"This is in contrast with other personality tests, such as Myers-Briggs, where different test instruments can produce different results for the same person, and where someone’s assessed personality characteristics can vary from year to year."
Between 11:00 and 14:00 minutes of Razib Khan's most recent podcast psychologist Brent Roberts explains the issues with the Myers Briggs test. He also talks at times about the continuity of personality over years and decades with general percentages.
What about the Flynn Effect? IQ rose by as much as 14 points over just a few generations. I don’t see how that could possibly be genetic. Maybe that involves education, or maybe not, but certainly demonstrates the possibility of big environmental / cultural effects.
he's obviously lying. seriously, the inability of the intelligentsia / academia / commentariat to honestly talk about OBVIOUS population group differences in iq and other traits (violence/homicides) is just astounding and cowardly and oh so tiresome. He honestly wants us to pretend to believe that he thinks there's no difference on avg genetically in iq between an Ashkenazi Jew and an aboriginal australian?
come on. He's lying. We know he's lying. He knows we know he's lying. but we all continue this farce. It has to stop.
In the second part of the book (specifically Chapter 10, Triggering a Creative Explosion, pp. 324-5), he pretty much invites us to give a "Straussian" reading to chapter 3:
"If we can't trust that scientists are speaking freely then how can we trust science? Take, for example, group differences and the role of genes that we discussed in Chapter 3. Based on my reading of the evidence, I came down on the side of culture being the primary cause of these differences, but you should only believe me if those who believe otherwise are equally able to express the most defensible version of their position. If the only voice that could be heard in polite circles was mine then how could you know that there was an alternative argument and hear the evidence for it?"
We all know that arguing for the existence of racial differences in intelligence (or time preference or executive function or marshmallow eating or ...) is academic, and in polite circles social, suicide.
IMHO you can't talk about IQ without embracing (in some way) "The Bell Curve", (which is a long and somewhat tedious read. ) But the genetic component of IQ is obvious to all parents, well maybe just the smart parents. And to be on the left is to hate the bell curve. It's a tribal thing.
I suspect for psychiatrists, looking to ameliorate some mental illness, the Big 5 is more useful to help people heal. (Tho Rob Henderson notes each has 2 aspects, so it's more like 10)
For normal folk, non psych researchers, the MBTI 4 factor model has more immediate use. The 16 types, among 4 main temperaments, especially allows more communication understanding.
NT - NF - SJ - SP [These are far more specific than horoscopes, and more understandable]
The 4 axes (Introvert-Extrovert doesn't determine any of the 4 temperaments):
(to get the official names right; below is my memory from years ago)
Each of the 4 temperaments is different AND recognizable.
The names of the axis are admittedly not so good - so I've changed them in my mind.
I'd bet all of the commenters here are iNtuitive - N ("abstract") rather than Sensing - (concrete, specific), and probably most are of the NT (abstract Thinkers) rather than NF (abstract Feelers), where making decisions based on Feelings or Thinking is an important, useful difference.
Rather than Judging-Perceiving, I'd prefer Closure-Open, clean desk vs messy desk. Finishing projects rather than having many balls in the air. For the concrete (Sensing, not so abstract) folk, the J-P difference is more important.
This 16 personality model lists the possibilities. Yeah, folk on the border can be either. So for me, I'm an xNTP, sometimes Introvert, sometimes Extrovert. (So Logician or Debater; my guess for Arnold is that he's an INTJ Architect, with plans for everything)
It works. Because it's understandable, and memorable, and usable. In day to day life, especially with co-workers. Also, few folk always fit in any box - but having 4 big boxes which are different but recognizable, is quite valuable.
It's so clear and easy, everybody can understand it and relate to it -- and NOT need to pay a psychiatrist just to "understand" others.
I challenge any who like the Big 5 more to set up categories of people and how to understand them differently based on the category.
Given Arnold's excellent "Three Languages of Politics", which is another simplification, I'm a bit surprised he doesn't like the useful MBTI. Less surprised by money-seeking professionals against a simpler simple that is good enough for 80% of the people, 90% of the time.
Tho the current craze of demonization of oppressors and adulation for victims seems more like mass hysteria, that none of the personality models explain.
"Innate includes genetic inheritance but also development of the brain in the womb."
I don't know if any studies get past the possibility of unrelated correlation but I'm reasonably certain poor nutrition, stress, and/or isolation (limited stimulation) during the first five years or so, with worse consequences at younger ages, will stunt intelligence. If so, we for sure don't know the limits of intelligence gain by optimizing those factors.
Given that, I'd bet that early education could have some impact on intelligence.
<i>Our intuitive idea of someone’s race may not align with a scientific analysis of that person’s genetic ancestry.</i>
We often read this assertion, but how true is it? I haven't seen any studies, but it seems to me that Americans will determine the racial status of anyone they meet within a few seconds as part of the overall scan of status markers. Race is the single most salient factor in American social life. Edge cases notwithstanding, I'll bet our intuitive guesses more often than not line up with the genetic markers.
"This is in contrast with other personality tests, such as Myers-Briggs, where different test instruments can produce different results for the same person, and where someone’s assessed personality characteristics can vary from year to year."
Between 11:00 and 14:00 minutes of Razib Khan's most recent podcast psychologist Brent Roberts explains the issues with the Myers Briggs test. He also talks at times about the continuity of personality over years and decades with general percentages.
What about the Flynn Effect? IQ rose by as much as 14 points over just a few generations. I don’t see how that could possibly be genetic. Maybe that involves education, or maybe not, but certainly demonstrates the possibility of big environmental / cultural effects.
he's obviously lying. seriously, the inability of the intelligentsia / academia / commentariat to honestly talk about OBVIOUS population group differences in iq and other traits (violence/homicides) is just astounding and cowardly and oh so tiresome. He honestly wants us to pretend to believe that he thinks there's no difference on avg genetically in iq between an Ashkenazi Jew and an aboriginal australian?
come on. He's lying. We know he's lying. He knows we know he's lying. but we all continue this farce. It has to stop.
In the second part of the book (specifically Chapter 10, Triggering a Creative Explosion, pp. 324-5), he pretty much invites us to give a "Straussian" reading to chapter 3:
"If we can't trust that scientists are speaking freely then how can we trust science? Take, for example, group differences and the role of genes that we discussed in Chapter 3. Based on my reading of the evidence, I came down on the side of culture being the primary cause of these differences, but you should only believe me if those who believe otherwise are equally able to express the most defensible version of their position. If the only voice that could be heard in polite circles was mine then how could you know that there was an alternative argument and hear the evidence for it?"
We all know that arguing for the existence of racial differences in intelligence (or time preference or executive function or marshmallow eating or ...) is academic, and in polite circles social, suicide.
IMHO you can't talk about IQ without embracing (in some way) "The Bell Curve", (which is a long and somewhat tedious read. ) But the genetic component of IQ is obvious to all parents, well maybe just the smart parents. And to be on the left is to hate the bell curve. It's a tribal thing.
I suspect for psychiatrists, looking to ameliorate some mental illness, the Big 5 is more useful to help people heal. (Tho Rob Henderson notes each has 2 aspects, so it's more like 10)
For normal folk, non psych researchers, the MBTI 4 factor model has more immediate use. The 16 types, among 4 main temperaments, especially allows more communication understanding.
NT - NF - SJ - SP [These are far more specific than horoscopes, and more understandable]
The 4 axes (Introvert-Extrovert doesn't determine any of the 4 temperaments):
Introvert-Extrovert; iNtuitive-Sensing; Thinking-Feeling; Judging-Perceiving
https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/Myers-Briggs
(to get the official names right; below is my memory from years ago)
Each of the 4 temperaments is different AND recognizable.
The names of the axis are admittedly not so good - so I've changed them in my mind.
I'd bet all of the commenters here are iNtuitive - N ("abstract") rather than Sensing - (concrete, specific), and probably most are of the NT (abstract Thinkers) rather than NF (abstract Feelers), where making decisions based on Feelings or Thinking is an important, useful difference.
Rather than Judging-Perceiving, I'd prefer Closure-Open, clean desk vs messy desk. Finishing projects rather than having many balls in the air. For the concrete (Sensing, not so abstract) folk, the J-P difference is more important.
https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types (A slight Alternate description of the 16 types)
This 16 personality model lists the possibilities. Yeah, folk on the border can be either. So for me, I'm an xNTP, sometimes Introvert, sometimes Extrovert. (So Logician or Debater; my guess for Arnold is that he's an INTJ Architect, with plans for everything)
It works. Because it's understandable, and memorable, and usable. In day to day life, especially with co-workers. Also, few folk always fit in any box - but having 4 big boxes which are different but recognizable, is quite valuable.
The book I read years ago was Please Understand Me, by Keirsey & Bates, and there's yet another set of 16 types: https://keirsey.com/temperament-overview/
It's so clear and easy, everybody can understand it and relate to it -- and NOT need to pay a psychiatrist just to "understand" others.
I challenge any who like the Big 5 more to set up categories of people and how to understand them differently based on the category.
Given Arnold's excellent "Three Languages of Politics", which is another simplification, I'm a bit surprised he doesn't like the useful MBTI. Less surprised by money-seeking professionals against a simpler simple that is good enough for 80% of the people, 90% of the time.
Tho the current craze of demonization of oppressors and adulation for victims seems more like mass hysteria, that none of the personality models explain.
"Innate includes genetic inheritance but also development of the brain in the womb."
I don't know if any studies get past the possibility of unrelated correlation but I'm reasonably certain poor nutrition, stress, and/or isolation (limited stimulation) during the first five years or so, with worse consequences at younger ages, will stunt intelligence. If so, we for sure don't know the limits of intelligence gain by optimizing those factors.
Given that, I'd bet that early education could have some impact on intelligence.
<i>Our intuitive idea of someone’s race may not align with a scientific analysis of that person’s genetic ancestry.</i>
We often read this assertion, but how true is it? I haven't seen any studies, but it seems to me that Americans will determine the racial status of anyone they meet within a few seconds as part of the overall scan of status markers. Race is the single most salient factor in American social life. Edge cases notwithstanding, I'll bet our intuitive guesses more often than not line up with the genetic markers.