Biological advantages of the types and IEs

[Muddy]

I'm curious about what the information elements and their placements in the psyche to the evolutionary table , and in what situations would certain types thrive or suffer in terms of survival and reproduction. For example, introverts have the benefit of minimizing potential dangers by keeping their interactions with the outside by a minimum thus allowing them more time reproduce over the general population. Extroverts on the other hand would place themselves in greater hazards but in turn increase amount of sexual partners available by being more present.

I'll create a brief summary of situations in which it would be beneficial for an individual to have a certain IE as a leading function:

: Best when the individual lives in constantly hazardous environment
: Best when one in is in an environment prone to foreseeable disasters
: Best in places with extremely scarce resources that must be captured by force
: Same as Se except when it becomes beneficial to outwit the competition rather then fight it
: Best when the individual is alone and in a stable environment where it is simply best not to do anything stupid that would put yourself in danger
: Best when the individual is in a small group where offending a certain individual could mean death or imprisonment
: Best when the individual in a place full of resources that can be extracted and made use out of
: Best when the individual must interact with many new people constantly whom can inflict harm of they get rubbed the wrong


Actually when you think about it like this it becomes clear why irrationals thrive in primitive conditions and rationals thrive in stability doesn't it?



I'd like to hear if anybody has any thoughts about situations where certain types specifically would thrive in.

[kopyk]

The whole underlying psychology of this orientation spectrum is how much one (consciously or unconsciously) overvalues or undervalues mating. The Mating-centric will predictably make choices which maximize their genetic reproduction/survival (prioritizing the sum of how attracted they are to others/someone plus how attracted others/someone are to them), the problem with that being, the person who best reflects the sum of attracted to them + attractive to them will not always be the same over time. The Spartan, more free of romantic preoccupations, focuses more on whatever their internal interests might be. They are less likely to physically reproduce but more likely to have a fully developed internal self and thus more likely to produce ideas/work valuable to society/culture. The problem is that since they are less connected to others, their ideas/work may never reach others / the world. This is why a Spartan and a Mating-centric pair can work very well together, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs being a good example.

http://research.similarminds.com/mat...y-spectrum/914

Spartan is suggested to correlate to introversion, materialism to extraversion. I've personally had enough of the attempts of socionists to completely dissociate them from other typologies like MBTI (which is correlated to big 5 which is correlated to MOTIV) as this just strikes me as part of their scamming. If an abstract object like socionics is completely dissociated from everything else including causation (brain, genes, neurotransmitters, etc), then this creates the illusion that it is somehow unique (psych yoga tries the exact same shit to differentiate it self from socionics but I find it extremely hard to believe there isn't a massive overlap between these theories, I mean, scams) & thus worth getting into (as opposed to just sticking w/ more established, reliable theories). It also leads to the constant debate about what is what, what means what, who is what type since there is never ever any final say on anything when you don't have a bottom line anything that acts as anchor & reference point. Thus I declare that socionics is not allowed to "run away" any more, socionics introversion & spartanism is one & the same. Introverts reproduce genetically less, but reproduce memetically more. Some would call it quality over quantity, I guess.

http://similarminds.com/motiv/subjectivist.html

Anyway, your idea that Fi avoids offense makes sense, introversion is low risk/reward, it seems. Negative politeness is perhaps Fi, positive politeness is perhaps Fe.

http://www.softpanorama.org/Social/T...liteness.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness

[Sol]

introverts have the benefit of minimizing potential dangers by keeping their interactions with the outside

Benefit of introverts are their leading introverted function.

> : Best when the individual lives in constantly hazardous environment

Leading Si is best for peaceful environment. It's about comfort, physical harmony. In hazardous environment you need to be alive by any means, but not feel comfort.

> : Best when one in is in an environment prone to foreseeable disasters

Is good where is lack of information while exist tendecies in processes.

> : Best in places with extremely scarce resources that must be captured by force

good where you need to capture, control, manipulate material objects

> : Same as Se except when it becomes beneficial to outwit the competition rather then fight it

good where you don't know much about objects you deal with

> : Best when the individual is alone and in a stable environment where it is simply best not to do anything stupid that would put yourself in danger

You talk like ISTJ here. Ti is good for organising objects and information to systems, helps to remove inner contradictions. Probably most useful in stable environments.

> : Best when the individual is in a small group where offending a certain individual could mean death or imprisonment

good where people are in high dependency from each other. small groups is an example of it

> : Best when the individual in a place full of resources that can be extracted and made use out of

Good where you need to gather many facts, and where there are many alternatives and you need to choose the best based on facts. Many of resources to choose from is one of possible cases. Also probably good where many things happen.

> : Best when the individual must interact with many new people constantly whom can inflict harm of they get rubbed the wrong

Important where you need to manipulate feelings of others. Important for large groups.
about harm again - reminds ISTJ with their paranoic Ne and Se in ego

[Beautiful sky]

So our duals don't get themselves killed

[kopyk]

What sol said about Si makes sense. Si is strongly associated w/ parasympathetic nervous system, Se w/ sympathetic nervous system. In fact it was mentioned that negativist Se/Ni valuers have the most tense muscles. This is indicative of higher sympathetic activation.

[Skepsis]

As far as I have been able to tell(and researchers), IEs are not genetic, but abstract concepts we apply to ourselves.

[Myst]

I've personally had enough of the attempts of socionists to completely dissociate them from other typologies like MBTI (which is correlated to big 5 which is correlated to MOTIV) as this just strikes me as part of their scamming. If an abstract object like socionics is completely dissociated from everything else including causation (brain, genes, neurotransmitters, etc), then this creates the illusion that it is somehow unique (psych yoga tries the exact same shit to differentiate it self from socionics but I find it extremely hard to believe there isn't a massive overlap between these theories, I mean, scams) & thus worth getting into (as opposed to just sticking w/ more established, reliable theories). It also leads to the constant debate about what is what, what means what, who is what type since there is never ever any final say on anything when you don't have a bottom line anything that acts as anchor & reference point. Thus I declare that socionics is not allowed to "run away" any more, socionics introversion & spartanism is one & the same. Introverts reproduce genetically less, but reproduce memetically more. Some would call it quality over quantity, I guess.

I agree on psych yoga lol. I'm sure socionics is not a theory fully disconnected from everything else, its founders also refer to other theories, no? I don't know where you got the idea that it is presented like that.

As far as I have been able to tell(and researchers), IEs are not genetic, but abstract concepts we apply to ourselves.

Whatever causes different preferences in information processing can be of biological origin.

[Skepsis]

Whatever causes different preferences in information processing can be of biological origin.

I would like some clarification here. So what you are saying is that it is not the informational processing itself that is of biological origin, but "some causal agent"?

[Myst]

I would like some clarification here. So what you are saying is that it is not the informational processing itself that is of biological origin, but "some causal agent"?

Well if we can link these high level concepts of information processing properly to the low level physical then yes.

[Skepsis]

Well if we can link these high level concepts of information processing properly to the low level physical then yes.

What are high level concepts of information processing? Are you referring to Jung's higher Self?

[Myst]

What are high level concepts of information processing? Are you referring to Jung's higher Self?

No lol just the IEs in socionics, they are a very high level way of seeing information processing of the mind/brain

[Skepsis]

No lol just the IEs in socionics, they are a very high level way of seeing information processing of the mind/brain

I'm confused by your wording then. If high level is information processing in the brain/mind, what is low level physical? I would think that high level in the brain is also physical. Do you mean conscious vs unconscious processing when you are referring to high and low? Forgive me, I find Jungian terminology quite obscure sometimes.

Not to pelt you with a thousand questions, but.....

[Myst]

I'm confused by your wording then. If high level is information processing in the brain/mind, what is low level physical? I would think that high level in the brain is also physical. Do you mean conscious vs unconscious processing when you are referring to high and low? Forgive me, I find Jungian terminology quite obscure sometimes.

Not to pelt you with a thousand questions, but.....

The high level conceptualization we are dealing with here is an abstraction level (of understanding how things work) very far from the physical implementation. It may or may not be reduced to the physical implementation. If it can be directly connected, that is, reduced to it then yes you might as well call the high level physical too. Does this help?

Btw this isn't jungian terminology

[Skepsis]

The high level conceptualization we are dealing with here is an abstraction level (of understanding how things work) very far from the physical implementation. It may or may not be reduced to the physical implementation. If it can be directly connected, that is, reduced to it then yes you might as well call the high level physical too. Does this help?

Btw this isn't jungian terminology

It does help, thank you.

If not reducible to physics, then I'm curious as to what the origin of the preferences to be. Are we dealing with Cartesian Dualism, Idealism, or some other philosophy of the mind? If the origin is physical, then I'm curious as to how much of a preference one actually has. How much are the preferences influenced by the environment or by genetics?

Even if the mind is nothing more than constructs of information elements and each human uses all eight of them, why is it assumed that any one IE is preferred over all the others? While not explicitly Jungian terminology, the concept is quite Jungian; that there is a preference for one above the rest. How can one distinguish between a preference(which implies a degree of freedom), information processing that is genetically hardwired, and environmental adaptations?

I'm not denying that each person's brain has a distinct way to process information, but that each brain is reducible to one of these eight.

[End]

It does help, thank you.

If not reducible to physics, then I'm curious as to what the origin of the preferences to be. Are we dealing with Cartesian Dualism, Idealism, or some other philosophy of the mind? If the origin is physical, then I'm curious as to how much of a preference one actually has. How much are the preferences influenced by the environment or by genetics?

Even if the mind is nothing more than constructs of information elements and each human uses all eight of them, why is it assumed that any one IE is preferred over all the others? While not explicitly Jungian terminology, the concept is quite Jungian; that there is a preference for one above the rest. How can one distinguish between a preference(which implies a degree of freedom), information processing that is genetically hardwired, and environmental adaptations?

I'm not denying that each person's brain has a distinct way to process information, but that each brain is reducible to one of these eight.

The answers to those questions might be answers we'd rather not know or would lead to an unfortunate future if we ever got them. That said I see the 8 functions as more about a generalizing of how people react and respond to stimuli. Their "preference" becomes apparent after a good amount of time is spent with them. The program function is what they most rely on, it's their "default" method of dealing with the world. The relative "strength" of the other functions will depend on who they hang out with. Obviously, if you have a family member with a program or creative function that's not in your ego that's gonna get strengthened as you constantly observe its use in your day to day life. Thus, you may become unusually strong in the use of an IE your type isn't supposed to be very strong in using. Same goes with close friends and lovers, they kinda "train" the use of other IE's, just as your ego is training your own in them.

[The Exception]

I'm curious about what the information elements and their placements in the psyche to the evolutionary table , and in what situations would certain types thrive or suffer in terms of survival and reproduction. For example, introverts have the benefit of minimizing potential dangers by keeping their interactions with the outside by a minimum thus allowing them more time reproduce over the general population. Extroverts on the other hand would place themselves in greater hazards but in turn increase amount of sexual partners available by being more present.

I'll create a brief summary of situations in which it would be beneficial for an individual to have a certain IE as a leading function:

: Best when the individual lives in constantly hazardous environment
: Best when one in is in an environment prone to foreseeable disasters
: Best in places with extremely scarce resources that must be captured by force
: Same as Se except when it becomes beneficial to outwit the competition rather then fight it
: Best when the individual is alone and in a stable environment where it is simply best not to do anything stupid that would put yourself in danger
: Best when the individual is in a small group where offending a certain individual could mean death or imprisonment
: Best when the individual in a place full of resources that can be extracted and made use out of
: Best when the individual must interact with many new people constantly whom can inflict harm of they get rubbed the wrong


Actually when you think about it like this it becomes clear why irrationals thrive in primitive conditions and rationals thrive in stability doesn't it?



I'd like to hear if anybody has any thoughts about situations where certain types specifically would thrive in.

According to this, I by far thrive the most in the Ti environment. I think I could do okay in the Te and Ni environments. All of the others would be a nightmare.

[Myst]

It does help, thank you.

If not reducible to physics, then I'm curious as to what the origin of the preferences to be. Are we dealing with Cartesian Dualism, Idealism, or some other philosophy of the mind? If the origin is physical, then I'm curious as to how much of a preference one actually has. How much are the preferences influenced by the environment or by genetics?

Even if the mind is nothing more than constructs of information elements and each human uses all eight of them, why is it assumed that any one IE is preferred over all the others? While not explicitly Jungian terminology, the concept is quite Jungian; that there is a preference for one above the rest. How can one distinguish between a preference(which implies a degree of freedom), information processing that is genetically hardwired, and environmental adaptations?

I'm not denying that each person's brain has a distinct way to process information, but that each brain is reducible to one of these eight.

I don't think preference implies any sort of freedom here at all, it's just a technical term to denote a certain quality of the structure of mental processing.

No one claimed that there are only these aspects of information processing and that there is nothing else to the mind; these 8 IEs are just those high level categories for a way of conceptualizing mental processing in general as I explained.

I don't know the answer to the rest of your questions.