"Credit" for hypothesis?

[Mr Skeptic]

Edmond Zedo, may you have learned to be much more calm about criticism and disagreement before you offer your first paper for peer review.

 

He's not going to be putting this up for peer review; it's all already been done by others who are actually experts in that area.

[JillSwift]

He's not going to be putting this up for peer review; it's all already been done by others who are actually experts in that area.

Yes, that is so. I was speaking more generically.

[Edmond Zedo]

He's not going to be putting this up for peer review; it's all already been done by others who are actually experts in that area.

I assume you're again mentioning that paper which did not state the same things I've stated in my hypotheses. Vaguely similar is not equal.

[Mr Skeptic]

I assume you're again mentioning that paper which did not state the same things I've stated in my hypotheses. Vaguely similar is not equal.

 

The rest of the paper says much more than the abstract. And if you were actually going to research your hypothesis, you would have read more of that paper and also done a more thorough search.

 

What did you think of this software?

 

Or maybe you think that the people who already did what you were proposing, only with more variables, somehow missed your particular ones?

[Edmond Zedo]

The rest of the paper says much more than the abstract. And if you were actually going to research your hypothesis, you would have read more of that paper and also done a more thorough search.

 

What did you think of this software?

 

Or maybe you think that the people who already did what you were proposing, only with more variables, somehow missed your particular ones?

Quite. You can't determine depth with a portrait.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's not easy finding straight profiles on the net, but I have, to at least illustrate where the ideas of mine are coming from. Clint Eastwood has been typed by many as ISTP, and I agree with that, but I believe I typed Dawkins as INTP without input. I'm personally confident in both of the individuals' types.

 

Eastwood (ISTP) Left, Dawkins (INTP) Right. Note the positions of the front of the eyes.

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

"Intuition/Sensing (N/S),"

 

Seems to be the pair, out of the 4 pairs in the 16 personality types that you are thinking is most related to your brow,nose observation.

 

I am trying to catch your drift on this, but miss it, since this is the same area, the N/S, difference, in the personality types, that you argue that Jung and Myer got wrong?

 

So how can you base your correlation of brow-nose size, to N/S differences, on the very system of personality types, that you disagree with?

 

If Jung got it wrong, then all the people that are N should be S, and S should be N?

 

So if you type someone as an N, and Jung types the same someone as an N, then we have a problem.

 

So please explain to me again your argument with Jung on the N and the S.

Please explain to me again what the people with more nose and brow forward of their eyes are, N or S.

Please explain what part of the brain is located in the nose(no, just kidding)

Seriously, I would like to know about your N S debate with Jung.

But I am confused on how you use the results of Myer-Brigg to back up the validity of your observations, yet disagree with their understanding of the same thing that you feel can be exactly arrived at, by a completely opposite method.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

What did you think of my speculation that ones N/S proclivity is based on the amount of them (their nose and brow) is in their field of vision?

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

Edmond Zedo,

 

"Intuition/Sensing (N/S),"

 

Seems to be the pair, out of the 4 pairs in the 16 personality types that you are thinking is most related to your brow,nose observation.

 

I am trying to catch your drift on this, but miss it, since this is the same area, the N/S, difference, in the personality types, that you argue that Jung and Myer got wrong?

 

So how can you base your correlation of brow-nose size, to N/S differences, on the very system of personality types, that you disagree with?

 

If Jung got it wrong, then all the people that are N should be S, and S should be N?

 

So if you type someone as an N, and Jung types the same someone as an N, then we have a problem.

 

So please explain to me again your argument with Jung on the N and the S.

Please explain to me again what the people with more nose and brow forward of their eyes are, N or S.

Please explain what part of the brain is located in the nose(no, just kidding)

Seriously, I would like to know about your N S debate with Jung.

But I am confused on how you use the results of Myer-Brigg to back up the validity of your observations, yet disagree with their understanding of the same thing that you feel can be exactly arrived at, by a completely opposite method.

 

Regards, TAR

I don't disagree with the type classifications, only the function assignments, and function orientation itself. For example, under MBTI , the INTP is said to have this function order: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (Introverted Thinking-Extraverted Intuition, Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Feeling). You want some hokum, there it is. It's never quite sat well with me, and I was only recently able to pin down exactly why. Firstly, Socionics got it righter, assigning Ni-Te-Si-Fe. But I got it righter still, by separating I/E out of the functions.

 

Jung should never have included Introversion and Extraversion in information processing, because it's a separate element. I've written a bit about that here (Multiple, sequential posts, most importantly the second post): http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=90

 

There's a link within that link to my function system. It's not an easy read.

 

__________________________

 

tar, I tentatively disagree with the assessment about field of vision, because it seems more likely to me that a biological difference in the brain itself is responsible.

[Mokele]

Let's back up - is there any a priori reason to assume any correlation between personality and skull shape? I don't mean personal experience, I mean developmental series, homologous genes in brain and skull formation, etc.

 

Another point worth considering - what about individuals with cranio-facial deformities? If skull shape influences personality, or vice versa, there should be clear and particular personality traits associated with particular deformities.

[Edmond Zedo]

Let's back up - is there any a priori reason to assume any correlation between personality and skull shape? I don't mean personal experience, I mean developmental series, homologous genes in brain and skull formation, etc.

As I noted in the post where I originally presented the hypothesis, I don't claim to know, but I think it's possible that brain development could shape the face, by pressing the skull, sinuses, nasal cavity, etc. outward.

 

Another point worth considering - what about individuals with cranio-facial deformities? If skull shape influences personality, or vice versa, there should be clear and particular personality traits associated with particular deformities.

Hmm. As I understand it, people born missing normal parts of the brain/cranium tend to be rather limited. But that's most certainly not my area of expertise.

[iNow]

I think it's possible that brain development could shape the face, by pressing the skull, sinuses, nasal cavity, etc. outward.

 

Another potential shortfall I see with this is your (as yet) unaddressed need to demonstrate how these slight differences in neocortical size and growth patterns effect personality, and if those slight differences can be effectively tied and strongly correlated to the personality typologies with which you are currently associating the resultant facial features.

[tar]

Mokele,

 

Let's back up - is there any a priori reason to assume any correlation between personality and skull shape? I don't mean personal experience, I mean developmental series, homologous genes in brain and skull formation, etc.

 

Edmond nixed my "see you in your field of vision idea" and I think he may also have his I/E ideas backward, but let me float a developmental series.

 

Let's say there is an area of the brain, up and behind your eyes that chemically rewards for success, victory, completion, perfection, etc. with good feeling stuff, and chemically punishes with bad feeling stuff, for failure, losing, separation, imperfection, etc.

 

(hunger causes bad feeling, cry, bad feeling hurts, separated from mom, bad feeling, hurt more, cry louder, moma comes, not separated, feel better, not hungry, belly full, feel better, and so on.)

 

So for simplification purposes we'll say the brain of a 0-3 year old's job is to figure out what causes the good feeling, and how to eliminate the bad. Also, for simplification purposes we'll say that even after 3 the job is the same(get that part of the brain, up and behind the eyes to give out that good stuff, and not the bad stuff)

 

But, and here comes the developmental series, after 3, the soft features of a child begin to harden, the skull changes shape above the eyes and begins to project more into the child's field of vision, the nose does the same, and an awareness grows that the outside world includes him/her. And the other people can see him/her. That area of the brain, up and behind the right ear begins to develop. And the good feelings and bad feelings can be had by witnessing or causing the good and bad feelings in others.

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

Another potential shortfall I see with this is your (as yet) unaddressed need to demonstrate how these slight differences in neocortical size and growth patterns effect personality, and if those slight differences can be effectively tied and strongly correlated to the personality typologies with which you are currently associating the resultant facial features.

That is a significant issue. Defining the "functions" has never been anything remotely close to a hard science, it's more philosophy. I like that, but it's the kind of thing anyone can take or leave at will, because it's not presently provable.

 

What I want to do, ideally, is at least help instigate the study of 16-type as a scientific phenomenon. It's unrealistic to assume that I could figure everything out alone, but if I can demonstrate biological links, I can only hope that scientists will become more interested.

 

As to how to define the preferences at this moment, scientifically, questionnaires seem to be the most likely option. Even though I think I can determine a preference in another individual with greater validity, it wouldn't be considered repeatable if a study revolved around that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What I would find more reasonable is that certain hormones (excess testosterone, estrogen, whatever) can lead to the development of different personality traits (aggression, whatever) and could influence facial feature development.

 

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, much like how ring finger to middle finger length ratios can tell how aggressive someone is (vaguely) by how much testosterone they had during development.

 

I think we should be more concerned with exploring potential ways to test this hypothesis, potential explanations of how it works if it could be true, and potential reasons it could be false. This whole argument about phrenology is pointless; if it's like phrenology, than a well-designed experiment will prove it to be rubbish; if it has some basis in reality, it will show up in experiment. There's only one way to find out. So can we please move on?

[Edmond Zedo]

Edmond nixed my "see you in your field of vision idea" and I think he may also have his I/E ideas backward...

Well, you certainly aren't the first! I can only say that I have absolute confidence that my assessments of I/E and functions are more accurate than Jung's, Myers/Briggs', or Socionics'.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What I would find more reasonable is that certain hormones (excess testosterone, estrogen, whatever) can lead to the development of different personality traits (aggression, whatever) and could influence facial feature development.

 

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, much like how ring finger to middle finger length ratios can tell how aggressive someone is (vaguely) by how much testosterone they had during development.

 

I think we should be more concerned with exploring potential ways to test this hypothesis, potential explanations of how it works if it could be true, and potential reasons it could be false. This whole argument about phrenology is pointless; if it's like phrenology, than a well-designed experiment will prove it to be rubbish; if it has some basis in reality, it will show up in experiment. There's only one way to find out. So can we please move on?

I appreciate that, and agree.

 

I lack knowledge of the effects of hormones on physiology, but I personally prioritize finding a link, and then discovering the cause.

[tar]

http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/dreamtheory/freud3.htm

 

3. Phallic Stage

 

Between the ages of 3 to 5, the child becomes aware of male and female. Personality is fully developed by this stage. This stage is also classified by the Oedipus and Electra Complexes. The Oedipus represents a male child's love for his mother and the fear/jealousy towards his father. The Electra is the female version where the female child has anger toward her mother and exhibits "penis envy

 

Hmm... around the same time our face is growing into our field of view, and our capacity to put ourselves into someone else's shoes is developed...Hmm

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

P.S. If personality is just about fully developed by age five and the shape of the face is correlated to the personality, its shape THEN (0-5) would be more important than its shape as an adult.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

I can only say that I have absolute confidence that my assessments of I/E and functions are more accurate than Jung's, Myers/Briggs', or Socionics'.

 

I know you have confidence in yourself, and you have thought this all through to your own satisfaction, but you think that you have viewed it objectively, and that is your mistake, that is what makes it backward. Science is the closest thing we have to objectivity, and you keep placing your own subjective view of objectivity above the scientific view, which IS objective.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

I know this is hard to talk about, and get a good handle on, but you cannot possibly have a thought, that is not in your head, in your brain, your thought. Completely subjective. The most objective thought you can think, is still you thinking it. You can not even START to get objective by yourself. You need science to do it.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

More specifically, you need a method to help you be objective so the results of the experiment -- and the theory that follows -- are valid in reflecting objective reality.

 

Well said, tar.

[Edmond Zedo]

http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/dreamtheory/freud3.htm

 

Hmm... around the same time our face is growing into our field of view, and our capacity to put ourselves into someone else's shoes is developed...Hmm

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

P.S. If personality is just about fully developed by age five and the shape of the face is correlated to the personality, its shape THEN (0-5) would be more important than its shape as an adult.

Interesting stuff, for sure.

 

Edmond Zedo,

 

 

 

I know you have confidence in yourself, and you have thought this all through to your own satisfaction, but you think that you have viewed it objectively, and that is your mistake, that is what makes it backward. Science is the closest thing we have to objectivity, and you keep placing your own subjective view of objectivity above the scientific view, which IS objective.

You're mistaken there, technically. Regarding objective matters, I don't claim to have absolute confidence. I was referring to my interpretations of the functions, which has always only involved subjective analysis, by me or anyone. I'm confident that my conclusions are better than Jung's (Though partially derived from them). Neither of us is basing our notions of the functions on science.

 

 

Edmond Zedo,

 

I know this is hard to talk about, and get a good handle on, but you cannot possibly have a thought, that is not in your head, in your brain, your thought. Completely subjective. The most objective thought you can think, is still you thinking it. You can not even START to get objective by yourself. You need science to do it.

 

Regards, TAR

Science is necessary for illustrating physical differences which relate to personality. It's not fundamentally necessary for analyzing peoples' psyches. In fact, with present techique and technology, science can't go the full nine when it comes to that. It's a subjective field, in part.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

More specifically, you need a method to help you be objective so the results of the experiment -- and the theory that follows -- are valid in reflecting objective reality.

 

Well said, tar.

Tangental, as noted, but: Yes, I agree, because I do in fact know how the scientific method works. Step one is hypothesizing.

[Sisyphus]

So wait, you think your assesments are more accurate than other tests? So... what are you measuring that against, if not other tests? If nothing, then that's just circular reasoning.

[Edmond Zedo]

So wait, you think your assesments are more accurate than other tests? So... what are you measuring that against, if not other tests? If nothing, then that's just circular reasoning.

A history of being "shown" correct in some way is the key to that. Removing further confirmation of mine from the equation: There have been many people who have said, some time after I typed them, that I was right, based on further self-assessment of theirs. And I've typed others "in public," only to have a few other people publicly/privately tell me that they agree with my "corrections."

 

It's very important to note that it's all subjective. People either type themselves via analysis or tests*, or someone else types them. It's not out of line for me to consider my assessments better than most peoples' self assessments, based on some expertise in the arena.

 

*By making an amalgamation of minor self-assessments.

 

P.S. ENTP?

[Sisyphus]

So you're measuring it against subsequent self-assessments, by people who already have a specific answer put in their heads? Sorry, but I don't buy it. That "it's all subjective" is true, but I thought you were trying to show otherwise?

[Edmond Zedo]

So you're measuring it against subsequent self-assessments, by people who already have a specific answer put in their heads? Sorry, but I don't buy it. That "it's all subjective" is true, but I thought you were trying to show otherwise?

It's all subjective presently, but the goal is to acquire an objective foundation, to demonstrate a biological link. So there will at least be one way to determine types objectively.

 

Typing someone is a bit like diagnosing them with a "non-biological" personality disorder like antisocial p.d., without such severe a stigma. But it's an amateur field, this typing, and thus the experts will lack official credentials. It's an issue I face.

[mooeypoo]

 

Tangental, as noted, but: Yes, I agree, because I do in fact know how the scientific method works. Step one is hypothesizing.

In the risk of reopening this, I must put this in (you still didn't solve the matter, Edmond) -- it's true that the first stage is hypothesizing, but a hypothesis by itself has to be supported, or at the very least based on premises that are supported.

 

Note that "supported" does not equal "proven"..

 

The problem I have here is that your hypothesis is supported on what seems to be a premise that in other circumstances shown to be false (that the physical characteristics of the head/face correlate with behavior) and your sample upon which you drew this hypothesis is far too few, far too subjective and insufficient.

 

Phrenology and Physiognomy both stem from the same basic premise you are suggesting. They have both been researched (quite a lot, actually) and both were shown to NOT be consistent.

 

Again, that doesn't mean your hypothesis is necessarily false, but it does open up a problem with it. A big logical problem with it. A problem you need to deal with when designing the experiment and the rest of your method.

 

Further, this lacks a mechanism. I understand that you insist on sticking to talking about psychology, but your hypothesis isn't strictly about the psychological effects. You're refering to the correlation between psychology and physical (biological) effects on the skull/face. That requires a mechanism.

 

There are a few research papers suggesting that physical appearances of people's faces affect how others perceive them, but that's a different hypothesis than yours (albeit a lot more psychological and less physiological). And as was said here before, there were limited researches suggesting the possibility that hormone build-up can affect people's faces, but those changes are very specific and are mostly attributed to specific hormones usually connected to aggression.

 

So I still don't quite understand how your hypothesis stands to the test if its basic premise seems to have been tested and discarded, and I still don't understand how - in your proposed experiment - you are going to divide the facial attributes *clearly* among people's faces when those are very varied.

 

It's not like you have either deep brow or low brow and a few people in between. Most people have a variety, something in between, something that might look deep to you and shallow to me, depending on our own subjective categorization. To test your hypothesis, you will need to find a way to divide those groups up consistently according to proper definitions, otherwise the experiment will be moot.. you will have no way of knowing if your results represent a valid phenomena or some random chunk of subjectively picked groups.

 

Those two problems are big problems, they're not just minor adjustments.

 

1. The basic premise was tested (though under different circumstances) and was shown to be false.
   
2. The categorizations are too broad and undefined; they can include anyone who is not an extreme on either side.
   

The lack of proposed mechanism is a problem but not just yet. If the hypothesis on the EXISTENCE of the phenomenon is shown to be true, then you can move on to hypothesize the mechanism, but it should still be in the back of your mind that this is an extremely important step.

 

 

~moo

[Edmond Zedo]

In the risk of reopening this, I must put this in (you still didn't solve the matter, Edmond) -- it's true that the first stage is hypothesizing, but a hypothesis by itself has to be supported, or at the very least based on premises that are supported.

 

Note that "supported" does not equal "proven"..

 

The problem I have here is that your hypothesis is supported on what seems to be a premise that in other circumstances shown to be false (that the physical characteristics of the head/face correlate with behavior) and your sample upon which you drew this hypothesis is far too few, far too subjective and insufficient.

 

Phrenology and Physiognomy both stem from the same basic premise you are suggesting. They have both been researched (quite a lot, actually) and both were shown to NOT be consistent.

That's not true, for the tenth time. Comparing "some aspect" of physicality with "some aspect" of mentality, and finding no correlation, in no way proves that there is no correlation at all between the physical body and the mind. What you're doing here is traditionally called "appealing to ignorance." Thank you, logic class.

 

Again, that doesn't mean your hypothesis is necessarily false, but it does open up a problem with it. A big logical problem with it. A problem you need to deal with when designing the experiment and the rest of your method.

 

Further, this lacks a mechanism...

The testing mechanisms are extremely easy to design. I don't have any burning desire to share those with others at this point, so you can take my word for that, or not, at your choosing.

 

Have you looked into "ESFJ" yet? We're never going to agree on anything. Really understanding the type differences and interrelations is what I do. It's why I find the subject so interesting, because mainstream psychology will have you believe we're all much more alike than we are. Some people are incompatible, as far as any kind of mutual satisfaction is concerned. Of course, one of the trademarks of ESFJs more than any other type is denying the relevance of typing...

 

Note that I don't think ESFJs are bad scientists, I mean, I typed my biology professor as ESFJ. But I have never met or heard of an ESFJ who valued intuition. They require accepted fact.

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

Some people are incompatible, as far as any kind of mutual satisfaction is concerned.

 

Well I think we all know this Edmond. That is why we have injured parties, wars, divorces, revolutions and such, and its also why we have the courts of laws, international treaties, divorce laws, elections and so on. Its also why we have organisational structures, and follow established rules, that force us to respect the wills of people we don't understand how they could ever be pleased with what pleases them.

 

The problem with you and me, is we both have a worldview that we put together in a consistent, logical fashion. Everything falls into nice complex categories, and we figure we know other people better than they know themselves. We figure, that since we put ourselves in their shoes, and have ourselves figured out, in terms of what is good and bad, rewarding and painful, that everybody elses actions and stated desires, can be sorted out, using the same criterion, and our view of them, is clearer then their view of themselves, because our view is an "objective" view as opposed to their subjective view of themselves. If a crowd of people view us a certain way, and we know them to be mistaken, we will be satisfied that they are wrong, and we are right, and that will give us pleasure.

 

Well, we are wrong Edmond. Not that we can not have insights and share them with others. But that we don't get, what other people get. Sure, they don't all get, what we get. But that's the point. We are talking about individual wills, individual minds, individual intentions, individual opinions, and EVERYBODY has them, and everybody gets it. We can join groups and find ways to please the whole group. We make a few sacrifices for the good of the group, and the whole group make sacrifices for us. That is what society is about.

 

But every body here already knows these things. Everybody has already viewed themselves objectively, as the group views them. People are able to do this. It's not a natural talent that only Edmond Zedo, or TAR has.

 

So you are good at typing people into categories. We all are. A lot of people that look stupid, really are. And a lot of people that look smart, really are. A lot of people that look sloppy have personality characterists that differ from people that look neat, a lot of people that look bold and confident, really are, and a lot of people that look shy and tentative really are.

 

The question here is does the shape, position, and size of the nose and brow, in reference to the eyes, determine something factual about the personality preferences of an individual. And can this determination be made by anyone who knows the correlation.

 

One thing that has to be established, is what, about a persons personality, is it, that is being determined? You are at odds with Jung on this, and you are at odds with me, on this, so I think it has to be discussed in full, so we know what aspect of personality we are talking about in the first place.

 

And the second part would then be to establish the brow-nose to personality aspect correlation in a way that anybody could measure.

 

Then we would have an objective fact we could all work with.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

or perhaps you are interested in designing a triple blind test

Edited October 2, 2009 by tar

[Edmond Zedo]

The problem with you and me, is we both have a worldview that we put together in a consistent, logical fashion. Everything falls into nice complex categories, and we figure we know other people better than they know themselves.

When something appears definable, I attempt to define it. Unlike many others, I don't try to force anything.

We figure, that since we put ourselves in their shoes, and have ourselves figured out, in terms of what is good and bad, rewarding and painful, that everybody elses actions and stated desires, can be sorted out, using the same criterion, and our view of them, is clearer then their view of themselves, because our view is an "objective" view as opposed to their subjective view of themselves. If a crowd of people view us a certain way, and we know them to be mistaken, we will be satisfied that they are wrong, and we are right, and that will give us pleasure.

What I know is that there are people who please me and people who dont, and that the people who don't please me, please other people.

Well, we are wrong Edmond. Not that we can not have insights and share them with others. But that we don't get, what other people get. Sure, they don't all get, what we get. But that's the point. We are talking about individual wills, individual minds, individual intentions, individual opinions, and EVERYBODY has them, and everybody gets it. We can join groups and find ways to please the whole group. We make a few sacrifices for the good of the group, and the whole group make sacrifices for us. That is what society is about.

Oh, you're quite right, but if all of these individual opinions, etc. stem from several different categories of methodology, to understand the methodologies is to better understand the individuals. That's the point.

 

So you are good at typing people into categories. We all are.

I vehemently beg to differ. I've seen thousands of others "judge" people, and with often rather inexpert results.

 

The question here is does the shape, position, and size of the nose and brow, in reference to the eyes, determine something factual about the personality preferences of an individual. And can this determination be made by anyone who knows the correlation.

 

One thing that has to be established, is what, about a persons personality, is it, that is being determined?

 

You are at odds with Jung on this, and you are at odds with me, on this, so I think it has to be discussed in full, so we know what aspect of personality we are talking about in the first place.

That's easily taken care of in the test parameters, the operational definitions.

 

And the second part would then be to establish the brow-nose to personality aspect correlation in a way that anybody could measure.

 

Then we would have an objective fact we could all work with.

Indeed.