How irises "reveal personality"

[Rrose Selavy]

I am suspicious of this because I am wary of convenient so called "personality " tests that attempt to back up such research but anyway...

How irises 'reveal personalities'
It may be possible to read a person's personality through their eyes, Swedish researchers have said.

They have detected patterns which show warm-heartedness and trust or neuroticism and impulsiveness.
The team from Orebro University read pits and lines in the irises of 428 people.
Experts said the study in Biological Psychology showed that at least some aspects of personality were determined by genetics.

You would not want to arrest somebody on the basis of their iris
Dr George Fieldman, psychologist

Close-up pictures were taken of the study participants' irises, and they also filled out a questionnaire about their personalities.
The researchers looked at crypts (pits) and contraction furrows (lines curving around the outer edge of the iris), which are formed when pupils dilate. It was found that those with more crypts were likely to be tender, warm and trusting, while those with more furrows were more likely to be neurotic, impulsive and give in to cravings.

full report at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6375381.stm

 

[fls]

I am suspicious of this because I am wary of convenient so called "personality " tests that attempt to back up such research but anyway...

full report at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6375381.stm

Oh my.

If you look at the actual results on page 15 of the original article, it's not particularly exciting. They made ninety comparisons and nine of them were "significant". With a significance level of p<0.05 (for a single comparison) you'd expect to see an average of 5 due to chance.

I'd say the results are meaningless unless they can be replicated.

Linda

 

[Deetee]

That's all we need - now the iridologists will misrepresent this study as proof the iris can reveal what illnesses one suffers from.

 

[Alan Heap]

sample size isn't big enough and the conditions of the experiment are questionable. not to mention there doesn't even appear to be a correlation. it's appalling the recognition the media is giving this.

generally any "personality discovery" i automatically consider bad or pseudo science, as the idea that something physical alone gives away someones personality is ridiculous. you have to provoke a reaction from the subject (in a suitable way) and observe the response.

another annoyance i have of claims being able to categorize people by genetics, is that it could be used to justify racism (or geneticism as i like to say).

 

[bpesta22]

I'd say the sample size was big enough, given they got significant results.

428 seems nice n big to me; what kind of sample size do you guys think is needed for research like this?

Haven't read the study, but I don't think it would be earth shattering to discover that physical / physiological traits predict personality.

 

[bpesta22]

It sounds like they used the NEO, which is probably one of the most validated tests (personality or otherwise) in existence.

You can take it here!

http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo1.htm

 

[Cuddles]

It sounds like they used the NEO, which is probably one of the most validated tests (personality or otherwise) in existence.

You can take it here!

http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo1.htm

"Most valid personality test" really isn't saying much.

 

[bpesta22]

"Most valid personality test" really isn't saying much.

Point taken. Check out the literature though. I'd go so far as to say that personality is one of the few topics in psychology that's actually been figured out to the point where few people are even studying it anymore.

It exists. We can measure it reliably and validly. Five factors seem to caputre nearly all the variance in personality test scores. The predicative validity of personality is well established in several meta-analyses.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

If knowledgeable acquaintances disagree with the test results, then the results are wrong.

So you may be just as well simply asking friends - how am I ?

http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo120.htm

 

[bpesta22]

So you may be just as well simply asking friends - how am I ?

http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo120.htm

Hmm, I don't understand what they mean by that comment. It's odd. FWIW, the NEO is copyrighted; this site is devoted to making a public domain version of the test, mostly for people interested in using the Big 5 (in general) versus the NEO test (specifically) to do research.

***

Some studies do have other people fill out the test (spouses rating husband's, or bosses rating supervisors). I don't remember whether that increases or decreases validity.

 

[Fnord]

{Iridology} == Subset of {"Woo"}

Reducto ad Absurdium...

What about those people who have lost their eyes? Do they have no personality at all?

What about those of us who have no personaility to begin with? Should we be blind?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Hmm, I don't understand what they mean by that comment. It's odd. FWIW, the NEO is copyrighted; this site is devoted to making a public domain version of the test, mostly for people interested in using the Big 5 (in general) versus the NEO test (specifically) to do research.

***

Some studies do have other people fill out the test (spouses rating husband's, or bosses rating supervisors). I don't remember whether that increases or decreases validity.

It strikes me though that as an objective test , if that is what it is meant to be, it has several flaws .
It is self-assessed in terms of answering the questions. That was the first such test of it's kind that I have ever taken yet I can see quite easily how I could influence the result one way or another specially if having taken similar tests previously and aware of the criteria eg conscience, gregariousness.

Also if one eg of a criminal or dishonest mind etc were truly seeking to conceal or not reveal certain traits or tendencies, eg recklessness it would be very easy to do so.

If I truly had no conscience I could still make the result show I was a very conscientious person!

 

[strathmeyer]

"Most valid personality test" really isn't saying much.

Are you saying that I should ask for my the money back that I spend on taking "Introduction to Personality" at an elite private school?

 

[c4ts]

Sounds like palmistry to me.

 

[bpesta22]

It strikes me though that as an objective test , if that is what it is meant to be, it has several flaws .
It is self-assessed in terms of answering the questions. That was the first such test of it's kind that I have ever taken yet I can see quite easily how I could influence the result one way or another specially if having taken similar tests previously and aware of the criteria eg conscience, gregariousness.

Also if one eg of a criminal or dishonest mind etc were truly seeking to conceal or not reveal certain traits or tendencies, eg recklessness it would be very easy to do so.

If I truly had no conscience I could still make the result show I was a very conscientious person!

That's the strange beauty of a personality test. Unlike an IQ test, personality can be faked, and people do fake. In fact (though I don't claim expertise here, I have read some of the lit), the current consensus is that willingness to fake a personality test is itself a personality trait, and that that variance is captured by the big 5, and that faking in general seems to have little effect on validity.

A cheesey 20 item measure of Conscientiousness, for example, even with people obviously motivated to fake well, correlates .30 with job performance.

That's pretty damn good, actually-- much better than the validity of the standard job interview most employers use to decide whether or not to hire someone.

In fact, how good is a .30 validity, as one would get with a wooish test of fakeable conscientiousness? Well, it's better than the validities for these tests (Meyer et al., 2001, American Psychologist):

Aspirin reducing heart attacks r=.02
Chemotherapy and surviving breast cancer r=.03
Calcium intake and bone mass, r=.06
Ever smoking and incidence of lung cancer in the next 25 years, r=.08

low level lead exposure and kid's IQ, r=.11

College GPA and job performance, r=.14 (20 cheesey items measuring Conscientiousness has 2x the validity of a gpa amassed from 4 years of class taking in college!)

Employee interviews and job success, r=.2
sleeping pills and lack of insomnia, r=.30

Psychological testing! The only real contribution psychology's made to humanity.

 

[Solus]

The sample size isn't large enough for the test to mean anything.

 

[bpesta22]

The sample size isn't large enough for the test to mean anything.

Someone above made the same comment. It baffles me. They found significant results. The sample was therefore big enough.

I'd argue their sample was bigger than they needed.

Are you talking from a "the sample's not representative of the population" perspective?

If so, I'm not sure external validity was or should have been a concern of the study. Plus, the sample still seems large enough to represent a wide range of personalities (I have no idea how variable whatever measure of the eye they used is).

Why is the sample too small to mean anything-- esp. given they report significant results?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

I am suspicious of this because I am wary of convenient so called "personality " tests that attempt to back up such research but anyway...





full report at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6375381.stm

At first glance your article seems to make sense.. as the Creator said. The light of the body is the eyes, if thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light. And if not, then full of darkness..... So the eyes are an indicator, which why discernment can come from looking into someones eyes.

Good article and good thread..

 

[fls]

In fact, how good is a .30 validity, as one would get with a wooish test of fakeable conscientiousness? Well, it's better than the validities for these tests (Meyer et al., 2001, American Psychologist):

Aspirin reducing heart attacks r=.02
Chemotherapy and surviving breast cancer r=.03
Calcium intake and bone mass, r=.06
Ever smoking and incidence of lung cancer in the next 25 years, r=.08

low level lead exposure and kid's IQ, r=.11

None of those are tests, so choosing them for comparison to the conscientiousness test is meaningless. There are medical tests available that would provide a valid comparison, such as the Short Form 36. However, the r for actual comparable medical tests is likely to be much higher than 0.30 (greater than 0.80 for the SF-36 on some measures). I don't know why the authors selected those associations for comparison (I haven't read the article and I don't have access right now), but I do find it suspicious (invalid comparison - personality testing looks good; valid comparison - personality testing looks bad).

Linda

 

[Zep]

At first glance your article seems to make sense.. as the Creator said. The light of the body is the eyes, if thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light. And if not, then full of darkness..... So the eyes are an indicator, which why discernment can come from looking into someones eyes.

Good article and good thread..

You have NO idea what you are talking about, do you.