The Memory Model of Atkinson and Shiffrin (along with the changes in timings) and Socionics' Elements excellently fit together. Here's how:
Socionics: It's All in the Mind
The Memory Model of Atkinson and Shiffrin (along with the changes in timings) and Socionics' Elements excellently fit together. Here's how:
Originally Posted by Azeroffs
I like playing on words. Especially when I can say "but it IS all in the mind!!!"
I know that the information can be presented far better than I had done. Taking 30 minutes worth of information and examples and compressing it into 1 10 minute video that won't completely turn people off...and doing it all by one's self is...um...daunting, to say the least.
That's fascinating. Not to mention very well presented! I'll have to study Atkinson and Shiffrin further.
Quaero Veritas.
Why would the concepts related to the memory model from the video offer strong support for socionics (even in assuming that you accept the aspectonics-laden approach)?
Even assuming that there are some psychological processes relevant to socionics which could be differentiated by the various different types of memory presented by the Atkinson and Shiffrin model, it would perhaps be reasonable to say that it puts forward a potentially plausible mechanism by which certain kinds of socionics phenomena might operate. It hardly implies the inherent correctness of these constructs.
Of course, my personal view is that there are many more basic problems -- among them, the different types of declarative memory and the processes described for forming new memories are so general as to be inapplicable to socionics and are sort of basic, universal biological processes that couldn't much differ among different personality attributes (though I don't know of anyone has done this research, I'd be interested if anyone had).
Another problem is that I find all of the aspectonics-related material that essentially formed the socionics content of the video to be mapped onto different memory strategies completely worthless socionics material, but I'm less concerned with this point.
I regret to note that you think so.Are you aware that you come off really condescending?
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I don't think the point of her presentation is to "prove" Socionics through this model. What she is trying to show is that Socionics has viability because it fits in well with what is already established model of memory and information processing in the field of psychology, that is, something that's already going through testing and being applied in achedmia. The problem is everyone dealing with Socionics should know this model, along with other information in cognitive psychology. What ann is trying to do is show how Socionics fits into academic psychology, and if she developed her idea more, she actually has grounds on how to test for Socionics, which would be through terms and a method already established and used in the psychology field.
This particular model is very specific and not something I would expect most people with a passing familiarity in mainstream cognitive psychology to be aware of.
Assuming you could test for the memory characteristics in that model (I have my doubts about that), and assuming that the model she's referencing is indeed "established and used in the psychology field," whatever that means (What I mean by this is not that absolutely nobody within the field of psychology uses this model, clearly someone does. But there are a whole lot of garbage theories within psychology, and a whole lot of clinicians practicing their own variations on existing theoretical material... basically, the field is not one where a theory is tested and suddenly accepted and known by every practicing psychologist)
Last edited by norph; 07-06-2010 at 02:00 PM.
Oh definitely, it's pretty much one of the most popular models. If you have taken a psychology class, such as developmental, memory, cognition, etc, you will be taught this. I wouldn't be surprised if this was presented in Psych 101 if memory was brought up. I'm not even a psychology major and I've seen this model twice in the intro classes I've taken, and talk about it with my best friend who is a psychology major, and she isn't even specializing in cognition. So it's something anyone in cognitive psychology should know. This could be something really current, as I've only been in college for the past 4 or so years, but this came out in the late 60s, it's definitely had time to permeate education.
Removed at User Request
Yes, you're right. I'm wrong. I took "the model" from Atkinson and Shiffrin (I don't remember names) to basically encompass the entire theoretical content from her video, including the various different classifications and kinds of declarative memory which is mostly what the socionics-related content in the video is about, and that stuff is very specific and not anything like I learned in cognitive psychology classes.
Removed at User Request
There are some things in there are drawn from other sources within cognitive psychology that she presented, yes, I think I was pretty much aware of everything until it got up to declarative memory. I'm going to go research that on my own, but the reason I brought up the importance of knowing this model is because every should now how information actually is known to be observed, processed, and stored when they talk about Socionics, since Socionics has to do with information recognition. Ann did it one way by presenting how Socionics fit in with declarative memory, but someone else could also tie in the aspects of IEs and what goes into long-term memory, what is recalled, etc. I also find the separate type of memories (sensory and abstract) to be quite interesting, and while it might seem like typical rhetoric here, there isn't much discussion of how it's actually going on in your brain.
I would say the beef here is the lack of a true grasp of the basic foundation of Socionics, which may or may not be efficiently explained by Jung, Ashura, etc. We don't know how Information Aspects, or just IEs, fit into the model already used, or at least, into the knowledge we already have of how information gathering and memory works. And this might be a community-specific problem as maybe there's more of an effort in Russia, but how something works will modify how we psychologically interpret it; it is possible that definitions will change because of what an IE actually is in the brain, for example, how ann tied each of the IEs to a specific section of declarative memory, she in fact is defining them in a particular manner that would exclude how some people interpret the IEs here. Along with that, a lot of the forum is more attuned to what they think are the manifestations or effects of the IEs, and not the IEs themselves, which is something a link to cognition should help if Socionics is indeed real. The examples of an IE does not define it, and as we can see in talk of information aspects, not a lot of people can define the IEs without the help of dichotomies. If there is going to be a stronger base for discussing Socionics, it would be in a similar manner as this video, linking it to science and showing where in our brainz this is going on.
As I suggested in the problems I described above with Ann's particular connection to this memory model, I don't think knowing about the various subcategories of declarative memory in this specific memory model is likely to be a promising way to empiricize the topic.
I would be very careful about trying to extend the definition of socionics to a theoretical point that no longer resembles how socionics is used in practice. I would not insinuate that redefining the ways that IM elements work is strictly a bad thing, but what makes this question so interesting is the degree to which existing work to find neural or functional correlates of personality traits has mostly led nowhere -- so ideally to do something along the lines of what you're suggesting, it should end up looking at least something like personality styles (which I believe socionics fundamentally is, and I suspect you would disagree) or else you've just answered a question that is not interesting to anyone (intertype relations aside because your supposedly measure is based on IM elements, and no reason empirically to assume that your newly defined IM elements will work out nicely).Ann did it one way by presenting how Socionics fit in with declarative memory, but someone else could also tie in the aspects of IEs and what goes into long-term memory, what is recalled, etc. I also find the separate type of memories (sensory and abstract) to be quite interesting, and while it might seem like typical rhetoric here, there isn't much discussion of how it's actually going on in your brain.
I would say the beef here is the lack of a true grasp of the basic foundation of Socionics, which may or may not be efficiently explained by Jung, Ashura, etc. We don't know how Information Aspects, or just IEs, fit into the model already used, or at least, into the knowledge we already have of how information gathering and memory works. And this might be a community-specific problem as maybe there's more of an effort in Russia, but how something works will modify how we psychologically interpret it; it is possible that definitions will change because of what an IE actually is in the brain, for example, how ann tied each of the IEs to a specific section of declarative memory, she in fact is defining them in a particular manner that would exclude how some people interpret the IEs here. Along with that, a lot of the forum is more attuned to what they think are the manifestations or effects of the IEs, and not the IEs themselves, which is something a link to cognition should help if Socionics is indeed real. The examples of an IE does not define it, and as we can see in talk of information aspects, not a lot of people can define the IEs without the help of dichotomies. If there is going to be a stronger base for discussing Socionics, it would be in a similar manner as this video, linking it to science and showing where in our brainz this is going on.
Taking in consideration your caution, there lies mainly two options for Socionics:
1. Socionics isn't real and is just another perspective that can be applied for interpreting interpersonal relations, similar to how you can take a philosophy or any school of thought and just be like "Well, what does this reveal for shits and giggles."
2. Socionics is tied to our actual cognition and therefore is viable through science, and needs to be tested on what's the truth and not exactly what the theory states.
Basically, I find you trying to occupy both camps in one statement. I don't necessarily go either way, but I can't see both as true, as one says Socionics is just a theoretical perspective, and the other says Socionics is actually the method we process information. It doesn't matter what Jung or Ashura said if option #2 (or maybe at all) is the case, because all that matters is what actually is.
Socionics as personality psychology would take away any claim it has on being biologically rooted, as no personality psychology is really taken much past option #1. MBTI is a clear example of personality psychology because it tests for observable personality traits, and those personality traits are what are central to the theory. It is less about WHY you're Extroverted or Introverted, it's the fact that you ARE Extroverted or Introverted, which is what personality psychology is all about. By having information processing as a part of Socionic's hypothesis, this takes it out of personality theory because it is claiming to predict HOW you thinking, WHY you're acting the way you do (like cognition, behavioralism, etc), which needs to be backed up by testing and finding out what actually is the case rather than holding true to a theoretical idea. I don't think Socionics can claim a causal relationship between IEs and function placements to personality traits, therefore I am not making the claim that neural connections decide your personality, though there is already science out on the shape of the brain and its connections and how it does affect your ability to do things that is seen as personality traits, such as multi-tasking (I believe you can easily look up this as it was a study done on how women can multi-task better then men [generally] because they have a larger space between the side of their brains, allowing better communication from one side to another, or something like that).
Just as a general impression from how you're reacting, I obviously don't have the means to prove or disprove anything, and yes, psychology is a massive enough field where people deviate from what is considered "academic" psychology. But there are links that makes everyone a psychologist, or researchers within the field, or else there would be no field. I don't think just because not everyone is strictly following one "true" method discredits what is being taught and researched in universities, though I do agree that you shouldn't consider your scholastic experience to be the "true" learning either.
As well, I haven't made any claims and I'm not directly agreeing or disagreeing with what Ann has presented as I haven't done my own research on the topic yet; you've brought it to that level which I'm not interested in because I'm not prepared to defend any claims nor did I express any wish to. What I was agreeing with is the method on how she's presenting her idea, that I think more focus on the science of cognition will further lend credibility to ideas presented around the forum.
Last edited by Mattie; 07-06-2010 at 03:51 PM.
Removed at User Request
I am busy now and will respond later.
Pinocchio:
How then would you suggest that a theory about how we process information be grounded? We ARE organic bodies that function through a complex system of "low-level nervous mechanisms". Yet you don't think those mechanisms would influence how we process information? Shall we pursue 'metaphysical grounding' instead?This is all a sham - with little exceptions here and there - trying to apply Socionics (as a personality typology and classification of information) to low-level nervous mechanisms.
* Model A itself says that N types have subdued S, and vice versa. Are you suggesting that Model A is making misguiding associations and implications?One of the graves implications of such simplistic associations is the misguiding view that Intuitive types have subdued sensory perception or that Sensory types are always aware of what happens.
* How often do we hear stories of N types being so caught up in what's going on in their minds that they constantly bump into things, don't notice the stop sign, forget to eat, don't notice the state of their clothing or their body odor, etc etc etc. Or stories of S types who don't anticipate the potential consequences of their behaviors, or don't enjoy academia, preferring instead the courses of Shop, Home Economics, Arts, Crafts, and with hobbies of weapons, driving, flying, sports, etc. You know, the kinds of activities that utilize processing sensory stimuli quickly and more than what's required for mathematics, research, psychology, etc (who's types prefer to spend most of their time in books or in their minds). Yes, these were simplisitc generalizations...but so are the socionics types.
* Socionics Types are stereotypes, and as such make use of simplistic generalizations. We know (or at least some of us have come to the conclusion) that people themselves are more complex than the Stereotypes. So it would be expected that the reality of how people process information is more complex than Socionics' stereotypes.
If you have an organic body, with an organic mind, than any information you process is done so via stimuli and memory. Our sensory perceptors allow us to obtain signals and cues from our environment. Our brain turns those signals and cues into information, this information is stored as "memories". These "memories" are triggered by future signals and cues, allowing for quicker processing and thus quicker reactionary responses to the stimuli.The type of information - information elements - does not depends on the stimuli or memory.
The combination of being stimulated by signals and cues, turning those signals and cues into information, and processing that information and/or reacting to that information is how we learn. How and what we learn in this way influences how and what info we find easier to deal with, which also influences how we behave, which influences our personalities.
There is no direct response. There is super fast unconscious processing that happens which may lead to a reaction, but if that unconscious processing doesn't take place, the body/mind won't feel compelled to react to anything. Stimuli has to stimulate something before it can be reacted to. But it doesn't have to do this consciously. In other words, this can happen outside of Working Memory. Heck, it never even has to pass through Working Memory.The direct response (so without much processing) to stimuli is, for example, a particular case where a person uses a Sensory function, but these functions are not limited to it, they're actually independent of low-lever sensation-response mechanism.
Not necessarily logic-related either.For example, a person who values an External the most (aka Sensing and Logic) would consider exclusively things that have a cause, a reason, but which are not necessarily sensation-related.
You've taken 2 types of "External" (S & T) and saying that both are T, but not necessarily S.
It's "external" as in S, and "external" as in T. You can have S, T, or ST.
"External" referred to "explicit": aka clear, direct, not vague.
S is explicit in the sense that if i'm looking at a tree, and i need to convey the tree to you, I can point at it, you can look at it, and perceive the tree 'directly' through your own senses. (Remember, S is both explict & involvement; you have to use your OWN senses to perceive that tree, you can't use mine.)
T is explicit in that, since it's abstract (as opposed to the involvement of S), we can DEFINE a concept, label something, or utilize a symbol when referrencing something. If we define it clearly enough, then other people will know what we are talking about. When we do this, we're using Semantics.
When dealing with an abstract concept, if we don't agree on the semantic label...or how to define the semantic label, then we'll (supposedly) offer supprting evidence as to why our definition or label should be the accepted one. However, if we're dealing with a concrete object, such as the tree, we can argue all we want about what to call that tree, but regardless of the label, we can point at the tree and uses our sensory perceptions to perceive that yes, that is a tree...a rose by any other name is still a rose. Too bad we can't do the same for abstract concepts (like the IM Elements as they currently are described).
What you're describing are some of the properties of the business man.Take for example the way Se is by social animals to evaluate the power of their peers. Seeing the business man with big gold rings or the white spot on the back of a male creates this perception of strength but this is caused by "internal stimuli" - to use that expression. Experience, memory, testing, is used in all the cases.
What those properties mean can be learned via experience, or via semantics (eg reading up that those properties mean "power"). (Or by experiencing the property (or result of the property) and then labeling that experience, and then later recalling that label and meaning without recalling the actual experience.)
Just because the meaning becomes 'internal stimuli', doesn't mean that an external stimuli focused person wouldn't make use of it. Model A says that we utilize ALL the IM Elements, but that for certain types, certain IM Elements are preferred or easier to process than others. Basically, Model A allows for an external stimuli focused person to also make use of internal stimuli...but their preferred (and default) stimuli will be the external stimuli.
'Testing' is just another word for obtaining experience.Experience, memory, testing, is used in all the cases.
Experience leads to "Sensory Memory" (the phase just before the Working Memory phase..not "Sensoric Memories") & Working Memory. If the experience is repeated and/or consciously processed, it gets linked into LTM.
So yes, "experience, memory, testing, is used in all the cases".
I said no such thing. What I've implied and sorta said near the end, is that you can combine these things: the stimuli, the organizing preference, and the LTM type. By combining these things, you can obtain the IM elements...., apparently you say that the information is separated into strict categories based on the temperament.
For example,
Ne would be along the lines of organizing the internal stimuli (N) to find the essence of something (Pe). (N + Pe = Ne)
Se would be along the lines of organizing the external stimuli (S) to find the essence of something (Pe). (S + Pe = Se)
Ti would be along the lines of semantics (T) organized by its sequence or structure (Ji).
Fi would be along the lines of personal experiences (F) organized by its sequence or structure (Ji).
(NOTE: Please don't get caught up in the semantics of the phrasing, the phrasing isn't set in stone, the purpose was merely to show that the organizing didn't refer to "temperaments" but to the IM Elements)
Except that the four ways of organizing information was something that a professional educational site references them as the four main ways of organizing information, and are the 4 main methods taught in educational institutions. As well as them fitting in perfectly with the socionics IM Elements of Pe, Pi, Je, Ji.The four ways of organizing information is a grave error again, ignoring the fact that there is no justification to consider those as "the fundamental four",
According to the Socionics Aspects:- Ej is not and can't be parts/whole - by definition, Extroverted information doesn't deal with fields (what makes those objects part/not a part of something) and Dynamic information doesn't deal with descriptive perception, but with events and interactions. Neither Te and Fe deal with structural information but with the effects of things. This category is Ji, if it can fit further in that concept - properties/qualities/relations are Ti and Fi.
J = discrete, divisible (aka digital)
P = continuous, integrity (aka analog)
Xe = objects
therefore:
Je = discrete objects
Pe = integral objects
So,
Correct that Je doesn't deal with fields, it deals with objects...and I stated that.
Correct that "neither Te & Fe deal with structural information". What makes an object part or not part of something is how those parts are sequences or structured together...aka Ji.
As you combine the parts into a whole, the essence of the object emerges...aka Pe.
How those parts transition or transform, how those parts change over time/space ...refers to Pi.
Yes, they all work together, no IM Element functions alone. Even Model A says that.
Properties and Qualities are, in Socionics, Pe (Ne and Se).
Socionics :: Information Elements "characteristics of objects"
Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2 "Se — Perception of the appearance and shape of an object; Ne — Perception of the inner content and structure of an object"
(sorry for the limited reference on this, I'm writing this up offline)
Transitions are continuous relationships that can be broken up into sequences/successions.- with transitions as Ip I agree, but only a particular case of it! Succession enters here as well.
Pi-> Ji -> Pi
And/or built up from sequences/successions into viewing the transitions as a whole continuous process.
Similar happens with Pe->Je->Pe.
The integrity of an object can be broken down into components.
And/or built up from the components into an integral whole.
Model A covers all this.
The IM Elements are components of Model A.
Model A is the semantic sequence/structure of the IM elements.
This forum is full of semantic arguments over the components of Model A. What does an IM element do? What's a manifestation of an IM element? How do we define the IM elements so that it's clear to everybody what's meant when we reference an IM element?
Why do we keep arguing over what the elements are or aren't?
Because Model A doesn't clearly define its components, nor are those components grounded into what an organic body actually does with information.
My understanding is that:
If socionics wants to be scientific, it needs to be testable.
Being testable means clearly defining whatever the hell it is you're wanting to test for.
And if that definition doesn't reference something concrete, then we're entering the realm of metaphysics and religion, yes?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't really agree with either end of your dichotomy. I see socionics as not either real or not real, but rather a model of cognitive processes (and, I believe, personality and life emphases and other things like that), and arguably a good one that organizes a number of interpersonal phenomena rather well. It would certainly be quite reasonable to simply say that the model is bollocks and merely for shits and giggles to see if it works well. It would also be reasonable to try to make testable predictions regarding socionics elements (for example, give people a test to see if they're Ne or not, and if they are rate the interpersonal compatability among five judges with some other guy who the researchers think is Si).
Thinking that socionics is just a system that either is scientifically invalid or else needs to be altered in order to conform to findings about the way cognition works makes no sense from my perspective, and ignores the fact that the kinds of observations that socionics tries to evaluate are well outside of the scope of what work has been done in the interpersonal differences in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience (which, as it relates to social dynamics or personality, is almost nothing as far as I am aware).
It seems to me that your desire to mold socionics to fit the reality of what actually goes on in cognitive processes is incredibly premature, and that socionics is as good a description as any of the relationship between cognitive filtering and social relationships.
That claim seems to presuppose that personality (in modern research, personality traits) is not a valid thing to be empirically measuring, which I completely disagree with.Socionics as personality psychology would take away any claim it has on being biologically rooted, as no personality psychology is really taken much past option #1.
Why is that distinctly separate from personality psychology? I find your apparent supposition that personality psychology can only consist in trait-based measures wholly antithetical to the nature of the field. This is probably our main disagreement.MBTI is a clear example of personality psychology because it tests for observable personality traits, and those personality traits are what are central to the theory. It is less about WHY you're Extroverted or Introverted, it's the fact that you ARE Extroverted or Introverted, which is what personality psychology is all about. By having information processing as a part of Socionic's hypothesis, this takes it out of personality theory because it is claiming to predict HOW you thinking, WHY you're acting the way you do (like cognition, behavioralism, etc), which needs to be backed up by testing and finding out what actually is the case rather than holding true to a theoretical idea. I don't think Socionics can claim a causal relationship between IEs and function placements to personality traits, therefore I am not making the claim that neural connections decide your personality
Yes, I agree.Just as a general impression from how you're reacting, I obviously don't have the means to prove or disprove anything, and yes, psychology is a massive enough field where people deviate from what is considered "academic" psychology. But there are links that makes everyone a psychologist, or researchers within the field, or else there would be no field. I don't think just because not everyone is strictly following one "true" method discredits what is being taught and researched in universities, though I do agree that you shouldn't consider your scholastic experience to be the "true" learning either.
The point though is that the kind of argument here rests very heavily on understanding functional or neuronal correlates of various cognitive processes. In my opinion, you (and others) have a sort of desire that socionics be framed in an objectively scientific way and modified as necessary to fit the underlying neuroscience. Unfortunately, however, to make that argument one cannot merely skim over the underlying neuroscience, and in my opinion the evidence that exists (to my knowledge) connecting the areas of neuroscience and personality (or the cognitive processes that I argue make up a fairly large portion of personality) makes little sense and offers very little satisfying explanation as to most aspects of why people are they way they are.As well, I haven't made any claims and I'm not directly agreeing or disagreeing with what Ann has presented as I haven't done my own research on the topic yet; you've brought it to that level which I'm not interested in because I'm not prepared to defend any claims nor did I express any wish to.
Yes, I appreciated the method of presentation as well and I think it was a somewhat interesting take -- but I did not find it as interesting as it might have been only because I had many problems with the interpretation of socionics that it put forward, and I don't believe that the aspectonics approach will validate any social/intertype component of socionics (however this is my hypothesis based on my own interpretations).What I was agreeing with is the method on how she's presenting her idea, that I think more focus on the science of cognition will further lend credibility to ideas presented around the forum.
That merely connecting the concepts, however, provides any support for socionics ignores the component of this process that asks for some manner of evidence to support theoretical models.
Removed at User Request
Pinocchio, after your post in http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/667074-post88.html, I thought I ought to make it clear that in this thread, I'm NOT not responding to you out of lacking "the common sense to answer when addressed even if it's not something necessary convenient", but because I chose to not respond to you because of the games you play.
In your first post, you twisted parts of what was said in the video, gave it a completely different meaning, and then chose to criticize those projected meanings. When I addressed those twists you had made, your next post then resorted to belittling comments of my self.
You claim that you are a logical type. As such, it's assumed that you logically knew that in the first post you were building strawmen to attack, and in the second that you were making ad-hominen statements. It's assumed that as a self-claimed logical type that you are aware when you break from logic. Since you chose to continue in that pursuit when it was convenient for yourself, I was left with the idea that you are willfully playing games.
I choose not to play your games with you.
Perhaps you'll find a more willing playmate elsewhere.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Removed at User Request
I've been ruminating on this for a while, and I have some thoughts:
1) The Semantic/Episodic dichotomy sounds a lot like the Abstract/Involved dichotomy. In particular, the link between Episodic memory and the "social arena" correlates with what I've observed regarding the Involved elements, i.e. Involved elements seem linked with social ability. NFs and STs both have 1 Involved element in their Ego, and both are fairly good at socializing. SFs have 2 Involved elements, and are superb at socializing (so much so that they're known as "Socials"). NTs have no Involved elements, and are terrible at socializing.
2) I'm not sure, but the External stimuli/Internal stimuli dichotomy seems like it should correlate with either socionics Internal/External, or again with Abstract/Involved. If the latter, this would imply a link between Internal stimuli and Semantic memory, as well as External stimuli and Episodic memory. I need to do more reading on this.
3) While "Transitions" seems like an excellent match for Pi, and "Sequence/Structure" seems fairly good for Ji, I'm not so sure about "Components" and Je. My concern is primarily that Je elements are dynamic, and the way you describe Components sounds pretty static. I could see it better as Pe than Je. Overall, though, I feel like I need to study these four (Essence, Transitions, Components, Sequence) more thoroughly before coming to any firm conclusions.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts I've had so far. I'm still working through it all in my mind, so don't take those as my "final answers" or anything.
Quaero Veritas.
The twists:
First post:
*Which I hadn't suggested...., apparently you say that the information is separated into strict categories based on the temperament.
* I had specifically stated that it dealt with discrete objects...not fields.Extroverted information doesn't deal with fields
* I never said Dynamic information dealt with descriptive perception. I never said it didn't either. I said that Declarative Memory deals what we can think about, talk about, write about, and read about. And then I linked the two different types of Declarative Memory with T and F.Dynamic information doesn't deal with descriptive perception
Second post:
* I didn't say that Intuition weakens sensory perception. I said that spending more time musing on internal stimuli, rather than seeking sensory stimuli would eventually weaken sensory-based memories, making them less detailed.As long as you think that Intuition weakens sensory perception, and implicitly Feeling weakens thinking, do you also consider that you, as an IEE, have a weaker capacity of reasoning than mine?
* I never said that Feeling weakens Thinking, nor did I associate "capacity of reasoning" with Thinking. What I DID do was associate SEMANTIC memory with T and EPISODIC memory with F, and then suggested that a person would tend to have either more semantic cues, or more episodic cues, to draw from during their reasoning process.
* What did you think "characteristics", "appearance", "shape", "inner content", and "[inner] structure of an object" is referring to if not the properties and qualities of an object?...and there's no such thing as "properties and qualities" = Se/Ne in your provided links,Properties and Qualities are, in Socionics, Pe (Ne and Se).
Socionics :: Information Elements "characteristics of objects"
Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2 "Se — Perception of the appearance and shape of an object; Ne — Perception of the inner content and structure of an object"
(sorry for the limited reference on this, I'm writing this up offline)
most recent post asking me for the above quotes:
* My assertions never suggested that an F type can't think logically. That's something YOU threw in there yourself. One of the conclusions of my assertions are that an F type draws upon Episodic cues when reasoning, while a T type draws upon Semantic cues. Nothing in that conclusions suggests that an F type can't think logically, nor that an F type is retarded in logic.The only thing that I could think you could find offensive would be the fact that "I concluded" that you can't think logically. FALSE I did not concluded such thing, that's a mandatory conclusion from your assertions, I don't relate to that view and it was just an example to point out the flaw in your statements. You suggested that an N type is retarded in senses, it implies, based on the same reasoning, that an F type is retard in logic.
On a side note, this misguiding view made some people (like Huitz, long ago) deny that they are Intuitive types: "I have fine senses".
* My assertions never suggested that an N type is retarded in senses. Only that an N type would focus more on internal stimuli than sensory stimuli, and that when they are calling upon a memory, they would have less detail in their sensory-based memories.
-----
Regarding the ad-hominem accusation:
Here I will apologize, as upon rereading your post there weren't as many as the aggravation upon reading this your post a few times had suggested.
which is a childish mistakeWhat I do know is that while I had seen you make belittling comments to others, you hadn't done it to me before in our conversations. And while reading the second post, something triggered an immense pissed-offness in me at the idea that you were starting to do that with me. What triggered that, however, can only now be speculated on, but it was probably the combination of feeling as if you'd been twisting what I'd said, arguing against things I hadn't said, and then the above two comments as the final triggers.Only the amateurs make such confusions
-----
But finally, this is one of the things that bugs the heck out of me during these kinds of 'discussions':
* You asked me for reasons, I give you some of my reasons, and then you dismiss it all because . . . I gave you my reasons.You rationalized almost everything
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Krig and any other readers: I apologize for the large image below, I'm still having issues with getting the formatting right.
The problem with 1 and 2 is that the aspects help define the IM Elements. The aspects help us to see what parts of the mind/brain/experience that the IM Elements are referring to, and it's not a one to one correlation. (I may have said that last sentence wrong.) Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that, like the IM elements, the Aspects don't work alone.I've been ruminating on this for a while, and I have some thoughts:
1) The Semantic/Episodic dichotomy sounds a lot like the Abstract/Involved dichotomy. In particular, the link between Episodic memory and the "social arena" correlates with what I've observed regarding the Involved elements, i.e. Involved elements seem linked with social ability. NFs and STs both have 1 Involved element in their Ego, and both are fairly good at socializing. SFs have 2 Involved elements, and are superb at socializing (so much so that they're known as "Socials"). NTs have no Involved elements, and are terrible at socializing.
2) I'm not sure, but the External stimuli/Internal stimuli dichotomy seems like it should correlate with either socionics Internal/External, or again with Abstract/Involved. If the latter, this would imply a link between Internal stimuli and Semantic memory, as well as External stimuli and Episodic memory. I need to do more reading on this.
3) While "Transitions" seems like an excellent match for Pi, and "Sequence/Structure" seems fairly good for Ji, I'm not so sure about "Components" and Je. My concern is primarily that Je elements are dynamic, and the way you describe Components sounds pretty static. I could see it better as Pe than Je. Overall, though, I feel like I need to study these four (Essence, Transitions, Components, Sequence) more thoroughly before coming to any firm conclusions.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts I've had so far. I'm still working through it all in my mind, so don't take those as my "final answers" or anything.
Basically,
external is explicit, clear, and unambiguous (or as clear and unambiguous as we can try to make it); both S and T are explicit IM Elements.
I can try to make Sensory information as clear and unambiguous as I can by having you experience similar sensory stimuli. For example, if I try to describe an animal as having grey wrinkled, hardened skin, large, big feet and big body, a few different animals may come to your mind. But if I show you a picture of that animal, or even show you the animal itself, your own sensory stimuli will help you to gain a clearer and less ambiguous understanding of what I'm talking about. Can't get much clearer and less ambiguous than that.
Or, if we are dealing with semantics...the words and symbols we use to represent something, and you don't understand a word/symbol that I am using, I can try to define it for you, to hopefully make the meaning of the word/symbol clearer and less ambiguous for you.
For example, if I'm talking about the amygdala, but you've never heard of it before, you won't understand much of what I'm saying about it. If I show you a picture of it:well, that doesn't really tell you what I'm referring to, not like the animal example above. So, to help make it clearer and less ambiguous for you, I'd have to define it for you.
If you don't know what nuclei, medial temporal lobes, and limbic system mean, the definition will still be rather vague and ambiguous to you. So, to make that more clear, I'd have to define those other terms, and so on. Or I could attempt to define some of the systems that it plays a role in, and define for you what that role is in each of those systems. Or, I could try to provide a scenario for you to experience it the effects of the amygdala yourself.The amygdalae are almond-shaped groups of nuclei located deep within the medial temporal lobes of the brain in complex vertebrates, including humans.[2] Shown in research to perform a primary role in the processing and memory of emotional reactions, the amygdalae are considered part of the limbic system.[3].
But the aim is to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible, by defining the words/symbols being used. In the case of the animal example, if you don't know what the word "rhino" means, I can show you the image and you'll have a clearer idea of what I'm referring to.
-----
internal is implicit, vague, and ambiguous; both N and F are implicit IM Elements
If I have an idea in my mind, I can try to describe it to you. It would be easier if I could resort to having you use your senses to understand it. Or I could use semantics to help define it. But in many cases, the idea is vague and ambiguous even in the person's own mind. Examples of this would be when someone says that they have an intuitive understanding of something, but they can't define it for you, can't give you their reasons for their understanding, etc. Some people refer to this as accessing the akashic records, or 'divine knowledge', or having a 'sense' or 'feel' for it. They don't know how they know, they just know. But unlike Semantic memory, they have a difficult time thinking about it, talking about it, etc except through some poetic analogies implying the information.
It's basically memories with weakened links or weakened cues that are being triggered, causing an internal stimuli that if attended to goes into working memory. But since the links or cues are weak, the information is vague and ambiguous.
The other way that implicit information shows up is, for example, when you ask me a direct question, wanting a simple semantic answer, but instead I give you a description of an event. The answer is implied in that event. But whether you find meaning in the description or not would likely depend on any cues that that event's triggering in your own mind.
With implicit information, the person giving it implies the information in what they say, or the person receiving the information infers it from what was given.
A decent example of this is the 'discussion' between Pinocchio and I in this thread. He inferred some things that I had not implied. I implied some things that he did not infer, or inferred wrongly. Why? Because the info I gave, while being as clear as I could make it at the time, was still vague and ambiguous.
Or, the common descriptions of the IM Elements themselves are vague and ambiguous. If they were well defined, people wouldn't be arguing as much about them. Some people resorted to the Aspects to help make the IM Elements more clear and unambiguous, but to some people, the Aspects are still vague or are even more vague.
(Note that Augusta was an alpha NT, alpha deals primarily with vague, ambiguous concepts, BUT those concepts are explicitly connected via Model A. Which is often why the current method of describing the IM Elements is through comparing/contrasting differences and similarities between the IM Elements, as well as describing them by how they work together. The Aspects help in comparing/contrasting the IM Elements..to help make the IME more explicit.)
-----
involved and abstract haven't been defined very well yet. But if we look at the elements that they apply to, we can get a sense of what they mean.
involved elements are S and F; it's often referred to as 'the experience' element
When we are trying to get information about concrete objects, we are having to use our senses, at least initially, else we wouldn't know there was even an object there. You can't use my senses, you have to use your own. So with S, you're personally having to be involved in obtaining that information or the stimuli.
For those who view F as emotions, it would be the emotional experience of the person involved.
For those who view F as ethics, it would concern the emotional experience of the people involved.
And for Episodic Memory, it yet again concerns personal experiences. Tied to that is how emotions are an aid in creating episodic memory, and the resulting social (and hence ethical) structures created by the sharing and exchanging of personal experiences.
-----
abstract elements are N and T; sometimes referred to as 'detached'
The words and symbols we use are abstract, it's not THE thing, but a symbol of the thing. There are gradations of how abstract something is.
These two sites say it better than I could:
Levels of abstraction
Levels of Abstraction
the first link saysN is often associated with 'ideas' or 'conceptualizing'. Instead of dealing with concrete things, we are dealing with the ideas or concepts of those things. In terms of the video, we are dealing mainly with the triggered memories of an idea or concept.At the conceptual level of communication, we talk about ideas and thoughts we have had. Concepts include our beliefs, values and schemas. These are internal constructions that are abstracted away from reality, although we often mistake them to be that reality they represent.
Words are effectively concepts in the way they are little packets of meaning by which we try to communicate. Concepts can be accepted or rejected, however and the same word may be interpreted differently by different people.
When I listen to your experience, I receive it as a concept and hence can evaluate it and put my own interpretation on it. When we communicate, much of what we say is conceptual, which is one reason why communication is so difficult.
N is also implicit. We can imply ideas, or infer ideas.
When we attempt to communicate those ideas, we do so by some kind of language or symbol for the idea/concept. We are trying to make those ideas more explicit, more clear, less ambiguous. Explicit + Abstract = T.
For example, I've had the ideas in the video for a while now, but nothing really clear in my head. I just kept "looking" in that direction, but without actually making the explicit connections, nor having terminology for the ideas. But when I went through the process of making those ideas more explicit, the ideas became more T-ish. To communicate those ideas, I was having to draw on semantic memories. Now, I don't have many semantic cues. I've often said that I don't have a high vocabulary. This makes the communication of those ideas quite poorly done. As one person suggested, childish and amateurish. The more I attempt to communicate the ideas, however, the more semantic cues I wind up putting into Semantic Memory.
In terms of abstraction, perceiving the ideas would be linked with N, communicating the ideas would be linked with T.
(other threads where I've gone into the involvement vs abstract aspects:
Aspectonics: 'the involvement'<----------->the abstract - Socionix
New Element Symbols - Socionix )
-----
as for number 3:
I'm aware that I'm at risk of describing a Je element in a static way. But try thinking about it this way: those components aren't worth much if something isn't being DONE with them. If they aren't being put together into a whole, or being pulled out of a whole, or aren't moving around in some kind of system with other components, then they are virtually worthless. I mean, they HAVE to be a PART of something, not standing on their own.3) While "Transitions" seems like an excellent match for Pi, and "Sequence/Structure" seems fairly good for Ji, I'm not so sure about "Components" and Je. My concern is primarily that Je elements are dynamic, and the way you describe Components sounds pretty static. I could see it better as Pe than Je. Overall, though, I feel like I need to study these four (Essence, Transitions, Components, Sequence) more thoroughly before coming to any firm conclusions.
Like in the video, the physical components of the VW Bug don't mean much in and of themselves. Their meaning comes from what they do for the VW Bug. An engine is a component of a car, but it's worthless unless it's engine-ing something. A muffler is pretty worthless unless it's muffling something. In socionics, the individual IM Elements are worthless unless something is being DONE with them...unless they are being processed. Even in terms of Memory, the memory is forgotten if something isn't done with it. The links get weaker, it becomes harder to access, until the brain does whatever it does that dumps the network so that a more useful network can be created. In terms of Episodic components, the individual components, the people, the place, the objects, the actions, don't mean much unless they are interacting in some way. And even the bits of body language, the eye contact, the heated face, the turning away, etc don't have any meaning except in how they relate to the event/episode, (which is usually an interaction of some kind, else those components wouldn't have occurred).
Does that help show how Je's Components are more Dynamic?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 07-11-2010 at 03:00 PM.
The more obvious relation is to Static and Dynamic respectively, imo.1) The Semantic/Episodic dichotomy sounds a lot like the Abstract/Involved dichotomy. In particular, the link between Episodic memory and the "social arena" correlates with what I've observed regarding the Involved elements, i.e. Involved elements seem linked with social ability. NFs and STs both have 1 Involved element in their Ego, and both are fairly good at socializing. SFs have 2 Involved elements, and are superb at socializing (so much so that they're known as "Socials"). NTs have no Involved elements, and are terrible at socializing.
Semantic memory/cognition is all about identifying the stable and persisting factors that lend consistency to the episodic content that one superficially registers as inputs compete for recognition in the perceptive system. This sense of consistency and stability is what Static is all about.
How would you explain the difference between Dynamic/Irrational/Field and Static/Rational/Field under this interpretation?
One interpretation of "object" necessitates that it is something existing in a reality outside of the observer and independent of his/her observations of it. How is this view reconciled with the programming analogy?
I'm sceptical of the distinction between Haecceity and Quiddity. It seems to me that attributes that make an object "uniquely itself" the way an haecceic property would are only such because the combination in which said property occurs is uncommon to the point of not lending a basis for comparison with other objects. Once more objects in said combination occur, one would would be able to define said previously unique combination as yet another common class.
Removed at User Request
For the record: Object/Field is bullshit. It is predicated on Jung's objectivity and subjectivity of functions, which in turn is predicated on an interpretation of the two terms that confuses two forms of objectivity and subjectivity (ontological and epistemic, to be precise, which are in no more than sketchy ways related). The only way to distinguish between the two types of information is to use Rational/Irrational and Static/Dynamic. Since you are explaining your terms using Object/Field only, you seem to have a serious problem.For the record: Irrational and Rational are redundant; they also cannot be applied to types of information, but to psyche functions.
Removed at User Request
Just because I don't respond to something, doesn't mean it's clarified or agreed to.
As I stated in the video, Model A covers two parts, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Neither approach is a wrong approach, though some people would prefer to start with one approach before working towards the other. Model A guides us into how those two parts influence each other. And, as I also stated, I start with intrapersonal. So yes, I've already implied my intent to get into how the intrapersonal part influences intertype relations. But I can't get into it until I've been as clear as I can be regarding the intrapersonal part. iow, if you object to this part, you'll automatically object to the interpersonal part.I also recommend you to ask yourself how can that explain these social values which are type or quadra related.
Just as our interpersonal relationships are influenced by our intrapersonal aspects, so to are our intrapersonal aspects influenced by our neurology and experiences.Ok, np. I'm not trying to take on you, but to present my almost total disagreement. I was reading and valuing your writings some time ago, before taking this speculative path and making attempts to transform Socionics information theory into some sort of neuroscience.
In terms of information: how we share/exchange information with others is influenced by how we process information within ourselves, which is influenced by our neurology and experiences. You may choose to 'forget' this, but I, currently, prefer to 'attend to' this. :wink:
I've never suggested that my interpretations are indisputable truths. I do not approach information exchange in the same way as you do, nor with the same intents.I hope that you're not suggesting that having one's personal interpretation, even if incorrect, justifies him/her to promote his own indisputable version of the truth.
Just as we build or break social connections by the sharing and exchanging of experiences, so to do we build or break theoretical connections by the sharing and exchanging of ideas and data. That's what this thread is part of: me sharing some of my ideas regarding Socionics and Model A.
If my ideas counter your ideas, then it's a mismatch of interpretations.
If my ideas were to have matched your ideas, then you would consider it an 'objective truth', when really all it would have been would have been a matching of interpretations.
(Obviously our interpretations don't match. Neither, it seems, do our intents.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think there is confusion regarding 'sensory stimuli' vs 'sensoric memories'. I'm open to changing the term "sensoric memories" to something less confusing, as long as its actually referring to the same concept.
Over any given moment of the day, our mind is bombarded by both external stimuli (as perceived by our senses) and it's own internal stimuli (memories constantly being triggered). The amount of this perceptual info is large, but most of it is not used, attended to, or even acknowledged. Because of the amount of perceptual info available, it behooves the mind to only retain this info for a very brief amount of time, but long enough for us to 'decide' if it's important enough to process. In other words, long enough for us to actually attend to it or not.
The large amount of information, retained for a very short time, enables us to gain a continuous and stable-ish view of the world. The world doesn't stay still, it keeps moving. That movement causes more stimuli to hit our senses. And since there is constant movement in our environment, there is constant sensory stimulus hitting our minds. If a person were to attend to every single sensory stimuli, their brain would overload and/or shut down.
Similar happens with internal stimuli. The brain is never at rest, it is constantly processing stimuli from both the senses, as well as triggered networks/memories. External stimuli triggers internal stimuli, and internal stimuli triggers internal stimuli. One little trigger can cause a multitude cascading effect of triggers. But it's never one little trigger. It's a bunch of triggers, happening each moment. We're talking less than a second. If a person were to attend to every single internal stimuli, their brain would overload and/or shut down.
How does our brain solve this issue of constant stimuli?
Attention and Working Memory. By attending to some information, and forgetting other information.
But attending to some information does not stop the stimuli and triggers from still happening. At any given moment the stimuli are still happening. Attending to a handful of stimuli doesn't retard the reception of other stimuli. But attending to that handful of stimuli blocks consciously processing that other stimuli. The brain is still receiving the other stimuli, and processing it, but it is too much for a person to consciously attend to every single stimuli and trigger.
When we attend to information, some of that info is external stimuli, some of it is internal stimuli. We do not attend to only external stimuli nor only internal stimuli. We attend to a combination of both external and internal stimuli.
The ratio of each, at any given moment in time, might be dependent upon the situation, the intent, the interest/need, and the level of familiarity/unusualness.
By similar token, the kinds of situations we willingly place ourselves in and the interests we pursue will ask for certain ratios of each stimuli. But this preference does not mean that reception of the other stimuli is deficient.
However, this preference for situations requiring certain ratios of stimuli does influence our personality, including what kinds of information we prefer to process, and which kinds of interactions we might be more successful with. But again, this preference does not mean that reception of either type of stimuli is deficient.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
