Printable View
Attachment 14605Attachment 14606Attachment 14607Attachment 14608Attachment 14609Attachment 14610Attachment 14611Attachment 14612Attachment 14613Attachment 14614Attachment 14615Attachment 14616Attachment 14617Attachment 14618Attachment 14619Attachment 14620Attachment 14621
What do you think about this idea?
In theory, I think that there are some problems if used incorrectly - but this goes with any theory. The dichotomies used in socionics and MBTI were not empirically derived, meaning that they are not falsifiable. Hence, any empirical connection we try to make will only work in one direction. In other words, we can say that if one has xxxx dichotomies, then they will likely have these areas of their brain work the most (forwards causation), but we can't say that just because one has these areas of their brain lighting up, then they are likely xxxx type (backwards causation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
However, studies have shown that there are correlations between MBTI dichotomies and the five factor model (FFM) which was derived empirically1. Note: they used personality tests to determine how you fit in each model. You can see that the strongest correlation was r = -0.72 (|r| >= 0.7 considered significant) between FFM extroversion and MBTI introversion with others having less significant correlations.
Similar to the MBTI, these factors were not derived via brain scans but rather via factor analysis, which is certainly more empirical than MBTI but may not be enough to justify a backwards causation between brain scans and FFM since the latter was not derived from the former. However, the correlations found in this analysis would be more interesting and useful given that both brain scans and FFM are empirically based, meaning that, in theory, they should agree if each theory was developed independently. In other words, if factor analysis deduces that there exists 5 personality factors, then there should be consistency in which areas of the brain light up if two individuals fell closely enough on each factor scale.
The reason I bring this up is because this would be truly interesting research if done properly. It would allow us to quantify personality or determine that our current models are insufficient. But for interest's sake and very colloquial usage, these images you present are sufficient as MBTI is "close enough" to FFM for these purposes.
The next big thing to be aware of is that connecting the brain scan results to the cognitive functions would be a big leap. Cognitive functions are completely unempirical (as far as I'm aware), meaning that their connection to MBTI and socionics dichotomies are based on intuition and common sense, which isn't scientifically valid. So, if we look at a brain scan and notice that it's similar to the INTJ (ILI as well since apparently your pictures assume that the function definitions are the same between MBTI and socionics) brain scan prediction, and then correlate the cognitive functions to that brain scan, then we'd be far outside the domain of practicality since there is no practical reason to expect that there exists precisely 8 cognitive functions or that they should be organized in the way that we expect. Once again, though, for interest's and curiousity's sake, doing this is "good enough". But we should be very careful about the domains of our theory.
1) https://jfdeschamps.files.wordpress....am-2003-6p.pdf
Well, at least one study subject have shown to be irrational in socionics while rational in Nardi's system.
So called ISTP/LSI is pretty clear SLI IMO. So it could be the case those flipped. The problem is that those criteria are not compatible. Nardi's work is heavily Keirsey/MBTI influenced. I think Nardi is quite possibly LII and types as INTJ/ILI.
They look like (semi-)duals Vicky Jo being EIE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed8vwlA0LrA
As the test subjects are not available due to confidentiality, obviously, it makes it very hard to actually say anything conclusive.
yes, absolutelyQuote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Yes and no. Jung's Feeling, Thinking, Intuition and Sensing + Extraversion and Introversion are more or less scientific. Intuition corresponds to "The frontal lobe or prefrontal association complex ... abstract thought" etc. That is why we get 16 clearly different types. But if we want to define Ni, Ne, Te... then it is MUCH more difficult and less scientific. Neither socionists nor MBTI typologists have defined the functions accurately.Quote:
Cognitive functions are completely unempirical (as far as I'm aware), meaning that their connection to MBTI and socionics dichotomies are based on intuition and common sense, which isn't scientifically valid.
They are not identical, but white intuition (Socionics) is of course most similar to Introverted Intuition (MBTI).Quote:
So, if we look at a brain scan and notice that it's similar to the INTJ (ILI as well since apparently your pictures assume that the function definitions are the same between MBTI and socionics)
I disagree with you here. I think there is a reason to expect 8 cognitive functions, since we have 16 types. The types could be caused by different cognitive patterns instead, but then why would it be precisely 16 patterns?Quote:
brain scan prediction, and then correlate the cognitive functions to that brain scan, then we'd be far outside the domain of practicality since there is no practical reason to expect that there exists precisely 8 cognitive functions or that they should be organized in the way that we expect
I don't think Dario is using Rational/Irrational. He is using Judging/Perceiving (MBTI) instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
ISTP is "the mechanic" in MBTI. We should expect a strong correlation with the parietal lobe, which is shown in the brain map. And a TiSe type (mbti) must correspond to a white logic - black sensing type in Socionics.Quote:
So called ISTP/LSI is pretty clear SLI IMO. So it could be the case those flipped. The problem is that those criteria are not compatible. Nardi's work is heavily Keirsey/MBTI influenced.
I don't see LII at all.Quote:
I think Nardi is quite possibly LII and types as INTJ/ILI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGTFLxU3EsQuote:
They look like (semi-)duals Vicky Jo being EIE.
Vicky Jo is most likely an IEI / INFp (Socionics) or INFJ (Myers-Briggs).
I just want so say that I agree that Vicky is EIE. She has a lot of videos where her EIEness shows and her husband seems to be Ti dom.
Vicky seems D subtype
Well, there are ethically very inert LII's but there are also quite lively or even calming ones especially when they try to bring that Si forefront.
Today I met extremely inert one who was like Vicky Jo's husband but even more extreme.
IEs are classifications of brain programming and the brain has been shown to be plastic as far as information processing is concerned; different areas of the brain can take over many impaired functions. Therefore, wouldn't relating type to brain activities in specific physical regions imply non-plasticity? Software should be treated separately from the brain's hardware (core processors).
a.k.a. I/O
apart from ESTP and INFP, ENTJ and ISFJ, ESFP and INTP, that are somewhat complementary (=no brain departments in common), all the others duality or conflict pairs share at least one function, in the prefrontal cortex or in the occipital/temporal lobe.
I don't think the brain is that plastic. For example, logical reasoning is (always) dependent on the frontal lobe. And type descriptions refer to healthy/normal people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Here are some more brain maps:
Attachment 14697Attachment 14698Attachment 14699Attachment 14700
Idc how legit this is, brain scans are automatically superior to any other form of typing. It might make people shut up finally and stop causing needless confusion about things that how "that one thing everyone does sometimes is now ESI, and the other thing that everyone does sometimes is ILE but somehow also ESI sometimes"
I theoretically would type by realtime perception/focus and brain activity but I can't, so the second best thing is typing by eye movement- because the eyes are just a minor glimpse into the brain.
http://www.brainmaster.com/help/Posi...n_function.htm
Fp1 seems to be related to logical attention and Fp2 seems to be related to emotional attention.
http://www.insightsforchange.co.uk/a...es_Jul2012.pdf
All Feeling types have a dominant Fp2 in this article.
Certainty isn't the same as truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by chryskoru
SLI is the mechanic in Socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Actually the brain is not fully plastic. Quick example. Your visual processing areas will never be NOT in the occipital lobe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Some socionists think so, yes. Why? Because they define Te very strangely: "work", instrument, tool, mechanism etc. The problem here is that their definition of Te doesn't match their definition of Si.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
If SLI (SiTe) is the mechanic, then what is LSI? Accountant, administrator... with TiSe as ego functions? Really? It doesn't add up.
Se (Socionics): strength, power, will, effect, desires, tactics, appearance, weight, form, colour, beauty, territory, realization, to defend, to reach
Your job isn't necessarily always tied to your functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
LSIs are Ti dominants anyway, Se is just the auxiliary, so using the desc of Se to make your point isn't exactly correct.
Socionics is about cognition (the plastic parts of the brain), and type determines the 'type' of information that is processed from the senses. Yes, the visual processing area is part of the sensor and fixed liked the eyes but isn't part of cognition. A blind person wouldn't access this area but will still be of a certain type......:content:Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
a.k.a. I/O
Of course it isn't always tied to your functions. But "the mechanic" is more of a general description of this type.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
You can argue, like SSS, that SLI, LSI, LSE, ESE etc aren't about types at all, so there are no descriptions. But then your/their theory is pointless.
Yes it is. Ti is a judging function and Se is perceiving function, so Ti is always dependent on Se.Quote:
LSIs are Ti dominants anyway, Se is just the auxiliary, so using the desc of Se to make your point isn't exactly correct.
But cognition is still dependent on different physical parts of the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_processing
"Visual processing is a term that is used to refer to the brain's ability to use and interpret visual information from the world around us. The process of converting light energy into a meaningful image is a complex process that is facilitated by numerous brain structures and higher level cognitive processes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_lobe
V1 is probably the same for all types, though.
No, that would be a SLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
In a LSI it's the Se which is dependent on Ti, since Ti is the first function.
So a LSI understands the world through Ti and uses Se to apply his Ti to the world around him.
The creative variant of a perceiving function is different in its real-life manifestation if compared to the base variant, that's one of the main points of socionics.
You are missing the point. Ti is "blind" without a perceiving function (Se).Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
No, it's you who don't really understand how jung / socionics works - it's not related to perceiving the world in terms of smell, sight, and so on - it's about higher oder cognitive functions. People who are extremely focussed on introverted judging functions can still eat and take a shower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Yes I do... I am not talking about sight (V1, see above) etc... I am talking about higher order cognitive functions. In order to make any judgements, you need some kind of information. That is Se. Then you must match Se with Ti, so you must match strength, power, will etc with logic. However, that is not impossible. But matching socionics Te and Si is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
A person who uses primarly Se and supports it with Ti is a SLE in socionics...Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
You are still missing the point. Whether Se is dominant or not is irrelevant. Se must match Ti, and Si must match Te. Coziness, state of health, comfort... doesn't match instrument, tool, effectiveness...Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
It was only one example. I can give you more examples that definitely affect cognition directly. So for example, emotional processing that's Ethics information in Socionics is also in specific brain areas. Same for logical processing. Same for intuitive analogy based thinking. Etc. Ofcourse none of these are as simple as just 1 area = 1 IE, no no, it's several centres and connections on several levels (not just high level neocortex) working together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
It's not a "very strangely" defined Te, by "some socionists", it's basic Socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Socionics Si seamlessly integrates with Te actually... Si processes of the sensory "glue" for sensory relations between objects work very well with the Te approach for physical jobs etc. It isn't just about some bits of how to create physical comfort, that's just part of it.
Ti in Socionics is more "left-brained" than in MBTI so that's how it adds up for LSI and TiSe being the inspector in Socionics (whereas SiTe is the inspector in MBTI). It's about logically organising and structuring information in a strict way and is less directly physical than Si, so yeah the idea is that it works better for those office jobs. Though of course not just for those jobs. Even in MBTI they recommend physical jobs too for ISTJ like for any ST type.
Se creative in Socionics definitely works with all those things you listed, a mechanic is more about the "sensory glue" along with Te tools/mechanisms.
Ti isn't blind without Se lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
It just takes basic visual information (from the V1 etc that you yourself mentioned) and other incoming basic information and taking the information to a higher level in processing, it organises logically instead of fully immersing in the Sensing physical side of the information.
This is my take anyhow (and in a simplified way ofc)
As I have said many times, type structure has to be be independent of physical structure; the app can run on IOS or android and both operating systems would likely produce the same outcomes but not in an identical fashion. Type must be part of a so-called central processing structure (likely integral to its kernel); otherwise, one could end up with a N-type visual processor and a S-type audio processor; and if this is possible, say goodbye to Socionics theory......:content:Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
a.k.a. I/O
IOS and android devices both have the same basic hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Yeah, I think it's possible to have such decoupling of modules. Model A is only good as a general overview of some patterns and ideas, you can't *directly* draw from it any specific concrete conclusions. To make such a conclusion, you always have to add other reasonings in the process. And Model A cannot determine those additional things on its own. So yeah, goodbye to it in that sense, but that's a well-known thing I would think.
And to get more specific about your post, I don't think any of the general overview Model A provides can determine how the processing structure works in such detail, down to these modules you mention for examples. The model is too lightweight for that, it does not have enough information to explain the workings of the brain down to that detail.
No, it is not. SSS doesn't use type descriptions at all, and SHS (DarkAngelFireWolf69) seems to argue for ISTP <--> LSI in DarkAngelFireWolf69-Nardi Youtube videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
SRSI:
"Sensoric-logical introverts (SLI) are people preferring a bird in hand to two in the bush. Sensorics of sensing, being the strong function, gives SLI talent in everything that is connected with handwork. The particular feature of this type is creating comfort in their everyday life. They are good at design, furniture and have good taste. They like expensive clothes pointing out their high status. And it is really very high. Women, as well as men are able to organize a profitable business in commerce or production. And more, SLI are born cooks. The process of cooking for them is a kind of sacred ritual. The strong function of sensorics of sensing helps them here. Even if they do not have a villa in Canary Islands, but only a small house near Moscow, please, believe, they will manage to enjoy a morning jogging on dew, the smell of blossoming lilac and a mug of fresh milk."
This description corresponds to ISTJ (mbti).
LOL ... What is the other part?Quote:
Socionics Si seamlessly integrates with Te actually... Si processes of the sensory "glue" for sensory relations between objects work very well with the Te approach for physical jobs etc. It isn't just about some bits of how to create physical comfort, that's just part of it.
Okay, so SLE is also more suited for office jobs, according to you? :-) It doesn't add up!Quote:
Ti in Socionics is more "left-brained" than in MBTI so that's how it adds up for LSI and TiSe being the inspector in Socionics (whereas SiTe is the inspector in MBTI). It's about logically organising and structuring information in a strict way and is less directly physical than Si, so yeah the idea is that it works better for those office jobs. Though of course not just for those jobs. Even in MBTI they recommend physical jobs too for ISTJ like for any ST type.
So V1 is the perceiving function in your view? LSI: TiV1? ... or both Ti and Se are blocked with V1??? :-)Quote:
Ti isn't blind without Se lol.
It just takes basic visual information (from the V1 etc that you yourself mentioned) and other incoming basic information and taking the information to a higher level in processing, it organises logically instead of fully immersing in the Sensing physical side of the information.
This is my take anyhow (and in a simplified way ofc)
Now there’s an idea that hasn’t been tried before afaik. Attention time and eye movement in reaction to different kinds of stimuli.Quote:
Originally Posted by chryskoru
This is almost as good as monitoring brain activity.
I think the idea of monitoring areas of the brain trying to map it to IEs is silly. Or at least, Nardi needs to be more transparent about his methods because he’s shown to be scammy (like, really, not like WSS dude levels). Some of his work may actually be valid, but his presentation and delivery and the way he’s responded to criticism makes it invalid.: https://amp.reddit.com/r/mbti/commen...t_introverted/ , http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive...o-nardi-5.html
How do you come to that conclusion? And what exactly do you mean by "N-type visual processor" and "S-type audio processor"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
@Petter
I do not have respect for people who are unable to keep personal bullshit out of discussions. The same for you.
I also will not waste my time on responding to your strawmans or on educating you on basic Socionics definitions that are easy to look up.
@Rebelondeck, I'd like to also add: I think that what is observable as preferences for general information processing emerge from how the lower level modules happen to be working together. I have not seen proof that there is some way of a high level organisation in the brain that must determine the low level down to that detail you mentioned. Some of them probably do work together more often than not (and of course there would be a reason for that), but that is not the same as having that "a priori" high-level systematic design for how they work together. Even the existence of a dominant/inferior function is not guaranteed (I think Jung said the same actually). And the Socionics model only deals with those generalities, lacking proof for the details of implementation of any structure, the model itself does not add any theory or explanation for such, also the vagueness of the generalities it deals with indicates that the case is what I said above. I.e. I have yet to see a way to operationalise properly in more detail and I believe it is not possible due to the above. It can only be done if we use a new model, which of course has to go way beyond Socionics's lightweight one.
And yes maybe this is disillusioning to anyone who wants to "believe" in Socionics as it is now but I think this is the realistic view without having to scream "evil pseudoscience!!" either. Though I do dislike it when the use of the model too easily leads to apophenia. That is a very bad side effect.
It wasn't intended as a conclusion. If intelligence is distributed to also include the input processors of the brain, there's no reason why each processor couldn't have their own type characteristics. You had stated that "cognition is still dependent on different physical parts of the brain" but in order for Socionics theory to hold water, wouldn't type type have to be central in order that uniform characteristics be applicable to the entirety of information processing?.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
a.k.a. I/O
Knowledge of how things work (Te) is very important for health (Si). Just look at the medical profession, it's literally all about how to use knowledge of how your body works to improve or maintain its state of health. That's Te + Si.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
excellent... btw that's mutualQuote:
Originally Posted by Myst
That's a really far-fetched explanation. How do you explain Si when it comes to a mechanic (SLI, SiTe... in your view)?Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Mechanic and physician are two very different professions, which attract two very different groups of people (i.e. types).
I think that's a very straightforward explanation actually. The IM elements are general enough to include a wide range of activities. I wouldn't expect 1/16 of the population to be mechanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
But the process of diagnosing mechanical issues with a car is essentially the same as with the body of a human being: you look for symptoms (such as weird sounds), and try to get it back in working order. The goal is to keep it or get it back in good shape so that it benefits the user. You could say Si is more generally about physical condition.
It is far-fetched in the sense that it only explains one profession.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
You cannot have it both ways. SiTe (ego) cannot both explain the medical profession and be general enough to include all professions.
This is far-fetched... and it has nothing to do with Si in Socionics.Quote:
But the process of diagnosing mechanical issues with a car is essentially the same as with the body of a human being: you look for symptoms (such as weird sounds), and try to get it back in working order. The goal is to keep it or get it back in good shape so that it benefits the user. You could say Si is more generally about physical condition.
Well, it is possible but I think all functions or "processors" work in harmony. So auditory processor X implies visual processor X.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Can you explain this a bit further?Quote:
You had stated that "cognition is still dependent on different physical parts of the brain" but in order for Socionics theory to hold water, wouldn't type type have to be central in order that uniform characteristics be applicable to the entirety of information processing?.......
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ation-Elements
Se: "designing things based on what is at hand (creating new forms out of existing materials, and not based on abstract concepts" must correspond to "the mechanic" (TiSe).
Se: "analyzing situations of conflict" must correspond to SLE (SeTi).
Quick q, do you have the link to your article on info processing with IEs at hand? (The article about your ideas that you also refer to in your avatar.) I'd like to add something about it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Heh, btw, "uniform characteristics be applicable to the entirety of information processing", that's kind of trying to bite off too much with a simplistic model.
Good. Except I was not doing the personal bullcrap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Actually you can approach that and all other "ST topics" with Ti/Se too, it's just going to be a different approach ofc, and less optimal for certain things compared to Si/Te (and vice versa).Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush