Ne - School of Humanitarian Socionics meets 'western' socionists

[mu4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3s3puSIgfI

@chemical

Was glancing at this video, I haven't reviewed Dario Nardi's work indepth but I thought he was IEE when I glanced at his profile/bio/work.

The trans-contextual thinking discussed is basically correct about Ne, and the mechanism I think works by taking data and generating eigenspace. I'm not sure the exact way to describe this but I think what Ne does is generate a eigenspace over various data concerning a context and eigenvectors in the space can be freely associated with other compatible eigenvector of other eigenspaces(of other contexts).

So within a context, a eigenspace is generated and then eigenvectors within the space act as connection points to other eigenspaces with similar eigenvectors. This allows for multi-context connections to happen from any number of topics.

Beyond this, there is a difference between and as far as how it blocks with , is looking for "external" validity of the connections and only requires the subjective validity of the mind in question, in types like ILE vs IEE, this allows the IEE to form their holographic projections from a single eigenspace, without regard to external validity, and for ILE they eliminate connections and only allow vectors to only connect based on external validity. This eigen generating mechanism is fairly common I find in AI neural networks, but I think the connection dynamics between multiple spaces is not yet perfected.

Simple terminology

eigenvalue = constant object representation of reality
eigenspace = set of all eigenvectors of object (produced by decomposition of data related to object)
eigenvector = individual association that can potentially connect with another eigenspace

I think is similar but it doesn't allow for cross-context interaction, it only allows for the associate with adjacent contexts

might be like public vectors(related to data) and might be like private/friend vectors(which can only be arrived thru further mental computation of data related to the object)

[chemical]

@mu4 -- BTW do you know the history behind how socionics IE got associated with MBTI notation?

Like when did "internal statics of objects" formally get associated to Ne, and so forth? Because in my mind, in line with the discussion we've been having before, this kind of ultra general definition of Ne might help really focus the research on what is Ne beyond its function in a personality typology.

There's like this analogy: personality types ~ information, and it depends -- some say the meat is the former, others say the meat is the latter (I of course want to know everything ).

Thanks for mentioning this method in AI -- will try to read about it.

[anndelise]

@chemical, they weren't common terminology on this forum for quite a while. Rick's site had a brief mention of them. And then i found a russian page and created this thread for it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ll=1#post98840

Then there were years of me trying to make sense of it and to get people to talk about it while most people rejected it. Even Rick said he wished he had never included them. Until gradually some other people started looking into it, understanding it, trying to explain to others, which helped make it more common.

I never could get anyone to help translate the rest of the site/page. I don't even know if it's still there.

[mu4]

@mu4 -- BTW do you know the history behind how socionics IE got associated with MBTI notation?

Like when did "internal statics of objects" formally get associated to Ne, and so forth? Because in my mind, in line with the discussion we've been having before, this kind of ultra general definition of Ne might help really focus the research on what is Ne beyond its function in a personality typology.

There's like this analogy: personality types ~ information, and it depends -- some say the meat is the former, others say the meat is the latter (I of course want to know everything ).

Thanks for mentioning this method in AI -- will try to read about it.

I kinda of wish I knew, certainly the people developing this knew information science, computer science, but it wasn't a real technical expertise, at least not at the level of computer scientists today.

I think in computer science the research is in implementation phase, most deep learning, neural network, machine intelligence implementations are attempting to get at parts of the mental picture.

You don't need a understanding of personality typology to copy cortical structure or understand personality typology to make advancement to the end on this area.

Eigenspace representation of objects is very powerful recognization tool and SVD is a very important method that's central to many many many algorithms in this area.

Like Dario Nardi talks about how is christmas tree effect, somewhat contradictory, is very energy intensive, takes a long time to train, and I think this is due to the deep learning training that requires for processing, literally this part of the brain can't be rationally trained or decisively trained, it can only be trained thru exposure to experiential information and more data that is analyzed mostly unconsciously.

These eigenspaces however once trained allow for modeling of complex incredibly variable expressions thru universal model when paired with logic and accommodates that same variable expression socially when adjusting for ethical/social concerns when applied with ethics.

I think if you're up to the challenge with the math(I'm not) the books on this can really tell you in detail the specific implementation of the algorithms, I'm limited to an API level understand of this topic but there's various toolkits like NUPIC and CLARION that will give you some hints into this.

[chemical]

@chemical, they weren't common terminology on this forum for quite a while. Rick's site had a brief mention of them. And then i found a russian page and created this thread for it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ll=1#post98840

Wait, do you mean originally Aushra did not try to denote S by Si, T by Ni, E by Fe etc? I was wondering as to the origin of those associations (which clearly are MBTI notation)

Sometimes I really think just calling them T, E. etc makes me happier.

[mu4]

Wait, do you mean originally Aushra did not try to denote S by Si, T by Ni, E by Fe etc? I was wondering as to the origin of those associations (which clearly are MBTI notation)

Sometimes I really think just calling them T, E. etc makes me happier.

I'm not sure how the terminology arose, but by Dual nature of Man most of this terminology was in that text, I assume there was a lot of back and fort on terminology before that writing.

I can get more into this but it takes a lot of time to write down and discuss this with clarity, and I'm not sure how good some of this stuff is as my brain really hasn't parsed everything yet. I just read and wait a lot of the time lol.

[anndelise]

Wait, do you mean originally Aushra did not try to denote S by Si, T by Ni, E by Fe etc? I was wondering as to the origin of those associations (which clearly are MBTI notation)

Sometimes I really think just calling them T, E. etc makes me happier.

I was referring to the "internal statics of objects" part of your post.

Like when did "internal statics of objects" formally get associated to Ne, and so forth?

[chemical]

@anndelise just to be clear, I was referring to how those terms "interal statics of objects" etc got associated in particular with MBTI terms like Ne. I get the sense the former is a very socionics signature thing, and the latter a very MBTI signature thing, and I think somewhere (Wiki? Wikisocion?) it wrote about Aushra's encounter with MBTI but with no details.

I'll be honest, I run somewhat contrary to much of the crowd and say what MBTI contributed best is not its theories on the functions so much as its empirical investigations (which now can be correlated with Big 5 data). I wouldn't say such empirical investigations are interesting in themselves to me, but they are a good debunker of empirical claims people like to make.
I lean somewhat Jungian purist on functions albeit I've expanded my understanding from his stuff, even if that implies that what I say 99% of the time has more grounding in concept than reality. I.e. it clarifies concepts without necessarily making it exactly easier to empirically "sort" people -- because at a certain point I really think we need to leave the sorting to the data+good analysis of the data.

OTOH, building the theory increases the richness of what kinds of things we can model (the richer our ideas, hopefully the richer the potential they may have in describing actual specimen).