User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 25

  1. #1

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

    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?
    Life would be tragic if it weren't funny. -Stephen Hawking

    Meet Richard P. Feynman

  2. #2
    Member Personality Analyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    40

    Default

    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.
    "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary" - Heraclitus

  3. #3

    Default

    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.
    Life would be tragic if it weren't funny. -Stephen Hawking

    Meet Richard P. Feynman

  4. #4
    I wanna fcken feel right Numbly Aware's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 so/sx
    Socionics
    LIE Te
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Bro, this is twisting my mind. Dammit INTJs
    One step ahead from yesterday~

  5. #5
    Member Personality Analyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Listening View Post
    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.
    "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary" - Heraclitus

  6. #6
    Member Personality Analyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ñoño View Post
    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
    "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary" - Heraclitus

  7. #7
    I wanna fcken feel right Numbly Aware's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 so/sx
    Socionics
    LIE Te
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Personality Analyst View Post
    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
    One step ahead from yesterday~
    Likes Personality Analyst liked this post

  8. #8
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2016
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    925 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    818

    Default

    "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.

  9. #9
    Musician Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ñoño View Post
    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.
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Personality Analyst View Post
    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).
    Life would be tragic if it weren't funny. -Stephen Hawking

    Meet Richard P. Feynman

Similar Threads

  1. Poster of the same type that you relate with the most
    By SpottingTrains in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 184
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 08:44 PM
  2. Males and females of the same type- differences?
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 05:23 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Are you different from the people of your same type?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 11:48 PM
  4. How well do you fit one of the 16 types?
    By Ilah in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-10-2008, 10:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO