From: treon3verdery@gmail.com   
      
   better psychology tests also increase trait inheritability at genetically   
   enhanced sperm   
      
   It is likely there is already science of psychology literature on it but I   
   think it is possible to have a reapplicable independent measure (separately   
   testable) of trait stability.  For example at the myers briggs, which has been   
   discredited for having    
   too low test-retest similarity, it is possible there is a subgroup of myers   
   briggs test takers who have very high test-retest similarity and that they can   
   somehow be predicted with another different test,    
      
   I like the myers Briggs psychology test, and think it can be made into a test   
   that would satisfy a science of psychology, numerically capable and fluent,   
   psychology professional. a new Myers-Briggs test can have 5 character   
   designations like  ENTP1 (   
   ENTP1-4) where 4 is greatest amount of1 and 5 year test retest identicality,   
   and the myers briggs with number then passes tests of validity to be a   
   legitimate personality measuring instrument, while ENTP3 and ENTP4 would let   
   the person thinking about    
   being an ENTP know their score was without scientific validity but gave them   
   fun things to think about, but that personality descriptor was a group trend   
   then might not endure through a 1 year and 5 year retest; there is a   
   vairiation on this, At a    
   version of the Myers briggs where, based on new questions, perhaps two out of   
   4 characteristics do have high five year test retest validity and two do not,   
   introducing 8 new letters could solve this, if an ENTP is only at 5 year   
   test-retest validity an    
   ET, and the funtastic substitute letters for N and P are Q and R, and the   
   substitute letters for S and J are Z and K then the ET person becomes EQTR;   
   people can still get use out of it, but it empahsizes areas of enduring and   
   also ephemeral ways of being    
   and says which is which    
      
   Big 5 neuroticism may be partially predictive of less test-retest validity, as   
   they may feel sometimes feel insecure, it also seems like any one of the   
   questions on the test could cause what I perceive as unreliability; is   
   possible high neuroticism    
   scorers are insecure as to the specific subject the test is about, regardless   
   of what is being tested;    
      
   A source of test-retest validity variance at psychological instruments   
   (psychology tests) might be, as Sundet measured (1988) at a study of 40,000   
   Norwegian twins, the year of conception at a 7 year cycle, this goes with   
   measured IQ varying between .87    
   and .27 variation as to heritability; I describe technologies to omit the   
   Sundet cycle, making using genetically enhanced and optimized sperm to create   
   children work better   
      
   Genetic technology:  Independence from the Sundet cycle could be accomplished   
   by genetically engineering people to make a peptide or protein that, with   
   further research, is found to hold peak heritability of the sundet cycle; does   
   the sundet cycle happen    
   with yeast, c elegans, zebrafish, and mice as well as people, where it was   
   originally measured?  If it does is the period the same 7 years, or is it a   
   sped up, like a “mouse time” (33 times faster) version of the Sundet   
   cycle? If yeast get the sundet    
   cycle then the full genome characterization ove every mRNA profile, and sundet   
   cycle varying or nonvarying phenotypic variation in buds (which are clones),    
   as well as directed breeeding and partners during yeast sexual reproduction   
   can be used to find    
   out which genes at humans could (perhaps do) effect the sundet cycle,   
   optimally making it so people are permanently at the highest heritability part   
   of the sundet cycle to benefit homo sapiens’ that is people’s that is   
   humans’ genetic enhancement    
   and optimization; to do this, at mice and humans the sundet cycle could be a   
   basis for characterizing the difference, or lack of difference amongst   
   monozygotic twins depending on cycle peaks and valleys; if monozygotic twins   
   are highly similar, including    
   psychology test measures like personality and intelligence, Light Triad, and   
   sexual avidity tests regardless of their timing at the sundet cycle then that   
   supports genetic determinacy of personality and intelligence and Light Triad,   
   if however the    
   monozygotic twins are the (math of psychology meaning of the .27 to .87   
   difference) times as math divergent from each other on things like   
   intelligence and personality when born at the most “minimize psychology test   
   correlation” part of the Sundet    
   cycle ( the .27 time compared with the .87 time for IQ) then that suggests    
   that an additional benefical to humans’, that is homo sapiens’  that is   
   people’s germline is maximum sundet cycle heritability effect based on new   
   genetics, or even made    
   higher, as once the sundet cycle is comprehended and technologized raising the   
   correlation or math to .99 ( 98-99%) has high benefit to humans and utility;   
   At a different study the peak heritability of g I read about was .94, so .99   
   is just a little    
   advanced of that; utilizing this new genetic sundet-cycle-resistance gene,   
   allele, or multigene permanentized epigentics,  accompanying other Genetic   
   optimization or genetic enhancement causes the genetic enhancement and genetic   
   optimization to be more    
   effective and as genetic enhancement and also genetic optimization are   
   beneficial and good for homo sapiens, people, that is humans there is benefit   
      
   It is beneficial to modify the homo sapiens, that is humans that is peoples   
   genomes globally to have a sundet cycle (what I call the sundet cycle, based   
   on Sundet’s 1988 paper on IQ heritability in Norwegian twins) heritability   
   number of .99, noting    
   that at 1988, susceptibility to the sundet cycle was measured as going as high   
   as .87;  it is beneficial and supportive of all beneficial genetic enhancement   
   to make sundet cycle heritability .99    
      
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)