This is a clip of a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke and chronicled her experience from the inside - I highly recommend it.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...f_insight.html
Sensors are Right-Brained
This is a clip of a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke and chronicled her experience from the inside - I highly recommend it.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...f_insight.html
I see Ne, Si and to less extent Fi and Te in the right hemisphere description. Thus it's likely that Se, Ni, Ti and Fe are left.
After watching that video (I had seen it before) I understood the connection between Ne and Si much better.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
That is a very interesting conclusion. I think that I agree with what you have said.Originally Posted by mikemex
That is of course totally wrong.
She had difficult clearly defining what was what and who she was (every mixed into everything) which IMO means the stroke disabled her ability to use Ti.
Her experiences of what she called right brained activity seem to be a mix of Si (awareness of body) which could of been brought on by the fact she had done some exercise, some intuitive function (stream of consciousness) and some ethical function (thinking about all the 'good and beautiful' in the world people).
Strangely enough she seemed to have ability to assess the situation and form a set of clear actions to reach a specific goal (calling work, matching squiggles on card to squiggles on phone) and she remembered what she had to do and stuck with it, yet she really didn't have a clear idea of what was going on. Which IMO looks something like Te (and some Si) with absolutely no Ti.
ἀταραξία
Fascinating insights, thanks! Now I know why I smoke weed: it's to shut up the Ne chatter of my left hemisphere and pass control to my Si right hemisphere
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Not at all.
It's your problem if you believe in it.
Extraordinary and very moving video.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
You know process/result is also referred to as left/right (http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ess_and_result), perhaps it is actually referring to left and right brain hemispheres? I am considered 'process' as an ISTj and also very much left-brained in the way that I process information, so I suppose that I must confirm your theory as well. Also, I can easily understand why a parallel processor would find it easier to multi-task and a serial processor would have to be much more involved in whatever it is doing. You are very observant to have noticed this distinction - good work!
Thank you, why do you say that? I presume from the traits in your signature that we have a mirror relation.thank youand so LSI of you to say all such.
No, no, no. Read this, please:
RIGHT – LEFT (process vs. result, evolyutory vs. involyutory)
PRAVYE – LEVYE (protsess – rezultat, evolyutory – involyutory)
(Because this sign was "renamed" by V.Gulenko, a confusion arose. In A.Augustinavichjute [ 2 ] and G.Reinina [ 5 ] this sign is called "left – right" (Leftists are ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII, , rightists – ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI). We utilized in this article the more contemporary "opposite" designations of V.Gulenko and T.Prokofevoy (Leftists are ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI, rightists – ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII). As the names of the attributes do not determine the attributes themselves, the changing of the names is an insignificant detail, but still mentioned in case one encounters opposite classifications)
Not at all. You are jumping to conclusions based on too little factual information. If you study these phenomena a little further, you will realize that your "theory" doesn't make any sense.
Bad work. The test dee linked to is based on the most common understanding of these aspects of thinking -- that the overall pattern is that J (rationality) is left brain and P (irrationality) is right brain. All the different types of thinking mentioned in relation to that test is sorted along these lines. The left brain thinking styles are all J, the right brain thinking styles are all P.
I am myself fairly balanced according to most tests, including that one. In some ways I clearly prefer what is, according to that test site, a left brain style, whereas I in other ways clearly prefer and act according to a right brain thinking style.
I agree with Phaedrus on the issue. Trying to connect process-result to brain emisphere preference is misleading.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I answered 3 questions as a right-brained person and 15 questions as a left-brained person, which is a typical score for me. That the test options are sorted by their characteristic right/left qualities is necessary for the determination of a mutually exclusive hemispheric dominance (which is indeed the purpose of the test), and if there exists a correlation of the test's polarization of content to socionics dichotomies then perhaps it is ultimately justified. The information that you presented is interesting, but it doesn't explain the reasoning for using right/left designations or for switching them. Might I inquire as to the author? And lastly, how does the theory not make sense?
This goes to show what takes place in the right side of the brain, but not everything that takes place in the right side. As far as you know the N functions are over there too, while T and F are on the left. Or as far as you know this person was experiencing a subjective reality of limitation, to where only certain aspects of realization had come through.
So far it has been a decent hypothesis for many that ps are more right-brained and js are more left-brained. I would say there could definitely be statistics on this showing a correlation of P functions to right and J functions to left, but it's not always true.
I agree with this.
The funny thing is that I read somewhere that Augusta said:
Judgers : Left = Statics, Right = Dynamics
Percievers : Left = Dynamics, Right = Statics
This would mean (if you based it on types primary functions)
Te, Fe, Ti, Fi - right brained
Ne, Se, Ni, Si - left brained
Maybe whoever wrote that put it backwards.
No, that would mean:
Xi - left brained
Xe - right brained
I find it easiest to relate this to Judging/Perceiving, and Static/Dynamic would be my second guess. Mixing Augusta's idea into this:
Xi accepting, Xe producing: Left brained
Xe accepting, Xi producing: Right brained
Putting the divide along Static/Dynamic in a single individual makes sense for the model of moving between the brain hemispheres rather than using them together. Also, it seems very strange for nearly everyone to leave the same brain hemisphere unused... this is an argument for the divide being Static/Dynamic.
She was probably an Alpha NT, which explains well enough what abilities she lost/discovered in the stroke by the Static/Dynamic hypothesis; by Augusta's hypothesis, it only makes sense if she's LII (which she probably is). I'm afraid my Judging/Perceiving hypothesis wreaks havoc with what I see
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Oh that's right. I'm such a sensotard.
I doubt she meant unused, just as I doubt she meant for one to fit perfectly into 1 of the 16 types.
How about we don't correlate things to brain hemispheres and call it a day?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I can do whatever I want. I have, and just for the record, there's obviously some correlation. Nothing is perfectly equal in use.
*waits for a conclusion*
So am I right-brained or left-brained? I've never known up til now, and I'm hoping somebody will tell me.
I am middle-brained.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Why is there obviously some correlation?I can do whatever I want. I have
I'm in agreement with this btw. At least with the data we have atm.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
You know what a probability is right? What's the probability that one is an irrational P vs being rational J?
Therefore quarters made before 1950 usually land on heads and all those after usually land on tails?
Is that along the lines of what you're saying?
Because that's honestly what it sounds like.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
No, MysticSonic is just avoiding the point both of us are trying to make. That nobody is exactly one type, just as no one thing is perfectly correlated to another. There is no 50/50 perfection, so there will always be correlation. No matter how small, the dominant usually anticipates its opposite.
I don't know why you're confused. But for simplicity reasons, chose any two objects from the room you're in and compare them. Sooner or later you're going to find some commonalities. Secondly that they are likely commonalities between two objects because they are commonalities of many objects. Somethings uniqueness is beside the point of making correlations.
I agree it's partly the wording. I'm referring to what people make of the types, an excess of wrong definitions floating around. Theoretically someone is exactly one type, but how are you to decide that? Objective means or subjective means, and where do these means come from? This is why typing always has its faults.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
