Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Type Agendas by I/O

  1. #1
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Type Agendas by I/O

    An agenda is a fundamental inclination of a cognitive process that operates in a specific pattern due to its structure, and the resulting peculiarities of processing are perceived as agendas. Cognition operates within the framework of an input/output control system that is steered by either input (p) or output (j), which uses either internalized (I) or externalized (E) references. As well, input will have preference for either relative (N) or absolute (S) information, and output will have preference for either relative (F) or absolute (T) rationalization. Each preference from its particular reference perspective uniquely flavours perception or rationalization processes, thus, yielding an agenda mixture.

    Cognitive processing has an input and output agenda with one being dominant. Cognition also temporarily employs back-up control configurations and these can bring their own agendas into the fray. The following eight agendas result from different combinations of reference perspectives (I or E) and processing preferences (F or T and N or S).

    Output agendas

    The following four output agendas are phenomena of rationalization processes, not of information; however, one should note that process is a category of information.

    The moralist agenda (Fi) is to follow and entice others to follow its intuitive rationalization; they feel that their behaviour and ways are best. Moralists hold onto internalized notions of idyllic life, which can sometimes be impossible to describe in concrete terms. They're often concerned with the conduct of others, especially those who are not behaving as expected. Moralists do onto others as they want others to do onto them because many of their needs are intangible and difficult to explain; thus, demonstration is preferred over confrontation. They show respect in order to be respected, voice sorrow in order to get sympathy, or love in order to be loved; and passionate moralists have been known to martyr themselves in order to get others to follow their agendas. They make decisions based on values; overriding behaviour is tied to personal valuation processes, which can be quite inflexible. Moralists do not trust information until it's been contextualized, so input is suspended during rationalization; this agenda needs disconnection from the world until rationalization is complete.

    The strategist agenda (Ti) is to follow and sometimes convince others to follow its explicit directions toward specific goals. Strategists trust their own absolute rationalization over that of others. They create internalized constructs of the way that things should be approached,defined, applied and or done. Strategists differ from moralists in that they quantify information to obtain definitive results, and concrete processes and goals are much easier to describe. Strategists work independently under their own rules but worry about failure because they're not spontaneous, so they put a lot of effort into studying and understanding every eventuality that may be associated with their planning. However, context and intuition isn't part of the process so issues such as personal feelings are often ignored. Strategists prefer to rationalize in isolation ignoring input, but they especially like to detach from people. When things are not going according to plan, strategists prefer to disconnect and try to figure out what to do next; when everything's understood and on track, they can be extremely resolute.

    The empath agenda (Fe) is to rationalize mutually acceptable closure on relational issues. Empaths walk in the other person's shoes having no preconceived notions of the way people should feel or valuate. They often place the rationale of others above their own so they may occasionally need personal support from someone else. However, this does not mean that empaths are needy or push-overs because they can defend their own positions and rights, but they normally do so with an open ear. Empaths qualify information by assessing its relationship and value; however, unlike moralists, rationalization is normally done via engagement with others – like a group therapy session. Hence, empaths usually make their contextualization, rationale and or feelings obvious, and input is never put offline so they're never disconnected from the world. Empaths are adaptable by nature but also can be tenacious, myopic and reactive because of a burning desire to get closure; they seek resolution and acceptance of the resolution, and they're very capable of influencing the outcome. However, they generally consider their methods as no more important than those of others so their perspectives are usually objective: “How does everyone feel about it?” And, results can be largely abstract or notional.

    The inquisitor agenda (Te) is to obtain mutually acceptable determinations of the absolute truth. Inquisitors prefer to rationalize in absolutes, and in a sort of brain-storming fashion. They have no bias about the way that things should be decided, but they're driven to know what makes sense. They take a third-person perspective where decision making has a community element: “Let's find out which approach is the best?” When inquisitors are uncertain, they'll seek interaction with others and bounce ideas off them until sufficient closure has been rationalized. This thinking-out-loud can often appear as if inquisitors are arguing with themselves; however, they usually see the other person's perspective even though they may choose to ignore it. Inquisitors are adaptable by nature but also can be very tenacious and reactive because of their burning desire to get at the truth, and they're very capable of manipulation when seeking the truth. They like quantifying information with someone or in group,and narrowing-down on specifics for the purpose of obtaining knowledge, know-how, control and or status. Even when in acommanding position, input is never shut down, but when focus becomes too narrow, blindness to other issues can occur, and they can rub people the wrong way.

    Input agendas

    The following four input agendas are phenomena of information acquisition processes and not rationalization, although rationalization is necessary for refining information and references.

    The vigilant agenda (Si) is to observe and be alert to physical changes with respect to quantified internal references. The vigilant are always on guard, giving preference to observations of a tangible (actual, corporeal, definable and material) nature, especially those that can pose a real physical threat. It trusts information that is familiar and that which one can quantify or measure; it holds the unfamiliar and intangible in abeyance, or eliminates them. Input is compared to internalized, physical standards which have been previously verified; this guarded approach is essentially a filtering process that allows the vigilant to navigate through some very chaotic situations. Actual input from the senses is key; thus, personal health can be a major concern, especially when the senses are not functioning properly. The vigilant are very tuned in and reactive to their environment. They tend to shoot first and ask questions later; dangers are dealt with in a knee-jerk fashion. The vigilant focus on characteristic and detail, and everything is seen in comparative terms, especially from a physical impact perspective.


    The believer agenda (Ni) is to sense and be responsive to changes in significance with respect to an internal belief system. Believers trust only that which fits into this belief system, and they believe that context and relation are the best indicators of reality. Unlike the vigilant, their references are not easily verified even though they're equally valid, and their defence mechanisms are usually not physical. They observe from a qualitative perspective: aura, big-picture, context, image, mood, and relationship, especially their significance to self. Their belief systems are comprised of intangible sets of references, which aren't necessarily spiritual. Internalized qualitative references are used as the basis to subjectively measure all input. They treat the unfamiliar and elemental with suspicion, or filter them out completely. Believers are critics that focus on philosophy, composition or the system; they compare notional information to their beliefs. They are very focused on and reactive to image, position, relation and trend. They are very wary of threats to and defensive of their belief system; and everything worthy of rationalization must have significance to their beliefs. Believers can be impulsive and, for example, discredit those that they believe are unworthy.

    The reductionist agenda(Se) is to seek out the component perspective where complexities can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic, physical mechanisms. Reductionists amass information and things of a tangible nature; however, they treat most everything as if it were transient, which may be why abundance seems to be their security blanket. They focus on quantifiable characteristics with which everything can be associated or identified; information is broken down into its constituent parts for easier reference. Like the vigilant, they focus on physical characteristics and can be very detail oriented. However, information is generally acquired for future reference; it's not compared with anything nor is it normally intended for immediate use. Reductionists view the world in a straight-forward, unbiased and practical fashion. They like to experiment with,explore and collect physical stuff, and then move on to the next interest; they're realists and collectors who live in the moment. They like the new and exciting, and view the world in its elemental form so a rich uncomplicated environment would make compliance with this agenda very easy.

    The
    holist agenda (Ne) is to seek out the global perspective where the system is greater than its parts. Holists seek or delve into the essence; they see everything and everybody interacting with their surroundings to form a complete system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for existence. Like believers, they focus on qualitative information but do not compare anything to a reference so the perspective is objective. Personal association is no more important than overall connection, context, harmony or synchronicity; in some way, the celestial whole is important to all holists. It's all about context, formula, pattern and or theory, and they absorb qualities not characteristics. They are like reductionists in that they consider information to be transient and disposable, but their perspectives are polar opposite. Holists can sometimes be too idealistic or unrealistic so they would be so much more successful in an world where everyone and everything behaved with theoretical perfection.

    In a control system, output processes rationalize that which is provided by input processes so both sets of processes are dependent on each other; however, one set must be in control for stability purposes. Various types may pursue similar ultimate goals but some agenda pairs are better suited to particular goals. Because agendas influence one another and one is dominant, the following paragraphs demonstrate some of the resulting effects of this interdependency and dominance.

    NF: The ENFjs are proactively empathetic with somewhat flexible belief systems; they tend to be more empathetic about societies or global issues than individuals unless a particular individual is important to them. The INFp observers have such strongly-held beliefs that their empathy is mostly limited to that which fits within their belief system. The ENFps are holistic explorers that are flexible about morals and seem to be more moralistic when it comes to issues of individual freedom that permit them to explore further. The INFjs are visionaries who can be so morally inflexible that they often ignore their own holistic views in order to evoke a desired response, so their behaviour can sometimes confound other types.

    SF: The ESFjs usually limit their vigilance to that which supports their proactive empathy such as the physical well-being of everyone and everything. When the ISFps have to track too many elements, their empathy is often restricted to those facing real and immediate dangers. The morality of ESFp reductionists has a practical flavour; they seem less moralistic when it interferes with what they're doing. The ISFjs can be so moralistically driven that their normally realistic and practical view of the world is ignored: “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”.

    NT: The ENTjs inquisitively pursue the truth about personal beliefs and will, in some way, quantify beliefs so that an absolute assessment can be made. The INTps believe in seeking the truth but will often ignore the results of their own assessments when they do not fit into their belief system. The ENTps are holistic explorers who will often deviate from their own strategies to pursue new theories or concepts – butterflies that experiment. The INTjs are strategists who try to turn their holistic views into something useful, so they place definite limits on theories and qualities.

    ST: The ESTjs are inquisitors who try to remain vigilant, but the process of ferreting out the truth will often make them susceptible to being blindsided. The ISTps are so vigilant and quick to react that they sometimes fail to fully assess the situation. The ESTps can over simplify a strategy to the point that it's no longer workable but won't worry because they often think that something better will eventually come along. The ISTjs make straightforward, realistic plans but they'll sometimes ignore important details when they're too sure of their plans.

    The above descriptions, and influence and interference patterns are far from exhaustive. Note that because individuals are not pure types and will sometimes operate in alternate modes, overall behaviour will be affected by super ego agendas and agendas of a transient nature - the water can get quite muddy. Also, from an observer perspective, the externalized agendas seem more obvious; however, the two primary agendas should be fairly discernible.
    Last edited by Rebelondeck; 03-23-2016 at 01:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good stuff. Did you write this yourself?
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  3. #3
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    consentingadult,

    I did write it myself. I think Socionics as a classification system is very accurate but I do not agree with the models at all - seems to be early to mid 20th century thinking. I'm a control/communication systems engineer with some background in artificial intelligence so I have that perspective of the brain's information handling system. I think modern control system theory and Socionics can merge to better explain cognitive behaviour; we just need more heads on it.

    a.k.a. I/O

  4. #4
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, my compliments! It's not often we see original perspectives added to Socionics.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  5. #5
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good stuff

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fe isn't Empathy. Also, reductionism is declaring reinin.

    Systems theory approach is studied by Yermak. en.socionicasys.org

  7. #7
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jermy:

    I did not say that Fe is empathy or that Se is reductionism; it's a perceived agenda. I arbitrarily labeled them like Socionics has done in their theories. I was only trying to point out how control-system processes can be perceived.

    I do not speak Russian so do not understand most of the information at en.socionicasys.org. The little English that is there doesn't seem to talk about specific engineering control-system structures so I cannot comment. Perhaps you can translate key aspects for me.

    I've only been writing about this stuff since 2006 - only because since about 1998, I hadn't read about anything similar to what was in my mind. However, I might still have been reinventing the Russian wheel because nothing was translated.

    a.k.a I/O

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419

    I did not say Fe is empathy or Se is reductionism; I was referring to perceived agendas of information control system processes. I arbitrarily gave them names like Socionics has done for its theories.

    I did not read anything at that en.socionicasys.org site to which I could relate and I do not understand Russian for the bulk of the site. Perhaps you can summarize key aspects where they've actually put something in engineering terms; the definition of system there seems rather general and vague.

    I've only been writing about this stuff since 2006 because since about 1998, I had not read anything similar to what was in my mind. However, I could still be reinventing a Russian wheel that hasn't been translated.

    a.k.a I/O

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why'd you repost the same thing? Lol. Those links are in English except for half of the last one. They sound very similar to some of what you speak of regarding control systems.

  11. #11
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    Sorry about the double message. The original disappeared from my screen so I rewrote it. I'll have to read more closely but at first glance, it still appears as if one was trying to explain an existing model in different words.

    Thanks for the references.

    a.k.a I/O

  12. #12
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    Perhaps the translations are bad. The below quotes are taken from your references and are indicative of the contents. It's more touchy-feely descriptions than an actual systems engineering approach. Someone seems to be trying to conjure a system from the bottom up, and not design one from the top down - an attempt to transform the language of the old models into newspeak.

    "The meaning of the systems approach as applied to the study of man consists in understanding and constructive application of the well known idea that a person as an element of nature, is similar to any other living entity, and many if not all of the findings and achievements, tools and methodology of the natural sciences that has long been successfully used by mathematicians and systemologists are applicable to the study of man as well."

    "Each of them has its own “operational system” (by analogy with computer) determined by the purpose (role) of the psyche function in the systemic TIM model structure and the combination of information processing parameters (Ex, Nr, St and Tm). Also each of these processors has «an application work program» determined by the information element being processed by this function."

    a.k.a. I/O

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's because they started with the bottom via Jung.

    What you're wanting to do will have the same end results as the present systems. People disagree with why they behave the way they do, so the systems endlessly fracture into more systems. That is, people often view themselves differently than others do, and when they do such they have an underlying different cognitive process. Although Bill and Ted may say, Yes I/O's system is right as it explains both my behaviors and my cognition, Steve and Glenn will disagree and say they do not match; this is because Bill and Ted have similar cognitive processes as I/O and Steve and Glenn do not, which will be separate from behaviors. I go to the store and Tom goes to the store, but we don't necessarily go for the same reason, and if we do go for the same reason, we may not go to the same store.

  14. #14
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    People disagree with why they behave the way they do because many seem unable to separate root cognitive processing from environmental conditioning (baggage) from brain dysfunctions from primal urges. Also, most of the people in search of themselves are young with somewhat unstable processes due to ongoing brain growth. And, I've seen so many who do not want to be who they are so pretend to be someone else - even to themselves.

    a.k.a. I/O

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is because people ultimately are only one thing: People. People, by nature, are contradictory within their mind, body, hearts, and souls. Socionics is a system which, by it's own definitions, lacks a clear reference point in time for what it considers "TIM." Although it acknowledges the ongoing process of the human life and personality, it simultaneously rejects that process with its adherence to the root of the person being a static. At the point that one accepts that it is statically determined, one enters the realm of the only thing which is static in people: Genetics. Once within the realm of genetics, you enter into the realm of the parents, which, consequently, returns to the immutable fact that the passage of time, the human process, is inseparable from cognition. And again, you are back at square one of the reality that Socionics has no reference point in time. Entirely cyclical. Entirely I/O. Right back to: People.

  16. #16
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    I agree that we are entirely centric around input/output but the fundamental processes and preferences that control I/O have to become fixed for stability (self-preservation) purposes. It's everything else that's fluid and murky - the operating system remains static but apps come and go.

    a.k.a. I/O

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Operating systems upgrade due to external feedback from society. What is predominant for stability in one build is not necessarily predominant for the next. Although the build may only be able to accept updates from external sources that are compatible, the updated system operates on it's own, new stable framework, with backwards compatibility supported to moderate degrees, but one can never truly return to one's childhood.

  18. #18
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    We differ. I look upon I/O control like I would our visual processing; it's the sensor that makes one myopic, not the processing.

    a.k.a. I/O

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Jeremy8419,

    We differ. I look upon I/O control like I would our visual processing; it's the sensor that makes one myopic, not the processing.

    a.k.a. I/O
    What about surgeries? That changes the sensors.

  20. #20
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    Perhaps my example was too simplistic. Yes, but up until that point the world looked fuzzy; any false information can make the world look fuzzy; and processing can be broken as well. In any processing unit, there has to be a solid kernel, a firmware that defines the root system. Without it, there is no basis on which to construct an ego; break it and you likely get a vegetable. There must be something that keeps you as you throughout your lifetime. I think that kernel is an I/O processing system that is fed by a content-addressable memory.

    a.k.a. I/O

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Then that would be genetics.

  22. #22
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419 View Post
    Then that would be genetics.
    Yes. A tree can grow straight and tall, or bent and twisted depending on the environment.

    a.k.a. I/O

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Jeremy8419,

    Yes. A tree can grow straight and tall, or bent and twisted depending on the environment.

    a.k.a. I/O
    Some of the Yermak stuff deals with intelligence and one's life being determined by the macro-system of humanity, in turn determined by the macro-system of life on earth, so one and so forth, all to fulfill a role of basically a sub-program within the greater program; e.g., you're I/O, but I/O is only what humanity created to fulfill a certain set of instructions.

    In any case, in what you say, the TIM would simply be everything that the surrounding environment is not, since genetics is determined by the environment.

  24. #24
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    The Yermak stuff sounds rather esoteric to this old engineer. I think that success of random events is more of a determinant of genetics; the environment is a result. And yes, environment is everything that is not type; everyone else and even our own memories should be considered as part of the environment. However, such concepts tend to be too circular to be useful for me.

    a.k.a. I/O

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Jeremy8419,The Yermak stuff sounds rather esoteric to this old engineer. I think that success of random events is more of a determinant of genetics; the environment is a result. And yes, environment is everything that is not type; everyone else and even our own memories should be considered as part of the environment. However, such concepts tend to be too circular to be useful for me.a.k.a. I/O
    Well, in that case... Consider each of the elements to be related either be practical aspects of the processor (extroverted) or relation/information transfer to other processors (introverted). E.g., alignment of output channels vs input channels, output channels of the processor, information channels within the processor, etc. Since the processor is dynamic, the internal/external channels and paths change based upon input. Although the root has a primary I/O, that is the processors primary function, it also has all associated channels, like a cube with one corner being primary I and the opposite being primary output, with 6 faces of 16x16 squares for available channels, yet which channels are active dynamically changes based upon input. Thus, the root processors effective I/O and information channels not only are changed by the input received, but also change other processors effective I/O and information channels by the output given.Also, I had started on this but got bored of the notion. It's a separate concept from the former one. You can play with the concepts yourself if you want, as they can be easily tested by the self just by simple experimentation and paying attention to mental states
    So, when doing more stuff related to Se, I began noticing shifts related to perception, so I decided to formulate them into classifications based upon objective traits of simplistic animalistic behaviors.In introspection, my vision is generally non-focused; that is, each eye is at a neutral, non-focused position. When walking or looking, my vision remains primarily unfocused, and head position changes where I am looking more than anything else. Overall, I maintain a "general, non-descript sense of sight." This is in contrast to convergent viewing angle, which focuses the eyes inwards to specific points in space. Tendency for individuals to operate in either primarily divergent (towards neutral-state eye position, including awareness of peripheral vision) or convergent (towards the center eye position, increasing specific point of focus towards the self; like focus on a point in space as it moves towards the self; towards cross-eyed) vision tendencies. I have equated convergent vision with carnivorous/predator vision, which is responsible for being able to visually focus on prey. I have equated divergent vision with herbivore/prey vision, which is responsible for being able to view presence of predators in greater than 180 degrees direction. These descriptions may also be expanded to relate to benefit vision and danger vision, within the same scope of context as predator vision and prey vision. Due to the objectivity of each, I have classified convergent vision as extroverted sensing and divergent vision as extroverted intuition. Although vision is specifically detailed, the same scope of application applies to the remaining senses as well. The determinant between predispositions and tendencies for convergent versus divergent vision would be base aspects of the individual circumstances of the individual as well as the individual's environment, which may be predominated by need for either convergent or divergent vision. The greater the length of time of the presence of these tendencies would relate to the "strength" of one compared to the other. Within the typology communities, a referenced trend is with ST types being more likely to wear eyeglasses. If the hypothesis is true, there would then be a positive correlation between S types and vision impairment, as eyeglasses restrict the capabilities for divergent vision, which will lead to a strengthening of predisposition for convergent vision.

  26. #26
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jeremy8419,

    You seem to be describing associative processes, which have been in use in technology since at least the '70s. I'm at a loss for comment about the faces, squares and cube aspects.......

    a.k.a. I/O

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You have 4 different bits within socionics. 2^4. 4 dimensions. To complete it, you have to reconcile the 4 dimensions. Processing is I/O. By using cubic processing, you move to 3-dimensional processing. When you include the cube dynamically changing in relation to the 3D I/O, you include 4th dimensional processing. The human mind is regulated by the brain, which has an architecture of neurons ever-changing their structure/orientation to other neurons, not a set structure. Within the neurons, you have chemicals doing the same. Then down to the quantum level. On to infinity, and through the 4th dimension.

    This is a different set of concepts, but it may have some ideas that generate ideas for you: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tive-mechanics
    last post.

Posting Permissions

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