On thesciencenetwork.org: "Find out why we're addicted to love" with anthropologist Helen Fisher. It's very long, and I could not find a way to link to the actual video -- it is currently on the main page.
On TEDtalks :
There's an interview here.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sex!
Got your attention?
On thesciencenetwork.org: "Find out why we're addicted to love" with anthropologist Helen Fisher. It's very long, and I could not find a way to link to the actual video -- it is currently on the main page.
On thesciencenetwork.org: "Find out why we're addicted to love" with anthropologist Helen Fisher. It's very long, and I could not find a way to link to the actual video -- it is currently on the main page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Very interesting clip. Ha yes, it got my attention.
I'll admit that I haven't watched the long video on the science network, but I have watched the one posted here from TED and I also saw Helen Fisher on The View a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure if I'm buying into her theory. It all sounds too pigeon-holey, although she does admit that we all have the four parts in varying degrees, sort of like True Colors. The View women, at least the ones with brains, i.e. Whoopie, Joy, and Barbara, didn't seem to be very happy being pigeon-holed either.
Just for the fun of it, I went to connections.com and did the test. I came out as a director (testosterone), to which I'm not sure I agree. She even asks the infamous finger length question, which is where I think I got the high testosterone score.
If you do take the test, don't forget to delete your account afterwards, unless, of course, you're looking for Ms. Right. :)
Saph, if you've watched the long video version, does she go into more detail about the differing types of pigeon-holes? :)
I agree with your assessment Oriented x4.
I wish I had seen that particular *The View* episode. (Ah, very true.."the ones with brains") :-}
I will take the test just to see the results. I'll comment on this later.
I put up the post while I was listening to the sciencenetwork talk. I decided to post it on the basis of what she said about the different circuitry for sex and love-drive.
Still, I only listened to half of it, and that was intermittent because of interference from multitasking in the same verbal mode. (I regularly multitask spatial and auditory, or instrumental music and verbal -- but those activities use non-competing brain regions.)
I found and embedded the TED talk without listening to it. When I came back to it, I was dismayed by her very nervous mannerisms and the poetry. Her comments about Plato smacked of searching for support for a pre-formed opinion - not a particularly scientific approach, but I guess that we can forgive this within the setting of an explication for a general audience.
I agree that pigeon-holing is too narrow an approach in the setting of comprehending individual psychology. I suspect that this simplistic approach was dictated by the context -- a dating matching system.
However, she obviously favours the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, and that sorts people's *interactions with the world* into 16 different categories.(Even then, I straddle four categories).
I don't watch The View, but I'd rather listen to the sciencenetwork talk again than go searching YT for The View.
Blue, I look forward to hearing what pigeon-hole you are placed into. I'll post the pertinent video of The View here as soon as I find it. Please feel free to call me Erin. It's much shorter than writing out Oriented x4. :)
Saph, I don't think Helen Fisher is using this simplistic approach just for the dating service. She has a new book out entitled, "Why Him Why Her" or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that she is selling out the scientific aspects of her research for make-a-buck pop-babble books. I will watch the longer video soon, but not tonight.
Out of curiosity I took the test. I came out as a director as well. Major personality type = DIRECTOR; Minor personality type = explorer.
Builder was the lowest percentage of the 4 personality types at 19%, whereas director was the highest at 32%.
Many of the DIRECTOR/explorer *characteristics* do match how I view myself though I agree with 'The View women with brains' in their displeasure at being pigeon-holed.
I did it. Did I ever mention that I hate doing these tests? Particularly, when I haven't had enough sleep! The choices never quite fit.
Anyway, here is mine:
Negotiator 29%
Director 28%
Explorer 27%
There's not much to pick between them is there?
...and last, but least
Builder 15%
The not-much-to-pick aspect fits with the fact that I score in the same percentile on verbal and spatial aptitudes, and score smack in the middle of right-brain/left-brain tests.
It fits with my "colors" - I'm green, blue, orange, gold. (The site even uses similar colors to code its types.)
In other words, their test appears to be externally consistent with other measures of personality.
I asked my beloved about the profile description that they generated, and she said "It fits you to a T".
These tests all just feed your self-perceptions about your priorities back to you. In that sense, they rely on self-awareness.
My specific breakdown is as follows.
Director- 32%
Explorer- 24%
Negotiator- 22%
Builder- 19%
If I remember correctly I believe my colors were green, blue, orange, gold.
Your results suggest that this inventory and True Colors do not match.
If anything I would think my *director* and *negotiator* percentages would have been closer.
Hmmm, ?this inventory and my True Colors do not match.
Dopey me. I hadn't gone to the Chemistry Profile page before I deleted my account, so I did the test again. These were my results:
Director - 30%
Explorer - 26%
Negotiator - 24%
Builder - 18%
My True Colors are green/blue (tied for all intents and purposes), orange, and a dab of gold.
I had to ask my spousal equivalent if the description of Director sounded like me. Apparently it does. :)
I was very, very sleep-deprived yesterday! I was muddling the chemistry profile’s green with True Colors green.
Judging by the descriptions that I put up, I think that they are actually reversed: TC blue *approximates* CP green, and TC green *approximates* CP blue. On the other hand TC orange = CP red, and TC gold = CP yellow.
I think that the difference between True Colors and the chemistry profile lies in their emphasis. The MBTI and TC are designed to assess styles of thinking, whereas the chemistry profile is aimed *more* at temperament.
However, temperament and styles of thinking do interact. Free will is not just a stupid Christian apologetic hedge, it is a reality.
Post a Comment