Mapping Socionics to neuroscience

[Brilliand]

Two things caught my attention:

• The Amygdala seems very much like the Feeling section of the brain
• Brain regions can cluster together for detailed focus on a certain area, or spread out (for efficiently skimming it?).

And those inspired the rest of this.

The brain has distinct Feeling, Sensing, Thinking and Intuitive sections. The Feeling center is probably the Amygdala, the Sensing center is currently being searched for by neuroscientists (but hasn't been found yet), the Intuition center (of imagination) makes sense but hasn't been found yet, and I suppose there's a Logic center somewhere.

Each of these centers may be polarized to either detail or high bandwidth for efficiency, or balanced for flexibility. I define the "strength" of an element as the percentage of its brain section that is polarized in its direction (Xi=detail, Xe=bandwidth), such that the strength of an element and its contrary element always sum to 100%. With these limitations, you have 8 elements with strengths freely in the 0%-100% range, divided into pairs whose strengths can be derived from each other. However, there is a need to somehow have access to a Pe element, a Pi element, a Je element and a Ji element in order to cope with all of reality. One element of each type must be greater than 0%, and "valued" in order to use it constantly or accept help with it if it is not capable in itself. This valuing inhibits use of the contrasting function, even when the contrasting function is stronger. The valuing will only occur if, at minimum, either the contrasting element or the conflicting element is weaker. The four possible sets of valued functions form a quadra.

With these restrictions, there are 24 types per quadra (which is an excellent number, as it's the number of hours in a day... but actually, it's 4 factorial), based on the function strength ordering between the four valued functions. These are the four Model A types (base then creative) and the eight Model X types (mode than agenda (from the superid), each with two subtypes, one with the two weakest valued functions in the order that Model A predicts, and one with them in the opposite order. Additional types could be derived from the relative strengths of the unvalued functions to the valued functions, for a total of 96 types per quadra.

This renders (most of) the dichotomies (a la Reinin) useless.

Some examples:

Person #1:

Te: 90%
Se: 60%
Fe: 70%
Ne: 40%
Ti: 10%
Si: 40%
Fi: 30%
Ni: 60%

Te+Fi=120%>100%, so most likely Grave
Se+Ni=120%>100%, so most likely Decisive

This is a Gamma with Te>Se=Ni>Fi, which is a pretty clear ENTj.

Person #2:

Te: 50%
Se: 80%
Fe: 30%
Ne: 85%
Ti: 50%
Si: 20%
Fi: 70%
Ni: 15%

Te+Fi=120%>100%, so most likely Grave
Se+Ni=95%<100%, so Judicious by a hair.

This is a Delta with Ne>Fi>Te>Si => ENFp
...but not far from Se>Fi>Te>Ni => ESFp

Person #3:

Te: 20%
Se: 80%
Fe: 90%
Ne: 70%
Ti: 80%
Si: 20%
Fi: 10%
Ni: 30%

Te+Fi=30%>100%, so strongly Merry
Se+Ni=110%<100%, so more likely Decisive

This is a Beta with Fe>Se=Ti>Ni

This could be a Model X INFp-Fe, alternate subtype, or ENFj-Fe, again alternate subtype. But I think this person would be more easily typed as an SLE...

Fe+Ni=120%
Se+Ti=160%
=noticeably more ST than NF
...with equal ego functions, but Fe significantly stronger than Ni.

Person #3:

Te: 0%
Se: 0%
Fe: 100%
Ne: 100%
Ti: 100%
Si: 100%
Fi: 0%
Ni: 0%

This is an Alpha. If this person stands near a Gamma, s/he will get hir head bitten off shortly. If you type this person and ever get past Alpha, you will be wrong.

[I tried to use the nice little element symbols in this post, but it would have taken 66... I'm limited to 20. ]

[ArchonAlarion]

you have two person #3s btw

and im not sure how you got 24 types per quadra. In "model x" there are 4 types and 8 subtypes from each quadra. The functional order goes Mode-Utility-Agenda-Activation for irrationals and Mode-Utility-Activation-Agenda for rationals. So 4 types each with two subtypes, which makes 8, how did you come up with 24?

Interesting nonetheless

[FDG]

Wow, nice explanation octopuslove. Finally something that doesn't sound like junk.

[Smilingeyes]

Agreeing with fdg about octopuslove's message. One of the first messages showing any actual knowledge or understanding of how the brain works (on this site or any other socionics site). This should be stickied.

[meatburger]

I am also weighing in for Octopuslove's description. I have studied the brain in psych and admittedly i have forgotten most of what ive learnt. Intuitively she seems to be on the right track though.

This is also why I think type change is definitely possible: if something as standard as the location of somatosensory inputs can be altered, then something as diverse in humans as personality can surely change.

I was thinking the same thing as you were writing about plasticity. I personally dont believe types can change however it is theoretically possible. It is possible that our current brain set up is influencing our behaviour which in turn is reinforcing the connections. The brain influences us to shape our environment and the environment influences our brain. Therefore via reinforcement we are staying the same types. I dont think if i poured over logic books i would ever get much better at Ti though.

There are also limits to the plasticity of the brain. For example if you sever the corpus collosum it may actually route some of the information via an anterior connection but the corpus collosum wont actually grow back. So its possible also our pathways are fairly fixed i think.

"But neuroscience and psychology are messy sciences, so I'd be wary of naming brain regions and allocating specific processes to them.

Agreed

[Waddlesworth]

@ Brilliand

Trying to make mind=brain will not help you understand socionics.

[mu4]

Since socionics deal with both conscious(mental) and unconscious(vital) information processing, some of the unconscious information processing can occur in the non-cortex portions of the brain, since I have observed even organisms with limited cortex capabilities, can still demonstrate uncanny non-conscious behavior, although very rudimentary(relative to humans) information processing.

Because animals with a cortex, can seemingly display complex emotional and sensory processing, it is possible that the entire cortex is involved in information processing. The neo-cortex could be a area of conceptualization, prediction, memory, systematization which is relatively absent aside from humans and great apes.

If you want to go into this in more detail, I can chat via PM/AIM/or Stick-am.

I have more of a neuroscience background than a socionics background, so my criticisms and suggestions tend to address the beginning rather than the second (probably more interesting, in terms of this forum) half of your post.

Neuroscience

I've been mulling over the neuroscience people have proposed on this board for some time, and a lot of it disagrees with the (little) neuroscience I've been taught. So I'm going to try to explain my viewpoint here:

Since socionics is based on information processing and not the acquisition of raw data, I'm pretty sure that the socionic functions are based in the cortex, most likely the neocortex. I would also tentatively suggest that they're mostly based in the frontal lobe. But neuroscience and psychology are messy sciences, so I'd be wary of naming brain regions and allocating specific processes to them.

The amygdala is involved in emotion, but it's only involved in instinctive emotion. That is, things like seeing a bear and being frightened, or a baby crying when it's hungry and can't see its mother. It's also involved with conditioning - seeing icecream and being happy, or a rat pressing a bar to get a food pellet. Many animals have amygdalae.

I'd say that the amygdala is to emotion what the primary somatosensory area and primary visual cortex are to sensing. The primary somatosensory area lights up when you feel something, whether it be heat, pain or something mechanical (touching a surface). The primary visual cortex lets you see things. Neither of these areas really interprets what you're sensing - it just lets you do it, to act as an interface to the outside physical world. It doesn't affect your use of it. It's like having legs and walking places - your legs let you walk, but they don't determine where you choose to walk.

On the other hand, socionics functions are far more complex. , for instance, can involve identifying the emotional atmosphere of a situation and choosing a response which, from past experiences, will affect it. This kind of process is far more advanced than what the amygdala can do; it certainly involves high order cognitive functions, which are located in the cortex.

In my opinion, what determines your strength with functions (and therefore your type) is not specific regions, but rather neurological pathways in the cortex. This is based on connections between regions in the brain.

To me, the most amazing thing about the human brain is its ability to adapt, or its plasticity. Wikipedia article on neuroplasticity says this rather well, so I'll copy-paste here:



A related concept is synaptic plasticity, which is



So in short, brain pathways change in strength due to use, sometimes with new neurons sprouting but more often simply in terms of long-term potentiation of synapses, to the point where one "mode" of thinking can be almost always activated in response to external inputs. That's my hypothesis about the neurological basis of socionic functions: for some reason (physical or merely psychological), one half of each dichotomy (e.g. N/S, i/e) is activated far more often than the opposing halves, and therefore is a "strong" function in comparison to the other one. (This is also why I think type change is definitely possible: if something as standard as the location of somatosensory inputs can be altered, then something as diverse in humans as personality can surely change.)

(My neuroscience background is certainly not strong. If anyone can point out any factual errors in what I've said, please let me know! )


Personality theory

I only know about Model A, so everything I say is based on that.

Your approach seems to be more in terms of continuums rather than dichotomies. My understanding is that socionics only operates in terms of dichotomies (whereas MBTI is very much based on continuums). Of course, like MBTI, socionics dichotomies could be based on relative weightings of the functions.

Have you considered making /// and /// add up to 100%? That's my understanding of socionic dichotomies and the placing of functions in Model A.


If anyone's read this far, thank you! I'm pretty sure this is my longest post, ever, and probably will be for some time.

[Waddlesworth]

Since socionics deal with both conscious(mental) and unconscious(vital) information processing, some of the unconscious information processing can occur in the non-cortex portions of the brain, since I have observed even organisms with limited cortex capabilities, can still demonstrate uncanny non-conscious behavior, although very rudimentary(relative to humans) information processing.

Because animals with a cortex, can seemingly display complex emotional and sensory processing, it is possible that the entire cortex is involved in information processing. The neo-cortex could be a area of conceptualization, prediction, memory, systematization which is relatively absent aside from humans and great apes.

If you want to go into this in more detail, I can chat via PM/AIM/or Stick-am.

Why try understand how something[socionics] operates when you don't even know if it is real or not?

Until type and intertype relations is objectively confirmed there is no reason to be caught up on empty theorizing about neurology. [why try to explain the existence of something that doesn't exist? It just turns into empty, circular, unfounded arguments.]

[mu4]

Why try understand how something[socionics] operates when you don't even know if it is real or not?

Until type and intertype relations is objectively confirmed there is no reason to be caught up on empty theorizing about neurology. [why try to explain the existence of something that doesn't exist? It just turns into empty, circular, unfounded arguments.]

Why do we try to understand the unknown?

Roll the dice, place your bets, winner takes all.

Biggest casino in the universe, truth. Theorists try to get to the truth before all the unseen cards are shown.

All it takes is thinking and the willingness to lose occasionally.

If you can't see the cards on the table, why not go home and play go fish.

[Waddlesworth]

Why do we try to understand the unknown?

Roll the dice, place your bets, winner takes all.

Biggest casino in the universe, truth. Theorists try to get to the truth before all the unseen cards are shown.

All it takes is thinking and the willingness to lose occasionally.

If you can't see the cards on the table, why not go home and play go fish.

When I play I like to know I have a chance at winning.

So it is true, play at own risk, but choose your games wisely.

[mu4]

When I play I like to know I have a chance at winning.

So it is true, play at own risk, but choose your games wisely.

Sometimes the game chooses you.

[ArchonAlarion]

only in soviet russia

[Waddlesworth]

Sometimes the game chooses you.

No one wants to waste time on empty pursuits.
Choose what is useful and practical.
Choose what will give you what you need to survive.
Do not die a wretched failure and disgrace.
Games are for children. They usually only have 1 winner.

Consider all this now rather than later.

[717495]

I didn't really read a lot of this because it started to get extremely difficult to want to understand. I agree with octopuslove however, on the first couple of sentences written, I can already see we have the same idea. Sometimes I get the feeling people are trying to make socionics more difficult than it is. I know its not a perfect system, but that doesn't mean it is going to suddenly be explained more in depth by such a simplistic idea. The idea of socionics doesn't get to be that, because my initial idea of socionics wasn't that to begin with. So basically my opinion of this kind of fantasy-science-theory you're trying to build, mapping exact brain locations seems like an Se endeavor, something I wouldn't tend to acknowledge but in a video game, where orcs strictly have this spell, etc. Another thing is you're applying the amygdala to feeling, however I don't understand how this pertains to a specific element of socionics. There are rational functions, ethics and logic, irrational functions, intuition and sensing, each inspired by personal feeling.

[Jarno]

Until type and intertype relations is objectively confirmed

it has been confirmed. about 10000000 times by numerous people who've shared the same experiences with type and intertype relations. It's probably been more times confirmed then anything else in this world.

[mu4]

No one wants to waste time on empty pursuits.
Choose what is useful and practical.
Choose what will give you what you need to survive.
Do not die a wretched failure and disgrace.
Games are for children. They usually only have 1 winner.

Consider all this now rather than later.

Geez, I guess my salary and position in life is so bad that I can't even buy my dream car. I'm such a miserable failure! WAH, if only I didn't lose some of my monies last year in only the biggest economic crisis of last 30 years, I could have had my dream car.

Wait, I guess that's not too useful or practical either, I'm just not that useful or practical of a person, I can't even pick a reasonable car like a a Chevy pickup, I mean then I could get awesome 15mpg mileage, low resale value, a horrible ride and the acceleration of a snail, all for the sake of practicality.

Yea, I guess I don't really need the car, I should have spent that money on a expensive house 3-4 years ago, made a investment in a home, stop paying rent, just pay some taxes, HOA fees and interest which would have been greater then rent and then enjoyed the free-fall home prices of the last couple of years. That would have been a real useful and practical thing to do in my life.

I'm going to die wretched and a failure because I keep making these bad decisions in my life!!! Someone save me...

At least socionics keeps me from getting in trouble with women, girls are just so impractical and expensive. I guess there is some upside to this thing after all.

EDIT: I just re-read my post, I realized that I wasn't all that impractical the last few years after all. I mean if I had listened to all the practical advice I was getting in my life. I would have probably been a wretched failure. All my foresight and theorizing really did help me!!! All that useful and practical stuff was just a big gamble!!!

[Waddlesworth]

Geez, I guess my salary and position in life is so bad that I can't even buy my dream car. I'm such a miserable failure! WAH, if only I didn't lose some of my monies last year in only the biggest economic crisis of last 30 years, I could have had my dream car.

Wait, I guess that's not too useful or practical either, I'm just not that useful or practical of a person, I can't even pick a reasonable car like a a Chevy pickup, I mean then I could get awesome 15mpg mileage, low resale value, a horrible ride and the acceleration of a snail, all for the sake of practicality.

Yea, I guess I don't really need the car, I should have spent that money on a expensive house 3-4 years ago, made a investment in a home, stop paying rent, just pay some taxes, HOA fees and interest which would have been greater then rent and then enjoyed the free-fall home prices of the last couple of years. That would have been a real useful and practical thing to do in my life.

I'm going to die wretched and a failure because I keep making these bad decisions in my life!!! Someone save me...

At least socionics keeps me from getting in trouble with women, girls are just so impractical and expensive. I guess there is some upside to this thing after all.

EDIT: I just re-read my post, I realized that I wasn't all that impractical the last few years after all. I mean if I had listened to all the practical advice I was getting in my life. I would have probably been a wretched failure. All my foresight and theorizing really did help me!!! All that useful and practical stuff was just a big gamble!!!

Hey, maybe you are already a wretched failure! The only person that can decide is you. Keep thinking about it!

[mu4]

Hey, maybe you are already a wretched failure! The only person that can decide is you. Keep thinking about it!

You don't have any real advice to give, I think you're really weak at giving real practical advice, so what you offer is your own personal feelings and agenda.

I think the reason you feel the need to give out these opinions and agendas of yours is because you seek someone to give you some useful and practical advice.

Here is my 2 cents.

Don't talk to me anymore.

[Waddlesworth]

it has been confirmed. about 10000000 times by numerous people who've shared the same experiences with type and intertype relations. It's probably been more times confirmed then anything else in this world.

You use numbers that have no connection to reality. You use the word "probably" and make an assumption with it that is groundless.

This is the typical mindset of the socionist when he/she is practicing socionics.

There is no proof that type, as is defined by most Socionists, is real. The inability of virtually all practicing socionists to objectively define the parameters of type both consistently and reliably, renders socionics useless for practical application.

I am of the opinion that it is also dangerous, for a multitude of obvious reasons.

There is, however, something very important nestled within socionics, a 'key' so-to-speak, but no one seems to want to look for it.

[Waddlesworth]

You don't have any real advice to give, I think you're really weak at giving real practical advice, so what you offer is your own personal feelings and agenda.

I think the reason you feel the need to give out these opinions and agendas of yours is because you seek someone to give you some useful and practical advice.

Here is my 2 cents.

Don't talk to me anymore.

Your opinions are interesting and I graciously thank you for them, good sir!

It is indeed very true that I offer my own personal feelings and agenda!
This is why I don't like to receive practical advice from other people, because I find practical advice from others interferes with my personal feelings/agenda.

[07490]

So in short, brain pathways change in strength due to use, sometimes with new neurons sprouting but more often simply in terms of long-term potentiation of synapses, to the point where one "mode" of thinking can be almost always activated in response to external inputs. That's my hypothesis about the neurological basis of socionic functions: for some reason (physical or merely psychological), one half of each dichotomy (e.g. N/S, i/e) is activated far more often than the opposing halves, and therefore is a "strong" function in comparison to the other one. (This is also why I think type change is definitely possible: if something as standard as the location of somatosensory inputs can be altered, then something as diverse in humans as personality can surely change.)

This is something that's definity worth looking at, my very low and limited perception on these topic is that it is quite possible to change for a duration of time, but to be changed in a permanent state I believe would take a very dramatic changes in your brains but.... we are talking about the mind and I think a lot is possible as you see Thur the mental health profession that minds can be alter even in a permanent state.

[tcaudilllg]

Neil Carlson, a neurologist and author of a leading text on the subject, has a thesis about what the hippocampus does. Studies have shown that damage to the hippocampus inhibits information processing capacity: one cannot conceive of the relationships between different stimuli. In particular, damage to it has been shown to inhibit one's ability to remember details of specific time periods, or even to conceive of sequential progression at all. Similarly, spatial relationship perception has been shown to be inhibited: persons who have suffered damage to the hippocampus have reported difficulty remembering the placements of objects. Based on this, Carlson proposes that the hippocampus is the de facto function of relation between stimuli. (the same being, from the observer's perspective, worldly data).

The hippocampus has been shown to have connections across the cerebral cortex and to the amygdala: it is a primary tool in the production of relational categories, and an essential element in the process of relational learning. Damage to the hippocampus creates a condition called "anterograde amnesia", in which the person fails to store declarative memories. Interestingly, damage to the hippocampus does not in any way affect non-declarative memory. Based on this, it seems to me quite evident that what the hippocampus is, is the central processing center for the function of consciousness.

Several implications:

• the socionics functions are processes of relation between the hippocampus and various regions of the cerebral cortex. (including the amygdala)
• the phenomenon of function dimensionality is a direct consequence of inhibited cognitive function between the hippocampus and the cerebral cortex.
• Depending on the structure of the hippocampus, information processing may be conducted by one single processor which switches between input/output regions, or a set of subprocessors specific to each region... or something even more complex.

The only thing we know for sure, is that the functions are "located" in the hippocampus. And, that they definitely exist. (at least with respect to the Model B functions. The Model A functions are most likely categorizational pairings of the "real" Model B functions based on similarities between them. So all of you guys who say the Model A functions "do not exist", I agree).

[tcaudilllg]

It would appear that use of the functions for purposes of general comprehension (such as for a job) is semantic memory. Use of the functions for understanding your own person (such as what you feel, or what think, plans that affect your life etc.) is episodic memory.

This ties together the fundamental thesis of Model B-contra, that there are two positions respective to each function, Jung's "subject" and "object", with cognitive psychology. It also (partially) validates Jung's claims on those points.