Discussion:
There's something you need to know about me
(too old to reply)
carole
2014-05-20 08:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.

This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"

-------------------

"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.

"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.

[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]

"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------


Hoping to explain things a bit. .

Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.

The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.

And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.



--
carole
www.cellsalts.net

Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8 


The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html


History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
Martin
2014-05-20 18:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
No you're not. The results for that test vary so much per individual
that it is useless.
Post by carole
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
You're not normal because you're stupid. Your stupidity being that you
refuse to try and learn anything, you don't read even your own
sources, you refuse to educate yourself about any all subjects, even
homeopathy (in the form of the original work by Hahneman himself) etc
etc etc. You're not stupid because you are ignorant Carole, you are
stupid because you persistently and stubbornly remain ignorant about
everything, including the basic functions of your own body, on
purpose.
Post by carole
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical.
No you're not. You have never analyzed anything in your life. You
steadfastedly refuse to analyze anything at all.
Post by carole
... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
No Carole, you have no friends because you are a stubborn idiot.
Post by carole
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
Ah, hence the sockpuppets. You're not leading there Carole, you're
making a fool of yourself every time. Specially when you make them
reply to eachother. It's pathetic.
Post by carole
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative.
They have a low tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
Bob Officer
2014-05-20 23:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 May 2014 20:04:15 +0200, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Martin
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
No you're not. The results for that test vary so much per individual
that it is useless.
2/3s of every person being retests ends up with a different
personality type. The assumption followed by myers-briggs was Jung's.
HE assumed falsely that personality was "fix" at birth and was
un-changing. Myers and later Briggs assumed their test questions were
structured such that they could measure and quantify the personality
type.

Years later millions of test given, the analysis is that the test is
useless. Statistically there is no meaningful value to the test
results. The individual results are worthless and US courts have
ruled that employers may not use the test results for hiring or
promotion. The US Courts additionally have also ruled the schools may
not use the test results as a basis of admission, or to tell people
they are not allowed to enter certain fields of study.

In the past some school Career Guidance Counselors used the tests to
advise students what fields of study they should follow. Imagine how
they explain to the former students today that the tests were
worthless and a waste of their time.

Yes Myers-briggs testing has been invalidated for several years.
History will look back and consider the whole "personality cult" a
fad much like astrology is treated today, entertainment.
Post by Martin
Post by carole
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
You're not normal because you're stupid. Your stupidity being that you
refuse to try and learn anything, you don't read even your own
sources, you refuse to educate yourself about any all subjects, even
homeopathy (in the form of the original work by Hahneman himself) etc
etc etc. You're not stupid because you are ignorant Carole, you are
stupid because you persistently and stubbornly remain ignorant about
everything, including the basic functions of your own body, on
purpose.
Willful ignorance is considered to be gross stupidity.
Post by Martin
Post by carole
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical.
No you're not. You have never analyzed anything in your life. You
steadfastedly refuse to analyze anything at all.
Post by carole
... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
No Carole, you have no friends because you are a stubborn idiot.
And believes that she doesn't sweat, ergo she need not bath.
Post by Martin
Post by carole
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
Ah, hence the sockpuppets. You're not leading there Carole, you're
making a fool of yourself every time. Specially when you make them
reply to eachother. It's pathetic.
Agreed.
Post by Martin
Post by carole
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative.
That IS NOT carole.
Post by Martin
Post by carole
They have a low tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
Carole latches on to catch phrases and uses them constantly in place
of thinking for herself.

one of her latest catch phrases is "does that make sense" and in the
past her favorite is "pharmaceutical business with disease". Oh yes
Carole falls for spin and catch phrases all the time using them as if
they were logical and true.
Post by Martin
Post by carole
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Bob Officer
2014-05-20 20:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 May 2014 18:46:10 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
So you claim, but then the Myers-Briggs test has no real meaning.
Post by carole
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
No it doesn't, carole.



You are not normal because you lie even to yourself.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Lu
2014-05-21 04:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
Internet numskull, total joke!
Post by carole
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8 
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
--
Lu
John H. Gohde
2014-05-21 18:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
NEWSFLASH: Everyone already knows that Carole is crazy!
John H. Gohde
2014-05-22 09:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
Deluded Imbeciles Identifying Themselves Alert!
�
2014-05-27 04:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
2014-09-28 07:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator™
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
This is me:


Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 62 38 56

INTJ type description by D.Keirsey
INTJ Identify Your Career with Jung Career Indicator™ INTJ Famous
Personalities
INTJ type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss

Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality

-------------------------------------------------

Jung Typology Test™

According to Carl Jung's typology all people can be classified using
the following three criteria:
Extraversion - Introversion
Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Isabel Briggs Myers added the fourth criterion:
Judging - Perceiving
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion defines the source
and direction of energy expression for a person. The extravert has a
source and direction of energy expression mainly in the external world
while the introvert has a source of energy mainly in the internal
world.
The second criterion, Sensing - INtuition defines the method of
information perception by a person. Sensing means that a person
believes mainly information he or she receives directly from the
external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly
information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.

The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling defines how the person
processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision
mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a
decision based on emotion.

The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving defines how a person
implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that
a person organizes all his life events and acts strictly according to
his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise
and seek alternatives.

The different combinations of the criteria determine sixteen possible
types. Every type can be assigned a name (or formula) according to the
first letters of the combination of the four criteria. For example:

ISTJ
Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging or
ENFP
Extravert INtuitive Feeling Perceiving


Read More:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.


*****
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8�
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
Lu
2014-09-28 14:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator™
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 62 38 56
INTJ type description by D.Keirsey
INTJ Identify Your Career with Jung Career Indicator™ INTJ Famous
Personalities
INTJ type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
-------------------------------------------------
Jung Typology Test™
According to Carl Jung's typology all people can be classified using
Extraversion - Introversion
Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Judging - Perceiving
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion defines the source
and direction of energy expression for a person. The extravert has a
source and direction of energy expression mainly in the external world
while the introvert has a source of energy mainly in the internal
world.
The second criterion, Sensing - INtuition defines the method of
information perception by a person. Sensing means that a person
believes mainly information he or she receives directly from the
external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly
information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.
The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling defines how the person
processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision
mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a
decision based on emotion.
The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving defines how a person
implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that
a person organizes all his life events and acts strictly according to
his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise
and seek alternatives.
The different combinations of the criteria determine sixteen possible
types. Every type can be assigned a name (or formula) according to the
ISTJ
Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging or
ENFP
Extravert INtuitive Feeling Perceiving
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.
Yes, my opinion also.
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
*****
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8�
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
--
Lu
For obvious reasons
2014-10-06 10:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD"
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator™
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
There are two types of people - those who think for themselves and
those who believe in groupthink, that if most people believe something
it must be true.


For obvious reasons

Why modern healthcare is in such a shambles
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ph-miracle-for-cancer.html

1953 Fitzgerald Report - Suppressed Cancer Treatments
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppressed_cancer_treatments.htm


"An Epidemic of False Claims
Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of
truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In
health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies
that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics,
success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of
high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic
careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit
its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and
even public funding."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 62 38 56
INTJ type description by D.Keirsey
INTJ Identify Your Career with Jung Career Indicator™ INTJ Famous
Personalities
INTJ type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
-------------------------------------------------
Jung Typology Test™
According to Carl Jung's typology all people can be classified using
Extraversion - Introversion
Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Judging - Perceiving
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion defines the source
and direction of energy expression for a person. The extravert has a
source and direction of energy expression mainly in the external world
while the introvert has a source of energy mainly in the internal
world.
The second criterion, Sensing - INtuition defines the method of
information perception by a person. Sensing means that a person
believes mainly information he or she receives directly from the
external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly
information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.
The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling defines how the person
processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision
mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a
decision based on emotion.
The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving defines how a person
implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that
a person organizes all his life events and acts strictly according to
his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise
and seek alternatives.
The different combinations of the criteria determine sixteen possible
types. Every type can be assigned a name (or formula) according to the
ISTJ
Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging or
ENFP
Extravert INtuitive Feeling Perceiving
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.
*****
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8?
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
Bob Officer
2014-10-06 16:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:56:56 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, For
Post by For obvious reasons
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD"
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator™
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
There are two types of people - those who think for themselves and
those who believe in groupthink, that if most people believe something
it must be true.
And you expect people to accept your statement without question,
don't you? (that's group think carole.) Just as you seem to believe
repeating things you've read but really do not understand, makes you
appear have nothing more than a echo box, where your brain should be.

Do you understand this witless observation which you mindlessly
repeat (group think) is a direct contradiction your prior assertion
about personality classification?

This appears to be another sign you really have never learn any
critical thinking skills.
--
Bob Officer

My observation:
Hubbard's Law States:
When you don't have facts or evidence to back-up or support your
claims, Then try to cite a fictional character or a fictional
story as evidence that your dogmatic belief is true.
Clay
2014-10-06 18:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/6/2014 6:56 AM, For obvious reasons aka carole wrote:

<snip>

carole <-- an idiot, and her own words have made her so.
The Other Guy
2014-10-06 19:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:56:56 +1100, For obvious reasons
Post by For obvious reasons
There are two types of people - those who think for themselves and
those who believe in groupthink, that if most people believe something
it must be true.
And YOU are part of the groupthink group.

Unfortunately, YOU belong to the NONSENSE groupthink group





.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Lu
2014-10-07 04:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by For obvious reasons
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD"
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator™
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
There are two types of people - those who think for themselves and
those who believe in groupthink, that if most people believe something
it must be true.
You forgot one type. That would be the odd person who does not think at all,
like you Carole.
Post by For obvious reasons
For obvious reasons
Why modern healthcare is in such a shambles
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ph-miracle-for-
cancer.html
Post by For obvious reasons
1953 Fitzgerald Report - Suppressed Cancer Treatments
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppre
Post by For obvious reasons
ssed_cancer_treatments.htm
"An Epidemic of False Claims
Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of
truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In
health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies
that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics,
success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of
high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic
careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit
its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and
even public funding."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 62 38 56
INTJ type description by D.Keirsey
INTJ Identify Your Career with Jung Career Indicator™ INTJ Famous
Personalities
INTJ type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
-------------------------------------------------
Jung Typology Test™
According to Carl Jung's typology all people can be classified using
Extraversion - Introversion
Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Judging - Perceiving
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion defines the source
and direction of energy expression for a person. The extravert has a
source and direction of energy expression mainly in the external world
while the introvert has a source of energy mainly in the internal
world.
The second criterion, Sensing - INtuition defines the method of
information perception by a person. Sensing means that a person
believes mainly information he or she receives directly from the
external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly
information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.
The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling defines how the person
processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision
mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a
decision based on emotion.
The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving defines how a person
implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that
a person organizes all his life events and acts strictly according to
his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise
and seek alternatives.
The different combinations of the criteria determine sixteen possible
types. Every type can be assigned a name (or formula) according to the
ISTJ
Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging or
ENFP
Extravert INtuitive Feeling Perceiving
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.
*****
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8?
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
--
Lu
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 14:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wrong.

I covered that one.

DUMB.
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.)<
Post by Lu
Post by For obvious reasons
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD"
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator(tm)
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
There are two types of people - those who think for themselves and
those who believe in groupthink, that if most people believe something
it must be true.
You forgot one type. That would be the odd person who does not think at all,
like you Carole.
Post by For obvious reasons
For obvious reasons
Why modern healthcare is in such a shambles
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ph-miracle-for-
cancer.html
Post by For obvious reasons
1953 Fitzgerald Report - Suppressed Cancer Treatments
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppre
Post by For obvious reasons
ssed_cancer_treatments.htm
"An Epidemic of False Claims
Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of
truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In
health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies
that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics,
success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of
high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic
careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit
its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and
even public funding."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 62 38 56
INTJ type description by D.Keirsey
INTJ Identify Your Career with Jung Career Indicator(tm) INTJ Famous
Personalities
INTJ type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
-------------------------------------------------
Jung Typology Test(tm)
According to Carl Jung's typology all people can be classified using
Extraversion - Introversion
Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Judging - Perceiving
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion defines the source
and direction of energy expression for a person. The extravert has a
source and direction of energy expression mainly in the external world
while the introvert has a source of energy mainly in the internal
world.
The second criterion, Sensing - INtuition defines the method of
information perception by a person. Sensing means that a person
believes mainly information he or she receives directly from the
external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly
information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.
The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling defines how the person
processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision
mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a
decision based on emotion.
The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving defines how a person
implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that
a person organizes all his life events and acts strictly according to
his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise
and seek alternatives.
The different combinations of the criteria determine sixteen possible
types. Every type can be assigned a name (or formula) according to the
ISTJ
Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging or
ENFP
Extravert INtuitive Feeling Perceiving
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.
*****
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8?
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-10-07 17:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Wrong.
I covered that one.
DUMB.
Agreed
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.)<
Many of Jung's suppositions and assertions have been shown time and
time again to be false, not only because they are unsupported by data
but because there is an abundance of data which directly contradicts
Jung. Jung had a fixation on people being fixed/unmutable. Jung had a
deep belief in astrology and numerology. He believed firmly that a
persons "personality" was fixed at birth and could not be changed
under any means. The concept of "personality cult" sprung from these
falsified suppositions and assertions and the end results has become
the Myers-Briggs Test Instrument. The results of this Test Instrument
are totally unreliable and have been used unlawfully in the past as
an excuse to discriminate against many people.

The science behind the MBTI shows that about 1/3 of all people
retaking the test one month later, will get different results from
the MBTI. This could only be because of two reasons: 1) the test is
not measuring personality; 2) the personality is being measured at
that moment in time, and personalities are not fixed. Either way the
MBTI is falsified and becomes nothing more than trivial in nature.

Even the organization which owns the MBTI, admits in the small print
that the MBTI is false, when they state: ~~'if you do not like your
results of the MBTI, pick the personality type which you fell best
suits your opinion of yourself.'

This approach however is in direct contradiction to Dunning and
Kruger, which have show by multiple, double blinded studies, that
most people are not able to judge how well they do any task, test or
preform in a given situation.

So who was right a "an immoral and unethical" doctor named Jung or
Dunning and Kruger? I haven't read anyplace where Dunning or Kruger
slept with any of their test subjects or patients.

What I have read is there have been many out of court settlements for
discrimination where an employer, prospective employer or school has
used the results of the MBTI to deny promotion, employment or
admission to college or university.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by For obvious reasons
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD"
Jung Typology Test
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 18:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Speaking of wrong,

I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 18:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
�
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html <
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
Bob Officer
2014-10-07 19:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.

Or can they?

http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf

https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-critique/

http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html

http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-hoax.html

http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm

<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.

Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.

The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).

“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”

“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”

Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.

"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".

"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"

You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>

That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?

Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.

The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Bob Officer
2014-10-07 19:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:00:23 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Bob
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
So if this is BS how to counter this article, RP?

http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/have-we-all-been-duped-by-the-myers-briggs-test/

<cite>

Despite its popularity, the personality test has been subject to
sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three
decades.

FORTUNE — When Frank Parsons opened the world’s first career guidance
center in Boston in 1908, he began by asking prospective clients 116
penetrating questions about their ambitions, strengths, and
weaknesses (and how often they bathed). But then he did something
more unusual: He measured their skulls.

Parsons was a committed believer in phrenology. If you had a large
forehead, he might recommend you become a lawyer or engineer. But if
your skull was more developed behind the ears, you were of the
“animal type” and best suited to manual work.

Career advice has, thankfully, come a long way since then. But now,
instead of measuring the outside of people’s heads, it has become
common to measure the inside using psychometric tests. Personality
testing has grown into a major industry and is standard procedure in
leadership and management courses, as part of job-interview
processes, and, increasingly, in career counseling. But should we
really trust such tests to deliver scientific, objective truth?

I have some bad news for you: Even the most sophisticated tests have
considerable flaws. Take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the
world’s most popular psychometric test, which is based on Jung’s
theory of personality types. Over two million are administered every
year. The MBTI places you in one of 16 personality types, based on
dichotomous categories such as whether you are an introvert or an
extrovert, or have a disposition towards being logical or emotional
(what it calls “thinking” and ”feeling”).

The interesting — and somewhat alarming — fact about the MBTI is
that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained
criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One
problem is that it displays what statisticians call low “test-retest
reliability.” So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap,
there’s around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different
personality category compared to the first time you took the test.

A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that
personality falls into mutually exclusive categories. You are either
an extrovert or an introvert, but never a mix of the two. Yet most
people fall somewhere in the middle. If the MBTI also measured
height, you would be classified as either tall or short, even though
the majority of people are within a band of medium height.

The consequence is that the scores of two people labeled “introvert”
and “extrovert” may be almost exactly the same, but they could be
placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an
imaginary dividing line.

One other thing, and this matters especially for anybody who thinks
personality tests can guide them to a perfect career. According to
official Myers-Briggs documents published by its exclusive European
distributor, the test can “give you an insight into what kinds of
work you might enjoy and be successful doing.” So if you are, like
me, classified as INTJ (your dominant traits are being introverted,
intuitive, and having a preference for thinking and judging), the
best-fit occupations include management consultant, IT professional,
and engineer.

Would a change to one of these careers make me more fulfilled?
Unlikely, according to psychologist David Pittenger, because there is
“no evidence to show a positive relation between MBTI type and
success within an occupation … nor is there any data to suggest that
specific types are more satisfied within specific occupations than
are other types.” Pittenger advises “extreme caution in [the MBTI
test’s] application as a counseling tool.” Then why is the MBTI so
popular? Its success, he argues, is primarily due to “the beguiling
nature of the horoscope-like summaries of personality and steady
marketing.”

When I cite the avalanche of critical studies to career counselors,
coaches, and trainers who administer Myers-Briggs tests, they often
point out that the test is not designed to match people to ideal
careers. Yet many of them ignore the evidence and keep on handing
them out, typically because they are still believers in it as a guide
to personality types, but sometimes — I suspect — because it gives
their advice a veneer of legitimacy.

</cite>

Myers-briggs as is real as astrology, phrenology, or tea dregs.
Post by Bob Officer
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.
Or can they?
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-critique/
http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html
http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-hoax.html
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm
<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.
Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.
The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).
“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”
“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”
Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.
"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".
"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"
You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>
That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?
Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.
The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 22:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:00:23 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Bob
<SNIP>


�
Post by Bob Officer
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html <
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 22:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:00:23 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Bob
<SNIP>

Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2009) -- Observers were able to accurately judge
some aspects of a stranger's personality from looking at photographs,
according to a study in the current issue of Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin (PSBP), the official monthly journal of the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Self-esteem, ratings of
extraversion and religiosity were correctly judged from physical
appearance.

Researchers asked participants to assess the personalities of
strangers based first on a photograph posed to the researchers'
specifications and then on a photograph posed the way the subject
chose. Those judgments were then compared with how the person and
acquaintances rated that individual's personality. They found that
while both poses provided participants with accurate cues about
personality, the spontaneous pose showed more insight, including about
the subject's agreeableness, emotional stability, openness,
likability, and loneliness.

The study suggested that physical appearance alone can send signals
about their true personality.

"As we predicted, physical appearance serves as a channel through
which personality is manifested," write authors Laura P. Naumann,
University of California, Berkeley, Simine Vazire, Washington
University in St. Louis, Peter J. Rentfrow, University of Cambridge,
Samuel D. Gosling, University of Texas at Austin. "By using full-body
photographs and examining a broad range of traits, we identified
domains of accuracy that have been overlooked, leading to the
conclusion that physical appearance may play a more important role in
personality judgment than previously thought."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Share on reddit Share on stumbleupon Share on pinterest_share Share on
blogger Share on digg Share on fark Share on linkedin Share on myspace
Share on newsvine |
Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by SAGE
Publications, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further
information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

Naumann et al. Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2009; 35 (12): 1661 DOI:
10.1177/0146167209346309
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of
the following formats:
APA

MLA
SAGE Publications (2009, December 11). Personalities accurately judged
by physical appearance alone. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 15,
2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com- /releases/
2009/12/091210130000.htm
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice,
diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily
reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210130000.htm




*****


Physiognomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Illustration in a 19th century book about Physiognomy.
Physiognomy (from the Gk. physis meaning "nature" and gnomon meaning
"judge" or "interpreter") is the assessment of a person's character or
personality from his outer appearance, especially the face. The term
physiognomy can also refer to the general appearance of a person,
object or terrain, without reference to its implied characteristics.

Credence of such study has varied from time to time. The practice was
well-accepted by the ancient Greek philosophers, but fell into
disrepute in the Middle Ages when practised by vagabonds and
mountebanks. It was then revived and popularised by Johann Kaspar
Lavater before falling from favour again in the late 19th century.[1]
Physiognomy as understood in the past meets the contemporary
definition of a pseudoscience.[2]

There is no clear evidence that physiognomy works.[1]

Physiognomy is also sometimes referred to as anthroposcopy, though the
expression was more common in the 19th century when the word
originated.[3]

Contents

1 Ancient physiognomy
2 Middle Ages
3 Modern physiognomy
3.1 Origin
3.2 Period of popularity
3.3 Modern science
4 Modern usage
5 Related disciplines
6 References
6.1 Notes
6.2 Further reading
7 External links
Ancient physiognomy

For more details on this topic, see Physiognomonics#Ancient
physiognomy before the Physiognomonics.
Notions of the relationship between an individual's outward appearance
and inner character are historically ancient, and occasionally appear
in early Greek poetry. The first indications of a developed
physiognomic theory appear in 5th century BC Athens, with the works of
Zopyrus (who was featured in a dialogue by Phaedo of Elis), who was
said to be an expert in the art. By the 4th century BC, the
philosopher Aristotle makes frequent reference to theory and
literature concerning the relationship of appearance to character.
Aristotle was apparently receptive to such an idea, as evidenced by a
passage in his Prior Analytics:

It is possible to infer character from features, if it is granted that
the body and the soul are changed together by the natural affections:
I say 'natural', for though perhaps by learning music a man has made
some change in his soul, this is not one of those affections natural
to us; rather I refer to passions and desires when I speak of natural
emotions. If then this were granted and also that for each change
there is a corresponding sign, and we could state the affection and
sign proper to each kind of animal, we shall be able to infer
character from features.
--Prior Analytics 2.27 (Trans. A. J. Jenkinson)
The first systematic physiognomic treatise to survive to the present
day is a slim volume, Physiognomonica (English: Physiognomonics),
ascribed to Aristotle (but probably of his "school" rather than
created by the philosopher himself). The volume is divided into two
parts, conjectured to have been originally two separate works. The
first section discusses arguments drawn from nature or other races,
and concentrates on the concept of human behavior. The second section
focuses on animal behavior, dividing the animal kingdom into male and
female types. From these are deduced correspondences between human
form and character.

After Aristotle, the major extant works in physiognomy are:

Polemo of Laodicea, de Physiognomonia (2nd century AD), in Greek
Adamantius the Sophist, Physiognomonica (4th century), in Greek
An anonymous Latin author de Phsiognomonia (ca. 4th century)
Ancient Greek mathematician, astronomer and scientist Pythagoras,
believed by some to be the originator of physiognomics, once rejected
a prospective follower named Cylon simply because of his appearance,
which Pythagoras deemed indicative of bad character[4]

Middle Ages


Della Porta, Giambattista: De humana physiognomonia libri IIII (Vico
Equense: Apud Iosephum Cacchium, 1586).
The term was common in Middle English, often written as fisnamy or
visnomy (as in the Tale of Beryn, a 15th-century sequel to the
Canterbury Tales: "I knowe wele by thy fisnamy, thy kynd it were to
stele").

Physiognomy's validity was once widely accepted, and it was taught in
universities until the time of Henry VIII of England, who outlawed it
(along with "Palmestrye") in 1531.[5] Around this time, scholastic
leaders settled on the more erudite Greek form 'physiognomy' and began
to discourage the whole concept of 'fisnamy'.

The great inventor, scientist and artist, Leonardo da Vinci, was a
critic of physiognomy in the early 16th century he said 'I do not
concern myself with false physiognomy...there is no truth in them and
this can be proven because these chimeras have no scientific
foundation'[6] He did however believe that lines caused by facial
expressions could indicate personality traits i.e. 'those who have
deep and noticeable lines between the eyebrows are irascible'[6]

Modern physiognomy

Origin


Johann Kaspar Lavater.
The principal promoter of physiognomy in modern times was the Swiss
pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741-1801) who was briefly a friend of
Goethe. Lavater's essays on physiognomy were first published in German
in 1772 and gained great popularity. These influential essays were
translated into French and English. The two principal sources from
which Lavater found 'confirmation' of his ideas were the writings of
the Italian Giambattista Della Porta (1535-1615) and the English
physician-philosopher Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682), whose Religio
Medici discusses the possibility of the discernment of inner qualities
from the outer appearance of the face, thus:

there is surely a Physiognomy, which those experienced and Master
Mendicants observe... For there are mystically in our faces certain
Characters that carry in them the motto of our Souls, wherein he that
cannot read A.B.C. may read our natures.
-- R.M. part 2:2
Late in his life Browne affirmed his physiognomical beliefs, writing
in his Christian Morals (circa 1675):


Sir Thomas Browne.
Since the Brow speaks often true, since Eyes and Noses have Tongues,
and the countenance proclaims the heart and inclinations; let
observation so far instruct thee in Physiognomical lines....we often
observe that Men do most act those Creatures, whose constitution,
parts, and complexion do most predominate in their mixtures. This is a
corner-stone in Physiognomy... there are therefore Provincial Faces,
National Lips and Noses, which testify not only the Natures of those
Countries, but of those which have them elsewhere.
-- C.M. Part 2 section 9
Sir Thomas Browne is also credited with the first usage of the word
caricature in the English language, whence much of physiognomy
movement's pseudo-learning attempted to entrench itself by
illustrative means.

Browne possessed several of the writings of the Italian Giambattista
Della Porta including his Of Celestial Physiognomy, which argued that
it was not the stars but a person's temperament that influences facial
appearance and character. In his book De humana physiognomia (1586),
Porta used woodcuts of animals to illustrate human characteristics.
His works are well represented in the Library of Sir Thomas Browne;
both men sustained a belief in the doctrine of signatures -- that is,
the belief that the physical structures of nature such as a plant's
roots, stem and flower, were indicative keys (or signatures) to their
medicinal potentials.

Lavater received mixed reactions from scientists, some accepting his
research with other criticizing it.[2] For example, the harshest
critic was scientist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg said that Pathognomy,
discovering the character by observing the behaviour, was more
effective. Writer Hannah More complained to Horace Walpole that "In
vain do we boast (...) that philosophy had broken down all the
strongholds of prejudice, ignorance, and superstition; and yet, at
this very time (...) Lavater's physiognomy books sell at fifteen
guineas a set."[2][7]

Period of popularity

The popularity of physiognomy grew throughout the 18th century and
into the 19th century, and it was discussed seriously by academics,
who saw a lot of potential in it.[2] Many European novelists used
physiognomy in the descriptions of their characters.[2] notably
Balzac, Chaucer[8] and portrait artists, such as Joseph Ducreux;
meanwhile, the 'Norwich connection' to physiognomy developed in the
writings of Amelia Opie and travelling linguist George Borrow. A host
of other 19th century English authors were influenced by the idea,
notably evident in the detailed physiognomic descriptions of
characters in the novels of Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy and
Charlotte Brontë.

Physiognomy is a central, implicit assumption underlying the plot of
Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. In 19th century American
literature, physiognomy figures prominently in the short stories of
Edgar Allan Poe[9]

Phrenology was also considered a form of physiognomy. It was created
around 1800 by German physician Franz Joseph Gall and Johann
Spurzheim, and was widely popular in the 19th century in Europe and
the United States. In the U.S., physician James W. Redfield published
his Comparative Physiognomy in 1852, illustrating with 330 engravings
the "Resemblances between Men and Animals." He finds these in
appearance and (often metaphorically) character, e.g. Germans to
Lions, Negroes to Elephants and Fishes, Chinamen to Hogs, Yankees to
Bears, Jews to Goats.[10]

During the late 19th century, English psychometrician Sir Francis
Galton attempted to define physiognomic characteristics of health,
disease, beauty, and criminality, via a method of composite
photography.[11] [12] Galton's process involved the photographic
superimposition of two or more faces by multiple exposures. After
averaging together photographs of violent criminals, he found that the
composite appeared "more respectable" than any of the faces comprising
it; this was likely due to the irregularities of the skin across the
constituent images being averaged out in the final blend. With the
advent of computer technology during the early 1990s, Galton's
composite technique has been adopted and greatly improved using
computer graphics software [13].

In the late 19th century it became associated with phrenology and
consequently discredited and rejected.[1] Modern scientists now
consider physiognomy a form of pseudoscience.[2]

Modern science

A February 2009 article in the New Scientist reported that physiognomy
is living a small revival, with research papers trying to find links
between personality traits and facial traits.[1] There is still no
conclusive evidence on any clear link.[1]

Some alternative theories have been proposed.[1] For example, our
brain tends to extrapolate emotions from facial expressions, and
physiognomy would only be an overgeneralization of this skill.[1]
Also, if one classifies a person as untrustworthy due to their face,
and treats them as such, that person will eventually behave in an
untrustworthy way.[1]

Modern usage

Practitioners of the personality type theory socionics use physiognomy
as a personality identification technique.[citation needed]

There is some evidence that people can detect male homosexuality by
looking at facial characteristics.[14]

A physiognomist named Yoshito Mizuno was employed from 1936 to 1945 by
the Imperial Japanese Naval Aeronautics Department, examining
candidates for the Naval Air Corps, after - to their surprise -
Admiral Yamamoto's staff discovered that he could predict with over
80% accuracy the qualifications of candidates to become successful
pilots.[15]

In 2011, the South Korean news agency Yonhap, published a
physiognomical analysis of the heir of North Korea, future leader Kim
Jong-Un.[16]

Related disciplines

Anthropological criminology
Anthropometry
Characterology
Morphopsychology
Palmistry
Phrenology
Pathognomy
Personology
Somatotype and Constitutional Psychology
References

Notes

^ a b c d e f g h How your looks betray your personality - New
Scientist (Magazine issue 2695) - 11 February 2009: Roger Highfield,
Richard Wiseman, and Rob Jenkins
^ a b c d e f Roy Porter (2003), "Marginalized practices", The
Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-century science, The
Cambridge History of Science, 4 (illustrated ed.), Cambridge
University Press, pp. 495-497, ISBN 978-0-521-57243-9, "Although we
may now bracket physiognomy with Mesmerism as discredited or even
laughable belief, many eighteenth-century writers referred to it in
all seriousness as a useful science with a long history(...) Although
many modern historians belittle physiognomy as a pseudoscience, at the
end of the eighteenth century it was not merely a popular fad but also
the subject of intense academic debate about the promises it held for
future progress."
^ [1]
^ Riedweg, Christop, Pythagoras: His Life,Teaching, and Influence.
^ 22 Henry VIII cap. 12, sect. 4
^ a b Leonardo on Art and the Artist By Leonardo da Vinci The Orion
Press, New York, 1961 p144 Online [2]
^ Letter to Horace Walpole of September 1788, reproduced in W.S.
Lewis, The Yale Edition of Horace Walpole's Correspondence, 48 vols.
(London: oxford University Press, 1937-83), 31:279-81 (quotation at p.
280). Citation taken from Roy Porter's The Cambridge History of
Science: Eighteenth-century science.
^ Auguste Elfriede Christa Canitz, Gernot Rudolf Wieland, ed. (1999),
"Another look at an Old 'Science': Chaucer's Pilgrims and
Physiognomy", From Arabye to Engelond: medieval studies in honour of
Mahmoud Manzalaoui on his 75th birthday, Actexpress Series, University
of Ottawa Press, pp. 93-110, ISBN 978-0-7766-0517-3
^ Erik Grayson. "Weird Science, Weirder Unity: Phrenology and
Physiognomy in Edgar Allan Poe" Mode 1 (2005): 56-77. Also online.
^ "Comparative Physiognomy or Resemblances between Men and Animals:
Illustrated" by Jam. W. Redfield Full text on Google Books
^ Benson, P., & Perrett, D. (1991). Computer averaging and
manipulations of faces. In P. Wombell (ed.), Photovideo: Photography
in the age of the computer (pp. 32-38). London: Rivers Oram Press.
^ Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits. Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 8, 132-142.
^ Yamaguchi, M. K., Hirukawa, T., & Kanazawa, S. (1995). Judgment of
gender through facial parts. Perception, 24, 563-575.
^ There's Something Queer about that Face, Scientific American
^ Agawa, The Reluctant Admiral, p. 110-115.
^ The Face tells all, The Center For Arms Control And Non-
Proliferation
Further reading

Claudia Schmölders, Hitler's Face: The Biography of an Image.
Translated by Adrian Daub. University of Pennsylvania Press: 2006.
ISBN 0-8122-3902-4.
Liz Gerstein, About Face. SterlingHouse Publisher, Inc. ISBN
1-58501-088-X
External links

"Ugly Criminals", H. Naci Mocan and Erdal Tekin, December 2005
Selected images from: Della Porta, Giambattista: De humana
physiognomonia libri IIII (Vico Equense, 1586). Historical Anatomies
on the Web. National Library of Medicine.
Women's traits 'written on face' (BBC News Wednesday, 11 February
2009)
"On Physiognomy" - An Essay by Arthur Schopenhauer
"Composite Portraits", by Francis Galton, 1878 (as published in the
Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,
volume 8).
"Enquiries into Human Faculty and its Development", book by Francis
Galton, 1883.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 22:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Personality Assessment System
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Personality Assessment System (PAS) is a descriptive model of personality formulated by John W. Gittinger. The system has been used by scientists in studying personality and by clinicians in clinical practice. A major feature of the PAS is that a personality profile can be systematically interpreted from a set of Wechsler Scales subtest scores. [1]

The PAS has two aspects which distinguish it from other personality models. They are the use of the Wechsler subtests, an objective test, to determine a personality and the use of a developmental model in which the description of personality includes development through adolescence.

Krauskopf has proposed that differential aptitudes are the "cause" of personality differences. [2] The reason is that people prefer to use aptitudes they feel they are better at than ones where they feel weaker. Krauskopf calls this hypothesis "radical" because so little attention has been paid to the idea. With this "radical hypothesis", the use of an intelligence test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale to obtain personality information makes sense.

Contents

1 Description
2 Applications
3 CIA connection
4 Literature
5 The PAS and MBTI
6 Footnotes
7 References
8 External links
Description

This very brief description is based primarily on the most recently published description of the PAS [3] although there is no disagreement with other descriptions.[4][5]

The PAS is based on premises (among others) that behavior is determined by both heredity and environment and behavior is determined by an interacting system of traits. Furthermore, these traits can be modified through learning to such an extent that some might be nearly opposite to the original genetic direction. Gittinger's original formulation defines three primitive dimensions to which must be added general ability level which is referred to in the PAS as Normal Level. There is an additional dimension related to psychological energy. In the theory, gender and age also affect the final personality description.

The first dimension is Internalizer-Externalizer which is an ability to manipulate internal stimuli or symbols without being distracted by the external world. This is similar, but not identical, to the familiar introversion-extroversion dimension. The internalizer relies more on his own experience and internal landscape and is likely to be less active than externalizers. The externalizer is dependent on input from the outside and is more dependent on relating for the sake of relating. Gittinger called this the intellectual dimension.

The Regulated-Flexible dimension can be viewed by thinking of a regulated person as one who can see details within a whole, but not the whole. The regulated person is more stimulus bound and less able to see the "big picture". The regulated person is more procedurally oriented and emotionally insulated. The flexible person is involved with relationships and has attention diverted from step by step procedures. In theory, the regulated person has a high sensory threshold which is therefore satisfied less often than a flexible person. Gittinger called this the procedural dimension.

The Role Adaptable-Role Uniform dimension refers to a person's skill in meeting demands that others make of him. It is thus a social dimension. The behavior related to this dimension is generally without awareness. The adaptable person easily plays a variety of roles, being charming and moving easily in many different situations always making good first impressions. The role uniform person is able to handle only a few social roles at best and is often said to be socially inept. The behavior is most apparent in new social situations, since the role uniform may comfortable and accepted in a very familiar situation. The role adaptive can suffer from making good first impressions and then not understanding the unrealistic expectations others place upon him. Gittinger called this the social dimension.

As the environment places demands upon a person to learn to compensate for weaknesses, the person may compensate to such an extent as to actually appear to have the opposite primitive trait. For example a primitive externalizer may compensate and appear more as an internalizer. However, there are differences between an uncompensated primitive externalizer and a compensated internalizer. The compensated adjustment is a more tense adjustment and requires more rehearsal and more display of consistency. Also, a person who is compensated often reacts negatively to seeing their primitive trait displayed in others. A person may compensate in none, one, two or all three dimensions. The PAS calls the adjustment including compensation the basic level.

The PAS defines an additional level of adjustment called the contact or surface level. At the surface level, there are four possible adjustments. A person who is not compensated may either become modified, that is, attempt to display the opposite of their primitive trait on the surface or they may remain completely uncompensated and unmodified, retaining their primitive trait. A person who is compensated at the basic level may revert towards their primitive trait on the surface (this is called a controlled adjustment) or continue to move towards the opposite (this is called a repressed adjustment). A person makes adjustments in all three dimensions independently. For example, a person might have a modified adjustment in one dimension, a controlled adjustment in another, and a repressed adjustment in the third.

A key feature of the PAS is that the profile of a particular person may be derived from their scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. The development of the PAS actually began when John Gittinger noticed certain behaviors which seemed to relate to subtest scores on the Wechsler. Over the years, as he observed many people, he developed the full theory and the method of translating Wechsler scores into PAS profiles. Many refinements in the method used to produce PAS profiles from Wechsler scores were made with the 2001 method and one much older method the most extensively used by psychologists using the PAS.

Applications

The PAS has been used for many applications over the years. A sample of applications include education, career analysis, self-help, and intelligence gathering.

DuVivier [6] discusses the importance of working with individual differences when analyzing college student success and drop-out rates with particular attention to avoiding drop-out. She uses an "Impressionistic Model Analysis" based on the PAS.

Downs [7] studied college students majoring in mathematics and mathematics education. In the study, most students in both groups were primitive regulated, in fact, compensated regulated. Pure mathematics majors tended to be primitive and basic role uniform whereas mathematics education majors tended to be primitive role adaptive.

Meyers [8] studied several police forces and discovered that police tended to be either primitive role adaptive or compensated role uniform people.

Wilton [9] describes an entire toolbox of building life skills, everything from child training to dealing with obnoxious people to building security. She bases her work on her understanding of indidual differences which she credits foremost to John Gittinger and the PAS.

DeForest [10] describes the use of the PAS in two aspects of intelligence gathering in Vietnam. One use was to develop interrogation methods appropriate to the personality type of the subject. According the DeForest's report of the work, Vietnamese were very similar to each other, especially at the primitive level, and this led to develop of a consistent method of interrogation. The PAS was also used to identify personalities which were likely to remain loyal, as opposed to ones who would flip-flop according to who they were dealing with at the moment. This was used to select subjects from among captives or deserters to return to enemy locations to gather intelligence.

CIA connection

John Gittinger, the developer of the PAS, worked as a psychologist for the Central Intelligence Agency during the time he developed the PAS. Early publications describing the PAS appeared in academic publications and did not mention Gittinger's employer. [11] While the PAS has been used in many contexts such as education and clinical work, it was developed by John Gittinger who worked with a number of other CIA employees. Gittinger and his PAS work were related to a wide range of projects, some of which were part of the set of projects called MKULTRA. When there were Senate hearings on the MKULTRA project, Gittinger was a witness and identified as a CIA psychologist. [12] The relationship of Gittinger, the PAS and MKULTRA is discussed by Marks in chapter 11 of his book based upon examination of thousands of documents.[13] Earlier articles on the PAS in professional and academic journals never mentioned John Gittinger's employer. While Marks' book is critical of the CIA and the MKULTRA project, Marks reports of Gittinger's passion for his personality system and describes it quite thoroughly. Marks also reports that Gittinger was very concerned that Marks' 1974 article connecting Gittinger, the PAS, and the CIA would damage Gittinger's professional career. Marks also reports that Gittinger was "humiliated" by the 1973 hearings saying Gittinger was interested in talking about his personality system, not the drug and sex scandals being pursued by the Senate committee. Note that Gittinger retired from government service in 1978.

The use of the PAS by a CIA psychologist in the field is described in DeForest's book.[14] The book describes the work of a psychologist, Bill Todd (a pseudonym) in Vietnam. Treverton says that this book "is one for intelligence fans, not an assessment but a lively tale of a spymaster and his agents-" [15] Manning's review in the New York Times says, "Orrin DeForest, the principal author of the book, certainly comes across as a disaffected C.I.A. person, and its contents are certainly self-serving. Whether the book is also misleading is difficult for someone outside the spook fraternity of hired dissemblers to ascertain. Nevertheless, Slow Burn has its virtues anyway."[16]

Literature

The PAS was developed primarily during the 1950s and 1960s with continued refinement since then. Due to the uniqueness of the developer, John W. Gittinger, and the nature of John Gittinger's career, the literature is somewhat unusual in two ways. First, while there are many journal articles published about the PAS and research using the PAS, only a small number are authored or co-authored by John Gittinger. Second, much research has been conducted which has not been published. Krauskopf and Suanders' book [17] has the most thorough discussion of the theory of the PAS, how it relates to other theories in psychology, and of research concerning the PAS. This book has a very extensive bibliography of both research on the PAS itself and works using the PAS. Gittinger's major work, a 1964 work called the PAS Atlas contains the most complete description of the wide range of possible personality profiles. The PAS Atlas was never formally published by Gittinger. A revised version, which improved readability and usability, was published in 1992. [18] Gittinger did publish two shorter descriptions of the PAS in academic journals with coauthor J. F. Winne in 1973. [19] [20]

An extensive summary of the relationship of the Wechsler and the PAS is available from Matarazzo in chapter 14 (Personality and Related Correlates of the Wechsler Scales) of the standard reference on the Wechsler. [21]

The PAS and MBTI

Krauskopf and Saunders discuss how the PAS relates to other differential concepts. [22] Due to personal interactions at conferences, perhaps the relationship of the MBTI Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to the PAS has received more discussion and thought than other comparisons. The two systems have relationships but an individual's profile in one system is not readily derived from the profile of the other. [23]

Research and conference discussions suggest that conscious choices as defined by preferences made on the MBTI questionnaire define an individual's MBTI profile. Similarity, choices in one's life-style define a person's PAS third or surface dimension.

In the PAS terms, the face one shows to the world is the result of an individual's conscious and unconscious screening process. Like the MBTI profile, the PAS surface dimension reflects who a person is or how he/she wants to be seen.

The MBTI and PAS diverge on the source of what goes into one's public persona. The first two dimensions of the PAS represent measurable, developmental interactions of Nature and Nurture at play in forming one's "basic" or core personality. Based on motivations emanating from the basic personality, the surface persona is the result of an individual's largely, but not entirely, conscious choices to maximize strengths and to minimize weaknesses. Once the individual's basic or core personality is formed, it is immutable. In contrast, the surface dimension is subject to subtle transformations through life experiences such as education, therapy, illness, trauma, and/or aging.

So, while both the MBTI and the third dimension of PAS result from conscious choices about the identity a person wishes to project, these respective models vary as to the sources governing the decisions going into the choice of one's public persona.

Footnotes

Jump up ^ Krauskopf and Saunders, 1994, p1-10.
Jump up ^ Krauskopf, 1998
Jump up ^ Krauskopf and Saunders, 1994, Chapter 3
Jump up ^ Gittinger, 1992, 1973a, 1973b
Jump up ^ Marks, 1979, Chapter 11
Jump up ^ DuVivier, 1992
Jump up ^ Downs, 1973
Jump up ^ Meyers, 1973
Jump up ^ Wilton, 2006, p iv and Appendix
Jump up ^ DeForest, 1991
Jump up ^ Gittinger, 1973a, 1973b
Jump up ^ The transcripts of the select committee on intelligence and the subcommittee on health and scientific research of the committee of human resources for the ninety-fifth congress first session, August 3, 1977, hearings are available online. For example, see Rutgers law library site accessed June 19, 2008 or this better formatted version accessed June 19, 2008. The testimony in these transcripts does not mention the PAS, but do include testimony of Gittinger.
Jump up ^ Marks, 1979, Chapter 11
Jump up ^ DeForest, 1992
Jump up ^ Treverton, 1990
Jump up ^ Manning, 1990
Jump up ^ Krauskopf and Saunders, 1994
Jump up ^ Gittinger, 1992
Jump up ^ Winne and Gittinger, 1973a
Jump up ^ Winne and Gittinger, 1973b
Jump up ^ Mattarazzo, 1972
Jump up ^ Krauskopf and Saunders, 1994, Chapter V
Jump up ^ Krauskopf and Saunders, 1994, Pages 66, 69, 127.
References

DeForest, Orrin; David Chanoff (1991). Slow Burn: The Rise And Fall Of American Intelligence In Vietnam. Pocket Books, New York. ISBN 0-671-73997-2.
Downs, R.R. (1973) A personality assessment of college seniors majoring in mathematically related fields. EdD, Ball State University, Dissertation Abstracts, 34A, 4735.
DuVivier, Roxanne (1992). Diagnosis and treatment in education: A handbook for applying the Impressionistic Models System in teaching and student development. University Press of America, Lanham Maryland. ISBN 0-8191-8672-4.
Gittinger, John, (1992) PAS Atlas, MARS Assessment Technology Inc, Sterling Virginia, Edwin W. Gunberg editor.
Krauskopf, Charles J.; David R. Saunders (1994). Personality and Ability: The Personality Assessment System. University Press of America, Maryland. p. 263. ISBN 0-8191-9282-1.
Krauskopf, C. J. (1998). "The personality assessment system: A radical hypothesis" . Applied and Preventive Psychology 7 (4): 235-245. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(98)80027-9 .
Manning, Robert, (1990) Review of Slow Burn, New York Times, April 22, 1990.
Meyers, B. A, (1973) Personality characteristics of higher and lower rated policement. MS project. University of Missouri, Columbia
Marks, John (1979). The Search for the Manchurian Candidate. Times Books, New York. ISBN 0-8129-0773-6.
Matarazzo, Joseph D. (1972). Wechsler's Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, 5th and Enlarged Edition. Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore.
Treverton, Gregory F, (1990) Review of Slow Burn, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1990
Wilton, Elisabeth S. (2006). Taking Charge - A Conversation About Building Life Skills. www.lulu.com, ID: 371811.
Winne, J. F., and Gittinger, J. W, (1973a) An introduction to the Personality Assessment System, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 38, 1-68
Winne, John F.; Gittinger, John W. (April 1, 1973). "An introduction to the personality assessment system". Journal of Community Psychology 1 (2): 99-163. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(197304)1:2<99::AID-JCOP2290010202>3.0.CO;2-U .
External links

http://www.pasf.org/
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personality_Assessment_System&oldid=617792327"
Categories: Personality theories
This page was last modified on 21 July 2014 at 03:30.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia(R) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:00:23 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, Bob
<SNIP>
Personalities Accurately Judged by Physical Appearance Alone
ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2009) -- Observers were able to accurately judge
some aspects of a stranger's personality from looking at photographs,
according to a study in the current issue of Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin (PSBP), the official monthly journal of the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Self-esteem, ratings of
extraversion and religiosity were correctly judged from physical
appearance.
Researchers asked participants to assess the personalities of
strangers based first on a photograph posed to the researchers'
specifications and then on a photograph posed the way the subject
chose. Those judgments were then compared with how the person and
acquaintances rated that individual's personality. They found that
while both poses provided participants with accurate cues about
personality, the spontaneous pose showed more insight, including about
the subject's agreeableness, emotional stability, openness,
likability, and loneliness.
The study suggested that physical appearance alone can send signals
about their true personality.
"As we predicted, physical appearance serves as a channel through
which personality is manifested," write authors Laura P. Naumann,
University of California, Berkeley, Simine Vazire, Washington
University in St. Louis, Peter J. Rentfrow, University of Cambridge,
Samuel D. Gosling, University of Texas at Austin. "By using full-body
photographs and examining a broad range of traits, we identified
domains of accuracy that have been overlooked, leading to the
conclusion that physical appearance may play a more important role in
personality judgment than previously thought."
Share on reddit Share on stumbleupon Share on pinterest_share Share on
blogger Share on digg Share on fark Share on linkedin Share on myspace
Share on newsvine |
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by SAGE
Publications, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further
information, please contact the source cited above.
Naumann et al. Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance.
10.1177/0146167209346309
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of
APA
MLA
SAGE Publications (2009, December 11). Personalities accurately judged
by physical appearance alone. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 15,
2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com- /releases/
2009/12/091210130000.htm
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice,
diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily
reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210130000.htm
*****
Physiognomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Illustration in a 19th century book about Physiognomy.
Physiognomy (from the Gk. physis meaning "nature" and gnomon meaning
"judge" or "interpreter") is the assessment of a person's character or
personality from his outer appearance, especially the face. The term
physiognomy can also refer to the general appearance of a person,
object or terrain, without reference to its implied characteristics.
Credence of such study has varied from time to time. The practice was
well-accepted by the ancient Greek philosophers, but fell into
disrepute in the Middle Ages when practised by vagabonds and
mountebanks. It was then revived and popularised by Johann Kaspar
Lavater before falling from favour again in the late 19th century.[1]
Physiognomy as understood in the past meets the contemporary
definition of a pseudoscience.[2]
There is no clear evidence that physiognomy works.[1]
Physiognomy is also sometimes referred to as anthroposcopy, though the
expression was more common in the 19th century when the word
originated.[3]
Contents
1 Ancient physiognomy
2 Middle Ages
3 Modern physiognomy
3.1 Origin
3.2 Period of popularity
3.3 Modern science
4 Modern usage
5 Related disciplines
6 References
6.1 Notes
6.2 Further reading
7 External links
Ancient physiognomy
For more details on this topic, see Physiognomonics#Ancient
physiognomy before the Physiognomonics.
Notions of the relationship between an individual's outward appearance
and inner character are historically ancient, and occasionally appear
in early Greek poetry. The first indications of a developed
physiognomic theory appear in 5th century BC Athens, with the works of
Zopyrus (who was featured in a dialogue by Phaedo of Elis), who was
said to be an expert in the art. By the 4th century BC, the
philosopher Aristotle makes frequent reference to theory and
literature concerning the relationship of appearance to character.
Aristotle was apparently receptive to such an idea, as evidenced by a
It is possible to infer character from features, if it is granted that
I say 'natural', for though perhaps by learning music a man has made
some change in his soul, this is not one of those affections natural
to us; rather I refer to passions and desires when I speak of natural
emotions. If then this were granted and also that for each change
there is a corresponding sign, and we could state the affection and
sign proper to each kind of animal, we shall be able to infer
character from features.
--Prior Analytics 2.27 (Trans. A. J. Jenkinson)
The first systematic physiognomic treatise to survive to the present
day is a slim volume, Physiognomonica (English: Physiognomonics),
ascribed to Aristotle (but probably of his "school" rather than
created by the philosopher himself). The volume is divided into two
parts, conjectured to have been originally two separate works. The
first section discusses arguments drawn from nature or other races,
and concentrates on the concept of human behavior. The second section
focuses on animal behavior, dividing the animal kingdom into male and
female types. From these are deduced correspondences between human
form and character.
Polemo of Laodicea, de Physiognomonia (2nd century AD), in Greek
Adamantius the Sophist, Physiognomonica (4th century), in Greek
An anonymous Latin author de Phsiognomonia (ca. 4th century)
Ancient Greek mathematician, astronomer and scientist Pythagoras,
believed by some to be the originator of physiognomics, once rejected
a prospective follower named Cylon simply because of his appearance,
which Pythagoras deemed indicative of bad character[4]
Middle Ages
Della Porta, Giambattista: De humana physiognomonia libri IIII (Vico
Equense: Apud Iosephum Cacchium, 1586).
The term was common in Middle English, often written as fisnamy or
visnomy (as in the Tale of Beryn, a 15th-century sequel to the
Canterbury Tales: "I knowe wele by thy fisnamy, thy kynd it were to
stele").
Physiognomy's validity was once widely accepted, and it was taught in
universities until the time of Henry VIII of England, who outlawed it
(along with "Palmestrye") in 1531.[5] Around this time, scholastic
leaders settled on the more erudite Greek form 'physiognomy' and began
to discourage the whole concept of 'fisnamy'.
The great inventor, scientist and artist, Leonardo da Vinci, was a
critic of physiognomy in the early 16th century he said 'I do not
concern myself with false physiognomy...there is no truth in them and
this can be proven because these chimeras have no scientific
foundation'[6] He did however believe that lines caused by facial
expressions could indicate personality traits i.e. 'those who have
deep and noticeable lines between the eyebrows are irascible'[6]
Modern physiognomy
Origin
Johann Kaspar Lavater.
The principal promoter of physiognomy in modern times was the Swiss
pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741-1801) who was briefly a friend of
Goethe. Lavater's essays on physiognomy were first published in German
in 1772 and gained great popularity. These influential essays were
translated into French and English. The two principal sources from
which Lavater found 'confirmation' of his ideas were the writings of
the Italian Giambattista Della Porta (1535-1615) and the English
physician-philosopher Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682), whose Religio
Medici discusses the possibility of the discernment of inner qualities
there is surely a Physiognomy, which those experienced and Master
Mendicants observe... For there are mystically in our faces certain
Characters that carry in them the motto of our Souls, wherein he that
cannot read A.B.C. may read our natures.
-- R.M. part 2:2
Late in his life Browne affirmed his physiognomical beliefs, writing
Sir Thomas Browne.
Since the Brow speaks often true, since Eyes and Noses have Tongues,
and the countenance proclaims the heart and inclinations; let
observation so far instruct thee in Physiognomical lines....we often
observe that Men do most act those Creatures, whose constitution,
parts, and complexion do most predominate in their mixtures. This is a
corner-stone in Physiognomy... there are therefore Provincial Faces,
National Lips and Noses, which testify not only the Natures of those
Countries, but of those which have them elsewhere.
-- C.M. Part 2 section 9
Sir Thomas Browne is also credited with the first usage of the word
caricature in the English language, whence much of physiognomy
movement's pseudo-learning attempted to entrench itself by
illustrative means.
Browne possessed several of the writings of the Italian Giambattista
Della Porta including his Of Celestial Physiognomy, which argued that
it was not the stars but a person's temperament that influences facial
appearance and character. In his book De humana physiognomia (1586),
Porta used woodcuts of animals to illustrate human characteristics.
His works are well represented in the Library of Sir Thomas Browne;
both men sustained a belief in the doctrine of signatures -- that is,
the belief that the physical structures of nature such as a plant's
roots, stem and flower, were indicative keys (or signatures) to their
medicinal potentials.
Lavater received mixed reactions from scientists, some accepting his
research with other criticizing it.[2] For example, the harshest
critic was scientist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg said that Pathognomy,
discovering the character by observing the behaviour, was more
effective. Writer Hannah More complained to Horace Walpole that "In
vain do we boast (...) that philosophy had broken down all the
strongholds of prejudice, ignorance, and superstition; and yet, at
this very time (...) Lavater's physiognomy books sell at fifteen
guineas a set."[2][7]
Period of popularity
The popularity of physiognomy grew throughout the 18th century and
into the 19th century, and it was discussed seriously by academics,
who saw a lot of potential in it.[2] Many European novelists used
physiognomy in the descriptions of their characters.[2] notably
Balzac, Chaucer[8] and portrait artists, such as Joseph Ducreux;
meanwhile, the 'Norwich connection' to physiognomy developed in the
writings of Amelia Opie and travelling linguist George Borrow. A host
of other 19th century English authors were influenced by the idea,
notably evident in the detailed physiognomic descriptions of
characters in the novels of Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy and
Charlotte Brontë.
Physiognomy is a central, implicit assumption underlying the plot of
Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. In 19th century American
literature, physiognomy figures prominently in the short stories of
Edgar Allan Poe[9]
Phrenology was also considered a form of physiognomy. It was created
around 1800 by German physician Franz Joseph Gall and Johann
Spurzheim, and was widely popular in the 19th century in Europe and
the United States. In the U.S., physician James W. Redfield published
his Comparative Physiognomy in 1852, illustrating with 330 engravings
the "Resemblances between Men and Animals." He finds these in
appearance and (often metaphorically) character, e.g. Germans to
Lions, Negroes to Elephants and Fishes, Chinamen to Hogs, Yankees to
Bears, Jews to Goats.[10]
During the late 19th century, English psychometrician Sir Francis
Galton attempted to define physiognomic characteristics of health,
disease, beauty, and criminality, via a method of composite
photography.[11] [12] Galton's process involved the photographic
superimposition of two or more faces by multiple exposures. After
averaging together photographs of violent criminals, he found that the
composite appeared "more respectable" than any of the faces comprising
it; this was likely due to the irregularities of the skin across the
constituent images being averaged out in the final blend. With the
advent of computer technology during the early 1990s, Galton's
composite technique has been adopted and greatly improved using
computer graphics software [13].
In the late 19th century it became associated with phrenology and
consequently discredited and rejected.[1] Modern scientists now
consider physiognomy a form of pseudoscience.[2]
Modern science
A February 2009 article in the New Scientist reported that physiognomy
is living a small revival, with research papers trying to find links
between personality traits and facial traits.[1] There is still no
conclusive evidence on any clear link.[1]
Some alternative theories have been proposed.[1] For example, our
brain tends to extrapolate emotions from facial expressions, and
physiognomy would only be an overgeneralization of this skill.[1]
Also, if one classifies a person as untrustworthy due to their face,
and treats them as such, that person will eventually behave in an
untrustworthy way.[1]
Modern usage
Practitioners of the personality type theory socionics use physiognomy
as a personality identification technique.[citation needed]
There is some evidence that people can detect male homosexuality by
looking at facial characteristics.[14]
A physiognomist named Yoshito Mizuno was employed from 1936 to 1945 by
the Imperial Japanese Naval Aeronautics Department, examining
candidates for the Naval Air Corps, after - to their surprise -
Admiral Yamamoto's staff discovered that he could predict with over
80% accuracy the qualifications of candidates to become successful
pilots.[15]
In 2011, the South Korean news agency Yonhap, published a
physiognomical analysis of the heir of North Korea, future leader Kim
Jong-Un.[16]
Related disciplines
Anthropological criminology
Anthropometry
Characterology
Morphopsychology
Palmistry
Phrenology
Pathognomy
Personology
Somatotype and Constitutional Psychology
References
Notes
^ a b c d e f g h How your looks betray your personality - New
Scientist (Magazine issue 2695) - 11 February 2009: Roger Highfield,
Richard Wiseman, and Rob Jenkins
^ a b c d e f Roy Porter (2003), "Marginalized practices", The
Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-century science, The
Cambridge History of Science, 4 (illustrated ed.), Cambridge
University Press, pp. 495-497, ISBN 978-0-521-57243-9, "Although we
may now bracket physiognomy with Mesmerism as discredited or even
laughable belief, many eighteenth-century writers referred to it in
all seriousness as a useful science with a long history(...) Although
many modern historians belittle physiognomy as a pseudoscience, at the
end of the eighteenth century it was not merely a popular fad but also
the subject of intense academic debate about the promises it held for
future progress."
^ [1]
^ Riedweg, Christop, Pythagoras: His Life,Teaching, and Influence.
^ 22 Henry VIII cap. 12, sect. 4
^ a b Leonardo on Art and the Artist By Leonardo da Vinci The Orion
Press, New York, 1961 p144 Online [2]
^ Letter to Horace Walpole of September 1788, reproduced in W.S.
Lewis, The Yale Edition of Horace Walpole's Correspondence, 48 vols.
(London: oxford University Press, 1937-83), 31:279-81 (quotation at p.
280). Citation taken from Roy Porter's The Cambridge History of
Science: Eighteenth-century science.
^ Auguste Elfriede Christa Canitz, Gernot Rudolf Wieland, ed. (1999),
"Another look at an Old 'Science': Chaucer's Pilgrims and
Physiognomy", From Arabye to Engelond: medieval studies in honour of
Mahmoud Manzalaoui on his 75th birthday, Actexpress Series, University
of Ottawa Press, pp. 93-110, ISBN 978-0-7766-0517-3
^ Erik Grayson. "Weird Science, Weirder Unity: Phrenology and
Physiognomy in Edgar Allan Poe" Mode 1 (2005): 56-77. Also online.
Illustrated" by Jam. W. Redfield Full text on Google Books
^ Benson, P., & Perrett, D. (1991). Computer averaging and
manipulations of faces. In P. Wombell (ed.), Photovideo: Photography
in the age of the computer (pp. 32-38). London: Rivers Oram Press.
^ Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits. Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 8, 132-142.
^ Yamaguchi, M. K., Hirukawa, T., & Kanazawa, S. (1995). Judgment of
gender through facial parts. Perception, 24, 563-575.
^ There's Something Queer about that Face, Scientific American
^ Agawa, The Reluctant Admiral, p. 110-115.
^ The Face tells all, The Center For Arms Control And Non-
Proliferation
Further reading
Claudia Schmölders, Hitler's Face: The Biography of an Image.
Translated by Adrian Daub. University of Pennsylvania Press: 2006.
ISBN 0-8122-3902-4.
Liz Gerstein, About Face. SterlingHouse Publisher, Inc. ISBN
1-58501-088-X
External links
"Ugly Criminals", H. Naci Mocan and Erdal Tekin, December 2005
Selected images from: Della Porta, Giambattista: De humana
physiognomonia libri IIII (Vico Equense, 1586). Historical Anatomies
on the Web. National Library of Medicine.
Women's traits 'written on face' (BBC News Wednesday, 11 February
2009)
"On Physiognomy" - An Essay by Arthur Schopenhauer
"Composite Portraits", by Francis Galton, 1878 (as published in the
Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,
volume 8).
"Enquiries into Human Faculty and its Development", book by Francis
Galton, 1883.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy
Lu
2014-10-08 03:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.
Or can they?
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-
critiq
Post by Bob Officer
ue/
http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html
http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-
hoax.html
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-
popula
Post by Bob Officer
r-tests.htm
<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.
Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.
The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).
“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”
“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”
Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.
"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".
"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"
You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>
That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?
Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.
The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-10-08 04:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
Yes is R. P. (Robert Paul?) Autrey

My points are he doesn't understand what he is talking about and the
studies he tries to use claiming that Jung was right are small scale
studies of less than 10-40 people.

On the other hand Spillane used the data from about 350,000 tests and
retest to invalidate the MBTI.

Pittenger used the MBTI results and retests from about 15 years worth
of data and Showed for people retaking the test, the results change
in about 50% of the time. It is estimated about 500,000 people take
the MBTI each year.
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.
Or can they?
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-critique/
Post by Bob Officer
http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html
http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-hoax.html
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm
Post by Bob Officer
<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.
Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.
The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).
“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”
“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”
Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.
"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".
"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"
You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>
That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?
Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.
The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-08 04:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<SNIP> & Yawn!!

�

http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-08 04:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message

http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html

Post by ***@googlegroups.com
<SNIP> & Yawn!!
�
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-08 05:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else. - C.G.Jung

Carl G. Jung quotes on Astrology

Collection of Carl G. Jung quotes on Astrology

Excerpt From:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrology-articles/carl-g-jung-quotes.php

http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html

http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html

Post by ***@googlegroups.com
<SNIP> & Yawn!!
�
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Lu
2014-10-08 11:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
Yes is R. P. (Robert Paul?) Autrey
He keeps escaping my Bozo bin, but never for long.
Post by Bob Officer
My points are he doesn't understand what he is talking about and the
studies he tries to use claiming that Jung was right are small scale
studies of less than 10-40 people.
It is one of those tests where I can decide what I want to be and then answer
the questions with that goal in mind.
Post by Bob Officer
On the other hand Spillane used the data from about 350,000 tests and
retest to invalidate the MBTI.
Pittenger used the MBTI results and retests from about 15 years worth
of data and Showed for people retaking the test, the results change
in about 50% of the time. It is estimated about 500,000 people take
the MBTI each year.
Life is all about change, growing. When I was 18 my choice for a mate
was based on what he looked like. By the time I was 30 I wanted a lot more
than looks in a mate. In fact, "looks" were not even on the list.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.
Or can they?
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-crit
ique/
Post by Bob Officer
http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html
http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-hoax.ht
ml
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popu
lar-tests.htm
Post by Bob Officer
<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.
Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.
The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).
“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”
“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”
Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.
"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".
"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"
You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>
That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?
Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.
The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-10-08 06:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
The 1st of the month and he fell out of my killfile.

While I was busy working the W1AW event and CQP, rp fell out of my
killfile.

Now he is back again until the last of October. Each month I hope he
learns to two critically. each month he fails.
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.
Or can they?
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-
critiq
Post by Bob Officer
ue/
http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html
http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-
hoax.html
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-
popula
Post by Bob Officer
r-tests.htm
<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.
Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.
The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).
“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”
“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”
Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.
"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".
"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"
You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>
That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?
Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.
The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
�
2014-10-08 11:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 1:18:07 AM UTC-5, Bob Officer wrote:

<SNIP>

YAWN!!
Lu
2014-10-08 11:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
The 1st of the month and he fell out of my killfile.
He is already back in mine again.
Post by Bob Officer
While I was busy working the W1AW event and CQP, rp fell out of my
killfile.
Now he is back again until the last of October. Each month I hope he
learns to two critically. each month he fails.
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Speaking of wrong,
I don't even bother to fact
check you anymore. It's always
a waste of time. You have a 100%
BS rating.
funny, is it not, the facts in fraud behind the MBTI are public
knowledge, but beliefs can't be called into question.
Or can they?
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf
https://www.recruiter.com/i/critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-
critiq
Post by Bob Officer
ue/
http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/12/myers-briggs-is-pure-nonsense.html
http://blog.case.edu/bucek/2005/09/29/mbti_for_real_or_fraud
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/74838-mbti-complicated-
hoax.html
http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-
popula
Post by Bob Officer
r-tests.htm
<Cite>
The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to
reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as
75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the
Myers-Briggs a second time.
Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency
to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality
questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking
up’ both validity and reliability.
The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of
Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State
University (NMSU).
“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than
Astrology”
“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments,
hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such
uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a
workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind
of their co-workers.”
Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of
Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that
efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests
have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.
"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes
predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no
explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that
behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".
"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known
for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with
vested interests in their continued use,"
You can easily find hundreds of quotes like these, in which noted and
published psychologists call into question the use of personality
tests. However, judging from the number of and increase in
personality tests used, they are likely to be part of the selection
process for the foreseeable future. As someone taking one of these
tests you just have to hope that the HR professionals who have
selected the test have realistic expectations of validity and
reliability and have been trained to interpret the results properly.
</cite>
That doesn't look like Bull Shit there, RP, does it?
Which you stupidly declare what I wrote to be BS, you still offer
nothing of substance to counter it.
The big problem is even the CCP web site says that the results have
"no meaning" and you can pick the personality type which fits a
person's "fantasy" or in carole's (and your own case) delusions.
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
SNIP<
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-10-09 05:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 07:54:27 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
The 1st of the month and he fell out of my killfile.
He is already back in mine again.
Mine, too.
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
While I was busy working the W1AW event and CQP, rp fell out of my
killfile.
Now he is back again until the last of October. Each month I hope he
learns to two critically. each month he fails.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Clay
2014-10-09 10:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 07:54:27 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
The 1st of the month and he fell out of my killfile.
He is already back in mine again.
He modifies his associated email address with every post.
Post by Bob Officer
Mine, too.
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
While I was busy working the W1AW event and CQP, rp fell out of my
killfile.
Now he is back again until the last of October. Each month I hope he
learns to two critically. each month he fails.
Bob Officer
2014-10-09 16:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:13:38 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Clay
Post by Clay
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 07:54:27 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 23:28:34 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
Is this that nut rpattree?
The 1st of the month and he fell out of my killfile.
He is already back in mine again.
He modifies his associated email address with every post.
That according to Google is considered abusive in and of itself.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Dr. AR Wingnutte
2014-10-11 14:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
� �
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
� �
Dr. AR Wingnutte
2014-10-11 15:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Does your face give away your personality?

00:00 10 February 2009

Our experiment examined whether some subtle aspects of our psychological make-up might be related to facial appearance. Find out how it worked here.


http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16558-does-your-face-give-away-your-personality
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte
� �
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
� �
Dr. AR Wingnutte
2014-10-11 15:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte
Does your face give away your personality?
00:00 10 February 2009
Our experiment examined whether some subtle aspects of our psychological make-up might be related to facial appearance. Find out how it worked here.
http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16558-does-your-face-give-away-your-personality
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte
� �
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
� �
How your looks betray your personality

11 February 2009 by Roger Highfield , Richard Wiseman and Rob Jenkins
Magazine issue 2695. Subscribe and save

Video: See the average New Scientist reader and more

Read our related article: Fearful expressions evolved to mimic babies' faces

Find out how our experiment worked, and see the results

THE history of science could have been so different. When Charles Darwin applied to be the "energetic young man" that Robert Fitzroy, the Beagle's captain, sought as his gentleman companion, he was almost let down by a woeful shortcoming that was as plain as the nose on his face. Fitzroy believed in physiognomy - the idea that you can tell a person's character from their appearance. As Darwin's daughter Henrietta later recalled, Fitzroy had "made up his mind that no man with such a nose could have energy". Fortunately, the rest of Darwin's visage compensated for his sluggardly proboscis: "His brow saved him."

The idea that a person's character can be glimpsed in their face dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was most famously popularised in the late 18th century by the Swiss poet Johann Lavater, whose ideas became a talking point in intellectual circles. In Darwin's day, they were more or less taken as given. It was only after the subject became associated with phrenology, which fell into disrepute in the late 19th century, that physiognomy was written off as pseudoscience.

Now the field is undergoing something of a revival. Researchers around the world are re-evaluating what we see in a face, investigating whether it can give us a glimpse of someone's personality or even help to shape their destiny. What is emerging is a "new physiognomy" which is more subtle but no less fascinating than its old incarnation.

First impressions are highly influential, despite the well-worn admonition not to judge a book by its cover. Within a tenth of a second of seeing an unfamiliar face we have already made a judgement about its owner's character - caring, trustworthy, aggressive, extrovert, competent and so on (Psychological Science, vol 17, p 592). Once that snap judgement has formed, it is surprisingly hard to budge. What's more, different people come to strikingly similar conclusions about a particular face - as shown in our own experiment (see "The New Scientist face experiment").

People also act on these snap judgements. Politicians with competent-looking faces have a greater chance of being elected, and CEOs who look dominant are more likely to run a profitable company. Baby-faced men and those with compassionate-looking faces tend to be over-represented in the caring professions. Soldiers deemed to look dominant tend to rise faster through the ranks, while their baby-faced comrades tend to be weeded out early. When baby-faced men appear in court they are more likely than their mature-faced peers to be exonerated from a crime. However, they are also more likely to be found guilty of negligence.

There is also a well-established "attractiveness halo". People seen as good-looking not only get the most valentines but are also judged to be more outgoing, socially competent, powerful, sexually responsive, intelligent and healthy. They do better in all manner of ways, from how they are greeted by other people to how they are treated by the criminal justice system.

Is there any substance to such snap judgements? Are dominant-looking people really more dominant? Are baby-faced people naive? Are we electing the most competent leaders, or simply people who look the part? As psychologist Alexander Todorov of Princeton University points out, the fact that different people come to remarkably similar conclusions about a particular face is very different from saying there is a correspondence between a face and something real in an individual's personality.

There is, however, some tantalising evidence that our faces can betray something about our character. 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.

More recently, researchers have re-examined the link between appearance and personality, notably Anthony Little of the University of Stirling and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, both in the UK. They pointed out that the Michigan studies were not tightly controlled for confounding factors: the participants could have been swayed by posture, movement, clothing and so on. But when Little and Perrett re-ran the experiment using mugshots rather than live subjects, they also found a link between facial appearance and personality - though only for extroversion and conscientiousness (British Journal of Psychology, vol 98, p 111).

While these experiments suggest that our snap judgements of faces really do contain a kernel of truth about the personality of their owner, Little stresses that the link is far from clear-cut. He and Perrett only found a correlation at the extremes of personality, and other studies looking for links with different aspects of personality have failed to find any association at all. The owner of an "honest" face, for example, is no more likely to be trustworthy than anyone else.

What is also not fully understood is why we make facial judgements so readily. Is there an evolutionary advantage to judging books by their covers? Little suggests that because these judgements are so rapid and consistent - and because they can indeed reveal aspects of personality - it is likely that evolution has honed us to pick up on the signals.

Support for this, and the kernel of truth idea, has come from a study of 90 ice-hockey players published late last year by Justin Carré and Cheryl McCormick of Brock University in Ontario, Canada. 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).

Testosterone-fuelled

They also found a link between the facial width-to-height ratio and the male sex hormone testosterone. According to the results of a recent pilot study by Carré, men with wider faces have higher testosterone concentrations in their saliva.

The critical - and as yet unanswered - question is whether people judge men with wider faces as more aggressive. McCormick and Carré are studying this, and though the results are not all in, McCormick says a preliminary analysis suggests that they do.

If this pans out, it would mean that men with high testosterone levels, who are known to be bigger, stronger and more dominant, are more likely to have rounder faces - and that we evolved to judge such faces as aggressive because their owners are more likely to attack us. Carré stresses, however, that the face is only one of many cues that we use to read the intentions of others. "It is not the be all and end all of assessing people."

The kernel of truth idea isn't the only explanation on offer for our readiness to make facial judgements. Leslie Zebrowitz, a psychologist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, says that in many cases snap judgements are not accurate. Our readiness to judge books by their covers, she says, is often an "overgeneralisation" of a more fundamental response (Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol 2, p 1497).

A classic example of overgeneralisation can be seen in predators' response to eye spots, the conspicuous circular markings seen on some moths, butterflies and fish. These act as a deterrent to predators because they mimic the eyes of other creatures that the potential predators might see as a threat, or are simply conspicuous in their own right.

Zebrowitz says the same thing may be true of our reaction to baby-faced men, who on first impression are generally judged to be submissive and naive. Just as an eyespot is not an eye, so a person with a baby face may not be babyish, but an observer is likely to respond as if they are, she says. It is a similar story with our reaction to unattractive faces, which she says is an overgeneralisation of an evolved aversion to people who are diseased or suffer from some genetic anomaly. There is also "familiar face overgeneralisation", whereby people are judged to have the traits of others who they resemble.

Another researcher who leans towards overgeneralisation is Todorov. With Princeton colleague Nikolaas Oosterhof, he recently put forward a theory which he says explains our snap judgements of faces in terms of how threatening they appear. Todorov and Oosterhof asked people for their gut reactions to pictures of emotionally neutral faces, sifted through all the responses, and boiled them down to two underlying factors: how trustworthy the face looks, and how dominant. They then worked out exactly which aspects of facial appearance were associated with looking trustworthy, untrustworthy, dominant or submissive.

Next they generated random faces on a commercial program called FaceGen and morphed them into exaggerated caricatures of trustworthy, untrustworthy, dominant or submissive faces. An extremely trustworthy face, for example, has a U-shaped mouth, and eyes that form an almost surprised look. An untrustworthy face has the corners of the mouth curled down and eyebrows pointing to form a V (see diagram).

Finally, they showed these faces to people and asked them a different question: what emotions did they appear to be expressing? People consistently reported that trustworthy faces looked happy and untrustworthy ones angry, while dominant faces were deemed masculine and submissive ones feminine.

Todorov and Oosterhof conclude that personality judgements based on people's faces are an overgeneralisation of our evolved ability to infer emotions from facial expressions, and hence a person's intention to cause us harm and their ability to carry it out (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p11087).

Todorov, however, stresses that overgeneralisation does not rule out the idea that there is sometimes a kernel of truth in these assessments of personality. "I would not say there is no accuracy at all in these judgements, particularly in the case of dominance," he says. "It is not the case that overgeneralisation and kernel of truth ideas are mutually exclusive."

So if there is a kernel of truth, where does it come from? How exactly do some personality traits come to be written all over our faces? In the case of the ice-hockey players there are links between facial appearance, testosterone levels and personality. But there are other possibilities.

Perrett has a hunch that the link arises when our prejudices about faces turn into self-fulfilling prophecies - an idea that was investigated by other researchers back in 1977 (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 35, p 656). Our expectations can lead us to influence people to behave in ways that confirm those expectations: consistently treat someone as untrustworthy and they end up behaving that way.

"Infants with masculine faces grow up to be children and adults with masculine faces," Perrett says. "Parental and societal reactions to these cues may help shape behaviour and personality. In essence, people would be growing into the character expected of their physiognomy."

This effect sometimes works the other way round, however, especially for those who look cute. The Nobel prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz once suggested that baby-faced features evoke a nurturing response. Support for this has come from work by Zebrowitz, who has found that baby-faced boys and men stimulate an emotional centre of the brain, the amygdala, in a similar way.

But there's a twist. Baby-faced men are, on average, better educated, more assertive and apt to win more military medals than their mature-looking counterparts. They are also more likely to be criminals; think Al Capone. Similarly, Zebrowitz found baby-faced boys to be quarrelsome and hostile, and more likely to be academic high-fliers. She calls this the "self-defeating prophecy effect": a man with a baby face strives to confound expectations and ends up overcompensating.

There is another theory that recalls the old parental warning not to pull faces, because they might freeze that way. According to this theory, our personality moulds the way our faces look. It is supported by a study two decades ago which found that angry old people tend to look cross even when asked to strike a neutral expression. A lifetime of scowling, grumpiness and grimaces seemed to have left its mark.

This takes us back to Darwin himself. He referred to how "different persons bringing into frequent use different facial muscles, according to their dispositions; the development of these muscles being perhaps thus increased, and the lines or furrows on the face, due to their habitual contraction, being thus rendered more conspicuous." Once again, Darwin was ahead of his time: in an intriguing way, we get the face we deserve.

Read our related article: Fearful expressions evolved to mimic babies' faces

Find out how our experiment worked, and see the results

The New Scientist face experiment
Our experiment examined whether some subtle aspects of our psychological make-up might be related to facial appearance, while offering readers the chance to appear on the cover of this issue in a composite image.

We asked readers to submit a photograph of themselves looking directly at the camera, and to complete a simple online personality questionnaire. In this they rated how lucky, humorous, religious and trustworthy they considered themselves to be. More than 1000 people were kind enough to submit their photographs and ratings.

From these personality self-assessments we identified groups of men and women scoring at the extremes of each of the four dimensions. We then took these people's photographs and blended them electronically to make several composite images.

The face-blending technique we used was pioneered more than a century ago by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin. The principle behind it is simple. Imagine having photographs of two people who look very different. To create a composite we manipulate digitised versions of the images to align key facial landmarks such as the corners of the mouth and eyes. This allows us to calculate an average of the two faces. For example, if both faces have bushy eyebrows and deep-set eyes, the resulting composite would also have these features. If one face has a small nose and the other has a large nose, the final image would have a medium-sized nose.

The composites all looked very different from one another, but would people be able to identify the personalities of the people behind the images? To find out, we paired up composites from the extreme ends of each dimension and posted them online at www.facesexperiment.co.uk. So, for example, the composite face from the women who had rated themselves as extremely lucky was paired with the composite from those who had rated themselves as very unlucky. More than 6500 visitors to the site attempted to identify the lucky, humorous, religious and trustworthy faces.

From this it seems that women's faces give away far more than men. An impressive 70 per cent of people were able to correctly identify the lucky face, and 73 per cent correctly identified the religious one. In line with past research, the female composite associated with trustworthiness was also accurately identified, with a statistically significant 54 per cent success rate. Only one of the female composites was not correctly identified - the one from the women who assessed themselves as humorous.

The results for the male composites were very different. Here, our respondents failed to identify any of the composites correctly. The images identified with being humorous, trustworthy and religious all came in around chance, whilst the lucky composite was only correctly identified 22 per cent of the time. This suggests that our perception of lucky-looking male faces is at odds with reality.

Why should these big sex differences have emerged? Perhaps female faces are simply more informative than male ones. It could also be that the men who sent us their portraits were less insightful when rating their personalities or less honest. Or perhaps the women were more thoughtful when selecting the photographs they submitted.

The results of our pilot study were fascinating and should hopefully pave the way for additional work. They show that people readily associate facial appearance with certain personality traits, and suggest that there may be a kernel of truth in their judgements.

Our findings explored some dimensions not usually examined in this kind of research, and raise the intriguing possibility that, among women at least, subtle aspects of an individual's personality may indeed be written all over her face.

Roger Highfield is the editor of New Scientist

Richard Wiseman is a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, UK

Rob Jenkins is a psychologist at the University of Glasgow, UK



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126957.300-how-your-looks-betray-your-personality.html?full=true#.VDSaIcso7qA
Dr. AR Wingnutte
2014-10-11 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Sick Sadists Patrol the Web Anonymously
Salon.com / By Joanna Rothkopf [1]
comments_image
Sick Sadists Patrol the Web Anonymously


October 4, 2014 |
As an Internet writer, I have seen no end to the cruelty that stems from the promise of anonymity. For seemingly benign articles, I have attracted the foulest vitriol from hundreds of commenters, calling me ignorant, stupid, unqualified and more profane nicknames than I care to recall. Message boards like Reddit and 4chan attract the truly evil, where entire message threads exist to belittle and berate, or to raise opinions that are intentionally unpopular for their bigotry and violence (such as the subreddit that seriously addresses the benefits of rape).
Why do trolls behave the way they do? Two studies [2] published in the September 2014 issue of Personality and Individual Differences seek to answer that question. The studies examined personality traits and commenting styles of 1,215 people and found that the trolls had personality traits that exactly lined up with what is known as the "Dark Tetrad" of personality traits: sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism, a psychological term used to describe those who manipulate and trick others for personal gain.
Live Science reports [3]:
To conduct the first study, the researchers recruited 418 people, with an average age of 29, to complete survey questions online. One of the measures of sadistic personality used in the study was the so-called Short Sadistic Impulse Scale, which includes 10 items that assess a person's tendency to enjoy hurting others...
In the second study, the researchers constructed another trolling measure that they called the Global Assessment of Internet Trolling (GAIT) scale. They used this tool to assess people's trolling behavior [4] and levels of enjoyment. They also asked people in the study how much time they typically spent online.
The investigators found a link between online commenting frequency and the enjoyment of trolling, which is consistent with previous research that has established an association between excessive use of technology and antisocial behavior.
"Of all personality measures," the study reads, "sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism."
Still, the study did not go into cause and effect, so from this study one can glean no more than a strong association between making people suffer online and being a sadist.
While some websites have attempted to mitigate the effects of trolls by doing away with comment sections, study author Erin Buckels isn't sure that will help. "Because the behaviors are intrinsically motivating for sadists, comment moderators will likely have a difficult time curbing trolling with punishments (e.g., banning users)," she said in an email to Slate [5]. "Ultimately, the allure of trolling may be too strong for sadists, who presumably have limited opportunities to express their sadistic interests in a socially-desirable manner."
[6]

See more stories tagged with:
internet [7],
trolling [8],
DARK TRIAD [9],
sadism [10],
science [11]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/culture/sick-sadists-patrol-web-anonymously
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/joanna-rothkopf
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
[3] http://www.livescience.com/48128-internet-trolls-sadistic-personalities.html
[4] http://www.livescience.com/27239-online-comments-skew-science-perception.html
[5] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
[6] mailto:***@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on Sick Sadists Patrol the Web Anonymously
[7] http://www.alternet.org/tags/internet-0
[8] http://www.alternet.org/tags/trolling
[9] http://www.alternet.org/tags/dark-triad
[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/sadism
[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/science-0
[12] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
2017-08-05 21:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 22:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jung Typology Test(tm)


According to Carl Jung's typology, all people can be characterized using the following three criteria:
Extraversion - Introversion
Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Isabel Briggs Myers added a fourth criterion:
Judging - Perceiving
These four criteria are called "dichotomies" since each of them represent a continuum between two opposite poles.
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion, signifies the source and direction of a person's energy expression. An extravert's source and direction of energy expression is mainly in the external world, while an introvert has a source of energy mainly in their own internal world.
The second criterion, Sensing - Intuition, represents the method by which someone perceives information. Sensing means that a person mainly believes information he or she receives directly from the external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.
The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling, represents how a person processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a decision based on emotion, i.e. based on what they feel they should do.
The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving, reflects how a person implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that a person organizes all of his life events and, as a rule, sticks to his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise and explore alternative options.
The different possible combinations of preferences determine sixteen personality types. Each type can be assigned an acronym (or formula) according to the first letters of the combination of the preferences in each of the four criteria. For example:
ISTJ - Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging
Or:
ENFP - Extravert iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving
Descriptions of the 16 personality types:

ENFP INFP ENFJ INFJ ESTJ ISTJ ESFJ ISFJ
ENTP INTP ENTJ INTJ ESTP ISTP ESFP ISFP
Humanmetrics' Jung Typology Test(tm) determines an individual's personality type and scores the expressiveness of preferences in of each of the three Jungian dimensions (Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling) as well of the additional dimension (Judging vs. Perceiving) proposed by Isabel Briggs Myers. The scales of dichotomies represent a continuum between two opposite poles, from 100 at one pole to 100 at the opposite pole. I.e. the Extravert-Introvert dimension is a continuum from 100 on Extraversion (i.e. a respondent is 100% extravert) to 100 on Introversion (i.e. a respondent is 100% introvert). In other words, the scale is 200 units long:
Extravert [100% - - - 0% - - - 100%] Introvert
Most individuals possess features of both poles but typically have a preference of one way over the other. The letter indicates the direction of the preference and the percentage indicates the strength of the preference toward one pole over the other.
The E-I score of 0% means the respondent is on the borderline between being an extravert and an introvert. Having an Extraversion score of greater than 0 - e.g. 20% - means being 20% more slanted toward Extraversion over Introversion. Having an Introversion score of greater than 0 - e.g. 20% - means being 20% more slanted toward Introversion over Extraversion.
The same pertains to the S-N, T-F, and J-P dichotomies.


http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
2014-09-28 23:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: There's something you need to know about me

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Oct 5).

Lu Sep 28, 2014 9:05 AM
Posted in group: misc.health.alternative
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
Jung Typology Test
Your type formula according to Carl Jung and Isabel Briggs Myers
typology along with the strengths of the preferences
The description of your personality type
The list of occupations and educational institutions where you can get
relevant degree or training, most suitable for your personality type -
Jung Career Indicator™
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 62 38 56
INTJ type description by D.Keirsey
INTJ Identify Your Career with Jung Career Indicator™ INTJ Famous
Personalities
INTJ type description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
moderately expressed introvert
distinctively expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality
-------------------------------------------------
Jung Typology Test™
According to Carl Jung's typology all people can be classified using
Extraversion - Introversion> Sensing - Intuition
Thinking - Feeling
Judging - Perceiving
The first criterion, Extraversion - Introversion defines the source
and direction of energy expression for a person. The extravert has a
source and direction of energy expression mainly in the external world
while the introvert has a source of energy mainly in the internal
world.
The second criterion, Sensing - INtuition defines the method of
information perception by a person. Sensing means that a person
believes mainly information he or she receives directly from the
external world. Intuition means that a person believes mainly
information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world.
The third criterion, Thinking - Feeling defines how the person
processes information. Thinking means that a person makes a decision
mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, he or she makes a
decision based on emotion.
The fourth criterion, Judging - Perceiving defines how a person
implements the information he or she has processed. Judging means that
a person organizes all his life events and acts strictly according to
his plans. Perceiving means that he or she is inclined to improvise
and seek alternatives.
The different combinations of the criteria determine sixteen possible
types. Every type can be assigned a name (or formula) according to the
ISTJ
Introvert Sensing Thinking Judging or
ENFP
Extravert INtuitive Feeling Perceiving
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
You're not an INTJ,
You're a DUMB.
Yes, my opinion also.
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
*****
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
Post by carole
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along>>
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8�
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
--
Lu




*****
Post by Dr. AR Wingnutte, PhD
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8�
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-06 17:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.

*****

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ana%C3%AFs_Nin

Anaïs Nin

Anaïs Nin (Spanish pronunciation: [anaˈiz ˈnin]; 21 February 1903 – 14 January 1977), born Angela Anais Juana Antolina Rosa Edelmira Nin y Culmell, was a French-born author of Spanish, Cuban, and Danish descent who became famous for her published journals, which span more than sixty years, and for her erotica.

Contents
Quotes
Diary entries (1914 - 1974)
Under a Glass Bell (1944)
A Spy in the House of Love (1954)
The Novel of the Future (1969)
Disputed
External links
Quotes
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8�
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
For obvious reasons
2014-10-06 22:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.
That's not strictly true.
In nazi germany nobody would have thought that such atrocities could
have been committed. Does that mean because they aren't noticed that
they didn't happen? We all know in hindsight that they did.

Also if a person is unaware of pedophilia that it doesn't exist and
that anybody who talks about it is mistaken? We all know that isn't
true either.


For obvious reasons

Why modern healthcare is in such a shambles
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ph-miracle-for-cancer.html

1953 Fitzgerald Report - Suppressed Cancer Treatments
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppressed_cancer_treatments.htm

How Pharmaceuticals Came To Be The 4th Leading Cause Of Death In
America
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/20/how-pharmaceuticals-came-to-be-the-4th-leading-cause-of-death-in-america/


"The Science of Getting It Wrong: How to Deal with False Research
Findings
Ioannidis says that researchers have become increasingly sophisticated
at acquiring large amounts of data from genomics and other studies,
and at spinning it in different ways—much like TV weathercasters
proclaiming every day a record-setting meteorological event of some
sort. As a result, he says, it is easy to come up with findings that
are "significant" in the statistical sense, yet not scientifically
valid."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-getting-it/
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
*****
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ana%C3%AFs_Nin
Anaïs Nin
Anaïs Nin (Spanish pronunciation: [ana?iz ?nin]; 21 February 1903 – 14 January 1977), born Angela Anais Juana Antolina Rosa Edelmira Nin y Culmell, was a French-born author of Spanish, Cuban, and Danish descent who became famous for her published journals, which span more than sixty years, and for her erotica.
Contents
Quotes
Diary entries (1914 - 1974)
Under a Glass Bell (1944)
A Spy in the House of Love (1954)
The Novel of the Future (1969)
Disputed
External links
Quotes
Post by carole
I am a Myer Briggs type INTJ.
This explains why I am not "normal" according to many people.
I'm not ever going to be "normal" as to what most people think of
normal. I agree with what is written int he following description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
"INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and
account for approximately 1-2% of the population.[2]"
-------------------
"INTJs are analytical. ... they are most comfortable working alone and
tend to be less sociable than other types.
"Nevertheless, INTJs are prepared to lead if no one else seems up to
the task, or if they see a major weakness in the current leadership.
[Sadly, this is the situation in mha]
"They tend to be pragmatic, logical, and creative. They have a low
tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are not generally
susceptible to catchphrases and do not readily accept authority based
on tradition, rank, or title."
---------------------------
Hoping to explain things a bit. .
Yes, we all know bob's type, he is an ESTJ one of the more common Myer
Briggs types.
He thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.
A person like bob fits into the system and upholds it and goes along
with it but doesn't question.
The only thing he questions is that which doesn't fit into the system.
So even when the system is wrong, bob will uphold it to the end.
Its all he knows.
And he likes everbody to be touchie feelie types and laugh at all his
jokes.
--
carole
www.cellsalts.net
Biochemic Handbook at
http://www.seven-seas.com/library/biochemichandbook.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3ncdkx8?
The pharmaceutical fraud
http://www.nuremberg-tribunal.org/fraud/index.html
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - the drug trust
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
The Other Guy
2014-10-07 00:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:13:20 +1100, For obvious reasons
Post by For obvious reasons
That's not strictly true.
In nazi germany nobody would have thought that such atrocities could
have been committed.
LOTS of Germans knew what was happening, even if not the exact details.
They WANTED it to happen, they WANTED to feel better than someone else,
and focused that on Jews and the handicapped, as well as ANYONE slightly
different, like the Gypsies (Romani).

It WAS NOT just the Nazi elite that were responsible for the way Germany
acted in the war.

The German people bear a LARGE PART of the responsibility!







---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-10-07 02:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Huh�
What planet are you on?
Sober up.
Post by The Other Guy
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:13:20 +1100, For obvious reasons
Post by For obvious reasons
That's not strictly true.
In nazi germany nobody would have thought that such atrocities could
have been committed.
LOTS of Germans knew what was happening, even if not the exact details.
They WANTED it to happen, they WANTED to feel better than someone else,
and focused that on Jews and the handicapped, as well as ANYONE slightly
different, like the Gypsies (Romani).
It WAS NOT just the Nazi elite that were responsible for the way Germany
acted in the war.
The German people bear a LARGE PART of the responsibility!
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bob Officer
2014-10-07 00:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:13:20 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, For
Post by For obvious reasons
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.
Carole stupidly ignored who Ana Nin, and her life experiences and
Post by For obvious reasons
That's not strictly true.
Note this is a declaration by fiat. The following attempt at
justification of her statement present no evidence to dispute Ana
Nin. Instead she shows the world she neither understood the quotation
or the relevance in this discussion.
Post by For obvious reasons
In nazi germany nobody would have thought that such atrocities could
have been committed. Does that mean because they aren't noticed that
they didn't happen? We all know in hindsight that they did.
Sorry in The German Republic most all german's wanted and needed
someone to blame. They were happy to jump on the band wagon and place
the blame where ever they could.

It seems Carole is a poor student of Early 20th century Politics and
Socio-economics in Europe and the rest of the world.
Post by For obvious reasons
Also if a person is unaware of pedophilia that it doesn't exist and
that anybody who talks about it is mistaken? We all know that isn't
true either.
Brainless twit, do you even know who Ana Nin is?
Post by For obvious reasons
For obvious reasons
The "obvious reason" is you are terminally stupid?
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
2014-10-09 11:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<SNIP>
<YAWN!>
<� http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html �>
2014-10-09 11:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Trolls' Online Comments Skew Perception of Science
Tanya Lewis, LiveScience Staff Writer | February 19, 2013 03:42pm ET
Man peering over computer

The rude comments that appear in online science news stories can actively shape perceptions of the science.
Credit: pzAxe | Shutterstock.com
View full size image
When people read a science news story online, chances are they'll find a string of comments below, and the comments aren't always civil. But these comments actually influence people's perception of the science, a new study suggests.

The Internet provides a forum for discussing issues in a way that traditional media did not. "You used to use media by yourself. Now, it's almost like reading the newspaper in middle of a busy street with people yelling in your ear what you should and shouldn’t believe," study co-author Dietram Scheufele, a communication scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told LiveScience.

Uncivil commenters (knowninformally as "trolls") dominate online discussions with comments such as: "Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this 'deep' study?" and "This article is 100 percent propaganda crapola." Such digital rants and diatribes are a staple of today's media environment.

Scheufele and colleagues studied how online incivility affects readers' perceptions of a scientific issue — specifically, nanotechnology. They found that impolite comments on a blog post about the science skewed people's views of the technology's risks and benefits. The findings, presented Thursday (Feb. 14) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.

The researchers conducted an online survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,183 Americans. The participants read a neutral blog post from a Canadian newspaper that described risks and benefits of a particular use of nanotechnology, an interdisciplinary field of science dealing with things at the nanometer (one-billionth of a meter) scale. The researchers chose nanotechnology because it’s a topic on which most people haven't formed political opinions.

Participants saw different versions of the story — the blog post itself was the same, but each version contained either civil or uncivil comments. For example, an uncivil comment might be, "If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you're an idiot." Civil comments made the same argument using polite language. After reading the blog post, the participants were asked to fill out a survey about the blog and comments, their views of the risks and benefits and other information.

The results showed that rude blog comments appear to make readers polarized about the risks of an issue — namely, nanotechnology — depending on how religious the reader is, as well as the individual's prior support for the issue.

Just as politicians bickering on television may push people to extreme positions, rude or disparaging blog comments can divide readers, according to the study's authors. The effect of online comments may be "especially troublesome" for science communicators, they write, particularly for contentious issues such as evolution or climate change.

"The whole idea of audiences debating science online is a good thing," Scheufele said. But he added, "We're looking at a town hall meeting without any established rules."

http://www.livescience.com/27239-online-comments-skew-science-perception.html








http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
<SNIP>
<YAWN!>
<� http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html �>
Trolls' Online Comments Skew Perception of Science
Tanya Lewis, LiveScience Staff Writer | February 19, 2013 03:42pm ET
Man peering over computer

The rude comments that appear in online science news stories can actively shape perceptions of the science.
Credit: pzAxe | Shutterstock.com
View full size image
When people read a science news story online, chances are they'll find a string of comments below, and the comments aren't always civil. But these comments actually influence people's perception of the science, a new study suggests.

The Internet provides a forum for discussing issues in a way that traditional media did not. "You used to use media by yourself. Now, it's almost like reading the newspaper in middle of a busy street with people yelling in your ear what you should and shouldn’t believe," study co-author Dietram Scheufele, a communication scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told LiveScience.

Uncivil commenters (knowninformally as "trolls") dominate online discussions with comments such as: "Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this 'deep' study?" and "This article is 100 percent propaganda crapola." Such digital rants and diatribes are a staple of today's media environment.

Scheufele and colleagues studied how online incivility affects readers' perceptions of a scientific issue — specifically, nanotechnology. They found that impolite comments on a blog post about the science skewed people's views of the technology's risks and benefits. The findings, presented Thursday (Feb. 14) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.

The researchers conducted an online survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,183 Americans. The participants read a neutral blog post from a Canadian newspaper that described risks and benefits of a particular use of nanotechnology, an interdisciplinary field of science dealing with things at the nanometer (one-billionth of a meter) scale. The researchers chose nanotechnology because it’s a topic on which most people haven't formed political opinions.

Participants saw different versions of the story — the blog post itself was the same, but each version contained either civil or uncivil comments. For example, an uncivil comment might be, "If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you're an idiot." Civil comments made the same argument using polite language. After reading the blog post, the participants were asked to fill out a survey about the blog and comments, their views of the risks and benefits and other information.

The results showed that rude blog comments appear to make readers polarized about the risks of an issue — namely, nanotechnology — depending on how religious the reader is, as well as the individual's prior support for the issue.

Just as politicians bickering on television may push people to extreme positions, rude or disparaging blog comments can divide readers, according to the study's authors. The effect of online comments may be "especially troublesome" for science communicators, they write, particularly for contentious issues such as evolution or climate change.

"The whole idea of audiences debating science online is a good thing," Scheufele said. But he added, "We're looking at a town hall meeting without any established rules."


http://www.livescience.com/27239-online-comments-skew-science-perception.html



http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Loading...