Kickstarter for Socionics Quadra Test Experiment

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Hey all, Aestrivex, Expat and me are putting together an experiment to reliably test Quadra. We have a test and will be paying people on Mechanical Turk to fill it out while providing a video of themselves which we can independently type them through, seeing if the Quadra Test has validity.

To fund this, we have a Kickstarter Campaign, available here with an introductory video: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ues-assessment

For those who donate money, there are a range of rewards available, including free diagnostic interviews, Socionics-themed jewellery and pictures of zebra.

Here's some of the jewellery:

11084503_431619460329684_1118043399_n.jpg 11081266_431617830329847_5926865469608400483_n.jpg

[Reficulris]

This will be the one kickstarter project that I don't back....



...unless Hkkmr is involved, than i might reconsider.. good luck with your experiment.

[Ananke]

Wasn't Aestrivex the same guy (Roan LaPlante) who was caught hacking into Typewatch (and who also was part of a group stealing credit card numbers and who hacked into several typology related forums, including PersonalityCafe and thus compromisinging a lot of people's identities)? In that case what credibility does your group have?

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Wasn't Aestrivex the same guy (Roan LaPlante) who was caught hacking into Typewatch (and who also was part of a group stealing credit card numbers and who hacked into several typology related forums, including PersonalityCafe and thus compromisinging a lot of people's identities)? In that case what credibility does your group have?

I don't think Aestrivex did those things. He just told me he has no idea what you're talking about.

[Ananke]

I don't think Aestrivex did those things. He just told me he has no idea what you're talking about.

http://typewatch.net/
(The colored text starting in the upper right corner.)

[April]

I am very interested in this project, so I just donated. I have some questions:

Do you assert content validity for quadra values as defined by world-rejectingness (vs. world-acceptance) and source-fluidity (vs. source-integrity)? I feel as though there are numerous potential beliefs and traits associated with Ni/Se-valuing vs. Ne/Si-valuing and Fi/Te-valuing vs. Fe/Ti-valuing that are not fully encompassed by these constructs.

Do you have plans to explore the decisions going into the video typings by experts, or will it simply be a checking off of 1 of 16 boxes? Are the type diagnoses by experts primarily informed by the world-rejectingness and source-fluidity constructs? Do you run a risk of bias by relying more heavily on ideas about quadras vs. other ideas about socionics type, such as temperament or specific functions?

Are you willing to share the test with us?

[mu4]

I support basically any effort to mobilize more people on this topic in the west. Being wrong and failing is worthwhile as is being right.

I have very little interest in Quadra and I think the stereotypes surrounding quadra can easily poison the pool and the self-reporting.

I wrote this on the typing issues surround socionics.

The "russians" are in their own world too. I think socionics culturally is more central european. There's a lot of literature and most of the literature reinforces the general thread that typing is a PITA. Each school has their own typing methodology and this is a divisive topic. See article. http://www.the16types.info/.../47151...type-Diagnosis... Gulenko has more or less laid out the problems of diagnosis and the issues surrounding it in a fairly complete fashion. For what it's worth, I agree with Gulenko and my observations that Process/Result and Static/Dynamic are the distinct features which is invaluable at the end of a diagnostic, these features coming to the forefront and playing a immense role in the social behavior of individuals and are very distinct for individuals within a quadra, as each individual within a quadra is entirely differently in these qualities. It's really no surprise these are the structures which represents the method of information processing as well as the division of the conscious and unconscious. The unity of the two being forms of cognition.

As far as donating, I would only donate if all data was avaliable publically for public inspection and transparent analysis at the end of the experiment. Until there is some kind of publication/release promise it's not really in my interest to donate.

[mu4]

I am very interested in this project, so I just donated. I have some questions:

Do you assert content validity for quadra values as defined by world-rejectingness (vs. world-acceptance) and source-fluidity (vs. source-integrity)? I feel as though there are numerous potential beliefs and traits associated with Ni/Se-valuing and Ne/Si-valuing that are not fully encompassed by these constructs.

I think the problem with this is that this is only dealing with irrational functions and not rational functions which might also have commentary on the associated topics.

Alpha is world rejecting from the rational perspective. / civilization focus vs Delta / naturalistic focus. (whatever you want to call the names) In a way it's just a rewording of things.

This is more or less a dividing line between Aristocratic and Democratic quadras, as Aristocratic are doubly one way and Democratic are mixed.

[April]

I think the problem with this is that this is only dealing with irrational functions and not rational functions which might also have commentary on the associated topics.

I realized from your quote that I left out the rational elements, which is what source fluidity vs. integrity refers to. It should have read "Ni/Se-valuing vs. Ne/Si-valuing and Fi/Te-valuing vs. Fe-Ti valuing."

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

I am very interested in this project, so I just donated. I have some questions:

Do you assert content validity for quadra values as defined by world-rejectingness (vs. world-acceptance) and source-fluidity (vs. source-integrity)? I feel as though there are numerous potential beliefs and traits associated with Ni/Se-valuing and Ne/Si-valuing that are not fully encompassed by these constructs.

Do you have plans to explore the decisions going into the video typings by experts, or will it simply be a checking off of 1 of 16 boxes? Are the type diagnoses by experts primarily informed by the world-rejectingness and source-fluidity constructs? Do you run a risk of bias by relying more heavily on ideas about quadras vs. other ideas about socionics type, such as temperament or specific functions?

Are you willing to share the test with us?

Thankyou for your donation! It looks like we owe you a couple of interviews

I myself do not make that assertion. Aestrivex is of the opinion that these definitions are the ultimate basis for quadra values, but I think it is likely broader than that. For instance, I'd actually say that there is a certain kind of world-rejecting in Ne/Si valuers (more so in the Intuitive types) in the sense of rejecting real hardships (Se) for a more idealised fantasy (Ne). Also, I have a broader view of Fe/Ti and Te/Fi than just source-fluidity/integrity. I could expand it to views on a community run by consistent rules, contrasted with individual relations that lead to some overall use.

Nevertheless, I understand and agree with the gist of what Aestrivex is aiming at and I think that for the purposes of developing a working test, we can run with his definitions. If it leads to issues, we are not past revising the items of the test.


There is a certain amount of variation between my own views and those of Expat and Aestrivex. I am of the opinion that Clubs, Temperaments and Quadras are all equally important for explaining different aspects of Socionics type. Aestrivex is strongly quadra-centric in his understanding and Expat takes up more of a central position between us, although leaning slightly more towards Aestrivex. My viewpoint is perhaps the most theoretically complex, aiming at crisp, deduced definitions for each IM Element in each function, while I guess theirs is more centred about what they have found to work. Nevertheless, we respect each other enough as being capable socionists to participate in an experiment together.

The test will be released publicly and a sample of the interviews, along with our diagnostic comments, will also be released. Everything will be logged in our Facebook group and can be easily added to a publishable report.

I hope that answers your questions and I'm happy to answer more.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

http://typewatch.net/
(The colored text starting in the upper right corner.)

Libel.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

As far as donating, I would only donate if all data was avaliable publically for public inspection and transparent analysis at the end of the experiment. Until there is some kind of publication/release promise it's not really in my interest to donate.

Our participants have the option for their interviews to be public or private. In general, because they are strangers, we do not think it ethical for the data to be public without informed consent. So yes, we will release what we can, but we cannot release everything.

[Ananke]

I don't think Aestrivex did those things. He just told me he has no idea what you're talking about.

Libel.

I think it would benefit your KickStarter project and the WSS community if you can clarify on how what is posted on typewatch.net is libelous. The information about this case has been around for a while, and the community here is aware of it: link. It is very hard to believe that Aestrivex did not know about this.

I personally welcome, and am enthusiastic to see research on Socionics, and as you can see from my conversations in the chatbox, I have expressed hopes for WSS when it comes to its potential to further socionics, but as long as you collaborate with somebody who the admin of typewatch.net publicly has accused of participiating in the hacking of his site, and who is perhaps even involved in scam due to his alleged proximity to certain individuals, without clearing him, there is no point in supporting your project, as it will not be taken seriously, and may at worst do more harm than good to the community.

[Radio]

"yes all we need is more money"

[Radio]

people have done more for socionics for free so what justifies the $3000 price tag for your "research"? not to mention i disagree with about 80% of WSS's typings and i think both niffweed and expat preach behaviorism with no regard for cognition so on a fundamental level i completely disagree with your approach and research metrics (lol). let's not even talk about how all of your (i.e. JOA's) typings are generally very wrong -- i didn't know this before but you are echidna2000, from PerN, which in hindsight makes so much sense -- and you have literally never contributed anything to a socionics discussion other than pompous self-righteous ramblings and your own delusions of grandeur. if the best thing you have done for socionics is to shit out a garbage group (yes i am a member) that waters down the model so much that it's unusable and only provides a platform for reaffirming your shit ego, then none of your efforts to legitimize socionics have any merit.

you are literally maritsa with better presentation and a shadier agenda. you disgust me.

[krieger]

i will donate handsomely to this project if the money is spent on professional counseling.

[Amber]

If this is really about "research for the branch of Socionics", you should ask for money from the Institute whose program you're "promoting" after all. Alternatively you can find a foundation that is willing to support your voodoo projects or look for some funds from the government. The UK is not extremely poor. Everything else looks like a scam. And yes, JOS's typings are generally wrong and most activities and speeches are supposed to pander to someone's cult of personality and other more disgusting needs.

[Amber]

actually wait, I didn't see the jewelry thing before. Yeah, man, I want a Socionics navel ring

[Mega]

@Radio, no offense but create your own group, make it free, type as many people as demands there are, become bigger and more trusted than WSS

or maybe your point was to make people aware that wss is a scam. best solution is too rise at a position where you have leverage so you are listened by many people.

People won't be attracted by old socionics. Create your own "easier to understand" IMs and logically deduce how the person you are interviewing cognitive process works. for free, as many demands as they are, logically deduced conclusion that anyone can follow, don't forget structured post and a good image. Now you can stop wasting your fucking saliva.

[Amber]

I forgot how to perform LIE. I should use the phrase "logically deduced" with higher frequency per sentence.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

people have done more for socionics for free so what justifies the $3000 price tag for your "research"? not to mention i disagree with about 80% of WSS's typings and i think both niffweed and expat preach behaviorism with no regard for cognition so on a fundamental level i completely disagree with your approach and research metrics (lol). let's not even talk about how all of your (i.e. JOA's) typings are generally very wrong -- i didn't know this before but you are echidna2000, from PerN, which in hindsight makes so much sense -- and you have literally never contributed anything to a socionics discussion other than pompous self-righteous ramblings and your own delusions of grandeur. if the best thing you have done for socionics is to shit out a garbage group (yes i am a member) that waters down the model so much that it's unusable and only provides a platform for reaffirming your shit ego, then none of your efforts to legitimize socionics have any merit.

you are literally maritsa with better presentation and a shadier agenda. you disgust me.

*scratches head* - your post doesn't mean much to me because I have no idea how different to the mainstream your understanding of Socionics is.

If you're comparing me to Maritsa who types based on V.I., I am afraid you haven't looked enough into my technique or the reasoning behind it to make these assertions.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

If this is really about "research for the branch of Socionics", you should ask for money from the Institute whose program you're "promoting" after all. Alternatively you can find a foundation that is willing to support your voodoo projects or look for some funds from the government. The UK is not extremely poor. Everything else looks like a scam. And yes, JOS's typings are generally wrong and most activities and speeches are supposed to pander to someone's cult of personality and other more disgusting needs.

Money from which Institute? There's a Socionics Institute in possession of money? We're promoting their program?

Actually, all operations are being done through US online services. I just happen to live in the UK, but Aestrivex is running things.

You'll need to provide more information for me to understand why you think my typings are generally wrong. Aestrivex and Expat think they are generally right because I employ a good understanding of the theory to break down observations from people during interviews into a clear model that I then explain.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

I think it would benefit your KickStarter project and the WSS community if you can clarify on how what is posted on typewatch.net is libelous. The information about this case has been around for a while, and the community here is aware of it: link. It is very hard to believe that Aestrivex did not know about this.

I personally welcome, and am enthusiastic to see research on Socionics, and as you can see from my conversations in the chatbox, I have expressed hopes for WSS when it comes to its potential to further socionics, but as long as you collaborate with somebody who the admin of typewatch.net publicly has accused of participiating in the hacking of his site, and who is perhaps even involved in scam due to his alleged proximity to certain individuals, without clearing him, there is no point in supporting your project, as it will not be taken seriously, and may at worst do more harm than good to the community.

It's essentially the word of some people against some others. As far as I know, there is no proof for these assertions and Aestrivex denies hacking Typewatch. This has nothing to do with our project and I think it is libel.

What's more relevant to our project is this: Aestrivex is, in my opinion, one of the better socionists in the English-speaking community and has the scientific background to do some real good to the theory.

[xerx]

We have a test and will be paying people on Mechanical Turk to fill it out while providing a video of themselves which we can independently type them through, seeing if the Quadra Test has validity.

The only thing being tested here => how well a written form created by test makers captures the same test makers' ability to type in-person.

O.o

The experiment doesn't appear to test any objective Socionics phenomenon. Do you mind elaborating further?

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

The only thing examined here => how well a written form created by test makers captures the same test makers' ability to type in-person.

O.o

The experiment doesn't purport to test any objective Socionics phenomenon, afaict. Do you mind going into more detail?

Yes, that's quite correct. We have a good method for typing people's quadras via video questionnaires and we are trying to see if a written test can match that accuracy.

It purports to test Quadra. Whether that is an 'objective' Socionics phenomenon depends on myself, Expat and Aestrivex all being able to point at and remark that the given information says a person is of a certain Quadra. So, our design involves the person taking the Quadra test and recording the video. After the three of us view the video and agree on the person's Quadra, we then see if the test results are in accordance with us or not. Although not a perfect experiment (no experiment is), I think it's a step in the right direction for making Socionics more empirical.

[April]

Yes, that's quite correct. We have a good method for typing people's quadras via video questionnaires and we are trying to see if a written test can match that accuracy.

It purports to test Quadra. Whether that is an 'objective' Socionics phenomenon depends on myself, Expat and Aestrivex all being able to point at and remark that the given information says a person is of a certain Quadra. So, our design involves the person taking the Quadra test and recording the video. After the three of us view the video and agree on the person's Quadra, we then see if the test results are in accordance with us or not. Although not a perfect experiment (no experiment is), I think it's a step in the right direction for making Socionics more empirical.

I strongly recommend that you do the video typings independently, and then look at inter-rater reliability.

This also gets at my concern that you will be overly biased about quadra in your video typings, as compared to other factors. You in particular, Jack, may type people very differently if you are just focusing on quadra, and not 1 of 16 types.

[Ananke]

It's essentially the word of some people against some others. As far as I know, there is no proof for these assertions and Aestrivex denies hacking Typewatch. This has nothing to do with our project and I think it is libel.

What's more relevant to our project is this: Aestrivex is, in my opinion, one of the better socionists in the English-speaking community and has the scientific background to do some real good to the theory.

To me it is worrisome, and at best naive, that you (as president of WSS) don't see the importance and relevance of investigating this further, but relying on a «I think it is libel».

You may be compromising your organization by trusting a possible criminal, and if you think you need Aestrivex for socionics purposes, you may need to look into clearing his reputation for two reasons - to make sure he is trustworthy (you wouldn’t want him to scam you or your clients) and to make sure these accusations are not left hanging, reflecting badly on WSS in the future.

I haven’t given feedback on the test itself yet, and if this is the best Aestrivex can achieve, I wouldn’t give much for his «scientific background» (see Xerx’ comment)

[Radio]

@Radio, no offense but create your own group, make it free, type as many people as demands there are, become bigger and more trusted than WSS

i don't care, that's like saying "if you don't like X movie, make your own movie!" or "if you don't like justin beiber you're just jealous". it's a retarded line of reasoning.

or maybe your point was to make people aware that wss is a scam. best solution is too rise at a position where you have leverage so you are listened by many people.

i don't have to listen to you.

People won't be attracted by old socionics. Create your own "easier to understand" IMs and logically deduce how the person you are interviewing cognitive process works. for free, as many demands as they are, logically deduced conclusion that anyone can follow, don't forget structured post and a good image. Now you can stop wasting your fucking saliva.

other people have actually literally done that, like mu, rick or ashton and in a much much better way for FREE.

if you fall for this WSS garbage too i'm happy to shitlist you as a moron as well.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

I strongly recommend that you do the video typings independently, and then look at inter-rater reliability.

This also gets at my concern that you will be overly biased about quadra in your video typings, as compared to other factors. You in particular, Jack, may type people very differently if you are just focusing on quadra, and not 1 of 16 types.

I agree, that's more scientific. Naturally we also won't know the test results before giving our typings.

Well, for the purposes of this experiment, Quadra is what is being tested for. The written test only looks for Quadra values so our assessment of the videos is primarily to see if the Quadra we see matches that shown in the tests. I will also provide a proper typing, utilising the other aspects of the theory, but this wouldn't be related to checking the reliability of the Quadra test. So, I would say that I don't have a Quadra bias when working out person's type, but can only really focus on Quadra when trying to work out a person's Quadra.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

other people have actually literally done that, like mu, rick or ashton and in a much much better way for FREE..

Are any of them paying participants for an empirical experiment in Socionics?

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

To me it is worrisome, and at best naive, that you (as president of WSS) don't see the importance and relevance of investigating this further, but relying on a «I think it is libel».

You may be compromising your organization by trusting a possible criminal, and if you think you need Aestrivex for socionics purposes, you may need to look into clearing his reputation for two reasons - to make sure he is trustworthy (you wouldn’t want him to scam you or your clients) and to make sure these accusations are not left hanging, reflecting badly on WSS in the future.

How would you recommend that I investigate it? As far as I'm concerned, if no one is confident enough in the guilt of the 'possible criminal' to take him to court, there's no case. From my experience, Aestrivex is perfectly trustworthy.

[Galen]

This campaign will crash and burn on the basis that socionics is not a 'personality' typology, and any attempts to demonstrate it as such have been fraught with inconsistencies. You don't need $3000 to do this shit when all you have to do is make *yet another* OKCupid test about the topic and let it sit. Watching JOA's/niffweed's ilk draw misguided conclusions from superficial information makes me squirm in my own skin.

Then again people on kickstarter are willing to pay $500 for a single 2" Tungsten cube, so what do I know

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm not going to give you a penny.

Pretty much agree with everything @Radio said, nothing more to say.

[xerx]

Yes, that's quite correct. We have a good method for typing people's quadras via video questionnaires and we are trying to see if a written test can match that accuracy.

So it's really more of a linguistics or <insert communications-related field here> experiment than a Socionics one -- not that I'm casting aspersions or anything; it could still be interesting given what you've written.

Why do you need money to pull it off -- is there a dearth of people willing to talk about themselves?

Why is it only you, niffweed and Expat?

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

So it's really more of a linguistics or <insert communications-related field here> experiment than a Socionics one -- not that I'm casting aspersions or anything; it could still be interesting given what you've written.

Why do you need money to pull it off -- is there a dearth of people willing to talk about themselves?

Why is it only you, niffweed and Expat?

Why linguistics? It's about quadra values, so it's definitely about developing a tool for use in Socionics.

We need money because the naive participants are recruited over MechanicalTurk where you are paid money to do tasks. I could ask the members of my group, but they wouldn't be naive participants as they know what socionics is about and thus would be able to change their behaviour in conforming to a label.

I imagine it's because me and Expat are the two people currently involved in Socionics that Niffweed/Aestrivex respects the most to do the project with him. There is the chance of recruiting more members of the WSS Diagnostic Team if the workload becomes too much for three socionists.

[xerx]

Why linguistics? It's about quadra values, so it's definitely about developing a tool for use in Socionics.

Because it's really testing how successfully a diagnosis in one communications medium (video / in-person) can be translated to another communications medium (written). Whether quadras is the topic being diagnosed is an entirely arbitrary feature of the experiment.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Because it's really testing how successfully a diagnosis in one communications medium (video / in-person) can be translated to another communications medium (written). Whether quadras is the topic being diagnosed is an entirely arbitrary feature of the experiment.

Well, we are testing the 'linguistics', rather than the Socionics theory, yes. But, we are doing that as a necessary process to develop a tool for Quadras in Socionics. It is still an experiment for Socionics.

[xerx]

Well, we are testing the 'linguistics', rather than the Socionics theory, yes. But, we are doing that as a necessary process to develop a tool for Quadras in Socionics. It is still an experiment for Socionics.

Sure; that's why I said it could be interesting. Presumably, your intent is to generate better tests.

It would be more helpful to start by testing whether quadra values even exist / are consistent across the board. It would be useful to gear the in-person to typing towards quadra values while using the written form to determine TIM. Care would have to be taken to divorce the written part from any association with quadra values.

[The Exception]

It's essentially the word of some people against some others. As far as I know, there is no proof for these assertions and Aestrivex denies hacking Typewatch. This has nothing to do with our project and I think it is libel.

What's more relevant to our project is this: Aestrivex is, in my opinion, one of the better socionists in the English-speaking community and has the scientific background to do some real good to the theory.

He may be one of the better socionicists as far as knowledge and expertise goes but his highly vitriolic style of posting has turned off and alienated many people. WSS would be a better community, I think if there if what he posts was more heavily regulated. It's fine that he's critiquing ideas but it's not fine that he's putting down people. Basically calling them idiots or something similar if they don't happen to agree with his narrow view of what socionics should be. I sometimes thinks he gets away with too much vitriol and wonder if he didn't have such expertise in socionics if he would have received the boot long ago. I don't have issues with any of the other people on the WSS community but I do think Aestrivex's style of posting drives some people away who might otherwise post.

I haven't been following the Typewatch situation to know if hacked in or not. But I do know that he formerly had a typing page posted on his wiki that was basically an excuse to insult a multitude of forum members.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

He may be one of the better socionicists as far as knowledge and expertise goes but his highly vitriolic style of posting has turned off and alienated many people. WSS would be a better community, I think if there if what he posts was more heavily regulated. It's fine that he's critiquing ideas but it's not fine that he's putting down people. Basically calling them idiots or something similar if they don't happen to agree with his narrow view of what socionics should be. I sometimes thinks he gets away with too much vitriol and wonder if he didn't have such expertise in socionics if he would have received the boot long ago. I don't have issues with any of the other people on the WSS community but I do think Aestrivex's style of posting drives some people away who might otherwise post.

I haven't been following the Typewatch situation to know if hacked in or not. But I do know that he formerly had a typing page posted on his wiki that was basically an excuse to insult a multitude of forum members.

This, I entirely agree with. He rubs people up the wrong way, including some of my admins and he should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.