"Credit" for hypothesis?

[tar]

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.

 

Well yes, I did that myself, last night, when I was considering my "how much of YOU is in your field of view as you develop your other's shoes perspective"

 

The ways we found to feel good, and the ways we found to avoid feeling bad, at ages 3-5, probably have a whole lot to do with the strategies we have been employing ever since. This insight gave me additional insight into my wife's needs to do, and the pleasure she takes in doing the things she does, that I have no need to do. I find my pleasure in other pursuits that she see no value in. But it gave me insights into my own personality, and gave me ways to better understand other individuals as well.

 

If this is the only advantage that proving your correlation will give us, then we might just as well use my insight.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

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.

Edmond, I would appreciate if you stop treating me as if I'm trying to put you down every time I disagree with you. For the tenth time, this isn't personal, and I don't mean to sound personal, nor do I think I did.

 

I disagree with the logic of your hypothesis. Not only am I "allowed" to do that, I'm supposed to tell you why. This is the first time you actually explained properly why my reason to disagree with you might be wrong. While I appreciate it, I really would rather you did that without the last 4 words in that paragraph.

 

Seriously, I'm not going to stop criticizing you just because you don't like it. If I say I didn't understand your explanation, it means I really didn't. Judging from other posts in the thread, I'm not the only one.

 

So please, please - avoid personal cynicism and "pokes". It's not getting the discussion further at all.

 

As for your statement - I see what you're saying, and it mitigates some of my skepticism. I see how phrenology could be "one aspect" while your theory is another, but how is your theory different than Physiognomy? Doesn't physiognomy claim that a person's facial features attest to his/her character traits? Isn't that what you're claiming?

 

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.

I can't take your word for it, but I totally understand why you don't want to share them. That's why I said I'd love to see the final results and methodology when you're done. Hopefully, you'll get to do that soon. When I said it's interesting, I wasn't being cynical. This *is* interesting.

 

I am just skeptical of your hypothsis. If you prove my skepticism wrong, all the better. You can't blame me, though, for being skeptical for the reasons I shared.

 

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...

I don't care much about modern psychology specifically not in this debate; I am not looking at it in the psychological aspect (yes, I know it's the 'leading' aspect, still) I'm more interested in the physiological aspect. The hypothesis stays the same, just the emphasis each of us puts on this is different, I suppose.

 

In any case, my point is that the fact your categorization is subjective is already a problem. A huge problem for the sake of your research. Your claim isn't solely psychological - it contains elements of physiology. For you to prove it, you need to show physiological evidence, don't you agree?

 

And part of a real scientific endeavor is for it to (a) mean something for some application (in empirical science we call it predictability) and (b) be possible to be repeated.

 

How can you achieve either of the above if your categorization is subjective?

 

So my *practical* suggestion to you is to go over your categorization method and try to come up with a way to make it clear, for the sake of the experiment. For that matter, all you need to do is deal with the extremes and ignore, for now, the "middle grounds". Deal with whatever is "middle" after you see if there indeed are clear-cut differences between your extremes.

 

If you don't do that, you'll have a lot of trouble convincing anyone that the phenomenon exists, and it won't be because your hypothesis is necessarily wrong, it would be because your categorization is so broad, it leaves a HUGE opening for selective data and confirmation bias.

 

That's what I meant when I said the design of the experiment isn't that simple.

 

You want to make a point, and that's great, good luck with that (seriously), but for you to make that point you need to make sure your experiment is clear enough that the results reflect the phenomenon and not some other possible influences that can taint the data.

 

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

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.

I have a few reservations about that, both about the "accepted" and about the "fact" - for that matter, if you manage to demonstrate a phenomenon it is validated and it doesn't matter if it's accepted or not. And 'facts' are a whole different issue within science.. wholly different argument right there.

But the above is totally besides the point. I understand what you're saying and I accept. I don't mean it like that at all, though. I don't think you need to totally prove your hypothesis for it to be accepted as a hypothesis.

 

You should deal with potential logical and practical problems, though. And you need to consider that your hypothesis has a very big part of it that is physiological, and biology/physiology is more empirical/clear-cut/however-you-put-it than psychology. If there are physiological effects, specifically of the type you're referring to, those will eventually require an empirical biological explanation.

 

That's what I'm saying.

 

~moo

Edited October 2, 2009 by mooeypoo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

Thanks for the example. Excellent.

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

Well yes, I did that myself, last night, when I was considering my "how much of YOU is in your field of view as you develop your other's shoes perspective"

 

The ways we found to feel good, and the ways we found to avoid feeling bad, at ages 3-5, probably have a whole lot to do with the strategies we have been employing ever since. This insight gave me additional insight into my wife's needs to do, and the pleasure she takes in doing the things she does, that I have no need to do. I find my pleasure in other pursuits that she see no value in. But it gave me insights into my own personality, and gave me ways to better understand other individuals as well.

 

If this is the only advantage that proving your correlation will give us, then we might just as well use my insight.

 

Regards, TAR

I can't negate your idea, of course, all I can say is that it's not in line with my ideas, and we must therefore take different paths. Or so it seems.

 

How can you achieve either of the above if your categorization is subjective?

I have said that the methodology for determining preference will most likely have to be a questionnaire, as opposed to subjective analysis, regardless of the difference I perceive in validity.

 

You're not even reading my words. To this moment, you're still just disagreeing with your initial idea of what you THOUGHT I was implying. You were wrong, and quite frankly, we're getting nowhere, just as I predicted, based on our personality differences. Which you discard as irrelevant, also quite according to type.

 

I can only hope that someone out there can see how ridiculous it is. You never will. Since you've already stated every disagreement you have with my hypotheses, there's no logical reason for you to restate them, again and again.

[mooeypoo]

Seriously? I posted a long post with explanation of the reason for my skepticism and you take a single aspect (ignoring the bulk) and throw it off hand as my fault?

 

Read a bit of other people's responses - some seem to agree with my analysis. Some stopped posting when you showed your lack of respect to any actual PROBLEM showed to you. I'm not the only one that criticizes this idea, Edmond, and your tendency to get defensive and cynical really doesn't help your cause.

 

You seem to think that if you just ignore the problems or just state the problems are nonproblems ("it isn't so!") they would magically go away, and wouldn't matter.

Good luck with that.

 

~moo

[Edmond Zedo]

Seriously? I posted a long post with explanation of the reason for my skepticism and you take a single aspect (ignoring the bulk) and throw it off hand as my fault?

 

Read a bit of other people's responses - some seem to agree with my analysis. Some stopped posting when you showed your lack of respect to any actual PROBLEM showed to you. I'm not the only one that criticizes this idea, Edmond, and your tendency to get defensive and cynical really doesn't help your cause.

 

You seem to think that if you just ignore the problems or just state the problems are nonproblems ("it isn't so!") they would magically go away, and wouldn't matter.

Good luck with that.

 

~moo

Let me state something I've stated before, primarily for the benefit of the audience, since you've ignored it before: When I say hypothesis, I mean hypothesis. It's something which must be tested with experimentation. You repeatedly request evidence which I cannot provide without experimentation, as if we can debate and resolve a scientific matter philosophically. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone more adept at debating philosophical logic, but it just so happens that skill is not relevant to this matter.

 

You are, quite frankly, disapproving of the exact kind of intuition which has resulted in some of the greatest scientific finds of all time. I'll take a wild stab in the dark here, play clairvoyant, and divine that if you're a practicing research scientist, you aren't heavily involved in hypothesis generation. More of a "standards" person, right?

[mooeypoo]

Let me state something I've stated before, primarily for the benefit of the audience, since you've ignored it before: When I say hypothesis, I mean hypothesis. It's something which must be tested with experimentation. You repeatedly request evidence which I cannot provide without experimentation, as if we can debate and resolve a scientific matter philosophically. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone more adept at debating philosophical logic, but it just so happens that skill is not relevant to this matter.

And you completely ignored my post about hypothesis. We're not a philosophy forum, we're a science forum. You seem to be perfectly content when people AGREE with your hypothesis scientifically, or suggest possible mechanism that might agree with your hypothesis scientifically, but when someone poses a problem you run back to "it's hypothetical" defense.

 

That's a bad defense. A hypothesis -- as I, and others, tried to explain multiple times -- need to be supported on its own. It cannot be circular logic. It cannot be based on flawed premise.

It will not be a valid hypothesis if it is, Edmond. No matter how many times you flip it, it NEEDS to be supported.

 

Every time we raise a problem you retract to "it's hypothetical" or "it's philosophical", but when people suggest possible scientific mechanisms, suddenly you're content to share your ideas for a practical experiment.

 

It doesn't work like that.

 

I suggested you read the Speculation forum "stickies" because they have an explanation of what a scientific hypothesis and a scientific speculation are.

 

This isn't your personal blog, it isn't a soundstage where you bask in the positive opinions of your audience. You came to a science forum, and we do science here.

Your statement in post #94:

...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."

Shows the problem here. You removed your confirmation to find others' confirmations. The people in this thread are raising issues that are vital to your hypothesis. You choose to acknowledge only those who support it or suggest to improve it.

 

That's not science.

 

You are, quite frankly, disapproving of the exact kind of intuition which has resulted in some of the greatest scientific finds of all time. I'll take a wild stab in the dark here, play clairvoyant, and divine that if you're a practicing research scientist, you aren't heavily involved in hypothesis generation. More of a "standards" person, right?

You are not doing science, and you are in a scientific forum. Stop going in circles and stop moving the goal post. Your hypothesis has some major problems you refuse to acknowledge.

 

Read the thread, Edmond. I'm not the only person here raising problems; I'm just one of the only persistent ones, who wouldn't leave when you move the goalpost.

 

~moo

[Edmond Zedo]

And you completely ignored my post about hypothesis. We're not a philosophy forum, we're a science forum. You seem to be perfectly content when people AGREE with your hypothesis scientifically, or suggest possible mechanism that might agree with your hypothesis scientifically, but when someone poses a problem you run back to "it's hypothetical" defense.

 

That's a bad defense. A hypothesis -- as I, and others, tried to explain multiple times -- need to be supported on its own. It cannot be circular logic. It cannot be based on flawed premise.

It will not be a valid hypothesis if it is, Edmond. No matter how many times you flip it, it NEEDS to be supported.

You obviously don't know what a hypothesis is.

 

Every time we raise a problem you retract to "it's hypothetical" or "it's philosophical", but when people suggest possible scientific mechanisms, suddenly you're content to share your ideas for a practical experiment.

 

It doesn't work like that.

I have not once defended the hypotheses as philosophical! Other issues about type have been discussed in this thread, and only then have I claimed philosophical grounds for anything.

 

The hypotheses are based on observation and intuition, as all hypotheses initially are. And they were always intended for practical experimentation.

 

This isn't your personal blog, it isn't a soundstage where you bask in the positive opinions of your audience. You came to a science forum, and we do science here.

Your statement in post #94:

 

Shows the problem here. You removed your confirmation to find others' confirmations. The people in this thread are raising issues that are vital to your hypothesis. You choose to acknowledge only those who support it or suggest to improve it.

 

That's not science.

That wasn't regarding the hypothesis! That was about a question someone asked me about typing people in general. What are you doing?

You are not doing science, and you are in a scientific forum. Stop going in circles and stop moving the goal post. Your hypothesis has some major problems you refuse to acknowledge.

Just let me know when you are able to decipher conversational items which happen to be in the thread from the actual, scientific hypotheses.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

^The above is the absolute perfect example of contrary relations, for any interested parties. Does this seem accurate?: http://www.socionics.com/rel/cnf.htm

[iNow]

This doesn't seem accurate in the least. It seems like a person so heavily invested in their idea that they bait people into specific responses... specific responses which only seem to support the conjectures (I'm not calling this rubbish a hypothesis) being put forth... A sort of "self-reinforcing confirmation bias" as it were.

[Edmond Zedo]

This doesn't seem accurate in the least. It seems like a person so heavily invested in their idea that they bait people into specific responses... specific responses which only seem to support the conjectures (I'm not calling this rubbish a hypothesis) being put forth... A sort of "self-reinforcing confirmation bias" as it were.

No one has offered anything which even attempts to specifically discount it. "It doesn't sound right" has no bearing on its potential accuracy, of course.

 

Have you analyzed the faces of many people who have tested as various different types, and found them all to be the same? That would be a specific observational disagreement. All I can propose is that it's plainly unscientific to claim inaccuracy based on personal ignorance of the data I've used to create the hypotheses.

[iNow]

Oh please. Give me a break. You don't know whether your personality scores which you've been assigning are even accurate. You don't know if your assigned scores would align if actual tests of personality were performed. You don't know whether differentially shaped/sized brains impact personality. You don't know which brain shapes have which influence on which personality types if there even is a correlation between shape and personality at all. You don't know if the brain changes the shape of the face in the ways you suggest. You don't know too many things for me to even bother with further analysis.

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

"instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)"

 

Is the widely accepted meaning of the word intuition. You define it as an indepth analysis of the incoming information, perhaps even with a little Zedo natural talent built in.

 

You can't base a hypothesis on a word that means one thing to you, and the opposite to the rest of the english speaking world.

 

Much of your thinking seems to be based on your self defined meaning of intuition.

 

Now consider this. If your definition of intuition is exactly opposite the normal usage, and you think that Jung's normal usage of the term produces exactly the wrong interpretations of the facts, you are actually agreeing with his interpretation.

 

Thus, to get a good hypothesis going, you first have to make it, based on the normal definition of the word intuition. If you are talking about something else, like in depth, rational analysis of information, then that is what you should call it. These definitions and what kind of thing is happening in the brain when the phenomena is occurring, is crucial to get straight between all participants (us humans) right at the get go. Otherwise there is nothing in particular to correlate occipital cortex size to.

 

Next, you completely ignored a fact that was pointed out to you, that the functionality and developement of an area of the brain was proportional to other aspects, other than size. This makes one wonder what relationship size would have at all to the preferences in personality that functionality and development in a certain area, might be correlated to.

 

Third, you expressed no change of direction plans when I pointed out that it is thought that basic personality is pretty much set, by the age of five. Shouldn't observations of child facial structure have gone up on you site?

 

Regards, TAR

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh please. Give me a break. You don't know whether your personality scores which you've been assigning are even accurate. You don't know if your assigned scores would align if actual tests of personality were performed. You don't know whether differentially shaped/sized brains impact personality. You don't know which brain shapes have which influence on which personality types if there even is a correlation between shape and personality at all. You don't know if the brain changes the shape of the face in the ways you suggest. You don't know too many things for me to even bother with further analysis.

Isn't that the point of performing these experiments and doing the research?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And you completely ignored my post about hypothesis. We're not a philosophy forum, we're a science forum. You seem to be perfectly content when people AGREE with your hypothesis scientifically, or suggest possible mechanism that might agree with your hypothesis scientifically, but when someone poses a problem you run back to "it's hypothetical" defense.

 

That's a bad defense. A hypothesis -- as I, and others, tried to explain multiple times -- need to be supported on its own. It cannot be circular logic. It cannot be based on flawed premise.

It will not be a valid hypothesis if it is, Edmond. No matter how many times you flip it, it NEEDS to be supported.

If a hypothesis were required to be supported, it wouldn't be a hypothesis any more, now would it?

 

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon. That's it. Edmond has observed that he "types" people into personality types based on their appearances and believes his types to be correct; he postulates that something about their appearance must thus reflect their personalities. That's it. Perhaps his explanation is totally wrong and it turns out he sucks at typing people; that's certainly possible and could be tested by experiment. Perhaps there is something to this; that's possible and could be tested by experiment.

[iNow]

Isn't that the point of performing these experiments and doing the research?

Yes and no. An experiment would help, but before that can be done he must first better define what he is measuring. Without clear definitions, precise terms, and consistency his measurements won't have any meaning (not to mention that he's got a confirmation bias in his pictures, where he selects people with those traits who he thinks exhibit these personality types, and ignores people with those same facial features who do NOT have those personality types).

 

Back to the idea of measurement, though... Right now, he's being far too subjective and vague, not validating his personality types, not looking for references and past research as to whether or not brain shape and size has any impact whatsoever on personality, he's not supporting his assertion that the different brain shape impacts facial features in the way he suggests...

 

Honestly... there are just too many holes in what he is proposing for an experiment to yield anything useful. He needs to do far more work, and offer much more crisp definitions of his terms, and support the three underlying contentions ([1] that brain shape/size impacts personality in any way, [2] that certain cortical shapes lead to specific personalities in a consistent and measurable way, and [3] that the brain shape changes the shape of the face, and that the resulting facial features can be used as a proxy to measure the personality type) before further experimentation is warranted.

 

On top of all of that... We don't even know if the types he's arbitrary assigned accurately reflect the people to whom he's assigned them. If I were him, I'd try to confirm that before worrying about any experimentation.

[Edmond Zedo]

You can't base a hypothesis on a word that means one thing to you, and the opposite to the rest of the english speaking world.

 

Much of your thinking seems to be based on your self defined meaning of intuition...

I know, tar. The ideas were initially based on those who have both tested as and self-identified as a given type, thus "preferring" S or N. A scientific study would have to be based on something rigorous such as testing, as I've said.

 

The fact that I carry out and discuss subjective analysis of my own is incidental. It may aid in my personal understanding (Which I can relay to others, who may take or leave it), but it will not be directly involved in real, scientific tests.

 

Isn't that the point of performing these experiments and doing the research?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

If a hypothesis were required to be supported, it wouldn't be a hypothesis any more, now would it?...

(Thanks.)

 

Yes and no. An experiment would help, but before that can be done he must first better define what he is measuring. Without clear definitions, precise terms, and consistency his measurements won't have any meaning...

As I say to tar above, I know this, and with an intention to convert subjective conclusions to objective conclusions, I must temporarily discard what I "know," and rely on "standards," a.k.a. repeatable procedures which are as mechanical as possible.

 

That I don't go into the potential experimental procedures greatly here does not imply that I am not aware of what they must be, nor that I know not how to create them. In an attempt to move away from my opinion of myself, those I'm studying under are fond of my clean and precise ideas for experimental procedures (Though only in a classroom/training scenario at the moment).

[mooeypoo]

If a hypothesis were required to be supported, it wouldn't be a hypothesis any more, now would it?

Of course it would. If it has enough evidence to explain the phenomena, it "transforms" to a theory, great, but a hypothesis cannot just come out of thin air and be counted as scientific, Cap'n.

 

"I hypothesize that purple unicorns eat green goo."

Would you really define this as a scientific hypothesis?

 

That said, no one said Edmond's hypothesis isn't a hypothesis, but people DO ANALYZE *AND* CRITICIZE it. And if we get slap and anger when we do, then it's not only a nonscientific endeavor, it's also a not very social one.

 

Hypotheses are not immune from questioning. The first step is to examine the hypothesis and see if it's even worthy of your effort to run an experiment.

 

When you write a grant proposal, you need to explain why you think your hypothesis is valid BEFORE it's proven; the entire point is that you're asking for money to conduct the experiment that might bring up the evidence.

 

HOWEVER - you need to explain how and why this hypothesis is worthy of research. If you submit a hypothesis that is self-contradictory, or that is based on a false premise, or that has already been shown to be completely false, then your hypothesis won't get the time of day, and justly so.

 

Since we're in a science forum we're not just filing off hypotheses and waiting for someone to see how to do them - we're debating the validity of these hypotheses. If you notice, we're not just talking about how stupid this is (I never said it was) we're discussing the problems that make the hypothesis fail even BEFORE an experiment was done.

 

If an experiment is performed on this hypothesis, with such a huge possibility for confirmation bias and selective data, then it will not be scientific or valid results. Period. Selective data and confirmation bias are NOT scientific.

 

We offered ways to try and improve the hypothesis and method of explanation but Edmond seems to take them as attacks instead of attempts to debate the issue. As a result, he is being ucooperative. Too bad, really, the idea is interesting, even though I'm skeptical, it sounds like it can be a very interesting experiment. But it won't be worth anything if it's not done right.

 

And if his initial premise was already shown to NOT EXIST, and his method of categorizing his groups is too broad and allows for selective subjective data mining, then this is not science.

 

 

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon. That's it.

It's not immunte from criticism, though. Our problem here isn't that Edmond shouldn't share his hypothesis -- he should -- our problem is that he gets angry when people debate it with him. That's not doing science, no matter which way you flip it.

 

Sure, he has a hypothesis, but it has MANY problems both with its logic and its methodology, and we can't be expected to just clap, cheer and accept this hypothesis without deliberating about the serious ISSUES it has.

 

*Especially* when the issues the hypothesis is facing have to do with the methodology and, if not dealt with, will render the results of any experiment that follows this method ABSOLUTELY MOOT.

 

Edmond has observed that he "types" people into personality types based on their appearances and believes his types to be correct;

 

His definition of types are subjective, and he doesn't quite know how to differ all of them himself, and yet his hypothesis RELIES on those differences.

 

That's subjective and uses selective data and confirmation bias.

 

he postulates that something about their appearance must thus reflect their personalities. That's it. Perhaps his explanation is totally wrong and it turns out he sucks at typing people; that's certainly possible and could be tested by experiment. Perhaps there is something to this; that's possible and could be tested by experiment.

 

 

Okay, seriously now, this is getting tiresome.

 

No one argues against the idea of postulating or posing a hypothesis.

 

But no one should be expected to keep criticism to him/herself when the issues the hypothesis faces mean the hypothesis is no longer following the scientific method.

 

Cap'n, it's not like people here told Edmond he can't post a hypothesis, what we did was analyze and criticize it. We even offered methods of improving it. What he did was get frustrated and angry and move the goal post around whenever someone disagreed.

 

That's not science, it's not following the scientific method and, quite frankly, it's against common courtesy and forum rules.

 

I give up, though. Seriously. It's quite obvious Edmond doesn't want to debate his hypothesis with any sort of negative criticism raised; this isn't doing science, it's wasting time.

 

I would love ot see experimental results, but if the experiment will follow the logic and lack of consistency of the hypothesis it's based upon, it will mean absolutely NOTHING scientifically. There will be no way of seeing what is the actual phenomenon vs what is Edmond's subjective belief about this phenomenon.

 

 

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course it would. If it has enough evidence to explain the phenomena, it "transforms" to a theory, great, but a hypothesis cannot just come out of thin air and be counted as scientific, Cap'n.

 

"I hypothesize that purple unicorns eat green goo."

Would you really define this as a scientific hypothesis?

The qualifier "scientific" simply means "testable". Purple unicorns aren't testable unless you can find some; Edmond's hypothesis is most definitely testable.

 

HOWEVER - you need to explain how and why this hypothesis is worthy of research. If you submit a hypothesis that is self-contradictory, or that is based on a false premise, or that has already been shown to be completely false, then your hypothesis won't get the time of day, and justly so.

 

And if his initial premise was already shown to NOT EXIST, and his method of categorizing his groups is too broad and allows for selective subjective data mining, then this is not science.

 

Fortunately for Edmond, his initial hypothesis has some credence. In fact, similar tests have been performed and found some links:

 

In 1966, psychologists at the University of Michigan asked 84 undergraduates who had never met before to rate each other on five personality traits, based entirely on appearance, as they sat for 15 minutes in silence (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 4, p 44). For three traits - extroversion, conscientiousness and openness - the observers' rapid judgements matched real personality scores significantly more often than chance.

 

They found that a wider face in which the cheekbone-to-cheekbone distance was unusually large relative to the distance between brow and upper lip was linked in a statistically significant way with the number of penalty minutes a player was given for violent acts including slashing, elbowing, checking from behind and fighting (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 275, p 2651).

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126957.300 (subscription required for full article)

 

(Mind you, this is only relevant to his hypothesis 1. The causes of such a correlation, which he discusses in hypotheses 2 and 3, are still up for debate. I'm more inclined to think they're environmental and genetic than developmental and brain-size related. People who look different are treated differently and thus develop different personalities.)

 

It's not immunte from criticism, though. Our problem here isn't that Edmond shouldn't share his hypothesis -- he should -- our problem is that he gets angry when people debate it with him. That's not doing science, no matter which way you flip it.

I haven't really observed him getting angry without justification. So far this thread has been rather civil.

 

Sure, he has a hypothesis, but it has MANY problems both with its logic and its methodology, and we can't be expected to just clap, cheer and accept this hypothesis without deliberating about the serious ISSUES it has.

The hypothesis doesn't have methodology. The methodology in question is how he intends to test the hypothesis, and Edmond hasn't told us that, though he reassures us that he will be very rigorous. The best we can do is give advice.

 

Cap'n, it's not like people here told Edmond he can't post a hypothesis, what we did was analyze and criticize it. We even offered methods of improving it. What he did was get frustrated and angry and move the goal post around whenever someone disagreed.

I too would be frustrated and angry if my thread kept getting derailed to discuss the scientific method and the meaning of "hypothesis" when I would much rather hear feedback on the actual content of my hypothesis. There has been very little of that so far.

[JillSwift]

A hypothesis must grow from observation. By this definition, any testable hypothesis comes with evidence. (This is why a hypothesys can "transform" into a theory, it's a first attempt to explain facts and observations.)

 

Applying that to this situation, it appears that the hypothesis is indeed based on observations. As it is also testable, it makes for a scientific hypothesis.

 

That said, the criticisms leveled against it are not invalidated but this fact. At the moment, the observations are very loosey-goosey and the conclusions that lead to the hypothesis may have some bias, and an important question - correlation or causation - isn't addressed.

 

As I see it, anyhoo.

[Edmond Zedo]

JS: The goal is of course to find meaningful evidence, if it exists. The question of whether I pulled the hypothesis completely out of thin air, or based it on the best informal observations I could make--That's unknown to you, if you haven't performed similar analyses. If what I've claimed to notice was obvious to everyone, I wouldn't need to attempt to illustrate its validity with scientific experimentation, right?

 

As to causation, I can only assume that the physical would cause the mental, if any such correlation is found. In any case, finding the correlation is priority one.

[JillSwift]

JS: The goal is of course to find meaningful evidence, if it exists. The question of whether I pulled the hypothesis completely out of thin air, or based it on the best informal observations I could make--That's unknown to you, if you haven't performed similar analyses. If what I've claimed to notice was obvious to everyone, I wouldn't need to attempt to illustrate its validity with scientific experimentation, right?

You would have to - "obvious" isn't always "true".

 

As to causation, I can only assume that the physical would cause the mental, if any such correlation is found. In any case, finding the correlation is priority one.

Assumptions are dangerous. You've already noticed a correlation or you would not be postulating about it. So, priority one is evidencing a meaningful correlation.

[Edmond Zedo]

You would have to - "obvious" isn't always "true".

 

 

Assumptions are dangerous. You've already noticed a correlation or you would not be postulating about it. So, priority one is evidencing a meaningful correlation.

I was speaking informally, but it still seems "much more likely" to me, based on general knowledge. The alternative would be that thought directed the structure of the cranium. It at least sounds more far-fetched.

[JillSwift]

I was speaking informally, but it still seems "much more likely" to me, based on general knowledge. The alternative would be that thought directed the structure of the cranium. It at least sounds more far-fetched.

Well, beware the excluded middle.

 

An old study of the same phenomenon you describe suggested as mechanism the muscle tensions against the skull from common facial expressions as the person grew up. This would be a good way for "mind" to effect "body".

 

Interesting idea, but really hard to study. I'm afraid I don't know what became of the idea.

[Edmond Zedo]

Well, beware the excluded middle.

 

An old study of the same phenomenon you describe suggested as mechanism the muscle tensions against the skull from common facial expressions as the person grew up. This would be a good way for "mind" to effect "body".

 

Interesting idea, but really hard to study. I'm afraid I don't know what became of the idea.

Well, muscle size increase is certainly one way which the mind, from motivation to practice, can affect the body. But for the mind to be able to increase the size of part of the brain, that's something I haven't seen evidenced. Time will tell, I'm sure.

 

Speaking of the "excluded middle," I was in stats class today, listening to "teach" go on about how everything must be converted to a unimodal curve, and I can't quite wrap my head around it. There are behaviors which are fundamentally bimodal, on a population basis, and I can't figure it out. Perhaps we'll get to that later in the semester. That's an aside, but whatever.

[swansont]

I haven't followed through all the discussion, but I searched the thread for this and found nothing, so here goes:

 

Can identical twins have different personalities? (Or did the Patty Duke show mislead us all?)

[Edmond Zedo]

I haven't followed through all the discussion, but I searched the thread for this and found nothing, so here goes:

 

Can identical twins have different personalities? (Or did the Patty Duke show mislead us all?)

 

Unless those I've analyzed have completely misrepresented themselves, which I very much doubt, then yes, they can have different types under the 16-type systems. I'm quite familiar with an ENFP-ENFJ twin set, for example. That's self-assessment (Including testing, I assume), in addition to my personal assessment. I find it intriguing that the appearance of each of them matches more closely with other ENFJs and ENFPs, respectively. This leads me to believe development is at least as responsible as genetics, overall.