Bacteria and Animal Functions

[Raver]

I'd like to know if animals or bacteria have different functions or personality types than humans? Are personality types universal or are their unknown personalities that exist within these creatures? For example would bacteria have a function labelled as Di? Are animals and bacteria more probable to contain less types than humans, since they are less advanced? I'd like to hear your opinions on this matter.

[Cone]

Try finding Pavlov's Typology by J. A. Gray. It is the most empirical typology so far created. Sadly, though, it's only been successfully used with dogs, with much less success with humans.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Fark! My sinus infections are ENTp imo.

[Joy]

if they have types, they would not be socionics types. socionics applies only to the human brain and psyche.

[oyburger]

if they have types, they would not be socionics types. socionics applies only to the human brain and psyche.

I agree, but types or not, in many different animals I've noticed vast differences of personalities within each species. I'm not sure about less developed animals, but I have seen this in mammals.

[Raver]

Try finding Pavlov's Typology by J. A. Gray. It is the most empirical typology so far created. Sadly, though, it's only been successfully used with dogs, with much less success with humans.

Interesting, do the dogs have different types than the humans or mostly similar ones? Are their functions and types that are relatively unknown or are they more compacted and fewer in number because they are less complex than humans?

[Cone]

Try finding Pavlov's Typology by J. A. Gray. It is the most empirical typology so far created. Sadly, though, it's only been successfully used with dogs, with much less success with humans.

Interesting, do the dogs have different types than the humans or mostly similar ones? Are their functions and types that are relatively unknown or are they more compacted and fewer in number because they are less complex than humans?

Oh, no, there are no functions in Pavlov. He created his typology around the different variables of classical conditioning, like the speed of forming excitatory connections (forming responses to stimuli) and inhibitory connections (destroying responses to stimuli). Pavlov often tried to avoid defining "personalities" to dogs, seeing this as non-empirical. But there are noticeable differences between dogs with high levels of inhibitory connections (sluggish dogs) and dogs with high levels of excitatory connections (active, jumpy dogs). I am completely sure that Pavlov's typology somehow can be applied to humans as well, but no one has yet figured out exactly how it does apply.

[Matt the Raver]

Firstly classical conditioning can be applied to any organism with a nervous system.

All mammals have the same brain structures for feeling emotion as we do (limbic system)
I reckon irrational functions can be described in terms of classical conditioning (desensitisation and the extent to which conditioned learning occurs).

The difference is that most animals (except for primates, dolphins and maybe whales) do not seem to show much concept of self (largely due to prefrontal cortex).

So a mouse for example might show a clear fear response, but probably wouldn't understand why it was feeling frightened.

Bacteria are capable of taxis (movement towards or away from an external stimulus), but showing that a single cell organism has a personality would be ummmm........ 'different'.