= factual reasoning
= probabilistic reasoning
= responsive reasoning
= moral reasoning
= deduction
= spatial intelligence
= subconscious knowledge
= conception
... what do you guys think?
Functional Intelligence.
... what do you guys think?
I just want to clarify some things...
"probabilistic reasoning"= making a hypothesis on known probability, because the exact answer is not believed to be attainable.
"moral reasoning"= making similar judgments stated above, only dealing with livings things (such as people).
"deduction"= going from a general to a more specific solution.
"spatial intelligence"= involving space, pictures, music, etc...
"subconscious knowledge"= something that you already put an effort into learning that you just know without having to think about it anymore.
i tend to believe that these types of templates are severely oversimplified. declaring the functions in this way can be successful for some functions (such as Te = factual reasoning; that makes sense) but some functions you really have to stretch to make them fit this narrow-minded definition (i.e. Se = deduction? what's the reasoning behind that?)
1) Experience with Extraverted Perceivers, andOriginally Posted by niffweed17
2)this article.
"Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought."
(which makes sense, if we are assuming that 1) the right brain deals with perception, 2) spatial-visual areas are primarily
I also want to add that I think more along the lines of Olga, in which functions with the same "focus" learn to work together. That means;
Re: Functional Intelligence.
I agree that the judgement functions could possibly be accurate. I disagree with the perceptive functions. For example, you describe Si as spatial intelligence, however that is something that isn't necessarily linked with any function. However, Si being labelled as memory intelligence is possible if you view the word memory in general terms.
... what do you guys think?
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
What do you mean by probabilistic reasoning?
Using probability of course!
It's in a sense, taking all of the "facts", systemizing them, and rearranging them in a way to declare the way in which things should be labled, based on the most probable outcome, since a %100 correlation never really exists. Some similar things have been said about Ti, though I've never heard of it called "probablisitc reasoning" before (I'm kinda starting to like the term.)
and1) Experience with Extraverted Perceivers, and
2)this article.
"Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought."
"The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic. "
would this support that the areas of the brain not governing language (right brain) would be responsible for deduction, since as far as I know there are only two options for a section of a brain being responsible for language functions? and at the same time, since a non diagrammic task which i take to mean, non spatial, means the left brain because i take it the right brain controls spatial reasoning-- that the left brain also controls deduction? i readily admit you know loads more about the brain than I.
I think what he is trying to say is that there are parts in the left-brain that do not specifically deal with language, and the right-brain is certainly not entirely spatial.
EDIT/// let me add that when he talks about "deduction" in the right brain, he is talking about areas closer to the frontal region, and is assuming that you know that spatial intelligence is often accepted as a function of more back-right-brained areas.
oh i thought he was tying it in with what he said about when something activates the right or left brain it cannot spill over into the other half..
funny how you can tell which threads were made by Te types
It somewhat is a practical equivalent of how i view it. Only the term "probabilistic" doesn't connote the actual systematizing process that i identify with. I will have to agree with the term though, partly because of ENFp's PoLR causing them to ask "Yes, but what would happen if...?" instead of deducing themselves (Or my way of judging whether the term is good or not).
Like I've siad before, Ti is more about developing a logical structure depicting IF-THEN-THIS, IFNOT-THEN-THAT statements which appear to be probabilistic in nature, but not entirely so.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
is Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
It seems to me that it is merely a function ofis Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?
OK... though it seems other functions answer similar questions, only they don't construct them (in their head) the same way. May I ask then why is that not really probabilistic (what you wrote)?
From a practical point of view, it is probabilistic in that the core reasoning is somewhat like you described, only the values that you can give to "THIS" and "THAT" will be choosen according to probability. It's understandable that we stick with the word "probabilistic" when we feel it's an implicit part of our reasoning, but we can't reject it as it is actually what makes the IF-THEN-ELSE system work. Also, i don't look at his model as something universal and i base my evaluation of "probabilistic"'s worth on the general consistency regarding the focused points for each function. As long as his area of focus is consistent it's ok as a "creation".
Isn't this as how is always Te depicted?
And Se=DEDUCTION? Totally off-base. Do you think axiomatic reasoning is Se? How so??
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, thank you.
Are those two nessecarily related? (And wouldn't an axiom be
Also, if you guys have a problem with
taking in facts, systematizing them, and rearranging them so as to correctly label them based on probability as 100% correlation does not exist, is once removed from understanding.It seems to me that it is merely a function ofis Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?
OK... though it seems other functions answer similar questions, only they don't construct them (in their head) the same way. May I ask then why is that not really probabilistic (what you wrote)?
i see an issue with seeing Ti as a theory of understanding instead of understanding itself. Ti is about a critical reflexivity, which you have touched upon, but limiting Ti to probabilistic reasoning excludes it from a certain self-transparancy. Ti is capable of probabilistic reasoning, but not limited to it.
my question, "is Ti synonymous with probabilistic reasoning, or just capable of it?", was not a labelling of "probabilistic reasoning" or of systematizing what you wrote, but instead more of a self appropriation.
in the spirit of the forum, have a crack at this if you like. http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?p=8...ghlight=#86966
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
What it seems that you're missing, is that probability theory is just a bunch of axioms. Therefore, we can say that Deduction is Ti and still include probabilistic reasoning.
Rocky, I don't know what to associate
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
i was shooting for the axiom of axioms
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
@Mariano: yes, at least you say
@Fabio:
" are both more inductive, don't you think?"
Why would you say that?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Hmm... are you saying that only
Ti is deductive in an implicit sense, I think, which in turn makes it appear like induction---which it is at times.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
That's a nice neuropsychology paper.1) Experience with Extraverted Perceivers, and
2)this article.
"Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought."
(which makes sense, if we are assuming that 1) the right brain deals with perception, 2) spatial-visual areas are primarily
I also want to add that I think more along the lines of Olga, in which functions with the same "focus" learn to work together. That means;
It's kinda nice at highlighting the function language plays in this sort of reasoning. I know that I can think far quicker than I can talk.
I can see where you're coming from comparing Ti and Te
If you're going to go along with this left brain-right brain paradigm I suggest you read up on split brain patients (if you haven't already) as I wonder if Jung's concept of Ti/Te is sufficient to explain it.
That said, cortical functioning is VERY complex, so I tend to avoid getting bogged down in it unless I'm trying to highlight a very specific example.
Although the reasoning involved in this paper doesn't look at spatially related tasks also this sort of reasoning doesn't have a strong emotional outcome.
The fact that there was no sex difference in amygdaloid activity was surprising.
There IS however, if you use an emotive stimulus
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10789
With men using their right (and supposedly unconscious) amygdala for recall of emotional memories and women use their (conscious) left, suggesting that women are generally more affected by distressing emotional memories.
I tend to think of feeling/thinking as a measure of the amount of limbic input recieved by the prefrontal cortex (either directly, or via the temporal lobes). Mainly because feeling normally requires an emotional outcome and thinking does not.
The fact that you claim that Si is involved in spatial intelligence is curious. I think you're just looking at it the other way round from me.
For example: There is a functional overlap between spatial and somatosensory inputs (for example if I burn my finger, I know what direction to move it in to stop it getting burnt).
But this functional overlap involves the presence of a positive or negative stimulus and any parietal involvement can be view as a conditioned response.
Si CAN involve spatial intelligence, but can just as easily involve any other sort of conditioned learning.
To my mind Si = Complex association, slow desensitisation
Se is similar to Si, but with less associations. (There was an operant conditioning study done on rat in the 1950s which highlight this, although annoyingly I can't find it!!!)
I think it's just as (if not more) important to understand how individual brain cells work as it gives you a more detailed understanding of what different brain areas do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
As for the amygdala, temporal lobe stuff, try looking up capgras delusion.
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote