Can personality tests and interactives aid in work upon oneself?

[thorbiorn]

Can personality tests and interactives aid in work upon oneself?

The question arose after Aeneas in _http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7227 suggested to try out the 'Sheep Dash' game: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/sheep/ Having played a bit curiosity led to consider the page this game was place on. It was about sleep: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/ On it one finds a Daily Rhythm Test: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/crt/ It is short and claims to illustrate ones daily rhythm. There are a couple of suggestions of how to manage better.

In the neighboring pages of this section of the BBC site, there are other subjects.

There is one about the body: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/
And there is one for the mind: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/

The interactives one can find on the above links are instructive. There are a whole lot of surveys, tests and quizzes.

To some of the following tests and games I have added comments to others not. So if you are not sure what a "Skeleton game" is, try it? (hint: Skull and Bones ;)

Skeleton game: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/3djigsaw_02/index.shtml?skeleton

Muscle game: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/3djigsaw_02/index.shtml?muscles

Organs game: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/3djigsaw_02/index.shtml?organs

Puberty demo: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/lifecycle/teenagers

Nervous system game: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/3djigsaw_02/index.shtml?nervous

Brain map: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/organs/brainmap/ this page shows what parts of the brain relate to what emotions and what experiences.

When one opens the above brain map, there are two functions. One is 'Structure' the other is 'Function'

The 'Structure' options when selected shows the brain to the left side of the window. It has four yellow spots that can be selected by clicking the mouse. These are the cerebrum, the limbic system, the brain stem, and the cerebellum. When one selects each of these, the particular section opens up in the lower right corner, and new yellow sub point become available. When one clicks each of these more information appears in the dialog box.

The 'Search By Function' when clicked gives the following terms: anger, consciousness, disgust, happiness, language understanding, movement, self awareness, smell, taste, touch, breathing, coordination, flight or flight, hearing, long-term episodic memory, sadness, self-control, speech production, thirst and hunger, and last vision. When one clicks any of these words, an area of the brain opens up in the lower right, the relevant area shows up in yellow and the explanation appears in the upper right corner. There is quite a bit to be learned from this presentation.

One window says: "Your amygdala (shown in yellow) is responsible for generating negative emotions such as sadness, anger, fear and disgust. Working on non-emotional mental tasks inhibits the amygdala, which is why keeping yourself buys can cheer you up when you're feeling down."

Another says: "Emotions are generated in the limbic system, so the fact that smell information enters your limbic system helps explain why smells can evoke such strong memories and emotions"

While we are on the brain, a site that explains in more detail how a smell affects hunger is given on _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/flavourandpersonality.shtml which links to _http://www.scienceofsmell.com/

The small presentation on this page tells how the journey of an odor to the olfactory bulb is linked to feelings of hunger, and pleasure. The first picture shows how breathing in a smell allows this to hit certain nerve receptors. These receptors send signals to the brain where they signal to the olfactory bulb (eyes I guess). When these are stimulated they in turn send signals to the hypothalamus which contains the satiety center and is part of the emotional limbic system. These signal are interpreted as either pleasant or unpleasant and the hypothalamus then sends signal to the rest of the body, and depending on how it is stimulated by the smell sensations, the hypothalamus may connect to the pituitary gland to free hormones that either creates a sensation of hunger or suppresses appetite.

Sniffing the decades: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/sniffingthedecades/index.shtml
Senses Challenge: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/

Do you see what I see?, Do you hear what I hear? _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/synaesthesia/see/
About synaesthesia it says on another bbc page: "Synaesthesia isn't a disease or a disability. In fact, most synaesthetes wouldn't even call it a condition, they prefer to refer to it as a gift. It's a gift in which people's sense intermingle. Some see colour when they hear a sound, read or think of letters or numbers. For others, words create a real sensation of taste." For more explanation try: _http://www.syn.sussex.ac.uk/

Some of the interactives related to the mind and emotions are:
Disgust: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/disgust/index.shtml
Lonely hearts: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/lonelyhearts/index.shtml
Reading faces 1: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception1/index.shtml
Reading faces 2: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception2/index.shtml
Spot the fake smile: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml
Explore your memory: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/memory/
Face Memory Test: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/tmt/
Memory Training: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/interactives/intelligenceandmemory/memorytest/ On this page one can learn about 'Andi Bell's memory training technique'.

What kind of thinker are you? _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/thinker_quiz/
This test indicates whether one is 1. Logical-mathematical Thinker, 2. Linguistic Thinker, 3. Interpersonal Thinker 4. Intrapersonal Thinker, 5. Naturalist Thinker, 6. Existential Thinker, 7. Musical Thinker, 8. Spatial Thinker, or 9. Kinaesthetic Thinker. For more on these types see:
_http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/thinker_quiz/allresults.shtml

What sex is your brain? _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/

Personality type: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/whatamilike/index.shtml
This test distinguishes between 16 different personality types: Big Thinker, Counsellor, Go-getter, Idealist, Innovator, Leader, Mastermind, Mentor, Nurturer, Peacemaker, Performer, Provider, Realist, Resolver and Strategist. Each has four dominant values out of a set of eight which are Spontaneous/Planner, Idea/Facts, Heart/Head Introvert/Extrovert For each of the sixteen characters there is a page of description from which one can access the others see for example: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/personalityandindividuality/whatamilike/bigthinker.shtml

Careers, _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/careers/ This survey works with six profiles: Realistic, Conventional, Social, Enterprising, Artistic, and Investigative
What's your millionaire potential? _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/millionaire1/index.shtml
Can you work your way to success? _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/millionaire2/
Sensation-seeking, _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/sensation/


Self-control, _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/selfcontrol/index.shtml
Morals, _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/morals/index.shtml
Perfectionism, _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/perfectionism/index.shtml
Necker cube, _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/neckercube/index.shtml
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) screening test: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/ocd/index.shtml

Other sites with personality tests:
Some tests in English on _http://www.netpsych.dk/artikler.asp?vis=tests
_http://www.psykoweb.dk/psykotest/test.htm (most in English, for any translation of the above pages try _http://www.freetranslation.com/ or _http://www.tranexp.com/win/itserver.htm
On the netpsych page there are other links:
_http://www.queendom.com/tests/index.htm
_http://www.2h.com/
_http://www.tranexp.com/win/itserver.htm
_http://www.allthetests.com/

Some tests regarding health, mind and body: _http://www.health24.com/tools/Quizzes/1891-1892.asp

Articles about brain, mind, memory and cognition:
_http://www.health24.com/mind/Memory_and_cognition/1284-1297.asp
See also 'Brain exercise wards off Alzheimer's': _http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2177878.stm
Exercise now to cut dementia risk: _http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304822.stm
Dancing 'wards off dementia': _http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3006130.stm
When it comes to brain exercises there many on the site of from Angela und Otto Janko: _http://www.janko.at/

Learning another language is also a way to keep the brain in good shape.
Several languages are listed on _http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/other/ like French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Mandarin Chinese, Italien, and a guide to Urdu.
For English and Math: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/

The post began with a question if personality tests are useful in work upon one self. Based on recent experience I think they can help one to get a more objective understanding of ones body and mind, and whereas it may not constitute work, it certainly is a good preparation.

Maybe some would not like to do tests on-line. This was one consideration I had, since the web is not really that private, no matter what people promise. Anyhow I did a lot of tests over the last few days and I think I shall keep doing it until I have investigated everything.

thorbiorn

 

[anart]

Sheesh, thorbiorn, could you put more active BBC links in your post? Are you getting paid a kickback or something? ;)

Can personality tests and interactives aid in work upon oneself?

It seems that it always comes back to the old 'garbage in = garbage out' adage. If the 'tests and interactives' are objectively accurate ( which is highly unlikely in this day and age from a main stream media source ) - then, sure - why not.

However, if these 'tests' are slanted, skewed or just based on garbage science, then it's probably no different than working on a crossword puzzle to find the secrets of the Universe.

There are no shortcuts - and msm online questionnaires seem a rather unlikely place to find direction for anything - after all - who wrote them? But, that's just my take on it.

 

[thorbiorn]

However, if these 'tests' are slanted, skewed or just based on garbage science, then it's probably no different than working on a crossword puzzle to find the secrets of the Universe.

It is true that some of these are slanted, no doubt. On the other hand if one takes many tests from different researchers one notices the differences in the approach. One becomes aware who is closer, and who is more biased. Another factor that makes any test skewed is that the one who takes it, may have a false ideas about who he is or not be sincere in his answers.

Not only that, one experience I had was that some questionaries contained questions I had not considered, and I wasn't really always sure, that what I answered was the truth. Then there were others which I hesitated to even take, because I had never considered the subject or perhaps was afraid to find out. So deciding to go for it anyway, meant opening up to new areas, which meant opening up the possibility of finding out what more programmes there are. And the more one is able to face ones own unknow territory, the more easy I think it is to accept others, and to put oneself in someone elses shoes. Ok, there are no general outcomes, but I am quite sure it is going to be one of the benefits for me.

You are right about the BBC, that is also why I put in some more links at the end. And if you look you will find a HUGE amound of links within these. So if BBC is too problematic take a look at some of the others.

One of the last pages listed warns the reader (- not in English) that some of the tests presented are not for weak souls, because they go close. That means a test may ask questions that may lead us to doubt our assumptions about who we are, the greatness of our childhood maybe, our moral reasoning, and how we behave ourselves among others.

One suggestion to people from the same page was not to take any result too literal, but to use them as tools to explore further.
Lets say there is a test about relationships or social conduct. Then one possibility would be to do the quiz oneself and also to invite ones friend or partner to take it. When that is done the test can become a basis for a good discussion and conducting a conversation at a level which most people often do not reach. And because one has the test and the questions to work around, it can become personal without becoming offending. It is something rather different that to sit in the same sofa and watch a movie, to fight out differences, eat at a restaurant or begin to argue when when the emotions are high.

thorbiorn

 

[anart]

However, if these 'tests' are slanted, skewed or just based on garbage science, then it's probably no different than working on a crossword puzzle to find the secrets of the Universe.

It is true that some of these are slanted, no doubt. On the other hand if one takes many tests from different researchers one notices the differences in the approach. One becomes aware who is closer, and who is more biased.

How do you know what 'closer' is? Unless you have an expansive depth of knowledge about personality traits/brain function and how they can be reflected in test response (in which case you wouldn't be taking these sorts of 'tests' anyway) - you couldn't know. Isn't it really all just entertainment?

Another factor that makes any test skewed is that the one who takes it, may have a false ideas about who he is or not be sincere in his answers.

Yep - but that's assuming the test would really indicate anything true anyway.

Not only that, one experience I had was that some questionaries contained questions I had not considered, and I wasn't really always sure, that what I answered was the truth. Then there were others which I hesitated to even take, because I had never considered the subject or perhaps was afraid to find out. So deciding to go for it anyway, meant opening up to new areas, which meant opening up the possibility of finding out what more programmes there are. And the more one is able to face ones own unknow territory, the more easy I think it is to accept others, and to put oneself in someone elses shoes. Ok, there are no general outcomes, but I am quite sure it is going to be one of the benefits for me.
You are right about the BBC, that is also why I put in some more links at the end. And if you look you will find a HUGE amound of links within these. So if BBC is too problematic take a look at some of the others.

What evidence do you have at this point to indicate that these internet tests are anything other than self-referencing entertainment? The 'general masses' tend to be fascinated with anything that tells them 'about themselves' - whether what is said is true or not, and doesn't this type of thing just play into that self-referencing and self-importance - especially when the premises are questionable? How different is it from reading your newspaper horoscope every single morning and deciding what to do that day according to what it says?

One of the last pages listed warns the reader (- not in English) that some of the tests presented are not for weak souls, because they go close.

Go close to what? Not for 'weak souls'?

That means a test may ask questions that may lead us to doubt our assumptions about who we are, the greatness of our childhood maybe, our moral reasoning, and how we behave ourselves among others.

One suggestion to people from the same page was not to take any result too literal, but to use them as tools to explore further.

Who created this test? Upon what is it based? Is it even vaguely factually or clinically accurate? Are you asking yourself these questions that I am asking you before you take them, or are you taking these internet sites at their word and just diving in, believing it all? I only ask because you do seem to be quite enamored with such things - rather to distraction if you've actually visited all the above links and taken these tests. To what extent are you using these 'tests' as a 'sleep aid' - as a distraction from true internal discovery and Work? I mean no offense at all, it just seems that these are questions that you might do well to answer for yourself, or not, that's really up to you.

Lets say there is a test about relationships or social conduct. Then one possibility would be to do the quiz oneself and also to invite ones friend or partner to take it. When that is done the test can become a basis for a good discussion and conducting a conversation at a level which most people often do not reach. And because one has the test and the questions to work around, it can become personal without becoming offending. It is something rather different that to sit in the same sofa and watch a movie, to fight out differences, eat at a restaurant or begin to argue when when the emotions are high.

Any sort of conversation starter could work the same way. Reading a statement about the world at large and then discussing on which points you disagree and why, and what that says about yourself, would serve the same purpose. It seems that the danger with these tests lies in the fact that you believe that what they indicate is the truth - and you then identify to one extent or another with that truth - regardless of whether or not it is related at all to objective reality.

I'm not saying that taking such tests isn't 'fun' - it can be - it can be really funny too. I'm even sure that there are personality or brain function response tests that do indicate how certain aspects of one's machine works - but I doubt you'd find those on the internet for free. I'm just questioning the wisdom of taking these sorts of things so seriously - and putting so much stock into what they 'say'. fwiw.

 

[thorbiorn]

Anart, without going into all the details let me generalize and say that I accept a lot of your criticism and that I am happy that you have brought it up for others to read.

Then there is a proverb that truth withstands the test of time and lies are soon exposed. So one way I can think of putting the tests to the test of time, is to continue to take a few more regularly over a period of some months or even a year, write down what I learn and report back here.

Do you consider this a responable response?

thorbiorn

 

[anart]

Anart, without going into all the details let me generalize and say that I accept a lot of your criticism and that I am happy that you have brought it up for others to read.

Then there is a proverb that truth withstands the test of time and lies are soon exposed. So one way I can think of putting the tests to the test of time, is to continue to take a few more regularly over a period of some months or even a year, write down what I learn and report back here.

Do you consider this a responable response?

thorbiorn

Hi thorbiorn,

I don't think there is generally a problem at all with taking these sorts of tests, I was simply positing that it might be wise to closely examine your thinking about, and personal reaction to, such tests. Ultimately, it's your life and you can and should do exactly what you decide to do in all things, these tests included.

With that said, this response of yours sounds rather like an addict trying to bargain a way to continue to 'use' in order to prove something, either to him/herself or to someone else. Your response strikes me as just a bit odd in that it does indeed seem that you are quite invested in these tests, to the point that the thought of 'never' taking another one makes you a bit uncomfortable.

They are just internet tests - in and of themselves, they do nothing - it is your interaction with them (or dependency on them?) that is really the key point of interest here. Also, what exactly is this 'test of time' to which you'll be putting these tests - what criteria will you be using to see if they 'pass' this test? Is the criteria your own internal understanding of yourself versus what these tests indicate - in other words, an internal, subjective feedback loop? Or, do you mean posting them here for others to take as well? (if so, I'm sure you've noticed we post them in the 'tickle me' section)

So, my point is that it's really much less a question of the tests themselves than it is a question of how you interact with them, if that makes any sense at all, and if I'm mistaken about your lack of comfort with the idea of never taking another one (not that I'm suggesting you should never take another one), then I do apologize.

 

[thorbiorn]

Hi Anart,

Your response made me reflect on the reasons why I began the thread:

Can personality tests and interactives aid in work upon oneself?

The question arose after Aeneas in http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs … hp?id=7227 suggested to try out the 'Sheep Dash' game: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/sheep/ Having played a bit curiousity led to consider the page this game was place on.

and your response was if I have understood you:

They are just internet tests - in and of themselves, they do nothing - it is your interaction with them (or dependency on them?) that is really the key point of interest here.

Psychological tests are the results of work done in various fields of psychology. Some links one can look at to find out more details are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Now if one considers the Work, that is the theory of the various centers, their functions, their possible fusion and range of developement, then there appears, for what I know, to be a gap in understanding between the two styles of psycholgy, if one accepts that the Work is a type of psychology.

So one question is if it is possible to bridge this gap. What parts of the brain and nervous system reflect what centers. Can some of the psychological tests available help to identify the state of development of a center as described in the 4th way as well as indicate areas that may need to be balanced to function better.

The feed-back you have given me has helped me to formulate the question more clearly. But I do not think we have an answer yet, just as what I wrote in the previous post may not be the correct way to solve it.

thorbiorn

 

[anart]

Thank you, however, I'm very well aware of what 'psychological tests' are, and what purpose they serve in a clinical environment (which an internet site is not), thus my comments in this thread. My input thus far has been centered on your own focus and dependency on them.

There are no shortcuts - and dreaming takes many forms.

We have found psychology to be an integral part of the Work, and my original inquiry remains: to what extent, if any, are internet personality/psychology tests reflective of objective psychology, objective truth, or objective insight into one's own machine? To what extent can a test that applies to everyone; that uses broad definitions and criteria; that comes to formulaic conclusions based on generalities reflective of reality?

To what extent does focusing on and taking a myriad of such tests distract from Work on oneself; from looking within instead of without; from redefining instead of relying on mass-produced and mass-applied definitions? These are the questions, thorbiorn, and I don't think Wikipedia has the answers.

As far as 'bridging the gap' - the psychological books on the recommended reading list go a long way toward doing exactly that, and this is why we work so closely with such material. It is through psychology that we can access many of the keys to take us to a deeper understanding. However, not all psychology can be applied this way, because, as in every field of study, not all 'psychology' is relevant, true or helpful. And, thus, we come back to the question about 'internet tests'.

 

[henry]

Another way to put this, thorbiorn, is: are you just a consumer of these tests?

The various books that we recommend can be read and consumed as well. The question is, how do you read them? The books, if read slowly, thinking about the points they raise, can bring up memories related to important issues we are each dealing with. A phrase or a sentence can pack a punch that hits you in the gut. It is an emotional jolt that tells you there is something there to be looked at more deeply. It isn't simply an intellectual excercise, an attempt to master the theory.

So I would ask, when you do these tests, do you ever receive an emotional jolt, the feeling you have been suckered punched in the stomach that leaves you gasping for breath?

 

[thorbiorn]

Yesterday I picked up the three books of Mouravieff at the post office. It appears that reading these and others is the way to go, maybe some things that are not clear now will become.

thorbiorn

Before I posted the above short response, I had been working on a more full description of the experience/experiment, but I decided not to include it. It was then already after midnight. Before I got to lie down, I got a call from the people helping to guard the place that somebody was outside, so I had to call the security company. Nothing too serious so far, still visiting the country with the second highest murder rate one has to be careful. At least I was happy, that I was not sleeping. Would I have been less ready, if I had not been working on this issue? I do not know, in any case I shall submit some of the notes, as they say, FWIW:

Let me begin with the beginning, which was the sheep game: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/sheep/ found in
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7227
What I learned was:
1.the difficulty of the game is not uniform because, if sheep come from the lower right corner the view of which is cluttered by other sheep then it took me longer to catch them.
2.that if ones attention is steady and the sheep come in the upper ¾ area then they stopped after almost the same distance. However there were times when they did not and I found that it would be when my attention was wandering, even involuntarily. This discovery was of course not pleasant, (shock), because it happens at other times also. It is not that I did not know it, it is just I got to know it in a new way.
3.although I am right handed I could also within a short time train the left hand system to respond almost as fast still it was more comfortable with the right hand.
4.that the game is, if not considering just one game, a way of measuring reaction time. I have read else where that people that do a fair amount of games demanding reaction time, actually do become faster. This of course spills over in other areas of life, like driving skills, reading speed etc.

Next follww some from the list in the first post:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/
This test is about senses, the first ones are optical illusions. They show to some people that inferences based on perceptions can be mistaken under certain circumstances. There are 20 questions and one in particular I found very surprising if not humiliating. If taken just as a competition or for fun one looses sight of the point the test makes that sensual reading errors DO occur.

There is another which relates to the coordination of sight and hearing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/
One suggestion is given through the eyes and a different one through the ears. The task is to select the one that corresponds to reality. The lesson from this is that sometimes our perceptions of what is, are overruled by our expectation or the suggestion that we are given. For some people this is elementary, for me to actually experience this was disturbing.

When I read the Wave and found the transcript where it is explained how stroboscopic light may function as a hypnotic opener and that a suggestion can be put in at the time, over a radio for example, to not see ‘the craft’, I thought this was possible but not easy to understand. In this exercise the suggestion is there without the hypnotic opener and when I tried first time, it still worked on me. If anyone after reading this explanation, will try, they may experience a different outcome, than if they had not known, it will thus show that he who is forewarned is forearmed.

A remarkable experiment which is not so easy to fake is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/synaesthesia/see/ It is designed to discover if people associate a perception with more than one sense. Although it is said that this ability is often either there or not and often runs in families, I am still wondering, because if one remembers the other test, that showed that a suggestion may overrule a perception, with this one, that some perceive an object with two senses, like when seeing a sound or hearing a colour, one arrives at the hypothesis that some people may have this talent, but that it is overruled by suggestions fed in childhood. The implication in a broader context is that reading instruments naturally vary more from one person to another than we are brought up to consider, but that consensus reality reduces the variance.

One stomach churner test is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/disgust/index.shtml The test makers make at the end the suggestion that some of our feelings of disgust are biologically rooted and have as target the goal of self preservation. Whether this is indeed so I am still wondering but I remember seeing a sick animal staying away from its herd and dogs chasing off a skinny stray with one eye, parasites, and almost no hair.

The subject of the one picture I liked the least or which disgusted me the most I thought I had better investigate further and get to understand. I did and found out some more.

_http://www.sp01.com/micro/worms/index.htm
The same pictures with others can be found on
_http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Fun%20Stuff/fun_with_parasites.htm One can double click on the individual pictures to make them bigger,.and I think one should, if one wishes to really see the size of the problem, because 1.5 billion people has something like this.

A real player file that shows the removal of a worm:
_http://dave1.mgh.harvard.edu/ViewFilms.cfm?film_id=143
_http://www.metafilter.com/49752/Ascaris-lumbricoides has a forum with some comments and embedded links some of the pictures already mentioned.

The next page investigates the impact of round worms on human society:
_http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/n/c/ncj111/Human%20Impact.htm has one of the above photos. It is the black boy sleeping or under anaesthesia..

Another type of parasite is described on the Who site:
http://www.who.int/schistosomiasis/en/ No graphics easily available. However it does alert one to the reality that many, many people suffer.
To see more about the issue of parasites and cure _http://www.parasitecleanse.com/gallery.htm
_http://www.parasitecleanse.com/parasites.htm
_http://www.worldwithoutparasites.com/
_http://www.healthysigns.com/index.htm


Being satisfied with what I had found out about parasites I moved onto another.
In the lonelyhearts exercise, the idea is to imagine one is single and wishes to put out an ad for a partner. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/lonelyhearts/index.shtml

The difficulty was that there are many terms so one task is to put priorities and find the top two or three. If one intends to be true, rather than make an advertisement that is tilted or exaggerated then one needs to think carefully what characterises oneself, and what qualities one appreciates in others.

Who likes to be cheated, not me, but it happened also this time. The following has a few video clips and the task is to find out who is smiling and who is only pretending to smile: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml

Some of the memory surveys used an interesting technique. They flicked two pictures right after each other. The pictures were identical with the exception of one item. The task was on the basis of the short exposure to detect what was missing. In one instance though the second picture came only after some minutes. What I learned there was the need for ATTENTION, more attention, not so easy to get, but it is good to be aware of the need. It is not that I did not know but more that I realized what I might be able to notice if I had more of it..

Then there were the profile tests. They claimed to be designed to indicate what style of thinker one is, what type of personality one has primarily, and what types of job one would do successfully. In these it is the process of choosing between alternatives just that which describes most closely how one usually operates that is the difficult part.

At the same time one gets a view into what other options are available. What I could not determine was if the occasional difficulty of choosing was because I do not know myself, or because other alternatives would correspond better, if I had fewer programmes.

One of the sites has a picture of Leonardo da Vinci or a drawing of him. The page explains how this great man embodied in his life the qualities of many different personality traits. Leonardo da Vinci was one of my teenage heroes, I admired his versatile genius, and I think the inspiration the web page wishes to leave with the one who takes the quiz is that no matter what quality turns out to be predominant one should not think that the others are not there to some or even a great extend. Also even if they are not expressed perhaps one could enliven them more.

There was a questionnaire that was designed to show something about moral reasoning. Every question is a short description of a situation followed by several options. Again the hard part was the process of choosing the option that corresponded most closely. I am wondering if the pull between different options is a reflection of many I’s within, each raising a hand for its preference, or it is because in a normal situation in life the many choices are not even considered, because we do what we always do as impelled by habit and circumstance.

One last questionnaire to mention is the one about perfectionism: _http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/perfectionism/index.shtml The challenge lay in deciding on the influence of my parents in my childhood. I remember it, but to evaluate it is quite different.

 

[Rich]

Yesterday I picked up the three books of Mouravieff at the post office. It appears that reading these and others is the way to go, maybe some things that are not clear now will become.

I would certainly agree with you thorbiorn, there are so many distractions in this world and I have found reading the texts recommended on SOTT to be invaluable in working out how best to use the relatively little time we have left on this fragile planet.

 

[John G]

Now if one considers the Work, that is the theory of the various centers, their functions, their possible fusion and range of developement, then there appears, for what I know, to be a gap in understanding between the two styles of psycholgy, if one accepts that the Work is a type of psychology.

So one question is if it is possible to bridge this gap. What parts of the brain and nervous system reflect what centers. Can some of the psychological tests available help to identify the state of development of a center as described in the 4th way as well as indicate areas that may need to be balanced to function better.

Gurdjieff was into a geometry called the Enneagram which is related to the law of 3 and the centers. That geometry is a modern personality test. The math got me to a guy named Tony Smith and Tony got me to Ark thus I think of the Enneagram as an Oz that got me to Kansas. You are already in Kansas so you don't really need to hang out in Oz work-wise. As part of an appropriately sized entertainment budget, it's OK as Anart mentioned. I'm part of an Enneagram forum which occasionally gives me the chance to mention 4th Way stuff and link to SOTT without being thought of as totally crazy so I suppose that's a little work related.

To me the brain ends up a quantum information state at some point and the biology below that, like any biology, is not my strong suit. The part of a personality test related to the centers could kind of have two parts, the part you are born with and the part that gets developed/matured. Most personality tests I think are for the part you are born with. I know about theories for maturing/developing and I know one guy who made an experimental test for the purpose of measuring the development level but I don't know how successful the experiment was. He was a protestor for the Vietnam War and the Iraq War and some other things kind of took him away from his psychology work.

 

[thorbiorn]

Thanks John, I looked at your Website and got lost in the geometry, it is beautiful and intriguing. although I sense it would take me some time to understand it thoroughly. From what I read in ISOTM, Gurdjieff encouraged his students, to strive to understand the, what you call, Enneagram deeply.

Clicking around on the site of I found some excerpts that may help to understand what some of the resarch they do into Enneagram and MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) involves.

The relationship between Enneagram and MBTI systems

The Enneagram as MANDALA
This series of papers, written in 1999, explores the Enneagram AS SYMBOL. The Enneagram is presented as a classic mandala figure which also displays features that are characteristic of both the 'double mandala' and 'triple mandala'.

It was our intention in presenting this series to offer a new perspective on the relationship between two kinds of personality system. One system, represented by the Enneagram, emerged from spiritual traditions that seek to affect profound transformations of personality in the individual. The other, represented by the MBTI, arose from the psychologist's quest to understand the fundamental ways in which people differ.

We hope to have demonstrated how these two approaches to personality actually supplement each other. Given the right explanatory framework valuable information in one system can be translated into terms that are understandable in the other. Each can thus be used to advance the other's goals in ways that are not likely to otherwise occur.

The Wikipedia has two entries for Enneagram one is given above along with a link for MBTI, and the other is: Enneagram of Personality
Next something about the person who worked with developing the theory of the Enneagram of Consciousness

Walter J. Geldart

Walter Joseph Geldart is an enneagram scholar and writer. His Enneagram of Consciousness was developed with the purpose of integrating the modern enneagram personality type system with the original enneagram process model used by Sufis, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Bennett.

Walter received the Bachelor and Master of Electrical Engineering degrees from McGill (1958) and McMaster (1962), and he retired from Bell Telephone Labs (AT&T) in 1992. He received the Master of Divinity degree (Summa Cum Laude) from New Brunswick Theological Seminary in 1993.

Walter is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). He is a certified MBTI© teacher and a Riso-Hudson Certified Enneagram Teacher (with Honors). He has published several enneagram articles in Enneagram Monthly, Full Circle (Enneagram Institute), the Enneagram and the MBTI, and the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Walter is a member of the IEA's 'Realizing the Potential' team lead by Donald Fowke.

For some more personal observations on Walter and the qualities that contribute to his indomitable spirit and seemingly limitless capacity for exploring the outer fringes of creative theory-making, please see the article on Walter's 'fifth function' in this issue. And for more information about how he developed the 'Enneagram of Consciousness', see his essay on that subject.

Research application of theory

A Call for Art
Individuals with different personality types approach art in vastly different ways, and it is this phenomenon that we are looking to explore in the 'art and personality' column. If you show one of your pieces at our site, you may include a short bio and a link to a website of your choice, where people can see more of your work. Although we receive a modest number of visitors (approximately 200 folks a day), there is a steady stream of people coming to the site, and it is a select group that tends to have an interest in the arts.

In presenting work at our site, you may use your name or a pseudonym. Your participation will cost you nothing, and there's no 'catch'. We are simply interested in art, how people approach this work, and what, if anything, this has to do with personality type.

In order to participate, you would have to provide us with:

1. a computer file that displays your artwork (a '.jpg' file for visual art - approximately 320x415 pixels in size, and less than 50k - or a 'midi' or similar file for music). You do not lose your rights to the material, and the file will not be used in any other way than the one that is described here.

2. a short description of how you approach your art. We can provide you with assistance in doing this, if you want.
3. your MBTI and Enneagram types. These are the two personality systems that we are using. If you don't know what type you are, you can find out by answering an on-line questionnaire that will be provided to you, free of charge (in exchange for your participation). These two types of personality indicators are not 'tests', and do not presume to evaluate you in any way - they simply measure your preferences, and establish your personality type on the basis of these preferences.

If one, like myself is not an artist or has something to hand in there are still possibilities to evaluate ones type. Google gave for 'Enneagram type test' 220.000 hits; and for 'MBTI type test' 1040000 hits. Which among all these are of quality, that may be less simple to answer, but I am sure that among such a high number there will be some. However it is possible that they for the Enneagram of Conssiousness designed a particular test. Would you, John, know about this?

thorbiorn

 

[anart]

Yesterday I picked up the three books of Mouravieff at the post office. It appears that reading these and others is the way to go, maybe some things that are not clear now will become.

If one, like myself is not an artist or has something to hand in there are still possibilities to evaluate ones type. Google gave for 'Enneagram type test' 220.000 hits; and for 'MBTI type test' 1040000 hits.

Thorbiorn - why are you so desperately searching outside yourself for answers?

Your obsession with online tests has a certain vehemence that indicates a misuse of internal energy. You cannot look outside yourself for answers, thorbiorn - they are all inside.

 

[John G]

If one, like myself is not an artist or has something to hand in there are still possibilities to evaluate ones type. Google gave for 'Enneagram type test' 220.000 hits; and for 'MBTI type test' 1040000 hits. Which among all these are of quality, that may be less simple to answer, but I am sure that among such a high number there will be some. However it is possible that they for the Enneagram of Conssiousness designed a particular test. Would you, John, know about this?

thorbiorn

One thing to keep in mind is that neither Gurdjieff or Jung had tests for their models. Gurdjieff didn't even have a personality theory and even Jung didn't do anything more with personality theory for the last 40 or so years of his life. The MBTI was created for Jung's model by a mother-daughter duo while Jung was still quite alive but no longer working on personality models.

Testing is an incredibly imprecise science. Most everybody recommends reading the descriptions after you take a test to make sure there isn't a better description for you than the one the test came up with. Three of the four test links from that journal page you posted a graphic for, have a free test and they are as good as any to take before reading descriptions. Knowing your type and the other types can give you an appreciation for the motivations of others being different than yours but really it's much more for things like career counseling not The Work.

Geldart has papers in that journal and I have three papers in that journal and the journal's editor (John Fudjack) has lots of his own papers in the journal. We all have our own theories. Fudjack and Geldart are certainly more well known than me but they aren't the most well known. Claudio Naranjo, Riso & Hudson, and Helen Palmer would be three more well known theorists. Riso and Hudson own the Enneagram forum I post in and there's an interview with them in Fudjack's journal. Unlike with the MBTI, there's lots of different Enneagram theories around so I don't advise getting into the theory jungle either. Even the MBTI has subtypes now and I know almost nothing about them, the one thing I heard I totally dislike. I know a little more about Enneagram subtypes only cause of the forum I'm in but I mostly ignore them too cause I can't see any math in them. Stay Away, it's turning into a big ball of yarn just like superstring physics. Fudjack is my favorite theorist but it's more for things beyond personality theory, patterns that show up in physics/metaphysics aka things that do have math (Fudjack even interviewed Brian Greene, a well known physicist with a popular book and television specials).