Like wedrifid, I test as an ENFP on online tests, but if I answer questions like I would have if I hadn't learned social skills, I come out as an INTP. The INTP profile I mentioned is freakily accurate, and not just in a horoscope type of way.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think it's a matter of Schelling Points. For many people, their self-interest will gradually increase in an interaction with you in subtle ways (e.g. being late for things, being flaky on plans, being dramatic/insecure/tactless, etc...). They will slowly try to structure the interaction around their needs, until they run into a boundary set by you. I think this sort of behavior is totally normal for many personality types, male or female. I think the only types of people who don't do this kind of thing are some types of high-IQ nerds, introverts, and people with very high Agreeableness and/or low assertiveness.

The tough part is that all these boundary-pushing behaviors start off small, and are generally unintentional, so it can be hard to figure out the right time to put your foot down without feeling like a jerk.

I've seen some such discussions get quite bad but I've seen others where apparently calm rational discussion took place.

That's my experience, too. I have seen progress being made in some of the discussions about gender, even though they can be frustrating. But perhaps I'm focusing on the exchanges that I was involved in.

PUA/Feminism are inherently somewhat political, especially when they are viewed as opposites.

Arguably, they aren't opposites, because they have significant overlap on certain dimensions. I've argued that a lot of pickup techniques are actually compatible with feminist values.

Then there are folks who criticize both feminism and pickup for being overly pandering to women:

http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2010/02/pua-scam.html

PUA theory takes the extreme position that men are usually to blame for lack of success with women. This of course complements the (radical) feminist view that men are inadequate. So PUAs are basically sympathizers with the feminist view that men are intrinsically lacking. And one side effect of this is that it translates into a somewhat hostile view that PUAs have towards "normal" guys, referring to them as "AFC" (Average Frustrated Chump).

http://aleknovy.com/2011/07/18/the-anti-game-method-if-you-hate-game-and-find-it-incompatible-with-mra-and-matriarchy-fighting/

Basically, game is all about YOU getting positive reinforcement from shitty women. Game is all about being an excellent dog, so that your master (bad women) throw you a bone for a well done job. You perform the trick, you get the cookie.

When I see gamers bragging about how they can trigger certain responses from women at will, I imagine dogs bragging that they can trigger sympathy from their master. I imagine a dog bragging to another dog “You know, I have this special expression I do, and the master always tears up when I do it and gives me a cookie! I control him, muahahah!”

Game teaches you how to overcome bad-women’s games and manipulations, instead of punishing them. Even if you do “succeed” in passing shitty behavior (assuming “game” is better than placebo) – what did you actually gain?! Didn’t you just positively reinforce that same shitty behavior in those types of women?

So what does game do? It just makes you a better pussy-beggar. It teaches you how to better do what shitty-women want you to do. It teaches you to reward bitchiness by dancing better to the song she sings.

If I was reading the thought experiment correctly, the aliens are only allowed to let people die and then eat them. So the aliens wouldn't be causing any patients to die who wouldn't have died anyway. If the aliens were allowed to eat humans before they died, then that would change the whole example and make consequentialists even more pessimistic.