Friday, December 31, 2010

Psych Model of Inter-Personality Interactions

This is an extension of the Four Fundamental Cognitive Traits.


systems designer (+both) 
graphics designer (+analysis)            philosopher (+intellectualism)
fashion designer, writer, artist


systems researcher, meta-mathematician (+both) 
UI programmer (+synthesis)           mathematician (+intellectualism) 
  engineer, physicist, economist, software developer

The charts are pretty self-explanatory.

The lists at the bottom of each chart are ordered by egomania. Engineers have to answer to physical reality, physicists have to answer to their peers, economists have to answer only to the rich (and NOT their peers), and software developers answer to no one.

In both charts there is a slot for people with the cognitive faculty of the OTHER chart. There's a good reason for that, both are possible simultaneously. There's a good reason why those slots say different things too, because for them the charts become about which cognitive faculty you TRUST most, not which you have.

At the top of each chart are people who have all of synthesis, analysis and intellectualism. If they trust analysis more then they're on the bottom chart and so better suited to being systems researchers rather than designers. If the reverse then ... yeah, pretty obvious.

How To Test For Intellectualism

A simple test. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis states that our universe is just a branch of math that we live in and that all branches of math which contain theorems describing intelligent beings are subjectively experienced by those theorems as physical universes. We can never visit those other universes and they can never matter to us. Is the mathematical universe hypothesis personally important to you?

Gregory Chaitin discovered that mathematics is infinite in extent, and that it is all, ALL random. That the part of mathematics that is orderly, the part we perceive to be mathematics, is an infinitesimal part of the whole which we are prejudiced towards merely because our intuitions of math come from an orderly universe (one that can support conscious life). Is the extent and nature of math personally important to you?

Are the doings of some offensively primitive neolithic tribe whom you will never meet and who will never have any kind of impact on your life because they live on the other side of the world personally important to you nonetheless? What about their primitive and backwards beliefs?

Do you concern yourself with how people should behave in an ideal world? With theoretical questions such as what was the shortest path to modern civilization in history? Are these or other questions like them personally important questions to you?

If you answered yes to the above then you're an intellectual. If no, you're a non-intellectual. If you answered that these questions cannot and/or should not be important to anyone then you're an anti-intellectual. It's that simple. If you had trouble caring enough about the subject matter to make sense out of all of the above questions, score yourself as an anti-intellectual.

Non-intellectualism is empirically wrong. So if you think you are merely being practical by being a non-intellectual, I am here to tell you you are delusional. Anti-intellectualism is beyond wrong, it is evil.

How To Test For Analysis
  1. does opposition mean that at least one party is wrong? for example, nuclear and anti- advocates. pro-life vs pro-choice.
  2. do you despise cultural, moral, and/or logical relativism?
  3. if I make a glass of stuff chemically identical to apple juice from petrol, is it apple juice?
  4. hypothetically, if I told you the laws of quantum physics don't care about the past, what does that mean for the two barrels in the previous question?
  5. hypothetically, if the laws of physics say nothing about the direction of time then what does that say about subjective experience?
  6. are math and logic eternal? is reasoning timeless?
  7. did you instantly dismiss (or even better, completely fail to understand) the notion of a mind constructing mathematical truth or wishing it into being?

The more of these questions you answer 'yes' the more likely you possess analysis. For questions 4 and 5, count it as a yes if you even understand the question. Answering any 2 of the questions yes is strongly indicative, 3 is a clincher. If you have to ask 4 of them, it's because the other person is fucking with you.

How To Test For (Trust In) Synthesis

  1. how would you measure creativity?
  2. are good ideas rare or plentiful?
  3. present operating systems don't allow you to share an object between multiple owners, only to copy it. does this mean operating systems are all bad or that sharing is useless because nobody cares about it?
  4. do you think artists, writers and designers are special? do you think an engineer can be creative? have you ever thought of being an artist / writer / designer?
  5. does a walk in the park clear your head or give you ideas?
  6. given a choice between a fuzzy problem and an algorithmic math problem, which would you prefer to work on? (Either can be open-ended or closed-form, that's not at issue.)
  7. do you detect a pattern in the above questions?
  8. is thinking in statistical patterns second-nature to you?


  1. if they say anything external like "products", "work", or "documentation" count it as a 'no'. If they say creativity can't be measured, forget about any other questions and count it as a 'hell no'. Note that portfolios are primarily a way for non-creatives to judge creatives.
  2. rare
  3. obviously sharing is good and it doesn't matter who thinks otherwise
  4. yes, no, yes
  5. ideas
  6. fuzzy
  7. yes
  8. yes

Synthesis is fiendish to test for, and the above doesn't really work well as a test for synthesis. It works pretty damned well as a test for trust in synthesis though. And of course, anyone who completely fails to trust synthesis can be presumed to not have a single drop of it.

There are people who trust synthesis without possessing any of it themselves. Some of them are analytics. That is, they have analysis and no synthesis, but trust the faculty they don't have more than the one they do. This isn't a problem because for our purposes it's trust that matters more.

Personality Interactions: What This Is All For

In case you didn't catch on, this is all about who you'll get along best with as friends and as significant others. In other words, who has great dating potential and who you're doomed to failure with. Unfortunately, my advice has only been empirically tested with people at the top of a chart. If you're not there, let me know where you are and who you get along best with.

So, to use the charts to preselect your dates is very simple:


Note that if you're at the bottom of a chart, picking someone from the opposite chart sounds like a complete fucking disaster to me. Unless you really trust the opposite quality (but lack it) then it sounds perfectly obvious.

Finally, I conjecture there's a difference between trusting the opposite quality and being turned on by it. If you're a creative and you meet someone turned on by creativity, that might not be as great as you think it is. I only have one data point on this though.

I welcome all data points.


Richard Kulisz said...

I've accumulated a number of data points, not against the inter-personality interactions, but against the tables they're based on. The slots 'UI programmer' and 'graphics designer' are extremely problematic.

Anonymous said...


I understand you have reliable tested data points for people (at least at the top of the charts), but

Why pick someone from the other chart?

Richard Kulisz said...

This post more than 3 years ago is what's known in the business as an "empirical model". Meaning, it's not a model at all, merely something that seems to work. There is no WHY to anything.

Nowadays, I'm far, far from these petty little trivial children's toys. I have actual models and they are sophisticated and deep. I'm no longer even in the same galaxy as this toy.

I'm not sure if my old advice is true anymore. I've not seen anything to contradict it but neither have I seen anything to support it. And I can't vouch for it because I now think in radically different terms than these and I have vastly higher standards.

But it SEEMED to work. Take that for what it's worth (a variable to investigate yourself) unless you want to learn the models I use now.

I will tell you that my current models leave nothing to chance. You do not stumble upon a relationship, you do not click with someone, you do not find someone you can trust. You MAKE them so even starting from the most unpromising materials. So long as it's actually possible. And you get a very good idea ahead of time how much work is required.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"learn the models I use now."

Are they in your posts? If not, please do share them ( either here or to e-mail )

I've read ALL of your posts (especially the relevant ones to this one - the other psych/synth/analysis), (just in case they are in there)