I made a personality survey

[Happy]

Dining table question:
It's a little bizarre, but has potential. I'd suggest broadening the options. I only really see 2 approaches there: A methodical one and an improvised one. Then theres just 1 extra layer that explores whether or not to innovate. I feel you could learn more about your survey subjects by exploring how else people might approach the problem. I say that because none of those really describe how I would personally approach the situation.

Bus trip question:
I feel that this is geared primarily toward introverts.

Mood question:
IMO some of these options needn't be so specific, but I like that they are all fairly different, all reasonable, and all are mostly reflective of different personalities. Also, options 1 and 2 seem almost identical to me, only syntactically different.

You/Friends/Lovers:
A reasonable question. clearly differentiates between introversion/extroversion and further differentiates between volatile/stable relationships.

Your Personality:
I found this difficult to answer because the descriptions are so broad and tend to overlap. I had trouble deciding between options 1, 2 and 3 as they all describe things that are important to me, but none that rang more true than the others.

Crime and punishment:
I found this one fairly straightforward. Perhaps it would be beneficial to shuffle the order or questions, because it reads as if the answers are on a spectrum of 'good' (top) to 'bad/evil' (bottom) and the apparent spectrum-like order may draw people to select an option that they see as 'good'. As an aside, I found the Botany Bay reference too specific for an Australian demographic.

Raccoon question:
Yeah, fair enough.

Crowds question:
Yeah, fair enough.

Kids question:
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

'Which of the following are true for you?':
I really like that I can give contradicting answers, because even though they seemed to contradict each other, it made sense to answer both - or neither. This was the best part of the quiz.



91% Stable
82% Logical
36% Organised
18% Conventional
15% Antisocial
0% Extroverted

Results seem surprisingly accurate. Now what?

Sorry if my feedback seems largely negative, I'm trying to be constructive, but my criticism is often perceived otherwise.

 

[Yellow]

All feedback is good. I wouldn't ask an INTPish collective for their input is I didn't want criticism. I'm about 1/4 of the way through my second draft, so all of your information is helping.

 

[RaBind]

95% Logical
40% Antisocial
32% Stable
32% Organized
23% Conventional
18% Extroverted

I like the test. I thought have the answers be long and backed up with explanations was nice, cause then not only do you get to see the behaviour but also the inner workings that lead to the behaviour.

95% logical is guaranteed to be too high for me, to be correct, though. That's probably the inevitable bias of seeing yourself as being in line with your preference.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hi,

Just a check up. Want to see and am excited to see the next version of the test

 

[Yellow]

Im almost done with it. I've made a few changes. Ive also been reviewing my old personality psychology textbook to make sure I'm setting up the concept to lend itself to empirical study.

 

[QuickTwist]

Im almost done with it. I've made a few changes. Ive also been reviewing my old personality psychology textbook to make sure I'm setting up the concept to lend itself to empirical study.

This is a very pleasantly surprising answer. Please tell me where I can take this test when you are done with it

 

[Yellow]

I'll post the new link here when it's ready

 

[groovytaxi98]

First Draft results:
77% Organized
59% Logical
36% Stable
32% Conventional
15% Antisocial
14% Extroverted

 

[Seteleechete]

100% Logical
86% Stable
45% Antisocial
14% Extroverted
9% Organized
0% Conventional

I like this test(which isn't necessarily a good thing). I would rename Antisocial to Sympathetic(reversing the way the score is counted) though as it seems more fitting. Or maybe renaming it to selfish would work... Antisocial doesn't really seem to fit the description though.

 

[Yellow]

like this test(which isn't necessarily a good thing). I would rename Antisocial to Sympathetic(reversing the way the score is counted) though as it seems more fitting. Or maybe renaming it to selfish would work... Antisocial doesn't really seem to fit the description though.

I already did that for the next version because I thought the same. It's called "social responsibility" now, with "antisocial" being the low score and "prosocial" being high.

 

[Yellow]

Okay, UPDATE!

https://www.onlineassessmenttool.com/solace-personality-survey-second-draft/assessment-34021

If you don't mind, let's start over with the feedback.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Some feedbacks, probably already covered in this thread but quantity is telling and quantity is the real quality in the end.

The train question seems skewed. Most people would in fact spend most rides on their smartphones. No one "ends up" hearing eccentric life stories on a regular basis. This alternative only serves to attract "wow i'm so strange" angst which will muddle the results since that's not what you're looking to examine.

Global warming: I'm not sure what trait this is supposed to measure. It seems like a dimension conflated by way too much other baggage to be a reasonable personality indicator.

The house building question is very hypothetical to most people and i doubt you will elicit the spontaneous type of response that you're looking for. In trying to answer, i find myself rather emulating a response and engaging my self-image considerations. Yes, i'd like to think of myself as open-minded. How would i build a house? Honestly, no idea. Building a house strikes me as a traditionalist kind of thing in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if more traditional people also happened to be more interested in building quirky houses.

The "shared living spaces" question was a no-brainer (completely irrelevant comment)

The infidelity question has no alternative that suits me. Something is missing. There's a middle-ground between impulsivity and being a doormat.

Sorry if i have used any terms erroneously. I hope my points get across.

Result this time around:

Distress Tolerance
Decision Making
Social Responsibility
Extroversion
Order
Conventionality

 

[QuickTwist]

Distress Tolerance: 62%
66%-34% - Neutral
You have your ups and downs, but for the most part, you are in control of your thoughts and feelings.

Social Responsibility: 55%
66%-34% - Neutral
You are generally ambivalent toward others. You are likely to repay people in kind, good or bad, either by direct action or by regard. However, you will avoid causing harm in most cases.

Decision Making: 31%
33% and below - Passionate
You tend to feel your way through your decisions by letting your heart guide you. You do not enjoy having to rely on facts alone.

Conventionality: 27%
33% and below - Novel
You prefer to forge your own path in life, even if it means taking a few risks. You have a vivid imagination and you enjoy exploring creative pursuits.

Extroversion: 19%
33% and below - Introvert
You prefer to be alone most of the time, and become uncomfortable when faced with too much outside input. You get the most out interactions with a few select people. It can take you a while to warm up to new people and situations.

Order: 15%
33% and below - Unstructured
You dislike routine and structure. You like to keep your options open and remain flexible. You are spontaneous and casual in most situations. You enjoy a little chaos.

I agree with all the descriptions and that says that it is a pretty accurate measurement of how I conduct my life. Would be interesting to see what these categories say about me as a whole (this would be a lot of work, I understand).

 

[The Gopher]

I'll be writing comments as I take the test.

Spoiler

First question train. Hmm I don't have an answer to this. I just get to where I'm going, stare out the window or people watch. I don't hope nobody will bother me and I don't make small talk it's also rare insane or homeless people are on my train. (Just read Bronto's post and agree)

I guess that most fits headphones.

Spoiler

Crowds question, seems to be fine, I enjoy listening to people talk about thoughts ideas and passions.

Spoiler

Okay global warming question. (fair warning I'm gonna be playing devils advocate for every political question. In other words I'll take the opposite view that you seem to take)

Actually now that I wrote that it seems like too much effort. However you have to realize that some people don't disbelieve experts so much as they believe different "experts". The way you worded that makes it seem like the opinion of someone ignorant which while probably not incorrect will mess with the results. In that sense I take issue with political questions because the solution to that problem causes the problem where you can't test anything with the questions.

In other words after reading Bronto's post I also agree.

Spoiler

I picked the middle option not because the data is particularly mixed but I dislike effort.

Designing something question.

Question seems fine. You obviously can't encapsulate the entirety of human decision making in a question and the question doesn't seem biased.

Spoiler

Difficult event question.

Are you limited to four answers? I want to amend my previous statement and say maybe 7 or so would be good here. Even testing for the same things but with different questions. Have two questions testing for antisocial or whatever it's called now that are coming from different angles.

Spoiler

Try new things question.


Seems okay. Questions that aren't issues for me may be for others.

Spoiler

Maintain living space.

Same as above.

Spoiler

"If you came home one day to find your spouse of three years in bed with a stranger, which reaction best reflects the reaction you think you'd have?"

"What again? This is the third time this week!"

The poor people in poly relationships aren't being taken care of!

I'm kidding of course.

The options here seem limited.

Spoiler

Honest with yourself hand anger towards others.


Okay so this is silly what if you don't get angry? Like I'm SO FRUSTRATED WITH PEOPLE ASSUMING EVERYONE GETS ANGRY! YELLOW WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS GEARAAIOHDASHHH!!!!

On a serious note even with 9 questions I don't have an answer I'm comfortable with.

[/spolier][spolier]
In a mall wallet question.

I would watch other people then see what the person who picks it up does and if they take it whisper to them in their sleep saying "I know what you did.

Spoiler

Few accurate statements. and following true questions.

Well these questions can't be bad because of it's design.

59% Distress Tolerance


66%-34% - Neutral
You have your ups and downs, but for the most part, you are in control of your thoughts and feelings.


50% Decision Making

66%-34% - Neutral
You prefer to keep an even balance between your thoughts and emotions, and your preference depends on the situation.

39% Extroversion


66%-34% - Ambivert
You enjoy the company and/or ideas of others, but also need time to be alone with your thoughts and feelings. If you are in a comfortable setting, you're more likely to be outgoing, and if you are in a new setting, you normally prefer to observe rather than interact.


38% Conventionality


66%-34% - Neutral
You see value in both convention and innovation, but you generally prefer the path of least resistance.


32% Social Responsibility


33% and below - Antisocial
You generally ensure that your needs met before anyone else. You are motivated by your personal gain, and you are likely to disregard the needs of those you deem to be "less" than yourself. Ultimately, what happens to other people really isn't your concern.


28% Order

33% and below - Unstructured
You dislike routine and structure. You like to keep your options open and remain flexible. You are spontaneous and casual in most situations. You enjoy a little chaos.


Hmm I don't know...

 

[groovytaxi98]

65% Decision Making
50% Conventionality
48% Social Responsibility
46% Order
23% Extroversion
17% Distress Tolerance

Hm... I would say this is all fairly accurate. Being an INFJ, I definitely can't say I prefer one judgement function over the other... they get equal consideration. As for conventionality, I'm not creative in the usual sense of the term, but I do follow my own path by making self-discovered conclusions about life. I'm fine with routine actually, and definitely prefer keeping what is working perfectly fine. Social responsibility... not so sure about. I care, but I purposefully don't care so as to preserve my own inner sanity, being gifted with social anxiety. Everything seems about right. : )

 

[The Grey Man]

This version:

Spoiler

72% Stable
50% Rational
32% Prosocial
21% Conventional
9% Disciplined
3% Extroverted

Last version:

Spoiler

86% Logical
68% Stable
55% Antisocial
45% Conventional
18% Organized
0% Extroverted

Change:

Introversion (R): 97% (-3% from last time)
Lack of structure (R): 91% (+9%)
Novelty (R): 79% (+24%)
Stability: 72% (+4%)
Antisocial tendencies (R): 68% (+13%)
Rational decision-making: 50% (-36%)

R = remainder; (100% - percentage score of attribute that approaches 100 while increasing by convention)

Big drop in rational/passionate decision-making from the second-most profound (weighed heavily in favour of logic) to least profound dichotomy preference, which is more accurate.

Questions seemed good on the whole, though I can see people reacting weirdly to the global warming question in a way that's not conducive to isolating and measuring the six attributes.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Copying Gopher's methodology:

Spoiler

#1
I usually sit at the edges or stand by the train exit and stare off into the windows thinking about something. In Seoul or in Tokyo no one really talks to strangers, let alone 'bring' someone on the train.

#2
There's a typo in one of the options, "I don't have a change(?) to process mine or others...

#5
Doesn't seem to be a lot of room for other options.

#8
This one seems a bit.. inflexible as well. These questions are really negative aren't they? Spelling mistake here too; 'wears off' not 'wore off'.

#9
None of these are ways I deal with anger. Revenge or vengeance aren't exactly in my personality stack.

#10
Spelling mistake; I'd probably ask someone near to wallet. Doesn't seem to flow well.

62% Distress Tolerance
48% Social Responsibility
40% Decision Making
20% Order
19% Conventionality
0% Extroversion


..
0% Extroversion??

Overall they seem too abstract rather than, "At work" or "In school", or "With my finances I..." and so on.

 

[Hadoblado]

First draft

Spoiler

Based on your answers, you can see your score below

59%Logical: 70%-30% - You prefer to keep an even balance between your thoughts and emotions, and your preference depends on the situation.

55%Antisocial: 70%-30% - You are ambivalent toward others, and you will generally repay people in kind, good or bad.

45%Stable: 70%-30% - You have your ups and downs, but for the most part, you are in control of your thoughts and feelings.

32%Organized: 70%-30% - You are pretty organized (or wish you were), but you need some variety in your life too.

5%Conventional: 30% and below - You prefer to forge your own path in life, even if it means taking a few risks.

0%Extroverted: 30% and below - You prefer to be alone most of the time, and become uncomfortable when faced with too much outside input.

Second draft

Spoiler

71%Decision Making

66%Distress Tolerance

65%Social Responsibility

22%Order

15%Conventionality

13%Extroversion

Decision Making: +12% (I'll call off the dogs )

Distress Tolerance +21%

Social Responsibility +10%

Order -10%

Conventionality +10%

Extroversion +13%

Overall a pretty big swing towards positive results, but my mood shifts around a lot and likes to change it up for me. I found these answers a lot less difficult to choose between, possibly from an order effect, possibly from aforementioned mood, but probably from being better questions.

 

[Black Rose]

74% Social Responsibility - Prosocial
69% Distress Tolerance - Stable
50% Order - Neutral
44% Decision Making - Neural
23% Extroversion - Introvert
17% Conventionality - Novel

Spoiler

Congratulations, you've completed SOLACE Personality Survey (Second Draft)

Based on your answers, you can see your score below

74%Social Responsibility

67% and up - Prosocial
You like to think the best of people, and you understand the value of generosity and kindness. You often think about ways to improve the lives of others, and you admire those who work to make the world a better place.

66%-34% - Neutral
You are generally ambivalent toward others. You are likely to repay people in kind, good or bad, either by direct action or by regard. However, you will avoid causing harm in most cases.

33% and below - Antisocial
You generally ensure that your needs met before anyone else. You are motivated by your personal gain, and you are likely to disregard the needs of those you deem to be "less" than yourself. Ultimately, what happens to other people really isn't your concern.

69%Distress Tolerance

67% and up - Stable
You are resilient to adversity and emotionally stable. You are more anchored than others in times of uncertainty.

66%-34% - Neutral
You have your ups and downs, but for the most part, you are in control of your thoughts and feelings.

33% and below - Intolerant
You have a hard time dealing with difficult situations. Your reactions to things you find stressful can be seen by others as inappropriate or unpredictable.

50%Order

67% and up - Disciplined
You prefer to maintain organization and routine in your life. You are generally systematic and methodical. You like order in your life.

66%-34% - Neutral
You are pretty organized (or wish you were), but you need some variety in your life too. Somethings are best managed with structure and routine, but flexibility is also important.

33% and below - Unstructured
You dislike routine and structure. You like to keep your options open and remain flexible. You are spontaneous and casual in most situations. You enjoy a little chaos.

44%Decision Making

67% and up - Rational
You strongly prefer logical arguments, rationality, and objective information. You dislike situations that require you to rely on your emotions.

66%-34% - Neutral
You prefer to keep an even balance between your thoughts and emotions, and your preference depends on the situation.

33% and below - Passionate
You tend to feel your way through your decisions by letting your heart guide you. You do not enjoy having to rely on facts alone.

23%Extroversion

67% and up - Extroverted
You are at your best/most comfortable when you are around other people. You derive energy from social and ideological interaction. You can get tired of talking to the same people everyday. You need fresh interactions in your life.

66%-34% - Ambivert
You enjoy the company and/or ideas of others, but also need time to be alone with your thoughts and feelings. If you are in a comfortable setting, you're more likely to be outgoing, and if you are in a new setting, you normally prefer to observe rather than interact.

33% and below - Introvert
You prefer to be alone most of the time, and become uncomfortable when faced with too much outside input. You get the most out interactions with a few select people. It can take you a while to warm up to new people and situations.

17%Conventionality

67% and up - Conventional
You value tradition and practical solutions. You are uncomfortable with change, especially when it seems pointless, preferring to stick with what's worked for you in the past.

66%-34% - Neutral
You see value in both convention and innovation, but you generally prefer the path of least resistance.

33% and below - Novel
You prefer to forge your own path in life, even if it means taking a few risks. You have a vivid imagination and you enjoy exploring creative pursuits.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

68% Social Responsibility
66% Distress Tolerance
46% Decision Making
15% Conventionality
13% Order
10% Extroversion

There was a need to select a few options and rate their strenght/confidence 1-10, I know it might be impossible to implement on this platform.

Spoiler

First draft results for your convenience, I also edited in your second draft and link to the op to make it more accessible.

Stable: 95%
Logical: 50%
Organized: 45%
Extroverted: 14%
Conventional: 5%
Antisocial: 25%

I think low order this time around reflects me more accurately (I scored avg. order in the previous test). I feel that conventionality should be a bit closer to average in my case, it seems slightly too innovative (30% seems reasonable, though it's more conventional than the first one so again seems more correct).

 

[Jennywocky]

A lot of lower-half scores, despite not really picking extreme answers... so I'm a little unsure of what knocked the scores down so far. Still, most are correct.

Spoiler

55% Distress Tolerance
You have your ups and downs, but for the most part, you are in control of your thoughts and feelings.
Notes: I should be in the highest bracket on this one, based on description. Inside, I can feel a range of intensity; but externally I'm calm, even in times of emergency/stress. People are typically unaware of my internal experience unless I share it with them.

55% Social Responsibility
You are generally ambivalent toward others. You are likely to repay people in kind, good or bad, either by direct action or by regard. However, you will avoid causing harm in most cases.
Notes: This is accurate. In general, I have good intention overall and will not actively harm others, but I take a neutral stance to involvement and will even avoid strangers IRL who randomly seem about to ask me for help (mostly due to trust issues -- it's stressful, I don't know what they want, they could lie, etc.).

35% Decision Making
You strongly prefer logical arguments, rationality, and objective information. You dislike situations that require you to rely on your emotions.
Notes: Maybe should have been a little more squarely in the category. I do factor in emotions but in a rational way. (e.g., if you're unhappy doing something for a long time, you have a "quality of life" factor you need to consider since you will function better if you're happier, versus just doing something that seems entirely rational but leaves you consistently unhappy.)

15% Order
You dislike routine and structure. You like to keep your options open and remain flexible. You are spontaneous and casual in most situations. You enjoy a little chaos.
Notes: Description is accurate. I like logical structure in terms of my solutions, but after trying to structure myself earlier in life, I came to the realization that I like to wing it when possible. Too much planning (to the final details) is stultifying and drains my enthusiasm.

6% Conventionality
You prefer to forge your own path in life, even if it means taking a few risks. You have a vivid imagination and you enjoy exploring creative pursuits.
Notes: Description is accurate. I'm not super-keen on big risks with long ramifications; but exploration demands you take risks even if you try to minimize what you can.

0% Extroversion
You prefer to be alone most of the time, and become uncomfortable when faced with too much outside input. You get the most out interactions with a few select people. It can take you a while to warm up to new people and situations.
Notes: Description is accurate, although I don't come off as cranky or mean in interactions -- people say they feel comfortable with me when I interact with them one on one.

 

[Seteleechete]

97% Distress tolerance
67% decision making
29% Social responsibility
13% Extroversion
11% Order
10% Conventionality

I saw some grammatical errors but can't remember where.

 

[Yellow]

Was this an improvement? I see that I need to drop politicized issues entirely, at least for this format. It occurred to me that it's also ageist. Many younger people (teens especially) subscribe to their family's opinions by default until they've had time to re-examine each issue one by one. So what might appear conventional could just be youth.

Also, I completely forgot smartphones were a thing for the bus/train one.

The next version will take several months, possibly a year to complete, but it will be my first beta. I'll probably have to create website and host it myself to have the features I want.

Please keep providing feedback at your leisure. It'll help.

I might write a few YP posts on theory as I go, because I can see that I need to make a few changes to my indicators. I might need to add one too. It's hard teasing out distinct features and then thinking of ways to identify them without being SUPER obvious.

Actually, that's one of my biggest goals here, is to mitigate a person's ability to drive toward a specific outcome. Or at least reducing artificial extremes. I don't mind if someone tests extreme when they are extreme. I just don't like how easy a lot many tests are to manipulate toward a certain result either completely on purpose, or when stuck in some positive feedback loop (as we see with MBTI).

 

[Seteleechete]

Decision making doesn't seem to separate fact/experience following and rationality/logic idk if I like that. I actually liked the old one better due to this. Also Conventionality is hard to test with the often strict separation of innovation and Conventionality in the questions. 1-10 confidence scores on pretty much everything would help immensely I think.

 

[Brontosaurie]

97% Distress tolerance
67% decision making
29% Social responsibility
13% Extroversion
11% Order
10% Conventionality

I saw some grammatical errors but can't remember where.

Brofist

 

[The Gopher]

It occurred to me that it's also ageist. Many younger people (teens especially) subscribe to their family's opinions by default until they've had time to re-examine each issue one by one. So what might appear conventional could just be youth.

That was almost entirely my primary thought I just had no idea how to word it. Not just young people though people who specialize and don't care to look into every aspect of life may just go with what they've heard.

 

[Yellow]

Hey! is there anyway for you lovely mods to add the link for the second draft of the test to my OP? Maybe it could just say

Second draft
https://www.onlineassessmenttool.com/solace-personality-survey-second-draft/assessment-34021

at the bottom pf the OP, if that's even an option, that is. It's just that I could see the second draft post getting buried..

 

[Sinny91]

Okay, UPDATE!

https://www.onlineassessmenttool.com/solace-personality-survey-second-draft/assessment-34021

If you don't mind, let's start over with the feedback.

Ugh , how did I miss this? I've been online 24/7.

Yay..

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Hey! is there anyway for you lovely mods to add the link for the second draft of the test to my OP? Maybe it could just say

at the bottom pf the OP, if that's even an option, that is. It's just that I could see the second draft post getting buried..

I've already added it yesterday.

 

[Yellow]

I've already added it yesterday.

... wow. ... I didn't even think to look.

Thanks!

Edit: It looks like both you and Fukyo beat me to it

 

[Sinny91]

Ow, I took the test and lost the results

 

[Seteleechete]

You can probably get back to it if you use history/recent tabs, the result page is a unique page(at least that worked for me).

Assuming you opened the results at least once that is and you don't use too many privacy options.

 

[Feather]

@ Yellow

Personality as I think of it seems to be able to be applied in a few different ways.

One way is "all we see is all there is" mindset. In this way one could say that a city, music, machine, climate etc has a personality. These things are either created by human or by nature; these things have a behavior that is consistent with reasons and purpose behind it but we should probably use a different word because personality to me should involve those with choice.

The other way is "all there is isn't from all we see" mindset. This involves mind and the metaphysical when we try to understand personality.

This is slightly a side tangent but “pseudo” science just seems like unfair thing to say. It reminds me of what a Catholic would say about Baptist that it is a pseudo religion or of an artist that would call another artist work fake art. Science is either useful or it isn’t.

Instead of “pseudo” I think it’s more appropriated to say this or something else is a “better” model or “better” science because the old model is challenged with science and not belief.

 

[Feather]

@Yellow

Your analysis of Personality seems to be under the first type of personality that can be applied to inanimate objects that doesn't involve choice.

This is perfectly fine - this is observational science similar if we sat on a hill and watched cars drive by and cataloged behavior by distinct characteristics such as color, size, speed, direction etc. then we build up classes that cars fit in and then we can describe likely tendencies based on its classes.

Each classification style has its own applications that it is the most useful for. It does seem that going by this view of personality that it all comes from the physical environment and it should be expanded such as you have.

This method I see it as very different than what Jung was doing as I think he was addressing the Personality in terms of the other type of personality and has more theoretical elements to his model that are {metaphysical}, {core principles}, and {consequences}.

Below is examples I made up to show what I mean.

Why’s require assumptions beyond what we Observe: {metaphysical}

So now we are sitting on the hill again trying to understand “why” cars behave as they do assuming we know nothing about earth. The correct answer is beings inhabit the cars and choose color and size and speed and direction for reasoning beyond what you could observe.

Other types of Personality theories that try to account for Why’s will have features, concepts in the theory that are assumptions that are imagined.

I have noticed some people are concerned with the Why’s that involve prediction {N} rather than ignoring the Why or determining Why’s from statistics {S}.

Irreversibility in learning: {Fundamental Principles}

As an example - there seems to be a principle at work that the order people learn something defines the way they form models or understand models and is irreversible. Meaning the order some one learns something they will be trapped in a developed state that is limited to understanding or forming information from data.

This creates a feedback loop such that keeps pulling them into a further altered state of processing because each cycle lose the ability to learn things in the opposing order or style to reverse the development.

A principle such as this could create lumping.

Model Dependency: {Consequences}

There is another issue with building models that have to do with dependency on or making claims on other known knowledge and this unravels back to primary theories. For example we can’t make a theory of personality without a claim free-will and we can’t make a claim on free-will without make a claim on how physics works. If the creator of the model does not understand primary theories then incorrect claims can compound as you go up the latter.

Put in simpler terms this is “Top Down” approach or “Bottom Up” approach both have their benefits and challenges.

Jung appears to want to go bottom up and first find what is primary then have everything else be derived from consequences.

The other way is to find clues to the puzzle then fit them together best as possible then step back and see if there is anything primary.

 

[Yellow]

That makes sense. However, I usually use the word pseudoscience in the literal sense, to mean "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

Dang it, you ninja, you.

I'll respond to the second post in a bit.

 

[Feather]

I guess I was talking about "pseudo-pseudoscience" being: "A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on pseudoscientific method." ??? No actually I use that word too, It just accrued to me that it is really diminishes a persons gear if he had used the scientific method but just poorly.

:::: More thoughts that I thought ::::

I think Jung’s approach is science oriented because IF we started to develop AI and had to figure out how to build a system for AI it would involve fundamental principles that distinguish the possible ways data can be integrated to information and possible ways information can be resolute into data. Jung is at least headed in this direction rather than “Fire energy”, “Sunshine energy”, “Earth energy” and “Ice energy”.

Things like agreeableness, stable and being conventional could be consequences of fundamental processes. If a computer has a virus its method of processing has some independent nature from the corruption. The corruption may apply to various applications where the method is semi constant. Fear creates poor functioning and that can result in degree of need to be agreeable or overly agreeable and the need to be conventional or overly unconventional but this is poor functioning that can be resolved or made worse. I can see why this should be separated from the defining of fundamental principles and functioning and then proclaim that because of this the consequence is tendencies for these poor functioning’s.

A simpler way to put it is imagine world of war craft some personality of the player is a factor of the amount of experience of the player as maybe they have played many characters in many different quest But at the same time much of the personality of the player is a factor the Type of player they currently have defining its abilities and what it focuses on. The experience of the player determines how “well’ he performs his abilities and how well it focuses. All experienced players will have traits of players who play “well” but that does not specify what its quest is or what the focus or ability is for the player.

Our bodies that are observable define some of our values and our behavior such as boy/girl but our minds as they search for content and give meaning and importance to memories also could have duality templates that define our values that can conflict with our bodies’ values. These set of values define the data that is present in the awareness and gives output that could be useful for specific purposes. The body has a boy/girl duality template for the purpose of reproduction and survival – the mind could have similar non observable evolution that is based in duality systems for a purpose of creation of complex societies. We learn these value systems and convert them into determinable reactions in our bodies and convert them into determinable reactions in our minds through evolution type process. {By non observable I mean more specifically from the phenomenon that is real but we can’t influence by physical means such as quantum mechanics, speed of light, mind, dark matter, all that stuff}

That which I say is mostly speculation. Some of it is sourced from personal experience exploring the mind and some of it is in agreement with what I know of physics. What I do not know is very much about behavioral observations in people and brains and that kind of research.

 

[Feather]

:::: Other more specific spattered thoughts ::::

lets call into question where you said, most people with {N} have higher IQ than people with {S} as the jury may remember Yet you sited a side note about {S} scoring better in a programming class than {N}.

This seems like there is an issue with this somewhere:
1. intelligence doesn't correlate with grades as much as effort or time invested
2. {N} may enjoy programing more but doesn't mean they are better at it
3. the way we define intelligence is biased
4. Intellectual ability may not mean better quality {stability, focus, efficient}
5. Based on small sample set.

-
As far as how the personality is defined during child time. This raises questions:
1. Can we figure out what stimulus leads to introverted thinking and put any baby in that stimulus and create that result?
2. How can stimulus create properties of the brain and mind, if the mind has been shown to be able to alter the brain?
3. If all our development is in that short time period, things like an incubated sick child should have drastic effects on its personality development.
4. What reasoning is there to connect certain stimulus to certain personality traits.
5. If each child takes on traits of the parents then what cause the initial trait existence.
6. Different cultures should produce new personality types not seen in other cultures.
7. If a baby is raised around dogs is the personality different than other wise.
8. Two adoptide babies raised by the same family should have same personality.

-
@ Yellow I think there is lots of great ideas in your ideas. It made me think and I was just writing down my thoughts.

 

[Yellow]

-bump-

I see that there are a lot of new people, and it wouldn't hurt to get more feedback.

Also, I'm sorry @feather, I wasn't trying to ignore you. I'm just incredibly lazy lately. I totally read everything you posted, and I found it helpful.



By the way, keeping in the theme of my laziness, building what I want from scratch (or near to it) is, like, work. So if anyone knows of a pre-existing app or website for more sophisticated surveys that aren't A) expensive or B) requiring my personal information back 12 generations, please let me know.

 

[green acid]

Stable 86%
Antisocial 70%
Logical 50%
Extroverted 50%
Organized 32%
Conventional 9%

I think the test results were accurate enough.