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

Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience,  conscientiousness, and agreeableness

The "big 5" describes personality traits in terms of descriptive dimensions (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.).  The "big 5" descends from the Lexical Hypothesis that suggests that personality is described in language.  The Lexical Hypothesis evolved through a series of phases over the last century to ultimately become the "big 5's" short list of five personality descriptors.  The "big 5" and the nearly-identical five-factor model are the result of a mathematical regression process that initially started with approximately 4500 adjectives drawn from dictionaries to create the five major traits, or trait domains: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,  Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness.  The trait domains and their underlying facets were developed independently, to produce nearly identical results.  Regressive mathematical applications, which were developed and applied independently with parallel paradigms, yet found agreement in ways to describe personality.  Costa and McCrae's NEO-PI inventory based on their five-factor model was developed using the Lexical Hypothesis, but also stress underlying biological influences, such as genetics, rather than relying on a purely lexical explanation  (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.).

In the early 1980's, Lew Goldberg coined the term "big 5," and independently produced his "
taxonomy of personality traits" (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.).  While Friedman and Schustack (2009) say it is impossible to say if five is the correct number of trait domains (2009), Goldberg shows that five, or possibly six, traits consistently define personality across the diversity of languages (Goldberg, n.d.), showing cross-culture agreement.  Goldberg continues to refine the "big 5," and his research strategy is wholly in-line with the modern Information Society; he has developed a "collabratory" website, the International Personality Item Pool (ipip.ori.org) that operates in the intellecutal public domain, providing a free international repository of personality taxonomy.  The paradigm being developed on the "collabratory" site descends from Costa and McCrae's NEO-PI, and not Goldberg's "big 5," which further shows how closely-unified the independent research has become.  Also, showing a further commitment to collaborative development by the "collabratory," software developed there to create personality assessments is likewise in the public domain (J. Johnson, personal communication, December 6, 2010).

According to Goldberg, the first of the traits, or trait domains, is the same as the key bipole of Jung's model of nearly a century ago: introversion versus extroversion though Goldberg's traits are described lexically rather than theoretically.  Coming from common language, they underlying facets, or measures, are self-explanatory: "active, assertive, energetic, gregarious, and talkative" (Goldberg, n.d.)

Similarly the second, third, and fourth traits are self-explanatory and resemble poles as they are measured against an opposite, and presumably negative, adjectives (Goldberg, n.d.).
  • Agreeableness: "amiable, helpful, kind, sympathetic, trusting" (Goldberg, n.d.);
  • Conscientiousness: "dependable, hard-working, responsible, systematic, and well-organized" (Goldberg, n.d.); and
  • Emotional stability: "calm, relaxed, and stable" (Goldberg, n.d.).

Then there is a fifth dimension relating to creativity and intelligence: "artistic, creative, gifted, intellectual, and scholarly" (Goldberg, n.d.), which seems more difficult to arrange along poles as they seem to define a vector towards excellence rather than a bipole measure.

References

Friedman, H.S. & Schustack, M.W.  (2009).  Personality: Classic theories and modern research (4th ed.).  Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldberg, L., (n.d.) The big five. Retrieved December 6, 2010 from http://www.signalpatterns.com/corporate_big5.html



No comments:

Post a Comment