Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Discussion of underlying cognitive mechanics

  1. #1
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Discussion of underlying cognitive mechanics

    This is a thread for the discussion of cognitive mechanics between Point and chemical, please do not flame or insert a unrelated tangent into this thread. Please pose questions in a clear manner, some questions may be moved or removed from this thread and address in this opening post due to some reference knowledge necessity. Any reference knowledge or necessary knowledge will be linked in this thread along with the question which prompted it.
     


    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Exactly; my view is that it's possible that this assumption is a product of the need for maintaining a study of a system of typology at all. After all, you can't describe the infinitely many ways development can happen, but you can try to describe and build on the likely foundations/innateness behind that development. Jung's type diagnosis was subjective enough and allowing enough for changes of type pattern that he probably never was motivated to write down a full on static classification system (nor was that his kind of thing).

    Unfortunately I think it's hardly reality that there's a clear, obvious reason why someone's IE remain solely explainable from the standpoint of one block or function. You can argue it and argue it and spin it so it works, but I happen to think with development comes not just more nuance and more experience, but also a potential opening up of the person to employ functions from the mindset of a different block, i.e. develop new fundamental patterns resembling other TIM. It's possible some of this is speculated about in the Gulenko multiple types theory, which never seems to have been resolved entirely (?!). As the persona type represents the individual's concrete adaptations to reality's conditions, and as in the original Jungian standpoint, the ego would likely identify at least in part with a healthy persona, with the difference not being between persona=mask and ego=real but rather ego=conscious sense of self vs Self=full sense of self, including the iceberg beneath the ego, it's actually quite likely one develops pretty clear, well-defined type patterns over time.
    I think Gulenko's multiple types theory is ok, but what's happens is a terminological mess which can confuse people.

    As far as why someone's IE remain solely predictable from just one block, it's quite simple. Think of human cognition as a very complex wave, where as if you know one point of the wave you can predict another point. If you think of it that way, you can see personality as a very complex signal which we express thru time.

    The various blocks are just different points on the wave. This is the same reason we can predict the helical form of DNA and various other natural phenomena. I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, I simply assume that the mind behaves the same way as the rest of the universe. I leave the details of this to scientists, but I assume truth here since I have no choice but to.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Discussion of underlying cognitive mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    I think Gulenko's multiple types theory is ok, but what's happens is a terminological mess which can confuse people.
    Since this thread is probably just the place, mind explaining how you see the multiple types theory?

    The thing which occurred to me is that I seem to see in socionics, some sites just give profiles which detail IE 1-4, leaving the rest out, presumably because these correspond to the "vital" sphere, and perhaps even because only the mental sphere is really the sociotype proper in the sense of information processing. Yet, the vital sphere plays a crucial role in intertype. Gulenko's energy model seems to be getting at a replacement for this vital sphere with a sociotype which doesn't just parallel the standard sociotype (e.g. a LII's sociotype has vital sphere that looks sort of like ILI, with 4-dimensional Ni, 3-dimensional Te, 2-dimensional Si, 1-dimensional Fe). For instance, he says, there's no reason the vital energy-focused type cannot be sensory, where the main sociotype is intuitive.

    The problem for me arises in really delineating what the energy model is about. The vital, behavioral side versus the mental, informational side - what does this mean though? The closest thing I can posit is that in the Jungian theory, energy is sort of controlled by emotional charge, so lies in the realm of complexes and so forth which kick the ego into action by spewing contents from the unconscious which the ego must react to. I'd assume that these unconscious contents parallel the Freudian id to some extent, and to that extent, the idea of a super(id) constituting a "vital sphere" which determines the energetic charge is well-founded.

    It seems like the issue with linking those thoughts to the two-types model though is that Jungian theory basically says your one type handles the contents spewed into consciousness, and this also is how the original sociotype model is doing things (the ego/superego block are your conscious processing of things, whereas things like the hidden agenda just are used to spur you into action and so forth, they are energizing agents).

    The one other thing Gulenko says is the energy/persona type is the output of an input-output system. Usually these two would both be controlled by one type.

    I suppose then, what he's getting at is that your innate responses to information, how you make sense of things in life, is through a certain kind of information. How you then decide to live is another. I guess this could correspond to an ethical type, who understands everything in terms of ethical judgments, and then lives the entire life doing logical work. For instance, this could be a good number of medicine-oriented people, people who really see the ethical merits of medicine, and view the world in terms of ethical concerns, but how they respond (output) isn't through ethical processing used to deal with their environment (dealing directly with humane evaluations as a response to their humane evaluations), but rather working in a pure scientific knowledge-based sphere. Here you could get a IEI-SLI or something like that.

    I guess I just find the term "energy type" a bit hard to sort out, because in so much as one needs to allocate energy towards certain information processes, I don't see how alternate information processes would be useful - the information processes themselves are effectively filters for what you see and focus on when you encounter information, and thus they are already in a sense controlling energy allocation. I suppose energy as understood specifically in terms of behavioral type is what is meant though, because that's what parallels the vital sphere of the usual model A. For instance, you could understand things in an introverted way, yet conceivably be an extravert in terms of living.
    When he was posting on here, Tcaud used to speak of this behavioral/living type (though as I understand it, he was doing his own thing which independently to some extent paralleled Gulenko) as related to your interests set, which makes sense: interest is definitely a sort of vital-energy driving thing. You might not be able to understand things in a way suggesting an extraverted processing set, yet in what you choose to live like with your understanding, or what tasks you choose to do, you'd most certainly be able to tap extraversion if that's how you're built.

    Side note is that I find the arrangement of IE a little strange in model A, given that in the Jungian theory, the opposite of thinking is feeling (logic versus ethics), yet in sociotype, one ethical function in a logical base is especially weak, the other one is only moderately weak. I think if one used the dual-types, one might be able to use a more Jungian standard for the arrangement of orders, and account for a IE being weak in one situation but not another possibly by ascribing it different roles in the two different types.

    The only thing is, with a multiple types theory in the exact fashion of Gulenko, it's hard for me to see how the usual model A applies anymore. After all, model A presumes to describe the vital type, and Gulenko seems to be trying to do away with that.

    Also, I'll say, there has to be something fishy with multiple types going on with a character like Freud. Jungian theory may get the introverted/extraverted of IE differently, but logic/ethics pretty clearly has everything to do with thinking/feeling, if the vertical subtypes theory applies Jungian rules entirely the same way as they are (and note, that subtype theory is independent of introversion/extraversion). The two main typings I see for Freud passed around are some kind of extraverted intuitive-thinking type, and some kind of introverted feeling type. It seems likely that this whole multiple types business is lurking here, because Jung struggled with Freud's type and changed his mind a few times, and reportedly the issue was what's the man as a person like versus what's his course of thought and theorizing like. Jung, like sociotype-model-A, seems to have tried to explain everything with a single model, but how then could someone like van der Hoop diagnose Freud so differently, and why would there be socionist support for van der Hoop's portrayals? Why would Jung himself have thought Freud is extraverted, and then had to later correct himself that the man and the theory are distinct? Do the man and the theory have to be related in one simple way by one model? It would seem this is exactly the kind of situation where Gulenko is saying no, quite possibly not.

    Basically I think diagnosing the man Freud as an ethical type and his informational orientation as more thinking-oriented makes more sense than characterizing it all in one fell swoop by a feeling-thinking opposition. As much as Jung has criticized Freud's thinking, he also clearly acknowledged he was extremely smart, and had a lot of insights, and these insights were in a logical sphere, not ethical, for a big part (compare to someone like Dostoevsky, who was a brilliant EII).

    Given the vital type is a sort of persona, I think there might be more than one of those, which is fine - Gulenko said at least 2 types, minimum.
    Last edited by chemical; 08-21-2014 at 06:47 PM.

  3. #3
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Since this thread is probably just the place, mind explaining how you see the multiple types theory?

    The thing which occurred to me is that I seem to see in socionics, some sites just give profiles which detail IE 1-4, leaving the rest out, presumably because these correspond to the "vital" sphere, and perhaps even because only the mental sphere is really the sociotype proper in the sense of information processing. Yet, the vital sphere plays a crucial role in intertype. Gulenko's energy model seems to be getting at a replacement for this vital sphere with a sociotype which doesn't just parallel the standard sociotype (e.g. a LII's sociotype has vital sphere that looks sort of like ILI, with 4-dimensional Ni, 3-dimensional Te, 2-dimensional Si, 1-dimensional Fe). For instance, he says, there's no reason the vital energy-focused type cannot be sensory, where the main sociotype is intuitive.

    The problem for me arises in really delineating what the energy model is about. The vital, behavioral side versus the mental, informational side - what does this mean though? The closest thing I can posit is that in the Jungian theory, energy is sort of controlled by emotional charge, so lies in the realm of complexes and so forth which kick the ego into action by spewing contents from the unconscious which the ego must react to. I'd assume that these unconscious contents parallel the Freudian id to some extent, and to that extent, the idea of a super(id) constituting a "vital sphere" which determines the energetic charge is well-founded.

    It seems like the issue with linking those thoughts to the two-types model though is that Jungian theory basically says your one type handles the contents spewed into consciousness, and this also is how the original sociotype model is doing things (the ego/superego block are your conscious processing of things, whereas things like the hidden agenda just are used to spur you into action and so forth, they are energizing agents).

    The one other thing Gulenko says is the energy/persona type is the output of an input-output system. Usually these two would both be controlled by one type.

    I suppose then, what he's getting at is that your innate responses to information, how you make sense of things in life, is through a certain kind of information. How you then decide to live is another. I guess this could correspond to an ethical type, who understands everything in terms of ethical judgments, and then lives the entire life doing logical work. For instance, this could be a good number of medicine-oriented people, people who really see the ethical merits of medicine, and view the world in terms of ethical concerns, but how they respond (output) isn't through ethical processing used to deal with their environment (dealing directly with humane evaluations as a response to their humane evaluations), but rather working in a pure scientific knowledge-based sphere. Here you could get a IEI-SLI or something like that.

    I guess I just find the term "energy type" a bit hard to sort out, because in so much as one needs to allocate energy towards certain information processes, I don't see how alternate information processes would be useful - the information processes themselves are effectively filters for what you see and focus on when you encounter information, and thus they are already in a sense controlling energy allocation. I suppose energy as understood specifically in terms of behavioral type is what is meant though, because that's what parallels the vital sphere of the usual model A. For instance, you could understand things in an introverted way, yet conceivably be an extravert in terms of living.

    When he was posting on here, Tcaud used to speak of this behavioral/living type (though as I understand it, he was doing his own thing which independently to some extent paralleled Gulenko) as related to your interests set, which makes sense: interest is definitely a sort of vital-energy driving thing. You might not be able to understand things in a way suggesting an extraverted processing set, yet in what you choose to live like with your understanding, or what tasks you choose to do, you'd most certainly be able to tap extraversion if that's how you're built.

    Side note is that I find the arrangement of IE a little strange in model A, given that in the Jungian theory, the opposite of thinking is feeling (logic versus ethics), yet in sociotype, one ethical function in a logical base is especially weak, the other one is only moderately weak. I think if one used the dual-types, one might be able to use a more Jungian standard for the arrangement of orders, and account for a IE being weak in one situation but not another possibly by ascribing it different roles in the two different types.

    The only thing is, with a multiple types theory in the exact fashion of Gulenko, it's hard for me to see how the usual model A applies anymore. After all, model A presumes to describe the vital type, and Gulenko seems to be trying to do away with that.
    This is a good place to hash this out.

    I have highlighted a few things I will comment on. My view point is more modern and different from Gulenko's methodology and is from a computer science background.

    "delineating what the energy model is about"

    The questions is whether or not the energy model is a simple thing or a complex thing. The way Gulenko has done this is created a dualistic system which consists of TIM and his energy model, but what if the energy model is more complex than that, what if the energy model plays by very different rules than what he's supposing. Given that I don't know what Gulenko thinks about this specifically, I can only wait for more information to be revealed and go my own path of thinking.

    "The vital, behavioral side versus the mental, informational side - what does this mean though?"

    I think perhaps this is a question that we shouldn't be addressing via a dualistic model. What could be happening and my view on it is that cognition is a monastic thing, however it's built upon other layers. When discussing conscious/mental and unconscious/vital we can perhaps redefine it in socionics to conscious/mental and pre-conscious/vital. This is still brain activity here and there are many many more layers of processing that occurs before a signal is translated to behavior. Gulenko is talking about 2 layers, but I'm pretty sure there's more than 2. The structure of the brain informs us that most of conscious activity is fairly isolated in the brain, it's particularly in the neo-cortex, however that's a very small part of the brain and a very recent evolution. Given the physical structure of the brain and the structure of the central nervous system, I believe cognition is dealing with a small part of the brain. Now what is the other parts of the brain that we need to investigate and why does cognition translate into behavior in such a precise manner if there's so many layers? I'll get to this later.

    input-output system

    I don't really agree that there is segregated input output mechanisms, the input output mechanism may be separate at a micro level but at a macro level I think the input and out mechanism are combined. I think Gulenko and his/other LII as well propensity towards dualism led him here, it's not wrong if you take it a certain way, but misunderstanding it creates a mess.

    I guess I just find the term "energy type" a bit hard to sort out

    I think energy type arises from the dualistic thought processes which Gulenko has and are a trend for LII's(Kant/Descartes/etc), however this doesn't mean it's the holistic picture. Energy type is confusing and I don't want to use the word type, nor do I want to use the word energy. I want to think about this different than Gulenko althrough I know perhaps why he had to invent this.

    If we think of cognition in the abstract as a desktop on top of a command line semantic interface which sits on top of a more primitive binary interface then the mind is little more than a computer in a box. However, let's take it beyond this. How would this computer translate cognition into behavior. How do computers translate digital into analog, this occurs due to a digital signal processor, and this digital signal processor could in fact be a multilayered thing that has many other specialized processors involved in the final translation of digital information into analog information. As a computer scientist this analogy is valid, and it's the basis of all cognitive-behavior architectures of all Artificial intelligence. What Gulenko has described is the interface point between cognition and the interface point of the digital signal processor, as these interface points have to be male/female/blah connector compatible. For Gulenko however, this interface point, which is merely a small part of the puzzle has become the central architecture and I think as an individual prone to this sort of mistake, he has made this one. This doesn't mean he's wrong to see this, just he might be misinterpretation the cause for variation in behavior to this interface point and not to the rest of the cognitive behavior system.

    I'll draw something here i hope you understand.

    Cognition(conscious/preconscious) <----> Interface point(compatible connector with cognition, even more precociousness) <-----> Specialized cognition signal processors(speech, motor, etc)

    Now what could be occurring is that the specialized cognition signal processors are producing a asymmetric signal(relative to cognition) to the conscious. and this is entirely plausible. However what might not be true is that this asymmetric signal is somehow organized the same way as cognition or that any sort of information preference exists, it could simply be a signal strength mechanic. I'm not saying Gulenko made a mistake, but he's perhaps mirrored something that's not a mirror and is merely identical only at the interface point.

    Anyways, I hope you understood what I wrote, it's not often I try to explain things to this level of detail since it's freaking hard.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    Now what could be occurring is that the specialized cognition signal processors are producing a asymmetric signal(relative to cognition) to the conscious. and this is entirely plausible. However what might not be true is that this asymmetric signal is somehow organized the same way as cognition or that any sort of information preference exists, it could simply be a signal strength mechanic. I'm not saying Gulenko made a mistake, but he's perhaps mirrored something that's not a mirror.
    If I get you correctly, you're suggesting that the behavioral processes might not be something you should consider a sort of mirror/dual sociotype to the main one. That, even though Gulenko was correcting the idea that mental-vital corresponds e.g. in LII as a sort of LII-ILI thing, to include a different sociotype, that perhaps his fascination with symmetry is leading to his positing a still too neat conversion.

    And that really what's going on is that we can't "type the unconscious" using a model that looks just like a sociotype and that the sociotype is just one part of a multilayered system whose parts besides the sociotype don't necessarily need to look like sociotypes themselves.

    I guess to me, while there doesn't have to be this enormous level of symmetry between behavioral/vital and mental/information, and indeed as I often say, I think the ego identifies with the persona (rightfully than not) quite often and thus blurs the distinction between a person and ego type, this case of Freud I detailed really interests me as an instance to consider, because it seems like there's some real consistency in scholars diagnosing him as either an introverted feeling type or an intuitive-logic type of extraverted kind.

    I have a feeling both of these types are in a sense information types, because after all, they're still info elements in both types.Perhaps the error is in calling the second type the energy type?

  5. #5
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    If I get you correctly, you're suggesting that the behavioral processes might not be something you should consider a sort of mirror/dual sociotype to the main one. That, even though Gulenko was correcting the idea that mental-vital corresponds e.g. in LII as a sort of LII-ILI thing, to include a different sociotype, that perhaps his fascination with symmetry is leading to his positing a still too neat conversion.

    And that really what's going on is that we can't "type the unconscious" using a model that looks just like a sociotype and that the sociotype is just one part of a multilayered system whose parts besides the sociotype don't necessarily need to look like sociotypes themselves.

    I guess to me, while there doesn't have to be this enormous level of symmetry between behavioral/vital and mental/information, and indeed as I often say, I think the ego identifies with the persona (rightfully than not) quite often and thus blurs the distinction between a person and ego type, this case of Freud I detailed really interests me as an instance to consider, because it seems like there's some real consistency in scholars diagnosing him as either an introverted feeling type or an intuitive-logic type of extraverted kind.

    I have a feeling both of these types are in a sense information types, because after all, they're still info elements in both types.Perhaps the error is in calling the second type the energy type?

    I won't use the word mental and vital, let's walk away a bit from it here, since I think talking about it may lead to more confusion. Let's say that cognition in the whole, what is not cognition in the whole. Mental and Vital are still cognition in the whole.

    TIM is type of information preference of information metabolism, does preference even exist in this layer? Is preference - choice perhaps too cognitive a concept at this level. As i said this is a terminological mess, although I think I understand perhaps the structure that Gulenko is grasping at.

    Perhaps this information asymmetry can be organized in a similar manner to TIM but maybe there are no ego/id/etc blocks and no concept of the vital/mental, maybe it's just raw information, there's a lot of unknowns here. However Gulenko's observation is of course quite good still, but imo he did make a mistake her, one I find to be common to his TIM.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well yes, I think central to my point was also that I don't see the point for mental/vital here anymore as a distinction existing within each sociotype separately, if I get correctly, you say

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    what is not cognition in the whole. Mental and Vital are still cognition in the whole.
    which I think is pretty similar to my point here

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical
    I have a feeling both of these types are in a sense information types, because after all, they're still info elements in both types.Perhaps the error is in calling the second type the energy type?
    I think I can be on board with this

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    but maybe there are no ego/id/etc blocks and no concept of the vital/mental, maybe it's just raw information,
    My hypothesis is honestly to just use the basic Jungian elements of T, F, N, S and don't arrange them into mental/vital, instead we have two types, both information types of some kind.

    Not sure what you refer to by "preference" here:

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    TIM is type of information preference of information metabolism, does preference even exist in this layer?
    Anyway, from your previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    I believe cognition is dealing with a small part of the brain. Now what is the other parts of the brain that we need to investigate and why does cognition translate into behavior in such a precise manner if there's so many layers?
    I have a feeling Gulenko's thing isn't directly modeling behavior so much as a second layer of cognition, which somehow translates more to a kind of "living" type regarding how you allocate your resources to process information rather than how you deal with information fundamentally, which is the "understanding" type. He calls the second type the way of life of the person, and what the person would write about themselves if they described themselves as a person. Like, if they say "I'm a person who loves company, is very feelingful, prefers not to be surrounded by cold people of no feeling," that's an ethical living type; someone who pursues logical inquiry and has a hard time focusing on any other kind of contemplation, but needs to be very emotionally invested in what they're doing rather than doing it on rigid principle might contrast someone who is pure logic with someone who has an Fe drive. You could also have someone who is mainly profit-based in deciding how to spend time, but decides to pursue a highly ethical line, where infecting someone with just the right emotion is key. My guesses here hinge on my understanding of what "would" be the vital part of model A, which is more your living needs (e.g. a LII may seek sensory comfort and warmth of feeling for energizing themselves, but doesn't really concern himself with them as far as contemplating information as much). Yet, despite surrounding himself with ESEs, and preferring living somewhere that he can express warmth of feeling to the limited capacity he knows, the LII thinks like a LII.
    Gulenko's thing I view as just adding flexibility to how these two sides can be described in terms of the information involved.

    Personally I'm realizing as I write this that input-output might not also be the best way, because you run into the chicken/egg scenario. Meaning, what really was the input? What was the output? Obviously how we tend to assemble and understand information is related to how we use information to designate our energetic investment in things. They both feed into each other. As we gain more information, how information is used to allocate energy towards the gaining of further information may be affected and changed. Although, the allocation of energy is not only towards the gaining of further information, it's also can involve needs/wants/etc of the individual that are otherwise unrelated to gaining more understanding of things.

    Gulenko's point though seems to be that gaining understanding of things does not translate neatly to how that understanding is used to allocate energy for life processes in general. In one case, information is a tool with an aim not quite directly corresponding to acquisition of information. In another case, the information is the actual aim.
    Last edited by chemical; 08-21-2014 at 08:21 PM.

  7. #7
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Well yes, I think central to my point was also that I don't see the point for mental/vital here anymore as a distinction existing within each sociotype separately, if I get correctly, you say
    Mental and vital are more just conscious-preconscious, preconscious is possibly "closer" to behavior vs pure conscious cognition of the mental ring.

    I seem the cognition-behavior mechanism of a organism(human or otherwise) as a series of layers(stacks), where only the mental ring is truly conscious. Socionics vital ring however is not the whole of unconsciousness but rather just another interface point to conscious functions, there is a symmetry that's occuring in the mental and vital ring as well.

    It could be that energy type is only 4 raw information sources and mental/vital ring is actually the differentiation of these functions into dynamic/static IE. This is all very interesting to think about of course!

    I'm not sure I can comment on what else you've said.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    preconscious is possibly "closer" to behavior vs pure conscious cognition of the mental ring.
    That makes sense.

    I think the problem is, in elevating the second type to "as important" as the first type, we really have to view Gulenko's second type as still a conscious information type. After all, a man's allocation of energy to his living needs is deliberated, etc. The persona happens as we adapt to the conditions of reality, and this is a highly deliberated process after all. Not just something truly behavioral/preconscious.

    I'm not sure I can comment on what else you've said.
    Sorry if it's convoluted; I honestly am just thinking out loud, though surprisingly the very last few parts of my post seem like they could be a right interpretation of what Gulenko was getting at, though hard to say how applicable they are in practice.

  9. #9
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    That makes sense.

    I think the problem is, in elevating the second type to "as important" as the first type, we really have to view Gulenko's second type as still a conscious information type. After all, a man's allocation of energy to his living needs is deliberated, etc. The persona happens as we adapt to the conditions of reality, and this is a highly deliberated process after all. Not just something truly behavioral/preconscious.
    There's a lot of questions for this like "What is the model of that?" "How do we know that's the model?" Not saying that what Gulenko's thoughts are bad, just I am not comprehending it completely and also not agreeing with what I do understand. The terminology is also in need of some clarification. This is a significant(if a bit obvious, I think any cognitive scientist not really invested in freudian/jungian terminology has a better way to express this concept) thought but the expression and the mechanics are now in question.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Since I've never gotten to discuss this with anyone and also struggle understanding - what do you disagree with in what you understand?

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Since I've never gotten to discuss this with anyone and also struggle understanding - what do you disagree with in what you understand?
    I tried to address it as best as I could earlier, since I haven't read his literature fully, I only know the gist of it. I don't think I agree with the mirroring, and I don't know if there is actually 'preference', I also don't agree with his terminology(life/energy/type especially). Given my background I have my own ideas about how this works, and my ideas could be very similar to his, it's just hard to tell at this point. I want to read more of his work but there's this whole language divide thing, and on something this technical, it's not trivial to overcome. It might just be better for me to describe things as I see them and homogenize later.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    I don't think I agree with the mirroring, and I don't know if there is actually 'preference',
    OK, let me see if I can get the specific points you don't agree with based on what you can tell of Gulenko's work. Am I right in saying the reason you don't want to say there's necessarily preference in a behavioral realm is that it is preconscious, and preference points to a conscious awareness or attitude or tendency to go one way rather than another, that is somewhat reasoned/etc?

    This is why I was trying to get at the distinction between the true behavioral nature of the person and the allocation of energy towards the nature of living, Basically, I think the "right" way to see Gulenko's ideas might possibly be to view the usual sociotype as the focus in information acquisition and understanding, and the energy type might be more how information is used to allocate energy resources (and then, once this allocation is done, the "preconscious" type which doesn't really demonstrate preferences carries on in an automated way).

    I think your "preconscious" type is what Jung's theory would link to things that go on mostly automatically outside the ego's control, the ego being the centrum of the very limited sphere of human life which is conscious.

    Out of curiosity, does your "background" in some way correspond to your own TIM? Only asking to see what you'd say is the difference between your and Gulenko's way of looking at this stuff since you've brought that up a lot.

    And edit - yes I sympathize with reading a different language on a matter where precision is crucial.
    I actually don't know anything except the "Man as a System of Types" article and have just speculated mostly to arrive at what I think it means.

  13. #13
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    OK, let me see if I can get the specific points you don't agree with based on what you can tell of Gulenko's work. Am I right in saying the reason you don't want to say there's necessarily preference in a behavioral realm is that it is preconscious, and preference points to a conscious awareness or attitude or tendency to go one way rather than another, that is somewhat reasoned/etc?
    When you get into the specifics you get into a situation where the meaning of a word like preference is crucial. What is preference? TIM is about preference but what does preference actually "mean". You can probably define preference into and out of meaningfulness.

    I'm not really a person to pick at specific points because most of those things are just some iteration of I need proof. Gulenko just doesn't provide me with a working mechanism for this. I think maybe he's mistaken the trunk of the elephant for the whole.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    What Gulenko has described is the interface point between cognition and the interface point of the digital signal processor, as these interface points have to be male/female/blah connector compatible. For Gulenko however, this interface point, which is merely a small part of the puzzle has become the central architecture and I think as an individual prone to this sort of mistake, he has made this one
    I'm returning to this thread simply because I want to take a stab at understanding what he's talking about now that I feel clearer about a fair number of other socionics things. Feel free to comment/ignore this of course since you're not thinking about it the same as Gulenko anyway.

    The question to me is what Gulenko is really trying to model with the energy type. You raise a good point by noting there's many layers between "high level" information and "low level" information, which if we so wish, we could say is the difference between cognitive and more behavioral. Computer science also has this concept of high level versus low level information, where at one point it's literally physical hardware doing stuff, and at another point some interface more amenable to human interaction for whatever they want to process/interact with the computer.

    So anyway, the question is how "low level" is the energy type and what is he really trying to classify? You also asked later, is there a valid notion of preference in the energy type, or is this too cognitive.

    So far, my leaning is that if you're going to use information elements at all, your model is obviously modeling something on the level of information processes. The only beginnings of an explanation I can form is that this is some kind of more "applied" information processing, if you will, which corresponds to the energetic priorities of the person in question.
    I read some threads where they said it sounds like a motivations/interest type, and I think overall what they are trying to get at is some kind of high level applied information processing which tells you what you want out of your energetic endeavors.

    As a simple example of how this might apply, what if someone tends to always seek out the NeTi version of information for their understanding. How do they decide and prioritize the manner in which they will seek understanding (what to spend how much time on, for instance), what they seek their understanding for, and such things? What if someone is very time-sensitive on an energetic level, but doesn't tend to produce time-involved information for the sake of understanding, that is, their understanding tends towards say Fi, but their perspective on how to use informational understanding to distribute their energies is very intuition-of-time based? When determining the level of psychological priority towards something, they're shifty, changey, dynamic-sensitive, but in terms of "pure understanding," vaguely, they don't produce much insightful dynamic information at all. The only Te-algorithms they know pertain to getting their way of life straight, that is, determining their psychological priority in how they wish their life to flow. On the level of information, they seek analytic understanding of ethical questions and barely are Te-oriented.

    On reading Gulenko's video interview recently posted, I noted that he says his energetic type is based on the observation that the introversion/extraversion dichotomy is essentially paramount for certain sort of type (and indeed, I think in his model for LSI in energy, the type is Ti-Si rather than Ti-Se?), and this would make sense because introversion/extraversion is formally defined in terms of the flow of energy towards objects versus the subject (psychological libido is the energy being spoken of), that is, it's arguably one of the most directly defined Jungian dichotomies in terms of psychic energy/libido. And one can take the introversion in the direction of different principles of mental functioning in order to distribute this flow of energy "intelligently."

    Obviously these interplay when one wishes to use one's energy in order to understand something. But essentially, it sounds like he might be saying, it's a special question to ask how to apply the information and understanding I've acquired in context of my personal energetic distribution (that is, how do I decide what to allocate what type and extent of energy to). And that the kind of priority in processing such questions generally differs from the priority in more so-called raw information acquisition/processing.

    You are very likely right that the distribution of energy depends on much more than information elements (there are many layers), but perhaps the utility of this stuff is that the distribution of energy, in so much as it involves something like information elements, involves a separate pattern from the sociotype, and at least this could help show why members of the same sociotype differ greatly.

    In the form of slogan, as energy on the psychological level might be described as pertaining to psychological priority, perhaps he's getting at the difference between "how do I grow to understand things" and "how do I use information to determine energetic priority?" Obviously both must communicate with each other, and obviously energy is distributed in part by things much lower level than information elements, but perhaps there is some version of informational/cognitive preference to both.
    Last edited by chemical; 09-08-2014 at 02:37 AM.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    think maybe he's mistaken the trunk of the elephant for the whole.
    Another thought - I think there are determining factors of energetic priority that are more automatic than consciously mediated, and hence go on mostly via unconscious influence.
    Although of course to Jung, this is equally true of the information type probably.
    I guess the type to Jung is a certain orientation of consciousness which is a product of both unconscious dispositions of the individual and conscious choices in terms of how it makes sense to adapt. So going by his perspective, it's possible that all typologies are getting at the trunk of something bigger, but the elephant is elusive to uncover since we are blind as to the precise nature of the unconscious and by extension, its influences on consciousness. The entirety of the "Self" being the elephant, with both unconscious and conscious processes mapped out.

    The thing is while various low-level automation occurs on the unconscious level, I think his view would be that a lot of high level psychological truths are also evident through it. And that we're sort of getting at it indirectly by classifying the consciousness. Though of course to the non-unconsciousness-obsessed, simply classifying types of consciousness is interesting.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let me continue adding questions/thoughts as I get to them. All this I'm saying is just experimental in the sense of trying to speculate what this second type business is about. Basically the summary of my understanding is it's indeed a trunk of an elephant but possibly one worth classifying nonetheless.

    Something occurred to me, which is related to this Krig the Viking post from earlier:

    It should be pretty apparent by now, JohnDo, that tcaudilllgian Energy Metabolism types are different from Gulenko's DCNH subtypes/energy types.

    From what I can tell, tcaud, your EM types have more to do with one's interests and social role, while Gulenko's energy types describe a more immediate, personal behavioural energy
    He seems to be suggesting that the DCNH system and the energy type are far from unrelated in purpose. What occurred to me is that I think a lot of someone's "personal energy" vaguely should be related directly to temperament. And what occurred to me is the interesting fact that I think of the 4 Jungian dichotomies, two fit much better into correlations with temperament than the others, namely rational/irrational and introversion/extraversion. The other two somehow seem to be very different, because they really represent types of information. For instance, the difference between intuition and thinking arises in that the more an idea is translated into thinking, the more it is amenable to intellectual criticism - it is a fundamentally different form of information.
    The way I see Jung's ideas on rational/irrational and introversion/extraversion is he translated them into more cognitive terms, meaning terms directly related to the nature of the information someone produces as part of seeking understanding. I see the MBTI's versions of judgment/perception as essentially the more lifestyle and temperament oriented traits, and ditto with their introversion/extraversion. DCNH seems to use the 4 temperaments sort of similarly (look at IJ - it's basically the rule-making, rigidity, conscience-enforcing type, and EP is the impulsive, active, creative type, etc).

    Perhaps the way to represent the behavioral/personal energy of a person is to assign them a DCNH-like thing, basically a temperament type as the basic foundation, together with some additional somewhat more cognitive descriptors optionally, essentially based on the intelligence behind their energy prioritizations as I described above, and of course all this separate to their main information type, which represents how they assemble and understand reality cognitively.

    I think funnily, almost anyone has a pretty well-defined temperament type, but people might be a lot less developed into a definitive cognitive priority pattern.

    Also I realize this has been free flow, so feel free to suggest certain definite points of terminology to start working on clarifying or format that you think would be good to work through in a more organized way if things come to mind!

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought more on this topic, and I think the biggest problem with the "Man as a System of Types" article to me is that, as I've stated before but perhaps not emphasized enough, the ego and persona, which are Gulenko's terms for the regular sociotype and energy type, as derived from the Jung terminology, are not in reality separate psychological entites. The ego is sort of nested inside the persona, rather than the persona's function-ordering being quite entirely distinct from that of the ego. In short, Jung's ideas here say that the ego represents the natural disposition in terms of information of the individual, and the persona is an outgrowth as to how they function, based on adaptation to the environment. This can be somewhat fluid, meaning this is why you don't talk to your parents the same as you do to your friends (if indeed that's true of you).

    The persona isn't a forgery or a total fake, unless it is unsuccessful at its means. It is meant to provide a protective coating that both suits you and controls the way your natural dispositions actually come to play. In other words, the practicalities of how you function as opposed to your theoretical function-type, depend on circumstances, but generally should take the ego into account greatly, merely flexing to ensure the ego and the environment aren't getting in each others' way. An armor isn't great if it doesn't fit your body, because however strong, it will not then cover you.

    Just to ensure that all I'm saying is not only true to Jung but also to Gulenko, let's note what Gulenko says:

    The second type, the type of output - this is the behavioral, living, vital type. It performs the role of adaptation to the concrete conditions of reality. Using the archetypal language of Jung, let us call this the Persona type.
    Now, why does he call persona type the energy type? Here we can only speculate, but based on Jung the main thing which comes to mind is Gulenko's statement that the information type is one corresponding to a state of homeostasis, the persona one of disturbance of it. This I read to correspond to the idea that the ego's function-type is more a question of natural disposition, hence the theoretical path of least resistance, than the persona is, since the persona forms around the ego to regulate the ego's interaction with the present environment. Thus, it would seem, is the link to energy, in that expenditure of energy is needed to mediate between the path-of-least-resistance and the existing conditions.

    This is still a sort of "intelligent" system/pattern of energy distribution. Except it's likely that, much as DCNH is dependent on outer circumstances, this version of persona is, too. It also means that it's somewhat more difficult to imagine a persona type which is of the opposite sort to the ego. This may need to involve certain extenuating circumstances.

  18. #18
    Olly From Wally World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wally World
    Posts
    822
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are such geeks, haha.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A good rule of thumb is that there are two ways the ego and persona can no longer synchronize. One is when the persona is resisted and underdeveloped. That is, the inherent disposition versus the manner of practical functioning are at odds and the first prevails leading to your classic frustrated individual. The second option is when the ego becomes entirely identified with the persona, simply because it makes things easier to adapt to. This leads to the type losing the sense of identity and merging with the outside.

    There are a lot of standard ways the ego-persona can form. Take an intuitive-ethics (intuitive-feeling) type. Their inherent drive is governed by a certain highly nuanced ethical valuation system. However, they may function against the environment largely as a thinking type, meaning, using their thinking function in much of their activities, because that way of functioning best mediates the understanding and outlook of the ego and the environmental conditions to produce a desired "output."

    Another note: one sense in which "energy" is not separate from the ego is in the attitudinal type (introversion/extraversion), in the sense that this is one of the most innate of the typological features, being descriptive of how the energy tends to flow. Energy here means psychic energy. But most certainly some manner of regulation is needed when energy flow must adapt to existing conditions (basically thinking of the ego type as dammed up water that would naturally flow a certain way, and the persona as an intelligent channel).

    All this seems to fit in reasonably well with point's ideas about there being a general sense of self (corresponding to the ego type) and a more mechanical one that this general sense of self is projected into, and this latter one is more dependent on the existing conditions of reality. Also his overall philosophical idea is there in a different form in Jung I think, namely that the formation of this mechanical side is based on a need for the self to project itself into things and see itself (I think why he explains we put more and more into computers). The persona is a mask in the sense of acting, but acting as we know is half about filling a role existing outside you and the other half is your desire to project yourself into the role. Same sort of thing going on as with computers - half is that we want them to take up a functional role, the other half is we simply want to express/project ourselves in them.

  20. #20
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I never get to this and I should... I'll try to get to it tonight...

  21. #21
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I thought more on this topic, and I think the biggest problem with the "Man as a System of Types" article to me is that, as I've stated before but perhaps not emphasized enough, the ego and persona, which are Gulenko's terms for the regular sociotype and energy type, as derived from the Jung terminology, are not in reality separate psychological entites. The ego is sort of nested inside the persona, rather than the persona's function-ordering being quite entirely distinct from that of the ego. In short, Jung's ideas here say that the ego represents the natural disposition in terms of information of the individual, and the persona is an outgrowth as to how they function, based on adaptation to the environment. This can be somewhat fluid, meaning this is why you don't talk to your parents the same as you do to your friends (if indeed that's true of you).

    The persona isn't a forgery or a total fake, unless it is unsuccessful at its means. It is meant to provide a protective coating that both suits you and controls the way your natural dispositions actually come to play. In other words, the practicalities of how you function as opposed to your theoretical function-type, depend on circumstances, but generally should take the ego into account greatly, merely flexing to ensure the ego and the environment aren't getting in each others' way. An armor isn't great if it doesn't fit your body, because however strong, it will not then cover you.

    Just to ensure that all I'm saying is not only true to Jung but also to Gulenko, let's note what Gulenko says:



    Now, why does he call persona type the energy type? Here we can only speculate, but based on Jung the main thing which comes to mind is Gulenko's statement that the information type is one corresponding to a state of homeostasis, the persona one of disturbance of it. This I read to correspond to the idea that the ego's function-type is more a question of natural disposition, hence the theoretical path of least resistance, than the persona is, since the persona forms around the ego to regulate the ego's interaction with the present environment. Thus, it would seem, is the link to energy, in that expenditure of energy is needed to mediate between the path-of-least-resistance and the existing conditions.

    This is still a sort of "intelligent" system/pattern of energy distribution. Except it's likely that, much as DCNH is dependent on outer circumstances, this version of persona is, too. It also means that it's somewhat more difficult to imagine a persona type which is of the opposite sort to the ego. This may need to involve certain extenuating circumstances.

    Ok Gulenko is a genius.

    I think I can sort of explain energy type/tim from a bipolarity perspective.

    Energy Type = manic mode
    TIM = normal/depressed mode

    Even the words he uses supports it.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @point interesting where do you get those interpretations? It sounds like disturbing homeostasis vs preserving, which is how he presents in Man as a System of Types

  23. #23
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    @point interesting where do you get those interpretations? It sounds like disturbing homeostasis vs preserving, which is how he presents in Man as a System of Types
    I'm getting this interpretation right now because I'm manic, and my cog style isn't totally CD at the moment. I sort of had a eureka moment. Not sure this is valid since I know in my manic states I can get some bad ideas but also many very creative ones. I think I'm a VS thinker in mania.

  24. #24
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Question
    During periods of high energy, I find my mind is working more vortical synergistic vs my typical causal deterministic thinking style. Is this perhaps a expression of Energy type? I have started a discussion about this with Chemical on the forum. I would love your commentary.

    I asked gulenko this question and I got this response.

    On energy and information types
    Abstracts of the report at a meeting Gulenko ShGS November 3, 2010

    1 By way of reminder. There are two organizations Socion.
    Temperamentally-installation and custom-quadra. one
    group in each organization energy, the other -
    information.

    2 Practice indicates that the binary system of one of the
    parties is leading and the other slave. Do
    energy types leading side is
    temperament (including temperamental offset), and in
    Information - installation (also given its offset).
    When the second organization Socion: energotipov in the first
    place there is the order side, and at the information - squares.

    3 Through the functional profile of the person we are judging the case. If
    strong functions of the profile is dominated by a combination of
    one vertness man as the bearer type belongs
    to the energy socion. If different vertnosti, by
    Information.

    ?????? ? ???????? ?????? ?. ??????? 03.11.2010.pdf

    #stillridinghiscoattails

  25. #25
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thoughts are massive
    Energy is needed to move mass

  26. #26
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,937
    Mentioned
    534 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko
    Carl Jung as author of typology also developed the energy paradigm.

    Point

    Yes, is this related to "Persona"?

    Gulenko
    Not directly. Person is an image we demonstrate to the outside. It is based on role function, which requires more energy to maintain itself.

    Point
    http://outlawpsych.com/outlawpsych/t...sychic-energy/

    Carl Jung’s theory of psychic energy | outlawpsych
    outlawpsych.com

    Gulenko
    Energy field around us is produced by the most powerful function. Surrounding people perceive it and talk about strong or weak person.

    Point
    Not exactly in the same vein but one of the things I've been reading states that thoughts have "mass" and that they push other thoughts around like matter in the mind. But it's neccessarily true in that situation energy be provided to move mass. It seems likely that there is a dual mechanism of "mass" interacting with "energy" conversions occuring in the mind. Is it something like this?

    Gulenko
    The heaviest and massive function is the extraverted force sensing (Se if MBTI and F by my symbols).

    Point
    trying to find the word to describe this. Thoughts are massive, Energy is required to move mass, the brain is nuclear

    Gulenko
    I think that not only thoughts, but state of the entire psyche.

    Point
    yes yes I agree
    requires energy to move, the brain as engine is transforming thoughts/mass into energy and back and forth mechanically

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Continuing here: I believe if you look at Man as a System of Types article, the energy type is related to what Gulenko calls 1 of 4 sides of a person - the logical is associated to the TIM, the intuitive/sensory less clear, the EM type seems to relate most to "ethical"...or at least, even if this isn't right, there's an association of thinking/logic to mass (Jung said thinking tells you what something is - that is, matter), and Gulenko associates the "logical" side of man to his TIM, that is, his cognition, and it sort of tells you the "what" and substance of what a man knows/has accumulated in the brain.
    Energy is generally associated with "feeling" by the socionics analogy, in that it relates to what arouses the man from a stable condition. So the sense in which EM type can build on the usual vital block/sit on top of it like point has been saying might just be describing theoretical foundations to how this arousal occurs.

    What would be really great is if Gulenko could give a description of the energy-elements, analogous to descriptions of information elements. I think he begins to hint though in Man as a System, in that he gives examples like how Te for the second type might relate to how long someone can be without hard work, which goes with the socionics analogy of Te=work. But here it's more describing exerting energy to do work than information about work itself (that is, information about efficiency and so forth). It is possible for instance to have an exceptional amount of information on what is profitable, what is efficient, what algorithms function in an implementable way (that is, a lot of matter) but lack the arousal and attraction/repulsion energies for it to remain anything but stationary in your mind. I think that's what he's getting at here in this article

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...y-V-Gulenko%29

    Creative people are capable of generating new information, if they are not energetic or if they do not support controlling energy sponsors, in most cases, remain out of work, are in a trance. Remember the perennial question: "If you're so smart, why are you so poor?"

    In any successful business share information - about 20-30%, the rest - energy, efforts to implement the application and promotion. Naked enthusiasm dries quickly, it is necessary to pump in a lot of energy to "the process has begun," and is not stalled in the future.

    'll Conclude. The focus of modern socionics should stand modeling of energy and information processes as energy generates information - new order, valuable experience, proven knowledge. After all, knowledge (information arms) even the most trusted in themselves, without, worthless. And in order to begin to apply them, need energy. How to get it or save?

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,867
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @mu4 @chemical @woofwoofl

    Thread Necromancy: +1.

    Helllllooooooo…. I bring tidings and salutations from Delta. Huzzah!

    I previously did computer science stuff some, so using computing concepts is something I can do moderately (don’t expect it to be right, just “translatable”). Anyways, I have some information that I have compiled in my head from various sources.

    Mental/Vital:

    The Mental track is how we process new information. Sometimes, the information is not “so new or different” that we will even use the Mental much. Other times, it will be so radically different that we are forced to place tons of conscious thought into it (ala, sp/so and so/sp facial expressions, which correlate to super-ego/ego and ego/super-ego). As this information is processed and “solved” in the Mental conscious thought, it is then transferred into the Vital automatic processes. Within the Vital, all previously acquired information is used on an automatic basis, and forms the overall basis of the individual’s displayed personality. As the Vital processes incur new information, which it knows not where nor how to store such, the Mental is activated to “solve,” “debug,” what-have-you this new information for proper filing into the individual.

    Information received within the Social sphere may have varying degrees of “new” to it. In example: Information Received = 93% Existing, 7% New = 93% Vital, 7% Mental. The greater the degree of new information, the greater the strain put on the Mental.

    In computing concepts, we can correlate such to the following:
    Run Vital
    v_Information Received
    Find v_Information In Vital
    If v_Information Not In Vital
    Run Mental.v_Information
    n_Information = Mental.v_Information
    Insert n_Information Into Vital
    Else
    Nothing. You got dis, dawg.
    EndIf

    Some concepts for consideration:
    Mental Super-block: Conscious thought in Social (new information outside the self)
    Vital Super-block: Existing information for automatic processing
    Information: Must be checked for existence within Vital
    New Information: Must be consciously filed by Mental Super-block into Vital Super-Block
    Judging: Dichotomous descriptions most similar to Mental
    Perceiving: Dichotomous descriptions most similar to Vital
    So: Description most similar to Ego
    Sp: Description near identical to Super-Ego
    Sx: Description most similar to Super-Id

    Insert random Yermak quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by yermak
    Some socionists suppose that the functioning of the superblock of personal life is unconscious. It is incorrect. Founders of psychoanalysis differently considered the concept of the "unconscious". The term "preconscious" is appropriate to the content of processes, which take place in the superblock of personal life. In normal conditions, the preconscious processes function out of consciousness, automatically. But these processes can become conscious, if there is a need. In turn, functioning of the superblock of social life is obviously conscious.
    Routines and Sub-Routines:

    When considering the models and TIM’s, it is important to recognize that not only does the individual contain a Routine that is his TIM and contains the information processing, but it also contains sub-routines. As seen in the this link, each element within the TIM is actually equally a sub-routine. When using an element, what will be displayed is actually the Routine of another TIM residing within the TIM of the individual. Some of these happen so quickly that they are not perceived by the self nor others.

    Bukalov maintains that Signs of elements are by functional blocking; e.g., +Fi is always blocked with –Ne. When crossing blocks, the element pairing is changed, thus changing the Signs; e.g, Leading +Fi becomes –Fi when PoLR and Leading are processing information. Due to such, all 16 TIM’s are used as sub-routines within the base TIM as information processing takes place.

    In example, the OP mentioned cognition styles. I am EII/CD. However, CD only applies on the macro-level that is the Base Routine: +Fi. As the Base Routine operates, it runs sub-routines as the information is processed. In this way, when utilizing Role + Creative (-Ti/+Ne), my cognition will be using the Holographic Cognition Style.

    Going from Leading to PoLR and back, we thus have…
    CD (+Fi/-Ne) (EII)
    HG (-Ne/+Fi) (IEE)
    CD (+Ne/-Ti) (ILE)
    HG (-Ti/+Ne) (LII)
    CD (+Ti/-Se) (LSI)
    HG (-Se/+Ti) (SLE)
    CD (+Se/-Fi) (SEE)
    HG (-Fi/+Se) (ESI)
    CD (+Fi/-Ne) (EII)

    And the Vital follows suit.

    ”Intelligence”

    In context of the TIM being the Routine composed of the various Sub-Routines, it is important to note that the Routine, that is, the Individual, is himself a Sub-Routine.

    Quote Originally Posted by yermak
    Distinctive peculiarities, characteristics and parameters of a person are defined by society, which in turn performs a certain task, mission inside the macro system of "humanity".
    So, what does this mean? This means that the activation of the Mental is actually the macro-system passing us new information for us to “solve” and integrate into the Vital, to automatously use in the greater macro system / organism of ‘humanity’. I am not “Jeremy” because of preference, sheer genetics, or chance… but rather, humanity required for the “Jeremy” that currently exists to come into being. “Humanity” needed information “solved”, and created/ran a sub-routine, “Jeremy,” to accomplish such.

    Although, the concept of biologically having greater processing capacity than others, or a norm/average, is most certainly true, this does not explain “Intelligence.” Individuals such as Plato, Newton, some random other people I don’t bother thinking of, are seen as highly intelligent people from human history. On another end of the spectrum, individuals such as Nero, ******, some ancient evil people, also had a major impact on the events of human history. Why? Because, for whatever the reason, the macro-system of “humanity” required information be processed through them. In this light, the concept of “Intelligence” may be better equated to “anomaly” or, as Yermak writes, “peculiarity.” Although, I.Q. is typically referred to as intelligence, other similar concepts are used for emotions, blah blah blah, etc. In the greater context of “Intelligence,” the “great intelligences” of human history are simply vessels of information processing created by humanity for the purpose of “solving” critical new information / flaws / whatever-floats-your-boat that was required for the Vital of the macro-system of humanity.

    Fundamental Concepts of Information Aspects

    Although Thinking/Feeling/Sensing/Intuition are colloquially (I don’t actually know what that word means, but I am guessing it means “normally” or something, and it sounds nice) considered Matter/Energy/Space/Time, it is important to understand that these ways of processing information are just the shadows of reality that we are capable of dealing with, and not the actual Information, referred to as Information Aspects in Socionics, which has conveniently already been broken down (somewhat).

    Information Aspects:
    Te: External Dynamics of Objects
    Fe: Internal Dynamics of Objects
    Se: External Statics of Objects
    Ne: Internal Statics of Objects
    Ti: External Statics of Fields
    Fi: Internal Statics of Fields
    Si: External Dynamics of Fields
    Ni: Internal Dynamics of Fields

    Okay… Well that wasn’t very helpful…
    To the Batmobile! No, wait… To the Batcave!

    Using computing principles, I’ll try and label each…

    Information Aspects Dichotomies:
    External: Variable, a group of variables viewed as a single variable
    Internal: Array/List, a variable viewed as a group of variables
    Statics: Time Independent, Snapshot of moment, non-running program (like a pause during debugging), similar junk
    Dynamics: Time Dependent, Video of some timeframe, running program (like viewing code process during debugging), similar junk
    Objects: It’s an object… You can look at it… You can do stuff with it… …. It’s an object…
    Fields: A comparison of objects, Boolean operators

    So, let’s say you have the following…

    X = [1,2,3]
    Y = [4,5,6]

    X and Y would both be the “External” and the “[1,2,3]” and “[4,5,6]” would be their “Internal,” respectively. Since they are both the same thing, the only difference is the frame of reference you are using. Do you view them as a single entity? Or do you view them as a collection of entities? I believe it is called “nesting” or something, but if you have the variables on one level, and the arrays on another, the only difference between the External and Internal is the level on which you are viewing. What if you choose Internal and view the numbers level? Well, what are the numbers in computing? Isn’t each one really an External on this level, and the Internal is now machine language?

    Fleshing this out some more…

    Bill (External) = [short,male,kind,stupid,loves music] (Internal)
    Ted (External) = [tall,male,kind,stupid,loves music] (Internal)
    Down a level…
    Short (External) = [5’4”,5’5”,5’6”,5’7”,5’8”] (Internal)
    Tall (External) = [5’9”,5’10”,5’11”,6’0”,6’1”] (Internal)
    Kind (External) = [non-aggressive,charitable,seeks unity,empathetic,sympathetic] (Internal)

    Moving on…

    Now we have “Bill” and “Ted.”

    We can look at “Bill” and have our External of Objects. We can look at “Ted” and have our External of Objects. But, what do we do with such? Well, we can compare (of Fields) them. If we do it based upon external similarities, we would be using External of Fields. If we do it based upon internal similarities, we would be using Internal of Fields.

    IF Bill IS LIKE Ted THEN (External of Fields) SET SocialGroup = “Bill and Ted” (<-second half maybe External of Objects for higher level?)

    IF [short,male,kind,stupid,loves music] IS LIKE [tall,male,kind,stupid,loves music] (Internal of Fields) SET SocialGroup = “Bill and Ted”

    That’s about as far as I thought about it, as I don’t actually enjoy programming lol.

    Static/Dynamic would just be if you were considering a moment in time, or something ongoing. For instance, when you start Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure, they are good friends (Statics of Fields); however, later on they get in an argument at some point and they are then not good friends (Statics of Fields again). Even if you went to a very small time sequence, say a single conversation, there would be ups and downs within a single minute. They could be “good friends” every time they are agreeing and “not good friends” every time they aren’t agreeing. Whichever moment in time you pick during that conversation determines which of “good friends” or “not good friends” the Statics of Fields is going to be. If we use Dynamics of Fields, though, this single conversation would still be “good friends.” If during the time period when they are not friends, you choose the point in time where Ted says “I miss Bill,” then boom! Statics of Fields calls them “good friends.” However, if Dynamics of Fields considers this same time period, then it will say “not good friends.” If the movie ended with them being “good friends” by Statics of Fields, but the rest of their unseen story had them stop being friends a year after the movie, then the Dynamics of Fields of their lives would be “not good friends.” Such is the nature of a Static Moment in Time and a Dynamic Process in Time.

    Because the previous paragraph requires the Routine to view dynamic processes in time simply to be able to make a conscious Statics of Fields comparison, the unconscious is necessitated to follow the viewing of the dynamic processes. On the flip side, it’s hard to even view this dynamic process movie, if you don’t have individual frames to make it up. In this way, the Static/Dynamic manifests itself in the Mental/Vital. You either consciously look at snapshots and unconsciously look at movies, or you consciously look at movies and unconsciously look at snapshots.

    How does all of this fit into the TIM Routine?

    EII example from PoLR (Ex dimension) through Leading:
    View Externals of Object
    Compare Externals of Object to other Objects
    View Internals of Object
    Compare Internals of Object to other Objects

    Another for EII:
    See how Bill looks (External Statics of Objects)
    See how Ted looks (External Statics of Objects)
    Compare how Bill looks to how Ted looks (External Statics of Fields)
    Use this to determine “who Bill is,” his “essence” (Internal Statics of Objects)
    Use this to determine “who Ted is,” his “essence” (Internal Statics of Objects)
    Compare “who Bill is” to “who Ted is” (Internal Statics of Fields)
    Awwww, they best fwends… (into the Vital this goes)

    Leaving information aspects and going back to the information elements…

    Information and Energy

    For any computer to process and produce corresponding information, it requires energy. Bukalov blah blah blah with Libido blah blah blah… This is what I figure for Information and Energy.

    Extroverted Elements: Energy Sender, Information Requestor
    Introverted Elements: Energy Receiver, Information Supplier

    Using this, we have the following for EII:
    Someone: Extroverts energy to EII…
    Fi: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
    Ne: Receives Information, Metabolizes (Nom nom nom kind) Information, Supplies Energy to…
    Ti: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
    Se: Receives Information, Metabolizes (Nom) Information, Supplies Energy to…
    Ti: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
    Ne: Receives Information, Metabolizes (Nom) Information, Supplies Energy to…
    Fi: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
    Someone: I don’t know, how bout ILE since they are goofy

    Taken from another post of mine, reconciling Jung chapter 10 back into everything, including Libido, and answering about Gulenko (Libido is energy, try not to make your version so goofy like Jung did)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
    Extrovert exerts libido on an object to receive information. Introvert accepts libido to give information. Libido (energy) is Feeling. Information (matter) is Thinking. The extroverted thinker is concerned with receiving information. The extroverted feeler is concerned with exerting libido. The introverted thinker is concerned with giving information. The introverted feeler is concerned with receiving libido. Sensing is space. Intuition is time.
    Polarities and Bits and Stuff

    When applying polarities and various other concepts of Socionics, it’s important to treat change as what it would be in computing: a bit change. (or whatever 0 turning into 1 is)

    From Leading to Creative: + changes to -, and vice versa
    From Creative to Role: + changes to -, and vice versa
    From Mental to Vital: + changes to -, and vice versa
    From Leading to Creative: extroverted changes to introverted, and vice versa
    From Leading to Creative: energy out changes to energy in, and vice versa
    From Leading to Creative: information out changes to information in, and vice versa
    From Mental to Vital: extroverted changes to introverted, and vice versa
    From Mental to Vital: information out changes to information in, and vice versa
    Etc.

    No matter what parameters you place on anything, there needs to be an appropriate bit switch upon changing locations, be it a function, a block, a super-block, (probably gender, I dunno), whatever… or there is a logic break.

    Closing Thoughts

    Anywayssss….. That’s my information. Use it. Derp on it. Take bits and pieces. Whatever you feel like doing with it.

    Also, try not to break the universe. I’d rather not be cornholed and annihilated by a sentient robot species, or have people running around jedi mind-hacking people. Seriously, don’t jedi mind-hack people. World and people and their relationships exist for a reason. If you do it, you’re essentially corrupting data and run the risk of breaking the macro systems up to infinity. Also, the universal information paradigm, God, gets pissed and will probably delete you.
    Last edited by Jeremy8419; 01-08-2016 at 07:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

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