Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Junk

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI


  • Interests
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,428 profile views
  1. I plan my schedule a few days ahead. That's it, though. If I have an appointment a month away, I trust that I'll remember it within a week of its date. So far, it has worked out for me. I'll adopt a new style (keeping a planner) when I find that I can't successfully keep my appointments.
  2. Trying to find this mouse. I saw it run from behind my desk, all the way around the perimeter of the living room, and then disappear under the couch. I spent a while trying to kick it out of there. I gave up and assumed that it ran into one of its holes in the kitchen without me seeing it. I went back to the desk. A while later, I saw it run from the couch to the bedroom. God fucking damnit!! My King-size mattress rests on two twin box frames. It must be somewhere between or around them. I couldn't scare it from there or anywhere else. I think I'll sleep on the couch for a few nights.
  3. Ha, relevant conversation in stats class today.. The clinical students were all complaining. The professor said that he remembered grad school as being the most fun time in his career. I'm inclined to agree. There's lots of work, but it's not tedious and boring. You're trying to publish, but you're not going to get fired if you don't. You're doing your own independent research, but you have at least one faculty member there to answer any questions you have.
  4. Ha. No. The woman who will eventually marry me will be a very special sort of woman.
  5. For me, it's the expectations I have for myself. The coursework and the requirements for the degree are right down my alley.. emphasis on theory and independent research.. projects, as opposed to little assignments. The problem is that I take every project, presentation, and paper very seriously. I feel a need to impress, and what I consider to be good work is based on my expectations for myself. Undergrad wasn't stressful because I didn't care. I knew what was required to get a decent grade and I did that much work. I still take every evening off work to relax and drink wine (most nights). Keeps me calm. Work hard during the day and then take time to myself in the evenings. Plus, I have a 25 minute walk to campus in the mornings, so I have some time to entertain myself with a nice bossa nova song in my head before the day officially starts. Occasional walk around secluded areas of campus during the day to refresh. Oh, it's April. This wave of stress will be over soon enough. Same as the last one and same as all future waves of stress will. Ride it out.
  6. I opened up to a girl when I was around 19 and 20. It was a great feeling. Before then, I was a brick wall. Now, I'm pretty damn open from the get go. At least, I think I am. I was told by a couple of girls I dated last summer that I didn't talk much about myself. They said that I knew a lot about them, but they didn't know much about me. In my defense, one of the girls revealed EVERYTHING about herself before the third date. I think it's fairly easy for me to be open nowadays. I'll answer any question honestly. Well, as long as it's a dating sort of relationship.. I'm not that way with all of my friends or with my family. I don't know why I was so closed off before. I guess I didn't know how good it felt to be open. Not only does it feel good, but it's a whole lot easier.
  7. pick pocketing Master Farmers. God I hate thieving.
  8. Eh, my (short-lived) relationships have been out of boredom. "why not?" was my view. For some reason I know that there's a girl out there who will not be boring to me.
  9. Kinda my point. People are drawn to people who are "confident." Social "confidence" seems to be the common denominator. But what is this? My view is that it (whatever it is) would highly correlate with emotional intelligence. I don't think that the term "confidence" should describe only a person's self-perceived ability to communicate (or make people like them).
  10. Fuck this idea of general "self confidence." Anybody who appears to have this is delusional. Nobody can be great at everything. Get good at one thing (or a few things) and people will think that you're confident... so long as you're in that setting. To find a booster? I suggest becoming great at something.
  11. Hmm. well it wouldn't be exact, considering "intrusion errors" (Vul (and other authors), 2008; Botella (and other authors), 1992), but it would definitely be better than nothing. Maybe if I were to include intrusion errors, reports of letters that are 2 or less positions away from the actual positions, in the function.. then say that anything else has a value of 6? This would be better but still not perfect. I like this idea. Even though it gives too much weight to intrusion errors. I still think it's better than not including those errors. The problem is in assigning an equal weight to intrusion errors as the weight assigned to errors within the critical set. To do this would be to assume that intrusion errors are the same as errors in order.. which 1) can't be supported by previous research, and 2) is unlikely.
  12. This sounds nice. I couldn't understand it from the wikipedia entry, though. Does it take into account when participants report letters that were not presented in the critical set (blue letters)? I ran through this idea a few times and it seems to work will if participants always report the 4 letters that were presented in blue. Could this idea be adapted to include reports of letters that were not blue? The reasons for the changes in order errors are not important to this thread. But yes, that makes a slight difference, but it doesn't matter with this experiment because the ISI (0 ms) is held constant throughout the experiment. In a lot of my other experiments, the SOAs have been 80ms and the ISIs have been 64ms. There have been interesting differences. Hmm. I have the data (and graphs) for probability of correctly reporting the first serial position as the first serial position, and relative to the misreports of that position as other positions. Same for all other positions. But how do I put this into a single value? Would these be able to take into account reported letters that were not in the critical set of blue letters? I briefly read their descriptions, but I'm no mathemetician and can't quite figure them out. Again, this doesn't work when participants report letters that were not blue. I'm interested in tracking the changes to where participants (ideally) report the letters in the correct order).
  13. So, maybe you have some experience in this. Our theory is based on "strength theory" (Sperling). The idea is that the order that participants report values within the critical set (in our case, the blue letters) is dependent upon the amount of attentional resources (assuming that attention is a capacity-limited resource) that are dedicated to one specific moment in time. If participants (implicitly) learn to attend to a specific moment in time (500ms as opposed to 700ms), then the "peak" of attention should eventually be at the 500 ms mark. Strength theory posits that whichever serial position receives the peak of attention will most likely be reported first. Following this, the neighboring positions will be reported in a "V" fashion. Such that the positions nearest (either +1 or -1) will be reported next, followed by the +2 and -2 positions. My idea is that participants will begin (first session) by reacting to the blue color. Therefore, their "attention gate" will peak (be most open) at a later position (position 3, for example). But, with implicit learning, participants may learn to adjust their attention to peak at the first "serial position" if it is held mostly constant. This would result in correct order report. Still, the task is challenging, and participants very rarely report all of the letters in the correct order.. The order will often times be wrong. So, I would like a value that I can use to track this change. Which errors in report are "more" correct? I agree. We explored this option. Imagine the variance of serial position 1 (of 4). There is nothing less than 1 in this range. We need to be able to compare the variance of 1 from the variance around 2 or 3. I'm not a statistician, but I would think that a variance that is only skewed to the right (variance from serial position 1) wouldn't easily be comparable to the variance from serial position 2. ...... added to this post 9 minutes later: Is a metric like this even possible?
  14. I'm trying to come up with a metric for the results of a pilot study. I'm stuck. Anytime I think I'm getting close, I find a flaw in how it relates to the theories. Background As a very simplified version of the experiment (for this thread's purpose), participants viewed a stream of letters presented in rapid succession (64ms for each letter). Four of the letters were blue while the rest were white (gray background). The blue letters appeared in succession. Participants were instructed to report the blue letters in the order that they were presented. Participants were run on the experiment 9 times. Often times, participants will report letters out of order, or they will even report letters that were not presented. My study's analyses Most interesting to me are the errors that participants make. Particularly, their order errors. For example, instead of reporting serial positions 1, then 2, then 3, then 4 (correct order)... they report 2, then 3, then 1, then 4. I want to track these errors (or, non errors) as a function of "session." Keep in mind (and this is critical) that often times participants will report letters that were not presented in blue. Assuming participants reported all of the blue letters, Let's say that the blue letters were.. A B C D. And the participant reported.. B C A D. How would you quantify this mistake? How would it compare to the error, D C B A? 1. In my analysis, I would want the latter to have a worse value than the former. My problem (your problem) I would like a single value that describes the relationship between correct report of a serial position vs. all other positions. Variance from that position has crossed my mind, and I think it would be a good value, but I would like it to be standardized to where it can be 1) comparable to other serial positions, and 2) comparable to the same position in a different session. I don't know if this makes sense... Let me know if I can fill in some missing information. I'm starting to get drunk, though.