You can't handle all of it! by I/O

[Rebelondeck]

The brain cannot handle all the information that comes through the senses. Initially, we're all fitted with much the same input-output processors; some may have faster memory access but this does not make up for inherent bandwidth limitations of the system. To reduce potential workload, distinctive processor restrictions have to be adopted; people become specialists in handling limited sets of data in limited ways. Thus, type is born.

Process control is structured in one of two ways. The first employs priority interrupts (open-loop with no feedback) so that input can be turned off while output is operating, or vice versa. An explorer (Ep) curbs rationalization so that information acquisition can be maximized. A planner (Ij) restricts data acquisition to increase rationalization capacity. However, being able to shut down an entire processing stream to give more resources to the other set of processes does pose obvious weaknesses regardless of how fast the switch can be made.

The second structure employs a comparator (with feedback and filter) to limit processing so that input and output can be kept online simultaneously. This closed-loop configuration considers only information that falls within narrow ranges, exploits rationalizations of others, and demands immediate closure in order to move on to the next step. Now, an observer (Ip) is dominated by input processes, whereas a leader (Ej) has rationalization in control. Stability (ego?) requires that, regardless of structure, only one process can be in ultimate control – input or output.

In a limited bandwidth scenario, processing has to rob Peter to pay Paul. Since all input and output have relative and absolute components, processing limits itself to a reduced set of preferences (N versus S and F versus T). The unused information and processes are still available if it weren't for the fact that stuff that's not regularly used tends to atrophy; and, we simply cannot be all things to all processes. Processing power is finite regardless of how it's employed so we are doomed to our limitations - right from the get-go. Instead of focusing on what we're not and trying to repair what's not broken, we need to better use what we've got.

[Beautiful sky]

we need to better use what we've got

right

[Rebelondeck]

@Maritsa Because of the way my offspring reply to me (a reason why I used the term "we've got" instead of "we have" ), I'm not sure that you agree, or think I'm full of it.....so here's another one. We are equipped with processes that handle our automatic responses. These operate in background and override cognition; they appear to be ISTp in nature so deep down when all else fails, aren't we all fundamentally this type.

[narcosis]

amphetamines will help you process information at a faster rate

[Beautiful sky]

@Maritsa Because of the way my offspring reply to me (a reason why I used the term "we've got" instead of "we have" ), I'm not sure that you agree, or think I'm full of it.....so here's another one. We are equipped with processes that handle our automatic responses. These operate in background and override cognition; they appear to be ISTp in nature so deep down when all else fails, aren't we all fundamentally this type.

LII often misunderstand EII. I agree with you

[Rebelondeck]

LII often misunderstand EII...........

@Maritsa I have found that they do understand each other very well; they just don't agree on life's objectives. LII is an insensitive planner while EII's a sensitive moralist; the rub is that they're two idealists who both think they're right........

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

amphetamines will help you process information at a faster rate

Yes, they will, but with significantly lower accuracy. You can't overcome the bandwidth limitations of a heat-limited processor.

[Adam Strange]

The brain cannot handle all the information that comes through the senses. Initially, we're all fitted with much the same input-output processors; some may have faster memory access but this does not make up for inherent bandwidth limitations of the system. To reduce potential workload, distinctive processor restrictions have to be adopted; people become specialists in handling limited sets of data in limited ways. Thus, type is born.

Process control is structured in one of two ways. The first employs priority interrupts (open-loop with no feedback) so that input can be turned off while output is operating, or vice versa. An explorer (Ep) curbs rationalization so that information acquisition can be maximized. A planner (Ij) restricts data acquisition to increase rationalization capacity. However, being able to shut down an entire processing stream to give more resources to the other set of processes does pose obvious weaknesses regardless of how fast the switch can be made.

The second structure employs a comparator (with feedback and filter) to limit processing so that input and output can be kept online simultaneously. This closed-loop configuration considers only information that falls within narrow ranges, exploits rationalizations of others, and demands immediate closure in order to move on to the next step. Now, an observer (Ip) is dominated by input processes, whereas a leader (Ej) has rationalization in control. Stability (ego?) requires that, regardless of structure, only one process can be in ultimate control – input or output.

In a limited bandwidth scenario, processing has to rob Peter to pay Paul. Since all input and output have relative and absolute components, processing limits itself to a reduced set of preferences (N versus S and F versus T). The unused information and processes are still available if it weren't for the fact that stuff that's not regularly used tends to atrophy; and, we simply cannot be all things to all processes. Processing power is finite regardless of how it's employed so we are doomed to our limitations - right from the get-go. Instead of focusing on what we're not and trying to repair what's not broken, we need to better use what we've got.

This is brilliant. It is a long step in the direction of putting the functions on a hardware basis, rather than a purely subjective one.

I particularly like the description of the functions as being control processes which are running on a bandwidth-limited processor. The human eye is set up similarly.

The human eye has the greatest density of rods and cones (pixels) in the center of the field of vision, and the update rate there is very slow. However, the edges of the eye have far fewer pixels per square millimeter, but the update rate is far faster. You could prove this by looking at a 60 Hz monitor (when they still existed) out of the corner of your eye, and see flickering, because the edges of your field of view update very, very fast.

You could say that this evolved to enable us to quickly detect predators or prey at the edge of our field of view at very low resolution, at which point we could redirect our view to bring the high-resolution center of vision to bear on the target. But notice that (high_speed X low_resolution) = (low_speed X high_resolution) = (constant_data_rate) = bandwidth of processor.

The human brain is a processor that is already operating near the limits of the body's ability to feed it (20% of all energy input goes to the brain) and to cool it (humans have lost their body hair and have cooling sweat glands everywhere but on the palms of their hands and feet, unlike any other animal), so it makes sense that all the operations performed by the brain are optimized for efficient I/O processing.

I also see that the different ways in which the information is processed in each "type" reflects different evolutionary solutions to optimized process control. The "personality types" are really slightly different variations on a basic model. They are different because evolution has inevitable variations, all competing for fitness in the environment. Perhaps this is part of the reason that each of the "sixteen types" is not equally represented in the population.

[Rebelondeck]

@Adam Strange Finally, someone who gets it. Now you'll feel as if you're in a maelstrom like me. And now, you must tell two friends who each will tell two friends and so on and so on..........

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

@Adam Strange Finally, someone who gets it. Now you'll feel as if you're in a maelstrom like me. And now, you must tell two friends who each will tell two friends and so on and so on..........

a.k.a. I/O

Hey, dude, don't go nuts about this. I happen to have a background that enables me to understand this and to appreciate it. But, I've been telling people true and insightful things for years that no one understands or cares about. I've given up being a crusader, and now I just try to make money.

The only way I could see making money from this would be to patent it as a control strategy (and you've already published it ) and then license it to a software company that is running adaptive systems on limited hardware.

Perhaps you could still patent a strategy that switches between control schemes (types), depending on the real-time needs of the customer. Might even be able to sell it to a processor manufacturer that would incorporate it into the chip as firmware, assuming you have working code.

[ouronis]

I am drawn to think that types are a step along maximizing fitness, but on levels which are themselves competing(individual behaviors that inadvertently serve society instead of the individual directly and all the efficient and inefficient permutations of this for each behavior, thought, emotion, etc).

[Exodus]

I agree with the general concept, type is a preference for filtering information in a certain way. (I've written some stuff about this on my site: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...ts-in-Model-A2 ) But temperaments are probably one of the least natural groupings to view this in light of - the most natural at this point to me seems to be benefit rings.

[niffer]

I agree with the general concept, type is a preference for filtering information in a certain way. (I've written some stuff about this on my site: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...ts-in-Model-A2 ) But temperaments are probably one of the least natural groupings to view this in light of - the most natural at this point to me seems to be benefit rings.

I understand this alludes to forms of cognition. But still, why?

I am drawn to think that types are a step along maximizing fitness, but on levels which are themselves competing(individual behaviors that inadvertently serve society instead of the individual directly and all the efficient and inefficient permutations of this for each behavior, thought, emotion, etc).

Yeah. It's like, each type is a different permutation of human capability that helps human knowledge progress or something, to help us as a group (or species)(well, this last part is a bit of a stretch). Each of us just a bacterium in the colony.

[niffer]

I also see that the different ways in which the information is processed in each "type" reflects different evolutionary solutions to optimized process control. The "personality types" are really slightly different variations on a basic model. They are different because evolution has inevitable variations, all competing for fitness in the environment. Perhaps this is part of the reason that each of the "sixteen types" is not equally represented in the population.

Do you really think that each of the types aren't equally represented in the population? I've always been really skeptical of studies that have tried to determine this, as well of people's personal accounts. If this is true though, which I have considered, I have thought that a possible reason for this might be that certain types take more energy, or rarer circumstances, to create. Genetics are important to how people turn out, but also epigenetics.... if people while developing in the womb have a mother in a stressful environment, they will begin changing to match the expected outer environment. I think rats in these cases will be born bigger and stronger but with less cognitive ability, for instance.

[Exodus]

I understand this alludes to forms of cognition. But still, why?

Forms of cognition is Gulenko's take on supervision rings, which I guess is tangentially related.

I was probably being too brief. In fact I think not only is type a preference for filtering information in a certain way (this is obviously also a part of Jung and Augusta's thinking). I actually go further in saying the information aspects themselves arise from the fact that we are limited beings.

As for why benefit rings (I think this is what you are asking) - in my view Process = action, Result = information perceived, Extroversion = expanding, and Introversion = limiting.
So e.g. +Ni and -Ti both seek to limit perceived information in a certain way, so that they overlap in many ways. This is more obvious at the IM element level than the type level. -Ti reduces perceived information by recognizing connections between facts; +Ni limits it by focusing on what is relevant and meaningful and ignoring what is irrelevant/not meaningful. So they can have similar effects while being thought of in different ways.

[Rebelondeck]

@thehotelambush The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data is fundamental and is the only true function aspects. Without information control structure, there would be no type, and structure has characteristics that influence type development. Socionics classification bins seem to be for filters. Filtering is a component (an add-on) so to group based on preferences is like putting the cart before the horse - especially when one is trying to define a system model.

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data is fundamental and is the only true function aspects. Without information control structure, there would be no type, and structure has characteristics that influence type development. Socionics classification bins seem to be for filters. Filtering is a component (an add-on) so to group based on preferences is like putting the cart before the horse - especially when one is trying to define a system model.

a.k.a. I/O

I'm not really sure what the heck you're talking about. What is a "socionics classification bin"? Or a "filter", in terms of the socionic model? How are benefit rings "based on preferences" but temperaments not?

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data is fundamental and is the only true function aspects. Without information control structure, there would be no type, and structure has characteristics that influence type development. Socionics classification bins seem to be for filters. Filtering is a component (an add-on) so to group based on preferences is like putting the cart before the horse - especially when one is trying to define a system model.

a.k.a. I/O

ok, so I guess you're saying temperament = "The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data". This is vague ("the way" could mean a lot of things) but I don't really agree with it. As far as I can tell, temperament on its own seems to be a category that is difficult to pin down, and I disagree that it is somehow "fundamental" and "the only true function aspects." What is the proof for this? What makes it more fundamental than every other category (quadras, supervision rings, benefit rings - any of these as an example)?

Also, the way you're describing temperaments needs more explanation, like "input can be turned off while output is operating, or vice versa". Is this supposed to describe Static types? And if so, why?

[Rebelondeck]

............ What is a "socionics classification bin"? Or a "filter", in terms of the socionic model? How are benefit rings "based on preferences" but temperaments not?

I should be less cryptic; being LII is no excuse. A proposed independent variable to which a bunch of observations are attached in the attempt to find some root correlation (to behaviour?) is what I call a classification bin (statisticians and psychologists have better words). A filter is a way of disregarding or accepting certain types of information or processes (resulting in F or T and S or N, which I call preferences). I question any model that uses Jung's observations as the starting point or basis for a system although the observations and classifications of behaviour by him are valid and can be used to verify a system. I think both Augusta and M-B used Jung as the starting point but failed to find (look for?) a system. Instead, patchwork was done. I was pushing further on your statement of "part of Jung and Augusta's thinking". I can now see how I lost you so I should stop here; I would need to produce another article for which I have little energy at the moment. I did not imply anything about rings?

a.k.a. I/O

[niffer]

@thehotelambush Whole point of OP is just meant as a basic overview that energy/data as a whole, is regulated by type structures and that there are limitations that come with that...it's not about the specific forms of data and their role in the environment, so you're delving into a different and unrelated layer of detail. You can't perceive and judge at the same time; you can't do input and output at the same time, so temperament is probably the most simple and basic way to display this idea.

[Rebelondeck]

ok, so I guess you're saying temperament = "The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data". This is vague ("the way" could mean a lot of things) but I don't really agree with it. As far as I can tell, temperament on its own seems to be a category that is difficult to pin down, and I disagree that it is somehow "fundamental" and "the only true function aspects." What is the proof for this? What makes it more fundamental than every other category (quadras, supervision rings, benefit rings - any of these as an example)?

Also, the way you're describing temperaments needs more explanation, like "input can be turned off while output is operating, or vice versa". Is this supposed to describe Static types? And if so, why?

Type has to be built on an information control system. Control systems is an engineering discipline with lots of good texts. Movement of or operating on data is function; preference describes the limitation on a function, not the function itself. I did not want to get into limits which is why I referred to preferences as filters (better visual). You as LII should know that your senses shut down when you're thinking deeply; what causes that? I bet LIE doesn't do that........

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

I should be less cryptic; being LII is no excuse. A proposed independent variable to which a bunch of observations are attached in the attempt to find some root correlation (to behaviour?) is what I call a classification bin (statisticians and psychologists have better words). A filter is a way of disregarding or accepting certain types of information or processes (resulting in F or T and S or N, which I call preferences).

ok, sure, viewing information through the "sensing filter" inhibits viewing it through the "intuition filter" and so on. But you should also recognize that viewing information through the Si filter inhibits viewing it through the Se filter, and so on. Really each information element is a filter in itself. A dichotomy is a class of types, and while it does characterize how a person perceives information in general, it's more correct to see each information element as a filter. For example, if an SEI is using , then the filter applies to them.

Calling dichotomies "preferences" sounds like an MBTI concept, if any dichotomy represents preferences in socionics, it's quadra values.

I question any model that uses Jung's observations as the starting point or basis for a system although the observations and classifications of behaviour by him are valid and can be used to verify a system. I think both Augusta and M-B used Jung as the starting point but failed to find (look for?) a system. Instead, patchwork was done.

This is ridiculous. Augusta did look for and find such a system: Model A. Model A is a coherent system in and of itself, it is not "patchwork" in any sense.

[Exodus]

Type has to be built on an information control system. Control systems is an engineering discipline with lots of good texts. Movement of or operating on data is function; preference describes the limitation on a function, not the function itself. I did not want to get into limits which is why I referred to preferences as filters (better visual). You as LII should know that your senses shut down when you're thinking deeply; what causes that?

Yes, this is true. inhibits , and inhibits . If you're focusing on ideas you tend to neglect physical needs. But again, this is because of how the information elements work, not types.

[Rebelondeck]

@thehotelambush I understand from where coming and I thank you for your opinion. Model A may be a coherent system for the soft sciences but not for me; however, I do think Socionics is half-way to a hard science link.

We differ in perspective: I do not think one preference inhibits another; a control system inhibits.

a.k.a. I/O

[Sol]

I do not think one preference inhibits another

Then you refuse Jung's typology and hence existence of its types.
You can't to have attention at the same time on both thinking and feeling, sensory and intuition. And something will prevail in consciousness. Similarly as people have right and left hands developed differently. As anyone you have the type and hence some your "preferences inhibit others". When you know your type you may notice intertype relations effects - this will clearly proove that you have the type.

[Exodus]

We differ in perspective: I do not think one preference inhibits another;

Well, I never said that. Dichotomies aren't preferences and neither are IM elements.

[Rebelondeck]

Then you refuse Jung's typology and hence existence of its types.
You can't to have attention at the same time on both thinking and feeling, sensory and intuition. And something will prevail in consciousness. Similarly as people have right and left hands developed differently. As anyone you have the type and hence some your "preferences inhibit others". When you know your type you may notice intertype relations effects - this will clearly proove that you have the type.

@Sol You present a tough issue to explain, if I understand you correctly. I'm not refuting the classifications on which Socionics is based. I'm proposing alternate underlying mechanics based on well-known control system theory and sources of processor limitations. I do not think there is, for example, an Se processor that overrides a Ne processor. Input and output processes are not mixed and matched, they evolve in pairs with fixed limitations. One set of limitations cannot be swapped out for another set. When needed, an alternate process pair with a dual-like configuration can be put online but since the primary pair remains in control, any results from this secondary are reassessed by the primary, which distorts information. However, while the alternate is online, dual-like behaviours emerge. Reaching into an area to which I haven't given a lot of thought, an INTj can put ESFj-like processes online but the results from this alternate foray is objectively dissected. INTj processes distort secondary results and perhaps give, for example, the appearance of ISFj thinking.

a.k.a. I/O