Throughout the course of history there has been a tendency to subdivide human behaviors into distinct groups based upon their qualitative(qualia) and quantitative(quanta) aspects. The arts, the humanities, religion, in essence, seem to fall into the qualitative category (P), whereas the sciences, syntax, and mathematics appear to fall into the quantitative category (J).
bare with me on this...
These fields each break down into sub fields which can be further broken down on this quantitative and qualitative basis.
a good example of a more Qualitative field, which uses quantitative systems as a means to support it is ethnography, whereas ethnology, its mirror, is a quantitative field which uses theory(qualitative) to develop its structure.
So one can say that these two fields depend upon *NT*, but the ethnographical side can be attributed to *NTp, whereas the ethnological side might be more *NTj.
***I mean this in describing the field, not as describing the people who work in the field. The field may be dominated by a certain type, but the presence of other types in the field may very well by the primary catalyst for change and evolution in any field.
The field both schools of thought lie under is "Anthropology"- a science. science is quantitative, so it falls under the T(quanta) sub-group, of the J(quanta) nature of things.
so, to get through with this
P-Qualia(physical reality) J-Quanta(abstract system)
N- Qualia S-Quanta T-Quanta F-Qualia
One can probably break down extraversion and introversion in the same manner, introversion being more condensed(quanta), oriented within, forming patterns, extraversion being more prolific(qualia), forming associations.
so, what i am getting at is this, and im not an expert so this isn't going to be perfect but I will try to make is as balanced as I can.
As far as research goes it appears that the mind is divided into two hemispheres, the left being responsible for a quantitative side of things, such as mathematics etc... while the right brain is more oriented towards the qualitative aspects such as spacial awareness and associative properties. These two hemispheres have located in them sensory and motor cortexes as well as auditory and visual areas.
Obviously, if one region is more powerful than the other its influence will be more noticeable in the organisms behavior. A person with a very well developed Frontal lobe, for instance, will probably be more able to reason abstractly and think ahead(J), whereas a person with a more developed temporal lobe(if im not mistaken, which i might be) might have a stronger capacity at undertanding the spacial aspects of phenomenon(P).
Does this mean that our sociotype might be defined by the structure of the brain? that is, the size and development of the different regions- or is it defined by some other unknown mechanism, almost like an internal compass that gets fixed in a particular position sometime during development so that information received by the senses is prioritized in a set systematic order?
It would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks of this.
but basically, what im getting at is this. Is there some sort of hidden system in nature which strives to create a higher consciousness through organizing matter based upon a dualistic approach. For example, if you took out any region of the brain the brain would not perceive information adaquately. Spacial awareness relies mostly on the qualia, but it needs the key points, the quanta, as pillars, whereas any system, to mean anything, needs to have the qualia to shoot through the space between known facts for the system to be comprehensible.
if nature has a set process in which it build consciousness than surely we are partaking in its pursuit(we are of nature, so we are a part of it)
look at binary code, atomic theory, wave particle duality, class conflict, near eastern philosophy, runes, you name it. All of these theories and techniques for understanding reality have to do with the quantitative and qualitative dichotomies.
is socionics the next breakthrough in human thought? the "physics of consciousness", or is it all just a parlor trick?
Im just plotting some coincidences and parallels- what do you people think?