Racist Assholes

Are racist assholes racists who happen to be assholes, or are they racist because they are assholes?

This is an important question! That assholery and racism are associated is something that doesn't need a citation - (but here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005 - students with more self reported 'dark triad' traits also had more prejudice) are some anyway), but this . And if you we're just trying to avoid racists / assholes in our lives (as we should) then I suppose that's good enough. But if we're trying to be anti-racist, to build a good, free, and egalitarian society, then the causal relationship is important.

For the asshole will always be with us. But, if the racist asshole is a racist who happens to be an asshole, then racism (in the narrow sense of personal prejudice) isn't an unsolvable problem - their prejudice might be eliminated, and their misanthropic sadism and sub-clinical psychopathy will not be on account of or directed by what the literature bowdlerizes as 'racial animus', 

If on the other hand, racist assholes are racists because they are assholes, then the racist, too, will always be with us. For thousands of years prophets have thundered against assholery to little effect, so I'm not holding my breath on moral progress for humanity in general.

Then, there is of course option C: racist assholes are racists first and then become assholes.

The causal mechanism there seems straightforward; people becoming their masks, a creeping dehumanization as a person learns how easy it is to be indifferent to the suffering of others, to inflict thoughtless and casual cruelties...

But I'm skeptical of this for a few reasons. 

1) since Americans are much less racist today than we were in the past. When I was born most Americans explicitly disapproved of interracial marriages. Now almost no-one disapproves. If the causal arrow went the other way, we'd see much less assholery in American life. This does not appear to be the case.

2) People are great compartmentalizers. White people frequently have an experience of socially interacting with bigoted relatives (witness the perennial "how to deal with your racist uncle this Thanksgiving" articles) who are nevertheless interpersonally caring and loving - to some people.

Instead suspect the second case is true, and here is my reasoning in the utmost brevity: haters gonna hate.

Assholes want to dislike people. If people are dislikeable, if they are "assholes", then to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate and otherwise "be an asshole" towards them is, well maybe not morally right, but "fair play" or some such.  People engage in ego-defense [https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.652] and motivated reasoning - thus if there is a desire to hate some rationale, however flimsy, must be provided; "reasoning" from the premise "I am good" to the conclusion "fuck those people" with so much lorem ipsum in between.

And we are lazy, we humans. When we think we first reach into our box of heuristics, and seldom reason carefully. We like to essentialize and generalize. People more like the asshole require more elaborate explanations for why they suck, but for members of the outgroup a set of tropes and justifications for prejudice are ready made. So when an asshole wants to hate someone who happens to be Black, they don't hate that person as an individual, but do the cognitively easier thing, the simpler thing, and hate them because (or perhaps 'because') they are Black.  Thus the racist, like the misogynist and the anti-Semite, might be forced into hiding by social pressure, but will always be with us.

That anyway is my theory. But what of the evidence? Two papers I've stumbled across inform my thinking here, though neither get at the question directly. And suppose unless IRBs are going to start approving railroad spikes through the brain really good experimental evidence is going to be hard to find.

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202073-1.pdf examines how popularizing anti-immigrant rationales (e.g. "immigrants commit more crimes" from Lott 2018 [n.b. Lott is a crackpot]) leads to "anti-minority behavior". They examine and reject the hypothesis that popularizing these rationales is persuading people to prejudice (consistent with my theory) and instead find that the articulation of rationales reduces the "social cost" of prejudiced behavior. E.g. "Wow I didn't know there were so many of us haters, let the freak flag fly."

That's also consistent with my theory, but consistency, of course, is not enough.

The paper that got me thinking about all this was "Conservatism and Fairness in Contemporary Politics: Unpacking the Psychological Underpinnings of Modern Racism" by Carney and Enos. They found people who have negative attitudes towards racial minorities have (different) negative attitudes than those they have towards other groups.

Sailing

It often seems to me that the world is an ocean of suffering as wide as space and as deep as time; and by some collection of miracles we have built for ourselves a ship, and raised ourselves out of that dark water of pain. Some of us have even managed to become dry. Now we sail that ocean of suffering looking for that dry land they call Utopia. The ship leaks - all ships do - and we pump out the water as best we can.

Now and again a storm comes, or some rogue wave threatens, and we try to keep the ship afloat, though we're splashed in that liquid horror. We work on the boat when we can, pull aboard whoever we can, and what was once a little raft is now a mighty vessel. But it leaks - all ships do. If we keep sailing, perhaps someday we'll find land. Or perhaps there is no dry land, and the best we can hope for is a dry boat.

Harry Potter and the Pre-Modern Economy

The paper is divided up into sections, and so I will divide up my blogging about it - but I will not be discussing them in the same order.

Section 3: Why Stories matter

That "stories matter" is a common trope. Understandably this is a popular view among professional storytellers who (like everyone) like to think their work is important and "matters" in some especial way. This is also a fairly expansive view among the public because they (ok, ok! we) like to hear and read stories and so would like to think such activities are meaningful and more than mere diversion. No doubt it helps that so many skilled story-tellers can make incorporate the trope into their work (to better and worse effect). So much effort on the part of the audience is expended in understanding stories, breaking them down for analysis and criticism, mining them for subtext, and generally also treating them as something that "matters".

But is that a huge waste of time? Is it actually true that stories matter?

The authors argue yes and cite academic literature support them. For the sake of discussion we can just take it as given, but I'd like to mention my gladness at seeing this is actually at least somewhat supported.

And if stories matter, then the Harry Potter series - which have sold more copies than any other text(s) besides the Bible and the Sayings of Chairman Mao (cite)) matters hugely in either shaping how people think about economics (or at the very least laying out a folk theory of economics)

Section 5: the monetary system makes no goddamn sense

The wizards use commodity money with fixed exchange rates [1 gold galleon / 17 silver sickles / 29 copper knuts] with denominations that are prime numbers.  

This appears verrrry non-sensical. Denominations in prime numbers is literally the worst possible way to do it. Old fashioned coinages were often in denominations that have many factors, so you could have intuitive divisions of half-pounds, quarter pennies, etc. (like traditional imperial units) or decimalized (like metric units) for easy calculations. Presumably these prime numbers where chosen because they have some kind of numerological significance hidden from muggles.

Wizards and arbitrage

The exchange rate  with muggle money is also fixed (at a quite low value). Arbitrage appears not to be happen though. Any wizard could take a weight of galleons, melt them for the gold, sell the gold for cash, buy silver with the cash, have goblins mint the silver into sickles, and exchange the sickles for a greater weight of gold than they started with.

Since the currency appears stable, presumably the goblins prevent this by magic or some other means.

Why are all the prices so round and so stable?

High transaction costs, little competition, and of course writing with round numbers is easier. 

The money is made of heavy metal that people can't really cart around (I don't think the wizards have purses of holding (link) although they have similar magic so I wonder why not) and its a huge pain (by design) to make withdrawals from Gringotts so nobody wants to make change or carry more cash than they need.

Historically such a problem would be solved by a private banks issuing banknotes, or merchants issuing letters of credit. Presumably this isn't done for some sort of legal (such things are illegal) or magical (perhaps the goblins can only identify fake currency if its made of metal) reason.

The lack of competition is indicated by the fact that prices can be set by sellers for their own convenience, and is suggested by the great age  and small size of so many businesses.

WTF is up with Gringotts?

Gringotts the only bank (at least in wizarding Britain) and it is not by wizards, but by goblins - a minority despised (or at least disliked) because they are selfish, greedy, usurious. I'm sure there's not any subtext there, no-siree.

Gringotts does not make loans. Goblins who work there do - at high interest rates. What Gringotts does is protect money, and control the money supply by minting coins, fighting counterfeiting and acting as a clearinghouse for exchanging wizard money and other valuables (including muggle money). Perhaps this is how they prevent arbitrage.

The wizards appear to view financial services as immoral. If you need cash now you borrow from a friend, who wouldn't be so crass as to charge interest. Or you try your luck gambling. Only the truly low and desperate would borrow money with interest - and only the wicked would lend with it

9. Income inequality and social immobility

The author's section on this topic begins: "The wizards’ society is composed of a large middle class and small elite. The middle class wizards earn enough to live comfortably but not enough to save. They therefore work almost their entire lives. Wealthy wizards enjoy a luxurious life style, and own almost all the assets and capital (Rowling 1999a, p. 19)"

This, however is only true if we think of the wizard's society as consisting only of  wizards. But those humans who have no magic (like Hagrid who was deprived of it as a punishment or Argus Filch who was born without it) are distinctly lower class.

And then there are the "magical creatures". Of these goblins are the only ones who might be called middle-class, but are clearly have less social status and political power than humans. Most other intelligent humanoids appeal to live outside of wizarding society and have not clear place in the class structure (although given the contempt wizards have for them I doubt their place is very high).

And then there are the house elves. A whole category of intelligent beings held in bondage and servitude. Hogwarts reputedly owns hundreds, and wealthy families like the Malfoys and Blacks all own at least one (possibly more). 

So its clear that while there is tremendous inequality among wizards, when you look at their whole society the picture grows even worse - oppressed classes of people considered sub-human, a middle-class perched precariously on the edge of ruin, and a small clique of ancient, rich elite families who dominate society, the economy and the state.

And how does this elite perpetuate itself? 

Endogamy - The big families only marry among themselves, and if a member does marry or even associate with the middle class they are disowned.

Patronage networks - that loan from nice Mr. Malfoy might not have interest, but someday, and this day many never come (spoiler: that day always comes), he will ask you for a favor. But of course if you do something he doesn't like, then all that money will be due at once.

Violence - Note who the Death Eaters are (wealthy families and their clients) and who they target (muggle-born wizards and their allies - i.e. the middle-class and their sympathizers among the elites)

Rent-seeking and the capture of the state - read on:

Section 6 Government

Consider the following: “What would you think of a government that engaged in this list of tyrannical activities: tortured children for lying; designed its prison specifically to suck all life and hope out of the inmates; placed citizens in that prison without a hearing; ordered the death penalty without a trial; allowed the powerful, rich or famous to control policy; selectively prosecuted crimes (the powerful go unpunished and the unpopular face trumped-up charges); conducted criminal trials without defense counsel; used truth serum to force confessions; maintained constant surveillance over all citizens; offered no elections and no democratic law making process; and controlled the press? You might assume that the above list is the work of some despotic central African nation, but it is actually the product of the Ministry of Magic.” Barton (2006, pp. 1523–1524)

The authors say "The Potterian government is corrupt and inefficient." This is true - from a certain point of view. But from another, it misunderstands what the Ministry of Magic is for. It is not an institution for "promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense" it is, really, "committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie elite wizarding families"

Thus the government appears corrupt - with protectionist measures being put in place by officials in exchange for bribes, e.g. banning magic carpets to protect British broomstick makers, or preventing the importation of cheaper foreign cauldrons. But while those measures are contrary to the public interest (which is for less groin strain and cheaper magical implements) it would harm the elites. And the point of the Ministry if to serve those elites.

Thus sections 7, 8, 10, 12 of this paper which describe the lack of rule of law (since rule of law might get in the way of the rule of elites), the many monopolies (which are presumably formally or informally maintained by the elite-captured state) in wizarding Britain, and the lack of technological progress for any goods that aren't for the leisure of the elites (innovation would disrupt the elites' monopolies, after all).

The authors claim that the government is the main employer of wizards - that the public sector is large and a main employer. But they don't cite any particular evidence for this. It seems likely that the ministry is the largest employer of wizards we see but see section 13 for a possible reason why that might be selection bias.

But what does the Ministry do? Mainly law enforcement (there are the Aurors, the Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects, the Office of the Improper Use of Magic, the Office of the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, the Office of the Magical Law Enforcement, etc.) and cooking up regulations to enforce that benefit magical elites.

Consider the cauldron ban. Given that wizards can travel instantly or near-instantly across the globe (and the Ministry is as a practical matter is unable to prevent this) people buying or smuggling those cheaper foreign cauldrons must be a serious problem for the British cauldron-makers - to be dealt with using the government's pervasive surveillance state.

13. Investment in human capital

Hogwarts is essentially something between a lyceum and a trade-school. A peculiarity given the weakness of the state in wizarding Britain is that this is free universal public education. 

Except maybe it isn't! JK said in other contexts that home-schooling is widespread, and given the slow pace of changing knowledge and low-levels of specialized education its quite plausible that wizarding parents could school their children at home at least as well or as safely as Hogwarts. Note that Harry is not ordered to attend Hogwarts, but is accepted and expected to pay for his own (sometimes quite expensive!) equipment. Public education isn't quite "free" and since it isn't compulsory I doubt its actually universal.

My speculation is that Hogwarts does not educate all the children of wizarding Britain. Rather, it mainly educates the muggle-born (like Hermione), since untrained wizards in muggle society are dangerous and could blow the cover of the wizarding world, the children of government employees (like the Weasleys), and members of elite families (like Harry).

Recall that the government of magical Britain is corrupt and inefficient,  a  "public" school that mainly educates the children of rent-seeking elites and rent-seeking government employees seems like exactly the sort of thing they'd do. This would have the added effect maintaining ties within the elite networks that control the government apparatus.

The fact that nobody has needed new textbooks in generations indicates that knowledge advances slowly or not at all (and given the lack of mathematics classes, there's hardly a store of sure universal truth), or, more cynically, that teaching children new things is not the actual point of Hogwarts.

11. War (economics)

At the climax of the series, when the second wizarding war breaks out, the Ministry is caught totally unprepared to fight, and scrambles for materiel (no doubt obtained by a combination of straightforward appropriation, given the non-existent rule of law, and self-dealing war-profiteers).

Nevertheless the Ministry is too weak to prosecute the war against the Death Eaters - since a government capable of fighting the Death Eaters (a clique of elite wizards and their clients) would be powerful enough to compel the elites to do things they don't want to if the middle-classes should ever get a hold of it. 

Thus the second wizarding war is essentially a factional struggle between two cliques of elites and their clients. Doubtless Harry doesn't think of his comrades in the Order as clients, but  a patron-client doesn't preclude, and indeed often coincides with, friendship. Fred and George need that loan for their joke shop, and Harry obliged, and now they owe him a favor (or many favors) in exchange.

14. Conclusion 

Throughout this paper the authors draw parallels between the Marxian and Potterian views when analyzing the economy. But I think they are off in their read here. The economic views of/in Harry Potter are in fact, medieval more than Marxian. The Jews goblins are considered wicked by ordinary peasants wizards because they operate outside of the economy of patronage and gift-exchange, where questions of status and group-membership, are supreme over market considerations. The state is run by and for elites, who are more than anything else stationary bandits aiming to maintain themselves as a leisure class rather than a commercially-oriented bourgeoise. Economic and social status is largely hereditary, with a small elite lording it over everyone else. The (hypothetical) non-elite children are schooled at home by their parents. The only people you can count on to protect your life and property are your kin and your patron. The unfree house-elves are happy with their unfreedom, and not really suited to liberty, and certainly not equality. Real money goes *clink* when you drop it on the ground.

Now this is weird because that's not a completely off-the-wall descriptions of the pre-modern economy worked and how the people in that economy thought of things.

But fiction is a mirror and so presumably this is meant to reflect some folk understanding of  how modern economies work (roughly speaking, in developed countries). And they don't work like that! Real money doesn't have to go  *clink* when you drop it on the ground! Slavery is bad! The state is probably more reliable than your cousins when it comes to keeping you safe and your stuff from being stolen! There's a non-zero amount of upward social mobility! Economic elites (at least pretend to) actually work for their fortunes! The state is more than a stationary bandit that robs people - it also works for social welfare (I mean we actually have a universal education system)! That state does actually care at least a bit about what non-elite people think! The economy is based on market transactions not subsistence and social relationships!

If I'm allowed to speculate (and since this is my blog I am) my guess is that this folk-understanding of the economy evolved over the millennia of the pre-modern period and then stuck around as we entered economic modernity, even as it became less accurate.

Shit Your Mom Could've Told You

There's a joke that isn't mine and it goes like this:

A man goes to get a Ph.D. in economics. Because he is a good son, from time to time he calls his mother.

His mother asks him the same question she has asked for more than 20 years now:

"So what are you learning in school" 

He then begins to explain search models of unemployment.

"You need to go to grad school to learn that people don't want shitty jobs? I could've told you that!"

---

And indeed she could have. Because in the social sciences every result is one of two kinds: shit your mom could've told you, and shit your did tell you but she was wrong.

And neither of these is a failure!

Any sort of scientist will be pleased to explain why the second kind is good news - you're exploring the frontier of knowledge, publishing new papers, winning grants, etc.

But in the social sciences, the first is also good news! Because it means that your (implicit) mental model of human behavior, of the society in which you live, isn't off. It means that you haven't been making systematic mistakes in your dealings with the system which above all others sustain your life!

Thus the only bad result is one that can tell you neither - which means that the experiment was underpowered and probably shouldn't have been done in the first place. 

---

You might disagree with the importance I have put on a good mental model of other people.

Witness the tremendous persistence of "woo" and "pseudoscience" in the modern age. A person can walk about misinformed and ignorant about half a hundred things, with no notion about how electrons spin, or evolution happens, or electricity works, and it is of no consequence to their life success, so long as they have a good intuitive model of how human social intuition works.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of being able to do this intuitively. With keen interest in human behavior and much study in social sciences I feel I have enough wit and understanding to be able to sit down and work out what people are thinking and what they will do. But I have a developmental disorder, and so cannot do so intuitively. So I might, reflecting on my memories, realize five years after the fact that a woman was asking me out on a date. Of course, in the moment I was unaware. My life feels littered with these moments, and has surely been shaped by them - more for the worse than the better, I feel.

Compare this egregious failure of intuition to another:

It is a well replicated result that students, even those with some relevant schooling, make systematic mistakes in mechanics problems. Even professors fail to solve these basic problems when forced to think on their feet. Indeed, a certain kind of hands-on introductory physics involves identifying and correcting these misapprehensions.

And physics is important! And intuitive understanding of stuff in the physical world, of the how thrown objects work is important! For hundreds of thousands of years a key to human success has been being able to throw things at other things and actually hit them. Ever see an elephant try to throw something? They're terrible at it! Hell, even chimps have shit accuracy compared to humans. And still, still, people's intuitive model of physical reality fucks up.

But faulty intuition of mechanics don't cripple a person the way a faulty (or absent) intuition of human social behavior does.

---

Your mom (probably) couldn't tell you how quantum mechanics work. But she can tell you people don't want shitty jobs - because she has an implicit, intuitive model of human nature, and that's what her model tells her. It tells here that this arrangement of facial features means a person is happy, that this phrase is a gesture of friendship, except with this person in that context, in which case its a trap.

But just because that model exists, and even works in familiar contexts, doesn't mean its correct.

So rejoice at the unsurprising result in social sciences! It means your mom wasn't wrong, that the model of human behavior that you inherited from her isn't wrong. It means that you can trust your instincts about people and the social world, that you more can freely use that intuition. Intuition which to me looks more like telepathy than anything else...

Against "Neoliberalism"

Not the notion, but the term - for it has come to mean in certain quarters of the left (or perhaps the Left) what "socialism" has come to mean among the broad right, that is, "something (or someone) I do not like".

But unlike the bugbear of right-wing thought, the neoliberal is a phantasm. Where are those who call themselves neoliberals?  If one cares to look, you might find a few who call themselves such with their tongues in their cheeks, part of the long tradition of folks appropriating for themselves an exonym given in malice. 

Per Wikipedia (which represents consensus if nothing else) some key people in neoliberalism are four economists (Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, James M. Buchanan, Greenspan) and three politicians from the 80's (Pinochet, Thatcher, and Reagan)

And fair enough, there does seem to be an intellectual thread connecting these politicians and economists. But did they call themselves neoliberals, and their program and ideology neoliberalism?

Say what you will about Stalin, he would at least have agreed with your description of him as a communist. And then you could have (from a safe distance) had an argument with him about the merits of communism.

But Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet didn't call themselves neoliberals, they called themselves "conservatives", and if their policy did more to smash a status quo than maintain it, recall that what conservatives have always aimed to conserve is first and foremost traditional hierarchies of status and power.

To that end they reached for the thought that Friedman called neoliberalism, and used as a cudgel in their efforts. It is important, however, to separate questions of the veracity of that school of economic thought from from its use by conservatives as a bludgeon. Whether it was half true, or all true, or the most transparently obvious bullshit ever devised, it could serve as a weapon against social democracy and those who would challenge traditional hierarchies. The recent experience of American politics ought to disillusion any of you, my dear readers, who thought that academic thinking was in any way informing conservative thought and action, rather than being assembled as a post-hoc justification.

So there is "neoliberalism" the narrow thing. A term to describe a school of economic thought that 80's politicians used to justify their economic policies.

And neoliberalism the broad thing?

Why, judging it from its use on Twitter, it can apparently encompasses everything from social democrats to anarcho-captalists, and politicians from Trump to Obama, and those are only the uses I have with my own eyes.

That is, it is now a word that means means nothing and everything, once again a weapon to be used against ones political enemies - this time by lefties against anyone insufficiently left-wing for their tastes, but sufficiently of the left as to be mortified by comparison to Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet.

This is dumb.

I am not so stiff as to be willing to die on the hill named "WORDS HAVE TO HAVE MEANINGS". There is place in language for phatic words and phrases that can mean nothing and everything.

But as neoliberal now occupies a similar position to "motherfucker" - an insult in itself, devoid of real semantic content, I humbly submit that it no longer be entertained as a serious term for or unit of analysis.

As that will most assuredly be ignored, I will then loudly repeat myself:

"NEOLIBERAL IS NOW A MEANINGLESS TERM. YOU COULD FIND AND REPLACE EVERY INSTANCE OF NEOLIBERAL WITH MOTHERFUCKER AND THERE WOULD BE NO LOSS OF MEANING"

The Choice

I had kicking around in my head a notion to write something about the choice before Americans in the present election; that the question was nothing more or less than whether or not the United States would be a democracy for all people or a White man's republic.

Then Ruth Bader Ginsberg died.

And before she was buried, Republicans moved to nominate a new, hacktacular Trump appointee.

Now they're floating a plan to use gerrymandered state legislatures to appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College regardless of the outcome of the actual election part of the election, and use their stacked, stolen, court majority to approve this naked theft.  

And now the question is no longer whether or not America will be a democracy for all people or merely a White man's republic.

It is whether America will remain a republic at all.

Myers-Briggs Personality Tests Are Bullshit

 Myers-Briggs personality tests are bullshit.

Oh, the basic notion of trying to classify a personality by considering a variety of independent characteristics is sound enough. But the theory that inspired the test, that humans can be neatly divided into some scheme of Jungian archetypes constructed from opposing personality traits is just ... not true.

Take extroversion vs. introversion. This is a universally acknowledged personality trait (its one of the Big Five today). Any personality test or scheme for sorting people's personalities into boxes would have to include it. But there's just one problem: M-B assumes that personality traits have a bimodal distribution; that is, most people are in one bin or another, either extroverted or introverted.

Except that people don't work like that - extroversion is normally distributed. Most people aren't particularly extroverted or introverted. And that isn't some recent discovery. For example, below is a table from 1926(!) paper showing the distribution extroversion measured by means of a questionaire:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074035

Note that the self-ratings are clearly normally distributed, while the peer-ratings appear to be slightly bimodally distributed. Given that the Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was first published in 1944, how could psychologists, committed to empiricism and familiar with literature, endorse a schema that defied known facts?

The answer is that they didn't. Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Meyers were writers and enthusiastic students (I dare-say fangirls) of Jung who cooked up a theory to put Jungian psychology into practice and/or prove it correct. The goal wasn't to measure people's personalities as they actually existed but to sort people according to their "ideal type" so that they could try it on for size. This is because they believed that, per Jung's theorizing, people would be happiest and (more importantly) most productive if they behaved according to their "type".

You will notice that this resembles less the standard scientific research methodology than the process by which creationists disprove evolution by hunting for the Ropen.

If I was an ungenerous sort, I might describe this as haphazardly trying to stuff the rich diversity of human personality into 16 narrow boxes in order to make the world easier to understand. If I was extremely ungenerous I would draw your attention to the many was this sort of thinking is useful to reactionaries, if not intentionally  reactionary itself. There's probably a good essay to be written on that topic, but this dear reader, is not it.

But in any event, I am (or at least try to be) generous, and a more generous reading is that according to the theory of psychology that they believed, reacting to a test indicating that a person is slightly more extroverted than average and the M-B test goes and hands them a card saying "HOORAY!!!! YOU ARE AN EXTROVERT!!!! GO OUT AND BE SOCIAL!!! :)" is the correct therapeutic action. They really thought that if a person was of an "extroverted type" they would be happiest (and most productive) if they behaved in an extroverted way, and that giving them a label this really would help them, at least a bit, in a manner akin to how people with previously diagnosed psychological disorders might report that the mere fact of a diagnosis is helpful.

But the thing is, facts really don't care about your feelings, outcomes really don't care about your intentions, and that theory of how people's minds work and how to help them is, empirically wrong, and could easily have be proven wrong by anyone who cared to test it. The Meyers-Briggs personality test, its theoretical foundations, and all derived from it are essentially quackery (1).

Despite this, this construct and this test has wormed their way into all sorts of popular (and vital!) applications of psychometrics - human resources, career and academic advising, and online dating.

Why?

I think a clue is in that table from 1926. People's self-ratings of extroversion were normally distributed, but peer-ratings were bimodal. People want to sort other people into boxes, to analogize them to cultural constructs and archetypes. It makes the messy and complicated and chaotic social world easier to "understand" and to deal with. Its what makes the fundamental attribution error so fundamental. And the Meyers-Briggs test was designed and marketed towards directing students to careers where "their type" would be happiest and most productive and likewise directing workers to jobs where "their type" would be happiest and most productive. The application in online dating is essentially astrology for people who don't believe in astrology.

And all of that terrifies me. Because my happiness is very much dependent on the decisions of potential mates and potential employers, and they are making those decisions on the basis of quackery.

So I have written this, in the hopes that someone who previously gave it defunct theory weight will change their minds, and use something with an actual empirical foundation.

(1) Pace! Quackery isn't necessarily evil - I'm sure medieval doctors really did think that leeches would cure people's ailments, and under many theories of ethics acting with a desire to help is virtuous and good even your assistance actually makes things worse. And quackery isn't necessarily ineffective - there are a few diseases where applying leeches is a valid course of treatment. And of course even if the treatment itself doesn't actually do anything (like, I suspect, acupuncture) the placebo effect is so powerful a patient may be helped simply by virtue of being treated.