How did Jung derive the eight functions?

[HolyKnowing]

Despite his interest in the occult and his belief in synchronicity, Jung generally speaking was scientific. So he probably had a scientific derivation for his eight functions. However it isn't obvious what this derivation was.

[Tallmo]

I dont think they are derived. They are based on observation of a great number of people and many comparisons. Of course there is some analysis involved because one has to sort out the impressions of people to see the pattern. But they are not based on behaviour

The fact that the functions actually ARE regular of course helped him make the discovery

[nefnaf]

The functions are essentially distilled from the types. Jung started out with two types, introvert and extravert, based on his clinical observations. From there he expanded his ideas, eventually arriving at the eight types we are familiar with and associating each with a "function." It's not totally clear to me what intermediate steps he took between the two type and eight type models, but then I haven't studied this question very deeply.

[consentingadult]

Perhaps you should read Psychological Types first. I don't have my copy at hand, but if I recall correctly about 75% of this book discusses the history of typology in philosophy and literature. Jung built upon the work of others that came before him.

[para]

Categorisation- and undercategorisation is done until it is satisfactory for what he wants from the theory. This is why people are discussing whether or not it is meaningful to consider things such as subtypes etc.

[sbbds]

The man wants to know specifically where it’s from. You can just say so if you don’t know, or don’t have any good guesses.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think the schematic logic is quite well hidden but it is still there and quite strong.

I think Jung would not give a clear answer to this chicken egg problem even if he could communicate because influences in the past are quite remarkable.

[para]

@Troll Nr 007
I agree. I also think most of the discussions on here revolve around the deciphering of that schematic, and not necessarily the ''essence'' of the terms themselves. (although this does happen too)
The categories as they interact seems more important.

[Skepsis]

By the use of some incredibly sound logic. He put posts on the periphery of human cognition. If there are other ways to think about world we experience, we haven't been able to think them up yet. Be careful of certain dogmatisms, like fixed cognitive patterns, easily identified types, relationship predictabilities, etc. The brain is a very adaptable organ and cognition develops in often unpredictable ways.

[Adam Strange]

here is the result of a five second internet search: https://www.innerexplorations.com/catpsy/a.htm

Also this:

http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/...tion-model.pdf

[Beautiful sky]

He probably found a written about them. I don’t believe it was his original observation

[Lao Tzunami]

It was from Schopenhauer I got the idea that consciousness flows into definite moulds.

Schopenhauer especially inspired the Jungian compass of intuition, thinking, sensing, and feeling. Schopenhauer had devised a similar observation of people, which he wrote about in The World as Will and Idea:
Text: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_W...Book#.C2.A7_12
Audio: https://youtu.be/Vm0Iwxlkrzo

Even though Jung was originally inspired by many of concepts Schopenhauer coined, he defines them in his own way based on his clinical experience.

I must confine myself to a presentation of principles which I have abstracted from a wealth of facts observed in many different individuals. In this there is no question of a deductio a priori, as it might appear; it is rather a deductive presentation of empirically gained insights.

One main difference is Schopenhauer equates rationality with abstract knowledge which is mutually exclusive to feeling, while Jung defines rationality as either thinking or feeling. If you want to study all the ways Jung's view differs from Schopenhauer's, I would compare the passage I posted above with Jung's definitions in chapter XI of Psychological Types: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ological_Types

As for the inspiration for Introversion and Extraversion, I don't know exactly where that idea started, but Jung spends the majority of Psychological types presenting historical examples of the division:

...the existence of two distinct types is actually a fact that has long been known: a fact that in one form or another has struck the observer of human nature or dawned upon the brooding reflection of the thinker, presenting itself to Goethe’s intuition, for instance, as the all-embracing principle of systole and diastole. The names and concepts by which the mechanisms of extraversion and introversion have been grasped are extremely varied, and each of them is adapted to the standpoint of the observer in question. But despite the diversity of the formulations the fundamental idea common to them all constantly shines through: in one case an outward movement of interest towards the object, and in the other a movement of interest away from the object to the subject and his own psychological processes.

Kant was a huge inspiration for both Schopenhaur and Jung, and the concept of introversion and extraversion is perfectly aligned with Kant's phenomenology of the subject. So regardless what originally sparked the idea, Kant's phenomenology is an important ideological context. Jung also talked about how introverted he was in comparison to the average person, so it could be the contrast of his temperament to certain extraverts he psychoanalyzed that gave him the idea.

(Extraversion, introversion) x (intuition, thinking, sensing, feeling) = Jung's 8 base functions.

Implied in the Jungian compass structure is that judgement and perception are used together. So from each 8 base functions are 4 possible auxiliary combinations, and the two of one function are opposed to the other two, but he did not know how to classify individual in this context. This is why he said:

So, through the study of all sorts of human types, I came to the conclusion that there must be many different ways of viewing the world through these type orientations—at least 16, and you can just as well say 360.

Model A works out these two basic auxiliary function directions in terms of the producing functions. There are still many dynamics that have not been worked out, which is why there are so many subtype models.

[Singu]

This kind of categorization of observations is really pointless, and serves little to no purpose. One of the reasons why these typologies and personality theories won't be accepted as science.

How can we ever know anything about what's going to happen in the future (the whole point of doing experiments), by just collecting more and more observations of the past?

[sbbds]

really pointless, and serves little to no purpose.

.

[Exodus]

I dont think they are derived. They are based on observation of a great number of people and many comparisons. Of course there is some analysis involved because one has to sort out the impressions of people to see the pattern. But they are not based on behaviour

The fact that the functions actually ARE regular of course helped him make the discovery

Yes. Jung addresses this point explicitly, I believe in the book here: https://books.google.sn/books?id=aBU...q=four&f=false

Basically he says, people are always asking him, why four (i.e. T, F, N, S)? His answer is that he derived it completely from his observations of patients. So the story goes.

[Singu]

@sbbds It's okay sbbds, you can continue being dumb and clueless.

This is just so obvious to anyone who understands "the problem of induction". If you don't understand it, then you'll just continue to keep running into the epistemological brick-wall over and over again. And you don't even realize that you're running into it. It's both hilarious and tragic to watch.

The Popperian methodology is pretty much the de facto standard methodology for creating scientific knowledge, which makes sure that you don't keep running into the brick-wall. And the way you do it is not through observing things and making notes of observations, but rather you first constitute a problem, then you try to solve that problem by conjecturing theories. And then you try to criticize that conjecture or a theory.

So in short, Popperian methodology goes:

1. You first encounter a problem.
2. The problem is attempted to be solved by a conjecture/theory.
3. The theory that can both solve the problem and survives the most stringent tests and experiments is preferred. The other alternative theories that have been refuted or don't survive the tests are discarded.
4. If the theory can no longer solve some newly discovered problem, then an alternative, rival theory may be preferred in the future. This theory again, will be put to further tests and criticisms.
5. This process is repeated forever, since all theories and knowledge are tentative and not absolute.

The inductivist method (unfortunately) goes like this:

1. You make notes of many observations.
2. Then you try to generalize or extrapolate from the observations.
3. The generalization becomes a new theory, and the more and more new observations fit the theory, the more likely the theory is likely to be true.
4. ????
5. This method doesn't work, because you can't make claims about the future from the evidence from the past!

Obviously Jung was using the inductivist method, which simply just doesn't work and not how scientific knowledge is created at all. How you actually create new knowledge, is through the Popperian methodology.

[sbbds]

How does one form a theory, @Singu ?

[Singu]

How does one form a theory, @Singu ?

Conjecture.

[sbbds]

Conjecture.

How does one go about producing conjecture? ...

[sbbds]

@Singu

https://study.com/academy/lesson/con...-example.html#.

Conjecture in Math: Definition & Example

“This lesson will define the term conjecture, provide examples, and discuss conditions for writing them. We'll also highlight the use of conjectures by professionals and other people in their daily routines.

What is a Conjecture?

Parents make conjectures all the time; without even realizing that they do, they form conclusions about their children. Susie notices that when she buys strawberry ice cream, her 3-year-old son Johnny always ask for seconds, but when she buys vanilla, he leaves some in the bowl. What conclusions do you think Susie would make? Of course, she would think that Johnny likes strawberry more than vanilla.

Informally, we can say a conjecture is just using what you know and observe to form conclusions about something. Formally, a conjecture is a statement believed to be true based on observations. In general, a conjecture is like your opinion about something that you notice or even an educated guess.”

@Karatos @Subteigh

[Singu]

How does one go about producing conjecture? ...

Through the creative imagination of the human mind.

If you say one necessarily needs to base it on some sort of a sensory perception at the bottom, then perhaps that is so, but that, is of course, yet another conjecture/theory that is created by the human mind. So nothing that we perceive is "as it really is", everything is through a theory and a conjecture. There's no such thing as a "pure", direct experience that we can "base" anything on.

And besides, much of what we theorize about is things that we can't even see. We can't see our thoughts or others' thoughts, we can't see neurons, and so on. And just by observing neurons don't help, because you'd need a theory that can interpret what the interactions of neurons even mean. And that will not be explained by what we can see, but rather what we can intellectually think about.

[Exodus]

Yes. Jung addresses this point explicitly, I believe in the book here: https://books.google.sn/books?id=aBU...q=four&f=false

Basically he says, people are always asking him, why four (i.e. T, F, N, S)? His answer is that he derived it completely from his observations of patients. So the story goes.

In the introduction to PT he says:

"From sheer necessity, therefore, I must confine myself to a presentation of principles which I have abstracted from an abundance of observed facts. In this there is no question of deductio a priori, as it might well appear: it is rather a deductive presentation of empirically gained understanding."

[Exodus]

Here is the quote:

"I have often been asked, almost accusingly, why I speak of four functions and not of more or fewer. That there are exactly four was a result I arrived at on purely empirical grounds. But as the following consideration will show, these four together produce a kind of totality. Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation..somewhat like the four points of the compass..provid[ing] a system of comparison and orientation..."

http://fivelements.net/page2-THINKER...exTHINKER.html

[The Reality Denialist]

It sounds like he was postulating based on many things, I suppose.

There is I/E and both have rational and irrational inclinations. Those inclinations also have two modes. We have 2³=8 modes of cognition. Let's put some meat on top of the skeleton.
'

[Not A Communist Shill]

@Singu

https://study.com/academy/lesson/con...-example.html#.

Conjecture in Math: Definition & Example

“This lesson will define the term conjecture, provide examples, and discuss conditions for writing them. We'll also highlight the use of conjectures by professionals and other people in their daily routines.

What is a Conjecture?

Parents make conjectures all the time; without even realizing that they do, they form conclusions about their children. Susie notices that when she buys strawberry ice cream, her 3-year-old son Johnny always ask for seconds, but when she buys vanilla, he leaves some in the bowl. What conclusions do you think Susie would make? Of course, she would think that Johnny likes strawberry more than vanilla.

Informally, we can say a conjecture is just using what you know and observe to form conclusions about something. Formally, a conjecture is a statement believed to be true based on observations. In general, a conjecture is like your opinion about something that you notice or even an educated guess.”

@Karatos @Subteigh

There is no scientific definition of "conjecture" as such. It can be considered equivalent to speculation, guess, intuition etc.

Two definitions:
conjecture (countable and uncountable, plural conjectures)

1. (formal) A statement or an idea which is unproven, but is thought to be true; a guess.
I explained it, but it is pure conjecture whether he understood, or not.
2. (formal) A supposition based upon incomplete evidence; a hypothesis.
The physicist used his conjecture about subatomic particles to design an experiment.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conjecture


A simple observation could not tell you if the Sun orbits the Earth, or if the Earth orbits the Sun, or if the Earth rotates about its axis, or if the Earth and Sun both orbit around a point in space about a metre from the centre of the Sun. A speculation, guess, intuition etc. may mean you have one of those conclusions, but it does not "prove" anything, nor does it explain anything.

I was reading Planets: A Very Short Introduction recently, and this is a passage from it:

Building on what had already become common practice for lunar features, IAU nomenclature assigns a single unqualified name to craters, whereas most other features are given a name plus a Latin descriptor term that denotes what kind of a feature it is. Thus ‘Olympus Mons’ means ‘Olympus Mountain’, telling you immediately that this feature is a mountain named Olympus. Note that although no one doubts that Olympus Mons is a volcano, the descriptor term does not say this. Descriptor terms intentionally avoid interpretation (which may turn out to be wrong) and stick to description.

Socionics in its current form resembles descriptions and speculations that its practitioners believe are true, but it does not offer any interpretation that can be falsified.

[Singu]

Yes. Jung addresses this point explicitly, I believe in the book here: https://books.google.sn/books?id=aBU...q=four&f=false

Basically he says, people are always asking him, why four (i.e. T, F, N, S)? His answer is that he derived it completely from his observations of patients. So the story goes.

In the introduction to PT he says:

"From sheer necessity, therefore, I must confine myself to a presentation of principles which I have abstracted from an abundance of observed facts. In this there is no question of deductio a priori, as it might well appear: it is rather a deductive presentation of empirically gained understanding."

There's no questioning that Jung used an inductivist methodology, as in he "derived" or "generalized" or "abstracted" knowledge from observations. This is an uncontroversial fact.

The problem is that inductivism is a centuries-old philosophical problem known since Hume, which Karl Popper had solved in the 20th century, a little bit later after Jung wrote "Psychological Types", I'd suppose.

"The problem of induction" goes something like: How can we know anything about the future (or anything unobserved for that matter), by simply observing the present or the past? You simply can't make any claims about the future from the evidence of the past, because the future is different from the past.

And yet science successfully makes predictions about the future, and get it right. How?

Well Karl Popper basically said, well that's just a bunch of nonsense, inductivism doesn't work, and scientific knowledge simply goes on because it doesn't even use inductivism. Instead, we use conjectures and refutations to create scientific knowledge. We conjecture knowledge about the world, as in we make guesses about what could be true about the world, using nothing other than human imagination and intellect. Of course, this kind of knowledge can't ever be "justified" by pure intellect and imagination alone, so we also further criticize that idea so that it better aligns with reality. And one of the most potent criticisms, is experimental testing, which Karl Popper had popularized with the idea of falsificationism.

Many people may not believe that idea, because it doesn't seem very "secure" or "certain", and we need more certainty to be absolutely sure that it is "true". But Karl Popper argues that the search for the Absolute Truth and Absolute Certainty is what leads to all sorts of dogmatisms and authoritarianism, so we need to hold that all knowledge is tentative guesses about the world. There's no such thing as certainty, and there's no such thing as justified knowledge, or a "justified true belief". All knowledge is unjustified, untrue, and not a belief. We can't have authority in forms of whether it's the Bible, various authorities, authority of kings, authority of the senses, authority of the intellect, authority of Encyclopedia, or what have you.

So that's how scientific knowledge is actually created. If you don't believe it, then that's too bad for you.

[Jaqen]

This kind of categorization of observations is really pointless, and serves little to no purpose. One of the reasons why these typologies and personality theories won't be accepted as science.

How can we ever know anything about what's going to happen in the future (the whole point of doing experiments), by just collecting more and more observations of the past?

Woah that's some anti Te if I ever saw it.

[Singu]

Well it's kind of ironic that these supposed "Ni" types don't know how to make predictions about the future.

I find it very unsatisfactory that things like "Ni" or "Te" is an in-born, a priori knowledge or ability that people just "know" or "have" from the start. But things like predicting the future or knowing how things work is created and found through arguments, not that there are just these people that just "know" how to predict the future or "know" how things work. They're created through arguments, and they are further criticized and refined by arguments. Then new ideas are born from those arguments.

If people just "know" these things, then it just turns into an authority of Ni, authority of Te (types), which is what actually happens on these communities. "I am right because I am X type, you're wrong because you're Y type". But no argument has ever been created about why that should be the case.

[Aylen]

"There is a funny story about an Introvert and iNtuition told by C.G. Jung. about a “lady with a snake in the abdomen” who lived in a private brothel without noticing it (BBC Interview Face to Face available in youtube). These individuals, Jung thought, are profoundly influenced by their internal motivations even though they do not completely understand them. They find meaning through unconscious, subjective ideas about the world. Introverted intuitive people comprise a significant portion of mystics, surrealistic artists, and religious fanatics. Pretty often they are mystic dreamers or shamans or seers. After World War I, this 28-year-old woman consulted Jung. She wanted “to be cured within ten hours” – that is, within only ten analytic sessions. The woman told Jung that “she had a black serpent in her belly.” That was the reason the woman had consulted him, “for she thought that it should be awakened” . The woman was “only intuitive, entirely without a sense of reality.” Then she announced that the snake, which had been dormant, had suddenly become active. “One day she came and said that the serpent in her belly had moved; it had turned around,” Jung says. “Then the serpent moved slowly upward, coming finally out of her mouth, and she saw that the head was golden.” Jung amplifies the image of the snake in the abdomen by reference to the serpent in Kundalini Yoga. “I told you,” Jung says, “the case of that intuitive girl who suddenly came out with the statement that she had a black snake in her belly.” He situates the snake in the context of the collective unconscious. “Well now, that is a collective symbol,” he says. “That is not an individual fantasy, it is a collective fantasy.” The image of the snake in the abdomen, Jung says, “is well known in India.” Although the woman “had nothing to do with India” and although the image “is entirely unknown to us,” he says that “we have it too, for we are all similarly human.” When the woman first told Jung about the snake in her belly, he wondered whether “perhaps she was crazy,” but then he realized that “she was only highly intuitive.” She had intuited a typical, or archetypal, image. “In India,” Jung says, “the serpent is at the basis of a whole philosophical system, of Tantrism; it is Kundalini, the Kundalini serpent.”
https://stottilien.com/2012/09/23/c-...and-intuition/


I love that story. I smile every time I read it.

[Lord Panda]

Well it's kind of ironic that these supposed "Ni" types don't know how to make predictions about the future.

I find it very unsatisfactory that things like "Ni" or "Te" is an in-born, a priori knowledge or ability that people just "know" or "have" from the start. But things like predicting the future or knowing how things work is created and found through arguments, not that there are just these people that just "know" how to predict the future or "know" how things work. They're created through arguments, and they are further criticized and refined by arguments. Then new ideas are born from those arguments.

If people just "know" these things, then it just turns into an authority of Ni, authority of Te (types), which is what actually happens on these communities. "I am right because I am X type, you're wrong because you're Y type". But no argument has ever been created about why that should be the case.

You seem to think that the functions exist in people's heads? Is that right?

[Jaqen]

Well it's kind of ironic that these supposed "Ni" types don't know how to make predictions about the future.

That would be ironic. Depends on what predictions according to theory. Ni and Fe have different focus of perception as compared to Ni and Te. But, you don't *beleive* in inductive theory, or better yet, its not a fact-> no matter your personal belief one way or another.

I find it very unsatisfactory that things like "Ni" or "Te" is an in-born, a priori knowledge or ability that people just "know" or "have" from the start.

Why does that unsatisfy you?

Does not even an animal, a pet, of any species excell above his/ her peers sometimes? Some dogs love to cuddle, some love to solve problems, some love to chase and bite. Are humans any different in this regard? I'm actually asking, that is not rhetorical.

But things like predicting the future or knowing how things work is created and found through arguments, not that there are just these people that just "know" how to predict the future or "know" how things work.

Yes..and no, and both. Who are you to say, really? Like, is your understanding so all encompassing that you can say with certainty one way or another? I mean, maybe it is, maybe you are that knowledgable in this. I don't really know for certain. Maybe these people are performing these yes, no..stop, go..1, 0, arguments in their minds eye, introvertedly, a hidden process. Maybe that's how they know, very black matter, very dark energy, very, very mysterious, maybe even to them. Maybe in the case of Te, they were trying the action when they were 13 and flash forward 20 years, they just *know*. But like, HOW?

They're created through arguments, and they are further criticized and refined by arguments. Then new ideas are born from those arguments.

Sometimes, sure. Sometimes its a process built over a life time. Don't mistake your own limits here as claiming the entire reality is built on sand.

If people just "know" these things, then it just turns into an authority of Ni, authority of Te (types), which is what actually happens on these communities. "I am right because I am X type, you're wrong because you're Y type". But no argument has ever been created about why that should be the case.

Ahh, there it is. You need to be convinced one way, or another. Why is this important to you is something I wonder? Certain parts of life leave me deeply unsatisfied as well.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Because 8 is the infinite symbol turned upright. All things flow through the 8. It has to be 8. 7th is Heaven/good luck, but plus one after that is 8 - the number of all/eternity. (9 is personal growth, and 10 is transcendence from that growth.)

[Exodus]

Because 8 is the infinite symbol turned upright. All things flow through the 8. It has to be 8. 7th is Heaven/good luck, but plus one after that is 8 - the number of all/eternity.

Yes

islamic-manuscript-illumination-2.jpg

[idontgiveaf]

Through his imaginationssss

[Singu]

You seem to think that the functions exist in people's heads? Is that right?

That's what Socionics claims.

Why does that unsatisfy you?

Does not even an animal, a pet, of any species excell above his/ her peers sometimes? Some dogs love to cuddle, some love to solve problems, some love to chase and bite. Are humans any different in this regard? I'm actually asking, that is not rhetorical.

Because that's a matter of software and not hardware. If a computer can perform specific tasks, then it's because specific programs have been installed on the computer that have been designed to do that specific task. If there's a specialized computer or a robot that can do specialized work, then it's because somebody has programmed it.

Hardware wise, all computers are fundamentally nearly identical, you can program an infinite variety of programs on it. That's because a computer is capable of computing any kind of computation that is physically possible. It's the same with human brains, our brain is also the result of a physical process. It's possible that somebody could program a mind or consciousness, if somebody knew how to program it. We just don't yet know how.

You could say that our brain is hardware with a mind that has been programmed by nature, as well as we could program ourselves, by learning new things or being influenced by the environment. So it's not as if somebody has specialized hardware that can perform things that other people possibly can't, even in principle. If somebody has thought of something, then it's possible that other people could understand that exact thing, just as somebody who knows how to program something can be programmed into the computer, if he/she knew how to.

Ahh, there it is. You need to be convinced one way, or another. Why is this important to you is something I wonder? Certain parts of life leave me deeply unsatisfied as well.

It's simply a principle of rationality that one should know why you should prefer something over the other. Why is my assertion better than your assertion, and so on.

[Jaqen]

That's what Socionics claims.



Because that's a matter of software and not hardware.

Explain the difference between hardware and software with people. You would be hard pressed in psycology to break apart which is psycology born from happenstance circumstances in a life and which was programmed beforehand when its about the topic of temperment personality. Some children are clearly prioritizing certain IE above others.

Sticking with the animal analogy, this idea its somehow software being programmed into their behaviour POST birth is silly. Some Dogs are clearly more rambunctious and territorial compared to others even before the onset of puberty changes. Others are more focused on pets and gentle caresses and not moving around much. And before you tell me that’s their brain chemisry, enjoying certain nerochemicals, it makes me wonder who really cares? Who cares what part it is or what part it is not? I mean no offence when I say that your desire to rationally build a framework for reality is actually your down fall here. Socionics, as a whole, not the parts, but as a whole makes no comment on wether or not the software or hardware is at play. Its not even necessary.

If a computer can perform specific tasks, then it's because specific programs have been installed on the computer that have been designed to do that specific task. If there's a specialized computer or a robot that can do specialized work, then it's because somebody has programmed it.

When you teach a dog to sit, or a horse to curve its head down when you trot, that is a software program. However, how fast and with what efficiency that animal picked up the cue is hardware. People are the same way. You could go into an old folks home right now and see a chatty smiley woman and a dour old hag and look back in time to see these same woman as toddlers and notice similarities in behaviour. As a Ni type yoursel(?) are you going to claim this simple observation escapes your notice? These are temperments, and although there is flexibility and maleability, its still observable. Right, right, but like why?! You cry. Socionics doesn’t concern itself with why. Like, get over it maybe?

Hardware wise, all computers are fundamentally nearly identical, you can program an infinite variety of programs on it. That's because a computer is capable of computing any kind of computation that is physically possible. It's the same with human brains, our brain is also the result of a physical process.

Ah yes, the current sociatal paradigm of we are all the same and everything is like relative, man. If only we were like all given like the same opportunities we could all like be Olimpic Athletes and like all like be grey androgynous hairless beings with like the same everything.

Not all human brains are rhe same as they will tell you-> they have been cracking open skulls for years and measuring and weighing and counting every minutuea they find. So no, the brain being a physical process for its conception does not make carbon copies of itself what so ever, actually outside of modern manufacturing, very little in reality is very nearly perfectly identical. You should hang out with some Te peeps more often who build and do stuff, as they can try to demonstrate this for you.

It's possible that somebody could program a mind or consciousness, if somebody knew how to program it. We just don't yet know how.

No, the singularity will never happen, because consciousness is not intellence. They will try and tell you consciousness arose from trial and error and that its more of moving waves across the Cerebrum and maybe that memory is locked away in that neurone, or maybe THAT one and oh fuck we actually don’t really have a map. Consciousness is immaterial, and it will take more than a material understanding to create one.

You could say that our brain is hardware with a mind that has been programmed by nature, as well as we could program ourselves, by learning new things or being influenced by the environment. So it's not as if somebody has specialized hardware that can perform things that other people possibly can't, even in principle.

In a perfect world and all things being equal. Even then nobody would still be the same and able. How do I know this beyond any doubt? Because that is HOW IT IS IN REALITY, right now, today, right outside that doorway of your bedroom. Multiplicity.

If somebody has thought of something, then it's possible that other people could understand that exact thing, just as somebody who knows how to program something can be programmed into the computer, if he/she knew how to.

True, true but keeping with socioncs here, ofc people can learn something from any IE, but like keep it up? Keep doing that and prioritizing that for the next 50 years bud. And like keep doing it so well that you actually bounce and attract others and convince them forever and ever and you do it with conscious control and all while maintaing the health and well being of your heart and mind against its inborn inclinations, because without that health the house of cards is a gonna crumble anyway and its all going to be taken out of your hands and you are going to learn maybe you are not the captian of the ship to begin with and who was running the show anyway?

It's simply a principle of rationality that one should know why you should prefer something over the other.

I agree, for inquisitive minds this is important.

Why is my assertion better than your assertion, and so on.

The rational alert problem solving mind. Yes, freed humanity from religious dogma way back during the Enlightenment, but look where its brought us.. so disconnceted from naturescope and grubbing our way across the beautiful garden we found ourselves in. Sad really.

[Singu]

Some children are clearly prioritizing certain IE above others.

When does it become not prioritizing certain IEs or whatever? The definition of "prioritizing certain IE over others" can be fit into virtually any situation, and it can never be refuted, so this isn't particularly an insightful information. You might as well say that a person is capable of a whole host of different behaviors, which is true, but not particularly very enlightening. And what about the appropriateness of the situations? Why would anyone prefer "logic", in situations where emotional investment is required, and vice versa? Are "feeler" types doing nothing but emoting, even in situations where logical skills are required?

And before you tell me that’s their brain chemisry, enjoying certain nerochemicals, it makes me wonder who really cares? Who cares what part it is or what part it is not? I mean no offence when I say that your desire to rationally build a framework for reality is actually your down fall here. Socionics, as a whole, not the parts, but as a whole makes no comment on wether or not the software or hardware is at play. Its not even necessary.

Right, right, but like why?! You cry. Socionics doesn’t concern itself with why. Like, get over it maybe?

Ok, and who really cares why an apple falls or whatever? The problem is that if you don't ask these questions that create problem-situations, then you can never create any new knowledge. Laws of physics were discovered because people asked these questions. People wanted to solve problems, and not just to observe and write down people's temperaments or whatever.

You on the other hand just want to be mystified and bask in ignorance.

No, the singularity will never happen, because consciousness is not intellence. They will try and tell you consciousness arose from trial and error and that its more of moving waves across the Cerebrum and maybe that memory is locked away in that neurone, or maybe THAT one and oh fuck we actually don’t really have a map. Consciousness is immaterial, and it will take more than a material understanding to create one.

Are you claiming that the brain is anything other than a physical process?

[Jaqen]

When does it become not prioritizing certain IEs or whatever? The definition of "prioritizing certain IE over others" can be fit into virtually any situation, and it can never be refuted, so this isn't particularly an insightful information. You might as well say that a person is capable of a whole host of different behaviors, which is true, but not particularly very enlightening. And what about the appropriateness of the situations? Why would anyone prefer "logic", in situations where emotional investment is required, and vice versa? Are "feeler" types doing nothing but emoting, even in situations where logical skills are required?

That's half the fun of it, trying to figure it out. I claimed over and over and over that socionics is art. It will never be science. I'm alright with this fact right dur.

In all seriousness to figure that out you need to discern and interpret as objectively as you can to see causes/reactions/action.

Ok, and who really cares why an apple falls or whatever?

They don't know why mass gravity bends space time. Funny how its the same as socioncs. Funny how its the same with the Higgs Boson -> they will never know what's inside a blackhole -> why does the stars in the arms of a galaxy spin as fast as the center. I'm not uncomfortable with the mystery.

The problem is that if you don't ask these questions that create problem-situations, then you can never create any new knowledge.

The only one who is having a problem-situation is you. If it bothers you I will be happy to support you in your quest to create a Grande Unifying Theory of Socionics.

Laws of physics were discovered because people asked these questions. People wanted to solve problems, and not just to observe and write down people's temperaments or whatever.

Physics won't solve reality. Get familiar with the Quantum Theory issues as they stand. It's a convulted dead end.

You on the other hand just want to be mystified and bask in ignorance.

Mystified, yes, ignorant, not at all.

Are you claiming that the brain is anything other than a physical process?

No the brain is physical. It is a physical processor. If you follow this all the way to the end conclusion, all you or, I or, anybody else is is just the transferring of energy until the body mechanisms become degraded enough and you die.

The Void really. The inside of the Singularity. A place matter cannot go. A place 'you' cannot go. What we are -> is Emptiness inside the form. Fucking scary shit. Gaaaaaaaaa

It's where I stand in my own life, poised forever it seems on the event horizon, afraid to fall in. All time ceases for those watching. Here and yet not here.

Fuck sorry, sorry, I forgot be more mainstream, yes matter is God and this is a material Universe and I am a material boy. Let's burn the garden and make a buck cause its my anthropologcal human nature to do so which evolved from social tribal groups on the African Horn. Where's my seritonin and where is my dopamine and how do I gets me ma daily dose of caloric intake?

[Singu]

That's half the fun of it, trying to figure it out. I claimed over and over and over that socionics is art. It will never be science. I'm alright with this fact right dur.

In all seriousness to figure that out you need to discern and interpret as objectively as you can to see causes/reactions/action.

Well you can never figure it out really, due to the property of the information being seeked. How useful is an information, if it fits into virtually any situation? You might say that this catch-all information is very good since it can fit into a variety of things, but it's the opposite really because you're not really getting anything out of it, other than that it fits into a variety of things.

They don't know why mass gravity bends space time. Funny how its the same as socioncs. Funny how its the same with the Higgs Boson -> they will never know what's inside a blackhole -> why does the stars in the arms of a galaxy spin as fast as the center. I'm not uncomfortable with the mystery.

"There's gravity due to the curvature of spacetime" is better than no explanation, or Newton's explanation, or any other explanation, and that's why it's preferred. We don't necessarily need to know the why of that, even though we're seeking the answer to the why.

[Jaqen]

Well you can never figure it out really, due to the property of the information being seeked.

Some people are better then others. It involves stopping the world and seeing. Do you have what it takes?

How useful is an information, if it fits into virtually any situation? You might say that this catch-all information is very good since it can fit into a variety of things, but it's the opposite really because you're not really getting anything out of it, other than that it fits into a variety of things.

Could be very useful, even if it fits many situations. That is for you to decide, or not. The utility of multitool extends past one object needing to be worked over.

"There's gravity due to the curvature of spacetime" is better than no explanation, or Newton's explanation, or any other explanation, and that's why it's preferred.

But WHY I want to know WHY, tell me WHY, don;t tell me because, that's just an observation and its not good enough. I need to know the WHOLE SHE-BANG. You can't and that means gravity is stupid as its not even a thing. I don't care which is the better explanation if it can't even explain the first cause.

We don't necessarily need to know the why of that, even though we're seeking the answer to the why.

Oh....really?

What. So it's physical?

The brain itself, yes. And spiritual. Or above, or however you want to call it. The Materialists call it a clever illusion. The Religious, duality. Is your opinion on it so well formed that you could say with utter certainty you have THE ANSWER...?

I'll tell you one little secret I learned after possibly 12 years of my own search for these questions we are discussing:

The mind is ALWAYS one step behind what is happening. You are in this grand flow, dude. You can paddle it as well as you possibly can, but you will never get in front of the current. You are along for the ride.