
The history of humans trying to reduce one another to a personality profile - diodorus
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/meet-yourself
======
timoth3y
The seminal work on this tendency we humans have to classify and rank each
other is Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man)

If you have a chance, it's worth a read. It's on my list of the top ten most
important books I've ever read and it permanently altered the way I think
about the way we think about ourselves.

~~~
ignoramous
Tangential: I am curious to know the other 9 books. Can you, please?

~~~
timoth3y
I confess I don't have a literal list of ten books, but there is a small
handful of books that shifted my way of thinking. A simple list of these books
would require a great deal of explanation. None of them are generally
considered "great works" and almost never make such lists.

Some, like "Zigler on Selling" just came to me when I really needed it, and it
ended up changing the trajectory of my life.

------
p0nce
> The advice to “know thyself” is ancient, carved on the Temple of Apollo at
> Delphi

Not an expert but I'm a bit annoyed when this comes up.

In ancient morals, the injonction to Γνῶθι σεαυτόν was likely to be understood
in terms as "know your position, you are not a god (even if favoured by the
fortune)".

It may well be a sentence against "hubris", with little relationship with the
particular interpretation Socrate had of this sentence in Delphi.

~~~
qntty
According to who?

~~~
p0nce
I read a book on this topic but forgot the exact reference. Not all books
agreed on this when I tried finding it back.

------
mettamage
Well what else would you use as a heuristic? If you don't have a lot of time
to know a person, then in some cases a personality profile might be a good
idea. If you have 8 hours worth of free time on a given day to know a person,
then having a chat helps a lot more.

~~~
nradov
But's what the value in practice? Is there any real proof that we can achieve
superior results by interacting with colleagues in different ways based on
their Myers-Briggs personality test results or whatever? People seem to take
this stuff on faith but the actual evidence is distinctly lacking.

~~~
maxxxxx
I treat people differently based on gender, age, education and many other
things i know or observe about them and I think knowing Meyers Briggs may be
another useful hint. You just have to avoid expecting that all INTPs or all
engineers are always the same.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Meyers Briggs is nonsense.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism)

~~~
fsloth
Yes - it makes about as much sense as any mapping into predefined fictional
categories. The anti-elevator pitch for MB is: two imaginative persons of no
scientific background read a bunch of psychology, invented a model around what
they learned, and no-one would have heard of them since - _except_ , in came a
consultant who said "I can sell this! Effing yay, bring the cash in!"

Note the tendency of people to invent all sorts of things in falsifiable
fields - like perpetual motion machines, and so on. There's no falsification
mechanism in psychology...

Analogously, I'm pretty sure if astrology used some non-falsifiable grounds
for it's input variables it would still be a reputable academic pursuit.

~~~
fjuerfilis
The statement about falsification mechanisms is incorrect.

In fact, one of the problems with the Myers-Briggs is that it is continuously
brought up in these discussions, even when experts in the area of behavioral
individual differences dismiss it because it is lacking in evidence (and it
has never really been dominant, or at least not for decades). There's all
sorts of model-testing that lends support to some models (e.g., the Big Five,
which is mentioned in the essay) and not the M-B, in terms of its internal
empirical characteristics and predictive properties. And they do involve
falsifiable predictions of multiple sorts.

The problem is that people complain about nonsense such as the M-B being
nothing more than a money-making consulting scam, but then don't take that
assertion seriously, in the sense that they assume the consultants are
scientists.

It's as if con artists were selling perpetual motion machines, and HR
departments started buying them, and then we started complaining about physics
being non falsifiable, rather than about HR departments and business
administration not understanding physics. It's all strawman arguments.

As an exercise, for example, I recommend someone searching for modern basic
research using Myers-Briggs uncritically in mainstream psychology journals.
You probably won't find it except for as some kind of deceptive ruse in an
experimental protocol.

As for measuring behavior, any measurement throws away information. That's the
tension: weight, BMI, blood pressure, temperature (under what pressure?), etc.
The problem isn't in the measurement, it's in how that measurement is used and
interpreted, and how much information is thrown away.

So, nothing is wrong with getting a measure of emotional-behavioral state. The
problem is overgeneralizing from that, across time or situations,
overestimating its predictive information, failing to consider uncertainties
or biases of measurement, and so forth. BMI is an imperfect summary of
someone's physical health, but it does have utility. The danger isn't in BMI
per se, it's in assuming it won't change, assuming things about the reasons
for a given BMI, ignoring how any given BMI was calculated, and so forth.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
The problem with non-falsifiability is that let's say we avoid
'overgeneralizing' from a categorization as you suggest. And instead we stick
to whatever tightly constrained region of classification or prediction you'd
consider acceptable. And so we take a Myers-Briggs test and it says this
individual should exhibit this class of behavior. And it turns out they don't.
Would this pose a problem to Myers-Briggs? Not in the least. Okay, what if it
was a hundred? A thousand? A billion? There's no magic number where it's
suddenly a problem.

I do agree with the person you're responding to that astrology would likely
still be considered somewhat scientific if it didn't rely on things that we
know to be false. For instance astrology mixes Mercury starting to go
backwards as a key player in its predictions. The problem being there that
Mercury doesn't go backwards. It was/is an optical illusion based on an
inaccurate understanding of our solar system. But outside of getting some
things fundamentally wrong astrology is the same as any other unfalsifiable
model. Being wrong doesn't matter, and you can just constantly add onto it and
claim you're 'refining' it.

Maybe even that geocentric model though is the same story. Part of the reason
the geocentric model of our universe lasted so long was because, with the
technology at the time, it wasn't completely falsifiable. Mercury needs to go
backwards to make this model work? Other planets need to go into crazy floral
sharped curvy patterns to make it work? Well okay then I Mercury goes
backwards and planets go in floral shaped curvy patterns. If you wanted to
suggest a different model, such as a heliocentric one, that'd involve throwing
away literally centuries of work and entirely discrediting astrology (which
was at one time a pursuit as scholarly as any other) as a science. People
blame the church for the geocentric model, but there was much more to it than
just that.

------
Tade0
To me this lies at the heart of the problem with discrimination.

People are being reduced to a set of categories instead of being seen as
individuals - sometimes in good faith with consequences opposite to what was
intended.

------
scythe
> _When we define ourselves, we become more like that which we define, in what
> philosopher Ian Hacking calls “the looping effect of mankind.” Biological
> phenomena will carry on regardless of what it is called. The heart will
> continue beating whether the act of muscle contraction is called “the
> heartbeat” or something else. Not so for the intricacies of psychology: the
> proud introverts become more introverted, the neurotic more neurotic, some
> people buy T-shirts that say no, i’m not a sociopath, I’m just an intj._

Is it even possible to construct a "personality test" that avoids suggesting
people identify with negative traits?

~~~
maxxxxx
I don't think that any traits are inherently negative. For example I have some
autistic or Asperger's traits. I had spent many years being confused that I
wasn't able to do some things socially that were super easy for others. After
learning about this I just felt relief. These traits are part of me like my
height and hair color. Not negative, not positive.

~~~
scythe
I disagree. I consider some parts of my personality to be unambiguously bad
and prefer they would change. I prefer this kind of self-image to the current
vogue of never seeing the negatives.

~~~
maxxxxx
If you are able to change them, then view them as negative and change them.
But others can't be changed or at least they are difficult to change. I have
spent almost 50 years trying to figure out how to behave correctly in certain
social situations but never found a way to do so. Now I just say "f..k it" and
don't even try. Instead I focus on things I can change. I don't beat myself up
anymore over things I can't change. I find this much more productive.

~~~
faceplanted
If you don't mind my asking, could you give a few examples of these social
situations and what troubles you had?

I only ask because I went through rather an opposite path of believing from a
young age that because I couldn't manage certain social situations that I must
be on the spectrum in some way^[1], and once I changed _who_ I was in those
situations with I was able to relearn how to work in them.

So it's interesting to me to hear what someone on other end experienced.

^[1] (even after my school sending me for analysis cleared me of that almost
immediately, I assumed there must be _something_. Later it turned out I was in
a very inhospitable environment growing up and had developed coping mechanisms
for being around people that didn't express around psychologists or
psychiatrists)

~~~
maxxxxx
For example I have never done well in group situations. I see other people
having fun and bonding while I am on the sidelines, don't have fun and don't
make connections. I have tried a lot of things but I never got comfortable.
This contrasts to other things like public speaking or talking to women. There
I took advice and could implement it with a lot of effort and eventual
improvement. But there are situations where I simply don't improve despite
other people handling them naturally without effort. I also can identify with
some typical autistic traits.

I would compare it to a dyslexic ex coworker. I can look at a sheet of paper
and read it within seconds, understand it and spot spelling errors. He could
stare at it for hours and only see a jumble of letters. I practiced a lot with
him but he just didn't improve. On the other hand the same person could go to
a bar, look at people, and immediately he knew who to talk to in what way. I
go to a bar, see random people, but simply can't read the situation.

Does this make sense? I have improved a lot from a miserable childhood up to
my 30s to now being socially reasonable functioning but I have some hard
limits I can't overcome no matter how I try. Now I am accepting this and feel
liberated from pressure.

~~~
faceplanted
> But there are situations where I simply don't improve despite other people
> handling them naturally without effort

When you say you don't improve, are you referring to internally or externally,
as in, are you not improving in that you can't pass for someone handling the
situation, or not improving in that you can pass for handling the situation
but you don't get any more comfortable?

When I actually started to improve I found that I had previously been going
about it the wrong way around, where I was trying to force myself to feel
comfortable hoping the cues and behaviours would come later, what actually
helped was getting basic (basic to others anyway) tips and advice on how to
fit into the situations and then letting the comfort and confidence come
later.

Obviously we're in different life situations, but your perspective is super
interesting here.

------
alexandercrohde
I think there are a few distinct ideas to look at here:

1\. Historical hubris of "authorities" : This isn't unique to psychology--
authorities in religion, philosophy, medicine have long declared the most
absurd things with no observational basis (e.g. 4 humors).

2\. Attempt to quantify people in general (personality being one dimension of
this). Certainly mass measurement is useful sometimes - e.g. changes in baby
birth-weights. However measurement can also be a tool for unjust reductionism.

3\. The woeful oversimplicity of "personality research." The most respected
model only has 5 attributes. Certainly there are many personality traits
beyond just 5.

