Function placement vs strength

[ashlesha]

I'm sure this has been discussed a dozen times before but I don't wanna try to figure out the right search terms.

So function placement determines the places your mind goes and your natural thought patterns, but does it necessarily imply strengths and weaknesses?

I mean if you view the world primarily through the lens of Ne then it probably follows that you'll be good at seeing potential, etc. & I understand that. But does it always work that way?

Is it possible to be objectively better at say, creative or HA because those are your natural skills genetically or for some reason outside of socionics?

[Singu]

I'm starting to think that those are more or less based on one's own subjective evaluation. It says absolutely nothing about the objective strength of the supposed strength of those "functions". Or at best, it might simply be a preference. We always prefer to use the least amount of mental effort (because resources are precious) - that much has been validated by experiments.

It is said that intelligent people have more efficient processes than the most of us, and hence they can compute more things with the same amount of resources. It might be that "feeler" types of people may have efficient processes for evaluating feelings, etc. However I haven't looked into this and I don't really know anything about it, so I wouldn't know.

[Chae]

Placement (your cognitive priorities and sequential processes via Model A) can converge with as well as undermine strength and weakness (plain dimensionality). For instance, your ignoring applies to the latter.

Good is good , and it'll work that way unless the brain is altered in ways that are not natural.

Ego block = [deliberate] skill. The hidden agenda has no talent, just adaptability and "wishes", according to the model, plus low strength so it's a double whammy. If you were good at you'd be IEI or so. If an EII can effectively monitor and manipulate their comfort state and that of others/ they're not EII. Being objectively better needs a comparative element which are the objectively worse elements, 2D, 1D.

[PrettySavage]

Placement (your cognitive priorities and sequential processes via Model A) can converge with as well as undermine strength and weakness (plain dimensionality). For instance, your ignoring applies to the latter.

Good is good , and it'll work that way unless the brain is altered in ways that are not natural.

Ego block = [deliberate] skill. The hidden agenda has no talent, just adaptability and "wishes", according to the model, plus low strength so it's a double whammy. If you were good at you'd be IEI or so. If an EII can effectively monitor and manipulate their comfort state and that of others/ they're not EII. Being objectively better needs a comparative element which are the objectively worse elements, 2D, 1D.

Which is why Model A is whack.

[lavos]

Somebody can have a good role, but it will always be a 2D function. For example, an LSI could have a very good Fi role, but they will never perceive as many information with it as an EII would. This applies to all functions.

[ashlesha]

Somebody can have a good role, but it will always be a 2D function. For example, an LSI could have a very good Fi role, but they will never perceive as many information with it as an EII would. This applies to all functions.

I forgot about dimensionality. that makes sense.

[PrettySavage]

The thing is there are many people who are really good at their HA. As good as their Program and Creative? No. As good as someone who leads with that function? No. But definitely not weak, and even above average. There are only so many exceptions until you realize the model/framework has a whole.

The ones who suck definitely fit the "Pathetic Hidden Agenda" profile, my issue is the idea that it applies to all people.

[Chae]

So you are saying an EII engages in caretaking people because it feeds her Fi needs, not an EII? I think of course with time she will be good at it.

The HA needs outward input. From someone who's better at it ideally, that's why it's the mobilizing. And yes, it would be to serve the ego block, which ironically could go about it in a better way. For instance, EII might get close to some ego and have them do it.

[Bertrand]

I think people throw around "good" and "bad" on certain functions and it needs to be clarified a bit. To me, "good" on a 2d function is how well it actually meets standards and tends to avoid mistakes. role Ti would be ability to not commit fallacious forms of reasoning either formal or informal. in that sense a person who never makes a reasoning error would look very much like someone with "good" Ti, because it would be tantamount to never making a logical error (or close to it). This is something even people with higher dimensionality functions still fall short of, because, for one, it may be in their "zone of risk" and a 3d Ti which admits the categorical legitimacy of the "exception" opens themselves up to a much wider array of problems they try and "solve" via subjective logic. in other words a strong Ti role would come off as more "logical" than 3d Ti. The time component would further expand the scope of how Ti can apply to any situation and would look even further removed from what is conventionally considered "good" Ti or reasoning. Bad 2d Ti would be the proclivity to make mistakes in reasoning but at least be aware, when someone points it out, that it happened. Bad 1d Ti would be making mistakes and not even recognizing when its happening without a sufficiently painful experience to drive it home. mere criticism would likely be swallowed in other ego functions and not reach home

as far as I can tell 4d functions make those functions so multi dimensional that they can "take over" areas that we might conventionally associate with other functions' proper domain. In other words, you could think of a straightforward Ti problem in terms of any function and potentially find a solution in those terms. What is 2 +2? "why do I even care?" (Fi). "Who are you to ask me?" (Se) "arithmetic" (Ne) "5" (Ni) etc etc

in other words, "good" on a 2d function is its ability to perform according to straightforward notions of what it exists to do. 3d+ expands the scope of what it can do, but sometimes at odds with the 2d understanding

from the point of view of 2d or less, "good" 2d may actually look "higher dimensionality" than actual higher dimensionality, if its being judged by its ability to conform to stereotypes and perform well within the scope of norms

this is something that I think the "image based" and "stereotyped" version of socionics totally fails to account for, which is why it gets mired in a subjective back and forth when it comes to battle typing sometimes. "this person displays a lot of Ni" its like, what the fuck do you know? and thats a serious question, the person needs to establish what displaying a lot of Ni even means. because until its pegged to something in terms of dimensionality its just a subjective statement of relative perception without sufficient context to establish what it purports itself to establish (aka white noise)

I feel like the "better" your ego functions the "stronger" "brighter" or "more pronounced" the personality will look, because they'll be solving problems, generally attributed to being properly solved by other modes, via their ego functions. In other words, theyll be able to use "time" and "exception" on ego functions expansively to include a broad array of problems and their solutions will be "free of error" (using this term loosely, because what I see in general is the demand may be met in space but not in time) in doing so. inasmuch as they meet the demands presented to them, depending on the variety of the demands they can look very creative by using their particular ego solutions to overcome challenges in novel ways by society's standards

that's pretty much what personality is. its this differentiating factor

I think when you realize this you realize just how many people rely on Fe to make "logical points" or otherwise co-opt other functional domains. there's all this "think like a scientist" bandied about here (first singu, now chae is getting in on it) its like you do not think like a scientist. very few people do, especially here. the thing is, everyone should be able to, in principle, discern what other people are using to some degree of accuracy. becuase they can either discern high D feeling or thinking, which is where negative use of functions comes into play. you can say, "everything may look like Fe to me, because of my own 1d Fe" but I know this is not thinking. The problem is demonstrative use of Fe v base can get confusing for that person. in the same way feeling types are sort of out of their depth when recognizing Te v Ti, and that has created its own set of problems, if you have a large preponderance of one quadra in a social ecosystem that values Fe (i.e. subjectivist)--things can get warped real fast under those conditions, which is precisely why we have such bizarre notions on certain functions, promulgated by a few conspicuous figures, and people have "spread out" across the socion accordingly. its why people can say "so and so" is just responsible (consciously or unconsciously) for an artificial social hierarchy version of socionics that bears little to no resemblance to the actual thinking version of the theory.

even squark capitulated to the force of this phenomenon when she made an extremely astute but painful observation of olimpia. nevertheless squark is one of the few people who does "think" in the way idealized by the wannabe science worshipers, and the consequence is she doesn't feel the need to "promote" that mode via Fe because shes just acting it out, i.e.: lives it. it wouldn't be her solution to a dearth of Ti anyway, it would be to Ti up some Ti, but at the same time anywhere squark goes there is Ti so that would be unlikely to be her crusade, which is why she can back down to olimpia to begin and be okay with that. because she wants (the "I want") Fe > Ti, ironically, for her. she should have stuck to her guns though because what all this Fe really cries out for is Ti to unfuck it. so from my perspective she sort of harmed olimpia by backing down, at least in time and by Te standards. suffice to say I found that disappointing, but I understand

[Tallmo]

If you never develop your base function you will suck at it.

It's easy to find SEIs who have badly developed Si. They go through decades of school education and have learned to push it away. Maybe going into some Ti field instead.

I have badly developed Si, but I love working in that function. It's the base function. Without socionics I would never had known where my potential strengths are.

People usually "discover" their base in their teens. One LII friend of mine said that it was then that he discovered that he can think. But some people never discover their base.

The types are natural, but society has certain demands and preferences.

[Bertrand]

I agree that what you're describing happens, but at some point it just becomes your ignoring function. I think what you're actually describing is the Time factor on the base function, and in retrospect it feels like it was "lesser" "dead" "ignored" etc, but it was more that T developed it's dimensionality so the feeling/experience you're describing is a feature of perspective. it goes to the phenomenology of the 4d conscious function (which is a unique thing), I would say

its sort of like the structure of the base function "gives birth" or is "reborn" when it develops itself time, such that in retrospect it feels like it may not have been there at all prior to that point, at least not in that form, because it wasn't

[Sol]

Is it possible to be objectively better at say, creative or HA because those are your natural skills genetically or for some reason outside of socionics?

Primarily, the type is balance of functions in the consciousness - on what info your attention is more directed. Other are consequences which may depends from different factors, besides the type.

Real skills and the expressing of them may depend on inborn traits, training, environment, etc.
For example. A human of F type, but with better education, may faster decide some technical task, than a human of T type with worse education, lower IQ or other obstacles.

[Tallmo]

I agree that what you're describing happens, but at some point it just becomes your ignoring function. I think what you're actually describing is the Time factor on the base function, and in retrospect it feels like it was "lesser" "dead" "ignored" etc, but it was more that T developed it's dimensionality so the feeling/experience you're describing is a feature of perspective. it goes to the phenomenology of the 4d conscious function (which is a unique thing), I would say

its sort of like the structure of the base function "gives birth" or is "reborn" when it develops itself time, such that in retrospect it feels like it may not have been there at all prior to that point, at least not in that form, because it wasn't

I'm not really sure what you mean. The base is always the base. It has certain processing power etc. It has it's place in the structure. But it can be refined and differentiated by using it. If not developed it is more "undifferentiated" and the person is also less good at doing things with it. (Because he is simply not used at being himself) Doing things with weak functions makes the person more or less neurotic, if done for a long time. You pay a price for adapting too much to circumstances.

So I think I'm basically saying that it's possible to ignore your base to a certain extent, and it is still your base function, and your type is what it is. But you will pay for it.

[Bertrand]

Im just saying the base function is uniquely capable of development in time and is consciously perceived, such that thinking it was badly developed is just another way to say "Im better at it now then I was then" but its not that you were neglecting base, because such a thing is impossible. base is always on, except when using ignoring, such that if you actually didn't use it, your ignoring would be your base, or you would be a totally different type. rather the experience of what you're describing is more a perceptual product of the time function on base. you might say, well "i used Si 51% of the time and Se 49% of the time" but that has other ramifications

in other words, everyone thinks they ignored their base function inasmuch as how they use it now is not how they use it then. by this I don't mean to make light of perhaps the feeling that you "werent allowed" to use Si base, but I'm saying its sort of a mirage created by how the base function develops for everyone

[wacey]

People usually "discover" their base in their teens. One LII friend of mine said that it was then that he discovered that he can think. But some people never discover their base.

As a teen at certain moments I would sit on a rock and stare off across a forest stream for hours.

[ashlesha]

As a teen at certain moments I would sit on a rock and stare off across a forest stream for hours.

have you read Siddhartha?

[PrettySavage]

I agree about the deleted point made, I managed to read the post and click in "Reply with quote" but at the exact same time, the post was deleted. As soon as I read it I immediately knew it was going to cause a shitstorm (obviously squark realized it too), but I thought it was an extremely important point to make. Not to Olimpia particularly, but to everyone.

Having the definitions wrong defeats the whole purpose of typology in the first place. And is indeed pretty clear there are groups of individuals that keep on propagating a very distorted notion of what constitutes each element. For people who resort to the forum for information, it's really unfair and damaging. I'll never understand how can someone be in piece with not only being wrong themselves, but also misinforming others so they can cling to the idea of being a specific type, or have much more strength at a function than they actually do. That supposed "4d " example, I can't take seriously anyone who defended it as a legitimate evidence of what was being argued. It's embarrassing if it was taken as an actual manifestation of what the function in that position is like, and disappointing if the defense and support of this kind of claim is intentional.

No one who's actually interested in Socionics for its original purpose is benefitting from any charade.

[Desert Financial]

If you take the dimensionalities into account, there are a few factors of proficiency that function order influences.

However, function order isn't the end-all-be-all of cognitive aptitude. If it was, there would be much less variation among people of the same sociotype than there is.

[Tallmo]

As a teen at certain moments I would sit on a rock and stare off across a forest stream for hours.

sounds nice

[Desert Financial]

Deep thoughts time:

Is function placement a strength in and of itself?

[squark]

I agree about the deleted point made, I managed to read the post and click in "Reply with quote" but at the exact same time, the post was deleted. As soon as I read it I immediately knew it was going to cause a shitstorm (obviously squark realized it too), but I thought it was an extremely important point to make. Not to Olimpia particularly, but to everyone.

Having the definitions wrong defeats the whole purpose of typology in the first place. And is indeed pretty clear there are groups of individuals that keep on propagating a very distorted notion of what constitutes each element. For people who resort to the forum for information, it's really unfair and damaging. I'll never understand how can someone be in piece with not only being wrong themselves, but also misinforming others so they can cling to the idea of being a specific type, or have much more strength at a function than they actually do. That supposed "4d " example, I can't take seriously anyone who defended it as a legitimate evidence of what was being argued. It's embarrassing if it was taken as an actual manifestation of what the function in that position is like, and disappointing if the defense and support of this kind of claim is intentional.

No one who's actually interested in Socionics for its original purpose is benefitting from any charade.

I may have still communicated my point (I think, I hope) without being as harsh as my original post was in that thread. Superego is especially hard to address though. These quotes apply:

The psyche is not able to channel energy through the Super-Ego functions long enough to achieve lasting results, which leads to disappointment, guilt, and even neuroses if the individual believes that the development of these functions is the measure of his worth as a person.

The Super-Ego functions are the source of much self-consciousness. When among strangers or critical onlookers, people tend to suddenly become aware of the possible inadequacy of their Super-Ego functions and often respond in one of two ways: (1) demonstratively act through these functions to create an illusion of confidence, or (2) demonstratively state their complete incompetency or rejection of these areas.

People rarely appreciate direct commentary and analysis of their Super-Ego function behavior except by highly trusted friends. Otherwise, they tend to automatically suspect ill will towards them. Criticism of these aspects of a person's life can produce long-lasting animosity. The person may either vehemently defend himself (too vehemently given the nature of the criticism) or close up and ruminate about the situation for days. Outright praise, on the other hand, produces an unexpected self-esteem boost.

[ashlesha]

Deep thoughts time:

Is function placement a strength in and of itself?

what do u mean boi

[Number 9 large]

I'm sure this has been discussed a dozen times before but I don't wanna try to figure out the right search terms.

So function placement determines the places your mind goes and your natural thought patterns, but does it necessarily imply strengths and weaknesses?

Yes, it does imply strengths and weaknesses, obviously.
It has been mentioned before, the dimensionality of the functions. 1D=weak 4D= very strong
I can imagine someone having stronger role than hidden agenda or vice versa because theyre both 2D functions, and subtype will influence the strength of both those functions, but no way hidden agenda can be stronger than creative. Ever. If someone does seem to have better ''hidden agenda'' than lead or creative, this means you typed them wrong.

I mean if you view the world primarily through the lens of Ne then it probably follows that you'll be good at seeing potential, etc. & I understand that. But does it always work that way?

Is it possible to be objectively better at say, creative or HA because those are your natural skills genetically or for some reason outside of socionics?

The theory says that sociotype IS genetic, so the fact your Ne is your leading function and is 4D is genetically predisposed, not because you happen to like using Ne. You cannot choose what functions you are strong at. It is genetically predisposed what functions will be your lead, creative etc.

I can imagine a situation where, for example, an ILI woman is expected to be a Fe lead caring Si woman (in certain cultures this is all that is expected of women), and this might mean that all she ever did was use her superego in life (Si + Fe), even though those functions suck in an ILI being 2D and 1D, respectively. Everything can be learned, but that doesnt mean that you have a natural feel for it, or learn it as easily, or enjoy doing it. It is against your nature and it will feel clunky as hell, especially the 1D functions. Through trial and error will you learn anyway, to a certain extent.

The thing is socionics doesnt describe actions, it explains the psyche. So an ILI being ''objectively better'' at creating a comfy and welcoming atmostphere than a SEI doesnt make the ILI a SEI. The dimensionality of the functions does.

[Desert Financial]

what do u mean boi

lol.

I mean isn't the psyche's ability to prioritize one function over another a measure of strength?

Aren't some psyches worse at loading up particular functions into consciousness than others?

[Skepsis]

Strength is subjective. Placement is opinion.

[Tallmo]

Im just saying the base function is uniquely capable of development in time and is consciously perceived, such that thinking it was badly developed is just another way to say "Im better at it now then I was then" but its not that you were neglecting base, because such a thing is impossible. base is always on, except when using ignoring, such that if you actually didn't use it, your ignoring would be your base, or you would be a totally different type. rather the experience of what you're describing is more a perceptual product of the time function on base. you might say, well "i used Si 51% of the time and Se 49% of the time" but that has other ramifications

in other words, everyone thinks they ignored their base function inasmuch as how they use it now is not how they use it then. by this I don't mean to make light of perhaps the feeling that you "werent allowed" to use Si base, but I'm saying its sort of a mirage created by how the base function develops for everyone

But it depends on what kind of work you do. The base is always on, but it is not always put to work. The base needs challenges. If it doesn't get that then there is less development.

I do think it is possible to neglect the base. You do it every time there is a task that requires something else than your base.

[ashlesha]

The theory says that sociotype IS genetic

where did you get this from? I wouldn't be surprised if some crackpot Russian suggested it but it's absurdly speculative.

[chrys]

To me strength is not objective strength, it's just complexity as a result of where your focus is. Focus leads to more information used leads to more complex and creative judgements, not necessarily objectively strong.

If you stared at a rock for 10 hours, you might invent a philosophy on rocks, maybe learn how to grind a rock into a diamond, maybe invent a new game involving bouncing them across a pond... people are forced to increase the complexity of things when their area of focus isn't stimulating enough. People will create complexity out of nothing. But that isn't really related to strength or usefulness I think, it just means that YOU think that you're more complicated than others because you direct more energy towards it.

[Desert Financial]

Generally, personality takes shape due to both nature and nurture. The study of epigenetics confirms this by proving that gene expression can be influenced by environmental factors in the womb and even after birth.

[Tallmo]

The thing is there are many people who are really good at their HA. As good as their Program and Creative? No. As good as someone who leads with that function? No. But definitely not weak, and even above average. There are only so many exceptions until you realize the model/framework has a whole.

The ones who suck definitely fit the "Pathetic Hidden Agenda" profile, my issue is the idea that it applies to all people.

Imo the HA appears to be better than it is. It learns and accumulates knowledge. People have told me that I am very logical and analytical. But they have no real insight into my processes. 99,99% of the time I think about nothing, if I actually look inside myself.

Also, you can't compare the HA with the average. You should compare within the person himself. Some people are just generally smarter and cognitively more capable.

There is also a general difference in quality of consciousness between base and HA.

[Desert Financial]

99,99% of the time I think about nothing, if I actually look inside myself.

I'm sure there are downsides, but I envy the bliss that must come along with that.

[Tallmo]

I'm sure there are downsides, but I envy the bliss that must come along with that.

Believe me. The downsides are huge. But yes there is some bliss in it also

[Number 9 large]

where did you get this from? I wouldn't be surprised if some crackpot Russian suggested it but it's absurdly speculative.

probably gaylenko

edit: so youre right

[PrettySavage]

Imo the HA appears to be better than it is. It learns and accumulates knowledge. People have told me that I am very logical and analytical. But they have no real insight into my processes. 99,99% of the time I think about nothing, if I actually look inside myself.

Also, you can't compare the HA with the average. You should compare within the person himself. Some people are just generally smarter and cognitively more capable.

There is also a general difference in quality of consciousness between base and HA.

I ultimately judge competency on results, not processes. I'm empiric at my core, theory will never compare to experiences. These have repeatedly showed me people do not suck at their HA function, not consistently enough to warrant a rule. "Looking into myself" is terribly vague and doesn't describe any process specifically. As for equating thinking to or , I assume you can't be serious.

As for what I "can't" and "should" do, I can't see why would you assume that's not what I'm doing already. Compared to the PoLR and the Suggestive, HA is stronger., every time. "Some" being about 50%, that's enough to cast doubt on any theory to me.

As for base versus HA, that's obvious and irrelevant information to this discussion, being that I specifically said I knew the HA could never compare. That was never a point so bringing it up now serves no purpose.

You started your reply with "IMO" and I don't claim to know for sure what is or isn't a consistent trait either. So let's agree to disagree, because none of us will change their minds, and therefore it's useless to go on about it.

[Bertrand]

Yes, it does imply strengths and weaknesses, obviously.
It has been mentioned before, the dimensionality of the functions. 1D=weak 4D= very strong
I can imagine someone having stronger role than hidden agenda or vice versa because theyre both 2D functions, and subtype will influence the strength of both those functions, but no way hidden agenda can be stronger than creative. Ever. If someone does seem to have better ''hidden agenda'' than lead or creative, this means you typed them wrong.





The theory says that sociotype IS genetic, so the fact your Ne is your leading function and is 4D is genetically predisposed, not because you happen to like using Ne. You cannot choose what functions you are strong at. It is genetically predisposed what functions will be your lead, creative etc.

I can imagine a situation where, for example, an ILI woman is expected to be a Fe lead caring Si woman (in certain cultures this is all that is expected of women), and this might mean that all she ever did was use her superego in life (Si + Fe), even though those functions suck in an ILI being 2D and 1D, respectively. Everything can be learned, but that doesnt mean that you have a natural feel for it, or learn it as easily, or enjoy doing it. It is against your nature and it will feel clunky as hell, especially the 1D functions. Through trial and error will you learn anyway, to a certain extent.

The thing is socionics doesnt describe actions, it explains the psyche. So an ILI being ''objectively better'' at creating a comfy and welcoming atmostphere than a SEI doesnt make the ILI a SEI. The dimensionality of the functions does.

its the difference between someone who never does more than basic arithmetic but never makes mistakes, vs someone who does up to trigonometry but occasionally fucks up the subsidiary arithmetic. on some level, at least according to some perceptions, the former might be considered "stronger"-- it depends on the criterion for judgement, but for someone who can't see the big picture, they will think the former is better because the latter is invisible. when we talk about "strong" 2d functions, we're actually talking about the ability to create this perception, we even call it self esteem or social acceptance (its the ability to succeed according to a common skill floor, or lowest common denominator, beyond which we often can't appreciate, but below which can cause serious problems). 2d functions and their relative "success" are entirely socially oriented and are illusory to that exact extent

But it depends on what kind of work you do. The base is always on, but it is not always put to work. The base needs challenges. If it doesn't get that then there is less development.

I do think it is possible to neglect the base. You do it every time there is a task that requires something else than your base.

I see what you're saying and I don't think you're wrong, but the way I look at it is: what you're describing is being in situations that are not best met your own personal strengths, hence they put a lot of information on channels you parse with less granularity. inasmuch as there is information on all channels, everywhere, you're still using your base--its just not very effective. in other words, what you're describing is not a situation where you neglect your base, but a situation where the results don't come easy precisely because you cannot neglect your base

[Aylen]

where did you get this from? I wouldn't be surprised if some crackpot Russian suggested it but it's absurdly speculative.

probably gaylenko

edit: so youre right

and he got it from somewhere else.

The ‘Core Cognition’ hypothesis. Many developmentalists in this camp share a commitment to the ‘Core Cognition’ (sometimes called ‘Core Knowledge’) hypothesis (Carey 2009; Carey & Spelke 1996; Spelke et al. 1992; Spelke 1998, 2000, 2003). According to this hypothesis, evolution has equipped our species (and other species too) with an innate repertoire of conceptual representation types, that is, representations that cannot be reduced to the perceptual primitives favored by the Empiricists or the sensory-motor primitives favored by Piagetians. Rather, evolution has shaped our perceptual input analyzers to detect certain types of entities in the world, and has provided us with principles—embodied in our cognitive machinery—that determine how we (at least initially) think about such entities. These different types of entities are few in number. To date, there is a consensus among proponents of this hypothesis that the innately specified core domains include physical objects, number, and minds.[19] Proponents of the Core Cognition view defend a moderate Nativism; they leave work for learning mechanisms, which, together with maturation, take the infant from limited ‘core’ conceptual systems to the broad and highly elaborated knowledge of the world that adults have. In some cases, adult knowledge extends the core; in others it ‘over-writes’ it. The conceptual machinery that embodies a core domain is often referred to as an ‘intuitive theory’—for instance, a folk physics or folk psychology (sometimes theory of mind)—to highlight the fact that each supports patterns of conceptualization of input and inference. There is intense ongoing work on core domains, and research paradigms are being extended to non-human animals and across cultures. In the sections that follow, we review select findings on three domains: physical objects, number, and intentional agents.[20] We concentrate on very early development. While it is often difficult to say what exactly the research reveals about the young child’s knowledge (for methodological as well as philosophical reasons), the earlier some distinctive elements of a competence are present, the less likely that it was learned solely on the basis of experience.

Methodological innovation: the ‘violation-of-expectancy’ looking time. The work we discuss depended on solving a knotty methodological problem: how to discover what is going on in the minds of preverbal infants and very young children? Though infants cannot report on what they are perceiving or thinking, one can make inferences from their reactions to objects and events. Long before they utter their first words, they suck, grasp, creep, crawl, and—most importantly—they look. Since infants, like adults and other animals, look longer at an unexpected stimulus, where they look and for how long they look can reveal a good deal about their expectations about the world. While measures of grasping, crawling, and sucking have all been successfully used to reveal some of what is going on in the baby’s mind, the measure that has been used most extensively is the violation-of-expectancy looking time (sometimes called preferential looking time). Experiments using this measure tend to have a similar structure: during an initial phase, the child is presented with display XX, over and over, until the child’s interest wanes and looking time drops down to some criterion (the habituation phase). In the test phase, the child is presented with two displays: YY and ZZ. If the child reliably looks longer at YY than at ZZ, this provides evidence that ZZ is as expected, but that YY is unexpected.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/i...ess-cognition/

[Number 9 large]

and he got it from somewhere else.

yeah theres probably multiple sources saying this story

[Bertrand]

how does that relate to type being genetic or gulenko advancing that position, based off someone else's work

[Aylen]

yeah theres probably multiple sources saying this story

Gulenko is not confined within a bubble of socionics beliefs, that's for sure. I have read much of what he theorizes from other sources before I even heard of socionics (I was never much into MBTI thankfully) so it isn't really new to me. I spend more time reading sources outside socionics to learn about cognitive abilities which allows me to correlate things I actually observe and have firsthand experience with. Most recently it has been dna for me which is not there yet. Hopefully soon.

So yeah I believe he is taking bits a pieces from different theories and trying to correlate to socionics but of course there are going to be some contradictions and some things that just can't be correlated. I also do my own correlations between socionics and other systems. Not actively trying to correlate as much as it just kind of makes sense one day and then I can write about it. He is consciously and actively correlating. I think that is why people shouldn't even bother with things like his cognitive styles until they have a solid understanding of the basics.

[woofwoofl]

Intra-club fxn/s are strong. Same-verted fxn/s are bold.

The dimensionality model gives all fxn/s 1 dimension, adds 2 dmns for strong fxn/s, and 1 dmns for bold fxn/s.

Ugly model imo. Non-like units are mashed together and bolted into a line. +Ne approximating Se... poorly. +Ne encroaching onto -Ne domain.

I generally overlay temperament, quadra position, and mayyybe club. Club covers strength, temperament covers whether fxn/s will be chilled out or fussy, and quadra position covers what's subjectively cared about. Feel free to go a little fast and loose with the vital ring -- I give 'em a boost for gut types.