Karl wanted me to take a “Myers-Briggs” personality test. I am evidently an INTJ

As one commentator puts it:

INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion “Does it work?” to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake … INTJs are known as the “Systems Builders” of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait of combining imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority come into play. Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ’s Achilles heel … This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals … Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense.

— Marina Margaret Heiss[12]
This almost describes me — except inasmuch as the individual in question appears to at least regard the notion of “authority” as  conceptually valid.
I have NEVER been able to take the notion of “authority” seriously.   I DO recognize (relative) competence within a given context, at a specific point in time — but that is a vastly different notion from “authority”.
So far as I can determine, an “authority” is (purportedly) one who is “legally” permitted to resort to “jackboot” tactics, in order to “enforce” his/her edicts.  Put bluntly, “authority’ strikes me as nothing more than the attempt to “institutionalize” the argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force) on a “social” level.
Yes, I am aware of the existence of (putative) distinction between Argumentum ad baculum and argumentum ad verecundiam.   However, this strikes me as nothing more than the question of whether any purported “authority” is permitted to curb-stomp you “legally” (or something equivalent).
For example: Ruchard Stallman might genuinely consider himself to be an “expert” on (for example) EMACS, or at any rate, the GNU variant thereof.
However, it is entirely possible — even probable — that there are others — both “mere” users, and other developers — who are “better at EMACS” (in a specific context or application) than HE IS.
So, no.  Stallman may be extremely competent with regard to EMACS.  He may even exhibited a high level of (relatively) broad knowledge and understanding of EMACS.  That still doesn’t justify any sort of arbitrary distinction between so-called “experts”/”Authorities”, and others — whose knowledgebase might be equally — or more – applicable, within a different context or set of circumstances.
This is also why the (arbitrary and groundless) notion of ‘genius” pisses me off:
Purportedly, “genius” is  (arbitrarily) defined as an IQ of 140.
I contend that there is no meaningful distinction between a (purported) “near-genius” who happened to score 139, and another individual who happens to be over that (oh-so-magical) threshold.
So, no.  Both “expertise” and “authority” are pernicious myths, so far as I can determine.
Does this mean that I (somehow have no respect for those who are MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE than I am, in a given (more or less specialized) context?   Not at all.
However, it does mean that I am exceedingly unlikely to take any (purported) “Authority” on faith — without at least attempting to understand their explanation, and — if such is warranted — getting a “second opinion”  (when and if time permits).
I have never regarded any variant of “because I said so!” as anything other than:
1. A (desperate) cop-out (indicating that the individual resorting to it cannot justify — or even explain — his/her claim)
2. A (veiled, and thus dishonest) threat.
To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that I ma psychologically ill-suited to playing “status” games.  I realize that even “high-status” individuals are neither omniscient, nor infallible, and further, that the kind of mindless “obedience” involved in the so-called “Asch Effect” does NOTHING to change those attributes.
Your (unthinking) obedience of an “authority” or “expert” will not — cannot — magically ensure that they will be correct.  It can do nothing but put YOU at risk, by creating a false sense of “security”.

In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[20][21] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority,[22][23][24][21] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[20][25] Even textbooks[20] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[25] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[26][22]

This seemingly established number created confirmation bias among researchers, and “most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter’s number, virtually always did so”.[26] Painter’s “influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence”,[25] to the point that “textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four”.[25] Scientists who obtained the accurate number modified[27] or discarded[28] their data to agree with Painter’s count.

Put bluntly: FUCK THAT NOISE.
The “argument from authority” resulted in several generations of students “learning” something which had been demonstrated to be blatantly wrong — for THIRTY YEARS.
Again, FUCK that noise, seriously.

4 thoughts on “Karl wanted me to take a “Myers-Briggs” personality test. I am evidently an INTJ

  1. Mine is a 143 of 150 WISC which istr translates to 186 of 200 SB-3, but I’m just a stupid truck driver so I’m not sure those tests are worth shit, and I’ve long conceded you to be far more intelligent than I am.

    Then there’s Karl, whose IQ is not only “off the scale”, but his parents also wouldn’t tell him what it is…THAT is not even wrong! He thinks I’m gullible but the only reason I didn’t call him on his shit was because I didn’t want to have to walk 20 miles across Rexmont back to the mountain to retrieve my own car. You know how vindictive he can be when you’re not constantly stroking his ego.

    • Wait, wait….what? They wouldn’t tell him what it is?

      Is it just me, or might that (somehow) be related to the fact that he repeated second grade multiple times?

      I’ll freely admit that what passes for my “schooling” was abysmally bad. Quite frankly, those in “authority” (mistakenly) assumed that the fact that I was reading at a “college level” when I entered first grade automatically — and necessarily — meant that I would spontaneously “reinvent” every post-arithmetic branch of mathematics ON MY OWN – purely for the “fun” of doing so.

      The thing about mathematics is: I have always found mathematics “for its own sake” (IE: as an “end in itself”) to be relatively uninteresting.

      Then again, I also find most poetry to be boring as fuck. I’ve never been that interested in composing something in “Dactylic hexameter “, merely for the sake of doing so.

      From the beginning, I have always been drawn to text and “prose” PRIMARILY because such writings contain information about “the world”.

      (This is not to say that I don’t like certain sorts of fiction. I have a definite soft spot for the “Star Trek” franchise, and the original “Twilight Zone” from the 1960s, for example).

      But yeah, I have always tended to (at least implicitly) regard both mathematics and language as “mere means”.

      I’ve also never bought into Marshall McCluhan’s claim that “the medium is the message”. I just can’t keep myself from regarding “the medium” as a mere “container” by which such-and-such “message” is expressed/communicated — if that makes any sense.


  2. According to Karl, on one occasion he said it was “off the scale” which is impossible since everyone who is 200 and above is 200 (or 150 on Wechsler scales) and on another occasion he said his parents wouldn’t tell him because they didn’t want it going to his head. I’m not even sure they told him this, I think it’s more of his bullshit psychological masturbation. I’m not surprised he repeated 2nd grade since he hasn’t grasped 2nd grade concepts and probably should repeat it again. Maybe he could learn some maturity off of those kids, but they’d probably just bully and ostracize him for being a dickwad.

    I gotta get the Twilight Zone series, it was really fsckin cool.

    • Read back over the excerpts of the E-mail exchange I had with the first woman Karl alienated/drove off.

      There are repeated references to “physical temper tantrums” — rolling around on the floor, pounding his fists, etc.

      This really wouldn’t surprise me in the least, coming from Karl.

      He is basically an overgrown toddler.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s