Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Need help with a test on extroversion and introversion Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    No - English is not my first language.

    The rationale - was tested over and over and there is not one single counter prove to its arguments.
    If you want to give it a try let me know I am very keen to hear it.

    About what will I do with data: something sound like a broken disk:
    I am saying you have no idea what I will do with data so don't worry and you keep saying that it wont be useful.

    How can you say that without knowing what I will do with the data?
    I will do something you cant even imagine.
    Maybe you can explain that becase I am getting tired of hearing it.
    And when you will start to say - whell the variables... just remember: I AM DOING SOMETHING ELSE - dont care about the variables.
    Clearly we do not understand what exactly you are going to do with this data to make it useful to you. Would you care to explain? Don't worry, you don't have to divulge your theory, just explain how you are going to use pre-manipulated data.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am not looking for premanipulated data.
    I am looking for raw data - the answers that the subjects gave to a questionnaire.
    And I will interpret myself those answers.
    Why do you want to know what I will do with that data anyway?

    I am saying I will prove something.
    If it will work - it will work - and there you go - you will have one more theory to help you.

    If it wont work then it wont but I don't think is something you need to worry about - is my los.

    I will tell you what I will do with the data if you give me some data
    I am also looking for a partner psychologist to help me - maybe somebody is interested?

    This is an emerging domain in psychology - if somebody is interested in a head start this will be a good moment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    I am not looking for premanipulated data.
    I am looking for raw data - the answers that the subjects gave to a questionnaire.
    And I will interpret myself those answers.
    Why do you want to know what I will do with that data anyway?
    ... Sigh.. Right, look. Tell me specifically and clearly what kind of data you want? What is it you are looking for?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Say something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneso...lity_Inventory
    It dont have to be the MMPI2 - any decent test will do that deals with extroversion and introversion (and need for control if possible). The longer (complex) is the test - the better. so actually MMPI2 looks about right.

    By answers I mean what answered each subject to each q.
    Like
    subject 1, q1 = true;
    subject 1, q2 = false;
    and then all the answers for the subject1 then the results for subject2 to the subjectN.

    etc.

    This is what I need.
    Is this hard to be obtained?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Say something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneso...lity_Inventory
    It dont have to be the MMPI2 - any decent test will do that deals with extroversion and introversion (and need for control if possible). The longer (complex) is the test - the better. so actually MMPI2 looks about right.

    By answers I mean what answered each subject to each q.
    Like
    subject 1, q1 = true;
    subject 1, q2 = false;
    and then all the answers for the subject1 then the results for subject2 to the subjectN.

    etc.

    This is what I need.
    Is this hard to be obtained?
    You are still being really vague. Who do you want the subjects to be? Why were they chosen? What other data do you need (e.g. their birthdates? This is about zodiac signs or something, right?) etc etc.. You won't find this kind of information without collecting the data yourself.

    Say if you found a paper that used the MMPI and for some bizzarely unethical reason decided to publish the raw data, you would have intrinsic manipulation within that data, whether it be some kind of selection bias in their participants, some form of exogenous experimental manipulation or what have you. Subsequently, that data will be skewed, biased, artificially inflated/deflated and hundreds of other things. That data will only make sense in the context of that experiment and the other variables that they have introduced. (Not that the MMPI even has anything to do with introversion or extraversion).

    There will be no reason to go out and have a random bunch of people sit this test without an additional manipulating variable. There would be no point. It would be useless and it would not tell you anything.

    If you really want some data, take that MMPI, turn it into an online questionnaire using something like Survey Monkey and get it yourself.

    Raw data is NOT published for ethical and privacy reasons. Published data will have been submitted to an ethical panel and a paper which revealed such information would not be accepted for publication. You are NOT going to get this kind of data from someone online. You need to collect this yourself.

    If you want to stop being a secretive loon and actually tell us more about what you want to acheive (in coherent sentences), we might be more willing to help you.

    For example:

    What is your hypothesis? Sum it up in a few sentences. What do you want to measure? What are your variables? Is this a study based on correlation? What participants do you want? What kind of design will the experiment adopt (e.g. I am going to take MMPI measurements from Zodiac A and compare them to Zodiac B or whatever).

    Give us clear and concise information and we will try to help you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    have to run now.
    Will think about and come back later today.

    Don't see much point in it anyway if you think nobody will give me that data.
    I don't want to publish the theory and say ok I got the data from a guy on internet...

    I just want to do a quick check and see if the theory proves itself.
    If so then further steps can be taken like ordering a full test for a few thousand £.

    I will afford to do that as I know the theory is true and the investment worth the risk - but cant do that now - of course.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All right - you wanted it - you got it.
    I will put the theory back and also the solution in half an hour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey,

    The whole theory is on my blog again
    http://needsorder.blogspot.com/

    The bit about what I want to do with the data and how that will prove the theory is correct is here:

    http://needsorder.blogspot.com/p/definitive-prove.html

    You all have a read and let me know what you think or if you can help me with some data.

    Cheers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Hey,

    The whole theory is on my blog again
    http://needsorder.blogspot.com/

    The bit about what I want to do with the data and how that will prove the theory is correct is here:

    http://needsorder.blogspot.com/p/definitive-prove.html

    You all have a read and let me know what you think or if you can help me with some data.

    Cheers
    Right, okay.

    Here are a load of papers which show that you would find no significant results:

    (see attached)

    There you go. Saved you the effort. Zodiac signs are meaningless. Move on.
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf456456.pdf (400.6 KB, 366 views)
  2. File Type: pdf5189876.pdf (188.4 KB, 1099 views)
  3. File Type: pdf5193420.pdf (255.8 KB, 3280 views)
  4. File Type: pdf9609080813.pdf (454.6 KB, 1917 views)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks,
    You made me a big favor with those docs - I own you big time - really.

    Now there are 2 things:
    1 - there are differences - small but are there.
    2 - the tools that psychologists are using are wrong.

    >> The present study shows that the astrological claim that people born with the sun in a positive sign (P-people) tend to
    extraversion and people born with the sun in a negative sign (N-people) tend to introversion,

    I know this one will sound rough to you but stay calm

    - There is no such thing as sun and positive sign - those are astrological kids stories.
    My attempt is to show a correlation between a certain birth moment (any birth moment) and a higher average on one question.

    Why on one question?
    Here comes the second mistake:
    There is no such thing as traits - the traits concept is wrong.
    People don't have traits.
    Personality is not made from traits is made from needs order.
    When a psychologist is determining a trait is taking into account multiple questions - and what that does? - is destroying the importance of that unique question and is making it average with all the other questions.

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    One person might answer one way to a q and another way to almost the same q and by leveling them you loose everything.

    So I guarantee you - I am making a 500 pounds bet (I could go even to 1000) that if you try the same test and do it per small period of time - not signs - say you do it for groups of 10 days to be even more specific - or even on each day if you have enough data - that will be the most accurate.
    and if you do it on each question - there you have it.

    Now this post is made in hurry but I am very happy we had this discussion because I am discovering new and new things.

    I will update my blog with this new findings and will try to express them better - sorry for the English.

    Regards
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    My attempt is to show a correlation between a certain birth moment (any birth moment) and a higher average on one question.
    What do you mean by birth moment? I don't quite understand?

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Why on one question?
    Here comes the second mistake:
    There is no such thing as traits - the traits concept is wrong.
    People don't have traits.
    Personality is not made from traits is made from needs order.
    When a psychologist is determining a trait is taking into account multiple questions - and what that does? - is destroying the importance of that unique question and is making it average with all the other questions.
    Traits are just labels which contain within them a range of habits (which can subsequently be further broken down into specific behaviours) which tend to cluster into that particular label and correlate with each other.

    I still don't really understand what you mean by needs order, but generally, needs are seperated from traits. They can influence each other, but they are considered to be seperate entities.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    So I guarantee you - I am making a 500 pounds bet (I could go even to 1000) that if you try the same test and do it per small period of time - not signs - say you do it for groups of 10 days to be even more specific - or even on each day if you have enough data - that will be the most accurate.
    and if you do it on each question - there you have it.
    Trait psychology is fully aware of the fluctuating nature of personality. Trait theories excel at predicting global and longitudinal trends of behaviour. It is accepted that personality traits are less capable of predicting specific one-time behaviours. It would be better to describe traits as a bell curve of behaviours, implying under a specific trait, some behaviours are far more likely to occur than others while still accepting the inevitable variability.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Originally Posted by raffethefirst
    My attempt is to show a correlation between a certain birth moment (any birth moment) and a higher average on one question.
    What do you mean by birth moment? I don't quite understand?
    My theory says the order of needs is set at an initial moment (more likely conception but birth is as close as we can get)

    To verify that - all is needed is to show that people in one day or interval of 10 days or more traditionally a sign (but that becomes maybe to long as a period)
    answer in a very specific way to a single question.

    That relates the birth moment with personality.

    Look - all I need to prove this is 2 hours with a database.
    I don't need data - if somebody have a database I will pay just to run some queries on a database - I come at your place and dont take any data from you.


    Traits are just labels which contain within them a range of habits (which can subsequently be further broken down into specific behaviors) which tend to cluster into that particular label and correlate with each other.

    I still don't really understand what you mean by needs order, but generally, needs are separated from traits. They can influence each other, but they are considered to be separate entities.
    Traits are like categorizing fruits taste by looking at their colour - you ask some questions and you set some labels that don't have any representation and correlation with anything.
    Why 5 traits and not 6? Is guessing - is not because a man has 2 hands - you just decided it will make more sense to have 5 traits.

    Needs orders is understanding the personality - is like trying to understand the taste of a fruit by analyzing its anatomy.
    Because there are presets by birth moment in the needs order, in conjunction with env you could get much nicer groups using those.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    My theory says the order of needs is set at an initial moment (more likely conception but birth is as close as we can get)

    To verify that - all is needed is to show that people in one day or interval of 10 days or more traditionally a sign (but that becomes maybe to long as a period)
    answer in a very specific way to a single question.

    That relates the birth moment with personality.
    I still don't understand, sorry.

    It goes against everything I know of neuroscience and psychology. That's not a good thing.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Traits are like categorizing fruits taste by looking at their colour - you ask some questions and you set some labels that don't have any representation and correlation with anything.
    No correlation? Personality psychology is built on trait correlations. You can predict a huge number of things from personality traits. You can predict voting habits, health trends, job preferences, social habits, mental health, coping habits, driving habits, you name it.

    You're rejecting a very large body of empirical evidence here.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Why 5 traits and not 6? Is guessing - is not because a man has 2 hands - you just decided it will make more sense to have 5 traits.
    The number of traits that are proposed are debated, obviously. Some suggestions ranging from 5 to 11 to 32. The components that make up traits are very intercorrelated, but you can show (using statistical methods like principal components analysis or factor analysis) that these cluster into independent categories. These days, the big 5 tends to be accepted as the balance between too few and too many categories.

    Too few categories and you fail to make predictions that rule out possibilities (and subsequently has no predictive power) and your measure becomes pointless. Too many and the system becomes needlessly complex and painful to measure. The big 5 are a well verified middle ground between these.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok so what am I trying to prove?
    That ppl with a specific initial moment share similar personality.

    I can do that by checking if subjects with the same birth day (or close birth day) answered the same question in a similar way and that answer is different to all other same groups of birth days.

    What those studies that you gave me do?
    They try to find similar traits in signs.
    Now those 2 things are very different.
    What they have proved is correct - signs don't have different traits. That might be perfectly correct.
    But they didn't proved that ppl with a specific initial moment dont share similar personality because
    - working with traits is not useful in this case because traits are not specific enough for this task - they level the answers - and because
    - signs don't represent personality groups (in a strict way) - they are ... bad understood and might be very wrong as there is no proven relation between signs and stars - the whole thing is mith and folklore. They are more like guidelines - science will have to map the personality in whatever other groups by the initial moment and do it right.
    They tried to prove that ppl with a specific initial moment share similar personality but they failed because they used the wrong method.



    This is why I think all the work psychologists did in the past on this matter is wrong and why my approach will give results.

    Just let me know when I deserve my data to prove my theory
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh my... GodSpeedGehenna I seriously hope you will be putting your psychology degree to good use and going into Clinical or something.
    You've had me in stitches.
    Get you on Prime Ministers question time any day, they won't have a leg to stand on after you rip their arguments to shreds lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Ok so what am I trying to prove?
    That ppl with a specific initial moment share similar personality.

    I can do that by checking if subjects with the same birth day (or close birth day) answered the same question in a similar way and that answer is different to all other same groups of birth days.
    Aaaaaah, okay. I get what you mean now. Not to say I agree with you, but I understand.

    May I ask the rationale behind it? People conceived or born in the same moment will have very different neural organisations. They will experience radically different lives and will have different genes. By what mechanism do you propose that they will have similar/same personalities?

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Just let me know when I deserve my data to prove my theory
    You don't deserve to have another researcher's raw data just as any other researcher would not because it's unethical. Why?

    1. Participants consent to that study, and that study alone when they provide their data.

    2. Participants are given the right of privacy. Nobody but the data collectors will see the raw data of "Participant one answered true, true, false".

    3. Participants are given the right to withdraw their data from the study. If their data is distributed to other researchers, then this is becomes impossible.

    These ethical guidelines are put in place to protect participants. It is on these conditions by which they offer to give up their own time to take part in research. You are not going to be given data. End of. These are fundamental guidelines put forward by both the British Psychological Society and the American Psychology Association and are enforced not only by internal institution ethical boards but by the approval boards of journals.

    (Original post by Nutty_Psychologist)
    Oh my... GodSpeedGehenna I seriously hope you will be putting your psychology degree to good use and going into Clinical or something.
    You've had me in stitches.
    Get you on Prime Ministers question time any day, they won't have a leg to stand on after you rip their arguments to shreds lol
    Thank you. Very kind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    >> and will have different genes
    I didn't said that - I said different order of needs.

    >> By what mechanism do you propose that they will have similar/same personalities?
    I don't propose any mechanism.
    I just made a theory from some observations. If is verified then further research can be made - by scientist.
    Do I have to do all the work? I did the theory - now I am also working to prove it in stead of psychologists. You want me to tell you also why is happening, right?

    >> You don't deserve to have another researcher's raw data just as any other researcher would not because it's unethical. Why?
    ...
    I agree. Is not ethical.

    But if you look from the other perspective:
    Don't you think those ppl will agree me to spend 2 hours working on their data - not taking it home - just running some queries - so a huge theory and gap will be filled in all sort of fields from psychology to philosophy, religion, AI etc that will ultimately benefit them?

    Or I can not even look at the data.
    You tell me what is the structure of the database, I write you the queries, you run them as the owner of the data and you give me the results - that will look something like some dubious numbers with no references to particular users.
    Or you don't give me anything - you just tell me if I am right or wrong - what you say?

    Do you think we can have an agreement?
    The theory will carry your name as the only person who was wiling to give it a chance

    All that is needed is some good will.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    I didn't said that - I said different order of needs.
    Yes, but my point is that there is a huge array of natural barriers which would lead you to conclude that there is no realistic mechanism to drive your theory.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    I don't propose any mechanism.
    I just made a theory from some observations. If is verified then further research can be made - by scientist.
    Do I have to do all the work? I did the theory - now I am also working to prove it in stead of psychologists. You want me to tell you also why is happening, right?
    So you've made some observations and you have a ponder about the nature of them and what caused them to be.. The next step is to consider a variety of possible explanations. You then consider each explanation in turn, analysing its assumptions and the mechanisms that may propell them. Then, you arrange your theories into a hierarchy of most plausable to least plausable, with a the most well defined and and causally explained theory being at the top. You then take this theory and test it empirically.

    This is the order of the scientific method. What you have essentially done here is plucked a theory out of thin air without deriving any kind of plausable mechanism. Until you can offer a logical rationale for your theory, it will never be taken seriously.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    I agree. Is not ethical.

    But if you look from the other perspective:
    Don't you think those ppl will agree me to spend 2 hours working on their data - not taking it home - just running some queries - so a huge theory and gap will be filled in all sort of fields from psychology to philosophy, religion, AI etc that will ultimately benefit them?

    Or I can not even look at the data.
    1. You cannot assume they would consent.

    2. You must therefore seek consent. It is not feasible to expect the previous data collector to have the ability and volition to track their participants down to obtain consent.

    3. The ends don't always justify the means. All manner of abominations would occur in science if this attitude was taken. Thankfully, this is not how science operates.

    4. I have told you again and again. The data would contain within it intrinsic manipulation, an artefact of the methodology adopted by the data collector. Such manipulation will only be coherent in the context of that methodology. You would essentially be using dirty, contaminated data. Your extrapolations will therefore be unreliable and invalid.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    You tell me what is the structure of the database, I write you the queries, you run them as the owner of the data and you give me the results - that will look something like some dubious numbers with no references to particular users.
    I don't have access to such data, nor am I willing to collect it for you.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    The theory will carry your name as the only person who was wiling to give it a chance
    Sounds like a great way to end a career in academia before it has even started.



    Look. If you really want this data, it would be very easy to obtain. Google survey monkey and you will find a website where you can easily build your own questionnaire that can take information like intro/extraversion, participant birth dates and all that jazz.

    Now go and find yourself a psychometric that has a scale for intro/extra and enter it into survey monkey. You could easy find one for free by looking at published articles (have a search on google scholar). You don't have to buy one, there will be plenty available.

    So now you've got your survey built. The website will essentially compile the data for you. Just spam the link on a few forums. Bat your eyelids and get some people to complete it. Then take your data and analyse it.

    Easy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you've made some observations and you have a ponder about the nature of them and what caused them to be.. The next step is to consider a variety of possible explanations. You then consider each explanation in turn, analyzing its assumptions and the mechanisms that may propell them. Then, you arrange your theories into a hierarchy of most plausable to least plausable, with a the most well defined and and causally explained theory being at the top. You then take this theory and test it empirically.

    This is the order of the scientific method. What you have essentially done here is plucked a theory out of thin air without deriving any kind of plausable mechanism. Until you can offer a logical rationale for your theory, it will never be taken seriously.
    Oh I see so until I find why this is happening nobody will belive it, right?

    Is just like saying Darwin should have not made his theory because he should have first proved that humans and monkeys share almost the same DNA.
    Well he did the theory and he was right (almost...).
    You would have said the same - nooo that is not correct because how come they are the same? What is the reason? Do you have a reason? No? Well then go on. Chop chop. We have things to do - don't bother us.


    Take some observations - tie them together into a conclusion write the idea down.
    Next man came.
    Picks the note and try to test that somehow. Make a note of the situation.
    Next man come, pick up the note and looks why that could happen.

    This is done all over the history so you are wrong when saying that
    >> it will never be taken seriously
    until I find a plausible mechanism.

    You are wrong again. and I am bored.

    If I will find some data - I will run some queries and make some graphs.
    And when I will show you the graphs - ppl form one period answering very unique to one particular question - you will have to agree even if we don't know what is the mechanism that is producing this behavior.


    About the test... I don't know how to do it.
    I don't think I will get correct data from Internet. But thanks for encouraging me.
    I might have to do that also if nobody is willing to help me - don't I?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.