Behaviorism and Information Elements

[Jeremy8419]

Original version:

Observed relationships between behaviors and functions, well, my viewpoint at least:

Convergent Perception - Tendency for perception to converge on a singular point, or from point to smaller point within larger point. Associated with predatory vision and hearing.
Divergent Perception - Tendency for perception to diverge from singular point to nondescript, peripheral, or unfocused state. Associated with anti-predatory, or prey, vision and hearing.
Movement Response - Movement towards or away from food sources or predators; fight or flight
Signal Response - Signals inability of movement control in presence of loss of food sources or predators; cries for help, signal of inability to change Movement Response

Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling, respectively.

Completed version:

Finished this and tested it.

Se+ Maintaining focused senses
Ne+ Maintaining peripheral senses
Te+ Moving
Fe+ Speaking or noises
Se- Changing focused senses
Ne- Changing peripheral senses
Te- Not moving
Fe- Not speaking or noises
Si+ Comparing prey
Ni+ Comparing predators
Ti+ Comparing movements
Fi+ Comparing speaking or noises
Si- Not comparing prey
Ni- Not comparing predators
Ti- Not comparing movements
Fi- Not comparing speaking or noises

[Tearsofaclown]

This is extremely shallow. First of all, functions are not observable so EVERYTHING about Socionics must be about behavior as there is no access to the mental state in question. Mental states can be "pulled out" like teeth but within a framework that shows efficacy, like CBT. This is just nonsense.

"tested it" lol. shut the fuck up. Not only is it wrong, it is fuckin dull. Something pulled out of your ass with no evidence.

Feynman destroyed this shit. You sit at your computer and make shit up and claim to be an expert in said shit. You are a robot. Nobody makes great discoveries or contributions with your way of thinking.

"I know what it means to know something." How fucking hard it is. And your methodology doesnt cut it. I love it. Feynman knows you haven't done your homework and laughs.

[Jeremy8419]

This is extremely shallow. First of all, functions are not observable so EVERYTHING about Socionics must be about behavior as there is no access to the mental state in question. Mental states can be "pulled out" like teeth but within a framework that shows efficacy, like CBT. This is just nonsense.

"tested it" lol. shut the fuck up. Not only is it wrong, it is fuckin dull. Something pulled out of your ass with no evidence.

Feynman destroyed this shit. You sit at your computer and make shit up and claim to be an expert in said shit. You are a robot. Nobody makes great discoveries or contributions with your way of thinking.

"I know what it means to know something." How fucking hard it is. And your methodology doesnt cut it.

Butthurt much?

Take a chill pill dude. Sound like a girl.

[Tearsofaclown]

Maybe I am a girl, but what you describe is not knowledge, it is formalism.



"Such predicates can be multiplied to infinity, since in this way each determination or form can again be used as a form or moment in the case of another, and each can gratefully perform the same service for an other. In this sort of circle of reciprocity one never learns what the thing itself is, nor what the one or the other is."


for·mal·ismˈ

1.excessive adherence to prescribed forms."academic dryness and formalism"

2.a description of something in formal mathematical or logical terms.: marked attention to arrangement, style, or artistic means (as in art or literature) usually with corresponding de-emphasis of content




BOOM

I applaud you for putting in the time to make statements that do not exist in reality. Such a waste. Put your brain to something useful. You dull fuck. Instead of inventing and perfecting categorizations that came out of some crank's head. You can create all the systems and structure you want, you are still too short sighted to see it is pointless and is based on a false premise.

[Jeremy8419]

Maybe I am a girl, but what you describe is not knowledge, it is formalism.



"Such predicates can be multiplied to infinity, since in this way each determination or form can again be used as a form or moment in the case of another, and each can gratefully perform the same service for an other. In this sort of circle of reciprocity one never learns what the thing itself is, nor what the one or the other is."


for·mal·ismˈ

1.excessive adherence to prescribed forms."academic dryness and formalism"

2.a description of something in formal mathematical or logical terms.: marked attention to arrangement, style, or artistic means (as in art or literature) usually with corresponding de-emphasis of content


BOOM

So you basically just read a dictionary and then run around using terms incorrectly to feel smart? Cool beans.

Anyways, hate to break it to you, but all the extroverted information elements I listed are objective. Treating the introverted elements as the inverse of each respective extroverted information element provides those values as well.

Nice try at whatever it is you're trying to do, though. The video clip of the dude denouncing the already widely accepted fields of social sciences, which revolve around verbal and interpersonal intelligences, was a nice touch. Didn't even make you seem lacking in mental faculties or nothing.

Here. Have a juice box.

[Exodus]

I like the predator/prey distinction. Not so sure about the other stuff.

[Jeremy8419]

I like the predator/prey distinction. Not so sure about the other stuff.

When I started with the original version, I filled up a page, but then got bored before I got to the T/F part so I gutted it all. Not exactly that interested in white logic lol.

The finalized version allows you to measure the prevalence of the 4 extroverted functions, and assign the remainder accordingly.

Basically just used Occam's Razor on the information elements until I could reduce them to distinct and measurable classifications. Semantically, you should be able to connect them back to the abstract versions.

[wacey]

This is extremely shallow. First of all, functions are not observable so EVERYTHING about Socionics must be about behavior as there is no access to the mental state in question. Mental states can be "pulled out" like teeth but within a framework that shows efficacy, like CBT. This is just nonsense.

"tested it" lol. shut the fuck up. Not only is it wrong, it is fuckin dull. Something pulled out of your ass with no evidence.

Feynman destroyed this shit. You sit at your computer and make shit up and claim to be an expert in said shit. You are a robot. Nobody makes great discoveries or contributions with your way of thinking.

"I know what it means to know something." How fucking hard it is. And your methodology doesnt cut it. I love it. Feynman knows you haven't done your homework and laughs.

[Jeremy8419]

Random triggered. Based on first paragraph, wants permanent separation of cognition and behavior.

[Bertrand]

Feynman destroyed this shit. You sit and make shit up. Nobody makes great discoveries or contributions with your way of thinking.

you mean besides our lord and savior, KG Jung

[Jeremy8419]

you mean besides our lord and savior, KG Jung

Video dude looks like a goofy LII. I have some LIIs at work I know, who, no matter what, are always right because they have worked there the longest (they're old). It's almost like saying, I wasted the most time out of anyone trying to figure this stuff out so that means I win, which is a really goofy stance to take. Guy in the video has that same vibe, "I wasted the most time on my opinion, so there."

[niffer]

This is interesting. You're using signage off of Model B, right?

How did you come up with this?

@Jeremy8419

[Bertrand]

Video dude looks like a goofy LII. I have some LIIs at work I know, who, no matter what, are always right because they have worked there the longest (they're old). It's almost like saying, I wasted the most time out of anyone trying to figure this stuff out so that means I win, which is a really goofy stance to take. Guy in the video has that same vibe, "I wasted the most time on my opinion, so there."

yeah thats rough bro

[Jeremy8419]

This is interesting. You're using signage off of Model B, right?

How did you come up with this?

@Jeremy8419

I focused first on the Social/Mental Superblock first, with the Personal/Vital Superblock being the consequence of such. I believe I am currently using Yermak's signage mentally (haven't actually thought about it in a while) rather than Bukalov's (don't remember if there is a reason to do such, but I doubt it), but it's a simple inversion of viewpoint over the Superblocks for signage, so a viewer should be able to inverse that if it helps them understand this.

Long story short: Whole lot of time, money, energy, and risk screwing with the heads of others and myself and observing the results, combined with a "yeah, but what actually IS this," and focusing on normal/untypable people as the standard/goal.

[Jeremy8419]

yeah thats rough bro

For some reason, LII's seem the most likely type to be dismissive of intelligence, in regards to speed of processing. Seem to replace intelligence with time spent and knowledge, rather than something innate.

[niffer]

I focused first on the Social/Mental Superblock first, with the Personal/Vital Superblock being the consequence of such. I believe I am currently using Yermak's signage mentally (haven't actually thought about it in a while) rather than Bukalov's (don't remember if there is a reason to do such, but I doubt it), but it's a simple inversion of viewpoint over the Superblocks for signage, so a viewer should be able to inverse that if it helps them understand this.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't help un-confuse me much. Could I trouble you to find out and let me know which version you're using?

[Pookie]

I have no idea what not comparing predators means.

[Jeremy8419]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't help un-confuse me much. Could I trouble you to find out and let me know which version you're using?

Yermak's. All Extroverted elements in a TIM have the same sign, and all Introverted elements in the same TIM have the same sign.

Socially, that is which you are capable of observing, the Vital is what is necessitated to be doing the Mental.

For Model B version, where polarities are switched on E/I across the Vital, you would ignore the presence of the necessitated opposing elements socially, and treat the Vital as what the individual does in a personal/non-social setting.

E.g., on Yermaks, if I am socially listening (Fi+) then the necessitated Vital element is not speaking (Fe-). On Bukalov's, if I am socially listening (Fi+) then in a personal/non-social setting I will speak (Fe+).

The reasoning for choice of Yermak's is for full illustration of what people appear to be concerned with, which is the determination of type in public settings. The personal setting is typically reversed.

[Jeremy8419]

I have no idea what not comparing predators means.

Do you take the path next to the lions, the hippos, or giraffes?

Prey:

Do you take the path next to the ducks, the chickens, or the berries?

[niffer]

E.g., on Yermaks, if I am socially listening (Fi+) then the necessitated Vital element is not speaking (Fe-). On Bukalov's, if I am socially listening (Fi+) then in a personal/non-social setting I will speak (Fe+).

Erm. In Model B / Bukalov, your type is assigned Fi+ and Fe- though...

Anyway, I think I get what you mean now. Thanks.

[isptn]

I like the idea, but there are things I'd change. For instance, I wouldn't use the +/- dichotomies, it doesn't quite make sense to me that +Te would be moving whereas -Te would be not moving, because then there's no way for one to simply have unvalued or weak Te, since one is at all times either moving or not moving. I'm also not sure about the introverted IEs, not sure what you mean by "comparing", but I can see where it comes from in terms of Fields. Comparing seems to be a mental activity that isn't very observable, so if you want to truly make it behaviorism, it might look something like selectiveness.

For example, an Fe cat may be friendly and vocal toward everyone whereas an Fi cat might be friendly toward some people and unfriendly toward others. In animal behavior Ti might look like unusual ways of doing things, or being especially selective in one's activities or methods, as in "Some activities make sense to me and others don't", whereas Te may be more active and less selective in favor of doing more or getting more done. Se would be a kind of sensory/instinct based focus on acquisition, "I see/hear/smell the prey, I want it" that is always ready to acquire food or whatever one needs, whereas Si might say "I'm not hungry right now". Intuition focuses on what is not observable via the senses alone, what is separated in time and space, so the focus on predators makes sense as danger is related to the future or possibility of harm. In animals, Ne might look like a general skittishness or curiosity, a need to investigate the unusual or anxiously avoid it, whereas Ni might be calm during the day and skittish at night when predators are more likely to be out and about.

[Jeremy8419]

I like the idea, but there are things I'd change. For instance, I wouldn't use the +/- dichotomies, it doesn't quite make sense to me that +Te would be moving whereas -Te would be not moving, because then there's no way for one to simply have unvalued or weak Te, since one is at all times either moving or not moving. I'm also not sure about the introverted IEs, not sure what you mean by "comparing", but I can see where it comes from in terms of Fields. Comparing seems to be a mental activity that isn't very observable, so if you want to truly make it behaviorism, it might look something like selectiveness.

For example, an Fe cat may be friendly and vocal toward everyone whereas an Fi cat might be friendly toward some people and unfriendly toward others. In animal behavior Ti might look like unusual ways of doing things, or being especially selective in one's activities or methods, as in "Some activities make sense to me and others don't", whereas Te may be more active and less selective in favor of doing more or getting more done. Se would be a kind of sensory/instinct based focus on acquisition, "I see/hear/smell the prey, I want it" that is always ready to acquire food or whatever one needs, whereas Si might say "I'm not hungry right now". Intuition focuses on what is not observable via the senses alone, what is separated in time and space, so the focus on predators makes sense as danger is related to the future or possibility of harm. In animals, Ne might look like a general skittishness or curiosity, a need to investigate the unusual or anxiously avoid it, whereas Ni might be calm during the day and skittish at night when predators are more likely to be out and about.

The mindset is comparative.

Do you speak more than you move or do you move more than you speak? Strong Fe or Strong Te.
Do you use focused senses more than you use peripheral senses or do you use peripheral sense more than focused senses? Se or Ne?

I can measure if someone speaks more than they move. I can measure if someone maintains head position (what can be seen/heard doesn't change) and eye position (convergent or divergent compared to norm). By measuring, these things can be classified based upon objectively observable traits.

Further description for example: Se- is convergent but not maintained. The individual changes focus from one thing to another more than the individual focuses on a single thing. By focusing on multiple things, he has different focuses to subjectively compare (Si+). Se+ on the other hand, maintains focus on one thing more than he switches focus to multiple things, and does not have different focuses to compare (Si-).

[niffer]

@isptn I think he is referring to control over the aspect. Control over movement or lack thereof/suppression ability, would be two different sides of Te, and those with Te in high dimensionality should be good at both regardless of valuation, but with one of them more expressed due to valuation (or Mental functions or whatever .. it's a bit confusing).

[Tearsofaclown]

So you basically just read a dictionary and then run around using terms incorrectly to feel smart? Cool beans.

Anyways, hate to break it to you, but all the extroverted information elements I listed are objective. Treating the introverted elements as the inverse of each respective extroverted information element provides those values as well.

Nice try at whatever it is you're trying to do, though. The video clip of the dude denouncing the already widely accepted fields of social sciences, which revolve around verbal and interpersonal intelligences, was a nice touch. Didn't even make you seem lacking in mental faculties or nothing.

Here. Have a juice box.

You really are Jeremy from per c. Never hear anybody else say "juice box". And yes, I will be a behaviorist if necessary. Please look up the psychologist fallacy and tell me that Jung and Socionists dont commit it in spades. lol.

I was hammered last night and overly harsh. I admit that.

I mean it isn't objective in that it exists outside of its conceptual framework. To say that Te is "objective" is true only if you believe in Socionics. I am saying Socionics itself is not objective. On what medium do objects combine? A medium something other than the object. In other words, it only exists for a bystander. A person can never be "summed" as that sum only exists for an observe outside of it. James destroyed this shit:


But there is a still more fatal objection to the theory of mental units 'compounding with themselves' or 'integrating.' It is logically unintelligible; it leaves out the essential feature of all the 'combinations' we actually know.All the 'combinations' which we actually know are EFFECTS, wrought by the units said to be 'combined,' UPON SOME ENTITY OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. Without this feature of a medium or vehicle, the notion of combination has no sense.
"A multitude of contractile units, by joint action, and by being all connected, for instance, with a single tendon, will pull at the same, and will bring about a dynamical effect which is undoubtedly the resultant of their combined individual energies. . . . On the whole, tendons are to muscular fibres, and bones are to tendons, combining recipients of mechanical energies. A medium of composition is indispensable to the summation of energies. To realize the complete dependence of mechanical resultants on a combining substratum, one may fancy for a moment all the individually contracting muscular elements severed from their attachments. They might then still be capable of contracting with the same energy as before, yet no co-operative result would be accomplished. The medium of dynamical combination would be wanting. The multiple energies, singly exerted on no common recipient, would lose themselves on entirely isolated and disconnected efforts."[14]
In other words, no possible number of entities (call them as you like, whether forces, material particles, or mental elements) can sum themselves together. Each remains, in the sum, what it always was; and the sum itself exists only for a bystander who happens to overlook the units and to [p.159] apprehend the sum as such; or else it exists in the shape of some other effect on an entity external to the sum itself. Let it not be objected that H₂ and O combine of themselves into 'water,' and thenceforward exhibit new properties. They do not. The 'water' is just the old atoms in the new position, H-O-H; the 'new properties' are just their combined effects, when in this position, upon external media, such as our sense-organs and the various reagents on which water may exert its properties and be known.

"Aggregations are organized wholes only when they behave as such in the presence of other things. A statue is an aggregation of particles of marble; but as such it has no unity. For the spectator it is one; in itself it is an aggregate; just as, to the consciousness of an ant crawling over it, it may again appear a mere aggregate. No summing up of parts can make an unity of a mass of discrete constituents, unless this unity exist for some other subject, not for the mass itself."[15]
Just so, in the parallelogram of forces, the 'forces' themselves do not combine into the diagonal resultant; a body is needed on which they may impinge, to exhibit their resultant effect. No more do musical sounds combineper se into concords or discords. Concord and discord are names for their combined effects on that external medium, the ear.

[p.160] Where the elemental units are supposed to be feelings, the case is in no wise altered. Take a hundred of them, shuffle them and pack them as close together as you can (whatever that may mean); still each remains the same feeling it always was, shut in its own skin, windowless, ignorant of what the other feelings are and mean. There would be a hundred-and-first feeling there, if, when a group or series of such feelings were set up, a consciousness belonging to the group as such should emerge. And this 101st feeling would be a totally new fact; the 100 original feelings might, by a curious physical law, be a signal for its creation, when they came together; but they would have no substantial identity with it, nor it with them, and one could never deduce the one from the others, or (in any intelligible sense) say that they evolved it.


Most important part:
"No summing up of parts can make an unity of a mass of discrete constituents, unless this unity exist for some other subject, not for the mass itself."

A subject, like say, Jung or these Russians. They, like an ear, are where forces combine. Why is their ear special? I got my own ears. It is like saying concord or discords actually exist. But that depends on the medium. The ear. Or the brain of one person. And the brain of one person should never be law.

[Jeremy8419]

You really are Jeremy from per c. Never hear anybody else say "juice box". And yes, I will be a behaviorist if necessary. Please look up the psychologist fallacy and tell me that Jung and Socionists dont commit it in spades. lol.

I was hammered last night and overly harsh. I admit that.

I mean it isn't objective in that it exists outside of its conceptual framework. To say that Te is "objective" is true only if you believe in Socionics. I am saying Socionics itself is not objective. On what medium do objects combine? A medium something other than the object. In other words, it only exists for a bystander. A person can never be "summed" as that sum only exists for an observe outside of it. James destroyed this shit:


But there is a still more fatal objection to the theory of mental units 'compounding with themselves' or 'integrating.' It is logically unintelligible; it leaves out the essential feature of all the 'combinations' we actually know.All the 'combinations' which we actually know are EFFECTS, wrought by the units said to be 'combined,' UPON SOME ENTITY OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. Without this feature of a medium or vehicle, the notion of combination has no sense.
"A multitude of contractile units, by joint action, and by being all connected, for instance, with a single tendon, will pull at the same, and will bring about a dynamical effect which is undoubtedly the resultant of their combined individual energies. . . . On the whole, tendons are to muscular fibres, and bones are to tendons, combining recipients of mechanical energies. A medium of composition is indispensable to the summation of energies. To realize the complete dependence of mechanical resultants on a combining substratum, one may fancy for a moment all the individually contracting muscular elements severed from their attachments. They might then still be capable of contracting with the same energy as before, yet no co-operative result would be accomplished. The medium of dynamical combination would be wanting. The multiple energies, singly exerted on no common recipient, would lose themselves on entirely isolated and disconnected efforts."[14]
In other words, no possible number of entities (call them as you like, whether forces, material particles, or mental elements) can sum themselves together. Each remains, in the sum, what it always was; and the sum itself exists only for a bystander who happens to overlook the units and to [p.159] apprehend the sum as such; or else it exists in the shape of some other effect on an entity external to the sum itself. Let it not be objected that H₂ and O combine of themselves into 'water,' and thenceforward exhibit new properties. They do not. The 'water' is just the old atoms in the new position, H-O-H; the 'new properties' are just their combined effects, when in this position, upon external media, such as our sense-organs and the various reagents on which water may exert its properties and be known.

"Aggregations are organized wholes only when they behave as such in the presence of other things. A statue is an aggregation of particles of marble; but as such it has no unity. For the spectator it is one; in itself it is an aggregate; just as, to the consciousness of an ant crawling over it, it may again appear a mere aggregate. No summing up of parts can make an unity of a mass of discrete constituents, unless this unity exist for some other subject, not for the mass itself."[15]
Just so, in the parallelogram of forces, the 'forces' themselves do not combine into the diagonal resultant; a body is needed on which they may impinge, to exhibit their resultant effect. No more do musical sounds combineper se into concords or discords. Concord and discord are names for their combined effects on that external medium, the ear.

[p.160] Where the elemental units are supposed to be feelings, the case is in no wise altered. Take a hundred of them, shuffle them and pack them as close together as you can (whatever that may mean); still each remains the same feeling it always was, shut in its own skin, windowless, ignorant of what the other feelings are and mean. There would be a hundred-and-first feeling there, if, when a group or series of such feelings were set up, a consciousness belonging to the group as such should emerge. And this 101st feeling would be a totally new fact; the 100 original feelings might, by a curious physical law, be a signal for its creation, when they came together; but they would have no substantial identity with it, nor it with them, and one could never deduce the one from the others, or (in any intelligible sense) say that they evolved it.

Look... Ima level with you here... I in no way, shape, or fashion care about your opinion enough to get past the first sentence. I wouldn't waste any more of your time replying, if I were you, because there's no chance I will read it.

[Tearsofaclown]

Look... Ima level with you here... I in no way, shape, or fashion care about your opinion enough to get past the first sentence. I wouldn't waste any more of your time replying, if I were you, because there's no chance I will read it.

Good. Keep wallowing in pseudoscience while I recite real knowledge.

[Jeremy8419]

@isptn I think he is referring to control over the aspect. Control over movement or lack thereof/suppression ability, would be two different sides of Te, and those with Te in high dimensionality should be good at both regardless of valuation, but with one of them more expressed due to valuation (or Mental functions or whatever .. it's a bit confusing).

I'll try and write up some other TIM examples sometime soon.

EII example:
Mental: Comparing sounds (Listening) -> changing peripheral senses (head turning based upon heard sounds) -> comparing movements (watching) -> changing focused senses (focusing on different objects)
Vital: Not moving (staying still) -> Comparing Prey -> Not speaking (staying silent) ->Comparing Predators
Total: Being observant of sounds, isolating source of sound, possible predators (dangers) nearby
Supervisor: SEE. Maintaining focus by not listening.

May make more sense if the Vital is in the order of the corresponding Mental; e.g., Listening means not speaking, changing peripheral means comparing predators, etc.

That is legitimately my behaviors, though. Hearing drives the remainder, from turning toward the sound, to watching for something, to pinpointing what it is. Pretty hard to turn off listening. Probably why I read all kinds of crap online that id be better off ignoring.

[Pookie]

Do you take the path next to the lions, the hippos, or giraffes?

Prey:

Do you take the path next to the ducks, the chickens, or the berries?

I get that its a metaphor, but why would anyone want to traverse the path with Lions?

Can you unmetaphor it for me?

[Leader]

This is extremely shallow. First of all, functions are not observable so EVERYTHING about Socionics must be about behavior as there is no access to the mental state in question. Mental states can be "pulled out" like teeth but within a framework that shows efficacy, like CBT. This is just nonsense.

"tested it" lol. shut the fuck up. Not only is it wrong, it is fuckin dull. Something pulled out of your ass with no evidence.

Feynman destroyed this shit. You sit at your computer and make shit up and claim to be an expert in said shit. You are a robot. Nobody makes great discoveries or contributions with your way of thinking.

"I know what it means to know something." How fucking hard it is. And your methodology doesnt cut it. I love it. Feynman knows you haven't done your homework and laughs.

Cbt?

[Aylen]

Cbt?

https://psychcentral.com/lib/in-dept...ioral-therapy/

[Jeremy8419]

I get that its a metaphor, but why would anyone want to traverse the path with Lions?

Can you unmetaphor it for me?

Prevalence based upon environment is one reason, because there may be low amounts of predators/dangers, so dimensionality/priority of Ni+ would be lower.

Specialization/dependency is another reason. In example, the stereotype of IEI would not be considering predators or dangers due to the presence of SLE. Without the presence of SLE, the IEI would be signaling for an SLE by signaling vulnerability.

[Pookie]

Oh ok. Consequence avoidance v. Reward seeking.

[Jeremy8419]

Oh ok. Consequence avoidance v. Reward seeking.

Yeah.

I usually think of the model in a hunter-gatherer frame of reference, and then connect it back to present lifestyles.

When aligned into the Quadras, the behaviors align with the resources and society descriptions on Socionics i read somewhere or other.

Also aligns with the Quadral Complexes as well.