That was one of the reasons I wanted to make the youtube videos as well, to leave a legacy. Hopefully I can motivate myself to keep working on it. Let me know if you're interested in sharing ideas or something. I don't think we will conflict too much since my channel will idealy be all over the place with talk about relationships and whatever other random things that interest me.
I really like your idea because I have a very similar idea (though the focus isn't just rationality). I've been planning to make youtube videos for a while, but have had difficulty getting myself to implement. I have outlines on topics I want to talk about already like you have here! The difference would be that I'm doing it more for myself than for those out there, because I don't expect my youtube video to get out much. My biggest hurdle currently is video editing.
When I read your content, it felt like I was reading a news article. The only thing that might be an issue with that, is that you may want to have a bigger impact on your video. I felt like if you talked about something that made me critically think more, then it would be more engaging (and hence more appealing). Like, maybe explain Bayesian thinking and how it works since your target audience probably doesn't know anything about Bayesian?
I appreciate looking into my point of view!
I see. I think I understand where the disconnect is here then. I'm making a claim that personality tests such as MBTI do not appear to be useful in general, and are potentially more harmful than they are helpful. My logic behind this is that it's basically a way to form tribes, and a way to create more bias. My example on psychologists in the reply just before this one is along the lines of what I'm thinking.
You did mention making useful predictions with your 5 color types, which was why I wasn't afraid to go with horoscopes as an example.
That's paraphrase seems to have taken quite a leap in what I was trying to say. I can elaborate if you'd like. It's just that this post doesn't appear much different from other personality tests that group people into categories. Psychology used to have a similar approach of trying to categorize people, but as they make more advance and learn how different everybody is from each other. They have learned to have a more open approach to people rather than a category to put them in and work from a bias to determine what steps to do next.
Grouping things into categories seems like a great way to form biases and have a limited scope of how to think about people. Do we really need to have another system that categorizes personalities?
This might seem like a harsh example, but horoscopes is an example of what this system reminds me of.
The overall picture I see with this, is that we are giving limited value to a word that could mean many things, and could be interpreted in many ways, when most things are more complex than this (especially people). Basically, it seems to me to be a vague way to express something. I personally am of the mindset that it's of a benefit to not group people into categories.
I do not see any graphs/images. Here is a sample of what I do see https://pasteboard.co/GPQoBL1.jpg
I'm on Google Chrome Version 61.0.3163.100 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Using Windows 7 v6.1
I'm also receiving this issue on IE, so it's more likely an issue where the images are blocked by the filter at work since it blocks most image posting websites. Sorry!
Am I missing something here? Why can I only see lines?
I like this particular subject because I've been thinking about this topic as well. I do believe that the typical definitions of extrovert/introvert are a bit misleading. Dissecting what it means may be of help. For instance, when we mean energy I would translate that to mental resources. My capacity to handle stressful tasks can deplete my mental resources more. So if I were to define introvert, it would be more along the lines of being with people depletes my mental resources, and visa versa.
I don't think people are necessarily an introvert or an extrovert. It's probably easy to identify as one and feel the effects because you expect them. However, everybody is very complex and different, so categorizing people into introvert and extrovert seems to be an oversimplification. I can be outgoing or not depending on my current emotional state, the circumstances, or how mentally taxed I am. Not necessarily because I have a tendency towards introvert or extrovert. For example, when it comes to hosting a board game day, I feel lot's of "energy" because I get excited and I enjoy the activity. I'm going to want to be more social so I can increase my chances of winning. If I'm at a party, I immediately feel bored and because of my experience in parties, typically don't even want to engage with people. I also can feel mentally depleted just for being at a party. Likely, because of the stress of having to look good and having to feel like I need to make a good impression. I can guess why people would feel a burst of "energy" at parties though. I'd say it's mainly the different expectations in the setting that would drain the energy. In either setting I've both experienced a lot of mental resources and sometimes not much. That's where I think I agree with the original poster. Certain people are going to deplete your mental resources more than others, but whether you trust them or doesn't seem to make difference. I trust my sister to a large degree, but that doesn't mean she doesn't stress me out given the right situation.