anti-Causality


anti-Causality

Knowledge is a tree, not a conclusion, and it has been a tree for all of time. Sometime, however, it verboten in the Bible with a didactic “tale” apparently by oligarchs telling the average religious person to view the tree of knowledge and its information as verboten. This is the beginning of the limits and control of information necessary for oligarchic dominance, as opposed to capital-type control which is more commodity-based --though information is now a commodity as “intellectual property.” (With “intellectual” being a strong word for the slurry capital pumps into the population.)

The most important extension of this type of information control currently exists as academia with its early revival of control as the dialectic and didactic by academy founders Socrates and Plato in ancient Athens, and recently by Hegel to fit current capital. Important is that these instructors specifically used sexual abuse to control, which survived to our time as, for instance, the Aboriginal residence schools openly, and covertly elsewhere.

Causality is a rational reduction of the complexity of life saying that “if something happens in relation to something else, that something else caused the first thing.” As a rational reduction, it is a “dumbing-down” of all the highly sophisticade life-system that affect us. Knowledge is naturally structured both in society and in our minds in tree structures, also called “complex data structures” Personally, I have never been “causal” (I believe) because I have been influenced by aboriginal knowledge organization, and also abstract art and music early on as a child with access to all of New York’s museums and libraries (access has since been restricted to children.)

If I something is unavoidably causal, I say “simple math” --this causes that, w/o making a bid deal about it.

Empiricism is the scientific method (and system) built from causality and is considered the only (measurement) science, even by scientist who should know better. It suffers from being highly-fractured, as it is built from independent causal conclusions that also tend to be ego-vehicles from empiricist scientists. Another widely-misused term is “objective” as a synomym for “cruel” such that normal human thinking, such as the recollection of experiences, is excluded from empiricist conclusions; only empiricist numbers are used, often as an output of highly-purposed statistical systems. Dependance on statistics is such that statistics now often produce hypothesis and theory, that is validated by the same statistical systems. Information from other sources such as experience and observation, no matter how detailed, cannot test well against conclusive information produced specifically to test well by statistical systems. This statistical reality is most true for current control of the mind (both human and animal) in cognitive-behavioral strategies of CBT. Interestingly, in CBT, the dialectic method as the socratic method is also key for (as they say) “thought control.”

Objectivism, such as Ayn Rand’s and (current-capital’s) Adam Smith’s objectivism simply “objectify’s” people to make then inanimate numbers rather than feeling people to allow for capital exploitation. As it happens, capital-supporting empiricism, as info-oligarchic, also leverages this, and fills its capital-supportive role by defining and maintaining it as its own from of exploitation, originally sexual abuse.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Big Five traits and personality disorders

There is a relationship between five factor, or "big 5," models of traits and the diagnostic approach to personality disorders, but that "the level of agreement" is derived from instruments that use these models.  The level of agreement may be a function of instrumentation, method of report, and data analysis.  In more recent years, discussion has focused on how the benefits of the highly-developed five factor model (FFM) can be blended with well-implemented personality disorder (PD) inventories, especially the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

If diagnostic categories are limited, a more direct relationship between the two paradigms can be established; Morey (2002) did such a comparative study to attempt to correlate four diagnostic categories--borderline, schizotypal, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive Personality--with five factor test results by comparing them to similar correlations within the community norm.  "The four personality disorder groups" "could each be distinguished from community norms" (Morey, 2002, p. 1) but differences between the groups with personality disorders were much smaller; those with personality disorders could be identified, but they could not be distinguished using the FFM trait instruments.  In other words, in their present state, Morey did not find any added benefit for using FFM instruments when assessing personality disorders.  With each of the four groups, he found neuroticism to be high, and agreeableness and conscientiousness to be low. 

Nonetheless, Morey shows that there is a relationship, albeit not specific enough for to help with personality order diagnosis.  Another relation is temporal; both PDs and traits are stable and can be shown to remain static over a period of years even when diagnosis may change, perhaps due to effective treatment (Warner, 2004).

If the diagnostic category is limited to the well-studied borderline personality disorder (BPD), then specific sub-dimensions of the five factor model are visible.  For instance, low agreeableness is shown by "self-consciousness and vulnerability in interpersonal situations" "accompanied by a hostile and suspicious approach to others" (Clarkin, Hull, Cantor, & Sanderson, 1993, p. 4).  Neuroticism from the FFM is visible as impulsiveness from the BPD criteron.

Widiger and Trull (and others) are emphatic that there is potential for crossover, or perhaps merger, between the FFM and PD diagnostic tools, specifically the DSM (2008).  They suggest that a lexical approach to diagnosis adapted from the FFM would create better classification, and hence better understanding by the community.  Better classification would help eliminate diagnostic redundancies within the existing inventories that waste clinicians' time, and the linguistic style of personality tests tends to be more acceptable to patients, and hence quicker to administer and more valuable for self-report. 

What Widiger and Trull don't mention, and perhaps should, is that the FFM is based on a long history of mathematical reasoning, and is not limited to the Lexical Hypothesis; Cattell's sources for his trait model included peer- and self-reports, and observed behaviors.  There is also a call for biological input data (Popkins, 1998)Cattell's factor analysis equations have proved themselves, but are not yet perfected because, as presently implemented, they require subjective input at certain points (Rozalia, 2008).  This subjective input data could be replaced with data from other well-supported sources, perhaps likewise mathematically derived so as to create meta-equations, as it were, by linking existing equations as components of a bigger model.  A way to improve these equations would be to run them in reverse by inputing observed data where the results have been "out put" so as to recreate, and hence validate, input data, and in-so-doing validate the entire process.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.


Clarkin, J., Hull, J., Cantor, J., & Sanderson, C. (1993). Borderline personality disorder and personality traits: A comparison of SCID-II BPD and NEO-PI. Psychological Assessment, 5(4),    472-476. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.4.472.

Dyce, J. (1997). The big five factors of personality and their relationship to personality disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(6), 587-593. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J. G., Quigley, B. D., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., McGlashan, T. H., et al. (2002). The representation of borderline,
avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal personality disorders by the five-factor model.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 215–234.


Popkins, N. (1998). The five-factor model: Emergence of a taxonomic model for personality psychology. Retreived December 10, 2010 from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/popkins.html

Rozalia, G. (2008). Q factor analysis (Q-methodology) as data analysis technique. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 17(4), 871-876. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Warner, M., Morey, L., Finch, J., Gunderson, J., Skodol, A., Sanislow, C., et al. (2004). The Longitudinal Relationship of Personality Traits and Disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 217-227. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.2.217.

Widiger, T., & Trull, T. (2008, January). Further Comments Toward a Dimensional Classification of Personality Disorder. American Psychologist, pp. 62-63. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.1.62.



No comments:

Post a Comment