Do men & women of the same 'type' have equal outcomes?

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I think if you compare two people of the same 'type' and alter a variable and compare their outcomes this can be an approximate gauge of 'fairness' in terms of who has the better end of a deal. I use type here only because people on this site think about that, are interested in it, and ascribe it some significance, but you can just look at individuals as a host of variables that vary under different circumstances. So let's say two people have the same general intelligence, skill, attractiveness, emotional capacity, etc and you vary other factors like gender, income, etc how does it change the individual outcome? I think for example that most women tend to have better outcomes (all else being equal) as men of the same level of attractiveness during the period of adolescence. I think men who are very wealthy tend to have much better outcomes than equally wealthy women (all other factors identical with only gender varying). What other "rules" could we create? Is there a sort of Calculus of human outcomes or potentiality that measurably varies as certain parameters change? To what degree are the parameters that cause the variance arbitrary?

 

[Personality Analyst]

I think that there could be a sort of human calculus but it would be too complex to condense into defined formulas and laws. Unless we have a way to objectively quantify internal psychic phenomena and link that to observable behavior, I highly doubt whether it can be mapped out.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Obviously in the case of human beings, you would be attempting to map a complex system with a few variables, so it wouldn't correspond exactly, but you could get around this by making some assumptions about whether some variable is highly correlated or not to some set of other variables and then multiplying them through as probabilistic statements. It doesn't matter too much anyway because we already do this to some degree with complex systems, for example in game theory or economics to predict decision strategies or outcomes of economic variables. It would probably be a better way to quantify psychology or perhaps sociology. You could literally map the regions where under different confluences of variables outcomes vary so as to describe the variances more accurately. If the model is incorrect it could always be checked against data that has been gathered about agents.

 

[Numbly Aware]

Bro, this is twisting my mind. Dammit INTJs

 

[Personality Analyst]

Obviously in the case of human beings, you would be attempting to map a complex system with a few variables, so it wouldn't correspond exactly, but you could get around this by making some assumptions about whether some variable is highly correlated or not to some set of other variables and then multiplying them through as probabilistic statements. It doesn't matter too much anyway because we already do this to some degree with complex systems, for example in game theory or economics to predict decision strategies or outcomes of economic variables. It would probably be a better way to quantify psychology or perhaps sociology. You could literally map the regions where under different confluences of variables outcomes vary so as to describe the variances more accurately. If the model is incorrect it could always be checked against data that has been gathered about agents.

1- The problem with game theory and economics (particularly the neoclassical school) is that they use extremely oversimplified assumptions that don't correspond to reality, the main one being that all actors are rational and have perfect information, which is not the case (our brains are limited in their cognitive processing so we can't have perfect information, and there are various forms of spending that aren't rational such as conspicuous consumption). Overall, they're an idealized and elegant model but their bearing on reality is severely limited [check behavioral economics, which is trying to rectify this issue by factoring in human subjectivity]

2- As for quantifying psychology, this isn't as straightforward as you've written. In psychology, behaviorism measures observable phenomena only, under the assumption that it is an effect of internal psychic phenomena. In other words, they don't directly quantify internal psychic phenomena, and hence their theories leave out a lot of variables. In the case of sociology, I'm not sure. I think the field that had the best crack at it was organizational theory (but not to the extent that you're proposing)

In the present state of neuroscience research It can't be done (it's a relatively young field, around 30 years old I think), so maybe in the future with more discoveries about the brain. I'm not trying to shoot your idea down, just wanting to point out that it's a very very complicated endeavor. For the moment, I think the best way to go is through interpretive methods while taking into account human biases and trying to limit their influence on results.

 

[Personality Analyst]

Bro, this is twisting my mind. Dammit INTJs

That's good. It means we're helping accelerate the neurogenesis process in your brain, you should be thankful

 

[Numbly Aware]

That's good. It means we're helping accelerate the neurogenesis process in your brain, you should be thankful

Thank you, Senpai...

I'd like to see an INFJ vs INTJ battle
Maybe, I should call all the INFJs and INTJs....hmmm lol but that'll be like, impossible for us because first we'd have to have a subject and, well, one we agree on..
The only we we could truly battle is Ni vs Ni.... other than that, good luck. It's unlikely for Fe vs Te and Fi vs Ti.. bummer

 

[Jeremy8419]

"have a better outcome" is a subjective statement, so you would first have to set an objective criteria for such. Probably the most "normal" one would be reproduction, standard of living, and non-volatile lineage; e.g., the Kennedy's had some, but also had very high volatility in their lineage, and would not be considered "better outcome."

In personal example, I've plugged in statistics for my various things which you referenced, as well as things such as race, gender, religion, etc., and compared to the USA population, and, if I recall correctly, combined it had like 2 people (including) myself with such statistics or higher. However, my personal views of "better outcome" are similar to those I have posted, while taking into account my inherent and immutable parts, and my "better outcome" revolves around conversion of such things into the best practical future for myself and my lineage. If any of that makes any sense lol.

 

[Forever]

Thank you, Senpai...

I'd like to see an INFJ vs INTJ battle
Maybe, I should call all the INFJs and INTJs....hmmm lol but that'll be like, impossible for us because first we'd have to have a subject and, well, one we agree on..
The only we we could truly battle is Ni vs Ni.... other than that, good luck. It's unlikely for Fe vs Te and Fi vs Ti.. bummer

I don't think you're 1w9 for any mbti type. They're painfully serious people. Unless you're like really unhealthy which even that doesn't make sense.

2w3
3w2
6w7
7w6
7w8
8w7
Are your possible enneagram types.

You sound ExxP to me for now. Will have to check in later.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

1- The problem with game theory and economics (particularly the neoclassical school) is that they use extremely oversimplified assumptions that don't correspond to reality, the main one being that all actors are rational and have perfect information, which is not the case (our brains are limited in their cognitive processing so we can't have perfect information, and there are various forms of spending that aren't rational such as conspicuous consumption). Overall, they're an idealized and elegant model but their bearing on reality is severely limited [check behavioral economics, which is trying to rectify this issue by factoring in human subjectivity]

2- As for quantifying psychology, this isn't as straightforward as you've written. In psychology, behaviorism measures observable phenomena only, under the assumption that it is an effect of internal psychic phenomena. In other words, they don't directly quantify internal psychic phenomena, and hence their theories leave out a lot of variables. In the case of sociology, I'm not sure. I think the field that had the best crack at it was organizational theory (but not to the extent that you're proposing)

In the present state of neuroscience research It can't be done (it's a relatively young field, around 30 years old I think), so maybe in the future with more discoveries about the brain. I'm not trying to shoot your idea down, just wanting to point out that it's a very very complicated endeavor. For the moment, I think the best way to go is through interpretive methods while taking into account human biases and trying to limit their influence on results.

I think you're wrong. You can use a model free method that justs feeds in raw data into a sort of strange attractor. I mean basically this is what the field of big data does and nobody knows how the results of training a neural learning network with a large dataset works. I'm talking about doing something similar but involving human intelligence so we can help identify the most relevant factors and use some kind of dimensionality reduction to get rid of statistically insignificant data (ie if you like starburts on facebook that data point probably doesn't have too high of a meaning on who you are as a person at least as a lone data point and any information it captures could likely be found with more relevant variables).

 

[Jeremy8419]

I don't think you're 1w9 for any mbti type. They're painfully serious people. Unless you're like really unhealthy which even that doesn't make sense.

2w3
3w2
6w7
7w6
7w8
8w7
Are your possible enneagram types.

You sound ExxP to me for now. Will have to check in later.

Don't forget that it's the interweb. She may simply act ExxP online. I often get confused with IxTx online.

 

[cascadeco]

Psychohistory/ begin the Foundation!!! /slightly off topic

(Asimov wrote a series of books of a similar theme, around idea that in very very large macro numbers psychology could be quantified, behavior predicted, civilization guided, but wasn't possible at individual level)

 

[Forever]

Don't forget that it's the interweb. She may simply act ExxP online. I often get confused with IxTx online.

If you're one of the "rarest types" why would you act in any other way? Surely this way of speaking is not to blend in for sure.

 

[Jeremy8419]

If you're one of the "rarest types" why would you act in any other way? Surely this way of speaking is not to blend in for sure.

Because people have various reasons for being online. Some seek companionship, some seek novelty, some seek X, some seek Y. Perhaps, she simply is online as an outlet for E and P sides of herself. Perhaps, I am simply online as an outlet for T sides of myself, which is actually true, because regardless of type, most of my acquaintances aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

 

[Forever]

Because people have various reasons for being online. Some seek companionship, some seek novelty, some seek X, some seek Y. Perhaps, she simply is online as an outlet for E and P sides of herself. Perhaps, I am simply online as an outlet for T sides of myself, which is actually true, because regardless of type, most of my acquaintances aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

So your argument here is that it should be fine that she can be any image she wants (or he) because she is behind a computer screen and therefore unaccountable?

 

[Jeremy8419]

So your argument here is that it should be fine that she can be any image she wants (or he) because she is behind a computer screen and therefore unaccountable?

No, my argument is to not confuse your perception of reality with the overall culmination of others' perception of reality. You witness her online, which is probably a very narrow view of the total of her personality traits in life, and say this view is X, but that has no bearing on if the view itself is an accurate representation of her.

 

[Personality Analyst]

I think you're wrong. You can use a model free method that justs feeds in raw data into a sort of strange attractor. I mean basically this is what the field of big data does and nobody knows how the results of training a neural learning network with a large dataset works. I'm talking about doing something similar but involving human intelligence so we can help identify the most relevant factors and use some kind of dimensionality reduction to get rid of statistically insignificant data (ie if you like starburts on facebook that data point probably doesn't have too high of a meaning on who you are as a person at least as a lone data point and any information it captures could likely be found with more relevant variables).

I'm wrong about which part from what I wrote?

As for big data, I totally forgot about that and I agree with you that it could apply at the macro level (the domain of sociology) and you could have a human calculus for behavior. But for quantifying internal psychic phenomena (i.e. Attitudes, emotions, metacognition, etc...) at the individual level I disagree, unless you have solid causal links between them and observable behavior (I haven't seen anybody do that yet, as I mentioned prior with the mind-body problem). Otherwise you'd just be plugging in observable behavior data into big data and it ends up giving you an incomplete model because the data you've gleaned is itself incomplete. If you're using the term human calculus as I'm thinking, you would have to account for individual human nuances and differences as well.

(Asimov wrote a series of books of a similar theme, around idea that in very very large macro numbers psychology could be quantified, behavior predicted, civilization guided, but wasn't possible at individual level)

Illustrates my point.

 

[Vasilisa]

I know my calculus

I think that there could be a sort of human calculus....

please pardon me, I am merely here for the human calculus

 

[Personality Analyst]

And human calculus you shall have

please pardon me, I am merely here for the human calculus

This is hilarious.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I'm wrong about which part from what I wrote?

As for big data, I totally forgot about that and I agree with you that it could apply at the macro level (the domain of sociology) and you could have a human calculus for behavior. But for quantifying internal psychic phenomena (i.e. Attitudes, emotions, metacognition, etc...) at the individual level I disagree, unless you have solid causal links between them and observable behavior (I haven't seen anybody do that yet, as I mentioned prior with the mind-body problem). Otherwise you'd just be plugging in observable behavior data into big data and it ends up giving you an incomplete model because the data you've gleaned is itself incomplete. If you're using the term human calculus as I'm thinking, you would have to account for individual human nuances and differences as well.

Illustrates my point.

Ima just throw this out there for consideration, but... This sounds an awful lot like what EII are themselves naturally in Socionics terms, except that the individual processors and regulators of such are delineated in the form of multitudes of individual EII performing the function for the macrosystem of "humanity" and in relation to that macrosystem compared to other macrosystems.