Peterkin

As far as I can see, we're already doing the second half of that, and have been for thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands - or millions. For all I know, rats dream their way to solving the locked cage problem. It seems to me that bringing the unconscious into the light and bending it to our waking will is a bad idea. Something like amputating your left arm and regrafting it to the right side of your body.

Well, fine. The results are the same, in whichever terms you couch the process. Where do you go from here?

Well, of course! How else can evolution work? Not directly. But both kinds of mental operation need, and have access to memory archives for their problem-solving. Experience is documented and filed away. New challenges are met by thinking, which makes use of the stored material, both in waking and dreaming.

That's because they're closely tied in two-way connection. Dreams can serve as a processing-station for newly-learned skills or facts, but they're not a conveyor-belt from short to long-term memory. A datum in short term memory only lasts a matter of seconds, before it's either filed in long-term or thrown away. The unconscious mind has access to all the same long-term memory content as does the waking mind, only it uses different criteria for retrieval and deployment of that material. It's the method of deliberate vs involuntary retrieval that accounts for our failure [or resistance?] to recall dream content. Possibly because dreams repurpose the same memories for a surreal imagery, according to the requirements of the issue the subconscious is trying to resolve, while the waking mind needs the memory content in its realistic form for practical, real-world application. In one realm, a cigar might be a minaret or an alien spaceship; in the other, it's just a smoke. Dreams are easy enough to remember in the dreaming state. "Oh yes, I've been here before. The bronze doe on the front lawn will raise her head in a moment, and the stag will come to attention as I walk along the flagstoned path. There are 8 shallow steps up to the double doors. The hall is illuminated in soft yellows, greens and blues by the tall stained glass window...." They're hard to remember when the state changes to waking, because they have no meaning, no place in this realm. Not always. Sometimes it triggers a memory - and maybe that memory has a relevance to some current problem, or maybe it's just entertainment, or self-verification. I believe that identity - self-imaging, inspection, verification, validation, amending and redefining - is one of the main functions of dreams. Which is why keeping a dream log is so important in managing chronic illness and in major life changes, like marriage, parenthood and bereavement, as well as intended changes in behaviour, like weight-loss or sobriety. But that's by the way. But the brain doesn't disconnect from the body during sleep. It still receives sensory input from the nerves and still retains a vestige of self-preservation. But the muscles are "in the shop" as it were; temporarily out of service while undergoing repairs. So there is no automatic response to discomfort or even danger, as there would be when one is awake. Sometimes a situation arises, where the non-thinking brain has to get in touch with the conscious mind and send a message: "Wake up. You need to take control. Action required." That's what some discomfort dreams are for: warnings to close the window, go to the bathroom, take your head off that arm, go see why the drain is rumbling, leave the burning house, or whatever. Other times, you may be perfectly comfortable physically and have a bunch of weird dreams that don't seem to have any relation to your life. The mind throws up questions - randomly or in response to some trigger in waking experience - that one has not consciously answered, anxieties that are never quite laid to rest, unresolved feelings, unfinished ideas. I know what that recurring dream I referred to earlier means. It was one of several houses I used to visit that had something in common: one room, on the second floor, at the rear, with glazed doors that gave onto a shallow balcony and looked out on a sunny vista (the front of the tall, foreboding red brick mansion was all in shadow). That room was unfurnished and had grass and daisies growing on the floor and it was reserved for me. I never knew or who owned the rest of the house, just so my room was ready when I came to visit. When I go there, it means I've come to a conclusion about something or made a decision in real life. For me, decision-making is always represented by architecture. Where I am with a problem determines which structure I wander around in at night. Anxiety and worry come in the form of dependents - children or animals usually - and I'm responsible for them, have to save them from some imminent threat, have to rescue, help or repair them.

Evolution is not supported by evidence? I grant the "millions of years" is incorrect, but ignored it, allowing as it can contain multiples of millions. Well, I thought positing a 'pinnacle' to evolution and putting humans on the way toward it, assumed that evolution proceeds from 'down' to 'up', as expressions of value, rather than mere complexity or diversity. If I accept "up", I would have to accept "top" and I can't do that.

No, I wasn't referring to the result of the test being useful, but to the very taking of it, individually can lead into unaccustomed introspection (It's not generally encouraged or facilitated by corporate culture, or mainstream culture, for that matter.) Taking it as a group, it can serve as a starting-point (and excuse) for a discussion, which then reveals facets of people that their family, classmates, teammates or colleagues had not considered when dealing with them. The test is neutral; nobody has to feel like they're in the searchlight, if you see what I mean. I have not experienced any of this myself. My work environment was quite different from an office; though equally hierarchical and rule-bound, a different kind of organization. I get the business information from friends who spent their working lives in office culture (in tech and clerical positions) and some understanding of the trend-cycle from handling many of these "successful -management-through-7-sure-fire-tricks" books.

The evolution part is supported by evidence. The rest relies on assumptions that are not supported by evidence: 1. Evolution is directional 2. goes upward - and 'up' means something significant other than complexity 3. that it has a 'pinnacle' or terminus 4. that humans are heading toward it 5. that humans are 'intended' to reach that terminus 6. that humans are 'intended' by a god So, half science half faith. Fusion sometimes works, for some purposes, in some situations - but I wouldn't count on it in matters of religious dogma.

Fashion. Executives are so trend-driven that anyone can sell them the next-and-latest software, the next-and-latest book on leadership skills, the next-and-latest security protocol... Every buzz-word rips through whole industries like a dose of salts, reliably, every three years. Not using a personality test would be like using Windows 7 (the one that worked without crashing half your other programs or popping unwanted suggestions in your face every ten seconds*) or posting memos on a cork board instead of sending out a blanket email to the whole department - nobody does that anymore. Testing looks and feels scientific; it proves you've been conscientious and non-discriminatory in your hiring practice; the company can wear it like a scout badge. Does the head of the department to which a new employee is assigned know what type that new personality is arriving? Does he make any preparation or accommodation for that special type? Does he warn the team what behaviours to avoid? Unlikely. But - and this is a surprise to me - I have learned that these tests are useful in several ways: to individuals as an aid to self-analysis, perhaps even self-realization; to working teams as a base for discussion when they have obstacles to communication and co-ordination, and to leaders (all kinds - parents, teachers, managers, coaches) to help track down the source of weakness in performance, without being overly intrusive or personal. Very possibly, such a test can even identify persons in need of support or counselling, before they go off the deep end. (* sorry! on-going issues with Microsoft....)

"Use" of them seems to be a general fashion. But do any studies have data on whether the tests are a decisive constant in candidate selection? My suspicion - without ever having been privy to the deliberations of a personnel director - is that, while outliers (test results that are extremely lopsided) may flag candidates they don't want to take a chance on, they'll generally glance at the test, say, "Another EFSJ, but how fast can she learn a new platform?" and thumb through the references.

Oh, it's completely objective. At least to the degree that candidates are candid. To me, that's what also makes it meaningless, exactly because it's vague and general. This might be a good way to select the correct size and type of cement mixer, but it doesn't tell you how a person will behave in a given situation, any more than it predicts how soon the starter switch on the cement mixer will short out: manufacturers list the specifications in the catalogue, not the design flaws. It tells you personality types , not individual weaknesses, quirks, how individuals will interact with the particular environment. It tells the personnel officer nothing that the candidate could not tell her - and does it in less revealing terms. Does the result of the test actually determine who is hired? Is there a policy of taking only ESTJ,s or filling an INTP vacancy? Or do they file away the test, and hire someone on the basis of his resume, recommendations and the impression he made on the interviewer?

I can see why you'd expect that tests devised by different teams would yield different results. But then, on further consideration, might we not conclude that they are all designed for the same purpose, and perhaps the questions are probing for the same kind of answer. I have a quite old book of aptitude tests, that are supposed to spot what a student's talents are, and they tend to come up with much the same result for the same student. So I'm guessing they're all accurate n the same way, and for the same reason: You know who you are; you know what you prefer - all they're asking is that you list your likes and dislikes. The employer could do so directly, but they use the indirect method of giving you a test, for the appearance of scientific objectivity.

I can picture your founding fathers looking down on this travesty of American governance and say to one another "What have we wrought?" Would they immediately fall to hitting one another with mallets over who was wrong to make what additions to those documents?

That's a high level of self-confidence. Most people can't afford to be cocky about whether they're accepted by an employer or not; they just need the job. So they'll pretend to be that non-disruptive, manageable team-player the company is most likely looking for, and will usually try very hard to be that kind of person, at least at work. And that's why they drink, yell at their kids, sleep poorly, get ulcers and early heart attacks.

You usually have an idea what kind of job you're applying for. I might pretend to be more consistent, more persevering and to focus more on work than I actually do. I might be tempted to lie about my strong tendency to procrastinate and my general aversion to other people. Only about half a dozen questions. But I could tell those lies more glibly in a verbal interview than on a scale of agreement, and maybe that's the point: you can't charm or bamboozle an impersonal test. They're not likely to tell you - if the personnel manager even knows. I guess all candidate selection is discriminating (like selecting a meal from a menu) and some companies may have a poli8cy of discrimination for or against a minority, but that wouldn't show up in a personality test. They may want to exclude loud, fun-loving extroverts who could be disruptive, or look especially for innovative, curious people. Most commonly, they just want good 'team players'. (Or used to... Back in my working days, that was the most used phrase in managerial parlance, just in front of 'user-friendly' and behind 'result-oriented'. They have their boxes, too.)

Maybe so, but good/bad, positive/negative are not what personality tests are for. Extrovert and Introvert do not mean indiscreet and secretive, they just refer to how sociable one is by inclination. They're equally capable of lying and keeping secrets. Because you asked a question I thought I could answer - about the personality test.

No, of course not. They are all neutral. They're characteristics that all humans have, and what's being measured is the proportion in which the subject uses them in his approach to life. You can be Extroverted and good or bad. You can use Thinking for to benefit or harm others. You can be an equally faithful lover whether you're more Intuitive or more Perceiving. You might want to present a different front to a potential employer if you know what they're looking for. Some people still wouldn't lie, out of pride or integrity or because it's not important enough to them, or because they really believe the test indicates whether they would be happy in a job. Some people might have an image of themselves that they consciously or unconsciously want to support, so they'll interpret the questions in the way they prefer to answer. The answers are on a sort of scale: you can agree strongly or weakly, and there are qualifiers like "a lot" and "regularly" and "often" that you can quantify for yourself. It's imprecise enough to leave plenty of room for variations. I just gave the most lukewarm responses I truthfully could, and ended up with INTP-T ; 84% Introverted, 55% Intuitive, 54 % Thinking, 74% Prospecting, 61% Turbulent, I mostly agree with that, and would have chosen all of those designations except Prospecting, which is a category that seems to contain elements I would designate differently. I disagree with some of their percentage calculations, based on insufficient information. And that's the weakness of the test: it's far too limited, both in the scope of the questions and in the categorization of traits. If I hired an assistant on the basis of this test, it might warn me that they're sensitive to criticism, but not that they'd retaliate with verbal abuse. As a predictor of behaviour, it's useless, because behaviour is individual and situational.

That's a very interesting question. Zapatos remarked early on: Do we all tend to assume that?

I hope it's not because I suggested that you know more about yourself than the Briggs people do! Initially, my question was simple aimed at whether the test revealed anything about you that was surprising. It was curiosity, not ridicule. I only asked because my general impression is that people can tell you about themselves without long questionnaires. But, when they have nothing to lose by it, people also like doing quizzes, enjoy having some aspect of their character reflected back. I'm not sure why that is - maybe it's like talking to the mirror on the wall. In that sense, it can also benefit the test-taker by reminding him of behaviours that could be modified. I've never believed that these personality tests administered to prospective employees are particularly useful; I think they are an invasion of privacy, and I'm very much against them as a condition of being considered for a job. The applicant is qualified or not; their inner self, or self-image is no employer's business. But I can see that such tests - in fact, now that I think of it, any of those quizzes they used to have in magazines - may be helpful in starting a discussion among peers, colleagues, teammates, even families, to promote better understanding. I can't speak for anyone else, but I gained some insight from this discussion.

No surprise there! If you already knew what type you are, the interviewer could just have asked you to tick off characteristics from a list. All the test does is go the long way around. The questions are transparent, but also blurry: the real answer is neither Yes or No, but Sometimes, or Depends how much they annoyed me the day before, or Only when my feet are cold. And because the answers can only be approximate, so is the result - the way S M L XL clothing fits. That's true. It's impersonal and - as far as you're concerned - objective, so you don't take offense, don't go defensive, as you might if a life partner, sibling or teammate made the same observation. This is an aspect of personality tests I had not previously taken into account. In this kind of assessment, the outcome is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. It's just sorting, like blood-types: there are no good and bad ones, just categories of equal value. The idea is to see what environment you're best suited to and not hire you if you're the wrong type for their environment, because the employer won't adjust anything to you. In the old days, you were simply expected to adapt. Now, they want to save themselves any possible unpleasantness by saying right off: "It doesn't look like a good fit." So applicants who know what the employer wants lie on the test. We're only honest on these things when we have no vested interest in the result.

Distilling is a different proposition from just fermenting alcoholic beverages. Stills, especially home-made ones, can be unsafe. https://diydistilling.com/is-distilling-alcohol-at-home-dangerous/ I think the law attempts to address two potential hazards: to the moonshiner and possible his guests, and to the economy. If the distillery is poorly made or maintained, there is significant danger of burns, poisoning, injury from flying debris, etc. If it is successful, and unlicensed, the distiller may attempt to sell his product and evade the tax - which, former presidents notwithstanding - was already illegal. In Canada, you can apply for a license, and there are some small distilleries. https://learntomoonshine.com/is-it-illegal-to-make-moonshine-in-canada/ Looks like in the States, too. https://www.southernliving.com/travel/boutique-southern-distilleries

It's not dementia. It's a loosening of inhibition due to several factors: You've come to realize that you know more than a lot of the younger people around you; you've had time to test your abilities and judgment, and so you have more confidence in your own ideas and convictions; you don't second-guess yourself as much. Also, what others think of you matters less than how you see yourself. And every dishonesty or copout diminishes you in your own estimation. Yes, I do think it's a natural process of maturation. But there is another factor in our current, very noisy environment: we see how outspoken, decisive people in power are screwing up with impunity and seem completely unabashed by this. And there is a what-the-hell attitude in media, unedited language on social platforms: it seems that one cannot be heard in what we were taught is a normal, polite tone of voice. Apropos of which, it would be interesting to see, not only pre- and post- lockdown results of the same test, but results of the same test at 20 year intervals. And I also agree that any exercise that generates honest communication in a group is worth trying. I wonder whether a poorly-performing football team would benefit from taking one of these tests and discussing the results.

My father built a little still in our kitchen one time. He made wine in the hall closet, and it wasn't very good, so he tried making brandy out of it. Very little distillate off the lid, most of it went back in the wine, which got stronger, not better. So he constructed a still with copper coil inside a container of cold water (can't recall what it was made of) and got a steady drip. Lots of work, lots of mess, lots of time, and I have no idea how it tasted. Eventually he gave it up and went to the LCBO for his daily medication.

You know the old adage that begins, "In this world, there are two kinds so people..."? Four kinds of people, whatever. It's tempting to categorize everything according to a system. And it's not that difficult: once you compress all the possible reasons for an observable behaviour (picks fights or avoids confrontation) into a 'character trait' (aggressive; passive) and if their behaviour doesn't fit neatly enough, you can invent expressions like 'passive-aggressive' (how do they argue with that?) Then you can group related traits (as expressed in simple answers to simple questions) and call each grouping a 'type'. Then you can aim the questions on a test to those types, rather than let the subject answer in their own words. That's my guess. Now, I'll go read the article. Interesting. I've read something similar for an earlier discussion of the same subject. But it gave me this If you were asked just this question: Under which heading do you see yourself? How many could not answer it without the multiple choice? How old are you? I have noticed that, as people approach the point of 'nothing left to gain' (and thus, less and less to lose), they tend to be more ready to throw off the constraints of social convention, caution, deference. It's possible that the generation in which I particularly noticed this was my parents', and they certainly had a lot more limits imposed on them than my generation did, but I'm now finding the same tendency in myself. At least, my language has definitely coarsened. (But maybe that's just the influence of forums...)

Not as much

Were the results of the tests a surprise to you? Did they reveal anything you had not known about yourself and could not have articulated, if someone asked: "What kind of person are you?" Or even if they just named the categories and asked you to pick one?