resolves

[Your market](https://manifold.markets/ZZZZZZ/does-facial-typing-work-objective-p):

I figured out my type under the aLboP system was ENTJ(ip).

[Another market of yours](https://manifold.markets/ZZZZZZ/does-facial-typing-work-objective-p-5752a5ae1fbe):

I figured out my type under the aLboP system was INTP(ij).

[Another market](https://manifold.markets/ZZZZZZ/does-facial-typing-work-objective-p-5752a5ae1fbe):

I figured out my type under the aLboP system was ISFP(ij).

Yet [another market of yours](https://manifold.markets/ZZZZZZ/does-facial-typing-work-objective-p-fd75d5edf95b):

I figured out my type under the aLboP system was ENTJ(ij).

Please explain the discrepancy here. How can you claim all these types at the same time?

@brp I claimed them all at different times. If I had to say now which I think I am, I would go with ENTJ(ip) which was the one I originally thought I was and the rest was just me second guessing myself a bunch of times. I am wondering if they will ever get back to me given it has been three months but we'll see.

@ZZZZZZ You created three of them in 24 hours. I think you need to revise the text in each market to make it clear that you have changed your self-assessed typing over time, as this will change the assessed probabilities of your traders. (p<=0.016? Really?)

@brp Oh nevermind. It looks like you did that in the comments, where I was only reading market descriptions.

New market:

Similar:

I will not buy any NO shares on this market

Why did you buy so much YES? Now that the market is solidly tipped in favor of NO, you could see large gains by buying YES and then resolving it by lying about the typing result.

@brp I could but I will not lie. It will do more for my long term credibility if I resolve some of markets against myself which will help the performance of my future markets. The reason I said that was because that way I wouldn't have an incentive to inaccurately type myself. I try to avoid implicit bias but I don't worry about explicit bias since I know I wouldn't lie.

@brp I was considering saying "I will not bet on this market" to avoid this problem altogether.

@brp the reason I bought so much YES was because I think that there is a good chance they will correctly type me. First of all, they could figure out E & N & T just with the stereotypes which leaves a 12.5% given three other variables. I also think there is maybe a 70% chance that they can correctly guess (ip) and maybe another 60% chance that they can correctly guess J from the image. So, overall I would say 0.6 * 0.7 is 0.42 and then multiply that by the probability that they'll guess ENT which is probably another 70%, so overall 0.294 or about 30% which was what my estimate of the true probability was, but my YES shares only cost 800 mana which is ~10% of my total portfolio value so it is not that big of an investment so I don't see the reason I would lie about it.

@brp If I wanted to scam people out of 800 mana, I wouldn't have done it for 43 USD. I could have bought 4300 mana for that amount.

@brp * I mean actually (3074-797) mana which is 2277 or $22.77

@brp To decrease my perception of bias, I have decided that for this market and the other similar ones, I will donate any proceeds (including my cost basis) to charity.

More talk about facial typing: https://www.alittlebitofpersonality.com/subtypes/

with examples of people of each type

If they get it right, will you think it's more likely that a) their system works, b) lucky guess, c) a mix of a and b or d) someone gave them the right answer or they found this market randomly

@ZZZZZZ Maybe this market would have been better if I hadn't publicly stated my aLboP type since that way d) could be avoided.

@ZZZZZZ I'd be a good Bayesian and think that it's a little more likely that their system works. But I have a strong prior that it's bunk, and I still wouldn't give it a lot of credence.

I think "b) lucky guess" can also include stuff like "more men are Ts", "an E is more likely to seek external data", "Ns are more interested in concepts like personality types", etc. I imagine it's like trying to validate a psychic: you practically expect they'll have some clever way of defying the odds.

Despite my caveats, I still think the most likely event is that they just give you a different result and then insist that they're right about it. So I'll still bet NO here.