Typology models, where have they gone wrong?

[Rocky]

To start some good socionics discusion going again, I'd like to talk about the basics again, the models. First, I think that we can all agree that models aren't perfect, nor can they ever be. Some basic things like I've learned about models (in the general sense) are that,

Models are attempts to explain how nature operates on the microscopic level based on experiences in the macroscopic world.

... and...

--A model does not equal reality.
--Models are oversimplifications, and are therefore often wrong.
--Models become more complicated as they age.
--We must understand the underlying assumptions in a model so that we don’t misuse it.

I'd also like to say that you can argue for a certain model from oppossing view points and still shed some truth on it.

My point is to come up with better, more understandable models. Also, to point out some diffrences between MBTI/socionics, and how you can validate either one depending on the perception of the functions, and why it's not so clear-cut as "I'm right, you're not".

FYI, this is following some more devulging into functions on the brain, as well as thinking people in the types (as well as myself).

I'm sorry that it seems like I am almost leaving you hanging here, but I don't have much time time, and after I have collected my thoughts I'll come back later tonight ad desribe this in detail. I'll also give my imput on how I am starting to see the models. Until then, you people can give input on what you like, and what you disagree with, either model.

[Angel von Himmel]

I really do not see anything wrong with any of the models in an abstract sense, especially jungian or freudian based psyche models. The only real beef I have with models is that people can get the impression that what is written there is an absolute when in reality not everyone, even those of the same supposed type or indenticles, is going to manifest the functions in 100% perfect synch all the time even though they might process them in ways by which their behaviours and thought patterns can be predicted by someone else of the same type.

So, I guess what I am saying is that the failure is not with the models, it is with looking at the models too abstractly or too concretely, therefore causing the reader to fail in total comprehension and complete understanding. Everyone lacks awareness in some way or another.

[Rocky]

Well, yeah, a lot of that falls under the problems with models in general that I mentioned (over-simplification, not understanding them, etc.), but I still think the models can be improved. I was a little hesitant to post this because I felt I might've gotten crucified by you guys. I'm still not sure what kind of respond I will get out of this, and I'm sure some of you will object. I know people are going to say things like, "But who are you to claim diffrently from 'socionists' say", but, frankley, I don't give a fuck.

Let's start with the brain. I have argued before that the right-brain is the perceiving brain, and the left-brain is the judging one. Well, that does appear to be true, but not entirely. What I mean is that if you fall under the category of a "judger", you can also be considered left-brained, yet judging functions are not soley in the left brain. So, if you consider "judging" as simply a reasoning or desicion making function, then it is NOT related to brain-hemispere as I have thought in the past (you can reason things through either the left or right brain). What's interesting is that all of the functions, S, N, T, and F, are found in both hemispheres, but are used diffrenly in each, resulting in some people being judgers and other perceivers... but not based off of your dominant function. For example, logic can be considered a left-brianed function (which I've claimed in the past), yet you can also reason things logically in the right-brain, too. The diffrence is that left-brained logical reasoning is of the systematic and sequential nature, whereas logical reasoning in the right-brain is synthetic reasoning.

Another example of this would be emotional reasoning (understanding how people feel, ect., which I would relate to the Fi function). I think I've mentioned in the past that the amygdala (found in the back of the brain) is the brian emotion center (Fi). I'm sure Theodosis knows about this. What's interesting is that it's the right amygdala that deals more heaviley with emotions. Here we can see a naturally JUDGING function acting in what we would normally view in a PERCEPTIVE way. We know the nature of the funciton is judging, because it is reasoning something, which is impossible for a perceptive function to do. As for left and right brain diffrences, you can search up a ton of information on those, and I'd rather not waste time typing it all up here, but I think most of you understand the basics of it.

NOTE: since I am not talking about socionics types specifically here, it would be impossible to use the socionic names, so I'm going to use the more general acronyms to avoid confusion.

So what does this mean? I don't think that the IxFP types are specifically Fi dominant like MBTI would say, but I wouldn't ignore the Fi function, either. I can definately tell that they can express themselves through their extraveted feeling function, but am I to belive that that is the only feeling function they are attached to? What makes you think that an IxFP can't reason something through Fi, but then project themselves out through Fe? Same thing goes for the IxTP types, as I see it. I don't think that they are exclusive to logic reasoning through the extraverted world. Now, I wouldn't say it's really systematic logic, either. That kind of systematic logic is definatley more of the xxTJ types, but if an IxTP is rationalizing his thoughts, it should be considered Ti as well.

So, after all that, I think one of the problems is that people make the models of the funcitons things like NeFi of SiTe and stuff like that. An example of what I am talking about.. take all of the INT types here. I'm beginning to think that their function "models" should be a little closer together (which, BTW, would explain the problem with Quasi-Identicals). For INTs, it would seem that they both share a similar "base" of the Ni and Ti funcitons, together. Then, you can group the Ne and Te functions together. The major difference would be in how they used them (one systematically and the other synthetically). I'm sure you can construct models that explain minor differences, but I don't think that the Quasi-Identicals are all that different. I could go on this more, but I'll stop here and let you take over...

[Topaz]

Rocky, I dont think what you are saying is strange or that it falls out of the bounds of socionics actually. For example quasi-identicals are called that because they are so similar, but not quite. I know plenty of quasies (EIE). When we first meet there is an instant recognition "Hey I know you!" We feel that way because we see our lesser used, strong points coming through. And thats why we are quasi, we both have the same strong points but we use them differently.
I used to work with a quasi. A few infact. They were a little more concervative and business like and could make decisions and work hard to carry them out. I was similar, but more casual, my work rose and fell with my moods and circumstances. They tended to look to me for ideas and I looked to them for closure. I couldnt be business-like all the time and they couldnt be happy-go-lucky like me for long but we could get into each others shoes for a while. Infact that may be a way to distinguish between quasies. Try to hang with them for a while and notice how you feel more comfortable in a different rythm. This is more of a challege if you happen to be a house bound introvert but its an idea.
For example if you, Rocky, tried to hang with an LSI for a day and do what he did it would be clear by the end of the day what your differences really were even if you could identify with his approach. You could even imitate it easily if you wanted too. It would just take more energy and you wouldnt want to do it for a long time.
I think our unconscious functions (7,8) are like our legs.... better yet (ok go with me on this ) like our pants. OK, we know we need pants and so we select a sensible pair that work with what we have but the real attention goes to the shirt. Why? cause it frames our face and is noticed first. So it is with the unconscious functions. You need em and you like em but your other functions (1,2) get more attention. Now lets see ....OK your (5,6) functions are like a tie (if you happen to be a guy) You hope it will accent your shirt and pants and if you get a compliment on it thats awesome. You dont want it to take over and look too conspicuous or out of place though. Finally you have your underwear (3,4). You need em and wear em (ahem unless you like to go Camando, which I dont, too much chaffing; but I digress) these are the functions you dont want others to point out but just to consider perfectly natural HMMM I like this analogy. When you finish laughing think about it

Ok I hope I havent gone off on a tangent and missed what you were getting at but what Im trying to say is that just because a person is one type doesnt mean they dont have access to other lesser emphasized traits. Those traits are strong too.

[tcaudilllg]

The right brain-left brain approach is getting wearier. A lot of new evidence isn't supporting it. In particular, the belief that most all functionality in the cerebrum is conducted along its surface has completely disintegrated. Scientists now know that cerebral function permeats the entire structure.

However, what you said about the amygdala is coming up pretty true. Many reflexive and emotional centers lie there.

The key to proving socionics exists to the general population (that is, outside of our little collective pseudo-utopia) is to identify evidence that demonstrates development of some brain functions come at the expense of others. There hasn't been enough data collected to this point to arrive at this conclusion experimentally. Most people outright deny it, because they are unwilling to believe that most other people experience the world in a profoundly different way than them. Ego supremacy at work.

Unfortunately, it is likely that strong passions will be activated when the research is done and its conclusions ill-received. Most people today aren't strong enough to give up their beliefs even in the face of convincing evidence. There may even be tumult in socionics itself....

I think socionics is the only clear way to a utopian society, because it is only through socionics that people can reason their way to a philosophy of resolving their conflicts within through logic, and not through some broad-based esoteric philosophy like "a man's got to do what a man's got to do" or "to each their own". Socionics flies in the face of that last one, especially. It postulates that people think drastically differently, and that the differences between people stem primarily from differences in how they perceive the world physiologically. It postulates that these differences are concrete and understandable. If you understand how something works, then isn't one compelled to work with it?

The "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" philosophy, like socionics, compells people to closet their frustrations with each other, but it doesn't offer a pathway for communication of those frustrations. With socionics, you can look at what a person is telling you, and contrast what they say with your outlook in a completely understood manner. If they are your type, then the conclusion to be reached is that you don't have the entire picture that is available to you. If they aren't, then they are seeing a part of the picture that is otherwise unavailable to your experience, and you can deduce the roots of their views by contrasting their type with your own. Then you can see where your differences lie.

Sixteen types just doesn't cut it though. It's simply too small to be an effective model that people can use without some level of misunderstanding. Probably a quarter of the population do not conform to the sixteen "normal" types. Subtypes are a start, but the subtype differences are minute between people of the same type, and usually completely inconsequential in all practicality.

Jung says anything beyond the sixteen is impossible, or at least primitive, but he didn't say that judging and perceiving types existed either. (at least not explicitly)

I think socionics can change the world, but first it's gotta be consistent, and then it's proponents are probably gonna have to fight over it....

[Olga]

What you said is what you think, and we all can have our own opinions - the most directly we talk the most interesting it is. I know so little about the brain so I would rather agree than disagree. But with my little knowledge about the brain i can not realy contribute to this topic. However, I think somewhere our thoughts cross - we just look from the different ungles. I believe in 16 types and in socionics, all what we need just to listen to each other and try to find connections in thoughts.

I agree that functions are used differently by different types and also find the 8 types as having meaning. What I try is to find my own meaning and interpretation of it -diagesting this info. I am gonna to progress slowly and I need your opinions, guys, however good or bad they are - ignorence is the worst thing if you try to share your world with others.

[Rocky]

First, yes, the brain is a very complicated area to go in to, and we don't understand it fully, but it still helps.

As for what I am saying about the models is that I think that Quasi-Identicals would have pretty much the functions, but viewed with a diffrent focus. So, if you look at the IST types (remember, non socionic types here), then you can say they have the same "Base", "Creative", etc... The Base would be BOTH Ti and Si, and then they would both use the Te and Se funcitons creatively. The diffrence between the J and the P would be that the J has a left-brained, sequential, closure focus, and the P has a right-brained, synthetic, open-ended focus. That would vary the function slightely between the two types, but they would still fall under the same "classifications".

As for the BrainTypes stuff, I finally got my Dad to look in to it. I showed him the book and website to see what he had to say about it. He was actually familiar with the EEG testing that they had on the site. Here it is:

http://braintypes.com/eeg.htm

Apparently what they do is attach electrodes to your head and test for brain waves (the numbers such as "CZ-A1A2" tell you where on the brain that particular electode is placed). They also describe those "frequency bands" (Alpha, Beta, etc..). What I learned that is interesting about the Alpha is that not everybody has them. What my Dad said is that the Alpha has to do with more focus in the back of the brain. He said that when people have these, they turn their attention away from the outside world. These people are more focused on their thoughts, but their view of the outside world is not always "there". This is where introversion comes from. Even though my Dad was initially skeptical, he had to at least admit that this part was true. This is probably why about 25% of the populaiton is said to be "Introverted"; they are the ones with those Alpha waves.

What was really interesting to me is that my Dad has access to this kind of equipment. He knows a guy who already has a lot of this kind of data from EEGs (the thing in the link above). He said that I could talk to him about it tonight (because he is coming over for diner). My Dad said was that what the BrainTypes guy was talking about seemed to have some credibility, but this wasnt fully proven scientifically. Now my Dad has started to encourage me to look at more of this myself, saying that he can show me all of the data from the patients. Simply put, that sounds really, fuckin' great. All we would have to do is connect people who showed that they were strongest in a certain area to have the same psychological type. If we can do that, then we can possible even observe and compare their movements, too. That's all I have to say for now, peace.

[Topaz]

Wow thats cool! In some classes Ive taken we've watched films where they hook up electrodes to a persons head to see what brain activity is taking place. For example one film studied the effects of alcohol on the brain.
I imagine one day there will be a helmet that will monitor your brain waves. You just put it on and go about your activites and then it will give you data that can be translated into a profile. No more test
Anyway the brain IS very complicated. Ive heard we only use a very small percentage of its true capacity. Since I havent studied the brain I can only go by what I have read and what I can see with my own eyes.
Let us know if you get to conduct any experiments Rocky.

[tcaudilllg]

Ive heard we only use a very small percentage of its true capacity.

I just wanted to point out that according to Wikipedia that's a misconception. We only use 10% of it at once, but we do end up using most of our brain area over a lengthly interval.

Still... that is a thought. What if it activated all at once? Wouldn't everything seem to run together?

What are the correlations between neurochemicals and brain waves?

[Heimdallr]

Hehe, I was in fact just about to point out that. We do use 100% of our brain, but not at the same time. The problem with this myth is that the nerve cells are not interchangable with eachother. The way the axons of the nerve cells are arranged can't be changed at will. For example, the cells that are responsible for sending signals from the brain down to the motoric nerve cells in the spinal chord serve a highly specialised role. On the other hand, 99% of the nerve cells are interneurons, that is that they receive information from a nerve cell and pass it on to another nerve cell... But still, the increased size of the human brain has posed farily large problems during the years and has left us with babys that are helpless for the first few years after birth. Would it make any sense if the human brain consisted of 90% unused matter that would suddenly become acessible only if you submit to the ideas of "insert random bizarre modern sect here"? Not really.

[Rocky]

As for what I am saying about the models is that I think that Quasi-Identicals would have pretty much the functions, but viewed with a diffrent focus. So, if you look at the IST types (remember, non socionic types here), then you can say they have the same "Base", "Creative", etc... The Base would be BOTH Ti and Si, and then they would both use the Te and Se funcitons creatively. The diffrence between the J and the P would be that the J has a left-brained, sequential, closure focus, and the P has a right-brained, synthetic, open-ended focus. That would vary the function slightely between the two types, but they would still fall under the same "classifications".

I'm bringing this back up, because I'd like to hear some sort of criticism of it. Is it just that I am right here? I wouldn't even say so myself, but I'm starting to think that this may be slightley better. Objections?

[metaiwan]

I think you're going in the right direction Rocky. And i think everything Heimdallr is right. The whole neocortex is basically the same stuff with no special types or arrangement besides the i'm close arragement(the video input comes in near this area of the cortex, thus those cells become 'somewhat' speciallized in their operation, although not genetically. Thats why blind people can really hear better....their brain actually does make up for vision with more cells dedicated to other things.

I think using 100% of your brain at one time is how acid and most psychodelics work. Not really as useful as you'd think.

[tcaudilllg]

What I was referring to above, when I pondered whether or not activation of the brain en masse would be preferable, is to the state we experience when "it all comes together". Not just the "I got it!" state, but the "this experience is all a part of a greater plan and I understand its place" transcendental state we go through every now and then.

It's very unlikely research has managed to snapshot the brain in that state as yet, and I was thinking that perhaps it stems from an unusually disperse distribution of psychic energy. (which it seems corresponds to brain waves? I'm not clear on this yet.)

This is all just speculation. I think it would be hardly healthy to exist in a state where your entire personality was activated and conscious all at once for any lengthly span of time. ...Although I am compelled to ask myself if I know any such people.... What would it be like to hover in a state of "seeing it all", as MysticSonic says? To live one's entire life that way, that's quite a profound character, isn't it?