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

sundet twin years, biological samples; During 2020AD twin registries for twin studies included more than 144,000 twins globally, dividing twins into year (or even month) of birth it is possible to construct and verify the sundet cycle on a new dataset with fresh twins born during 2020 and earlier, this can verify the sundet study as well as provide an up to date guide as to where people in 2020 are as far as the their nearness to peaks and valleys of the sundet effect, this makes it so people can, for example, time a pregnancy with sperm bank sperm from 99th percentile of intelligence and height and other personality traits from a sperm bank, like the popular during 2020 Danish sperm banks; Some twin registries, like the UK twin registry have collected biological samples from twin volunteers including blood giving the ability to see if the Sundet effect applies to physiology and health as well;

if it works at sundet .23 it seems likely to work at sundet .87 as well; When creating an enhanced genome component like more BDNF at the CNS, if it works (its germline inheritance increasesintelligence in a series of generations) at sundet cycle .27 heritability periods, then it likely continues to work, or works better at .87 sundet heritability periods; Current up to the year periods are calculable from twin registries’ psychological tests, and the opportunity to give new psychological and physiological tests to twin volunteers

A thing I noticed about the Sundet cycle is that it only effects part of IQ, to my uncalculated perception, 20%, Like I perceive the 40.000 norwegian twins studied to find the cycle all learned to read for example; another thing they could do looking again at the 40,000 twins of the Sundet study (or from fresh data at the 2020 over 144,000 twins in twin registeries) is to find out if the .27 years had IQ that clustered nearer the middle of a normal distribution and if the .87 years had a wider distribution; this is beneficial as having a child during the .87 period is more likely to cause diffference from the mean, loosely translated as greater individual difference and a more unique personality, which some people may value

Useful thing: the online survey twin registery, there are over 120 million twinned persons globally, and among the 4 billion that have internet capable phones there are about 60 million individual twins, using the internet it is possible to reach some of these twins and administer psychology tests, and requests for cheek swab samples (a way to find full genome data, which can also be used for characterizing some (73% of epigenetic similarity between cheek swab and other body tissues is a figure I read) epigenetics), if one out of every 1000 individuals, from both individuals at a twin pairs both participate, then that is It is 60,000 twins available for online study and requests for paid cheek swab samples; it is possible to advertise to twins through text processing of social networking sites where people use phrases like “my identical twin sister”, or “my twin sister” triggering the placement of a twin registry advertisement. “Are you a twin? Get together and get 30 bucks each!” ($30 2020AD USA $) that is $15 for a cheek swab and the other $15 for say 3-7 hours of psychological tests spread over a month, and optimally 1 and 5 year re-takes of the tests; Twins should be paid incrementally, $15 for the cheek swab and $5 per completed online testing session (of variable time), with $30 as a minimum figure; more $ can be utilized, some twin pairs may be willing to take a lot of psychology tests; Note, this $ differs from employment, which has other aspects, it is slightly like volunteering but with the appetizing positive reinforcement of a small amount of money to keep people interested and the money just causes greater participation and avidity; some technologists and researchers may even prefer to avoid paying people to get a different kind of sample

Making psychology instruments (psychology tests)

The people at any test (psychological or physiological) that have 1 year and 5 year high retest identicality, regardless of their year of birth (ruling out or at least decreasing Sundet cycle effects) may have genetics of the trait that are especially deterministic, they could even do high N (number of participants) internet surveys and find people that will put up with being surveyed every 6 months for five years; Also, a thing easy to appreciate, people that have the highest test-retest identicality at science of psychology: happiness, subjective well being (SWB) are likely to have more deterministic, directive beneficial genetics of happiness, so happiness dwells with these people durably and predictably, and even when experiencing variations at what iis going on in their lives; the test-retest validity, with happiness being an example, is also an example of how high test-retest validity can find particularly beneficial highly deterministic genes, directly improving and contributing to finding and making enhanced genomes and optimized genomes.