Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 79

Thread: What is a type and why can't it be changed?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What is a type and why can't it be changed?

    what about subtypes?

    I asked earlier about type changing over time. That doesn't seem to exist in socionic theory, but that probably doesnt matter..

    and i also asked about other people affecting your type.

    I've been confused about my own type, but realized i used to be different a few years ago, and wonder what outside influences suddenly caused the change.... or if they are "inside influences" instead. grrr

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can be whoever you want to be, you wouldn't know your distinct strengths and weaknesses if you had no model of "type" to relate to i.e. point of reference.

    Since you are not a type your type does not change but you do.

    I say, dettach your mind from the idea that you've been pigeonholed by "type", it can either be a blessing or a curse depending on your obsession with blaming your problems on an arbitary social model that in itself has not controlled your free will.
    Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.

  3. #3
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Think about changing into your best ENFp friend. You would have to change strengths into weaknesses and weaknesses into strengths. You would also have to alter internal motives/wants/needs/cognition/perception/interpretation and all that other stuff that goes into type. To change into another type would take huge amounts of energy.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowyc
    You can be whoever you want to be, you wouldn't know your distinct strengths and weaknesses if you had no model of "type" to relate to i.e. point of reference.

    Since you are not a type your type does not change but you do.

    I say, dettach your mind from the idea that you've been pigeonholed by "type", it can either be a blessing or a curse depending on your obsession with blaming your problems on an arbitary social model that in itself has not controlled your free will.
    i am a bit obsessed at the moment, aren't i?

    I dont think im pigeonholing myself but i do think that i am concerned with answers and maximizing things.. but my obsessing is because i am looking for answers that exist-- that is, exist in theory.

    I didn't mean to imply that i think i am my type only. I am trying to learn what i can and perhaps being a teeny bit lazy..

    s'not my intent though. i am over confident maybe in objective answers..

    But i never once thought someone would say that I was overly concerned with type being directive of your free will. i have at least learned something about how i am perceived!

    btw, nice work on describing the alpha quadra.

  5. #5
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    To change into another type would take huge amounts of energy.
    Yes, it takes titanic efforts to change into another type, which makes it almost impossible, imo

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also,

    I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean you could change your type..

    i meant, does your type change over time. Like, your superego is more active at certain times in your life or whatever,..

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowyc
    You can be whoever you want to be, you wouldn't know your distinct strengths and weaknesses if you had no model of "type" to relate to i.e. point of reference.

    Since you are not a type your type does not change but you do.

    I say, dettach your mind from the idea that you've been pigeonholed by "type", it can either be a blessing or a curse depending on your obsession with blaming your problems on an arbitary social model that in itself has not controlled your free will.
    Uh huh. Snowyc, try turning off that idea machine for a minute. You know, that endless movie parade cascading through your head. I give you ten seconds before the intuitive function racks your brain.

    Type is physical, but it follows the archetype. It cannot change because it is bound by the limits of brain function, which are dependent upon body structure. One can embrace their weaker functions, but this is only possible when the chemistry of the brain shifts enough that unconscious content attains permanent consciousness.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by snowyc
    You can be whoever you want to be, you wouldn't know your distinct strengths and weaknesses if you had no model of "type" to relate to i.e. point of reference.

    Since you are not a type your type does not change but you do.

    I say, dettach your mind from the idea that you've been pigeonholed by "type", it can either be a blessing or a curse depending on your obsession with blaming your problems on an arbitary social model that in itself has not controlled your free will.
    Uh huh. Snowyc, try turning off that idea machine for a minute. You know, that endless movie parade cascading through your head. I give you ten seconds before the intuitive function racks your brain.

    Type is physical, but it follows the archetype. It cannot change because it is bound by the limits of brain function, which are dependent upon body structure. One can embrace their weaker functions, but this is only possible when the chemistry of the brain shifts enough that unconscious content attains permanent consciousness.
    are you talking to me, and not snowyc?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I friggin wish types would change, even as an INTj I would want to change things. I would take the women I'm attracted to and make them ESFj, because I can't make the ESFjs I know attractive.

  10. #10
    Creepy-

    Default

    fdkhfadas

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What a type is and why we can't change it.

    .. a type in it's basic form. I think it's fair to say that the main differences amongst the types start with how they judge and perceive information.

    Let's start with how people JUDGE information. There are four "processes" or ways that people have a preference for judging information; Ti, Te, Fi or Fe. Everyone naturally has one of these four dominate over the other three. Whichever one is "strongest" is the one that you ideally prefer to judge things with. If you use one of the other three functions to judge things, then the information can come out more twisted, and you are at least less confident in how well you judged it. Thinking and Feeling functions both judge things differently; one knows how to judge in the most logical way while the other judges in the most ethical way. Thinkers can judge things inanimately, more through facts, without being sway by emotion or thinking about other people's feelings. Feelers judge things animatedly, always considering how others feel, and what their moral values are while making a decision. In this respect, a logical, thinking, inanimate person can never become a "feeler", no matter how "nice" or personable they may be. This is because they are tied to one of the thinking functions first, so they will always try and rationalize things from the detached and logical perspective. A Thinker who takes on stereotypical qualities of a “feeling” type is not momentarily a feeler because their preference for Ti or Te hadn’t change; when presented with a problem, they again will make the logical choice. Feelers are the same on the flip side. When they make a decision, you can see them always basing it on a personal and moral level.

    And if you can figure out the difference between a logical or ethical person, of course the next step is, is the logical type a Ti or Te type? And is the ethical type an Fi or Fe type? THOSE differences are much harder to tell, and there are slight variations between those functions. For more thorough descriptions of the functions and their differences, read Psychological Types by Jung.

    OK… so now how people perceive information differently, and yeah, it is the same thing as judging with different functions. You can either perceive information with Si, Se, Ni or Ne. The differences between Sensors and Intuitives is not really that one “senses” things and the other has “intuitions”. Of course, both do both, but the question is where is the confidence. When Sensors have intuitions, they are more of a weak nature because their intuitions are often twisted and unfounded. The opposite goes for Intuitives, whereas their sense perceptions are often times distorted. Something else about Sensors and Intuitives is that Sensors will view something in it’s empirical form first, while latter try and conceptualized it, and the Intuitives perceive things conceptually first, while they latter try and back that up empirically.

    And to recap, “perceiving” something is how you take it in and “judging” something is how you rationalize it.

    As for Introverts and Extraverts, again remember that it does not have to do with how “sociable” you are. Introverts take things in as it relates to them. Extraverts take things in in terms of the objects around them. So you can say that introverted functions are subjective because they deal with the person’s own opinions, beliefs, or thoughts ABOUT something, and extraverted functions as objective because it has to do with things that exist in the outside world.

    We can break this down by describing four different kinds of people;

    Dynamical (reaction) Introverts.
    Dynamical (reaction) Extraverts.
    Static (action) Introverts.
    Static (action) Extraverts.

    A Dynamical Introvert is simply someone who always has a base for perceiving information subjectively, and then latter judges that information objectively.

    A Dynamical Extravert is someone who has a base for judging things objectively first, and then perceiving it subjectively.

    A Static Introvert has a base of judging information subjectively, followed by perceiving that information objectively.

    And a Static Extravert has a base for perceiving information objectively, then judging it subjectively.


    … so, since your “type” is not so much your “personality, but how you both take in and process things, it is never going to change into another type no matter how much your personality changes. You might be perceiving things with your Si and judging it with Te, then those are the functions that you will most comfortably choose, always. When you try and figure things out in different ways, you start to get more nervous or disoriented.

    BTW, the “Judging/Perceiving” is not a “real” dichotomy because, for one thing, your judging and perceiving nature is always changing and flip-flopping (which doesn’t happen with the other dichotomies). The only purpose of it was to tell which one of your function comes first. When you are using a judging function you are judging and when you are using a perceiving function you are perceiving. Also, the descriptions of the J/P are biased, because they seem to describe some types more naturally than other (no matter which function comes first). A lot of the time, sensors can develop more “judging” qualities and intuitives have more “perceiving’ qualities.



    …. Ahhh, and I didn’t even get into how our type is related to your brain. I guess that will be for another day…



    For now, here is where you can find the more specific descriptions of the 8 funcitons;

    Psychological Types
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  12. #12
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nice, Rocky. That's a pretty good explanation, as always.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Excellent! Can we have the short version for dummies, that's a personal INTj request 'cause even we can be naive...
    Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.

  14. #14
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    This really does not explain why temperament cannot be fluid. It's only a support within it's own being--it's a bit circular in logic.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    This really does not explain why temperament cannot be fluid. It's only a support within it's own being--it's a bit circular in logic.
    ehh.. I know, I was getting TO it, but didn't quite get to it yet...


    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    …. Ahhh, and I didn’t even get into how our type is related to your brain. I guess that will be for another day…

    Quote Originally Posted by snowyc
    Excellent! Can we have the short version for dummies, that's a personal INTj request 'cause even we can be naive...
    Sure,

    Thinking-judger= logical, detached, inanimate decisions.
    Feeling-judger= ethical, personal, animate decisions.
    Sensing-perception= views things empirically first (intuitions initially scrambled).
    Intuitive-perception= views things conceptually first (sensations initially scrambled).

    Introversion= Your opinion about something, or the relationship between things (subjective).
    Extraversion= The actual objects in the world surrounding you (objective).

    Dynamical= emotional, expressive, reactionary.
    Static= little aroused be enviorment, actionary.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  16. #16
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    This really does not explain why temperament cannot be fluid. It's only a support within it's own being--it's a bit circular in logic.
    ehh.. I know, I was getting TO it, but didn't quite get to it yet...
    Okies... waitin' patiently.

  17. #17
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Young

    It is too much to read for me, I mean, the types from Young. I don't have love to details as long as I think I grasp the concept. Well, I am not a thinking type anyway...
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, now that you know what my view of what a type "is"; why can't we change it? I believe that your type is dependant on your brain. You are born with a brain, just like you are born with a nose, or a certain number of fingers and toes. The 8 diffrent functions above can be said to come from strengths in diffrent parts of the brain (which obviousley leads to weaknesses in other areas). When one of those sperm connects with an egg to start the formation of a human being, several traits are naturally formed, which you already know includes all of your organs, including the brain.

    So how is your type related to the brain? Glad you asked...

    First, it could be said that the judging functions are left-brained functions, and the perceiving funcitons are right-brained funcitons. This is because, whenever you are makeing a decision or rationalizing something, you are using the left brain. We also know that the four funcitons that deal with making decisions are the judging ones; Ti, Te, Fi, Fe. The right brain is the perceiving brain because that is the hemishpere that is dominat while taking in information (perception); Si, Se, Ni, Ne. In that sense, we can call the irrational types right-brianed and the rational types left-brained.

    And how do you know that these functions are truely wired into our brains and don't change? Well, it's just common sense, isn't it? But if that's not good enough, we have a way to "cheat" to tell that this is true. This is the part where I give credit to Niednagel and the BrainTyping system. They claim that you can tell a person's type soley on their body movements. And what's the logic here? It has to do with the motor cortex. And this isn't something made up, it's been known for years. If you don't know what the motor cortex is, it controls diffrent parts of your body, and some people are naturally stronger in one part or another of the cortex; this is already known. The top most part of the motor cortex controls parts of the body such as the toes, feets, legs, hips, and shoulders. If you move down, the next part controls the arms, hands, fingers and eyes. The lowest part of the motor cortex controls the mouth, lips, tongue, and jaw. If I asked you if you could see some specific movements realted to everyone in a certain type, and only of THAT type, and that you know the brain controls all movements of the body, would it be reasonable to assume that that type is ingrained into your brain? Of course it would. This is the easy trick I was talking about before. Now, it would be hard for me to prove this to you through writing (although it's possible), so the easiest thing I can do right now is to ask you to look for it. I can assure you that I have seen it over and over again, enough times to convice me of it. I've never seen a contradiction. And this includes a lot of my friends (whom I type before hand before I was looking for movements) who I might play baseball (or other things) with. There is also the HARDER way to prove this, but that would be through brain/functional mapping, and we are not quite to that point yet (although, I hear that we've started).

    Again, not only are we born strongest in a certain part of the brain, but that area of the brain is where one of the functions lie. You can use the other functions, but as I stated in my first post, it feels unnatural to do this and everone would prefer to judge and perceive things in the way that seems most natural to them. The functions that you'd perfer to judge and perceive things with create your type.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  19. #19
    Topaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,340
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks Rocky. This is what I thought but I dont think I could have explained it as well as you did. Good job.

    Topaz
    The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.

  20. #20
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    Again, not only are we born strongest in a certain part of the brain, but that area of the brain is where one of the functions lie. You can use the other functions, but as I stated in my first post, it feels unnatural to do this and everone would prefer to judge and perceive things in the way that seems most natural to them. The functions that you'd perfer to judge and perceive things with create your type.
    Type or preferred tempament? It is completely possible to use any function available (just not at the same time for some like Fe + Te). Preference just refers to the ease of usage. It does not mean that usage is not possible.

    I'll leave BT for later although I have my doubts for it. Hopefully I'll get to it before my vacation ends :/

  21. #21
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    K, back. WC3 break lol.

    Another proposed question: Why is it born? Where is the link between being born with X in contrast to developing X due to another or several other stimuli?

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Type or preferred tempament?
    Either one... your prefered temperment is what you choose to use most easily, so I'm saying that that can create what you'd call a "type". I said that usage of other functions is possible, but that would feel unnatural, so we could say that uncomfort while judging things with trait A is the same thing as comfort while judging things with trait B, and so on.

    I'll leave BT for later although I have my doubts for it.
    You don't believe me? Prob away...


    Why is it born? Where is the link between being born with X in contrast to developing X due to another or several other stimuli?
    Are you born with lungs, a brain, a certian number of toes, a specific number of ribs?

    And things like your personality, beliefs, thoughts, experiences, etc do shape who you are, but not your type. That's the difference between nature and nurture. Your type is, I belive, is just how your brain perceives and judges information.

    Look, you are born with a liver. That liver that you are born with was created genetically; it's size, the way it works and how many toxins it can break down are all born into you. So, nature. Nurture is how you treat it. How much alchohol you drink, the level of fat you put into your body, etc. You can have twins born with identical livers, but if one abuses it while the other one treats it normally, you are affecting it in a way that outside forces do. This is why people born with the same type can be said to be the same at it's most basic level, because their brains process things in the same way, but their personalities can be diffrent by being shaped diffrently from their enviorments.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  23. #23
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Yes I know nature/nurture and Ive had a years worth of anatomy and physiology. Im not stupid =p It still doesnt support what you are saying-- it is still circular in arguement much like the fashion many religious arguements of persuasion have used time and time again.


    As for BT: That site really does not issue much support to their "empiracal" claims. It is even much less believable when it is centered around being celebritory and capitalistic.

  24. #24
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Cnange

    I looked through and didn't quite understood: does Rocky mean we cAN CHANGE TYPE OR SHE SAYS WE CANNOT CHANGE TYPE?

    What I have read in socionics was that type pretty much create/affect the personality, your preferences and etc. I do assume that there are parts of the brain which map traits or functions in a way our body organs can be projected on our feet. Genetics though must be involved and also explain some differences within the type.

    As regards to typing by movements - it may be difficult for the types who are more tuned into different sort of stimuli (like energy vawes and etc.) but potentialli it can be tought I suppose. However, for me it would be to hard to start take notice of it as i feel I dont' know enough. I usually need very very clear and detailed instructions or may be even practice before hand.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    Yes I know nature/nurture and Ive had a years worth of anatomy and physiology. Im not stupid =p It still doesnt support what you are saying-- it is still circular in arguement much like the fashion many religious arguements of persuasion have used time and time again.
    It is circular.. until you can go out and notice type>movements, and if movements>brain, then type must> brain. It is not really worth arguing AGAINST something until you actually try it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    As for BT: That site really does not issue much support to their "empiracal" claims. It is even much less believable when it is centered around being celebritory and capitalistic.
    Well, aside from making predictions based off of those empirical observations.

    http://braintypes.com/ainge.htm

    http://braintypes.com/peytonryan.htm

    (And several others that he has done for teams).

    Besides, he asks you to go out and experience it for yourself. That's why I said it would be hard to persude people through writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    I looked through and didn't quite understood: does Rocky mean we cAN CHANGE TYPE OR SHE SAYS WE CANNOT CHANGE TYPE?
    He. :wink:

    And I mean that we can't change our type.


    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    As regards to typing by movements - it may be difficult for the types who are more tuned into different sort of stimuli (like energy vawes and etc.) but potentialli it can be tought I suppose. However, for me it would be to hard to start take notice of it as i feel I dont' know enough. I usually need very very clear and detailed instructions or may be even practice before hand.
    What do you mean that it would be difficult for types who are more tuned into stimuli? Niednagal's actually an ISTJ...

    http://braintypes.com/index.htm
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  26. #26
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Niednagal

    I am sorry I don't know Niednagal. What I mean about tuned is that I don't know how exactly it happens that you may feel what typethe person is. If I try and do the test with the person than i am more on the logical and rational side. But sometimes, the thought just comes to your mind and that you start to check it by reasoning and observe the person to get more confident. I think if you have a basic knowledge of types, it just happens or it does not happen that you know the type of the person. That is why it is a good idea to expand the knowledge of types as it may come to automatic processing with practice. May be different types pay attention to different characteristics by typing the person. How exactly it happens - don't know, I am not specialist in brain functioning but I do find it interesting.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  27. #27
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    "Going out and seeing" still does not aid your arguement. It only shows the here and now. It does not show the entire past. It does not show the entire arrangement of events between conception and current time. And by entire arrangement I mean: Biological, Sociological and Psychological. It is still circular in arguement.


    BTW, it is extremely easy to persuade through writing which is why Im being resisant. Writing is an entire art form. Much of it is used to manipulate and persuade. Innocent until proven guilty in the court of text.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BTW, it is extremely easy to persuade through writing which is why Im being resisant. Writing is an entire art form. Much of it is used to manipulate and persuade. Innocent until proven guilty in the court of text.
    So I'm obviousley not going to be able to persuade you through an internet forum.


    Ok, now there is no way that I can literally prove this to you 100% here, so I won't. Pretty much what I was saying is that I'm giving my opinon that a type is simply how you judge and perceive information, and that preferances as to how you judge and perceive is ingrained into you through your brain. First, don't you admit that that would be the most logical conclusion? I'm sure a lot of people without knowledge of BrainTypes or anything have similar thoughts in that is how we inherit our type. I included the BrainTypes example because you (well, I) can see the physical correlation to type, and if you can do that, it solidifies the assumption that your type is connected to your brain (nature), because that is unchangable.


    And if I wasn't clear enough with how movements correlate to type, I'll be more specific now. Here is how it breaks down:

    THE TOP OF THE MOTOR CORTEX: This controls everything starting from the toes and feet, legs, hips and up through the shoulders.

    The types that are dominant in this region of the cortex are the Empirical Animates (or the Sensory Ethics in socionics).

    THE MIDDLE OF THE MOTOR CORTEX: This area controls the lower arms, hands, fingers, and eyes.

    The types that are dominant here are the Empirical Inanimates (or the Sensory Logics in socionics).

    THE BOTTOM OF THE MOTOR CORTEX: This is where you control the tongue, lips, jaw and throat areas.

    The types that are dominant in this area are the Conceptual Animates (or Intuitive Ethics in socioniocs).


    I'd like to mention that the motor cortex controlling all muscles in the body is old news. We already knew that some people were naturally more dominant in one area or the other. The only thing JN claims is that who is dominant where is not random, but connected to your type. So being dominant in a specific part of the Motor Cortex means that you are also dominant in a certain part of the brain.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  29. #29
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And, as we all know, NTs don't have a motor cortex. We just sit and think and solve all the world's problems :wink:
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    And, as we all know, NTs don't have a motor cortex. We just sit and think and solve all the world's problems :wink:
    That's not so far from the truth. The motor cortex has actually run out of room, so the NT (CI) types are slightly off the cortex. This can have both an up side and a down side; the bad side is that they are physically detached from reality and the good side is that being detached they don't mind discussing topics that they don't have a physical connection with.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  31. #31
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    Ok, now there is no way that I can literally prove this to you 100% here, so I won't. Pretty much what I was saying is that I'm giving my opinon that a type is simply how you judge and perceive information, and that preferances as to how you judge and perceive is ingrained into you through your brain. First, don't you admit that that would be the most logical conclusion? I'm sure a lot of people without knowledge of BrainTypes or anything have similar thoughts in that is how we inherit our type. I included the BrainTypes example because you (well, I) can see the physical correlation to type, and if you can do that, it solidifies the assumption that your type is connected to your brain (nature), because that is unchangable.
    I agree that theyre ingrained. I agree that the ideas of function are there in terms of what we can possibly grasp at this time. What I do not agree on is that they are static. I do not agree that there has to be a single conclusion. Multiple-causality is a grand possibility.

    You conclusion, if granted that physical correlation is true, is still false as it is still circular in logic. Plus the brain is changable. Hell, DNA mutates, too. Very little in humanity is static. I'm afraid that you have created an opinion through hasty information--some of which may or may not even be true. One of the issues in the social sciences is bias. One should be very skeptical when looking at sources and consider why it was done. The reason for this is because the social sciences embody who we are in idea. They are a very serious subject area. One simple idea can create mass chaos and pain. Silly really, but that's how it is. Socionics and MBTI (or whatever hell else one would like to refer to temperament function theory as) is at the very core of this because they create ideas that are easily internalized.

    The more intriguing question is, "So what?" Why is it important? It could easily be a form of bigotry. What exactly is important about this if true and why should anyone care?

  32. #32
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I understand the desire of the scientists to explain anything and everything scientifically - to observe, analyse, conclude and find further evidence to prove or disprove - the way to progress isn't it? The only one thing I would like to mention: we cannot expalin everything scientifically. The way we feel and behave, the way we go mad at times we try to attach to particular type. The type we want to attach to a part of a brain, brain is attached to a body which we can see and touch. What about the souls which we cannot see and touch? Does the soul play any meaning in what we do and who we are? Not everything can be rationalised and explained from scientific point. The findings in genetics which also tap into our likes/ dislikes could also expalin behavioural patterns in the future. The point is that the ways to the truth - are multiple.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  33. #33
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    I understand the desire of the scientists to explain anything and everything scientifically - to observe, analyse, conclude and find further evidence to prove or disprove - the way to progress isn't it?
    Sometimes. Look at the differences between the DSM-I and the current issue (Its like DSM-IIII-TR or something like that). It is not always progress. And sometimes it is. The tricky part with the social sciences, I believe, is seeing what is being used as a means of control or manipulation outside of reason and what is being used for honest progress. In other words--not used as a tool for any type of disparity.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The more intriguing question is, "So what?" Why is it important? It could easily be a form of bigotry. What exactly is important about this if true and why should anyone care?
    ... because if it IS true, then it garuntees a 100% accuracy of typing someone, which IS a good thing IMO because otherwise you have people trying to type others through things like stereotypes, which just leads to poor mistypings, and isn't that where poor discrimination can some from?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  35. #35
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Which implies that there is "good discrimination" lol. There is a large corporation (I forget which) in the US that decided recently that it would not use genetic testing for its employees for insurance and the such because they conclused that it would be discrimination (whew...). Remember: This is a science of people. It is not like discriminating for a preferred kitchen tile because it is the most functional and/or aesthetically pleasing. the other thing of interest that I note in all of the visual evidence is that it is primarily caucasian. Ive said it once and I'll say it again. Find me a pigmy with a large, sharp nose. This is not cross-cultural at all yet is implied universally. Unless, of course, only certain cultures are important for this.

  36. #36
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    My last post so I wont be replying to it. I sent a friend from a private forum this information and this is some perspectives she thought of.

    "The bulk of the material seems to be based off of standard Jung. I allow for the possibility that our types are encoded in our genes. I also allow for the possibility that the way we use our brain may have some influence over our skill with our bodies and maybe even vice versa. It doesn't seem that far-fetched that our brain might not have as much density as we need, and so certain functions might overlap and need to share resources a bit. People have suggested a variety of things that might stem from a mental/motor crossover, ranging from exercise being good for the brain as well as the body, all the way to the idea that taking the effort to dot i's and cross t's may change one's ability to think and result in a better life (which I find unlikely, but I suppose it's vaguely possible). Basically, we understand so little about the brain that almost anything's possible.

    Still, I agree with you that neither the site nor the poster offers anything in the way of solid proof. Just because one can construct a line of "obvious" reasoning that seems logical doesn't mean that it's true. I'm sure that, once upon a time, people thought it was obvious and logical that the earth was flat. After all, the floor under my feet looks pretty flat. And, if the earth is flat, it must end somewhere. Otherwise, where would the sun go at night?

    Also, Jung isn't all that scientific. More modern MBTI researches have postulated that the perceptions and judgments may not be so mutually exclusive after all. Ni might work in tandem with Se, and Te might work in tandem with Fi, etc. The tandem theories seem to be a bit more in line with the animus/anima idea, it's within the same person -- a function may actually like pairing with its opposite, and the two might have to simultaneously work together. (I'm starting to think that the tandem groupings might actually be another set of distinct and useful types: some people might be tandem for perception, judgment, neither, or both.).

    And finally, more studies are coming out suggesting that our brain is physically more flexible than we thought. It has to be flexible enough to keep us ahead of the animals. We seem to change and adapt even within our own lifetimes: look at what we've done to the world even in the last decade, much less the last generation, and some are saying even our bad habits establish physical paths through our brain. There are just so many possibilities, and we just don't know. I don't honestly believe in the introverted and intuitive minorities, nor do I believe that more women were born F and more men were born T. I actually think the reported imbalances are artifacts brought on by the environment and problems in the testing mechanisms rather than genetics, which would mean that I believe that a third of the extroverts and a third of the sensors are really introverts and intuitives who have been re-coded and/or mistyped.

    The BT stuff about the quarterbacks... That seems rather bogus... total sales fluff. There are a lot of ESTPs out there. The links just sound like they're exploiting slight-of-hand statistics. Just because someone has a certain preference doesn't mean that they're necessarily good at it. I find it to be very improbable that every properly encouraged and trained ESTP will become great NFL quarterbacks."

    Anyways--food for thought. I hope I have given you all some perspectives and things to think about even if I was an ass about it

  37. #37
    Creepy-msk

    Default Re: Niednagal

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    I am sorry I don't know Niednagal. What I mean about tuned is that I don't know how exactly it happens that you may feel what typethe person is. If I try and do the test with the person than i am more on the logical and rational side. But sometimes, the thought just comes to your mind and that you start to check it by reasoning and observe the person to get more confident. I think if you have a basic knowledge of types, it just happens or it does not happen that you know the type of the person. That is why it is a good idea to expand the knowledge of types as it may come to automatic processing with practice. May be different types pay attention to different characteristics by typing the person. How exactly it happens - don't know, I am not specialist in brain functioning but I do find it interesting.
    well i hope it's not trying to explain everything. People here have acknowledged the chasm between personality and type.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae's friend
    The bulk of the material seems to be based off of standard Jung. I allow for the possibility that our types are encoded in our genes. I also allow for the possibility that the way we use our brain may have some influence over our skill with our bodies and maybe even vice versa. It doesn't seem that far-fetched that our brain might not have as much density as we need, and so certain functions might overlap and need to share resources a bit. People have suggested a variety of things that might stem from a mental/motor crossover, ranging from exercise being good for the brain as well as the body, all the way to the idea that taking the effort to dot i's and cross t's may change one's ability to think and result in a better life (which I find unlikely, but I suppose it's vaguely possible). Basically, we understand so little about the brain that almost anything's possible.

    --> Ok, seems reasonable.

    Still, I agree with you that neither the site nor the poster offers anything in the way of solid proof. Just because one can construct a line of "obvious" reasoning that seems logical doesn't mean that it's true. I'm sure that, once upon a time, people thought it was obvious and logical that the earth was flat. After all, the floor under my feet looks pretty flat. And, if the earth is flat, it must end somewhere. Otherwise, where would the sun go at night?

    --> Good point. But logic is only step one. Even as I play sports in Gym, sometimes I can't help but sit back and giggle in my head, because I see it. Once you start to see the pattern over and over again with people whom you know, seeing how all the SF/EA types use their gross motor skills dominant (and other things along those lines), you may start to see it with the same joy and enthusiasm that I do.

    Also, Jung isn't all that scientific. More modern MBTI researches have postulated that the perceptions and judgments may not be so mutually exclusive after all. Ni might work in tandem with Se, and Te might work in tandem with Fi, etc. The tandem theories seem to be a bit more in line with the animus/anima idea, it's within the same person -- a function may actually like pairing with its opposite, and the two might have to simultaneously work together. (I'm starting to think that the tandem groupings might actually be another set of distinct and useful types: some people might be tandem for perception, judgment, neither, or both.).

    --> Wait, are those just dual-seeking funcitons, like we already have in socionics?

    And finally, more studies are coming out suggesting that our brain is physically more flexible than we thought. It has to be flexible enough to keep us ahead of the animals. We seem to change and adapt even within our own lifetimes: look at what we've done to the world even in the last decade, much less the last generation, and some are saying even our bad habits establish physical paths through our brain. There are just so many possibilities, and we just don't know. I don't honestly believe in the introverted and intuitive minorities, nor do I believe that more women were born F and more men were born T. I actually think the reported imbalances are artifacts brought on by the environment and problems in the testing mechanisms rather than genetics, which would mean that I believe that a third of the extroverts and a third of the sensors are really introverts and intuitives who have been re-coded and/or mistyped.

    --> Possibally Extraverts are typed as Introverts or vicea versa, because of a poor knowledge between the two. That being said, there are qualities of true introversion and true extraversion, which we can link to the brain.

    The BT stuff about the quarterbacks... That seems rather bogus... total sales fluff. There are a lot of ESTPs out there. The links just sound like they're exploiting slight-of-hand statistics. Just because someone has a certain preference doesn't mean that they're necessarily good at it. I find it to be very improbable that every properly encouraged and trained ESTP will become great NFL quarterbacks.

    --> Right here, I think she missed that point. I have to admit, I originally missed the point as well when I first learned about this stuff. I have read a lot from the critics on BT, and one thing in common that they have is that they somewhat misunderstand what he is trying to say. My biggest thing is not really to predict the next Ryan Leaf/ Peyton Manning thing, but just the physical justification of types being born within you.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  39. #39
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Hello again for a brief moment ^_^

    I found this link while playing around in the library (Yes I was bored =/ ).

    http://americanboardofsportpsycholog...ingSANDBEK.doc

  40. #40
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    . What about the souls which we cannot see and touch? Does the soul play any meaning in what we do and who we are? Not everything can be rationalised and explained from scientific point.
    True, that's why science limits itself to the observable phenomena. Even psychology, now, has gone pretty much behavioural, so there's a lot less digging into the motives for the behaviour of people...

    This way, we do not have to look at wheter people raise their child in a particular way due to their soul, or their genetic, or their upbringing. We just take the fact that when a person is X, behaves Y - it's pretty impossible to rationalize scientifically the motivation of people.

    Even the famous physicist Feyman explictly said that physics have given up the quest for "why does X has the properties Y?". The main question is "How does the properties Y influence X behaviour?".


    P.S. Since I'm not a native english speaker, could somebody clarify me wheter I can use the verb "to behave" even with objects or only with people?thanks in advance

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •