new eight type personality system (peacock, ascetic, rebel, square, computer, animal,

[meta]

__________________________________________________ ___________

eight personality types on four opposing spectrums

peacock vs ascetic (correlates most with E/I, Big 5 extroversion)
eccentric vs square (correlates most with N/S, Big 5 openness to experience)
computer vs impulsive (correlates most with T/F, mild J/P correlation)
jerk vs. martyr (slight T/F MBTI correlation, Big 5 accomodation)

peacocks value being attractive, looking nice, compete for spot light, are usually in a romantic relationship (or trying to be)
ascetics shun materialism, don't care about attention, are less interested in sex/relationships than peacocks
eccentrics are artistic, creative, unconventional, they are more likely to be risk taking / adventurous
squares value tradition, rule of law, the status quo, are resistant to change / progress
computers are highly rational, logical, stiff, they don't trust emotion/instinct, plan their way through life
impulsives are whimsical, unpredictable, spontaneous, gut/instinct driven, feel their way through life
jerks prioritize self interest, are overly attached to their own perspective/feelings/thoughts, empathetically blunted
martyrs are self sacrificing, people pleasing, they nurture others at the expense of themselves, feel others feelings more than their own

two physical health spectrums (Big 5 emotional stability and energy level)
stable/calm vs unstable/anxious (no MBTI correlation, Big 5 emotional stability)
high energy vs low energy (mild E/I, J/P correlation)

notation of system...

each type expressed as a range
example: P p x a A

two physical health types expressed a little differently
stable/unstable = x ? (the question mark is symbolic of the fact that unstable types have an unstable sense of self/identity)
high/low energy + x -

primary type denoted by brackets [A]

example type notion...
ax[C]M=- (mild ascetic preference, in between eccentric/square, primary type computer, strong martyr preference, stable emotionally, low energy

an INTP is most likely to be a ARCj

the big weakness of the mtbi type spectrum is trait conflation, I is a mix of Ascetic tendencies and Low energy syndrome (E is the opposite), F/T is a conflation of Computer/Impulsive and Jerk/Martyr, J/P is a conflation of high/low energy and Computer/Impulsive

the big 5 isn't really designed to be useable, it's more of a scientific personality discovery than a developed usable personality system
__________________________________________________ ______________

Anyway, thoughts, What's your type?

[Hephaestus]

I think the implication that Introverts are less interested in sex is utter horseshit. I didn't read past that.

[meta]

I think the implication that Introverts are less interested in sex is utter horseshit. I didn't read past that.

Social Introversion versus Extraversion, showed positive loadings
for Schizoid (.91), Schizotypal (.91), and Avoidant (.90), and negative loadings for
Histrionic (-.95) and Narcissistic (-.58)
http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/...di.1992.6.1.40

Little interest in having sexual experiences with another person (taking into account age).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoi...ality_disorder

[Hephaestus]

Now that I know you're treating Introversion as a Schizo-type personality disorder, I think my boots aren't high enough for walking in this thread.

[meta]

it goes both ways, extroversion is commonly associated with histrionic and narcissistic personality. http://goo.gl/s7o5bQ

[gps]

Now that I know you're treating Introversion as a Schizo-type personality disorder, I think my boots aren't high enough for walking in this thread.

But, Hephy, we introverts ARE -- in many ways -- schizo.
Relative to the herd animals, we split off from the the poor and huddled masses.
Also, schizoTYPAL is NOT schizophrenic.

Vis-a-vis monoOrthoxy where all the `normal' morons believe in the same dogma, doctrine, and (im)political rhetoric any heterodox free thinker appears split-off from the the statistical norm.

I simply don't know how I can experience any pride as a would-be individual unless I can split off -- every so schizotypally -- from mainstream automatons primarily `peacock squares'.
Do I want to `be' part and parcel with a would-be monolithic bloc of a statistical artifact ... or a (statistical) deviant?
My intelligence is about 3 sigma limits from the the national average; that's not a schizo split; that's a chasm.

I'm schizotypal and happy with it.
Better split off from the square peacocks than at-one with them, IMHO.

[Hephaestus]

I know that schizotypal is not schizophrenia, but it is part of a spectrum. But introversion isn't shown to be schizo-anything.

That study started with people who had diagnosed personality disorders and then noted whether they were introverts or not. Noting that schizo-types are most commonly introverts does not mean that introverts are schizo-types--it doesn't even mean they are likely to be schizo-types. It's the other way around: schizo-types are likely to be introverts. It's like noting that there is a strong correlation between being in the water and drowning. That correlation does not mean that everyone who goes into the water will drown. It barely means that anyone who goes into the water is more likely to drown.

The reasonable way to interpret that data is to say that if you have someone who is a schiz-oid/typal, they are likely to be an introvert. But you need a completely different study to show that someone being an introvert is likely to be schiz-oid/typal. You would have to take a large random sample of introverts with no knowledge of their psychiatric history, perform the appropriate testing, and find that most of them were schiz-oid/typal.

In terse terms:

A implies B does not mean B implies A.

The OP has assumed it does.

[gps]

I know that schizotypal is not schizophrenia, but it is part of a spectrum. But introversion isn't shown to be schizo-anything.

That study started with people who had diagnosed personality disorders and then noted whether they were introverts or not. Noting that schizo-types are most commonly introverts does not mean that introverts are schizo-types--it doesn't even mean they are likely to be schizo-types. It's the other way around: schizo-types are likely to be introverts. It's like noting that there is a strong correlation between being in the water and drowning. That correlation does not mean that everyone who goes into the water will drown. It barely means that anyone who goes into the water is more likely to drown.

The reasonable way to interpret that data is to say that if you have someone who is a schiz-oid/typal, they are likely to be an introvert. But you need a completely different study to show that someone being an introvert is likely to be schiz-oid/typal. You would have to take a large random sample of introverts with no knowledge of their psychiatric history, perform the appropriate testing, and find that most of them were schiz-oid/typal.

In terse terms:

A implies B does not mean B implies A.

The OP has assumed it does.

So, in statistical terms, a regression analysis is required to derive causality from mere-correlation.

I was kinda referring to the blatant biases which flaming extroverts build into the THEIR metrics which favor THEM.
"Works and plays well with others" was on my report card.
The `others' ALWAYS referred to EVERYBODY -- indiscriminately.
We introverts have better filters and CAN filter out the DRAMA SLUTS -- EG square peacocks -- but NOT without being vilified for not accepting ALL ASSHOLES under the bullshit slander/defamation of receiving `unsatisfactory' on `Works and plays well with others'.
It's a rigged game in many/most cases when an institution favors extroverted-senstates/square-peacocks ... whatever.

[Hephaestus]

So, in statistical terms, a regression analysis is required to derive causality from mere-correlation.

No--that isn't it by half. You can demonstrate that A implies B because B causes A, and you still haven't proven that B implies A.

For example. You can demonstrate that a particular disorder means that a person has a particular pedigree. They come from a particular bloodline and the disorder is genetic and unique to that bloodline. That doesn't mean that everyone from that bloodline has that disorder. It doesn't even mean that everyone from that bloodline is likely to get that disorder. The only additional inference that can be made from a causal link is that if someone doesn't have that ancestry, they won't have that disorder.

[meta]

The present research examined the amount and kind of personality measured within four sets of personality disorder (PD) scales. Three samples of undergraduate students (Ns = 326, 537, and 617) completed at least one PD measure and a combined interpersonal circumplex model (ICM) and five-factor model (FFM) measure. The FFM dimensions were found to account for between 5% to 57% of the variance in personality disorder symptomatology depending on the PD examined and the PD measure employed. Consistent with previous research, Neuroticism and low Extraversion often emerged as the primary predictors of PD symptomatology
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5#.UvUZloU4f_c

A review of 115 titles is arranged under the heads: psychological theories and descriptions, genetic factors, tests and rating scales, characteristics correlated with IE, practical applications of IE tests, and physiological basis of IE. Certain new personality types correspond more or less with IE. Certain family influences are concomitant; and age, intelligence, inferiority attitudes, social intelligence, female sex, submissiveness, affectivity, idiosyncrasy, depressed mood, and neurotic tendency are related to introversion
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/.../bul/31/5/331/

A portion of data previously reported in M. W. Peck and F. L. Wells' article on the psychosexuality of college men has been evaluated from the standpoint of an ensemble of characteristics. At the time when this manuscript was submitted, the longer and closely related study by Heidbreder (1926) had not appeared. Twenty-one items of the questionnaire were selected for study, through which the dichotomy might most clearly be revealed. The selection of these items was influenced more by the later conception of introvert which corresponds to schizoid than by the earlier which corresponds to shut-in personality.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/21/3/316/