Like others here, since I learned a little more about the MBTI, I've found usefully predicatively, so I keep it in my pocket, always mindful of its limitations.

As for g, WW, I can't follow you there, sorry.

No one can describe it – or agree on a description – no one can accurately measure it or duplicate another's measurement, no one can offer a prediction based on it, no one can tie it in any meaningful way to anatomy or brain function – it's clearly phlogiston, a ghost. It doesn't exist.

Gladwell makes fun of it, but MBTI does work.

It strikes me that Gladwell has missed a critical flaw in most applications of the MBTI: obviously the test does not measure personality traits directly, but rather *self-conceptions* of such traits. While self-perception is certainly interesting in its own right, it is likely to be less variable than actual personality traits, and to (in the best case scenario) trail changes by a significant period of time as the psyche comes to acknowledge its own development.

In the worst case, self-perception can be a negative image of the mind’s workings. Take Ayn Rand, who gladly accepted the moniker “Ms. Logic”, shouted about “reason” all the time, and is always classified as an NTJ. Her revealed personality profile was emotional, intuitive, holistic, and hence far more compatible with F. (One site lists as a characteristic of T: “Accept conflict as a natural, normal part of relationships with people.”) And yet it’s easier to imagine a 5-dimensional cube than Rand anwsering a typical T/F question on the F side.

It might very well be that most libertarians test as NTs because much of the traditional ethical/political argumentation has been explicitly or implicitly premised on a society made up by such people.

well, what is “G” is an emergent property of transdomain interactions? let me elaborate, if you read the number sense by stanislaus dehaene you will note he reports that some patients with brain damage have lost the capacity for algebra by not geometry or vice versa. obviousy there is no “math module,” but various nodes or domains in the brain that work together to give on a capacity for mathematics. G, like mathematical ability, is distributed normally on a bell curve, this suggests that there are various independent factors that contribute to the full expression of the phentoype. these factors in the genetic sense are various genes who come in allelic flavors. in a neurological sense they are cognitive domains.

so yes, the mind is modular, we do have an analog number sense (infants to rats have a conception of bigger and smaller). but the digital mathematical capacity is an emergent property of the number sense being grafted on to language and visuospatial thinking (to name a few factors). the normal distribution is the result of the fact that people have various levels of fluency in the various module capacities.

anyway, that’s my theory.

I’ve never been able to conclusively decide, though, whether I am actually a libertarian or just incredibly paranoid….

New reader, BTW, I think was referred from GapingVoid but that was so many hours ago I’ve already forgotten.