= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tem42 comments on Open thread, Nov. 02 - Nov. 08, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (194)
I think I would actually recommend this. If other people are deeply mysterious to you, then reading up on personality types and trying to recognize them in the wild is helpful training and theory.
The trouble is twofold:
The theory will be incomplete, and only give you broad understanding.
The theory will be limiting, in that you will be more likely to notice observations that match the theory than observations that do not agree with the theory.
You can ameliorate both troubles by learning multiple theories, and trying to hold them in your head / evaluate people along different ones simultaneously.
(There's a longer conversation here, about how much learning should be system 1 vs. system 2, and how to tell what level of development you are in a skill, and so on, but that's probably enough for now.)
You might be able to do a bit better; learn a simple and catchy system like the True Colors personality spectrum (a simplified adaptation of the Myers-Briggs), and work on understanding why it works. (Or if you like, why it "works".) While you might guess someone's 'color' incorrectly, if you understand why everyone identifies at least a little with every color, you can start to use general, positive statements to identify what people like about themselves. It should be a productive exercise in understanding the average person's self concept.