That’s comforting. I haven’t been trained in any of this, I just like reading up on theories and studies. I wouldn’t know what those tests look like. I just know that tests (IQ, personality, whatnot) in general tend to create controversy from time to time, and it seems really hard to make a good one.

The problem with any study/experiment is the preconceptions inherent in its design.

McGarrigle and Donaldson showed the inherent design flaw in Piaget’s experiments re the preservation of number in the Concrete Operational stage of development by introducing ‘Naughty Teddy’ into the design and found that children had a much better grasp of things than Piaget’s original experimental design had led him to believe.

So, yes, IQ tests can be (are) flawed and …short of some discovery (that I am not expecting any time soon, if ever) that gives us the ability to state categorically and without error that we have unequivocally mapped out all aspects of intelligence for good… always will be.

We don’t even know what intelligence is — hence our continuing inability to create a General Artificial Intelligence of the kind that was ‘just around the corner now’ in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s … you get the idea. And, even allowing for the recent recognition that there may well be something to Gardner’s idea of multiple intelligences (albeit not necessarily his specific model), our measures of it (or them) will indeed be severely lacking for some time to come (if not, as I previously suggested, forever).

Granted, I agree with de Bono’s take on the matter … that modern (Western) education systems are no more than funnelling the chaotic crowd on one side of an archway and then congratulating themselves that, on the other side of it, the same people exit in single-file instead, proving no more than that, if you march people through a narrow archway, they emerge in single file and, if your measure of success is that they should do so then you will inevitably see your approach as successful. But that doesn’t invalidate the principle of looking for ways to measure inteligence (in all its forms) and refining them as time goes by and new ideas, techniques and data come to light. And, for all it’s inadequacies … and for all that it may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it were … in today’s world at least (in Western societies and anywhere else adhering to the ideological perspectives thereof), IQ does correlate significantly with future success in Life.

IQ may not be the only measure of intelligence, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a measure of intelligence or that the kind of intelligence it measures is somehow invalidated by not being a form of General A̶r̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ Intelligence that encompasses all intelligence. Imperfect it may be, invalid it is not, however (not until some time in the Future, when we find that to be conclusively the case anyway)

And this is, as I have opined here, the nature of all human endeavour. So, Psychology as a discipline/field is not static and does evolve. It used to be presented in very top-down manner for a while and we were encouraged to view ‘laboratory conditions’ as the epitome of unbiased observation, but that was really a matter of the kind of thinking prevalent throughout Western societies at the time and not unique to Psychology. Post 1960s, a lot more thinking was applied to wondering about how we go about thinking and then self-referentially applied to the field itself … resulting in ethnomethodological and ethological approaches being taken as well. Furthermore, the fact that one specific approach (laboratory conditions) was shown to be inadequate on its own does not in invalidate the approach (that of isolating, as far as possible, the relevant variables from the irrelevant); ethological approaches are no less strict about that, they just recognise that physical laboratories do not necessarily return valid results any more than did Piaget’s experiments — Naughty Teddy may have highlighted a flaw in the design but did not overturn the validity of the experiment itself, simply the conditions under which it was carried out.

Science is not a destination but a process.

It is the nature of human beings to be imperfect (indeed, by definition, to be otherwise would be to be unhuman), so our knowledge, and ways of obtaining it, will always be lacking.

Moreover, progress is not linear … and we often take several steps backwards before we take one forwards.

But, when we do take steps forwards, they can also, like the moon-landings, be a giant leap forwards … so, who knows what the Future will bring? There have certainly been some very great advances made in the field of neuro of late — many in the ‘of late’ sense that ideas I was aware of as old thirty years ago already have been presented as ‘new and exciting’ in the last ten … which exasperates me, because they’re not new … but new technologies and more refined understanding have allowed us to make serious advances in the interim and some of the new data is new and valuable.

Inevitably, as we evolve and or appreciation of maters increases, so we come to realise that certain theories we once held to be the measure of things were flawed. There was a time when the IQ tests of yesteryear were perfectly reasonably called into question over the fact that there was a question concerning the beauty of a woman’s face¹ (one Caucasian and one African American), because it was not possible to determine someone’s intelligence based upon an aesthetic preference for their own kind resulting from the process of normalisation during socialisation. These days, I hope, people would find that criticism itself offensive — not least because, never mind the matter of ‘their own kind’, the very idea that a sense of the aesthetic could in any way be thought to be a measurable indicator of intelligence is ludicrous. Moreover, we have since come to understand that physical attraction is not simply a matter of a woman choosing a mate based upon how different her suitors’ pheremones indicate their immune systems to be from her own (as though men had nothing to do with it and would hump any woman) but that we are all attracted to our own phenotype above all others — which is why, whilst dogs can and do breed with any other dog, they go utterly wild when they encounter one of their own breed and we wonder how they know (they don’t … they just find them remarkably appealing).

My preference is for the neuroscientifc approach. It doesn’t make us any less prone to misconception or preconception. New technologies (such fMRI) reveal things that the old ones (such as MRI or PET) weren’t previously able to measure and cast a whole new light on things. Compare this with how, testing six or seven loci, Dutch investigators searching the German national DNA database found that 57 out of 86 matches (66%) generated using six-locus searches later turned out to be false positives; whereas only 15 out of 276 matches (0.05%) generated using seven-locus searches later turned out to be false positives … and then consider how, in 2012 already, the US used 13-locus searches.

Yes, even today’s cutting edge tech and the resultant enlightenment will prove to have been hopelessly inadequate in years to come. But I consider it preferable to the theoretical abstractions prevalent in the fields of Social Psychology, or even Cognitive Psychology. Yes, the whole ‘left/right brain’ myth, for example, stubbornly refuses to move out of the basement of the public unconscious (no, Carl, that’s not an endorsement of your lunatic ravings … back in your box) but that’s down to reporters with no idea what they’re talking about repeating the Chinese whispers in their own minds rather than a failing of the original research.

Yes, the last couple of years, there’s been a furore over the fact that the results of at least 50% of the most famous experiments in the field cannot be replicated.

Yes, the validity of basing so many conclusions on the results of experiments carried out with a subject cohort consisting so overwhelmingly of US college/university students is debatable — especially given that the it is estimated that the percentage of psychopaths/sociopaths in the US population is twice that of the UK, for instance.

So, trust me, in years to come, we’ll look at Hare’s psychopathy test and similar measures of the various disorders we have defined today and think ourselves positively medieval in our understanding and attitude — although I do have to question whether ‘Oppositional Defiant Disorder’ (entered into the DSM V for the first time) truly is an indication of a disturbing authoritarianism … or the result of two psychologists having a bet as to whether whether one of them could get it accepted into the manual or not (“My diagnosis is that your child is ODD, Mrs Brown” … really?).

In years to come, even I will look back on some of the understanding I now hold to be pure and true and remind myself that I promised myself long ago not to be quite so … ‘religious; isn’t the word, but you get the idea … not have quite so much faith in the orthodoxy perhaps … so, I had no excuse for doing it again and holding certain articles of that faith to be quite so sacrosanct — certainly not “given what we now know.”

But the thing is that the orthodoxy needn’t be rejected out of hand simply for being the orthodoxy; that’s a childish stance — true freedom is wearing your raincoat in the rain despite the fact your mother said you should. Jerking our knee in the other direction leads to antivaxxing flat-earthers with an arsenal big enough to take over an African nation because the (((Bolshevik))) gub’mint wants to give their jobs to gay Mexican muslims (or something else they heard Alex Jones say ²).

Yes, be critical — it’s essential.

No, don’t give too much weight to ‘scandals’ and ‘controversies’ — they’re frequently poorly described misconceptions of things those reporting on them had no hope of grasping themselves and thus blown out of proportion, if not entirely erroneous.

Yes, there’s a claim of evidence that the original data showing IQ to be a reliable measure were manipulated.

And, yes, there has been a recent scandal re Hans Eysenck’s results in experiments he claimed showed a link between personality ‘type’ and illness.

But few of them are quite as egregious as that.

Whatever you do though, don’t listen to anyone who witters on about their MBTI score … it’s a crock — even Freud/Jung had a better scientifically founded basis that!

As an excuse?

Like Tony, you mean?

That doesn’t happen often though … and I’d be willing to bet that he was actually at least very close to being (if not actually) sociopathic, if not a psychopath specifically, and found himself in trouble because he didn’t know how to behave in such a way as to evade diagnosis — only an ignorant fool would say the things he did in an attempt to get away with an assault on someone (even if he was hoping to get a diagnosis of ‘schzophrenic’ that would not have been to his advantage either).

As I read it that’s the whole premise of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde — the underlying desire to act against all social standards everyone has at some point in time. The diagnosis would be just as much excuse to do “things” as the potion was. No one in their right mind would want to create a potion like that, either. But it’s kinda liberating and intoxicating. So you can tell yourself you don’t really have control, there’s a disorder that makes you do whatever you would want to do. It also gives this sense that you could turn back from it, that you could get a cure and return to a normal person. It gives a free check to cash in. People who are in their right mind turn to fiction, be it books, movies or games to live out those fantasies. But it’s the same thing.

Bear in mind the era and society in which it was written; it could be read as being as much a critique … à la Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels … of the societal norms as of human nature. Just as Science Fiction is never really about the Future but about the time in which it is written (something Black Mirror is explicit about), so all fiction reflects its subject matter through the prism of the author’s own culture and its concerns … and it would be unsurprising if Stevenson were treating both, even if only subconsciously — after all, if he had found himself content with the society in which he lived, why would he have concerned himself with human nature in the first place?

But, yes … if you watched that documentary I linked to in my previous reply, you’ll have noted the question concerning to what extent those with ASPD can ethically/morally be held responsible for their actions, if their behaviour results not from choice but an underlying neurological condition that prevents them from appreciating things the same way as the neurotypical … so, I anticipate attempts being made to use it as a defence (i.e. excuse) in the Future.

But that’s not the same as excusing our own behaviour to ourselves rather than trying to convince others that we are so afflicted. The thing with the Cluster B disorders is that those with them do not seek to excuse their behaviour on the grounds that there is something wrong with them but that there is something wrong with others: either their victims deserved their treatment and/or their victims and accusers are hypocrites because everyone is like the perpetrator but simply lies about their true motivations in order to get ahead in Life. They don’t excuse themselves to themselves — there’s nothing to be excused as far as they are concerned (the only failing they will admit to themselves is that they got caught).

So, yes, someone might do a Tony, but only if they weren’t very bright and didn’t recognise the dangers of doing so.

I’m not really as observant as you make me out to be. I can be downright oblivious. I remember once I was at a bar, playing pinball. I like pinball and I was on a roll, getting a multiball and raking up points. When I finally turned around I noticed the bar was dead silent. So I asked “Why is it so quiet all of a sudden?” and my friends got a bit angry with me “Did you honestly not notice the police raid with half a dozen big fucking drug dogs that JUST HAPPENED?”

Nope. Completely missed it. And I didn’t have anything illegal on me so they just let me be.

That’s different.

I too can be completely oblivious ... I’ve lost track of the number of times in my life when people I know have walked right up to me nose-to-nose before I’ve registered they were there, because I was so lost in thought that I didn’t notice them waving and calling to me.

And you were playing pinball, for goodness sake — come o…o…on … nobody can be expected to have any awareness of anything else when they’re playing pinball!

But being oblivious to one’s surroundings whilst completely engrossed in some absorbing activity is not the same thing as being oblivious to the World in general.

What you see, is not so much observation and analysis as the result of my own questioning of my sanity and intelligence — self study on the topic coupled with a slightly better than average memory. Once you’ve been told what to look for it’s so easy to see patterns in people. Especially on social media where social filters are often turned off.

Now ask a narcissist about what makes others tick.

Or a borderline about why people behave as they do.

An aspergic/autist.

And, furthermore, having some idea of what to look for and actually being able to see the wood for the trees are two different things as well. Why you do it so well does not answer the question of whether you do it at all, never mind as well as you do.

Your stories are character driven, not ones in which the characters are simply there to drive the plot along. You can’t be drawing on yourself for every one of the characters you describe, you have to be watching and understanding other people too. And you do it (disconcertingly) well.

Interesting that stuck with you. I mean I know it’s a small button of yours and you are dancing on that “protesting too much” territory whenever it’s pushed. Since you’re bringing it up again, I wonder which one of us you’re trying to convince…

Because you pressed it. Duh!

There are reasons why I am particularly animated by the suggestion that I should be inclined to be a dom … but they aren’t something I’m keen to discuss in a public forum of any kind, least of all in writing. But, be that as it may, I can quite honestly say that, whilst perhaps not insignificant, they are no more than incidental and the crux of the matter is that, whilst I may not be keen to give all my reasons, I genuinely do find the idea of a relationship (of any kind) with an equal far more appealing than any other kind. So, suggestions to the contrary will always result in my correcting people’s thinking in that regard because it’s important to me that those with whom I have dealings understand that about me — that way I don’t have to turn nasty when people overstep the mark unintentionally, only when they do so despite having been politely and amenably informed of what my boundaries are in advance³.

Honestly tho, being a Dom and having an equal partner are not mutually exclusive. There’s a wide spectrum of how such relationships look like and no one would insist every Dom needs a subordinate punching bag. There’s a good reason words like “play” and “scene” are commonly used in BDSM.

I appreciate that … it’s just that it really doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest and I find it a bit of a turnoff. Too much (if not all) of what is wrong in this world boils down to power struggles between those who seek to dominate (the Cluster B types in particular) and the rest of us … and it’s just not something that appeals to me as a fantasy, therefore. Fantasising about the world in which I already live isn’t a form of escapism as far as I’m concerned. Fantasising about behaving like the kind of person I despsise doesn’t turn me on. I’m not sick and I don’t wish to be — on the contrary, I wish the world around me were less so!

Oooooh. Are you offering to roll up a character sheet?

I’ll take that as a ‘yes’ then 😜

—
¹ No, I don’t know what heterosexual women or homosexual men were supposed to think either.

² Intriguingly, if you were to hear that line espoused under any other circumstances, you’d instantly … and quite rightly … figure it to be the deluded ravings of some illiterate halfwit who hadn’t paid attention to anything they’d read or heard and completely misunderstood the little they had … but, almost miraculously, that really is what Jones tells them and they haven’t misheard or misunderstood any of it. What are the chances of someone dimwitted enough to believe a word Jones says actually having the mental acuity to retain 100% of what they see/hear without mixing it up with something else altogether? I think there’s a study to be made of the phenomenon that could lead to greater understanding of the root causes of attentional deficit disorders!

³ Yes, I know … coming from someone who goes out of his way to provoke fights … “Oh, the irony” ⁴.

⁴ I never said I didn’t have demons to wrestle with though.