Personality Types

Learning to appreciate diversity.




Clockwise from top left: Phlegmatic, Sanguine, Choleric, and Melancholic.Source.




link to myers brigg personality test

Keirsey Temperament Sorter:

Guardians (SJs)

Conservators (E/ISFJs): Providers • Protectors
Administrators (E/ISTJs): Supervisors • Inspectors

Artisans (SPs)

Entertainers (E/ISFPs): Performers • Composers
Operators (E/ISTPs): Promoters • Crafters

Idealists (NFs)

Advocates (E/INFPs): Champions • Healers
Mentors (E/INFJs): Teachers • Counselors

Rationals (NTs)

Engineers (E/INTPs): Inventors • Architects
Coordinators (E/INTJs): Fieldmarshals • Masterminds







Personality temperament artwork by Thomas Woodruff:


Source.

"Substance X causes cancer in animals...."

Consider two statements, S1 and S2: S1: ‘‘Would you agree or disagree that the way an animal reacts to a chemical is a reliable predictor of how a human would react to it?’’

The second statement, S2, is a little more specific: ‘‘If a scientific study produces evidence that a chemical causes cancer in animals, then we can be reasonably sure that the chemical will cause cancer in humans.’’

How did you respond? How would a scientist respond?

from P. Slovic, ‘‘Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,’’ in Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. A. Wade-Benzoni (eds.) (San Francisco, New Lexington, 1997), pp. 277–313.

Evolving Positive and Negative Affect?

In Don Norman's book, Emotional Design: Why We Love or Hate Everyday Objects, he lists some of the factors that Decision Science implicates as innately predisposing humans to either positive or negative affect:

"What are people genetically programmed for? Those situations and
objects that, throughout evolutionary history, offer food, warmth, or protection
give rise to positive affect. These conditions include:

warm, comfortably lit places,
temperate climate,
sweet tastes and smells,
bright, highly saturated hues,
“soothing” sounds and simple melodies and rhythms,
harmonious music and sounds,
caresses,
smiling faces,
rhythmic beats,
“attractive” people,
symmetrical objects,
rounded, smooth objects
“sensuous” feelings, sounds, and shapes.

Similarly, here are some of the conditions that appear to produce automatic
negative affect:

heights,
sudden, unexpected loud sounds or bright lights,
“looming” objects (objects that appear to be about to hit the observer),
extreme hot or cold,
darkness,
extremely bright lights or loud sounds,
empty, flat terrain (deserts),
crowded dense terrain (jungles or forests),
crowds of people,
rotting smells, decaying foods
bitter tastes,
sharp objects,
harsh, abrupt sounds,
grating and discordant sounds,
misshapen human bodies,
snakes and spiders,
human feces (and its smell),
other people’s body fluids,
vomit. "

Contingency and Control in the Laboratory

The Comparative Psychology of Learning: the Selective Association Principle and Some Problems with "General" Laws of Learning. Bolles (ed) 1973.

"A rat on a treadmill learns i f it runs when it hears a beep it can avoid an electric shock. The rat can also learn to turn to avoid a shock. But rats cannot learn to rear up on their hind legs to avoid being shocked. The rat's brain cannot learn to avoid danger using a naturally exploratory behavior."

In the same vein, you also can't train animals to get a reward by moving away from a stimulus that predicts reward. Pavlovian conditioning trumps Skinnerian. (personal communication, Dr. Insel) Accepting the full import of this work entails abandoning general intelligence. Without general learning, we can question the adaptability of man to the modern social-technological milieu. It appears we can learn some things, but for others we will continue to make the same mistake over and over again.

...which reminds me of my current philosophy of science, expressed by E.O Wilson:

"Nature first, then theory. Or, better, Nature and theory closely intertwined while you throw all your intellectual capital at the subject. Love the organisms for themselves first, then strain for general explanations, and, with good fortune, discoveries will follow. If they don't the love and pleasure will have been enough."

The idiosyncrasies of evolutionary contingency make controlled experiments difficult to interpret, in the sense that it may be hard to extrapolate "logically" from one model (animal) or trait to another system. The general laws we attempt to find by working in simplified laboratory settings may not even exist, but if we don't "love the organism for itself" we may never know it. This is part of the reason I'm leaving laboratory science. Under this interpretation, contrary to current fashion (and dogma), the profligate wonders of Natural History become the supreme biological science.

"Transition"

Transition
Let us now turn to psychological facts. At night all leaping fountains speak with a louder tone; my soul, too is a leaping fountain says Zarathustra. Into the night life seems to be exiled --these are the famous words from Freud's Interpretation of Dreams--into the night life seems to be exiled what once ruled during the day. This sentence contains the entire modern psychology. Its great idea is the stratification of the psyche, the geological principle. The soul has its origin and is built in strata, and what we learned before in the organic field apropos of the construction of the big brain from the anatomic-evolutionary standpoint of banished aeons, is revealed by psychosis as a still-existing reality. We carry the ancient peoples in our souls and when the later acquired reason is relaxed, as in the dream or in drunkenness, they emerge with their rites, their prelogical mentality, and grant us an hour of mystic participation.

When the logical superstructure is loosened, when the scalp, tired of the onslaught of the prelunar states, opens the frontiers of consciousness about which there is always a struggle, then there appears the old, the unconscious, in the magical transmutation and identification of the "I" in the early experience of the everywhere and the eternal. The hereditary partimony of the middle brain lies still deeper and is eager for expression: if the covering is destroyed in the psychosis there emerges, driven upward by the primal instincts, from out the primitive-schizoid substructure, the gigantic archaic instinctive "I" unfolding itself limitlessly through the tattered psychological subject.


Quoted in "Plexus" the 2nd volume of the Rosy Crucifixion by Henry Miller

Why Did You Do That?

Why do other people act the way they do? Actions that you can't explain through values or ideology, like good environmentalists watching TV instead of the sunset. I think everyone has a list of weird inexplicable actions that other people do. For what reason? Personally, and I realize this is a personal failing and I'm working on it, I've always chalked up inexplicable actions to stupidity. The reason the ex-hippies paved over our vegetable garden was because they didn't realize how important it was or how much they'd miss it, nor how easy an alternative solution might have been. They didn't realize because they didn't really want to think about it, or they couldn't.

Since realizing my own explanation I've stopped believing it as much and have become more interested in other people's explanations. There is usually a dominant one, a recurring cognitive theme. For example, R, either through projection or the basic goodness of his nature, thinks that the reason people do bad things like cut you off in traffic is because although they know better, they just don't care. This lack of care is, for him, the ultimate indicator of all wrong actions. R has always been of the Old School of medieval honor and loyalty. For him, Good and Evil are daily battles.

I was recently rereading Catcher in the Rye, and over and over again Holden Caulfield, the dropout kid, explains people's behavior by calling them "phonies". I like that. In their hearts they know better and maybe actually are good people, but they end up doing the exact opposite because of society or because of something mysterious called "growing up". Getting used to being phony. Hunter S. Thompson famously described the Problem with Americans as "Fear and Loathing". Ever the wordsmith, he chose one of the most evocative and perspicacious phrases to describe other's failings. People live in suburbia because they're afraid of the city, afraid of others. And how much of that behavior transitions from fear to a kind of sublimating hatred; no better word exists than "loathing". In contrast, Steinbeck writes about "ignorance of the self" being the root of all evil.

I think he might be on to something with the whole Socrates "self-knowledge" angle, but why stop there? I'm an ecosystem Buddhist, a way of thinking I learned from the Zen/Beat poet Gary Snyder. According to him, we shouldn't judge others because everyone has a part to play in the drama-dream of life. We shouldn't judge warmongers for warmongering anymore than we should judge the hawk for killing rabbits. That is their (ecological) role in this life, a role we can vehemently fight, but not one that we should stoop to judging personally. I'll do my thing, tend to my business, and you do yours. Can any one explanation be more than a crutch? I and those around me deserve better.

Consciousness and YES/NO Psych Questionnaires

The questions were of the form "does x feel happy/sad/pride" where x were specific examples of mammals, insects, plants, machines, and natural objects. For example, "do ants feel sad?" and my task for one hour was to answer "yes" or "no" as quickly as possible; there were literally thousands of examples, presented every 2 seconds nonstop for 45 minutes. This was supposed to tell them about my "attributions of consciousness". What?

[Idea: Why didn't they test just ten examples from each of the categories?? 1) That wouldn't take an hour, and an hour is the canonical amount of time students are willing to . 2) To increase statistical power. Another, more efficient, question structure could be based on adaptive learning, where the computer generates each question based on the previous answers, so that it moves from general to specific, eventually oscillating around my indecision point (assuming a scale of consciousness graded from most similar to humans to least...this is assuming that people aren't more likely to say that a motorcycle can feel happy than a worm)]

IS this what science has come to? Who cares? These guys get public funding for this? What's worst is how insulting this is to me; that my nuanced feelings, opinions, hopes and fears about the realm of consciousness could be reduced to yes or no. No possibility for discussion / completely dehumanized: do they really think they're plumbing the depths of my soul in this artificial setting? Or, by "controlling all extraneous variables" will they only find only what they're looking for? I'll never believe another psych study based on bored college students pressing yes or no as rapidly as possible. College students are some of the most dumb and desperate people in society. Most of those guys were frat boy dropouts, hung over and world-weary; the quiet desperation of years of unreflective failure necessary to motivate young men to throw away their hours of youth for pocket change.

My strategy was twofold: first, panic and prepare to leave, but then rationalize myself into staying. I already sit inside staring at a screen all day anyway. Just relax, learn to accept things as they are. You are in a comfortable chair in a room of meticulously immaculate and barren cubicles. Is this hell? Purgatory? The ultimate aspiration of hegemonic standardization, the real essence of school and work and society? You've already started, already committed. Don't change horses in midstream. Impossible to rebel anyway; resistance is futile. If you leave now, shouldn't logically you also leave your job, turn off and drop out of civilization entirely? No, remain calm. I took my shoes off, relaxed my face into its most natural wide-relaxed expression, and drifted off while letting my fingers do the walking over the amazingly banal cavalcade of animals, plants, and machines. Such cacophony in the world, and to think that this is only a fraction of the things we have put words to: boulder, giraffe, falcon, daffodil, desert, taxi cab.

In the end I took my $10 but couldn't look the experimenter in the eye. And maybe I'm just paranoid, but I couldn't help thinking that that was the point of the study, that the real test was what it always is: will you take the money and shut up, or cause a riot? I've always been a reasonable fellow. But I don't believe anyone in that room was conscious.