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)
    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.
    You have no plausible theoretical concept behind why your theory might be true. Not only that, it lacks any kind of face validity. Because of these two reasons, nobody is going to want to put the effort in. Simple as.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    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.
    Firstly, you can ditch the attitude. I have done nothing but help you here.

    Secondly, I am not expecting you to 'find the mechanism'. What I would expect of a good theory is that it does not fly in the face of numerous established natural facts that otherwise go against the liklihood of the theory. Failing that, I would expect some kind of logical rationale behind it. You do neither.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    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.
    I suggest you also learn some methods of statistical analysis if you haven't already. Just making some pretty linegraphs isn't going to be worth ****.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    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?
    1. Go to Google Scholar.
    2. Search for extraversion.
    3. Open a paper.
    4. Look at their methods.
    5. Find the test they used.
    6. Copy and Paste test name into google.
    7. Find pirate copy of the test.
    8. Select scales for introversion/extraversion.
    9. Go to SurveyMonkey.
    10. Make a survey using the items from that scale.
    11. Send that survey to lots of people.
    12. Compare your data.
    13. Find no significant results.
    14. Shut the **** up.

    There, I've had enough of your lunacy. Goodbye.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Just give him the data man :ninja:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mehhh.....hi.)
    Just give him the data man :ninja:
    just need the data man.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    >> You have no plausible theoretical concept behind why your theory might be true.
    It has a lot of common sense in its arguments. Everything ties together - the missing pieces, the rationale - is all common sense.
    I didn't heard you saying anything about any argument in the theory.
    If there would have been one wrong - there is the place where you or other would have started (there is no doubt about this) - yet you as others are just saying - is wrong. I am asking: why? well - trust me - I know better. Ohh - I see. So **** you then if this is how you know to make a discussion on arguments.

    >> Firstly, you can ditch the attitude. I have done nothing but help you here.
    Yes you have but not because you wanted. I am bored by the fact you keep attacking the theory and me because you feel this is what you have to do - just attack with no arguments... - is the human nature - this is the same behavior I get most of the places don't worrie - resistance to new or how you call it with your specialized words?


    >> What I would expect of a good theory is that it does not fly in the face of numerous established natural facts that otherwise go against the likelihood of the theory. Failing that, I would expect some kind of logical rationale behind it. You do neither.
    What? What are the natural facts that go against the likelihood of the theory? It is exactly the other way around. You have a psychology that don't know why humans have different personality and I bring a very likely solution that takes you out of the poo and you are talking to me about likelihood? That is ... well ... I wont spent any more words on this.

    I suggest you also learn some methods of statistical analysis if you haven't already. Just making some pretty linegraphs isn't going to be worth ****.
    I thought to do them for you to be more visually - see this long bar here? one million users with a certain initial momment answered yes to q no 7.
    See this very small bar here? all users answered no to the same q.
    What do you mean you cant see it? one is red and one is yello. Yes those 2.



    1. Go to Google Scholar.
    2. Search for extraversion.
    3. Open a paper.
    4. Look at their methods.
    5. Find the test they used.
    6. Copy and Paste test name into google.
    7. Find pirate copy of the test.
    8. Select scales for introversion/extraversion.
    9. Go to SurveyMonkey.
    10. Make a survey using the items from that scale.
    11. Send that survey to lots of people.
    12. Compare your data.
    13. Find no significant results.
    14. Shut the **** up.

    There, I've had enough of your lunacy. Goodbye.
    This is how my thoery progress - ppl play smart and infatuate but I learn stuff reading through their lines.
    It wasnt a pleasure from my part either.

    On another note -
    Do you happen to know if there is any legal interdiction to make the papers you provided available in my theory?


    Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    What? What are the natural facts that go against the likelihood of the theory? It is exactly the other way around. You have a psychology that don't know why humans have different personality.
    Human personality is ultimately derived from neural configuration. Neural configuration, or more specifically synaptic weightings, are derived from experience, learning and genetic predispositions.

    The personality develops, through unique exposure to experience and through what is essentially a unique set of interacting inputs and outputs. Personality is malleable and prone to fluctuation based on a number of environmental and endogenous variables.

    You propose a theory which goes against all of these things. Your theory is contrary to modern neuroscience and psychology. Your theory appears to be based on magical thinking.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    I thought to do them for you to be more visually - see this long bar here? one million users with a certain initial momment answered yes to q no 7.
    See this very small bar here? all users answered no to the same q.
    What do you mean you cant see it? one is red and one is yello. Yes those 2.
    Not good enough. You need to show statistically that those differences did not occur by chance and were indeed the product of your quasi-manipulation of 'birth moment'.

    Making a bar chart and comparing the height of the lines wont cut it.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Do you happen to know if there is any legal interdiction to make the papers you provided available in my theory?
    What do you mean?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Human personality is ultimately derived from neural configuration. Neural configuration, or more specifically synaptic weightings, are derived from experience, learning and genetic predispositions.

    The personality develops, through unique exposure to experience and through what is essentially a unique set of interacting inputs and outputs. Personality is malleable and prone to fluctuation based on a number of environmental and endogenous variables.
    You are attacking again without argument.
    So my theory is wrong (personality is not produced by different order of needs) because personality is triggered by env.
    Env and genes - this is the main trend in psychology...



    So here we are in the gods year 2010 and psychology still don't know why humans have different personalities and you try to sell me this crap?

    In other fields scientists discover how universe was created, they reverse aging in mouse, they make AI that imitate humans (see touring tests), cars that drive without pilot trough towns.

    Other sciences will tell you what personality is if you don't take measures.
    AI engineers will have to come up with a solution because you don't have one.
    Theorists debate on if cociousness can be downloaded or not but that is a difficult discussion as psychology don't know what personality is and the list could go on for miles.


    Look at how I am making an argument:

    Brothers are very different (from personality perspective) from parents but also very different between each other - as different as all other humans are.
    The fact that children are different from parents indicates that the most important triggers of personality are clearly not genetically inherited.
    The fact that brothers are equally different between each other as to other humans (from personality perspective) also indicates that environment is not the definitive factor in creating personality - because in most cases the environment is pretty much the same for brothers and also differences can be seen from very small ages - much before environment to had a big chance in influencing things.
    So something is missing.

    Now look at how you are making an argument:

    ... because current theories say personality is env and genes...
    You propose a theory which goes against all of these things. Your theory is contrary to modern neuroscience and psychology. Your theory appears to be based on magical thinking.

    Well you are right this time - I am attacking the main trend in psychology - (which is debated even by psychologist - so there is no consensus) with an argument (the brothers thing and the fact that current theories are incomplete) that will solve the contradictions and fill the missing gaps while you are attacking my theory saying the trend in psychology is different.
    Now that is big news. So is different? Really? And that is the whole argument, right?

    Not only attacking it without argument - you also say is based on magic that is an empty accusation (like many others).


    Are you sure you that what are you saying is an argument?
    Because if you are - I will add that to my list of counter arguments. Maybe put your name next to it if you want and are proud of your argument.
    So if you think this is an argument please formulate it more concise.

    Thanks.

    PS
    the legal issue - I wonder if those papers are distributed for free or under any license or I can just use them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    You are attacking again without argument.
    So my theory is wrong (personality is not produced by different order of needs) because personality is triggered by env.
    Env and genes - this is the main trend in psychology...



    So here we are in the gods year 2010 and psychology still don't know why humans have different personalities and you try to sell me this crap?
    What I am telling you is that personality develops. It is not predetermined. It develops over time. The neural tissue changes over time as it interacts with the environment, as it learns responses to inputs, as it develops its own decision patterns, its own heuristics for analysing the information it receives.

    Personality is essentially a way of broadly summing up the behaviour of one person. This behaviour is driven by their perceptions of the world, their understanding, their beliefs, their experiences, their wants etc etc. These factors are not independent, either. They all interact and feed into each other to provide a computational database with ultimately comes to decision on how to act in X situation in response to Y stimulus.

    The output, however, is not always the same in that one specific situation. This is because the computation is not a static and rigid thing. It adapts and changes based on available computational power, current activated beliefs or perceptions etc..

    Personality is not, and can not, be derived by some magical process by which it is infused at birth. Yes, genetics will provide some loose foundation to vaguely direct the personality trajectory, but it is largely due to experience based learning.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    In other fields scientists discover how universe was created, they reverse aging in mouse, they make AI that imitate humans (see touring tests), cars that drive without pilot trough towns.
    And? (Btw I think you mean the turing test. Of which no machine has been able to pass reliably.. But that's not the point).

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Other sciences will tell you what personality is if you don't take measures.
    AI engineers will have to come up with a solution because you don't have one.
    Theorists debate on if cociousness can be downloaded or not but that is a difficult discussion as psychology don't know what personality is and the list could go on for miles.
    I've just told you what contemporary neuroscience and psychology think that personality is.


    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Look at how I am making an argument:

    Now look at how you are making an argument:

    The fact that brothers are equally different between each other as to other humans (from personality perspective) also indicates that environment is not the definitive factor in creating personality - because in most cases the environment is pretty much the same for brothers
    You're using the term 'environment' too broadly. It's not specific enough. I'm speaking of very acute and direct interactions with the environment. I'm talking down to the individual words chosen by other people as they are spoken to... That level of acuteness is what I refer to. This is the level of environment that builds personality.

    In this context, it is utterly ridiculous to say that these two individuals environments are 'pretty much the same'. They're not. They live in the same house and they are part of the same family. They do not have a shared life of experiences, however.

    On the otherhand, when I refer to genetics, I am referring to a very very loose determinant of personality. Certainly, some traits appear to be more hereditary than others. Aggression, for example. But generally, genetics make a very small contribution to personality, but it is essential in early life and ultimately provides the first stepping stones towards personality development.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Well you are right this time - I am attacking the main trend in psychology - (which is debated even by psychologist - so there is no consensus) with an argument (the brothers thing and the fact that current theories are incomplete) that will solve the contradictions and fill the missing gaps while you are attacking my theory saying the trend in psychology is different.
    You are not filling any gaps with your theory. You are ultimately rejecting the last 100 years of empirical observation by suggesting that personality is injected in its whole at birth and that people who are born at the same time have the same personality by some sort of magical universal process. This does not bode well for your theory.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Are you sure you that what are you saying is an argument?
    Because if you are - I will add that to my list of counter arguments. Maybe put your name next to it if you want and are proud of your argument.
    So if you think this is an argument please formulate it more concise.
    Please do not cite my name on any of your interpretations of what I am saying to you. Not because I am unwilling to have my position attacked, but because I know you will misinterpret it completely. No offense, but your english is very incoherent.

    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    the legal issue - I wonder if those papers are distributed for free or under any license or I can just use them?
    You are free to use them providing you cite them and do not claim any material as your own. This is plagiarism otherwise.

    Look. I'm speaking to you with about 5 years of study in both psychology and neuroscience. I am by no leap an expert; I am just an undergraduate. But, I am basing my opinions (albeit very generally here as we are discussing a very general phenomena) on years of reading experimental and empirical pieces of research, on coherent bodies of theories, on what is essentially 100 years of psychology and ~30 years of neuroscience.

    I strongly urge you to sit down in a library. Find some fundamental textbooks on Psychology and Neuroscience. Read chapters on personality and development. Read some cognitive neuroscience texts. I think you will find these approaches much more satisfactory.

    (Btw, I've had to cut out large portions of your post purely because I don't understand your english).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    >> What I am telling you is that personality develops
    Sure it does.
    Did I said it is not? Ever?
    I just said it has a starting point. What happens after that is not my business.

    If you have an argument against my theory - you formulate it (more coincise pls) and then I will add a comment on which we will both agree - I wont add anything to your argument or a comment to your argument to make you feel you dont have the possiblility to answer back.
    Very simple and clean - you make your argument - we discuss it and we agree also on what I will post as answer.

    Also thanks for advice but I know what I am doing.
    If we are giving advises I have one for you also - you could try not to be common - look outside of the box.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I reformulated what I have learned in those debates.

    Thanks GodspeedGehenna I am very sorry for the tone on which this discussion happened.

    So why previous research on signs is both - wrong as research on signs - and is not aplicable to "the order of needs" theory (even if it would have been correct):

    http://needsorder.blogspot.com/p/cou...theory_30.html

    Regards
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    I reformulated what I have learned in those debates.

    Thanks GodspeedGehenna I am very sorry for the tone on which this discussion happened.

    So why previous research on signs is both - wrong as research on signs - and is not aplicable to "the order of needs" theory (even if it would have been correct):

    http://needsorder.blogspot.com/p/cou...theory_30.html

    Regards
    Cool story. Got your data yet?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no - of course nobody will give me data.
    I didn't knew that until I came here - I was expecting data to be shared...
    We do share our programming code - makes life easier (open source).
    It will make life and progress much more easier in psychology if one could just reuse already existing data (well except already manipulated data as you said).

    I do understand the ethics no need to go again trough that .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am an astrologer...Extroversion and introversion are typically viewed as a single continuum.extroversion and introversion, terms introduced into psychology by Carl Jung to identify opposite psychological types...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    >> Extroversion and introversion are typically viewed as a single continuum.extroversion and introversion, terms introduced into psychology by Carl Jung to identify opposite psychological types...
    Not exactly sure what you mean by those.


    >> I am an astrologer
    That is iteresting. I never had the opportunity to hear an astrologer opinion on my theory.
    I am more interested into proving the theory is hard science but also I am not saying the initial moment is not produced by stars... (!?!)
    Sounds improbable - but hey - we don't know what is producing this so I am not rejecting anything.
    Personal opinion - is not by stars - but maybe you can tell me something new.
    Or maybe you can see other connections that I was unable to make.

    Cheers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by terrence109)
    I am an astrologer
    Gtfo.

    Please do not encourage this guy with your pseudo-science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey GodspeedGehenna - you are being unfair (actually more than that) - maybe my theory is true.
    And if is not, then, proving is not will still be a step forward - you will know how personality is not.


    Anyway discussing is the key isn't it? Please don't get involved if you don't like the subject - nobody is forcing you to contribute.

    On another note it makes me wonder what kind of psychologist will you become?
    How are you going to explain to somebody that what he imagines is wrong? You will say: Get the **** out of my office - cant you see you are crazy???!!
    Not that my theory will fall into "what somebody imagines" as long as I am providing arguments that are still standing because there are not counter arguments - I am just debating your lack of empathy.

    If this is not the place to discuss arguments on a personality theory then there is no other place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    On another note it makes me wonder what kind of psychologist will you become?
    I'm not becoming a psychologist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey people!


    I thought to drop by and give you some updates on my theory.
    I almost finished my work/theory and I am working now to publish it but I was going to ask you a again your experts opinion on some key points.


    I found why all previous research on zodiacal is wrong from a psychological perspective.
    You can read it here
    Please let me know what do you think about my arguments on showing fault on previous resarch on zodiacal signs.


    Another thing for which I want to ask your opinion as psychologists is:
    do you think this theory (assuming is correct) fills the gap in the psychological theories of personality.
    The chapter is this one:


    Best wishes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raffethefirst)
    Hey people!


    I thought to drop by and give you some updates on my theory.
    I almost finished my work/theory and I am working now to publish it but I was going to ask you a again your experts opinion on some key points.


    I found why all previous research on zodiacal is wrong from a psychological perspective.
    You can read it here:
    http://www.authonomy.com/book/chapte...apterid=297771
    Please let me know what do you think about my arguments on showing fault on previous resarch on zodiacal signs.


    Another thing for which I want to ask your opinion as psychologists is:
    do you think this theory (assuming is correct) fills the gap in the psychological theories of personality.
    The chapter is this one:
    http://www.authonomy.com/book/chapte...apterid=297758


    Best wishes.
    Your links don't work and I can't believe you're still wasting your time on this.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, after reading all this, I'm convinced that the OP is nothing but a troll. A good one at that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    >> Your links don't work
    Thanks.
    Damn it!
    I will edit the previous comment...

    >> I can't believe you're still wasting your time on this.
    Do you want to talk about this?


    >> Lol, after reading all this, I'm convinced that the OP is nothing but a troll. A good one at that.
    I think the definition of troll got distorted with time. Those kids...
    In my days, torll use to mean a man who wants to frustrate people on forums.

    babygirl110's -> if is not obvious what I am doing here (?!!?!?!) - I have a theory, I made a book, and I am asking for help and guidance.
    Is a big effort that I am taking, trying to answer something what psychologists should seek.
    I am working really hard and one of my smallest worries is how do you feel and then to try to frustrate you.
 
 
 
  • 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.