Systematic Political Science

The META Psychometric Instrument (META-PI) to Identify the Homeostasis of Dominated Options for Individuals 

Dallas F. Bell, Jr. 

Psychometric Instruments

The field of psychometrics is concerned with measuring the knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and personality traits of individuals.  This involves the construction of theories and instruments of measurement.  Over time the definition of measurement in all sciences has come to be understood as an expression of numerical estimates of the magnitude of one quality relative to another.  For example, in physics a balance scale identifies the comparative weights of the items being weighed as did Georg Rasch's anthropocentric models of invariant comparison.  Stanley Stevens' writings emphasized measuring by a rule.  Continuing with the physics example above, an item can be measured by a standard rule of pounds and ounces.  

The first psychometric instruments were designed to measure the problem solving abilities or intelligence called intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.  Today, IQ tests are still considered a useful tool to identify the problem solving abilities of individuals.  Along with cognitive measuring, tests for personality traits are being developed.  Raymond Cattell was a leader in this emerging research.  He concluded that there were sixteen personality factors and developed the 16PF questionnaire.  Later, W. T. Norman narrowed the factors to the Big Five; neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.  Psychologists admit that the Big Five model doesn't offer an adequate assessment of the human personality. 

Cattell was chosen by the American Psychological Association to receive a lifetime achievement award in 1997.  Cattell's view that society should move beyond Christianity and provide another religion from evolution was widely published.  This belief was known as Beyondism.  It advocated the phasing out of incompetent people and culture by leaving them to their own devices, or through sterilization programs, or a lethal idea.  Cattell's name was reluctantly withdrawn from receiving the award after his eugenic efforts gained widespread publicity.  Unlike the German Nazis in World War II, the logical connection between evolution beliefs and eugenics proved to be too embarrassing for his colleagues. 

Obviously, Cattell reflected his T3 theological beliefs in all his work which included the 16PF Questionnaire.  His anchor for measurement was formed by what he considered to be the authority and standard for good and evil--Cattell himself.  Other evolutionary psychologists also theorize accordingly.  They develop risk assessments based on the dominated option of their eschatological beliefs.  Influenced by evolutionary psychology, it is not uncommon for social researchers to attempt to use power laws to explain reciprocal human behavior.  They suggest that if x behavior occurs that y behavior will robotically result in mathematically precise proportion, e.g. 1x = 1y, 2x = 4y, 3x = 9y, etc.

Examples can be found in testing the responses to sense stimuli, such as the reaction to high pitched sounds, or even responses by those in terrorism and counterterrorism activities.   One of the logical implications is that people do not have freewill. 

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is considered by the Encyclopedia Britannica to be the greatest theologian and philosopher of the British and American religious movement.  Edwards and John Calvin (1509-1564) agreed that we choose from real possibilities freely from our own inclinations.  The Apostle Paul stated in Romans chapter seven, verses fifteen and sixteen, "That which I do I allow not: for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that I do.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good."  This means that we do what we choose and that there is an anchor of law.  The relationship between our choices and the standard of law creates a decision making arc. 


The reality of a decision making arc mapped by all people shows that a behavioral equilibrium exists.  It is acknowledged that there is an inherent tendency in organisms toward maintenance of physiological and psychological stability or an equilibrium state called homeostasis.  In other words, each person behaves by what they think is rational.  That rationality is derived from one's chosen theological standard.  The META Psychometric Instrument (META-PI) includes measuring theological options.  That data is compared to compliance with or noncompliance with natural laws.  Those comparisons are related to the levels of common human needs and the subsequent societal groups they comprise.  The logic of the results is confirmed by demonstrated eschatological beliefs.  META-PI's Big Five factors are theology, epistemology, psychology, sociology, and eschatology.  The goal of the META-PI Questionnaire is to identify the homeostasis of perceived dominated options of the tested individuals.  The tested individual's equilibrium of decision making will form an arc that can be appropriately used to understand their past behavior and provide concrete input to predict their future behavior. 

The META-PI test is divided into two testing sessions.  After an initial screening interview has concluded the need for a test, the general test (META-PI 1.20) may be administered.  If the criteria is met for further testing, the second test (META-PI 2.20) may be given to specifically identify the decision making arc.  The developmental stages of psychometric instruments are similar to those for software development.  Software designers begin with a pre-alpha level to determine design and function.  This was completed for META-PI in 2002.  The next phase is the alpha level where the structure is created (2005).  The completed product is then ready for beta testing (2006).  When the bugs are worked out the product can be released for use.  It is assigned a set of three identification numbers to indicate stability and instability.  If the second number is even it is stable and if the second number is odd it may be unstable. 

The standard psychometric process involves testing for reliability (Are the results repeatable?) and validity (Is the test finding what was intended?).  A reliable measure is measuring consistency.  A valid measure is measuring what is supposed to be measured.  The beta test of META-PI has concluded which items are reliable and valid.  A cognitive model has set the testing time limits of META-PI 1.20 and META-PI 2.20 at sixty minutes each.  META-PI 2.20 should not be administered until 24 hours have passed from finishing the 75 question META-PI 1.20 test.  A complete understanding of systematic political science is necessary for analyzing the results of both questionnaires. 

The results of the tests can be applied to the Summary Worksheet.  Based on an affirmative behavioral query of the tested individual, the behavioral probabilities can be reduced.  There is an 80 percent chance of affirming the tested individual's perceived dominated option and a 10 percent chance of the closest affirmative dominated option.  There is a 9 percent probability of the person choosing the negative undominated option and a 1 percent chance of choosing the lowest negative undominated option.  Presently, the United States government is wisely treating a 1 percent chance of specific behavior by terrorists as a real risk.  This doesn't imply that the precautionary principle is being applied.  That phrase addresses the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to potentially have serious negative consequences, then it is better to avoid the action. 

The META-PI 1.20 Questionnaire begins with ten demographic questions.  Those questions attempt to access, among other things, the level of the tested individual's competency.  They are followed by 75 general questions with the selection for response ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement.  This test doesn't have a key since the results must be analyzed by an expert in systematic political science methods with a T1 belief.  On the other hand, META-PI 2.20 has no need for demographic information and has 41 questions structured in a decision making matrix or decision tree.  Each selection has one of two or three options.  This multiple choice test has a key since all the options are specifically related to identify the core T1, T2, or T3 belief of the person tested.  The art of the analysis for both tests is to correctly determine between inconsistencies due to mistakes by mismarking a response or misunderstanding the question, ignorance, or the adoption of a deception strategy concerning the true beliefs of the tested individual.  Using these tests in conjunction with other systematic political science tools can prove to be an invaluable asset for those needing to find the probable behavior of individuals in most scenarios.