Tendency to create own status hierarchy? It’s in the eyes.
I’ve watched myself in videos and began to see an uncanny resemblance with certain folk’s facial mannerisms and mien.
Unleash a machine learning algorithm on a population containing faces of any race; you will probably carve out a fairly crisp condition.
High openness to experience, high conscientiousness, low agreeableness?
Ahh… Okay, it’s called INTJ. Just looked up that combination. Probably should have done that sooner. Note to self: less physics and cosmology, more psychology the next time I respawn.
It all makes sense now… why everyone always thought I was angry, and was scared to approach me.
Just kidding, I knew that diagnosis already. And personalities aren’t that simple. In any case, we especially like these frameworks on a personal level because they provide avatar-molds for the mind as it swings forward through the morphological latches provided by its environment. There is sufficient truth to these frameworks, such that we enjoy them and find them useful.
The real party begins when the prediction-grain delta approaches real-time.
Here are more thoughts on predicting people’s psychology and hidden motives with facial-recognition technology:
The hidden motive in evolution is not just natural selection as you learned in school, but its compromise with a force that may be considered orthogonal to it. That orthogonal force is roughly “exaggerated male ornamentation by persistent, directional female choice.” More broadly, it can be called, “showing off in the climb from entropy by carrying a cross.”
This hidden motive manifests not just in the boxes we call organisms but also in all the other concepts in mind.
Words such as suffering, people, person, consciousness, pain, universe, pleasure, love, real, fake, and death are invented so that “the female,” who is that which is imagined to be outside of eternal existence, can be satisfied.
There is no permanence inherent to those words if we choose to believe in the female, i.e., the external reality discovered through experiment. The external reality currently says that a clock in one place does not tick at the same rate as a clock in another. A clock in a skull does not tick at the same rate as a clock on a finger or a moon. The notion of a single time belonging to a thing is mistaken because it is contradicted by observation. Observation tells us that your phone must take into account that a satellite is ticking at a physically different rate. There isn’t a now here which is also a now there. And this is also true from a point in your physical right hand to a point in your physical left hand assumed to exist outside your inner-simulation. A difference in rates must become synced by the observer. The observer is not a pack of neurons in a single frame of reference since these things or events are spread out in spacetime. The observer has already been compiled from the sum of relativistic inhibitory and excitatory reactions.