Psychometric Instrument (META-PI) to Identify the Homeostasis of Dominated
Options for Individuals
Dallas F. Bell, Jr.
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
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name was reluctantly withdrawn from receiving the award after his eugenic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.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
© 2006 DALLAS F. BELL, JR.