I relate to most of that.
Before y'all jumps down my throat with ADHD being NTR, the way it's presented here could well be TR.
Funny Ne video
I relate to most of that.
Before y'all jumps down my throat with ADHD being NTR, the way it's presented here could well be TR.
Last edited by xerx; 01-26-2014 at 03:27 AM.
I don't think Ne has anything to do with attention span or forgetfulness, nor do I think the actors are ENFP. Honestly, the female strikes me as SLE.
She's SEE
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
If this is what an SXE is like, then you're doing it wrong.
Under absolutely no circumstance is that woman any kind of sensor. Even Jung's description of Se (let alone Socionic's) has, as its kernel, the full sensory awareness of, if not absolute mastery over, one's physical environment. Prime logistical capabilities are strongly implied in all ST profiles, moreover.
During the course of the past two days I
- searched frantically for my phone, only to realize that I left it in my car, which was at the mechanics (who was going to call me when it is finished)
- searched frantically for my keys (have not found them yet)
- killed my steam cleaner because I was incapable of reading the manual carefully (reading manuals makes my brain twitch)
- stabbed myself in the foot with scissors while trying to fix said steam cleaner (don't ask)
- got up three times during the course of two minutes because I forgot yet another thing
- forgot at least three times why I went to a different room. Twice it occurred to me later, but I still wonder why I went into the basement
- moved the deadline of a big project because I could not keep up
- started a new big project roughly three hours later
- started two emails that I still have to finish
- opened and closed the book chapter I absolutely have to read roughly 10 times (read a total of 2 paragraphs)
So this video made me both laugh and cry a little...
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Dude she looks interpretive/soft/intutive that is easily visible, a SLE wouldn´t even look close to that. except theOriginally Posted by Johannes Bloem
/
part which was correct on your side.
snapshot20140126051752.jpg
snapshot20140126051808.jpg
take a look at her chin for example, besides that her complete body is that way even the way she walks
Dual
18953725.jpg
Last edited by Zero11; 01-26-2014 at 03:44 AM.
1. This video is made-up. Who knows if this nameless actress is actually prone to forgetfulness.
2. An Se-ego is really just a person whose brain perceives and processes the "explicit static" properties of various "objects". But in case you disagree with my definitions, even the sociotype.com description of Se-leading disagrees with you:
The individual feels at home among people who are actively doing something and interacting with each other directly (visibly), and is able to organize people, move them around as necessary, and guide them in achieving a specific goal. He or she likes obedience and even subservience in others, since it allows him to "make things happen" more effectively. He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.He wants to make all decisions himself about what he will do, wear, eat, look like, etc., and resents any attempts by others to make these decisions for him. However, he is willing to make use of other peoples' ideas, advice, and creativity, as long as he plays the most visible role. He enjoys testing his will in challenging situations and views life as a sort of obstacle course, full of adversity and challenges, that must be weathered and conquered.- See more at: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/i....3EJpjNPj.dpuf
3. Here is the definition of "logistics":
Logistics is the management of the flow of resources between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet some requirements, for example, of customers or corporations. The resources managed in logistics can include physical items, such as food, materials, equipment, liquids, and staff, as well as abstract items, such as time, information, particles, and energy. The logistics of physical items usually involves the integration of information flow, material handling, production, packaging, inventory,transportation, warehousing, and often security. The complexity of logistics can be modeled, analyzed, visualized, and optimized by dedicated simulation software. The minimization of the use of resources is a common motivation in logistics for import and export.
Given this definition, can we really say that an ST with "prime logistical capabilities" is immune to forgetfulness?
Thats an Enneagram 8 description, didn´t you know that Socionics is flawed?
Furthermore, VI.
Here is a still picture of the woman from the video:
Here are some Filatova portraits of SLE that I think look similar:
lol socionics isn't flawed, people just don't understand it
That would make it just some Categorisation with very limited application in reality.
How many of them are really SLE and not just some further Socionics nutjobs based on theoretical assumptions?
No, these people are SEE:
A person's type defines his or her entire reality.
I believe them to be SLE. You can take it or leave it, though.
What? Even sensing people misplace their shit and forget what they're doing as they walk into a new room.
It´s not my intention to bend your view, eihter you realize it or you don´t and others will. Now that it is written on the Internetz it is accessible for everyone.
Who the actress is, is irrelevant to the OP, which was directly referring to her role in that vid (though I'm convinced she is intuitive).
What's the relevance of "explicit static" to what you just quoted? The quote doesn't touch on static anywhere, nor "explicit" ( I assume you mean external ).2. An Se-ego is really just a person whose brain perceives and processes the "explicit static" properties of various "objects". But in case you disagree with my definitions, even the sociotype.com description of Se-leading disagrees with you:
And that's a stupid definition of Se.
Everyone is prone to one or another aspect of the traits mentioned in the video. A function is better modeled as a cluster of traits. The video addressed more than just forgetfulness.3. Here is the definition of "logistics":
Given this definition, can we really say that an ST with "prime logistical capabilities" is immune to forgetfulness?
I'm not sure why you're bringing up some corporate definition of logistics, when the word is being used to refer to the management of the apparatus of day-to-day survival on a personal level.
They don't look anything alike.... VI ...
I lose my car keys at least once a day. They are found in the weirdest places. Like the fridge or under the couch. I just give a pouty face until someone finds them for me.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
She's a sensor, sorry.
"Explicit Object Statics" are properties like "weight, height, color, texture, pitch". "External" is the word other people use, but I think "explicit" makes more sense. How can we perceive something that is "internal"? We can perceive something as being "implicit", though.
I agree, hence why I define "Se" as "Explicit Object Statics".
A "function" is a neural network that processes information. A "set" of "functions" constitutes a "type", but "type" does not solely determine "behavior". "Behavior" is the result of all of the brain's operations.
What does "logistics" mean in the context of management of day-to-day affairs, then?
They look plenty alike, you're just being stubborn.
Right, those properties work together to form a complete and confident perception of the physical world, as in the exact opposite of the chick in that video.
I'd avoid making comparisons with real sciences (i.e. "neural networks") if you don't want to sound stupid.A "function" is a neural network that processes information. A "set" of "functions" constitutes a "type", but "type" does not solely determine "behavior". "Behavior" is the result of all of the brain's operations.
It means managing the amenities for survival, taking care to make sure that the smallest details are in order and properly organized. It means having a strong measure of pragmatism (hence the "pragmatists" club) and practicality, regardless of IQ or education.What does "logistics" mean in the context of management of day-to-day affairs, then?
They look nothing alike, you're the one being stubborn. The SLEs look solid, confident, in charge and in control, both over themselves and their surroundings. She looks like a wilted flower stuck in lala land.They look plenty alike, you're just being stubborn.
When is Socionics just going to shut its doors and turn off the lights? None of you can type anybody. Nobody use VI anymore. This is all shit.
Socionics -
the16types.info
No, it just means that an Se-ego will notice those things instead of noticing other things.
"Socionics" and "information processing" are both concerned at least in part with "cognition", and "cognition" happens in the "brain". Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for "Brain":
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????Information processing
The invention of electronic computers in the 1940s, along with the development of mathematical information theory, led to a realization that brains can potentially be understood as information processing systems. This concept formed the basis of the field of cybernetics, and eventually gave rise to the field now known as computational neuroscience.[74] The earliest attempts at cybernetics were somewhat crude in that they treated the brain as essentially a digital computer in disguise, as for example in John von Neumann's 1958 book,The Computer and the Brain.[75] Over the years, though, accumulating information about the electrical responses of brain cells recorded from behaving animals has steadily moved theoretical concepts in the direction of increasing realism.[74]
The essence of the information processing approach is to try to understand brain function in terms of information flow and implementation of algorithms.[74] One of the most influential early contributions was a 1959 paper titled What the frog's eye tells the frog's brain: the paper examined the visual responses of neurons in the retina and optic tectum of frogs, and came to the conclusion that some neurons in the tectum of the frog are wired to combine elementary responses in a way that makes them function as "bug perceivers".[76] A few years later David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel discovered cells in the primary visual cortex of monkeys that become active when sharp edges move across specific points in the field of view—a discovery for which they won a Nobel Prize.[77] Follow-up studies in higher-order visual areas found cells that detect binocular disparity, color, movement, and aspects of shape, with areas located at increasing distances from the primary visual cortex showing increasingly complex responses.[78] Other investigations of brain areas unrelated to vision have revealed cells with a wide variety of response correlates, some related to memory, some to abstract types of cognition such as space.[79]
Theorists have worked to understand these response patterns by constructing mathematical models of neurons and neural networks, which can be simulated using computers.[74] Some useful models are abstract, focusing on the conceptual structure of neural algorithms rather than the details of how they are implemented in the brain; other models attempt to incorporate data about the biophysical properties of real neurons.[80] No model on any level is yet considered to be a fully valid description of brain function, though. The essential difficulty is that sophisticated computation by neural networks requires distributed processing in which hundreds or thousands of neurons work cooperatively—current methods of brain activity recording are only capable of isolating action potentials from a few dozen neurons at a time.[81]
Right, but it doesn't necessarily mean "not being forgetful".
"Looks like a wilted flower stuck in lala land" doesn't tell me jack crap about her physical appearance. I'm talking about something like "facial biometrics" here, while you're talking about "vague metaphors".
read my posts. read Filatova's type descriptions and relation descriptions. read Gulenko. there is truth to all of this, it is just something you need to see for yourself. I can't teach you how to type, only you can figure it out.
Yeah... and those things were derived from the core definition of Se as having a strong physical component.
Cognition
First of all, Neural networks are simplified models of neurons and very primitive models of cognition.
Neural networks need to be trained -- through thousands of iterations -- to recognize predefined patterns set by the experimenters. They start out as a tabula rasa and have to learn everything from scratch. Jungian functions are filled out (with room for personal growth) from the get go.
I never said it was. You're the one focusing on it in a moronic attempt to nitpick.Right, but it doesn't necessarily mean "not being forgetful".
In addition to forgetfulness, the video touched on flightyness, flakyness, hyperactivity without purpose, inability to concentrate, inability to follow through, and so on. Traits, TAKEN TOGETHER, one could associate with an EP temperament, but not with the pragmatist's club.
Uh, no. VI is not some modern day phrenology."Looks like a wilted flower stuck in lala land" doesn't tell me jack crap about her physical appearance. I'm talking about something like "facial biometrics" here, while you're talking about "vague metaphors".
Last edited by xerx; 01-26-2014 at 06:14 AM.
Every "extroverted" function has a "strong physical component" because they all "perceive and process" information of an "explicit" nature.
Here is the definition of "explicit":
And here, for "implicit":1 a*:*fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication
So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes", and thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".1 a*:*capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed
The problem isn't that neural networks can't model cognition, the problem is we don't currently have the capacity to accurately model cognition, whatever "capacity to model" may entail. Anytime you see quotation marks from me, they basically mean "whatever this concept may entail".
Father Time and Mother Nature wrote our algorithms. As a matter of fact, we're still a work in progress.
Clubs r dum
It isn't about "how type characteristics seep through formal appearances", it is about "what specific bodily and/or behavioral characteristics correlate with a given type". When you say "type characteristics" you mean "type-specific behavioral and/or emotional characteristic", and when you say "seep through" you mean "are made manifest in". So basically, I could have an "angry chin" or a "rational earlobe" or an "irrational gait". You're classifying persons based on emotions that you personally associate with their physical characteristics. If by "phrenology" you mean "quack science", then I think we have a pretty good candidate for it in the form of "your conception of VI".
Last edited by Olduvai; 01-26-2014 at 07:18 AM.
"A new study challenges the popular idea that dysfunction in dopamine — a chemical that controls the brain’s reward and pleasure centers — is the main cause of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The U.K. researchers suggest instead that the primary cause of ADHD is found in structural differences in the brain’s grey matter."
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
dayum gurl u good
I have a lot of experience with "mental health".
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
"Whatever that may entail..."I have a lot of experience with "mental health".
I'm thinking rubber rooms and straight jackets. And Hannibal Lecter-style insanity.
I have studied it since my early teens because I wanted to know what makes people the way they are.
* A good book to read for anyone interested is "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat".
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
"Abnormal 'physical' or 'material' phenomena" -> "a man mistakes his wife for a hat"; "Normal 'physical' or 'material' phenomena" -> "a man is loving toward his wife"
I have studied it since my early teens because I wanted to know what makes people the way they are.
* A good book to read for anyone interested is "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat".
That book makes a great case against the idea that the "soul" bears any "humanlike characteristics". We can't associate any "personal qualities" with "souls" because "personal qualities" arise from "'physical' or 'material' phenomena" while "souls" remain "metaphysical" or "immaterial".
Allow me to re-quote since you apparently didn't read the first quote:
Theorists have worked to understand these response patterns by constructing mathematical models of neurons and neural networks, which can be simulated using computers.[74] Some useful models are abstract, focusing on the conceptual structure of neural algorithms rather than the details of how they are implemented in the brain; other models attempt to incorporate data about the biophysical properties of real neurons.[80] No model on any level is yet considered to be a fully valid description of brain function, though. The essential difficulty is that sophisticated computation by neural networks requires distributed processing in which hundreds or thousands of neurons work cooperatively—current methods of brain activity recording are only capable of isolating action potentials from a few dozen neurons at a time.
So the problem isn't the idea of neural networks, the problem is our inability to model them.
I just have to ask: did you pull this out of your ass?
Even if this definition is true, that lady didn't look very focused on the environment. Quite the opposite.
Neural networks are a poor facsimile of neurons, sorry.The problem isn't that neural networks can't model cognition, the problem is we don't currently have the capacity to accurately model cognition, whatever "capacity to model" may entail. Anytime you see quotation marks from me, they basically mean "whatever this concept may entail".
Father Time and Mother Nature wrote our algorithms. As a matter of fact, we're still a work in progress.
Not really, no. They're pretty foundational. Anytime you say someone is a sensor and logical, your saying that he or she belongs to the ST club.Clubs r dum
lmao? no, VI has nothing to do with physical characteristics. It has to do with the way people carry themselves, subtle gestures, the look in their eyes and so on. It's something highly subjective. I don't endorse it one way or the other, in case you're thinking that.It isn't about "how type characteristics seep through formal appearances", it is about "what specific bodily and/or behavioral characteristics correlate with a given type". When you say "type characteristics" you mean "type-specific behavioral and/or emotional characteristic", and when you say "seep through" you mean "are made manifest in". So basically, I could have an "angry chin" or a "rational earlobe" or an "irrational gait". You're classifying persons based on emotions that you personally associate with their physical characteristics. If by "phrenology" you mean "quack science", then I think we have a pretty good candidate for it in the form of "your conception of VI".
Whatever this is getting at, I'm pretty sure they were using ADHD as a tongue-in-cheek metaphor. The info is interesting though.
ha ha, no. neural networks have to be trained to recognize patterns. they start off with a random distribution of values which are adjusted (corrected) until the target pattern gets "learned". It takes many training steps for a network to learn to recognize a pattern.
jungian functions don't have to be "learned". they're inborn. you can learn to use them better via self-development, but they're not built from scratch.
Yeah, I got that!
I used it as an opportunity to slip in some info I find interesting on the subject. That's all.
carpe diem...
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
How?
Yes, but neurons are organized naturally into "biological networks", and those are what I'm referring to.
But all that classification tells us is that this person uses logic and sensing. Te+Si processes information differently than Si+Te, and even more differently than Ti+Se or Se+Ti. Remember, these are all individual algorithms.
"the way people carry themselves", "subtle gestures", and "the look in their eyes" are all "dynamic physical characteristics", while the "facial biometrics" that I mentioned are "static physical characteristics". "VI" involves both "static" and "dynamic" physical characteristics.
You're talking about "artificial neural networks", which are our second-rate approximations of the brain's own "biological neural networks". "Biological neural networks" are the networks I'm referring to. Here's some literature on the subject:
Also:2.2 Biological Neural Networks
The neural system of the human body consists of three stages: receptors, a neural network, and effectors. The receptors receive the stimuli either internally or from the external world, then pass the information into the neurons in a form of electrical impulses. The neural network then processes the inputs then makes proper decision of outputs. Finally, the effectors translate electrical impulses from the neural network into responses to the outside environment. Figure 2.1 shows the bidirectional communication between stages for feedback [Arb87].
The fundamental element of the neural network is called a neuron. As shown in figure 2.2, a neuron mainly consists of three parts: dendrites, soma, and axon. Dentrites are the tree-like structure that receives the signal from surrounding neurons, where each line is connected to one neuron. Axon is a thin cylinder that transmits the signal from one neuron to others. At the end of axon, the contact to the dendrites is made through a synapse. The inter-neuronal signal at the synapse is usually chemical diffusion but sometimes electrical impulses. A neuron fires an electrical impulse only if certain condition is met [Zur92].The incoming impulse signal from each synapse to the neuron is either excitatory or inhibitory, which means helping or hindering firing. The condition of causing firing is that the excitatory signal should exceed the inhibitory signal by a certain amount in a short period of time, called the period of latent summation. As we assign a weight to each incoming impulse signal, the excitatory signal has positive weight and the inhibitory signal has negative weight. This way, we can say, ``A neuron fires only if the total weight of the synapses that receive impulses in the period of latent summation exceeds the threshold." [Arb87].
Again, the problem is not with the "idea" of "neural networks", the problem is with our "limited capacity" to model them.Biological Neurons
The brain is principally composed of about 10 billion neurons, each connected to about 10,000 other neurons. Each of the yellow blobs in the picture above are neuronal cell bodies (soma), and the lines are the input and output channels (dendrites and axons) which connect them.
Each neuron receives electrochemical inputs from other neurons at the dendrites. If the sum of these electrical inputs is sufficiently powerful to activate the neuron, it transmits an electrochemical signal along the axon, and passes this signal to the other neurons whose dendrites are attached at any of the axon terminals. These attached neurons may then fire.
It is important to note that a neuron fires only if the total signal received at the cell body exceeds a certain level. The neuron either fires or it doesn't, there aren't different grades of firing.
So, our entire brain is composed of these interconnected electro-chemical transmitting neurons. From a very large number of extremely simple processing units (each performing a weighted sum of its inputs, and then firing a binary signal if the total input exceeds a certain level) the brain manages to perform extremely complex tasks. This is the model on which artificial neural networks are based. Thus far, artificial neural networks haven't even come close to modeling the complexity of the brain, but they have shown to be good at problems which are easy for a human but difficult for a traditional computer, such as image recognition and predictions based on past knowledge.
Now we're talking!jungian functions don't have to be "learned". they're inborn. you can learn to use them better via self-development, but they're not built from scratch.
Here's an interesting connection:
The neural system of the human body consists of three stages: receptors, a neural network, and effectors. The receptors receive the stimuli either internally or from the external world, then pass the information into the neurons in a form of electrical impulses. The neural network then processes the inputs then makes proper decision of outputs. Finally, the effectors translate electrical impulses from the neural network into responses to the outside environment.
+
So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes", and thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".
*buzzer sounds*
I award you no points.
To anyone wondering what the difference is between Te and Fe: this post is pure Te.
"Explicit Object Dynamics"
Because she's the queen of being oblivious.
Then why did you bring up the analogy with computers ?Yes, but neurons are organized naturally into "biological networks", and those are what I'm referring to.
You're talking about "artificial neural networks", which are our second-rate approximations of the brain's own "biological neural networks". "Biological neural networks" are the networks I'm referring to. Here's some literature on the subject:
Again, the problem is not with the "idea" of "neural networks", the problem is with our "limited capacity" to model them.
I think you need to read up more. Augusta broke up the eight functions into smaller parts: Extroverted Sensing is external statics of objects. Introverted Sensing is external dynamics of fields. The two sensing functions share the external dichotomy. Ditto with logic.But all that classification tells us is that this person uses logic and sensing. Te+Si processes information differently than Si+Te, and even more differently than Ti+Se or Se+Ti. Remember, these are all individual algorithms.
"Static traits" .. I think you mean facial characteristics.. run in families. They're inherited."the way people carry themselves", "subtle gestures", and "the look in their eyes" are all "dynamic physical characteristics", while the "facial biometrics" that I mentioned are "static physical characteristics". "VI" involves both "static" and "dynamic" physical characteristics.
Then again, to be fair, this is one [of a few] areas of Socionics where it's possible to conduct real scientific experiments.
Last edited by xerx; 01-27-2014 at 05:31 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
