Big Five personality traits

[Helio Perroni Filho]

Have you ever seen this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_factor_model

I think this could be very interesting refrenece
material for building a methodology of bot building.

--
Ja mata ne.
Helio Perroni Filho



               
_______________________________________________________
Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz.
http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[drwallace]

I use this model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram

I think you can debate the number (3, 4, 5, 9, 12, or 16) depending on
the theory, but it's great if you get the basic point, that there
exist other personality types besides your own.   Too many people
suffer from "BLM syndrome" ("Be Like Me") or "using themselves as a
proxy for others".  How many times have you heard, "I can't believe
so-and-so did that, I would *never* act that way."  Even people who
believe in astrology are better off than people who have BLM syndrome,
because at least they can accept that other people view and model the
world in different ways than themselves.

For bot building, personality types have at least two applications:
one is building a set of "stock" personalities that are easily
customized into individuals when combined with biographical data.  The
other is building personality tests into bots (like CLAUDIO) so that
the bot's personality can adapt to the client's type.

It remains an open question whether the "most compatible" bot should
be the same personality, or a "complimentary" one to the client, or
whether the client should have a "personality dial" on the bot.



On 5/22/06, Helio Perroni Filho <xperroni@...> wrote:

> Have you ever seen this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_factor_model
>
> I think this could be very interesting refrenece
> material for building a methodology of bot building.
>
> --
> Ja mata ne.
> Helio Perroni Filho
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz.
> http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> Reply to alicebot-general@...
> Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/
>

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Chris Lofting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Helio Perroni Filho
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 9:09 AM
> To: alicebot-general@...
> Subject: [alicebot-general] Big Five personality traits
>
> Have you ever seen this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_factor_model
>
> I think this could be very interesting refrenece
> material for building a methodology of bot building.
>

>From the context of foundation-setting, not as good as this:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb

Here we focus on what is behind all of our categorisations and that includes
personas. The reference you gave is the 'academic' focus on typology - there
are others, the most commercially popular being the MBTI. There is a journal
etc to cover the MBTI research - http://www.capt.org but be warned, they are
very protective of their product! ;-)

Our brains derive categories from self-referencing the
differentiate/integrate dichotomy - aka WHAT/WHERE. The resulting categories
reflect the self-referencing at the genetic level allowing for customisation
of members of a collective to serve that collective in some particular way -
e.g. drones or warriors or queens to alpha males/females. The categories are
GENERAL and so serve the COLLECTIVE not the individual where there is no
recognisation of such. The self-referencing involved encoded all categories
in each - they appear discrete but in fact are all entangled. As such,
included in the categories are those representing 'begin' and 'end' and so
each category has their version of 'begin' and 'end' and so a sense of
'purpose'.

With OUR species we have moved beyond our primate, particular, natures
through the development of individual consciousness (starts about 24 months
after birth). That SINGULAR nature works like Darwin's "mutation" in that it
serves as a 'random' element in behaviours and so allows for 'new'
perspectives to emerge by the minute rather than over hundreds/thousands of
years. Thus at the singular level there is the ability to CHOOSE purpose.

The singular as such can (a) serve itself (or tries to! - see anything on
existentialism) or (b) aid the particular, species-nature being, achieve its
goal, its purpose, through refined customisation of skills etc.

The entanglement I mentioned is an artefact of the methodology of
self-referencing and so applies to anything self-referenced.

Chris.

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Chris Lofting]

Go further Rich, with the enneagram you can recurse it to give a sequence of
categories based on recursing trichotomies. The relationships I mentioned re
recursing dichotomies will also be present.

In the dichotomy format, each category is an expression covering ALL
categories where the others are 'distorted' by the unique expression of
each. Using 'bit' representation and the XOR operator one can extract all of
these categories from each.

As such, through the IDM work, we move way beyond the current set of
typologies and that included mapping 'purpose' for each typology. Note that
we are focusing on properties of recursion in general.

Cbris.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dr. Rich Wallace
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 9:36 AM
> To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-general] Big Five personality traits
>
> I use this model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram
>
> I think you can debate the number (3, 4, 5, 9, 12, or 16) depending on
> the theory, but it's great if you get the basic point, that there
> exist other personality types besides your own.   Too many people
> suffer from "BLM syndrome" ("Be Like Me") or "using themselves as a
> proxy for others".  How many times have you heard, "I can't believe
> so-and-so did that, I would *never* act that way."  Even people who
> believe in astrology are better off than people who have BLM syndrome,
> because at least they can accept that other people view and model the
> world in different ways than themselves.
>
> For bot building, personality types have at least two applications:
> one is building a set of "stock" personalities that are easily
> customized into individuals when combined with biographical data.  The
> other is building personality tests into bots (like CLAUDIO) so that
> the bot's personality can adapt to the client's type.
>
> It remains an open question whether the "most compatible" bot should
> be the same personality, or a "complimentary" one to the client, or
> whether the client should have a "personality dial" on the bot.
>
>
>
> On 5/22/06, Helio Perroni Filho <xperroni@...> wrote:
> > Have you ever seen this?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_factor_model
> >
> > I think this could be very interesting refrenece
> > material for building a methodology of bot building.
> >
> > --
> > Ja mata ne.
> > Helio Perroni Filho
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________
> > Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no
> celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz.
> > http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> > Reply to alicebot-general@...
> > Unsubscribe and change preferences at
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> > Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> > Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> Reply to alicebot-general@...
> Unsubscribe and change preferences at
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Helio Perroni Filho]

--- "Dr. Rich Wallace" <drwallace@...> escreveu:

> For bot building, personality types have at least
> two applications: one is building a set of "stock"
> personalities that are easily customized into
> individuals when combined with biographical data.
> The other is building personality tests into bots
> (like CLAUDIO) so that the bot's personality can
> adapt to the client's type.

I also think that, when properly described, a bot's
personality is a natural source for good query
responses. In this regard, I've found Anthony
Gregorc's Mind Styles [1] (used by Peter Plantec in
his book Virtual Humans [2]) to be a very useful tool,
as it lends itself well for the creation of
compreensive character profiles.

[1] http://www.gregorc.com,
http://facultyweb.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm
[2] http://www.ordinarymagic.com/v-people/

--
Ja mata ne.
Helio



               
_______________________________________________________
Navegue com o Yahoo! Acesso Grátis, assista aos jogos do Brasil na Copa e ganhe prêmios de hora em hora!
http://br.yahoo.com/artilheirodacopa/
_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Chris Lofting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Helio Perroni Filho
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:19 PM
> To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big Five
> personalitytraits)
>
> --- "Dr. Rich Wallace" <drwallace@...> escreveu:
>
> > For bot building, personality types have at least
> > two applications: one is building a set of "stock"
> > personalities that are easily customized into
> > individuals when combined with biographical data.
> > The other is building personality tests into bots
> > (like CLAUDIO) so that the bot's personality can
> > adapt to the client's type.
>
> I also think that, when properly described, a bot's
> personality is a natural source for good query
> responses. In this regard, I've found Anthony
> Gregorc's Mind Styles [1] (used by Peter Plantec in
> his book Virtual Humans [2]) to be a very useful tool,
> as it lends itself well for the creation of
> compreensive character profiles.
>
> [1] http://www.gregorc.com,
> http://facultyweb.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm

These just work off two dichotomies and as such are weak. MBTI works off
four dichotomies, big-5 off 5.

The IDM work shows the ability to go way beyond any of this covering a range
of 6 to 12 dichotomies (and so 64 to 4096 possible particulars that then get
customised to be singular and so unique) and that leads into detecting
'purpose' in types, IOW each type has a goal. You cannot get this sort of
detail from four or less dichotomies as self-referencing needs to develop a
bit before one can get good details and so extract a type's "spectrum".

What of interest is that it takes only three to six questions to get access
to someone's spectrum and so identify a LOT of detail that is hidden, even
from them (I have a system based on emotions that can often 'bypass'
conscious censorship and extract some 'need' of an individual - this is
based on understanding emotions and semi-autonomous and so operating on
their own - and so the ability for our rational minds to see all is 'ok'
whilst we feel 'uncomfortable' where the discomfort comes from our emotions
reacting to the context)

As such, the template derived in IDM can be used to flesh-out (1) way beyond
its current form of presentation.

The SCIENCE perspective on persona is dependent of statistical analysis and
so a degree of sameness. True personality, one's unique nature, is outside
of Science since it is incomparable. Thus our unique nature can act as a
random element in interactions and so innovations come out of the singular
more so than the particular.

These type tests cover genetically-determined expressions that reflect what
we find in other collectives - be they of primates or ants or bees -
specialist types such as warriors, drones etc These types develop for the
sake of the collective and has such have no 'individual' nature as such.
They are like sperm where a lot try to fertilise one egg. Each sperm is
'meaningless' in this sort of functionality; they all have the same goal.

With the development of our individual consciousness, about 24 months after
birth, comes true uniqueness where sensory differentiation plus exposure to
local context shapes the personality beyond that 'seeded' in the genetics.

Thus Science-derived categories fit particular natures, but to get a
singular means developing a personal history to contribute, to refine,
expression.

That said, with understanding of the structure of emotions we can get a lot
of information but it is 'vague' to the individual.

Chris.


_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[drwallace]

One thing I looked into for a while was statistical distributions of
personality types.  MBTI for example has 16 possible types, but when
they do their studies, all 16 are not equally distributed in the
population.  Not surprisingly, there is a Zipf curve of types.  One or
two are most prominent, one or two are very rare.  Which leads me to
wonder, have they got the theory right?

Kiersey Temprements are a simplified version of Myers-Briggs.  I have
an interesting video called "Please Understand Me" that describes 4
basic personality types.  Kiersey also mentions that the types are not
equally distributed, two are more common, two more rare.  He also goes
into the typical problems in relationships when people marry between
types or within their own type.

In the Enneagram community, there are often claims that some types are
more dominated by females and others by males.   Once I signed up for
an Enneagram panel of 4's, and the organizer was so pleased to have me
because she said it was so rare to find a man who was a type Four.
There could be other factors at work, because I know several  homeless
men who could be Fours, but they don't show up on the radar because
they don't have jobs, careers, or the kind of lives that would lead
them to Enneagram panels.

I tend to agree with you that an experienced "reader" can get
someone's personality within a few minutes, even without a formal
personality test, maybe with only two or three key questions.  What
you don't want to do is tell someone their personality type, which is
a kind of personality-ism akin to racism or telling someone their
religion.  If you guess someone's type, keep it to yourself (even if
they ask, unless they've paid you for an analysis).    It's up to them
to figure it out and self-identify.  The best you can do is point them
in the right direction.


On 5/23/06, Chris Lofting <chrislofting@...> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> > bounces@...] On Behalf Of Helio Perroni Filho
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:19 PM
> > To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big Five
> > personalitytraits)
> >
> > --- "Dr. Rich Wallace" <drwallace@...> escreveu:
> >
> > > For bot building, personality types have at least
> > > two applications: one is building a set of "stock"
> > > personalities that are easily customized into
> > > individuals when combined with biographical data.
> > > The other is building personality tests into bots
> > > (like CLAUDIO) so that the bot's personality can
> > > adapt to the client's type.
> >
> > I also think that, when properly described, a bot's
> > personality is a natural source for good query
> > responses. In this regard, I've found Anthony
> > Gregorc's Mind Styles [1] (used by Peter Plantec in
> > his book Virtual Humans [2]) to be a very useful tool,
> > as it lends itself well for the creation of
> > compreensive character profiles.
> >
> > [1] http://www.gregorc.com,
> > http://facultyweb.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm
>
> These just work off two dichotomies and as such are weak. MBTI works off
> four dichotomies, big-5 off 5.
>
> The IDM work shows the ability to go way beyond any of this covering a range
> of 6 to 12 dichotomies (and so 64 to 4096 possible particulars that then get
> customised to be singular and so unique) and that leads into detecting
> 'purpose' in types, IOW each type has a goal. You cannot get this sort of
> detail from four or less dichotomies as self-referencing needs to develop a
> bit before one can get good details and so extract a type's "spectrum".
>
> What of interest is that it takes only three to six questions to get access
> to someone's spectrum and so identify a LOT of detail that is hidden, even
> from them (I have a system based on emotions that can often 'bypass'
> conscious censorship and extract some 'need' of an individual - this is
> based on understanding emotions and semi-autonomous and so operating on
> their own - and so the ability for our rational minds to see all is 'ok'
> whilst we feel 'uncomfortable' where the discomfort comes from our emotions
> reacting to the context)
>
> As such, the template derived in IDM can be used to flesh-out (1) way beyond
> its current form of presentation.
>
> The SCIENCE perspective on persona is dependent of statistical analysis and
> so a degree of sameness. True personality, one's unique nature, is outside
> of Science since it is incomparable. Thus our unique nature can act as a
> random element in interactions and so innovations come out of the singular
> more so than the particular.
>
> These type tests cover genetically-determined expressions that reflect what
> we find in other collectives - be they of primates or ants or bees -
> specialist types such as warriors, drones etc These types develop for the
> sake of the collective and has such have no 'individual' nature as such.
> They are like sperm where a lot try to fertilise one egg. Each sperm is
> 'meaningless' in this sort of functionality; they all have the same goal.
>
> With the development of our individual consciousness, about 24 months after
> birth, comes true uniqueness where sensory differentiation plus exposure to
> local context shapes the personality beyond that 'seeded' in the genetics.
>
> Thus Science-derived categories fit particular natures, but to get a
> singular means developing a personal history to contribute, to refine,
> expression.
>
> That said, with understanding of the structure of emotions we can get a lot
> of information but it is 'vague' to the individual.
>
> Chris.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> Reply to alicebot-general@...
> Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/
>

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Helio Perroni Filho]

--- Chris Lofting <chrislofting@...>
escreveu:

> These just work off two dichotomies and as such are
> weak. MBTI works off four dichotomies, big-5 off 5.

Hello Chris,

Indeed the MTBI model looks very powerful, but how
practical is it for bot design? I've been skipping
through some of the references you provided; right now
I am under the impression that MTBI covers a wide
variety of human phenomenon, but also that it is a
rather advanced topic for the non-initiated. Other
models may not be so complete, but they are good
enough for modeling the behaviour of fictional
characters, besides being more within my somewhat
limited grasp. ^_^'

--
Ja mata ne.
Helio



               
_______________________________________________________
Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz.
http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Chris Lofting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dr. Rich Wallace
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2006 2:03 AM
> To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big
> Fivepersonalitytraits)
>
> One thing I looked into for a while was statistical distributions of
> personality types.  MBTI for example has 16 possible types, but when
> they do their studies, all 16 are not equally distributed in the
> population.  Not surprisingly, there is a Zipf curve of types.  One or
> two are most prominent, one or two are very rare.  Which leads me to
> wonder, have they got the theory right?
>

The 1/f dynamic is a property of recursing an asymmetric dichotomy. When we
categorise we use TWO forms of dichotomy, symmetric and asymmetric. The
symmetric form will give you results expressed in Gaussian, aka Normal,
Distribution form. The asymmetric form will give you results expressed as a
spectrum/power-law.

Our brains reflect the asymmetric form (WHAT/WHERE aka
differentiating/integrating) in general and then we zoom-in to get symmetric
analysis. Mathematically it is the difference between 0/infinity vs +1/-1.
The latter is symmetric and works to identify difference (+/-) from sameness
(1/1). The former is asymmetric and works to map out sameness across
differences, there is a hierarchy of levels as such. Thus a symmetric
analysis covers a common context and so an analysis at one level in the
hierarchy.

With the asymmetric dichotomy there are issues in precision in that the
self-referencing will elicit a dimension that moves from the
vague/approximate/qualitative to the crisp/precise/quantitative. These are
in fact manifest in the MBTI mappings, as in being traits of the types, when
we map MBTI onto a dimension. In IDM we have identified the core
temperaments as NF/SP and recursion gives an ordering of:

XNFP,XNFJ,XSFJ,XSTJ,XNTP,XNTJ,XSFP,XSTP

This ordering is qualitatively isomorphic to categories of emotion,
categories of number types, categories of socioeconomics, and categories of
yin/yang. The shared emphasis is 1/f due to the asymmetric nature of the
dichotomies used in making the categories.

More so, from a meaning perspective, the movement from a general focus on
semantics to a very concentrated form means we relabel semantics as syntax.
This is mapped above in moving from right to left. This relabelling of
semantics to syntax is due to the increasingly hierarchic format (needs to
establish high precision) where all that matters is one's place in the
hierarchy, one's position becomes central to establishing identity. (also
reflects movement to an increasingly charismatic manner). The
self-referencing means that all of the above types will emerge in EACH type
with continued recursion.

There is a specialist dichotomy covering this - control/flux; the more
hierarchic so the more a focus on control/regulation and so precision.
Self-reference the dichotomy and you will get a 'spectrum' of types of
collectives where the types are identified and discussed in such material
as:

Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and
Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House

Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social
Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81

The dichotomy fits all of the others such that, for example, the XNFP will
be more 'flux' oriented when compared to a more 'control' focus of XSTP etc.

The "Structure of Personality" is in all of us members of the species.
Biases of genetics and nature will 'select' one type over the others where
that nature element includes the 'type' of the context in the form of the
collective. Note that all of the types are not 'discrete', they are all
connected, entangled, in the whole that is the structure. It is that WHOLE
that interacts with reality and in so doing sorts the types into
'best-fit/worst-fit' order.

Thus in the USA there is a bias at the temperament level of 70% S (sensing,
NOW focused), 30% N (intuitive, PAST/FUTURE focused) Thus the sensing when
considering past/future will be 'rigid' about that consideration. We can map
this as "WHAT WAS, WHAT IS, WHAT WILL BE" as compared to the intuitive bias
of "WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, IS NOT, WHAT COULD BE".

The IDM material can take the MBTI types to give us 64 or 4096 or 16+million
categories and so move way beyond the 'usual' types based on four
dichotomies (we initially derive structure over function by focusing on
three dichotomies where when we extend the types so the functional
dichotomy, I/E, emerges naturally)

> Kiersey Temprements are a simplified version of Myers-Briggs.  I have
> an interesting video called "Please Understand Me" that describes 4
> basic personality types.  Kiersey also mentions that the types are not
> equally distributed, two are more common, two more rare.  He also goes
> into the typical problems in relationships when people marry between
> types or within their own type.
>

The differences mentioned are due to contextual differences that 'favour'
types.


> In the Enneagram community, there are often claims that some types are
> more dominated by females and others by males.   Once I signed up for
> an Enneagram panel of 4's, and the organizer was so pleased to have me
> because she said it was so rare to find a man who was a type Four.
> There could be other factors at work, because I know several  homeless
> men who could be Fours, but they don't show up on the radar because
> they don't have jobs, careers, or the kind of lives that would lead
> them to Enneagram panels.
>

The enneagram is focused on humans in particular where it encodes the
mediation function as if a 'universal' property. For us it is, for nature it
appears not to be - in nature maintaining such a position is too costly from
an energy conservation perspective. Thus dyadic perspectives fit 24/7
universally (and includes our sense of autopilot). The triadic perspective
fits when required - thus our primate nature is to use consciousness to
process the new/complex and once a habit is created, we fall back to
stimulus/response.

This issue with the triadic is also present in Mathematics in the realm of
complex numbers etc where once used we have to conjugate to get back to a
'real' number; complex numbers allow for representation of mediation whilst
we calculate some 'value' - the imaginary numbers cover issues of
cyclic/morphic change etc and combined with real allow us to map dynamics
and then convert the values back to some 'point' value - a real number.

In the enneagram that baseline trichotomy is of types 6-9-3 where 9 is the
mediation agent (labelled by some the 'peacemaker'). 3 is the 'showbiz',
high expression element (differentiating - positive feedback) and 6 is more
integrating (negative feedback).

>From this baseline, rotating the 'triangle' formed by the trichotomy around
a circle of other types will bring out the relationships through the other
types (and so allow for bringing out the mediation nature of 3 or 6 etc)

Each arm of the triangle points to directions of positive/negative dynamics
in behaviour in relation to the current 'type' under review. (9 goes to 3 or
9 goes to 6 etc) Thus we map both structure and process.

The IDM material shows that using self-referencing of dichotomies, bit
representations, and the XOR operator we can extract similar forms of
information.

> I tend to agree with you that an experienced "reader" can get
> someone's personality within a few minutes, even without a formal
> personality test, maybe with only two or three key questions.  What
> you don't want to do is tell someone their personality type, which is
> a kind of personality-ism akin to racism or telling someone their
> religion.  If you guess someone's type, keep it to yourself (even if
> they ask, unless they've paid you for an analysis).    It's up to them
> to figure it out and self-identify.  The best you can do is point them
> in the right direction.
>

Jung would disagree. The idea from a singular perspective is to map-out the
Structure of Personality, identify one's "preferred" position on the
resulting dimension that comes from the mapping, and then find contexts that
will 'push the buttons' of the structure and 'select' the expression of
other types present 'in' you. What this allows is for your unique
consciousness to then 'refine' these types.

This is what happens when we move out of our familiar context and into the
unfamiliar - that context will elicit 'child like' behaviours as we try to
familiarise ourselves with this new context and the part of us it is
bringing out! ;-) Jung's focus was on becoming an XXXX rather than, for
example, a rigid ESTP. The X means allowing context to select which element
of the dichotomy represented in X to express. Doing this makes one more
adaptable to changing conditions (so far I have mine down to XNXP! ;-))

On the other hand, the formal MBTI and other typologies (e.g. the HBDI -
Hermann Brain Dominance Indicator) are aimed at team formation in getting
one's particular, preferred, type and STAYING as that type so as to fit-in
with a team. This is fine for a focus on the collective, not for a focus on
self-actualisation.

All the typologies focus more on our PARTICULAR nature and so the
hard-coding element; their derivation from statistics denies any
'uniqueness' since they only cover 3 to 5 dichotomies.

Note that types can be born as well as made. In these sorts of scenarios we
are covering hardware (neural connections), firmware (hormonal activity) and
software (psychological/sociological influences).

The particular is governed more by the hardware/firmware influences. The
singular by firmware/software influences.

>From a historical position, the types encoded into each of us cover the
needs of, the goals of, the collective. This goal can be hundreds,
thousands, even millions of years away and the 'random' nature of the
intervening context is delt with by production in numbers. Thus in the USA
there are 3% of the population, about 3 million people, of type INTP. From
the collective perspective they are all 'the same' and that group has a
'goal' and if individuals are killed or 'distracted' from their goal it does
not matter since there are so many of them.

Thus the determinism of types is a collective focus, it does not cover what
consciousness can do when interacting as a 'random' agent with a
particular's preferred type.

That said, the methodology for typing used in consciousness is the SAME as
that used in speciesness - self-referencing of a dichotomy. The differences
are that the hardware focus stamps a type universally whereas consciousness
allows for mediation and CHOICE of type/purpose.

This difference is implementable in VR environments by:

(a) identifying a particular type from the range of types as the 'baseline'
and so GENERAL traits etc. This gives the particular perspective.

(b) using a random process to select from the range of types some type to
express, at the moment, a singular perspective. This 'mix' is mappable and
so the 'choice' will in fact come with a degree of determinism but it is the
relation of this to context that can make things interesting - this reflects
positive feedback dynamics where it works brilliantly or else fails
miserably (or is treated as a 'joke')

Our particular nature favours fitting-in and so negative feedback biases.
Our singular nature favours self-autonomy and so setting one's own context -
to push away others, to distance oneself from others and that is a positive
feedback process.

There is a 'bigger picture' going on here from the position of the species.
The use of positive feedback by collectives/individuals acts to increase the
information processing skills of the species. We can interpret the species
as a 'sense' and each of us as specialist elements - this is reflected in,
for example, the development of the sense of taste. The tetrahedron-shaped
meaning space of our sense of taste reflects (a) negative feedback in the
sense working as a whole integrated with the rest and (b) positive feedback
in the form of each 'universal' - sweet, sour, bitter, salt - being clearly
differentiated by distancing themselves from all of the others.

In us the main difference is the geometry changes by the second through
death of unique individuals and the birth of new ones not yet
differentiated, and the coming of age of others in need of 'training' -- and
so one can see the control/flux (aka differentiating/integrating) dynamic at
work.

Chris.

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[Chris Lofting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Helio Perroni Filho
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2006 2:06 AM
> To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> Subject: RE: [alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big Five
> personalitytraits)
>
> --- Chris Lofting <chrislofting@...>
> escreveu:
>
> > These just work off two dichotomies and as such are
> > weak. MBTI works off four dichotomies, big-5 off 5.
>
> Hello Chris,
>
> Indeed the MTBI model looks very powerful, but how
> practical is it for bot design? I've been skipping
> through some of the references you provided; right now
> I am under the impression that MTBI covers a wide
> variety of human phenomenon, but also that it is a
> rather advanced topic for the non-initiated. Other
> models may not be so complete, but they are good
> enough for modeling the behaviour of fictional
> characters, besides being more within my somewhat
> limited grasp. ^_^'
>

The complications of the MBTI are in the number of labels and questions
used. It can in fact be simplified due to analysis of how our brains deal
with information - we can determine the current 'type' based on three to
four questions and then extrapolate to a realm of fine details all due to
the 'hard coding' of the type (given an acorn we can 'grow' the tree).

The many questions of the MBTI are designed to bring out your responses to
four dichotomies but in a manner that 'hides' that intent - they want you to
answer without clearly recognising the types.

Due to the 1/f nature of the categories so there are qualitative
isomorphisms present when mapping the MBTI to, say, the I Ching. This is
due, from a brain function perspective, to the SAME general dynamics
operating in each context.

Thus when my brain, working general to particular, oscillates across the
hemispheres to give WHAT-WHERE-WHAT, that one behaviour will elicit the same
generic quality of meaning where it is the labels of the context that make
it 'different'. Thus the generic qualities of WHAT-WHERE-WHAT are localised
in the MBTI to representing the persona of XNTJ and localised in the I Ching
to represent the trigram of Fire, as it is localised in the categories of
emotion to represent acceptance.

The common 'theme' in all of these is enclosure and expanding that
enclosure; there is a boundary present (emotionally it is a focus of being
in 'our' gang etc) The emotion of acceptance 'seeds' the dynamics of the
XNTJ persona with their focus on map-making, scientist, theoretician,
strategists etc. there is a definite 'cut' or 'boundary' that is pushed
outwards. In that push so the unknown becomes known - accepted.

>From a generic bot questioning approach, you can use three Y/N questions to
elicit the emotional nature of a context or of a person or anything else as
long as the questions are general enough but also ordered
general-to-particular and so layering the dichotomies.

>From a mathematics perspective, each dichotomy is of a positive/negative
form and so equivalent to the X, Y, and Z axis reduced to a their minimal
form (our mathematics is quantitative but bounded by the qualitative -
positive/negative. This is often 'missed' in that we consider the number
line as 'infinite' on either side of the origin. In fact it is bounded by
the qualities of positive/negative and we use self-referencing to make finer
'cuts' of the line WITHIN that bounding)

Thus the three questions can generate a meaning space of a cube (2^3) (two
question can give you a tetrahedron meaning space etc - 2^2) where further
questions asked WITHIN the contexts of the others reflect self-referencing,
we make finer distinctions, finer cuts, WITHIN each dimension.

The IDM focus is on identifying eight basic qualities derived from
differentiating/integrating, aka WHAT/WHERE, that are then relabelled for
each context. These eight qualities are derived from qualification of four
more basic qualities - a sense of wholeness, a sense of partness, a sense of
static relationships, a sense of dynamic relationships.

These are qualified by any dichotomy synonymous with
differentiating/integrating. E.g. expand/contract. These qualities are the
common ground for all dichotomies where local context relabel them. It is
this common ground that makes it so easy to use one specialisation as a
source of analogy/metaphor for another. (Composite forms are then created by
applying the eight to each (and so 8 becomes 64, 64 becomes 4096 etc))

The isomorphism means we can use the well-developed categories of the I
Ching to extend the categories of the MBTI etc. (we are not interested in
the divination aspects of the IC, just the qualities derived from
self-referencing yin/yang)

>From a 'bot' perspective the properties and methods of self-referencing of
differentiate/integrate elicit patterns in need of a label and the labels
are stored in a database. Thus one can get a bot to process information by
making contrasts etc which is a method used in Personal Construct Psychology
PCP, also known as PCT - T = theory.

The originator of PCP wrote:

"Our psychological geometry is a geometry of dichotomies rather than the
geometry of areas envisioned by the classical logic of concepts, or the
geometry of lines envisioned by classical mathematical geometries. Each of
our dichotomies has both a differentiating and an integrating function. That
is to say it is the generalized form of the differentiating and integrating
act by which man intervenes in his world. By such an act he interposes a
difference between incidents -- incidents that would otherwise be
imperceptible to him because they are infinitely homogeneous. But also, by
such an intervening act, he ascribes integrity to incidents that are
otherwise imperceptible because they are infinitesimally fragmented. In this
kind of geometrically structured world there are no distances. Each axis of
reference represents not a line or continuum, as in analytic geometry, but
one, and only one, distinction. However, there are angles. These are
represented by contingencies or overlapping frequencies of incidents.
Moreover, these angles of relationship between personal constructs change
with the context of incidents to which the constructs are applied. Thus our
psychological space is a space without distance, and, as in the case of
non-Euclidian geometries, the relationships between directions change with
the context." (Kelly, 1969)

Chris.

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/

[drwallace]

Microsoft itself, in all its wisdom, has developed its own system of
personality classification for programmers.   Their names are "Mort",
"Elvis" and "Einstein".  Read all about in Dirk Scheuring's Blog:
http://twomorrow.twoday.net/stories/1943782/

Micorsoft also gives personality tests to prospective employees.
Viewed as a giant drama-engine that produces bad software as a
side-effect, you could think of Microsoft as a Commedie della Arte
Machine that selects Mort, Elvis, and Einstein charachters to play out
roles set up by initial conditions given by previous generations of
those same characters.   Quite a show!

On 5/23/06, Chris Lofting <chrislofting@...> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alicebot-general-bounces@... [mailto:alicebot-general-
> > bounces@...] On Behalf Of Helio Perroni Filho
> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2006 2:06 AM
> > To: Alicebot and AIML General Discussion
> > Subject: RE: [alicebot-general] Personality models (was: Big Five
> > personalitytraits)
> >
> > --- Chris Lofting <chrislofting@...>
> > escreveu:
> >
> > > These just work off two dichotomies and as such are
> > > weak. MBTI works off four dichotomies, big-5 off 5.
> >
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > Indeed the MTBI model looks very powerful, but how
> > practical is it for bot design? I've been skipping
> > through some of the references you provided; right now
> > I am under the impression that MTBI covers a wide
> > variety of human phenomenon, but also that it is a
> > rather advanced topic for the non-initiated. Other
> > models may not be so complete, but they are good
> > enough for modeling the behaviour of fictional
> > characters, besides being more within my somewhat
> > limited grasp. ^_^'
> >
>
> The complications of the MBTI are in the number of labels and questions
> used. It can in fact be simplified due to analysis of how our brains deal
> with information - we can determine the current 'type' based on three to
> four questions and then extrapolate to a realm of fine details all due to
> the 'hard coding' of the type (given an acorn we can 'grow' the tree).
>
> The many questions of the MBTI are designed to bring out your responses to
> four dichotomies but in a manner that 'hides' that intent - they want you to
> answer without clearly recognising the types.
>
> Due to the 1/f nature of the categories so there are qualitative
> isomorphisms present when mapping the MBTI to, say, the I Ching. This is
> due, from a brain function perspective, to the SAME general dynamics
> operating in each context.
>
> Thus when my brain, working general to particular, oscillates across the
> hemispheres to give WHAT-WHERE-WHAT, that one behaviour will elicit the same
> generic quality of meaning where it is the labels of the context that make
> it 'different'. Thus the generic qualities of WHAT-WHERE-WHAT are localised
> in the MBTI to representing the persona of XNTJ and localised in the I Ching
> to represent the trigram of Fire, as it is localised in the categories of
> emotion to represent acceptance.
>
> The common 'theme' in all of these is enclosure and expanding that
> enclosure; there is a boundary present (emotionally it is a focus of being
> in 'our' gang etc) The emotion of acceptance 'seeds' the dynamics of the
> XNTJ persona with their focus on map-making, scientist, theoretician,
> strategists etc. there is a definite 'cut' or 'boundary' that is pushed
> outwards. In that push so the unknown becomes known - accepted.
>
> >From a generic bot questioning approach, you can use three Y/N questions to
> elicit the emotional nature of a context or of a person or anything else as
> long as the questions are general enough but also ordered
> general-to-particular and so layering the dichotomies.
>
> >From a mathematics perspective, each dichotomy is of a positive/negative
> form and so equivalent to the X, Y, and Z axis reduced to a their minimal
> form (our mathematics is quantitative but bounded by the qualitative -
> positive/negative. This is often 'missed' in that we consider the number
> line as 'infinite' on either side of the origin. In fact it is bounded by
> the qualities of positive/negative and we use self-referencing to make finer
> 'cuts' of the line WITHIN that bounding)
>
> Thus the three questions can generate a meaning space of a cube (2^3) (two
> question can give you a tetrahedron meaning space etc - 2^2) where further
> questions asked WITHIN the contexts of the others reflect self-referencing,
> we make finer distinctions, finer cuts, WITHIN each dimension.
>
> The IDM focus is on identifying eight basic qualities derived from
> differentiating/integrating, aka WHAT/WHERE, that are then relabelled for
> each context. These eight qualities are derived from qualification of four
> more basic qualities - a sense of wholeness, a sense of partness, a sense of
> static relationships, a sense of dynamic relationships.
>
> These are qualified by any dichotomy synonymous with
> differentiating/integrating. E.g. expand/contract. These qualities are the
> common ground for all dichotomies where local context relabel them. It is
> this common ground that makes it so easy to use one specialisation as a
> source of analogy/metaphor for another. (Composite forms are then created by
> applying the eight to each (and so 8 becomes 64, 64 becomes 4096 etc))
>
> The isomorphism means we can use the well-developed categories of the I
> Ching to extend the categories of the MBTI etc. (we are not interested in
> the divination aspects of the IC, just the qualities derived from
> self-referencing yin/yang)
>
> >From a 'bot' perspective the properties and methods of self-referencing of
> differentiate/integrate elicit patterns in need of a label and the labels
> are stored in a database. Thus one can get a bot to process information by
> making contrasts etc which is a method used in Personal Construct Psychology
> PCP, also known as PCT - T = theory.
>
> The originator of PCP wrote:
>
> "Our psychological geometry is a geometry of dichotomies rather than the
> geometry of areas envisioned by the classical logic of concepts, or the
> geometry of lines envisioned by classical mathematical geometries. Each of
> our dichotomies has both a differentiating and an integrating function. That
> is to say it is the generalized form of the differentiating and integrating
> act by which man intervenes in his world. By such an act he interposes a
> difference between incidents -- incidents that would otherwise be
> imperceptible to him because they are infinitely homogeneous. But also, by
> such an intervening act, he ascribes integrity to incidents that are
> otherwise imperceptible because they are infinitesimally fragmented. In this
> kind of geometrically structured world there are no distances. Each axis of
> reference represents not a line or continuum, as in analytic geometry, but
> one, and only one, distinction. However, there are angles. These are
> represented by contingencies or overlapping frequencies of incidents.
> Moreover, these angles of relationship between personal constructs change
> with the context of incidents to which the constructs are applied. Thus our
> psychological space is a space without distance, and, as in the case of
> non-Euclidian geometries, the relationships between directions change with
> the context." (Kelly, 1969)
>
> Chris.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the alicebot-general mailing list
> Reply to alicebot-general@...
> Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
> Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/
>

_______________________________________________
This is the alicebot-general mailing list
Reply to alicebot-general@...
Unsubscribe and change preferences at http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-general
Learn netiquette at http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
Learn to read at http://www.literacy.org/