Conversation

Replying to
Similarly alchemy era had its phlogiston, pre-relativistic physics had ether and elan vital, modern physics has dark matter. The presence of dubious elements is not the problem. It’s pretending they’re NOT dubious.
1
23
Or worse acting like empirical noise can make meaningless concepts meaningful. Ambiguity cannot be resolved by increasing empirical certainty. Higher resolution image won’t resolve the duck-rabbit illusion into clearly a duck or rabbit.
Embedded video
GIF
1
14
Philosophically rigorous fields progressively clean up ontology. Philosophically sloppy and/or dishonest fields pretend increasing certainty about ambiguous things creates better truth.
1
24
So why do I like Myers-Briggs better? Because given that what *can* be measured is nebulous-dubious-ambiguous, it’s actually useful to explore foundations conceptually rather than empirically. To go beyond using sketchy surveys to point to weasel words that point to some “traits”
1
17
There’s an entire “geocentric” theory of personality under the hood. Not just words pointing at each other and statistics. It’s at least *trying* to be about the world. It’s wrong in the right way. It has the right kind of history going back to Freud and Jung.
2
14
It has the right kind of ontological trajectory to eventually converge with neuroscience based thinking about the architecture of the brain rather than its socially embodied heat signatures. It’s a “Greek terms for fMRI ghosts” kind of wrongness. It’s wrong about the right things
2
6
Big5 otoh fundamentally isn’t interested in personality as a property of brains at all, anymore than astrology is interested in stars. Both are interested in influencing human affairs with whatever authority they can muster, at the most leveraged loci.
1
9
Astrologers wanted to influence how kings governed. Big5 wants to influence how bureaucrats govern. Both sought/seek ascriptive institutional authority by complicating techniques beyond amateur accessibility and create and protect *exclusive* access to power.
3
10
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
it’s mostly used as a parlor game now and mostly for free. The paid version is used in personal dev workshops but I’ve never seen it used beyond just being given back to the person for introspection
2