Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Functional Intelligence

  1. #1

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

    Default Functional Intelligence.

    = factual reasoning

    = probabilistic reasoning

    = responsive reasoning

    = moral reasoning

    = deduction

    = spatial intelligence

    = subconscious knowledge

    = conception


    ... what do you guys think?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  2. #2

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

    Default

    I just want to clarify some things...

    "probabilistic reasoning"= making a hypothesis on known probability, because the exact answer is not believed to be attainable.

    "moral reasoning"= making similar judgments stated above, only dealing with livings things (such as people).

    "deduction"= going from a general to a more specific solution.

    "spatial intelligence"= involving space, pictures, music, etc...

    "subconscious knowledge"= something that you already put an effort into learning that you just know without having to think about it anymore.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i tend to believe that these types of templates are severely oversimplified. declaring the functions in this way can be successful for some functions (such as Te = factual reasoning; that makes sense) but some functions you really have to stretch to make them fit this narrow-minded definition (i.e. Se = deduction? what's the reasoning behind that?)

  4. #4

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    (i.e. Se = deduction? what's the reasoning behind that?)
    1) Experience with Extraverted Perceivers, and

    2)this article.

    "Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought."

    (which makes sense, if we are assuming that 1) the right brain deals with perception, 2) spatial-visual areas are primarily , 3) the more you get towards the front of the brain, the more Extraverted the processes get, 4) the left brain deals with judgment, 5) recalling and evaluating the facts is more , and 6) the more you get towards the back of the brain, the more Introverted the processes get.)


    I also want to add that I think more along the lines of Olga, in which functions with the same "focus" learn to work together. That means;

    -
    -
    -
    -
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  5. #5
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,702
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Functional Intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    = factual reasoning

    = probabilistic reasoning

    = responsive reasoning

    = moral reasoning

    = deduction

    = spatial intelligence

    = subconscious knowledge

    = conception


    ... what do you guys think?
    I agree that the judgement functions could possibly be accurate. I disagree with the perceptive functions. For example, you describe Si as spatial intelligence, however that is something that isn't necessarily linked with any function. However, Si being labelled as memory intelligence is possible if you view the word memory in general terms.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  6. #6
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you mean by probabilistic reasoning?

  7. #7

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by detail
    What do you mean by probabilistic reasoning?
    Using probability of course!

    It's in a sense, taking all of the "facts", systemizing them, and rearranging them in a way to declare the way in which things should be labled, based on the most probable outcome, since a %100 correlation never really exists. Some similar things have been said about Ti, though I've never heard of it called "probablisitc reasoning" before (I'm kinda starting to like the term.)
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  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 Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    (i.e. Se = deduction? what's the reasoning behind that?)
    1) Experience with Extraverted Perceivers, and

    2)this article.

    "Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought."
    and

    "The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic. "

    would this support that the areas of the brain not governing language (right brain) would be responsible for deduction, since as far as I know there are only two options for a section of a brain being responsible for language functions? and at the same time, since a non diagrammic task which i take to mean, non spatial, means the left brain because i take it the right brain controls spatial reasoning-- that the left brain also controls deduction? i readily admit you know loads more about the brain than I.

  9. #9

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

    Default

    I think what he is trying to say is that there are parts in the left-brain that do not specifically deal with language, and the right-brain is certainly not entirely spatial.

    EDIT/// let me add that when he talks about "deduction" in the right brain, he is talking about areas closer to the frontal region, and is assuming that you know that spatial intelligence is often accepted as a function of more back-right-brained areas.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  10. #10

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

    Default

    oh i thought he was tying it in with what he said about when something activates the right or left brain it cannot spill over into the other half..

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    funny how you can tell which threads were made by Te types
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    It's in a sense, taking all of the "facts", systemizing them, and rearranging them in a way to declare the way in which things should be labled, based on the most probable outcome, since a %100 correlation never really exists. Some similar things have been said about Ti, though I've never heard of it called "probablisitc reasoning" before (I'm kinda starting to like the term.)
    It somewhat is a practical equivalent of how i view it. Only the term "probabilistic" doesn't connote the actual systematizing process that i identify with. I will have to agree with the term though, partly because of ENFp's PoLR causing them to ask "Yes, but what would happen if...?" instead of deducing themselves (Or my way of judging whether the term is good or not).

  13. #13
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Like I've siad before, Ti is more about developing a logical structure depicting IF-THEN-THIS, IFNOT-THEN-THAT statements which appear to be probabilistic in nature, but not entirely so.
    "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."

  14. #14
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Using probability of course! t's in a sense, taking all of the "facts", systemizing them, and rearranging them in a way to declare the way in which things should be labled, based on the most probable outcome, since a %100 correlation never really exists. Some similar things have been said about Ti, though I've never heard of it called "probablisitc reasoning" before (I'm kinda starting to like the term.)
    is Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  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 Mariano Rajoy
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Using probability of course! t's in a sense, taking all of the "facts", systemizing them, and rearranging them in a way to declare the way in which things should be labled, based on the most probable outcome, since a %100 correlation never really exists. Some similar things have been said about Ti, though I've never heard of it called "probablisitc reasoning" before (I'm kinda starting to like the term.)
    is Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?
    It seems to me that it is merely a function of . Let's look at what Mystic has to say...

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Like I've siad before, Ti is more about developing a logical structure depicting IF-THEN-THIS, IFNOT-THEN-THAT statements which appear to be probabilistic in nature, but not entirely so.
    OK... though it seems other functions answer similar questions, only they don't construct them (in their head) the same way. May I ask then why is that not really probabilistic (what you wrote)? for example wouldn't say something like that, but will literally "work out" all of the potential outcomes, trying to test several solutions to a problem to see if it gets the answer to come out the same way every time.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  16. #16
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Like I've siad before, Ti is more about developing a logical structure depicting IF-THEN-THIS, IFNOT-THEN-THAT statements which appear to be probabilistic in nature, but not entirely so.
    From a practical point of view, it is probabilistic in that the core reasoning is somewhat like you described, only the values that you can give to "THIS" and "THAT" will be choosen according to probability. It's understandable that we stick with the word "probabilistic" when we feel it's an implicit part of our reasoning, but we can't reject it as it is actually what makes the IF-THEN-ELSE system work. Also, i don't look at his model as something universal and i base my evaluation of "probabilistic"'s worth on the general consistency regarding the focused points for each function. As long as his area of focus is consistent it's ok as a "creation".

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Like I've siad before, Ti is more about developing a logical structure depicting IF-THEN-THIS, IFNOT-THEN-THAT statements which appear to be probabilistic in nature, but not entirely so.
    Isn't this as how is always Te depicted?

    And Se=DEDUCTION? Totally off-base. Do you think axiomatic reasoning is Se? How so??
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by detail
    From a practical point of view, it is probabilistic in that the core reasoning is somewhat like you described, only the values that you can give to "THIS" and "THAT" will be choosen according to probability. It's understandable that we stick with the word "probabilistic" when we feel it's an implicit part of our reasoning, but we can't reject it as it is actually what makes the IF-THEN-ELSE system work. Also, i don't look at his model as something universal and i base my evaluation of "probabilistic"'s worth on the general consistency regarding the focused points for each function. As long as his area of focus is consistent it's ok as a "creation".
    Yes, thank you.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  19. #19

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    And Se=DEDUCTION? Totally off-base. Do you think axiomatic reasoning is Se? How so??
    Are those two nessecarily related? (And wouldn't an axiom be or something)?

    Also, if you guys have a problem with =deduction, then what would deduction be related to?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  20. #20
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Using probability of course! t's in a sense, taking all of the "facts", systemizing them, and rearranging them in a way to declare the way in which things should be labled, based on the most probable outcome, since a %100 correlation never really exists. Some similar things have been said about Ti, though I've never heard of it called "probablisitc reasoning" before (I'm kinda starting to like the term.)
    is Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?
    It seems to me that it is merely a function of . Let's look at what Mystic has to say...

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Like I've siad before, Ti is more about developing a logical structure depicting IF-THEN-THIS, IFNOT-THEN-THAT statements which appear to be probabilistic in nature, but not entirely so.
    OK... though it seems other functions answer similar questions, only they don't construct them (in their head) the same way. May I ask then why is that not really probabilistic (what you wrote)? for example wouldn't say something like that, but will literally "work out" all of the potential outcomes, trying to test several solutions to a problem to see if it gets the answer to come out the same way every time.
    taking in facts, systematizing them, and rearranging them so as to correctly label them based on probability as 100% correlation does not exist, is once removed from understanding.

    i see an issue with seeing Ti as a theory of understanding instead of understanding itself. Ti is about a critical reflexivity, which you have touched upon, but limiting Ti to probabilistic reasoning excludes it from a certain self-transparancy. Ti is capable of probabilistic reasoning, but not limited to it.

    my question, "is Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?", was not a labelling of "probabilistic reasoning" or of systematizing what you wrote, but instead more of a self appropriation.

    in the spirit of the forum, have a crack at this if you like. http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?p=8...ghlight=#86966
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What it seems that you're missing, is that probability theory is just a bunch of axioms. Therefore, we can say that Deduction is Ti and still include probabilistic reasoning.

    Rocky, I don't know what to associate to. I've always seen it as a real-time free-flow "reasoning" that reacts to the immediate environment without a conscious thought process.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    What it seems that you're missing, is that probability theory is just a bunch of axioms. Therefore, we can say that Deduction is Ti and still include probabilistic reasoning.
    i was shooting for the axiom of axioms
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  23. #23

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

    Default

    @Mariano: yes, at least you say = axioms, that makes sense.

    @Fabio: / are both more inductive, don't you think?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  24. #24
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    " are both more inductive, don't you think?"

    Why would you say that?
    "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."

  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 MysticSonic
    " are both more inductive, don't you think?"

    Why would you say that?
    Hmm... are you saying that only is inductive? Possibally. But is certainly not deductive like FDG said.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  26. #26
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti is deductive in an implicit sense, I think, which in turn makes it appear like induction---which it is at times.
    "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."

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not too sure...if u find me, let me know!
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    1) Experience with Extraverted Perceivers, and

    2)this article.

    "Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought."

    (which makes sense, if we are assuming that 1) the right brain deals with perception, 2) spatial-visual areas are primarily , 3) the more you get towards the front of the brain, the more Extraverted the processes get, 4) the left brain deals with judgment, 5) recalling and evaluating the facts is more , and 6) the more you get towards the back of the brain, the more Introverted the processes get.)


    I also want to add that I think more along the lines of Olga, in which functions with the same "focus" learn to work together. That means;

    -
    -
    -
    -
    That's a nice neuropsychology paper.
    It's kinda nice at highlighting the function language plays in this sort of reasoning. I know that I can think far quicker than I can talk.
    I can see where you're coming from comparing Ti and Te
    If you're going to go along with this left brain-right brain paradigm I suggest you read up on split brain patients (if you haven't already) as I wonder if Jung's concept of Ti/Te is sufficient to explain it.

    That said, cortical functioning is VERY complex, so I tend to avoid getting bogged down in it unless I'm trying to highlight a very specific example.

    Although the reasoning involved in this paper doesn't look at spatially related tasks also this sort of reasoning doesn't have a strong emotional outcome.

    The fact that there was no sex difference in amygdaloid activity was surprising.
    There IS however, if you use an emotive stimulus
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10789

    With men using their right (and supposedly unconscious) amygdala for recall of emotional memories and women use their (conscious) left, suggesting that women are generally more affected by distressing emotional memories.

    I tend to think of feeling/thinking as a measure of the amount of limbic input recieved by the prefrontal cortex (either directly, or via the temporal lobes). Mainly because feeling normally requires an emotional outcome and thinking does not.

    The fact that you claim that Si is involved in spatial intelligence is curious. I think you're just looking at it the other way round from me.

    For example: There is a functional overlap between spatial and somatosensory inputs (for example if I burn my finger, I know what direction to move it in to stop it getting burnt).

    But this functional overlap involves the presence of a positive or negative stimulus and any parietal involvement can be view as a conditioned response.

    Si CAN involve spatial intelligence, but can just as easily involve any other sort of conditioned learning.

    To my mind Si = Complex association, slow desensitisation

    Se is similar to Si, but with less associations. (There was an operant conditioning study done on rat in the 1950s which highlight this, although annoyingly I can't find it!!!)

    I think it's just as (if not more) important to understand how individual brain cells work as it gives you a more detailed understanding of what different brain areas do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation
    For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not too sure...if u find me, let me know!
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As for the amygdala, temporal lobe stuff, try looking up capgras delusion.
    For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.

Posting Permissions

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