Re: Gender importance (Summary)

Michael M. Butler (
Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:14:00 -0700

I have to second some of what Eliezer said. Putting my own spin on the characterological adjective situation here: "Undifferentiated" may very well be a feature, not a bug; people who don't label themselves strongly (self-scoring) may just be Myers-Briggs Ps rather than Js (to name one possibility).
Guessing from his described actions, I'd rate Eliezer as a 0-0. :)

At 17:51 99.04.23 -0500, you wrote:
>Here is a summary of the BEM results. I did notice that this instrument
>does have a bug. The mid-point (neutral valence) for each item is 4. When
>there is no directionality in your scores, the survey says so and concludes
>that you are Androgynous. This is only true, however, if your scores are
>both above the mid-point since this means that you are endorsing attributes
>from both genders. If your scores are non-directional and below or very
>close to 4, you would actually be classified as Undifferentiated, since you
>aren't really endorsing attributes from either gender. Curt Adams, for
>example, appears relatively Undifferentiated but was above the mid-ppoint so
>I classified him as Masc.


>Summary Statistics
>Mean 4.14 5.11 Masc
>Undifferentiated 11.0%
>Masculine 55.5%
>Feminine 5.5%
>Androgynous 28.0%
>So, Extropians appear to be strongly disposed toward traditionally masculine
>attributes, although a significant number are Androgynous. I can't find it
>in the archives, but didn't the Myers-Briggs test we took earlier reveal
>that the largest group was ENTJ? It's very likely that there's a strong
>relationship between these two measures.