TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 90

Thread: Who are you?

  1. #26
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    You'd think so, but lots of corporates use it as qualifying criteria still - and that's MBTI, forget something newer. I'm of the opinion that psychometric instruments are generally useless as anything approaching entrance or performance criteria, because why wouldn't you game that? But hiring practices generally come about from people sticking their fingers up their butts, sniffing them, and using the result as criteria, so you know... c'est les ressources humaines.

  2. #27
    Re: repeatability, I got the same result more than a decade apart, so I don't know... I don't really take it too seriously, but there were major life changes and quite a few therapy sessions in between so it's interesting.

    Anecdotally, of course.

  3. #28
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Sure, and every time I fire up Skyrim, I sooner or later wind up being a stealth archer, but that doesn't mean the stealth archer describes me.

  4. #29
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Sidebar: there are bigger problems with MBTI. The first is it's generally criticised as putting you in a box when human personalities don't operate in arbitrary type boundaries like that - which is also why you might sometimes feel that the indicator is somewhat off-base compared to your own observations of your behaviour. The second is that it's based on Jungian principles which aren't widely accepted as a psychological standard in this day and age, because our definitions and means of measuring psychological characteristics have evolved since the 20s. (There's a third, which is the inherent unreliableness/repeatability of results is a problem with MBTI - there's been some research showing the repeatability of the test is quite poor, which means in a relatively short time period you can get different results [types] by taking the same test twice.)
    I think the MBTI suffers from a few big problems.

    The first problem is that it's easy to influence the outcome if you know what it's trying to measure. When I took it at the start of our project, my Professor and our sponsor were careful not to say a word about it to us before hand. It was just a long set of multiple choice questions. Then we had to get trained to administer it, and sign up with the foundation in order to get the materials. One key lesson I was taught is that it had to be administered "blind" to avoid biasing the results, and obviously not to the same person twice. When we would administer it, we always asked if somebody had heard of Myers-Briggs or Jung before, or tested before, and if so they were excluded. We didn't discuss the dichotomies with students until after they had completed the measure.

    The second big problem is that the labels given to poles of each scale are not perceived as neutral by most people. That influences whether they perceive their measured type positively or negatively, and whether they perceive it to be accurate or inaccurate. My project partners and I discussed results one-on-one with a couple hundred high school students. During those discussions, no matter how hard I tried to make it clear that there were no better or worse types, I could tell by the discussion (and sometimes the look on their faces) that they liked or didn't like certain labels. The most difficult to explain is extroversion/introversion. People hear that and think I'm an extrovert or an introvert, and that's not what the measure means. Students would get hung up on the terms and miss the nuance of where you choose to employ your dominant function. The same is true to a lesser extent with some of the other poles. Not to be sexist, but the boys didn't like feeling, and some of the girls didn't like judging. Since that time, I've noticed that the textbook descriptions for each type have been revised to sound more equal and more positive, so I presume people are less likely to be disappointed by their result compared to when I used it. But the types now get cool names like "Defender", "Architect", and "Adventurer" which makes the problem worse by associating the type more closely to people's self-perceptions and aspirations. It also over-simplifies the types to the point of being pigeon holes.

    A third big problem with the MBTI is that it became a big business in the late 90s. It turned into a fad that large companies and organizations jumped onto because it was marketed as a team-building tool. Suddenly everybody was taking it, often knowing the types beforehand and thus not "blind". Worse yet, there were a lot of people trying to assign types without administering the questionnaire (because they weren't certified and couldn't buy them). That doesn't work because self-image gets in the way.

    Those three problems combine to make it unreliable today. Too many people have heard of it before and have already formed some opinion about the types. Even if you're trying to answer honestly, if you're aware of the types you can't help but be influenced.

    A final, more minor problem is that some of the scales are imbalanced relative to the population distribution. Sensing vs. intuition is strongly skewed towards sensing, and the J-P distribution is moderately skewed towards J. There's also some degree of correlation between the scales. So the 16 types aren't close to being equally distributed across the population. Some say that's just the way it is, but I think you could get more value out of the measure if you changed the questions so that they divide the population more equally.

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Not really interested in going deep into the BS at the heart of the very premise of MBTI, so I'll just post this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%...or_dichotomies

    It's 50%-75% bunk. Just bunk. We can tell from the data that there's no underlying personality trait for at least 2 of the 4 dichotomies (and that there is for just one of them, introversion/extroversion). You could associate any random set of uncorrelated questions and/or answer completely randomly and get a very similar distribution of answers that MBTI gets.

  6. #31
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I'm guessing you're reacting to Gryzemuis' post, which was also not in the spirit of the thread.
    I'm sorry. I wanted to tell that I view myself as someone who can sometimes be direct and blunt in words, but who tries to be nice in his acts. As example I brought up a current event where people do exactly the opposite (make a fuss about a bad joke, but then have no problem going to Qatar). If that is derailing this thread, then I don't know what we're supposed to talk about.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    If that is derailing this thread, then I don't know what we're supposed to talk about.
    Bad personality tests?

  8. #33
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    It's 50%-75% bunk. Just bunk. We can tell from the data that there's no underlying personality trait for at least 2 of the 4 dichotomies (and that there is for just one of them, introversion/extroversion). You could associate any random set of uncorrelated questions and/or answer completely randomly and get a very similar distribution of answers that MBTI gets.
    Even the basic extraversion/introversion dichotomy is often misunderstood and misinterpreted, the former being perceived as something more positive and desirable and extraverted people being seen as more natural leaders.

    I don't put much stock in Jung myself, but it's hard to deny how influential he was on 20th century thinking, to the point where you can talk about pre-Jungian and post-Jungian literature.

  9. #34
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I tend to be more existentialist in that the self we should care about is the one people make for themselves by their important life decisions and going through existential moments of revelation. The idea of pinning a self onto relatively trivial personality quirks to me, even if we're talking about more empirically grounded system like the Big Five, it's still just a very shallow way of looking at a person.

    It's something that strikes me about contemporary thinking generally, how excited people are to gut agency and reduce humans to reflexes, making selves have more to do with what happens to them, how likely they are to sneeze, than what they think or do on the important matters. I wanna be more like Pinkguy facing down Bane, arms out saying MF ecce homo.

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    you know if you google cyberealism you get jigsaw puzzles.
    I SEE YOUR GAME DEMA AND YOU DONT FOOL ME

    yes its one of those nights, Renz ban me before its too late!

    those puzzles look pretty dope though

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Not really interested in going deep into the BS at the heart of the very premise of MBTI, so I'll just post this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%...or_dichotomies

    It's 50%-75% bunk. Just bunk. We can tell from the data that there's no underlying personality trait for at least 2 of the 4 dichotomies (and that there is for just one of them, introversion/extroversion). You could associate any random set of uncorrelated questions and/or answer completely randomly and get a very similar distribution of answers that MBTI gets.
    Look, I'm not advocating the MBTI. I think it's outlived its usefulness. But that particular critique is wrong. First off, a normal distribution is to be expected for a personality trait. The only personality traits for which you would expect to find a bi-modal distribution are the ones where there's social pressure to categorize yourself one way or the other, like sexual orientation. And it's kind of pointless to include those in a personality assessment. Also, the author in that Wiki article is wrong to say the types are split at the middle of the distribution. They are not. Also, if the questions were answered randomly, you would not get a normal distribution because the individual questions are weighted. For example, an answer of 'a' on question XX scores you 2 points towards 'T' but an answer of 'b' on the same question doesn't score anything for 'F'. Also, the total points available is not the same for both sides of each scale. The total possible points for 'S' is 50% higher than for 'N'. In fact, we looked for normal distributions in our student sample as a sign that we were properly administering the test and getting usable results.

    The most important criticism of the MBTI, and personality assessments in general, is that they are misused, especially in the corporate world. IMHO, the MBTI should never be a factor in staffing decisions. I think it *might* be useful in coaching and team building contexts, but it's usually not because most of the people using it don't even really know the theory it's based on. Which is outdated anyway.

    The MBTI was just one of multiple different measures we used. Some of them correlated very strongly with standardized test performance and some hardly at all. With the MBTI in particular, there was no correlation between test performance and E-I. There were strong correlations between every test measure and S-N, and moderate correlations with T-F. IIRC, there was also slight correlation between SAT Math score and J-P. Also, T also seemed to amplify the effect of N, so that the mean SAT score for the _NT_ types was something like 200 points over the mean of the full population. Those advantages were there in every school, despite large disparities in mean test performance. The worst of the schools we measured had a mean SAT score around 100 points below the national average and the best was around +150, but types had the same influence in every school relative to the school mean. There was a racial component as well. African-Americans scored worse overall on the SAT and ACT, which was common knowledge and expected. What we didn't expect was that most of the difference in test scores could be explained by the distribution of MBTI types among African-Americans in our sample. The MBTI turned out to be one of the better correlated measures in our study.

    I'm starting to ramble on a bit now, but will mention one more thing. The least influential measure in our results was a differentiation test. I'm not sure I could even find a source for it, because I think it may have been my cog sci professor's creation. It attempted to categorize people based on how strongly they perceived similarities vs. differences between things. On the measure, some people's results would be strongly bifurcated indicating they were responding much more strongly to the differences between things. Others would be centrally grouped, indicating they were responding to the similarities. This measure had little correlation with student academic or test performance, so it was hardly mentioned in our conclusions. But it was somewhat enlightening to find out how differently people can perceive the same relationships, and I think it explains a lot of what we see in political discourse.

  13. #38
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    you know if you google cyberealism you get jigsaw puzzles.
    I SEE YOUR GAME DEMA AND YOU DONT FOOL ME

    those puzzles look pretty dope though
    Nah, it's a great term because nobody has used it for anything of any ambition yet. It's been a few things like that puzzle game and some kid's forgettable Geocities site, but more or less it's up for grabs to name a movement. One of these days I'm going to introduce people to the cybereal and they aren't going to be able to go back to seeing the world as it once was.

    I have to find the right hook to pull people into it though. The best I've got right now is... alright, imagine they come up with some Augmented Reality system that they graft into your visual and parietal cortex that mixes experience of the real world with computer augmented HUD shit overlaying it that's constructed directly in people's vision. Then you can start directly manipulating your perception of the world.

    If you imagine yourself in that situation long enough, then you start realizing that perception is just code. There's no boundary between the extra computer code and what your brain has always been doing. And at a certain point you're going to realize, actually that code isn't coming from the computer, it's just like a .dll feeding data to the .exe running it through the CPU. Consciousness has always been code. You are the code. You always have been. When you see the world through that perspective, you're going to start seeing it differently. You start seeing it as it's literally constructed around you, as you are literally constructed into you, bit by bit through your CPU. You feel yourself emerge from the algorithms, as the algorithms, as yourself in total autonomy over yourself.

    Only then you'll have a glimpse of the world as it truly is, a glimpse of yourself as you truly are. That's when you will have made contact with the cybereal. The Matrix didn't even break the skin of how deep that rabbit hole really goes.
    Last edited by demagogue; 24th Jun 2020 at 01:27.

  14. #39
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    I'm gonna quote a spiel from noted philosophist, sage, and overall wise person Steven Wilson: 'Once we've made sense of our world, we wanna go fuck up everybody else's because his or her truth doesn't match mine. But this is the problem. Truth is individual calculation. Which means because we all have different perspectives, there isn't one singular truth, is there?'

    All right, jokes aside, just to clarify: I think that's a very down to earth take on the phenomenologist equation, which is something I read up on only because I saw Dark Star when I was a teenager and it tickled me hard. (Anyone who hasn't seen Dark Star -- well, it's not aged well, but it's still got one of the best endings to a sci-fi comedy known to man/). I don't think knowledge of the interrelated processes of your consciousness and what they are necessarily allows you to control it - you can attempt to tweak it, but control is... we've evolved as creatures of instinct with a fundamental fight-or-flight system that deals with short-term threat management first and foremost, and we're not great at long-term modification of the way we work. Perhaps we're on the way to it as we're still evolving, but it's a long way off.

    You're also going to run against the Ship of Theseus problem eventually once you start talking about strapping on different things into your psyche via technology, but that's very firmly a sci-fi issue as of today.

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I live by that mantra of "truth" being subjective and different from person to person from him and quote it often. It is a shame that most people don't live by that belief and call on holy hellfire when someone says a truth that does not match theirs. For them there is only one truth when that's just complete bullshit.
    Last edited by icemann; 24th Jun 2020 at 05:19.

  16. #41
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    The spirit of that quote is in understanding that your perspective doesn't apply to everyone because they're different from you, and that applies to how they're going to react to what you perceive as 'truth', too. It's not meant to be used as some form of reductionism. Also, context: I put it in as a joke because it's a song lyric from an album about Trump's relationship with truth, it's not exactly a deeply philosophical statement.

    Anyway, this is veering off-course so I've got nothing more to say about that here; I'm more interested in how dema's cybereal analogues work out.

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    The line is from a 90s movie. If you listen to the song you hear it in the opening line.

    From memory its in the song of his "To the bone".

  18. #43
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I should clarify, it doesn't really have anything to do with being plugged into anything, and it may be an unhelpful distraction to mention it.

    It's just, people intuitively understand when they're plugged into something that there's code at the bottom of it. But they don't think that way when it's just their vanilla consciousness, which is what I really wanted to focus on. One is just a good entryway into the other.

    The reference to phenomenology (& with it existentialism) fits pretty well though. I think of this like next gen existentialism. I think it's friendly to the idea that people can have their own understandings and values they live by. But it also plays to the idea that when you experience something, it isn't just your personal experience. Other people might not be able to access it, but it's a real part of the universe, something people should take responsibility for.

    Well, one of these days I'll write a manifesto, and I'll explain it all there. It'd go a long way to explain my thoughts about a question like "who are you?"

  19. #44
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    The line is from a 90s movie. If you listen to the song you hear it in the opening line.

    From memory its in the song of his "To the bone".
    There may have been a movie talking about something similar, but no, that quote isn't from a movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Wilson
    That’s actually a really good friend of mine who’s a black schoolteacher in Texas, Jasmine Walkes. Basically, what I said to her was, “I want you to talk about truth, and the idea of truth as perspective — and I want you to improvise it.” And she came back with something that was very impromptu and very natural, and not scripted — and it was perfect! It was the perfect line to start the record, and I couldn’t have written it any better if I had scripted it myself.
    dema: fair enough, though I think a little bit of freewheeling to touch on aspects of the original question isn't too bad while allowing for more direct on-topic responses. At least, I think Gray wouldn't mind?

  20. #45
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    There may have been a movie talking about something similar, but no, that quote isn't from a movie.


    First 20 seconds. I'd recognize that voice anywhere, though I have no idea what movie it's from. That's the voice of Janeane Garofalo. I only know her from Rommy and Michelle's highschool reunion. That's definitely her voice.

  21. #46
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Not long ago a colleague gave me this gem: *laughs drunk at work party* "You know, when I started here they told me Kolya was - hmmm - a bit difficult. But WE get along so well!" *slaps my shoulder*

    For a second I pondered whether everyone might actually think I was difficult. I decided that my interactions made this generally unlikely. And I wouldn't care if someone had vented their minor grievances. Then I considered who this was coming from. The first time we met he had just started an NLP course and I told him in no uncertain terms that I thought NLP was condescending and produced loneliness. I realized that he had pursued it and smiled.

    No idea who I am, you'd have to ask others about that. But not that guy.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    I hope you're taking the piss, dema because "cyberrealism" sounds like "I'm 14 and this is deep".
    Your consciousness isn't "code". Code is a way to describe thoughts of a conscious being. But the description isn't the thing itself.
    You're free to look at it this way of course, but it is just part of a well established and unhelpful animistic tradition of describing humans in terms of machines that's been going on since antiquity.
    Good luck with your top down cultural movement.

  23. #48
    @icemann & Sulphur:
    I'm going off-topic now, but I got curious about where that quote really comes from. I can see a couple of different, and equally probable, possibilities:
    1. Steven Wilson came up with it himself and then recorded someone else saying it (for example Janeane Garofalo).
    2. Someone else came up with it (for example Janeane Garofalo) and then Steven Wilson borrowed it.
    3. Someone else said it in some other setting (in a movie, on stage etc...) and then Steven Wilson sampled it.

    The only conclusion we can draw -- from the information presented in this thread -- is that it's not Steven Wilson saying it in the song. That's clearly someone else. Could be Janeane Garofalo; the two sound kind of similar. We still don't know the source of the quote, though -- unless someone else has information they haven't presented yet.

    On-topic:
    This post represents one part of who I am.

  24. #49
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Yeah good luck. Every time AI comes up the same concepts get rehashed. It came up with teleportation and whether the person who is reassembled is you. I say no because if the singular perspective is extinguished even for a nano second it ceases to be. The other "you" won't know it though. The mind can idle in sleep or lose some of it's self but can never cease fundamentally or it (you) is gone. But that's another tangent. Nobody buys my singular perspective argument anyway.

    I am curious as to how any code could be universal when I sincerely doubt any mind is. I have used this argument before but nobody seemed to understand my meaning. They thought me simple because it is reductive but it HAS to be. If the most simple concept cannot be extrapolated then the complex ones never will. What is color? It is a wavelength right? We all agree on what we see as blue. We can expound on intensities and shades but we can never know how that wavelength is interpreted in someone elses brain. Yes indeed we are operating with the same equipment and the link up with the brain is nearly the same but the interpretation BY the brain may be individual. We can reproduce the same result across the board by concept agreement but never KNOW if the visual is the same. And that is just color. Perhaps you think concept agreement is enough. Well if you are going to augment a brain maybe it isn't. Maybe you are headed into new territory where new agreements will have to be made. Higher concepts farther afield may take us farther apart and be more difficult to replicate experience much less code it.

    As far as who we are as others see us it's somewhat similar in complexity the farther from our core we go. We all have our reactions which are different among different company. I recall an acquaintance/friend saying how laid back I've always been. If you asked the folks I worked with if I was that they would laugh. Everyone sees you through the filter of what they want of you. If they just want the warm feelings of friendship they see your best. If they want the produce of your labor they may see only what you have done for them. They may of course be manipulating you either way. You may be manipulating yourself to fit that expectation without even knowing it. But we have a core. Formed of our fears and needs and ability to obtain before we even understand those or remember. Who am I though? Depends on who you are to an extent. But beyond that? I crave affection and will work hard for it. I crave new experience and will push past fear for it. I never want to hurt anyone or allow anyone to hurt. I think that is my core and the core of a lot of us. Most of the rest is situational and window dressing. How's that? Too basic and boring?

    I don't know. It didn't feel like I was talking out of my ass anyway. If I was then that's me too.

    Hey qolelis you said what I did at the end without my knowing it till I posted! We mind melded.

  25. #50
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    We all agree on what we see as blue.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •