idea for investigating personality descriptions

[ygolo]

We know about the Forrer Effect.

What if we gave people a list of statements and asked them how well each statement described them. Then we can get both a distribution of self description and where people fall along that distribution. We can find universal self descriptors as well as individualized self descriptors.

What do you think of this idea?

 

[Entropic]

Terrible.

 

[ygolo]

Terrible.

Why?

 

[Entropic]

Why?

I could give you various reasons why but here are some:

1. How do we even determine what statements to ask each type? How do we determine what's relevant? Would the statements formulated thus not reveal more of a bias of the statements formulator than the people it tries to type?
2. People are more diverse than what can be captured in a couple of statements.
3. Statements are likely to measure behavior, not functions.
4. It fails to capture the depth of human cognition.

And I could go on.

 

[ygolo]

I could give you various reasons why but here are some:

1. How do we even determine what statements to ask each type? How do we determine what's relevant? Would the statements formulated thus not reveal more of a bias of the statements formulator than the people it tries to type?

We could get suggestions from everyone who participates, and keep getting more and more suggestions as more people participate. Relevance is more difficult, but the idea is to cast as wide a net as possible and see what we dredge up. We could even keep track (anonymously) what statements were suggested by particular users of the system, so that in some sense, we have an idea of the type of statements suggested correlate with the answers identified with.

2. People are more diverse than what can be captured in a couple of statements.

I was thinking quite a bit more than a couple of statements...I was thinking of the OK Cupid model. Actually, I think OK Cupid has some ridiculously large number of questions, and may even be able to do the type of analysis I am talking about already.

3. Statements are likely to measure behavior, not functions.

Yeah. So?

4. It fails to capture the depth of human cognition.

Agreed. But it gives us some food for thought, no?

And I could go on.

Please do. Criticism is important for idea development.

 

[Entropic]

We could get suggestions from everyone who participates, and keep getting more and more suggestions as more people participate. Relevance is more difficult, but the idea is to cast as wide a net as possible and see what we dredge up. We could even keep track (anonymously) what statements were suggested by particular users of the system, so that in some sense, we have an idea of the type of statements suggested correlate with the answers identified with.

Then you end up with the opposite problem of it being too generic so it ascribes to anyone.

I was thinking quite a bit more than a couple of statements...I was thinking of the OK Cupid model. Actually, I think OK Cupid has some ridiculously large number of questions, and may even be able to do the type of analysis I am talking about already.

Still doesn't capture functions.

Yeah. So?

Type is about cognitive function preference, not behavior.

Agreed. But it gives us some food for thought, no?

No. You got the Big 5 already if that's what you're looking for.

Please do. Criticism is important for idea development.

Too lazy to be bothered. I find this a fruitless endeavor to begin with.

 

[ygolo]

Then you end up with the opposite problem of it being too generic so it ascribes to anyone.

I think I didn't make myself clear in the first post. I am not attempting to recreate the Big 5. No factor analysis of any sort here. I am thinking for every statement, you would have a distribution of how strongly people identified or didn't identify with it. You could then also see how you fall on that distribution. Again, think OK Cupid/Hello Quizzy.

You as a user could then query what you thought would be an interesting analysis. What other statements do people who were like you also identify with? What about people on the other end of the distribution? You could then suggest a statement that may be useful. Perhaps even give your own opinion of what would be the result.

In some sense, then you could track a network. User 1234 doesn't identify with anything that user 4321 suggests (creating a particular sort of relation). User 1235 agrees with most of what user 1234, but in a more extreme part of the distribution (suggesting a different sort of relation)....and so on.

Still doesn't capture functions.


Type is about cognitive function preference, not behavior.

No. You got the Big 5 already if that's what you're looking for.
Too lazy to be bothered. I find this a fruitless endeavor to begin with.

Well, anyways. You were the only one who responded. "Terrible", although a little unexpected, was at least participation. Thanks for that.

 

[Entropic]

I think I didn't make myself clear in the first post. I am not attempting to recreate the Big 5. No factor analysis of any sort here. I am thinking for every statement, you would have a distribution of how strongly people identified or didn't identify with it. You could then also see how you fall on that distribution. Again, think OK Cupid/Hello Quizzy.

You as a user could then query what you thought would be an interesting analysis. What other statements do people who were like you also identify with? What about people on the other end of the distribution? You could then suggest a statement that may be useful. Perhaps even give your own opinion of what would be the result.

But why would I have to identify with anything but myself? I don't relate well necessarily when other Fi types describe Fi. There are a wide variety of reasons why this is. You're trying to simplify a complex phenomenon but you miss out the depth that is actually relevant.

In some sense, then you could track a network. User 1234 doesn't identify with anything that user 4321 suggests (creating a particular sort of relation). User 1235 agrees with most of what user 1234, but in a more extreme part of the distribution (suggesting a different sort of relation)....and so on.

And what purpose would there be for that? I think you will find that there is a greater variation among people of the same type and that two different types can be more similar than two of the same type.

Well, anyways. You were the only one who responded. "Terrible", although a little unexpected, was at least participation. Thanks for that.

I think the lack of participation probably says something about your idea.

 

[GranChi]

Personally I think that sounds like a cool idea, ygolo.