How did types and inter-type relations come into being?
Who created the phenomena that is socionics?
How did types and inter-type relations come into being?
Um, you mean Ausra Augustinaviciute?
No. That's who made the theory. I mean the underlying phenomena, how did that appear.Originally Posted by sindri
Presumably evolution. Check out the thread I started that speculates on the origin of psychological types.
Linky or stinky.
Its a phenomenon of differentiation. Probably happened during a very long time. Its a part of general development and differentiation of the mind.
Check out Origins and history of Consciousness by Erich Neumann if you want some ideas on how types have evolved
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Evolution.
I think the fact that types arose from evolving, asymmetrical organs raises questions about how accurate the static, symmetrical theory really is.
But why 16 types in particular? Why not 6 or 12 or 85?
Also, why do only humans seem to have types? what makes humans special?
One more thing; anyone else who says "evolution" will be taken as "I don't know" instead. Unless they can explain the full process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain
Since Socionics is based on Jungian cognitive functions, IEs relate to higher order structures of the brain that generate conscious awareness.From fossil records, scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared in worms over 500 million years ago. The functions of the hindbrain found in the fossil records included breathing, heart beat regulation, balance, basic motor movements and foraging skills. A trend in brain evolution according to a study done with mice, chickens, monkeys and apes concluded that more evolved species tend to preserve the structures responsible for basic behaviors. What this means is that evolution is the process of acquiring more and more sophisticated structures, not simply the addition of different structures over a long period of time.[2] A long term study comparing the human brain to the primitive brain found that the modern human brain contains the primitive hindbrain region – what most neuroscientists call the protoreptilian brain. The purpose of this part of the brain is to sustain fundamental homeostatic functions. The pons and medulla are major structures found there. A new region of the brain developed about 250 million years after the appearance of the hindbrain. This region is known as the paleomammalian brain, the major parts of which are the hippocampi and amygdalas, often referred to as the limbic system. The limbic system deals with more complex functions including emotional, sexual and fighting behaviors.The brainstem and limbic system are largely based on nuclei, which are essentially balled-up clusters of tightly-packed neurons and the axon fibers that connect them to each other, as well as to neurons in other locations. The other two major brain areas (the cerebrum and cerebellum) are based on a cortical architecture. At the outer periphery of the cortex, the neurons are arranged into layers (the number of which vary according to species and function) a few millimeters thick. There are axons that travel between the layers, but the majority of axon mass is below the neurons themselves. Since cortical neurons and most of their axon fiber tracts don't have to compete for space, cortical structures can scale more easily than nuclear ones. A key feature of cortex is that because it scales with surface area, "more" of it can be fit inside a skull by introducing convolutions, in much the same way that a dinner napkin can be stuffed into a glass by wadding it up. The degree of convolution is generally greater in more evolved species, which benefit from the increased surface area.
The cerebellum, or "little brain," is behind the brainstem and below the occipital lobe of the cerebrum in humans. Its purposes include the coordination of fine sensorimotor tasks, and it may be involved in some cognitive functions, such as language. Human cerebellar cortex is finely convoluted, much more so than cerebral cortex. Its interior axon fiber tracts are called the arbor vitae, or Tree of Life.
The area of the brain with the greatest amount of recent evolutionary change is called the cerebrum, or neocortex. In reptiles and fish, this area is called the pallium, and is smaller and simpler relative to body mass than what is found in mammals. According to research, the cerebrum first developed about 200 million years ago. It's responsible for higher cognitive functions - for example, language, thinking, and related forms of information processing.[3] It's also responsible for processing sensory input (together with the thalamus, a part of the limbic system that acts as an information router). Most of its function is subconscious, that is, not available for inspection or intervention by the conscious mind. Neocortex is an elaboration, or outgrowth, of structures in the limbic system, with which it is tightly integrated.
Still doesn't explain the existance of types and ITRs.
Come on, I'd expect more from a LII-Ne like you. That's not how Yoda would handle things. Where's dat Ni demonstrative?
Really trying to generate discussion by using my ego as a motivator, aren't you?
I'll contribute more, later. I have finals this week.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...n-of-Socionics
Okay, that might explain how types appeared in humans. But the problem is: the information aspects were there all along. They make the basis of reality. Animals perceive them too. A machine that could mimic whatever processes biological beings have could perceive them too. So, where did information aspects come from?
What do you mean that the information elements were there all along? Is that true? I think types are the result of the different combinations of information elements. Why we have these information elements instead of others is just that, if you consider the two most fundamental questions of survival I mentioned in that post, the information elements we have are literally the only possibilities. So, their existence as we see them today was simply an inevitable result of the activity of living organisms taking in resources and associating with each other.
I'm neither. I'm an alien lifeform from another planet that deliberately tampered with the DNA of existing creatures from this planet, to produce the first human.
So Space necessitates the existance of humans? So does Time?
Well, I can't follow your logic there. How did we go from, "Where did the information elements come from?" to "Do Space and Time necessitate the existence of humans?" My response specifically discussed the existence of information elements. Dunno where humans' existence came into the equation.
I think I was saying more that the activity of living organisms (esp. humans) necessitates the existence of information elements, esp. the ones we already have. That is to say, that the information elements do not predate humans (or possibly earlier lifeforms? fringe stuff there), and are not necessarily innate parts of reality outside of psychological experience.
It's easy to impute objectivity to the psychological functions and information elements, because the psyche only operates from the vantage point of those elements. Thinking that the information elements exist in objective reality apart from the psyche is a form of projection. Except, instead of projecting something onto a person, we would be projecting the existence of the information elements onto reality when really they exist only in our minds.
I dispute the relationship between Ni/Time Si/Space or whatnot, and I've talked about that in another post. I'll reference that if you want. I only mentioned Ni in that post, but I could possibly get into Si.
Why do we have 2 arms? Why not 5?
Its nature.
I already implied the answer to your 2nd question. Animals have a lower level of development and differentiation.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
If you think or feel, sense or intuit, what else can you do?
I think that's why there's 16 types, because there's 4 functions and 2 sides to those functions, hence 8 leading functions with their sidekick a perceiving function linked with a judging function.
Unless you think intelligent design wanted to create 16 types?
It's just a product of what exists, 4 dichotomies, in that respect.
So way back when, the Greeks, they said people are all made out of elements. Then Shakespeare times made it out to be four humors. Then some psychologist has a rebellion against the established order, gets popular. Some women develop a test for one of his lessor known theories. People take it seriously, and now it is this.
As for the underlying reason this is all possible, two things must exist. First, there must be the ability or predisposition to differentiate. Second, there must be the ability or predisposition to group. I believe that weighted random chance allows for both to occur quite nicely.
The relationships thing is actually quite new. I've looked all over the place for stuff that furthers my knowledge on the matter, and to my astonishment, not much. I'm debating on reading red pill for more info, honestly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
The relationships is just a by product of type differentiation.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Allah created it. I agree with @Aramas in that the IM elements are logically prior to the types and relationships.
The reason it's a power of two is that everything in reality is based on duality: here and there, present and absent, true and false, external and internal, etc. When you look at the whole picture and don't leave anything out that's what you get.
Any conscious being that is capable of intelligent, goal-oriented behavior will also have to use the IM elements and most likely will also have to have some sort of asymmetry / inherent inclination that is what we call a type. Without choosing some measure of success there is no reason to do anything at all.
Yeah binaries are the source of reality according to a lot of mystical thought. Kabbalah in the Tree of Life is one example of how the monad splits in two starting from Kether and eventually developing in the myriad of forms we see in Malkuth. I'm not a Kabbalist or theist myself though, so I don't necessarily believe in all of that. There are a lot of mystical ideas that relate to the idea of duality. In Asia, for example, you have the idea of duality expressed in the yin yang symbol. I think it's important to emphasize, though, that duality might not necessarily be the nature of reality but simply of the human psyche. People tend to project a lot, not just in cases of interaction with people but also in cases where they project psychological structure onto external reality. It gets tempting when people find others who agree with their experiences, and neither realize that their similar experiences stem from similar psychological structure, because both are human.
I don't remember stating that the information elements preceded the types. If anything, I think it's possible that they both came into existence simultaneously in some sort of punctuated equilibrium style of development. More like a big bang than a slow development over time. Of course you said logically prior not causally prior, so I'm not sure what you meant.
... Of course it's possible there was a very slow development of psychological type that began with introversion and extroversion. I remember reading an article on abiogenesis once in which there were these possible earliest forms of life on earth situated at the bottom of the ocean next to vents. Two types of things developed, ones which were not so open to the external environment and ones that were. So that duality already existed back then possibly. The details are sketchy in my mind because it's been literally years since I read about that, though.
And if you look at the reticular activating system in humans, this seems to be the biological source of introversion and extroversion in human cognition, where some people are simply more open to environmental stimuli than others. This mirrors in some way the abiogenesis example I talked about.
One theory I had about typology was that it is simply a holographic structure of repeated introversion and extroversion in different forms. That's why you have Socionics extroversion and introversion, but enneagram instincts like sp and sx also modify total introversion and extroversion. There's also the contrast between positivist and negativist in terms of Reinin dichotomies. It's an idea. So just take it with a grain of salt.
Last edited by Aramas; 11-22-2017 at 07:00 PM.
http://brewminate.com/hydrothermal-v...rigin-of-life/
"The studies suggest that in the earliest stages of life’s evolution, chemical reactions in primitive cells were likely driven by these non-biological proton gradients. Cells then later learned how to produce their own gradients and escaped the vents to colonise the rest of the ocean and eventually the planet."
You said "I think types are the result of the different combinations of information elements." The way I see it the types can't exist without the IM elements but the IM elements may exist without types.
The IM elements and consciousness itself exist anywhere spacetime does, so they are immune to any kind of purely temporal "evolution". They instead "emerge" or emanate from the underlying unity of reality.If anything, I think it's possible that they both came into existence simultaneously in some sort of punctuated equilibrium style of development. More like a big bang than a slow development over time. Of course you said logically prior not causally prior, so I'm not sure what you meant.
Oh, so you mean metaphysically.
If you took an evolutionary perspective
- Mitochondria allow for more complex Eukaryotic cells with specialize organelles.
- Eukaryotic cells are able to form multicellular organisms with specialized cells type and function.
- Complex multicellular organism require a nervous system to coordinate cell action.
- The nervous system centralizes to process information beyond simple reflex.
- As the central nervous system advances, both the complexity of thought increases exponentially and the need for higher level brain function emerge.
- These higher level functions eventually produce consciousness.
- Conscious beings are able to interact with the world in more sophisticated ways. The more you are able to understand about the world, the more power you have. This starts one of the evolutionary arms races.
- Eventually we get to self aware Humans with different types of information metabolism.
But I still haven't answered your question. Of course, without finding the neuroscience basis of type, and then studying various levels of complex life, from microscopic bugs to primates and people, we don't know. So without that knowledge, here is a gradient of possibilities:
- All complex systems have a type. Socionic type is an emerging principle which exist in any complex system, meaning the precociousness organisms to nation states have a type. (I disagree)
- All Sufficiently complex nervous systems have a type. Socionic type results from when the central nervous system is too complex to experience its potential in its lifetime, or too complex to maintain anarchic order. Type then, is a hierarchy to keep order and stay functional. If this is true, you would expect to advanced complex organism to have a type while simple complex organism do not. (Plausible, but I think unlikely)
- All tribal animals have a type. Socionic type emerges in any social species because specialization allows the individual to be more productive and the tribe benefits from a myriad of perspectives. Furthermore, since the specialization of type also means a forming of a blind spot and certain weaknesses, a tribe is necessary to support each individual's weaknesses. Solitary animals are not able to differentiate as much because the implied weakness will kill them. (Plausible)
- Only Humans have a type. Either because only humans have advanced enough brains, the language to share knowledge, the ability to make domestic societies, or because socionics only applies to rational being, can humans have a type. Animals have no knowledge of either logic or ethics, cannot differentiate between their senses and understanding, or between themselves and the outside world. Some animals, like wolves, do have different positions in the pack, but these are professional differences, not different in how information is metabolize.(Most Likely)
- Only Modern Humans have a type. Socionics type only happens when people advance in reason. Tribal people, who live in ignorance, do to have a type because they do not work with complex enough concepts or situation to need to specialize. (I disagree)
- Only traumatized Humans have a type. In this view, type is only a lopsided development and the goal of socionics is to alert each person of their flaws so they can fix them. The healthiest person does not have a type because they have resolved their trauma. (I REALLY disagree)
And related to this question is when and how does type manifest in a person. Again, we don't know so these are the possibilities I can think of:
- Type is genetically determined. (Plausible)
- Type emerges as the fetal brain develops (Plausible, but I'm not sure how much fetal development is not genetically predestined. Maybe this would be true in atypical development due to disease or malnourishment. If this turned out to be true, then brain injury or maybe even drug use could change the type of an adult)
- Type is imprinted in the womb or in infancy based on environmental factors. (I disagree)
- Type crystallizes as you live your life and you can choose your type by how you are raised or how you choose to live your life. (I disagree)
- Type is fluid (I disagree)
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 11-23-2017 at 02:00 AM.
Christ consciousness/One-ness is all there really is. It is the feeling of eternal peace and belonging. You exist and you are loved, all is well.
However the great divide happened, we wanted to see what it would feel like to be apart from God so identities and narcissism was created. 'types' was just a small symptom of this. Genders, sexual orientations, class divisions, bodies, blue/red states, different prefereces for or against something. Life and death, comedy and tragedy. The small glimpses of nonduality in a duality world give the illusion of love being more exciting/romantic and sexual than it really is.... which makes us feel so sad when the pop song ends and life just happens. The 'real world' is run via DUALITY but the true nature of the universe is NONDUALITY.
ironically though this chasm deserves the love the most, it's just the whole broken apart. And it had to be broken.... it was like that huge bubble wrap you just HAD to pop. But on a cosmic scale. Anybody that doesn't want to play with bubble wrap is just inhumane. So we teared God asunder for some hot gay sex. Or whatever else. We felt so good, we had to feel bad. And here we all are, in hell with each other. But I still feel what heaven was like...and when I can go back to it.
in the post right above you, I deleted the "only unenlightened humans have types" section because I didn't think anyone would bring it up.
I would agree that only unenlightened humans have types but I would add that all humans are unenlightened humans, to the extent that unenlightened human is redundant. Its more like perfect beings don't have type, and humans are not perfect. Christ as the model of unification is the goal of the perfect man [1] which we strive toward but never quite reach, still its in the striving that we find meaning and purpose. what that striving looks like is different based on individual starting point. I would argue even working on spreadsheets while telling people not to sweat being differentiated is itself work across a certain horizon of unification. its like you can't escape the drive to unify across some level because otherwise its like why get up in the morning. its actually not that profound because the 8 functions more or less capture every possible human endeavor, so just by existing you're working on unification. perhaps what separates people is only the rate at which they move, but even the usage of strongly differentiated function invites a balancing act from somewhere, whether within or without. you really can't escape unification as the purpose of existence because it was defined post existence. in other words, Jung didn't thrust unification upon man as the moral imperative so much as observed man universally engaged in its pursuit either consciously or unconsciously.
[1] the idea is if Christ didn't come down from heaven, we would have had to invent him, as a model for how to be. he's the example we can pass on in order to convey the concept in terms everyone can understand. its why the logos of the bible is useful no matter who is reading it, not scientifically but as a schematic for how to behave whether rich or poor educated or ignorant, etc. we didn't "invent" Christ in order to impose something on people but rather to help them achieve what they already wanted. In other words the emergence of Christ was psychologically provoked in the collective unconscious; Christ's emergence signaled a epochal change across the 5th dimension, the collective unconscious. Likewise the death of God, as told by Nietzsche, signaled another shift at the end of the 19th century, which prefigured the conflicts of the 20th century and beyond. We are now living in that era of the collective unconscious, one where unification is viewed with skepticism rather than trust, but its just the counter stroke to the earlier ages it still cries out for dialectical resolution, we are just looking at it from the other side of history
Christ (Jesus) is almost unanimously typed EII, although I think he might have been EIE.
I mean that's fine, but its psychologically shallow to reduce him to a type, since he is a mythological figure that shapes the very ground from which the concept of type emerges. its like assigning a literal sex to God. its sort of a category error. it presumes Christ was a man only and not a psychic phenomenon
So you think he was a sorcerer?
When people say Jesus could have been a gamma NT, I think they're recognizing that the need for a scheme or "technology" in order to inform man's path had become so urgent in the collective unconscious that when Christ emerged as the instantiation of the solution i.e.: a piece of living technology, he operated as a Te counterstroke to the mounting ethical tension taking place in the collective unconscious. When he said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes through the father except through me, it was like mankind had developed a conduit for access to God, and Christ was simply the mechanism by which we could meet that need that had developed to such an extent we called whoever could function to meet it "messiah." In other words, that if Christ didn't exist we would have had to invent him is to say he was merely the stand-in for a solution to a problem that was going to be met one way or the other, because it was the product of psychological pressure that demanded an answer in some way shape or form. in as much as it was a Fi/Se problem (sensory conflicts over ethics of relations, which you could say the entire Hebrew tradition up until that point represented) it demanded a Te/Ni response, which would be the emergence of Christ and the idea of the embodied logos
Who says this?
Jesus can be interpreted as any of the 16 types thats my point, but its a byproduct of him being a unified man, i.e.: encompassing all the types, which is what makes his message universal. the point is not that he is any one of the particular types, its that you can make a case for any of them which speaks to his actual nature. to say he is EIE is just to say in the mind of the speaker he is equivalent to their conception of what the EIE functions to do in society, but Jesus actually functions to do what any type and every type can do. to type him as an individual type is a limitation of perspective on the part of the typer who would limit him to such and such domain
But Jesus was a human. Humans have types. Therefore, Jesus must have had a type.
Maybe Adam Strange can VI him for you
Unlikely, as there were no photo cameras at the time.
At any rate, I'm not that interested in Jesus, because I do not agree with most of what he preached. I think it was an attempt at turning us weak.
if you actually read psychological types you'd know Jung didn't believe that type existed in the same form in antiquity as it does in modernity. so while to say every human has a type is obvious enough, what that actually shakes out to is by no means a simple matter of picking 1 of the 16 and assigning them to every person who ever lived. At best that says more about the contemporary perspective of the individual making the typing based on the facts he believes about that which he purports to "type." Again, such an approach is psychologically shallow. Because type is an individual psychic allocation along the coordinates of the 5th dimension, and that dimension itself is subject to change and development through time
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote