At least on the types, INTP probably refers to a real phenotype (which is common on LW), but I don't know if any of the other type combinations are real.
Just wondering, are you generally classified as INTP? I've noticed that people consistently put in one of the types are more likely to think that their type is real.
I think you are laboring under a slight misapprehension about personality research. Myers-Briggs isn't solid science. The eneagram isn't solid science. Astrological personality models aren't solid science. I think you have correctly noticed that "psychological traits" are a ripe area for epistemically unsound belief systems that appear to bear on something people hold near and dear (ie understanding other people) so you're justifiably suspicious of a mention of personality, which is laudable.
But you're asking for a defense of "all that crazy stuff", and a good defense of "all that crazy stuff" can't honestly be provided, because most of it really is bunk, or at least it has so much bunk mixed in that its only good for psychoceramic data or maybe to pan for gold that might be hiding in the crazy. The big five personality model is an attempt to do actual science in the same space in order to produce reasonably valid and reliable dimensions of human "personality" variation. The point of the big five is that there is solid research and a deep literature and so on, in contrast to all the crackpot stuff.
If someone uses the big five and you're suspicious and ask for a defense of personality systems in general, that's like someone using geometry and you being suspicious because you're only aware of a lot of crackpots who keep trying to square the circle and so you ask them to defend the squaring the circle stuff, (which was proved to be impossible in 1882) before you'll accept analysis of evidence that legitimately makes use of a "suspiciously geometric" concept like the triangle inequality.
Unfortunately, defending established science quickly is hard because the content of science generally involves real inferential distances. If you want to start reading in this area, two useful keywords are Psychometrics and Trait theory.
In practice, "Openness to new experience" is the weakest part of the big five personality model. It can be measured reliably and predicts various things you'd expect it to predict and relatively naturally falls out when you settle for using 5 dimensions rather than 3 dimensions or 18 dimensions. However, when researchers tried the same thing on other cultures to see if this was a human universal, it turned out that the other four (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) were relatively universal but in some cultures (if I remember correctly it was things like agrarian peasant societies?) basically everyone is pretty low in Openness relative to measurement norms derived from Japan or the US or whatever.
I think you are laboring under a slight misapprehension about personality research. Myers-Briggs isn't solid science. The eneagram isn't solid science.
Your understanding is consistent with mine. Myers-Briggs is really frustrating, because some of its ideas are anecdotally compelling (Introversion vs. Extraversion, Thinking vs. Feeling), while others are esoteric (Judging vs. Perceiving and Sensing vs. Intuition). At least on the types, INTP probably refers to a real phenotype (which is common on LW), but I don't know if any of the other type combinations are real.
Interestingly, the MBTI seems to almost reduce down to the Big Five according to this study.
Big five personality traits are kind of like that. From what I've read, they're better understood as mostly-orthogonal surface regularities with causal explanations from many different levels and sources rather than as fundamental causally coherent essences. Lots of people seem to expect human traits to coherently cause human behaviors, so it is worth emphasizing how liable such thinking is to produce error.
The way I've heard it explained goes something like this: "you don't like art because you are high in Openness. You are high in Openness because you like art."
Of course, since the Openness scale has reliability, you can make predictions about how someone would respond to one question from the scale if you know what they would respond to another item. Whether that's because of one underlying trait, or because of a bunch of converging traits, is an empirical question.
Ah, but who says she is being ineffective?
Me. You will notice (or, rather, I would usually expect HughRistik to notice) that the quote is explicitly conditional on the technique being a an overt self aware strategy. And I really do assert that if I was a self aware scheming manipulator that I could do better. Frankly it is an amateur move. A more talented or more experienced bitch (using the term in a technical sense to whatever extent that is possible) would sneer at the though of being so crude.
Humans were selected for having reproductively successful relationships, but not all successful mating strategies involve harmony.
I agree. War, rape, infanticide, murder and even being a pain in the ass are highly viable strategies. Learning how to be a pain in the ass productively is a highly recommended life skill.
Very well, I concede that there could be more powerful self-aware plays.
I agree there can be useful information conveyed through flirting, but my experience is that flirting does not usually correlate with the factors that I want to gain information about prior to making a dating decision. On the other hand, if I were interested only in brief sexual encounters, then flirting might communicate information about whether I will enjoy a person's company in the short term. I don't usually seek that, but can see how it would be useful for people who do.
It might be possible that flirting is more useful for negotiating short term sexual encounters, but I think there are still applications for long term relationships. For example, flirting can help determine whether your senses of humor are compatible, which could important for a long-term relationship.
Although you might not care much about the information conveyed through flirting, your prospective partners very much might. Flirting will give them a lot of information about your character and social experiences, which they could find useful for determining their desire for a relationship of any length.
All long-term relationships start off being short-term.
I agree with you. It probably is a certain amount of moral judgement. The way I experience a distaste in flirting is that it seems annoying and counterproductive to beat around the bush. I don't personally derive enjoyment from it. If I did, or wanted to, I might feel differently about it. Flirting would by no means be the worst thing to end up having as a preference. But I still think some self-hacking would have to happen before I would want to enjoy flirting.
The way I experience a distaste in flirting is that it seems annoying and counterproductive to beat around the bush.
I see flirting somewhat differently. Flirting gives an opportunity for both partners to showcase their social skills and gain information about what they each respond to sexually, and what sort of relationship they might have if they were to embark on one. It's like a mutual interview. Flirting will help your potential female partners determine what kind of guy you are, and if they are into you.
Flirting can often be direct, even though it is implicit rather than explicit. Yet many people find beating around the bush to be useful, because they want more time to assess their potential partner before making a commitment of interest. Personally, I am totally fine with giving a potential partner social information to help her assess her interest in me, rather than trying to get her to make a snap decision before she has sufficient information.
You still might not find flirting enjoyable, but perhaps you can see that it does serve some useful purposes.
You confidently characterize the man's comments as an effort to dominate. Why are you not equally cynical about Alice's motives? Why do you not conclude that her comments are part of a strategy to dominate in this domain of their relationship? Why not say "She may not consciously understand what she's doing, but that's what's happening."?
That seems about right. But entirely within the realm of normal social behavior. Being able to understand such dynamics does not make them any more sinister. The point about "she may not consciously understand, but" is good. And if she does understand then I will not judge her for being obnoxious, just for being obnoxious but ineffective.
Personally, I am inclined to be less cynical about both their motivations.
And if she does understand then I will not judge her for being obnoxious, just for being obnoxious but ineffective.
Ah, but who says she is being ineffective? That depends on her goals (see my reply to the parent). If her goal is to piss off Bob, and/or make him feel guilty and/or make his start getting apologetic, then she is already doing well. She's already got him to admit that he has done something wrong without making any explicit accusations (assuming he is being sincere, not sarcastic). Who says her goal is relationship harmony? Some people prefer drama.
Humans were selected for having reproductively successful relationships, but not all successful mating strategies involve harmony.
You confidently characterize the man's comments as an effort to dominate. Why are you not equally cynical about Alice's motives? Why do you not conclude that her comments are part of a strategy to dominate in this domain of their relationship? Why not say "She may not consciously understand what she's doing, but that's what's happening."?
Personally, I am inclined to be less cynical about both their motivations.
If by this you mean "Alice would explode at being called a liar," then I agree.
No, I mean she is not saying "Nothing" with the intent to deceive Bob into thinking that, in fact, nothing is wrong.
Communication is the transfer of information from speaker to listener: while I cannot reduce intent to the explicit meaning of words in this case I can reduce actual transfer to the explicit meaning of words (and a bit extra).
No. You really, really can't. You are ignoring the information Bob receives from her tone of voice and body language. Bob may be literal minded but he is obviously not so literal minded as to miss this information. If he were he would not have insisted on that Alice tell him what is wrong.
Bob: "What, what's wrong, Alice?"
Alice has already communicated to Bob that something is wrong with her body language, facial expressions or tone of voice.
Alice: Nothing.
But from the context that follows we know that Alice's body language and tone of voice did not express the same thing. And Bob realizes it when he says "It doesn't sound like that."
Bob: "It ... doesn't sound like that. Really, what's wrong."
From Alice's perspective this is a bit smug. She is thinking "I fucking know it doesn't sound like that". It is debatable at this point what Bob should have said, sometimes asking again will get an answer. But he knows that something is wrong and that she is not saying what-- it is reasonable to expect a socially competent person to by now understand that what she really means is something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not now.
Alice: "NOTHING. EVERYTHING'S FINE."
Alice is clearly pissed. Apparently she is yelling. And Bob clearly knows it. And Alice knows that Bob knows it. So Bob has certainly concluded that Alice means something else than literally "Nothing is wrong". And then...
Bob: "Please, Alice. I want to know what I did. Just tell me."
Bob has clearly figured out Alice is saying something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not right now." He is now assuming he did something wrong and begging to be told what it was. But why is he persisting? He should already know that she doesn't want to talk about it at the object level and doesn't want to talk about it at the meta level. Yet by trying to talk about it on the meta level he is going against her wishes and starting a fight.
Now what Bob should do is just let it alone for an hour and see if she want to talk about it then. He has the right to not put up with her attitude if she won't tell him what he did. I wouldn't want to hang out with Alice when she is in this mood and if she expects him to without her explaining herself then he can reasonably say "I'm not putting up with the silent treatment all afternoon. Either tell me whats up or I'm gonna go do something else."
As for whether or not Alice ought to expect Bob to figure it out-- it may or not be a good habit -- but Alice wanting that and trying to communicate it is not lying.
And while communication is extremely important not everything needs to be turned into a huge, dramatic discussion or debate. Alice may know she'll be over it in a little while but starting a fight would lead to week-long estrangement. I don't know which of them is "right"-- I'm not sure that makes to talk about since these aren't real people and there is not actual problem. I am not in agreement with TimS that Bob is trying to dominate Alice... I just think he's being stupid.
Unfortunately, Silas' original example is under-specified, so there are many different situations that could lead to it, or potential power plays on both sides. I'm going to make a guess that the scenario (in Silas' imagination) occurred because of something Bob did or didn't do that Alice didn't like.
Alice is fuming, and she very much wants Bob to know. She feels that Bob should know better. That's why she won't tell him what it is. She wants him to figure it out for himself, and apologize to her. If he asks what is wrong as if he doesn't know, and she has to tell him, then she admits that there was ambiguity in the original situation, or lack of knowledge on his part, that completely or partially exculpates him.
Alternatively, she might agree that there are exculpatory factors, but she still want to see if he will now realize what he did wrong and apologize without her having to spell it out for him. This approach might be especially important if he forgot something (maybe their anniversary), and she wants to see how long it will take him to remember.
Another possibility might be that she doesn't want to tell him what he did wrong because she doesn't want to look accusatory or nagging. So instead she just blast accusatory nonverbal communication at him until he understands that he is supposed to start admitting guilt.
If Silas is imagining the same scenario that is evoked in my mind, Alice is not trying to disengage from communicating with Bob all; she is trying to show her displeasure with him, and get him to (a) admit that he is at fault, and possibly also (b) apologize to what he is at fault for without her having to explain it, proving that he has either "learned his lesson" or that he isn't trying to "play innocent."
This interpretation leads me to agree with you that Alice is not lying, and that she is using implicit communication, but I think she may be doing it even more than you realize. Note that I take no position about who is in the right or in the wrong.
From Alice's perspective this is a bit smug. She is thinking "I fucking know it doesn't sound like that".
Yes.
But he knows that something is wrong and that she is not saying what-- it is reasonable to expect a socially competent person to by now understand that what she really means is something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not now.
If Bob has good reasons to expect that she is unhappy with him, then it's not clear at all that she really doesn't want to talk about it.
Alice: "NOTHING. EVERYTHING'S FINE." Bob has clearly figured out Alice is saying something like "I don't want to talk about it, at least not right now." He is now assuming he did something wrong and begging to be told what it was. But why is he persisting?
Under the scenario I'm imagining, it's obvious why he persists. He doesn't believe that Alice is serious about not wanting to talk, based on the context, body language, and tone of voice. He interprets her communication to mean "I don't want to talk about the thing you did wrong unless you stop playing innocent about it and start groveling." That's why he starts groveling by admitting that he did something wrong... That might satisfy Alice, or she might want him to guess or admit exactly what he did wrong without her having to explain it.
In heated arguments, people often say and do things that they don't mean, or to test the reaction of the other partner. Alice could be sincere that she doesn't want to talk, but she could also be testing to see if Bob cares enough to find out what she is unhappy about, or if he will admit full culpability and apologize.
And while communication is extremely important not everything needs to be turned into a huge, dramatic discussion or debate.
Some personality types feel differently.
Alice may know she'll be over it in a little while but starting a fight would lead to week-long estrangement.
Wait, what makes you think that Alice isn't trying to start a fight? She could be defending a Schelling Point.
Depending on the nonverbals, her behavior could be an excellent way to start a fight, while pretending that Bob is the one instigating it by pestering her. If she really didn't want to start a fight, she could either hide her displeasure better, or making it sound absolutely cold and serious that she doesn't want to talk. The fact that Bob is following up with questions suggests that he thinks she is trying to either start a fight, so he tries to roll over on his belly by asking what he did.
I am not in agreement with TimS that Bob is trying to dominate Alice... I just think he's being stupid.
This only way Bob is being dominating is if he knowingly did something majorly fucked up or abusive, and is pestering Alice and playing innocent while trying to cope with it. Short of that, there actually may be good contextual reasons for Bob to believe that Alice wants to continue communicating with him, but just wants him to take an apologetic role, or (if they both know she is upset by something other than him) a supportive role. If Alice is using passive-aggressiveness to try to put him into an apologetic and groveling role, then she is the dominating one (of course, whether this is justified depends on context). Unless Bob is obviously in the wrong, then he is being stupid by letting her get away with this power play, which gives her an incentive to get upset in the future any time she wants concessions from him.
Of course, this is only one possible reading of the situation; I just suspect that it's a bit closer to what Silas intended that most of the other readings.
A subject where plain speaking is apt to result in being massively downvoted.
Do you mean to say that you have evidence for your claim that you decline to present for fear of being downvoted?
Or have you already presented (or pointed towards) all your evidence for your claim?
I think sam0345 may be exaggerating with a projection of -10, but I think he isn't exaggerating when he suspects that there are examples of academic unreliability that would be unfeasible to discuss on LW, even though I am a bit more optimistic about what LW can handle than Vladimir_M, for instance. It would be a bad mistake to even attempt to collect evidence on some topics.
I'm a psych junkie, and by following certain online debates and reading journals, I've run into several topics where peer-review studies that aren't publicized contradict the public story. With some of these topics, LW has proven itself to not be quite ready for them, though Vladimir_M sometimes dances around them, and I and others have discussed some of the lighter ones. Other topics are not discussable in public at all in any forum where a speaker wants to retain any reputation. In fact, it would be a hazard to others to even mention these topics on LW, given that many people comment here with their real names, and LW would be tarred by even tolerating serious discussion of those findings.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
It may also be that you are recognizing the indications of interest correctly, but then screwing things up with your follow-up behavior. Usually, female attraction in the initial phases is easy to destroy with even a single serious misstep. (And it may be serious even if it seems insignificant or altogether non-obvious to you.)
I agree. Failing to recognize sex differences in attraction (particularly greater female selectiveness and preferences for behavior and personality traits) will sabotage males, and leave females turned off and creeped out.