Post by nymph on Apr 29, 2018 5:18:51 GMT -5
[1:46 AM] CorrendousHunt: www.objectivepersonality.com/
Objective Personality | Home
ObjectivePersonality
Objective Personality: We use the scientific method to define and track the 8 Jungian Functions.
[1:46 AM] CorrendousHunt: Read.
[1:47 AM] CorrendousHunt: It makes good sense.
[2:16 AM] CorrendousHunt: Jolly good. It's hard to not see sense tbh.
[2:20 AM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): “Objective Personality”
“Type Made Empirical”
I know we need an objective metric. I love the objective metrics. But I’m feeling pretty antiscientism zealot-y this past week so in this very moment at least, these website names feel epistemically tyrannical.
[2:20 AM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Also your Te is showing :yum:
[2:25 AM] CorrendousHunt: Nah man. Since being told that I'm TiNe (albeit a really fucked up one) everything has made a lot of sense. Their system goes a lot deeper than what we're used to. 512 types deep.
[2:25 AM] CorrendousHunt: We have different 'animals' aka ways we expend energy or whatever.
[2:26 AM] CorrendousHunt: Consume, Play, Blast and Sleep.
[2:47 AM] CorrendousHunt: "Over the years, we were surprised to find that people of the exact same 512 type/number often looked alike and had the same sexual preferences. People of the exact same type most often have common mental and physical health issues. Below are just a few examples of what we are seeing at scale."
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: I've spent time learning the system, and blah, and I like what I see. That's all I'm trying to say. I have neither the time nor the willingness to go in to it now, hence linking the site. Y'all analytical types so I figured you'd like to look in to it.
[2:53 AM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Goodnight!
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: It isn't.
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: Spectrum.
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: Vast.
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt:
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: 16 vs 512.
[2:54 AM] CorrendousHunt: Have a good sleep!
[12:59 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): I have a lot of respect for Dave Powers, and he actually has data (formulated in his own form) that I'd really like to look at. I don't think egos or 'winning' have anything to do with this correndoushunt . If Dave had the answer, I'd be elated. But I see some of the same problems in his approach as in so many before; namely that he's going the psychometric route.(edited)
[1:00 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l):
"Read.
It makes good sense."
^ ...because it's possible to come up with a self-consistent psychometric that makes sense but doesn't actually reflect reality(edited)
[1:01 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): well, i should say, a robust psychometric (i.e. Big Five) points to some reality existing at a given resolution but it can say little about underlying cause
[1:05 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): if, as he says, his main goal is to "get the same result as his partner" then you can get repeatability and standardization (certainly worth having!) but it leaves still the question of why and on what reasoning the chosen variables and categories are selected
[1:09 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): also, it seems the number 512 may be inflated! ...as it only covers ~32 (64?) actual type categories from what i can tell, and the additional multiplication comes from a hybridization with a gender (sexual orientation?) model. So it seems to be a compound system?(edited)
[1:10 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): But regarding the part of it that is typological...
[1:11 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): Sleep/Consume/Blast/Play are essentially Reviser, Conductor, Double Intro, Double Extro... which are categories we already cover here
[1:12 PM] Phibious: ^^ I noticed that match too.
[1:12 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l):
Tribe = Je
Self = Ji
Organize = Pi
Gather = Pe
[1:13 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): So there's nothing really new here, although I'm encouraged to see other MBTI models 'catching up' per se :grinning:
[1:14 PM] f a e: @auburn | TiNe (ll-l) it would be really great if you could compare their results with CT. Do they do celebrities?
[1:14 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): But they don't cover polarization (l--l) and a few other interesting development levels
[1:14 PM] corvo: ^
[1:15 PM] Phibious: Do they have a public typing list?
[1:15 PM] f a e: I saw a claim about lookalikes wit pictures and all. Wonder if those pple are one type in CT
[1:15 PM] Phibious: That would be the obvious comparison point if you wanted to do that.
[1:15 PM] Phibious: Any of us could do it ourselves by reading down lists.
[1:16 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): As for the 512 resolution...
the direction CT is now evolving, with the development levels + attitude of F and flat affect, pushes it up to a resolution of 1024 (with a maximum resolution of 4096 if we consider ego association)
[1:16 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): @f a e we can actually check! yea since they have their names below the pics
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: @auburn | TiNe (ll-l) "if, as he says, his main goal is to "get the same result as his partner" then you can get repeatability and standardization (certainly worth having!) but it leaves still the question of why and on what reasoning the chosen variables and categories are selected"
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: My main concern also ^
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: But, let's wait and see.
[1:17 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): mhm
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: If we can't do it, our AI overlords will :wink:
[1:18 PM] f a e: Was gonna submit a vid today just to compare wit CT, but that $109 price tag is prohibitive.
[1:18 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): hah! i do wonder sometimes if superintelligent A.I. is going to wake up in 15 years and just figure out everything, and make our efforts redundant
😅1
[1:18 PM] CorrendousHunt: $109? They must've bumped it up.
[1:19 PM] CorrendousHunt: I mean, it makes sense to me. Being an off the wall INTP actually makes more sense - to me - than being an ENTJ.
Objective Personality | Home
ObjectivePersonality
Objective Personality: We use the scientific method to define and track the 8 Jungian Functions.
[1:46 AM] CorrendousHunt: Read.
[1:47 AM] CorrendousHunt: It makes good sense.
[2:16 AM] CorrendousHunt: Jolly good. It's hard to not see sense tbh.
[2:20 AM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): “Objective Personality”
“Type Made Empirical”
I know we need an objective metric. I love the objective metrics. But I’m feeling pretty antiscientism zealot-y this past week so in this very moment at least, these website names feel epistemically tyrannical.
[2:20 AM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Also your Te is showing :yum:
[2:25 AM] CorrendousHunt: Nah man. Since being told that I'm TiNe (albeit a really fucked up one) everything has made a lot of sense. Their system goes a lot deeper than what we're used to. 512 types deep.
[2:25 AM] CorrendousHunt: We have different 'animals' aka ways we expend energy or whatever.
[2:26 AM] CorrendousHunt: Consume, Play, Blast and Sleep.
[2:47 AM] CorrendousHunt: "Over the years, we were surprised to find that people of the exact same 512 type/number often looked alike and had the same sexual preferences. People of the exact same type most often have common mental and physical health issues. Below are just a few examples of what we are seeing at scale."
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: I've spent time learning the system, and blah, and I like what I see. That's all I'm trying to say. I have neither the time nor the willingness to go in to it now, hence linking the site. Y'all analytical types so I figured you'd like to look in to it.
[2:53 AM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Goodnight!
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: It isn't.
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: Spectrum.
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: Vast.
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt:
[2:53 AM] CorrendousHunt: 16 vs 512.
[2:54 AM] CorrendousHunt: Have a good sleep!
[12:59 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): I have a lot of respect for Dave Powers, and he actually has data (formulated in his own form) that I'd really like to look at. I don't think egos or 'winning' have anything to do with this correndoushunt . If Dave had the answer, I'd be elated. But I see some of the same problems in his approach as in so many before; namely that he's going the psychometric route.(edited)
[1:00 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l):
"Read.
It makes good sense."
^ ...because it's possible to come up with a self-consistent psychometric that makes sense but doesn't actually reflect reality(edited)
[1:01 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): well, i should say, a robust psychometric (i.e. Big Five) points to some reality existing at a given resolution but it can say little about underlying cause
[1:05 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): if, as he says, his main goal is to "get the same result as his partner" then you can get repeatability and standardization (certainly worth having!) but it leaves still the question of why and on what reasoning the chosen variables and categories are selected
[1:09 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): also, it seems the number 512 may be inflated! ...as it only covers ~32 (64?) actual type categories from what i can tell, and the additional multiplication comes from a hybridization with a gender (sexual orientation?) model. So it seems to be a compound system?(edited)
[1:10 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): But regarding the part of it that is typological...
[1:11 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): Sleep/Consume/Blast/Play are essentially Reviser, Conductor, Double Intro, Double Extro... which are categories we already cover here
[1:12 PM] Phibious: ^^ I noticed that match too.
[1:12 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l):
Tribe = Je
Self = Ji
Organize = Pi
Gather = Pe
[1:13 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): So there's nothing really new here, although I'm encouraged to see other MBTI models 'catching up' per se :grinning:
[1:14 PM] f a e: @auburn | TiNe (ll-l) it would be really great if you could compare their results with CT. Do they do celebrities?
[1:14 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): But they don't cover polarization (l--l) and a few other interesting development levels
[1:14 PM] corvo: ^
[1:15 PM] Phibious: Do they have a public typing list?
[1:15 PM] f a e: I saw a claim about lookalikes wit pictures and all. Wonder if those pple are one type in CT
[1:15 PM] Phibious: That would be the obvious comparison point if you wanted to do that.
[1:15 PM] Phibious: Any of us could do it ourselves by reading down lists.
[1:16 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): As for the 512 resolution...
the direction CT is now evolving, with the development levels + attitude of F and flat affect, pushes it up to a resolution of 1024 (with a maximum resolution of 4096 if we consider ego association)
[1:16 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): @f a e we can actually check! yea since they have their names below the pics
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: @auburn | TiNe (ll-l) "if, as he says, his main goal is to "get the same result as his partner" then you can get repeatability and standardization (certainly worth having!) but it leaves still the question of why and on what reasoning the chosen variables and categories are selected"
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: My main concern also ^
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: But, let's wait and see.
[1:17 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): mhm
[1:17 PM] CorrendousHunt: If we can't do it, our AI overlords will :wink:
[1:18 PM] f a e: Was gonna submit a vid today just to compare wit CT, but that $109 price tag is prohibitive.
[1:18 PM] Auburn | TiNe (ll-l): hah! i do wonder sometimes if superintelligent A.I. is going to wake up in 15 years and just figure out everything, and make our efforts redundant
😅1
[1:18 PM] CorrendousHunt: $109? They must've bumped it up.
[1:19 PM] CorrendousHunt: I mean, it makes sense to me. Being an off the wall INTP actually makes more sense - to me - than being an ENTJ.