The Karolinska Scales of Personality provide an inventory of stable personality traits used primarily for research rather than clinical purposes. It contains 135 items grouped into 15 scales. These scales focus specifically on biological character dispositions that are hypothesized to underlie psychological disorders, rather than on personality as a whole. It was culled together primarily from existing instruments, guided by theoretical considerations rather than statistical analysis. However, it has since been subjected to much psychometric testing and validation across many clinical populations, and in that process it also became clear that somewhere between three and five factors accounted for much of the variance (Ortet et al., 2002).


Against this background, Ortet and colleagues set out find the most robust factor analysis of the Karolinska scales. The four factors they isolated were the following:


P - Aggressive Nonconformity: Aggressiveness, irritability, and low desire to respond in a socially approved, desirable way.


A – Negative Emotionality: Anxiety, worry, tension, lack of both energy and assertiveness, characterized by remorse and mistrust.


E - Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking: Non-planning, quick responding, thrill seeking, need for change, and social maladjustment.


I – Social Withdrawal: Related to extraversion and involvement-detachment, together with (low) socialization, (low) social desirability, irritability, and suspicion. This factor is related to both social and emotional distance, withdrawal, and maladjustment.


While the first three factors are according to Adizes type, the last one is against type. The factor still highlights sociality as the relevant domain, but reverses sign compared to the Adizes typology. Strong Integrators would have a striking low score on Social Withdrawal, compared to people weaker in Integration. By contrast, the first three factors can be seen as dysfunctions that emerge from or accompany normal functioning for these types.

Siever’s model of personality dimensions identifies four neurobiological dispositions which are proposed to explain personality styles. Disruptions and amplifications of those same dispositions result in clinical psychiatric syndromes (Magnavita, 2002; Siever & Davis, 1991; Siever et al., 1985). In PAEI order, the dispositions are:

P – Impulsivity/Aggression: People with neurobiological dysfunctions can demonstrate poor impulse control and aggressive acting-out. This can be manifested as borderline and antisocial personality disorders.


A – Anxiety/Inhibition: Individuals with faulty neurobiological processes can experience extreme states of anxiety that may generate avoidant or obsessive-compulsive personality formations.


E – Cognitive/Perceptual Organization: Thought and perception can lose their coherence, resulting in schizophrenic/psychotic symptoms, cognitive disorganization, and schizoid or schizotypal personality disorders.


I – Affective Instability: Neurobiological inadequacy can cause the dysregulation of affect and emotion, disrupting social relationships, and generating borderline or histrionic personalities.

Based on a literature review, Nadler, Thompson and Van Boven (2003) uncovered the four most common methods described for learning negotiation skills. The survey covered both explicit instruction and experiential/self-taught learning accounts:

P – Analogical Learning: Transfer and adapt strategies across similar situations.

A – Didactic Learning: Explicit instruction based on principles and their application.

E – Information Revelation: Strategic readjustment after gaining info about other party, learning by discovery.

I – Observational Learning: Modeling or learning by imitation.


These researchers conducted an experiment to see how these methods compared. In the interactive domain of negotiation, it is perhaps unsurprising that their observational learning group of subjects showed the largest increase in negotiation performance. The learning seems to have been largely tacit though, as they were the least articulate in describing the principles that had helped them improve. Analogical learning was also effective, and related to the task schemas that subjects developed in undertaking specific negotiations. Reported task schemas did not relate to performance for the other styles.


George Polya was Hungarian-born mathematician and educator interested in problem-solving techniques. His first book on mathematical reasoning How to Solve It (Polya, 1945) is credited as the document which popularized the term ‘heuristic’ (Baron, 1994). In a later work on mathematical reasoning (Polya, 1965) Polya identified four tactics of problem-solving consistent with the structure of concern. They are listed below in PAEI order:


P – Mobilization: By struggling through a problem, an investigator activates more knowledge and gathers more material towards a solution.


A – Isolation: Reducing complexity by focusing on one small detail at a time, shifting a very narrow attentional spotlight through the problem structure and staying with each item until it is a fully evaluated as possible.


E – Combination: The assembly of parts into wholes, into more harmonious Gestalts.


I – Organization: Connecting together mobilized knowledge, organizing separate parts into a purposeful whole.


Polya represents these operations as points on a diamond, connected by edges describing further mental operations that connect the four points. Isolation and Mobilization are connected through Recognition, such that we focus in on something recognizable and work at it, or work at something and recognize a pattern to examine more closely. Mobilization and Combination are joined by Remembering – a pattern-completion function that is often sparked by recognized elements to support further mobilization.



On the Organization side, Combination and Organization often Supplement each other, with part-to-part relationships and part-to-whole relationships each clarifying the other. Isolation is useful for Organization by clarifying distinctions and allowing elements to be Regrouped. Regrouping can also single out targets for Isolation.


This is like a cue-triggered version of PAEI responses, rather than impulse-driven or perspective-driven.

Confucianism is a philosophical tradition in which human beings are seen as naturally good or at least potentially so. From the teachings of Mencius, we learn that people are born with the knowledge of the good, and so the ability to do good is inherent in us. This ability grows upon what Mencius described as the 'four beginnings' of virtue described below in PAEI order:


P – Compassion (giving rise to benevolence)

A – Shame, dislike (the basis of righteousness)

E – Distinguishing right from wrong (the basis for wisdom)

I – Modesty, deference (giving rise to respect/courtesy)


This is an I-heavy schema, and the value represented for P in the above list is actually an I value that has a tempering or moderating effect on P. P may also be assimilated to a certain degree by the context for articulating these ideas, which is part of a larger philosophical project of explaining how the universe works.


The four beginnings of Confucianism were centrally implicated in the Four-Seven debate, which was the pre-eminent intellectual achievement of Korean Neo-Confucianism.


For those who have never looked into the thought of Felix Guatarri, the nearly effaced thinker of the pair D & G, for which the name Deleuze can come to regularly stand, I post below a significant section from Gary Genosko’s admirable treatment of Guattari’s primary ideas, Felix Guattari: An Aberrant Introduction. The selection deals with the history of analytic concepts found in two cartographic, schematic grids, and their principle meanings. They are called the Four Functors, or functional domains, but I prefer to think of them, and call them The Four Ontologies, in part to indicate their necessary disjunction and modal differences, in part to necessitate their immanent reality. For those only familiar with the works of their joint authorship, you may find interesting familiar terms and concepts in new contexts. Enjoy. I read the book some time ago and the diagram still stays with me.

Guattari’s diagrams and tables of the four functors and the domains proper to each tell us a great deal about his attempts to overcome simple problems of doubling couplets (all sorts of reductive dualisms), of evoking logical or semiotic squares in a segmental quadrature of deterriotorialization (the four domains result from segmentation of the plane of consistency). In CS (cartographies schizoanalytiques, 41) Guattari wrote of the “two couples” that constituted the four categories – actual and virtual and possible and real -to which he added other couples – some familiar, like expression and content (Chs [Chaosmosis] 60) and some less familiar but with a broadly semiotic lineage. (See figures 5.1a and 5.1b.) By the time of Chs, Guattari saw the expression and content couple as a problem to be overcome because it was still too much stained by linguistics and automatic contraction that would restrict the openness of assemblages of enunciation (the detour became a dead end). His reference to the left and right hand sides of the figure further exacerbated the question of whether or not his Fourth term consituted an advance over the ingenious Threes discussed in the previous chapter since he kept adding couple upon couple. The Threes are still very much at work here. Guattari advanced by analogy with the important form-substance-matter distinction – which he profoundly modified to describe diagrammatic deterritorialization by means of sign-particles between form and matter (IM [L’Inconscient machinique] 224-5) – in relation to the Fours: just as substance is the manifestation of form in matter, existential Territories are the manifestation of incorporeal Universes and machinic Phylums in material Fluxes (CS 84, n. 1), given that substance is akin to Territory, Universes and Phylum are akin to form, and Fluxes are akin to matter (unformed). The abstract machines of the domain of Phylum are new coding of the a-signifying semiotics with a purchase on material fluxes (Flux), whereas the existential incarnation (Territory) of the incorporeal constellations (Universe) metamodel as virtual rather than actual the former relation.


However, Guattari use the example of two options of Freudian cartography as they concerned libido and the unconscious to demonstrate the core features of Figure 5.1a. On the left side, libido either pursues a deterritorialized option toward abstract matters of the possible (Phylum), or is reterritorialized into the psychogenetic stages and dualisms (Eros -Thanatos) of stratified Fluxes; on the right side, the unconscious explores deterritorialized lines of alterity that are both original and unheard-of (Universes) or takes refuge in the Territories of the repressed according to various reterritorializing maps of the mind that Freud developed over the course of his career, most pertinently, between the dream book and the “The Unconsious”, “Ego and the Id”, and “New Introductory Lecture 31”. (CS 44-7; Chs 62). Guattari was also, like Freud, mapping the unconscious. Without being reductionistic, Guattari’s cartography of the schizophrenic unconscious is situated against but in the tradition of the Freudian metapsychology of diagramming the psychical topography and the two systems (Cs. [Pcs.] Ucs.), description of their characteristics, communications, conflicts, classifications (of instincts), and emergence of the Ego-Id-Superego – the three regions – or indeed, the Lacanian tripartite Real-Imaginary-Symbolic. Guattari took great pains to decentre his cartography from the linguistic signifier, from the many psychoanalytics dualisms (primary-secondary process); to render the domains contingent and evolutionary is relation to technology, art and science, and avoid reductive prototypes of subjectivity (CS 32ff). Whether or not he was successful will need to be carefully considered.

What is the Fourth Term anyway? How many is an open Three? The diagramming of the transversal relations between heterogenous domains: material and energetic Fluxes (F); an abstract machinic Phylum (P); existential Territories (T); leaves incorporeal Universes (U) that escape the coordinates of F, P, and T (CS 74). The Fourth term is the virtual possible and, together with the actual possible, these envelop the actual real and virtual real. Guattari linked both powerlessness and unreachable foundations with Twos; pyramidal dialectical trees with Threes, and the generation of non-prioritized, proliferating trans-entity interactions that respected the principle of autopoesis with Fours…


The achievement of epic poetry was to create story-cycles and, as a result, to develop a new sense of mythological chronology. Thus Greek mythology unfolds as a phase in the development of the world and of humans.[18] While self-contradictions in these stories make an absolute timeline impossible, an approximate chronology may be discerned. The resulting mythological "history of the world" may be divided into three or four broader periods:


The myths of origin or age of gods (Theogonies, "births of gods"): myths about the origins of the world, the gods, and the human race.

The age when gods and mortals mingled freely: stories of the early interactions between gods, demigods, and mortals.

The age of heroes (heroic age), where divine activity was more limited. The last and greatest of the heroic legends is the story of the Trojan War and after (which is regarded by some researchers as a separate, fourth period).[19]

While the age of gods often has been of more interest to contemporary students of myth, the Greek authors of the archaic and classical eras had a clear preference for the age of heroes, establishing a chronology and record of human accomplishments after the questions of how the world came into being were explained. For example, the heroic Iliad and Odyssey dwarfed the divine-focused Theogony and Homeric Hymns in both size and popularity. Under the influence of Homer the "hero cult" leads to a restructuring in spiritual life, expressed in the separation of the realm of the gods from the realm of the dead (heroes), of the Chthonic from the Olympian.[20] In the Works and Days, Hesiod makes use of a scheme of Four Ages of Man (or Races): Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Iron. These races or ages are separate creations of the gods, the Golden Age belonging to the reign of Cronos, the subsequent races to the creation of Zeus. The presence of evil was explained by the myth of Pandora, when all of the best of human capabilities, save hope, had been spilled out of her overturned jar.[21] In Metamorphoses, Ovid follows Hesiod's concept of the four ages.[22]


The Muisca, inhabiting the central highlands of the Colombian Andes (Altiplano Cundiboyacense and the southwestern part of that the Bogotá savanna), were one of the four great civilizations of the Americas.[1] Other than the three civilizations in present-day Mexico and Peru; the Aztec, Maya and Incas respectively


etrasporie Type

In this type of embryo sac wall is not formed after the meiotic nuclear division. All four haploid megapsore nuclei take part in the formation of the embryo sac. The resultant embryo sac• may be 8- nuceleate or 16-nucleate. Thus it has two types:

a)     Plunrnbago Type (8-Nucleate): In this case, the megaspore nuclei arrange themselves in a cross-like manner. One lies at the micropylar ends and the other lies at the chalazal end. The other two are present at each side of the embryo sac. Each nucleus divides once. Thus pairs of four nuclei are formed. One nucleus from each pair migrates to the centre. They fuse to form tetraploid secondary nucleus. The nucleus at micropylar and form the egg cell. The rest three nuclei degenerate. There are no antipodal cells and synergids.

b)     Fritillaria Type (8-Nucleate): This type of embryo sac occurs in a large number of genera. In this case, Three out of four megaspore nuclei are arranged in 3 + 1 fashion. Three nuclei migrate to the chalazal end. The remaining nucleus comes at the micropylar pole. The micropylar nucleus divides to form two haploid nuclei. The three chalazal nuclei fuse. The fusion nucleus ‘divides to form two triploid nuclei. Now the embryo sac contains four nuclei, two haploid micropylar nuclei and two triploid chalazal nuclei. Later each nucleus divides. Thus they produce four haploid nuclei at micropylar end and four triploid nuclei at chalazal end. One nucleus from each pole migrates to the centre. These fuse to forms a tetraploid secondary nucleus. The nuclei at micropylar end form egg apparatus. The nucleus at the chalazal end gives rise to antipodal cells.

c)      Pen.tea Type (16 Nucleate): In this case, 16 nuclei are arranged in quarters. One is present at each end of the embryo-sac and two are present at the sides. Three nuclei of each quarter become cells. The fourth nuclei of each quarter moves towards the center and act as polar nucleus. Therefore, there are four triads and four polar nuclei. One cell of the micropylar triad is the egg. It is the only functional cell.

d)     Drusa Type (16 Nucleate): In this case, one megaspore nucleus moves towards the micropylar. The remaining three megaspore nuclei move towards chalazal end. Each nucleus divides twice. Thus four nuclei are produced at micropylar end and twelve at chalazal end. One nucleus from each migrates towards the centre of the embryo sac. They fuse to form secondary nucleus. The three nuclei at micropylar end form egg apparatus. The eleven nuclei at chalazal end form antipodal cells.

e)     Adoxa Type (8-Nucleate): The four haploid megaspore nuclei

present in the cytoplasm undergo a mitotic division. They produce eight nuclei. These nuclei are arranged in typical manner. Three of them come at the micropylar end. Three comes at the chalazal end. And two come in the centre (fusion nucleus). Thus normal 8.nucleate seven celled embryo sac is formed.

0 Paperoma tye (16 Nucleate): In this case, each of four megaspores nuclei divides twice. They form 16 nuclei. These are uniformly distributed at the periphery of the embryo sac. Two nuclei at micropylar end form an egg and a Synergid. Eight of them fuse to form secondary nucleus. The remaining three stay at the periphery of the embryo sac.


This is a list of WWE pay-per-view events, detailing all professional wrestling cards promoted on pay-per-view (PPV) by WWE.


WWE has broadcast pay-per-views since the 1980s, when its classic "Big Four" events (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series) were first established. The company's PPV lineup expanded to a monthly basis in the mid-1990s and reached its peak of sixteen shows a year in 2006 before returning to twelve in 2012. Following the second brand extension in July 2016, the number of shows per year were expanded once again to 16.


Following WWE's original brand extension in 2002, the company promoted two touring rosters representing its Raw and SmackDown television programs. Aside from Insurrextion (Raw) and Rebellion (SmackDown!), all WWE pay-per-views featured both brands until June 2003. The traditional "Big Four" continued to showcase the entire roster, while the remaining pay-per-views alternated between Raw and SmackDown cards. A special ECW event in 2005 led to the creation of an ECW brand in 2006, which also received its own dedicated pay-per-view. Additional brand-exclusive events were added to the schedule, which reached its peak in 2006 with sixteen pay-per-view events (five Raw, five SmackDown, two ECW, and the original "Big Four"). In March 2007, WWE announced that all subsequent pay-per-views would feature performers from all brands.[5] Dates were slowly removed from the pay-per-view schedule and in 2012, WWE returned to holding twelve pay-per-views a year. However, since the second brand extension in July 2016, brand-exclusive pay-per-views returned with only the "Big Four" as the only pay-per-views to feature both Raw and SmackDown brands, and some months have two pay-per-views, one for each show.


Sometimes, poly-sided matches that pit every man for himself will incorporate tagging rules. Outside of kayfabe, this is done to give wrestlers a break from the action (as these matches tend to go on for long periods of time), and to make the action in the ring easier to choreograph. One of the most mainstream examples of this is the Four-Corner match, the most common type of match in the WWE before it was replaced with its equivalent Fatal Four-Way; four wrestlers, each for himself, fight in a match, but only two wrestlers can be in the match at any given time. The other two are positioned in the corner, and tags can be made between any two wrestlers.

Raven explains why he crucified the Sandman in ECW