any of our original natural mythologies. And a lot of other authors made up stories and attributed them to paul’s characters. (And whomever converted christian literature to islamic). Then the only debate was over which stories were included in the anthology (bible). These stories consist of a rather small set of archetypal characters and archetypal plots, in a host of circumstances. And we use these characters, circumstances and plots as units of measurement for making decisions in the kaleidic complexity of real life. And in this sense we do need stories the same way we need logic, mathematics, weights and measures, norms and laws. So these stories are no less important than any other system of measurement and standard of weights and measures. The differences is we do not see the consequences (and externalities) of mass use of these systems of measurement, and we are unable to correct these stories once we release them into the ‘wild’ (market). In other words, while in most systems of measurement (what we call ‘weights and measures’) we can prohibit fraudulent systems of measure, and fraudulent exchanges. It’s not so much that we need to create standards (while we do for the purposes of commensurability, and as such for the prevention of fraud by incommensurability), it’s that we must ensure that our weights and measures are not fraudulent or harmful either directly, indirectly, or by externality. In the ancient world, modernity was disrupting tribal hierarchies and traditions, and as such nearly all the underclass (vast majority of peoples) lost any hope of expressing dominance, success, or excellence. They lacked the genetics, agency, knowledge, and institutions to produce the confidence necessary to make decisions in a kaleidic universe undergoing dramatic change. They were losing their ability to calculate a feeling of success at whatever level of success or failure they were achieving. And this is a serious problem, because evolution provided us with a set of cognitive biases to keep us pursuing lifespan even in the most hopeless of circumstances. And in order to prevent in the ancient world what middle age white men are doing today (committing suicide) young men are doing today (withdrawing from society), and women are doing today (forgoing children, then taking anti-depressants), they inverted the heroic legends of dominance with an heroic legend of submission and resistance – primarily resistance against the roman-greco-persian and less so egyptian empires: the people of fertile crescent slavery and impoverished pastoralists, against the people of armies, metal, reason, mathematics, farm, and trade. In the recent era, we have seen Marxism and it’s suite of literatures, the continuation of Democratic literature (anti-aristocratic literature), Postmodern literature (all of these meaning the political literatures), and Science Fiction(our modern aryan mythos), Medieval fantasy, the War story, the Western, and the spy and detective story (the personal literatures). We have devolved into effeminate literatures (Japanese), and childish literatures (superheroes) – an attempt to create heroes without armies. And we have seen the active suppression of our ancestral literatures – of armies – as the democratic, marxist, and postmodern seek to erase them, just as the jewish, christian, and islamic sought to erase them in the ancient world – and all but succeeded. Now, creating a conflationary wisdom literature that combines a fictional world, archetypal characters and plots, into stories and from stories into an anthology as a mythology( pseudohistory), that includes prescribed rules (pseudolaw), and a method of argument (pseudo rationalism), and justifies it by some sort of magic (pseudoscience), is to some degree necessary to create commensurability between the units of measurement (stories). The difference is that the west began with sovereignty, and divided into specialized literatures: logic, mathematics, science, history, law, philosophy, literature, mythology – and all competed against each other using different terminologies and sometimes different languages (in english: german, french, latin, and greek). The chinese reacted to greek reason with confucian, dao, and eventually buddhism – a class based set of logics rather than a discipline base set of logics. The Persians reacted to greek reason and greek reason to persian, with a cult that slowly transformed the sky god into mithra. The semites reacted to greek reason by inverting every single dimension of the markets and creating a mandatory monopoly system of thought. The west’s use of competing markets of measurements (stories) rather than chinese hierarchy of stories, or semitic authoritarian monopoly stories is a natural consequence of western sovereignty. However, while the western system can adapt to changes faster than all others – it can be defeated by Overloading (immigration, conversion, propaganda) precisely because the underlying system of measurement (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) was never written down – only practiced out of habit in our traditional (pre urban) (indo-)european law. Had this underlying system of weights measures and values (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) been articulated, the market for disciplines (grammars and semantics) would have remained possible. The reason being that our aryan system of weights and measures and values, (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) is purely via-negativa. It does not tell us what to do, only what we may not. As such each discipline may compete for what we should do, even though we prohibit discretion in what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets. And while our law contains implicitly a record of decisions using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets, our law does not articulate the mandate for truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. So what I have tried to do for my people, and perhaps if they wish to use it, the rest of mankind, is to articulate those first principles in a formal logic, as a via negativa, so that those markets for stories (systems of measurement) may continue to compete via positiva, but so that we can prohibit stories (systems of measurement) that violate those first principles of formal logic that make the rapid adaptation and therefor rapid innovation, and therefore rapid wealth, of western aryan civilization possible. In this way I seek to modify (amend, rewrite) our constitutions such that they make explicit these first principles in formal logic, and their objective and purpose as a via negativa commensurable system of decidability, across all competing grammars, as a defense against another abrahamic dark age that inverted those values, and the marxist-postmoder-feminist age that seeks through immigration, takeover of the academy, the media, and the state, to replace that system once again- and deliver us and mankind into another dark age like the jewish-christian-islamic, and the loss of another thousand years, and the suffering that is produced, by the inversion of the first principles of western (aryan) civilization. The cost of this defense against the second abrahamic dark age is the criminalization of literatures that violate truth(scientific truth), sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets. In other words, we will be able to suppress invasion by fraudulent systems of measurement that seek to create monopolies by which we undermine and replace markets. And the cost of persisting that prosperity is the upward redistribution of reproduction and the downward redistribution of compensation, in order to maintain a polity that is far more invulnerable to desirable monopoly frauds. And the reversal of underclass immigration and forced integration the purpose of which is to achieve through culture-cide and genocide that which could not be achieved by the veracity of their ideas.

  • I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉

  • I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉