Cognitive Patterns by I/O

[Rebelondeck]

Represented by the first diagram is the closed-loop, data-flow pattern that both Ejs and Ips use although Ejs set output as the priority process while Ips prioritize input. Data from the senses is acquired by processes that are band limited to either S or N-type information. Before this information is rationalized, it's first compared to references already residing in memory. This comparator function at the trailing edge of input processing is in itself comprised of algorithms that consume brain resources and time; it restricts data-throughput by narrowing focus, which facilitates all processes being online at all times. Rationalization, which is limited to either T or F-type processing, operates on this restricted data set and produces information for memory and or as controls for physical activity. Via memory management processes, there's a feedback loop where rationalization can alter or add to the set of references that is used by the comparator function in order to refine and or narrow input filtering for more efficient future rationalizations.

closed-loop.jpg
Represented by the diagram below is the open-loop structure that Eps and Ijs share; Eps set input as the priority while Ijs prioritize output. Raw data is acquired by similar front-end processes to those of closed-loop but instead of it being compared, it's dumped directly into memory. With no comparator eating up resources, more capacity is available to acquire and or analyze information but there is a price to pay. Input and output operate autonomously from one another with the dominant process determining when the subordinate can operate and on what will be its area of focus; the subordinate can be overridden at any time, the control of which is represented by the dotted line. Unlike the first configuration, one process is actually off-line when the other is functioning, which has inherent drawbacks even though switching from one process to the other can occur rapidly. Rationalization processes actually have to access memory directly in order to retrieve the information that was dumped there by the input processes; input and output are functionally disengaged from one another.

open-loop.jpg
Now every type possesses both these configurations; there's little difference between the two except for the comparator function, which does significantly affect how processing is done. Also, there are no real differences between extroverted and introverted preferences (N, S, F and T); rather, a perception of extroverted and introverted orientations are created simply from the two processing configurations. Although all these processes reside in memory, those that directly draw information from memory are defined as internalized (introverted?) and contain the mechanisms for cognitive stability.

As well, when a type switches from primary to its secondary configuration (dual-like), it's switching the comparator in or out and accessing the lesser used data filters and processing algorithms (N to S and or F to T, or vice versa), which accompany the other configuration and usually reside in the overlap regions between S or N-type information and processes.

As a final note, each information element represents a grouping of like-behaviours that are observations of cognitive functioning, but in no way represents an actual function. In order to properly model function, distinct independent variables have to be defined, but the elements are too granular and haven't enough homogeneity to facilitate modelling. As a minimum for example, homogeneity would require that the definition of S be restricted to information of an independent, self-contained or quantitative nature while N would be information of a relative, connective or qualitative nature. Similar redefinitions would be required for absolute (T) and associative (F) rationalization processes, and only then could Socionics be related to a hard-science model.

[Rebelondeck]

As a crude analogy, 6 available cores in a computer could be configured so that 2 are dedicated to data acquisition, 2 for data comparison/band limiting and 2 for rationalization/output processes. All processes run simultaneously; however, either input or output must lead while the other lags for stability purposes. In another configuration, all 6 cores could be dedicated to input for part of the time and output for the remainder of the time; system orientation toward either input (p) or output (j) is determined by whichever one is in control of the online time. Note that with respect to type, either input or output could have the lion's share of processing time regardless of which one actually leads or is in control.

a.k.a I/O

[Hamada]

Pretty interesting. I had similar observations for introverts. I thinks it is the opposite for extroverts though, or the difference is J/P difference.
In his book "neuroscience of personality" dr. Dario nardi, writing his observations on EEG scans of peole in relation to their typing, he has found that -unbeknown to him- the prefference for left vs rigbt prefrontal region correspond to socionics J/P dichotomy of types. He didnt take a note of it because he used MBTI and the J/P for introverfs is inverted.
Here is what he say about these regions:

For left or fp1 region
"This region sits just above your left eye, behind your forehead, in the left frontal lobe. It is active when you: •Provide a reason. •Decide between options. •Detect an error. This region is like a high-powered executive, ship’s captain, or court judge. It collects and integrates information from all other regions to make and explain decisions. People use this region when they say, “I think this because…” or “I pick that one”. It literally lights up just fractions of a second before we speak or act. We may verbalize our reason or decision, or we may keep it to ourselves. Either way, the results come rapidly and with confidence. This region can help us concoct reasons that sound plausible or actions that look doable. It also detects errors and deviations from the norm, signaling when something is not right. This region activates to help us ignore unwanted ideas that are negative or undesirable so that we stay happy and positive. When we hear criticism, take in violent or depressing content, or are exposed to a disruptive idea, this region may easily come into play, directing our attention elsewhere. In a study by Ginette Blackhart, this region lit up when people decided to skip an introspective task. The task asked them to explore how a sad story they just read applied to their own lives. Conversely, this region was less active for people who introspected. Thus, it seems that happiness comes at the price of willful ignorance! Statistically, more people use this region than any other. Those who underuse this region may be slow to make decisions, struggle to provide explanations, and/or have difficulty noticing errors or screening out negative input. Also, criticism or unpleasant ideas may easily move them to sadness, anger, or fear. Using this region may frustrate us sometimes. Using it feels confident and quick, but its actual performance may be poor—a bad choice or illogical explanation—particularly when relying on it to ignore unwanted information."

For right or fp2 region
"This region sits just above your right eye, behind your forehead, in the right frontal lobe. It is active when you:
Notice which step you are on in a task. •Perceive that you are done brainstorming. •Consider a new or unpleasant idea. This region is like an ever-vigilant (but handsoff) facilitator or taskmaster, letting you know when to start, stop, or try again. It gets active when we are exposed to new information and helps us process that information in a productive way. People use this region when they say, “I’m done” or “I can’t think of any more ideas”. It fires fractions of a second before we note where we are in a process. Broadly, this region helps us track whether we are at the beginning, middle or end of a task. For an openended activity like brainstorming or re-living a memory, it suggests stopping points but is flexible. You are welcome to keep exploring. Unlike region Fp1, this region is not very verbal or directive, and it may quietly allow other regions of your brain to do their thing until it is time to move on. This region helps us explore and deal with information that is counter to what is typical or desirable. When we hear criticism, take in violent or depressing content, or otherwise receive disruptive data, we can use this region to delve into that information, considering its meaning and how it applies to us; simultaneously, it helps regulate our emotions so that we remain calm rather than getting angry. In one study, this region lit up for people who decided to explore how a sad story they read applied to their own lives. This suggests that sadness and depression may be a price we pay for introspective living. People who under-use this region may be impatient, preferring to focus on decision-making; and they may get side-tracked or erupt with bursts of hostility when called to grapple with odd or unpleasant input. Using this region may frustrate us sometimes. While using it, we likely are ineloquent. Also, over-using this region may lead us astray as we delve into negatives or endlessly try a task without making decisions."

I highly recommend reading that book considering your background and way of thinking.

[Rebelondeck]

@Hamada Determining activity centers in the brain is a field unto itself; I'm more interested in the firmware configurations of cognition that must exist in order to process information in a stable manner regardless of brain structure - essentially the kernel. The effects of the kernel are really what Socionics and MBTI are all about although they haven't yet been able to separate higher order effects from the primary due to inadequate modelling. Modelling seems to have been limited to classification structures, which grow more and more complex in order to compensate for shortcomings in their look-up-table approach.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Hamada]

@Hamada Determining activity centers in the brain is a field unto itself; I'm more interested in the firmware configurations of cognition that must exist in order to process information in a stable manner regardless of brain structure - essentially the kernel. The effects of the kernel are really what Socionics and MBTI are all about although they haven't yet been able to separate higher order effects from the primary due to inadequate modelling. Modelling seems to have been limited to classification structures, which grow more and more complex in order to compensate for shortcomings in their look-up-table approach.....

a.k.a. I/O

You missed the point of the post I think. My observations have coincided with your model only in introverts, yet is inverted in extroverts. The rest of the post is simply a view of another that have found the same, as I did. To put it simply, you model I see is half right. I could be wrong ofc.

The quotes are simply an attempt to explain why it is inverted in extroverts compared to your model. Not a base of which I have concluded.

[Rebelondeck]

You missed the point of the post I think. My observations have coincided with your model only in introverts, yet is inverted in extroverts. The rest of the post is simply a view of another that have found the same, as I did. To put it simply, you model I see is half right. I could be wrong ofc.

The quotes are simply an attempt to explain why it is inverted in extroverts compared to your model. Not a base of which I have concluded.

I wrote this in 2011:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/int_ext.html

a.k.a. I/O

[The Reality Denialist]

Nardi, seems to be doing his own typology. I would not put equal signs between his types and types in other systems.

There is already a disparity how Nardi uses quadra (there are signs that he puts super egos under same quadra at least in some cases like SLI and IEI) and how socionics defines it. Maybe it is a supervision ring, who knows....

[Hamada]

I wrote this in 2011:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/int_ext.html

a.k.a. I/O

We seem to operate on different planes of logic

I wonder what your sociotype is?

[Hamada]

Nardi, seems to be doing his own typology. I would not put equal signs between his types and types in other systems.

There is already a disparity how Nardi uses quadra (there are signs that he puts super egos under same quadra at least in some cases like SLI and IEI) and how socionics defines it. Maybe it is a supervision ring, who knows....

I was quoting what he saw on the computer screen not his interpretations. I am not aware that he is typing people now. I really want to read such material. Do you have a link or a name or anything?

[Rebelondeck]

We seem to operate on different planes of logic

I wonder what your sociotype is?

If you you are truly ILI then your cognitive processes are very different from LII, and an IEI would not likely listen seriously to anything that I have to say.

a.k.a. I/O

[Hamada]

If you you are truly ILI then your cognitive processes are very different from LII, and an IEI would not likely listen seriously to anything that I have to say.

a.k.a. I/O

Haha no I do take it seriously, I just dont see how your intricate model is to be proven real aside from it being consistent with it self. I dont think like that. That doesnt proove any of us wrong.

[Rebelondeck]

Haha no I do take it seriously, I just dont see how your intricate model is to be proven real aside from it being consistent with it self. I dont think like that. That doesnt proove any of us wrong.

I'm not trying to prove anything wrong; I'm simply suggesting to consider sources rather than reworking the data, which is already sufficient enough. Every control system has to follow one of these basic structures by definition - likely not exactly as above but some form of them. To say that such configurations don't exist in our cognitive processing and brain function would indeed be a flat-earth perspective.

a.k.a. I/O

[The Reality Denialist]

I was quoting what he saw on the computer screen not his interpretations. I am not aware that he is typing people now. I really want to read such material. Do you have a link or a name or anything?

I noticed one contradiction on Ben Vaseerlan's youtube channel. It had an SLI, Gulenko and Nardi's measured profile and typing [which was ISTP/artisan].

[Hamada]

I'm not trying to prove anything wrong; I'm simply suggesting to consider sources rather than reworking the data, which is already sufficient enough. Every control system has to follow one of these basic structures by definition - likely not exactly as above but some form of them. To say that such configurations don't exist in our cognitive processing and brain function would indeed be a flat-earth perspective.

a.k.a. I/O

Depending on the level of complexity of the system, either approaches would be preferable. In absence of sufficient data to build a comouter simulation, both approaches are beneficial and do complement each other, building as close an image as possible. Same thing goes for deriving physics laws. Untill you hit the point were you must reconsile the two sides in one formula. The act of reconsilation is what I am refering to here. Both methods should check each kthers validity instead of waiting for that hypothetical wall.