Psycomedia Episode 67 – Shoe Clues

Psycomedia Episode 67 – Shoe Clues

References:

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific
  • Gillath, O., & Bahns, A. J. (2012). Shoes as a source of first impressions.Journal of Research in Personality.
  • Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin35(12), 1661-1671.
  • Smith, B. D., Rypma, C. B., & Wilson, R. J. (1981). Dishabituation and spontaneous recovery of the electrodermal orienting response: Effects of extraversion, impulsivity, sociability, and caffeine. Journal of Research in Personality15(2), 233-240.

Psycomedia recommend avoiding taking Tramadol and avoiding being Frankie Boyle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Boyle’s_Tramadol_Nights

Have a go at the Turing Test online, throw in a few spammy phrases:

http://www.turinghub.com/

Ultrasounds with speech bubbles include: http://mariejanelle.net/category/baby/

Media of the Week:

Extra Ordinary:

http://www.exocomics.com/213

Mozart’s House:

UK Shanty:

Have a go at the same MBTI we did: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Demetri Martin on “Ladies”: http://youtu.be/TBcxwrNTpGg?t=1m39s

Advertisements

3 Responses to Psycomedia Episode 67 – Shoe Clues

  1. Charles says:

    Tim et al. (yes, I know that this is not technically correct use of “et al”, but since Ben complained in an earlier episode that Tim gets all the feedback, I refuse to address him directly)-

    Excellent episode. The guy with the Social/Personality PhD is pleased. In fact, while I am a fan of research on first impressions and how personality might be revealed by mundane cues (Sam Gosling!), I was not aware of the shoe study, and I have now looked it up and added it to my Stack-o-Stuff.

    Are you sure that “double dead” is not actually a reference to Edgar Allen Poe’s poem “Lenore”?

    I enjoyed the “search terms” segment, especially since my wife’s blog ( cheesewearingtheology.com ) has been found by a bizarre range of search terms (my favorites include “Dr Who vs Angelus”, “Is the big dipper theology”, “humour cheese the food of gods”, and “she wants to be obeyed”).

    I have actually used the Myers-Briggs in some consulting work, and I largely agree with Dean Burnett that it is “harmless and potentially useful if you’re aware of its limitations”. The test is easy to take, and it can provide a very rough overview of one’s personality that is easy for people who know nothing about psychology to understand. The problems come when people start overlooking it’s psychometric limitations or taking it too seriously. I am an INTJ, by the way. Fear me.

    You asked the question: what happens when you treat the Myers-Briggs preferences as continuous variables? McCrae and Costa (1989) did that, and they found that the four sets of preference scores mapped nicely onto the five-factor model (E/I: Extraversion, S/N: Openness, T/F: Agreeableness, J/P: Conscientiousness). So we don’t need the Myers-Briggs when we have the five-factor model. Big Five wins by devouring all opponents.

    Regarding Eysenck and neurological arousal, I recently ran a study attempting to connect this line of research with Yuri Hanin’s “Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning” model within sport psychology. I found precisely jack squat. But, being a good empirical scientist, I plan to keep running variations on the study until I get the results that I want, because I am so very certain that I am right, and that is what’s really important here.

    McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.

    • Charles says:

      “overlooking it’s psychometric limitations”

      I just realized that I misused the apostrophe, rending that statement “overlooking it is psychometric limitations”. I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.

  2. Sam says:

    Regarding the proper level of substance abuse at a baby shower, my criminal law class last semester looked at a case in which the police found a guy passed out in an apartment and under a pile of drugs and guns. They charged him with possession and his defense was that he was too drunk from a baby shower earlier that day to know how he got to the apartment, and that someone must have piled on the illegal items while he was sleeping. The court accepted the defense because possession requires knowing that you have the thing (as well as having had an opportunity to divest yourself of it, but choosing not to). From the perspective of law as a tool for incentivising socially desirable behavior, it would seem that most baby showers are well below the appropriate level of substance abuse.

    I was kind of hoping that all or part of the run of shoe puns would be performed in a brogue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: