Topic: Creation of personality inventory and typing system based on behavioral economics, as informed by Big Data.
Best start would be to come up with names for the two poles of each of IBM Watson’s “Consumer Needs”:
E.g. The opposite of curiosity could be described as “Certainty preference” by analogy to time preference.
The hope would be to derive these all from the fundamental economic drives that are common to all (ref. ch 1 of The Personal MBA for various lists of “primary” economic values), then describe the rest using biases/heuristics from behavioral economics and game theory.
Works for me.
Certainty – Curiosity axis – Novelty
Mastery (flow states) – Challenge axis – Purpose (will-to-power)
Ego strength – Self-expression axis – Drive to differentiate
Pragmatism/practicality – Ideal axis – Optimism/ambition
Need for rest/reflection – Excitement axis – Need for stimulation
Preference for simplification/reductionism (System 1) – Structure axis – Preference for ordered complexity (System 2)
Introversion (preference for deeper relationships) – Love axis – Extraversion (preference for more relationships)
Man, on the one hand Big Data is a scourge on the land, but on the other hand I covet their data troves.
Rather the trade-off
The potential is nearly limitless, but as with all serious technological breakthroughs, that’s both the blessing and the curse
THE HUBRIS OF MAN
Rather than doing everything from scratch, I started looking shit up.
Here we go: https://cloud.ibm.com/docs/personality-insights?topic=personality-insights-needs
Now I’m looking for studies which have cited IBM Watson.
Here’s an interesting one: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093650220961965
I’d be particularly interested to see which personality characteristics predict the success of which gayops.
For example, I fell for the Trump gay-op but not the Q gay-op.
Now that’s an interesting idea
Openness and agreeableness probably play an interesting role here
Spitballing here…openness + agreeableness = believes whatever is on the TV, openness + disagreeable = reflexively contrarian
closeminded is a little trickier to hypothesize
maybe close + agreeable is the archnormie here and open + agreeble just beleives pretty much anything
“…As such, Study 2 showed indeed that citizens reacted differently to affect-based political ads based on their psychometric profile: introverted people generated higher voting intentions when they were targeted with a negative fear-based political ad, whereas extraverted citizens had higher voting intentions after receiving a positive enthusiasm-based political ad.”
“From a societal point of view, some important reflections have to be made. We have used less than 100 words as input to infer a person’s introversion or extraversion.” :-O
Probably fuzzy in edge cases but wouldn’t surprise me if that was all you needed. Hell, could probably get ~80% success rate with less.
Wonder what the accuracy rate is at, say, 60 words
The computers are getting better at first impressions than we are.
Half the paper is bemoaning how asymmetric power undermines democracy.
It’s like, no shit Sherlock.
It’s almost 2021 and people are still clinging to this libertarian idea of everyone being their own self-sufficient island nation.
As if social influence is this new thing we’ve never had to deal with before.
Some people are more persuasive than others!
What does it MEAN for democracy? :-O
This Pericles fellow speaks TOO WELL. I FEAR WHAT WILL BECOME OF THIS
That was actually an issue back in the day. I think it was Augustine who wasn’t allowed to practice law because his words were considered too honeyed.
But I guess quantity has a quality all its own. We’re okay with power disparities as long as they roughly approximate Dunbar-type tribal conditions.
The idea of people using their power for good is probably too antiquated for me to hope for at this point.
“I want you to imagine, just for a moment, that being in charge of people means you’re responsible for them too. No?”
Hope springs eternal, i suppose
Our conception of locuses of control has gotten very, very strange in the last ten years.
I remember when you didn’t have to make the intellectual nationalism case for feeding your children.
Pithy answer is that we’ve become extraordinarily decoupled from reality, but that presupposes most people had a firm grasp of it in the first place
Yeah, it’s not the delusion that concerns me.
That was always there.
Still, theoretically in past times, people had to be more grounded because there were feedback loops that punished completely maladaptive behavior
Now, social reality and “reality” are so at odds that no feedback makes any sense anymore
What’s alarming is the blitheness.
Still, to your recent point, it is the trend that reality loses to maladaptiv social behavior untile verything collapses and the cycles starts over again
Yeah, blitheness is a good way of putting it
It puts me in mind of my sister making that checkers move I talked about recently.
There’s something really Freudian about it.
I was daydreaming earlier about the scene in Red Dragon that shows why the villain is so fucked up.
And I imagined what would happen if you gave the abusive old crone in that situation a new, perfect kid.
Think something like an indigo child.
I imagine the crone being even more abusive toward that child, not less, as if she’s “teaching him a lesson” on account of his virtues, not his flaws.
There’s something really scary about the potential for people to embrace the darkness in themselves.
I never understood the fascination with villains and still don’t.
Maybe that makes me untrustworthy and dangerous, like people who claim to be innocent of all earthly desires.
My hope is it’s an artifact of the sorts of fiction I bombarded myself with in puberty.
Plus becoming a Christian when I was 11.
Well without getting into psychology and all that, we can note that villains tend to show more aspects of their personality and tend to drive the plot more in most stories, with the hero being something of a blank canvas
Could be a simple need for differentiation then. [Ed: see the section on differentiation in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/surviving-your-childs-adolescence/201109/five-psychological-engines-drive-adolescent-growth%5D
Whether it’s the evil itself that is interesting or the personality that drives one to it is something of an open question
I.e. “Anyone can be a goody two shoes, I’m a rebel.”
There’s definitely some element of that
Also, good is dumb, evil is powerful, etc.
My sneaking suspicion, right this moment, is the fascination with evil is a simple desire to “fit in”. You can’t read history without getting the feeling that evil is the way of the world. So it probably feels like a red pill to rebel against your parents by noticing that normal people are a bit villainous.
if they haven’t told you this, then absolutely
The average amount of interaction between parents and their children is 30 seconds per day.
And it usually takes the form of “Don’t do that”.
Who the fuck is like that?
I don’t know how to explain it. Parenting is like losing weight.
Most people have it thrust upon them as an added responsibility they never wanted at an age they figured they’d already be dead from a motorcycle accident.
They intend to get around to it when the feeling hits and circumstances are favorable, and never do.
Homer Simpson isn’t a caricature.
Suppose it explains a lot though
Still don’t beleive the average time is really that low
I wasn’t able to find the reference.
Got it from a Brian Tracy thing.