Then explain yourself instead of contributing nothing to the thread.Originally Posted by superunknown
Then explain yourself instead of contributing nothing to the thread.
Toward what is she being oblivious?
Again, I am talking about "biological neural networks", which we model with "artificial neural networks".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Aushra Augusta was wrong. For more information, allow me to quote myself:
A "static physical trait" is basically just an "explicit fixed property of the body". This can include everything from "facial characteristics" to "body shape" to "shoulder width" to "ass roundness". They run in families because they are inherited, but that doesn't mean they can't be type related.
I redefined the functions in a way that explains extroversion/introversion and intertype relations.
To begin, let's discuss "objects" and "fields", which for our purposes are the two "basic sets" of "things".
"Objects" are perceived as "whole units" or "particles". They may be "particulate" in construction but nevertheless they are seen as "whole units". Here is the definition for "particle":
"Fields" are perceived as "conditions" or "systems". I think "condition" is the best synonym for "field". Here is the definition for "field":In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass. The term macroscopic particle usually refers to particles much larger than atoms and molecules. These are usually abstracted as point-like particles, even though they have volumes, shapes, structures, etc. Examples of macroscopic particles would include dust, sand, pieces of debris during a car accident, or even objects as big as the stars of a galaxy.
Now, here are my definitions of the cognitive functions/information elements, along with some phrases that I think characterize them:A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.
These definitions also explain intertype relations. Example:"Se" = "Explicit Object Statics"
"physical properties of object (color, shape, texture), spatial location of object, distance between objects"
"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"
"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"
"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"
"change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"
"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"
"'you're thinking this way', 'you will do this in the future', what an unseen thing does, 'you're doing this because of that'"
"Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics"
"what this does, what that does, 'I am doing this', 'I will do this', 'why don't you do this', 'it won't do this', 'because this does that'"
"Fe" = "Explicit Field Dynamics"
"'these things are happening', 'we are making these changes', 'these developments are occurring', 'these changes have occurred', 'the conditions are changing in this way'"
"Ti" = "Implicit Field Statics"
"'because it's against the rules', 'this state will result', 'because of an unseen truth', 'underlying structure', 'unseen property of these conditions'"
"Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics"
"this unit is like this, this unit isn't like this, this unseen property is true of this unit, this unseen property isn't true of this unit"
"Ti" = "Implicit Field Statics" and "Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics". Therefore a Ti-ego and an Fi-ego will both be noticing "implicit static" properties of "things", but the one will be attuned to "fields" while the other will be attuned to "objects", and hence there will be some miscommunication.
I hope you find this information helpful
Last edited by Olduvai; 01-27-2014 at 05:37 AM.
Did you even watch the video?
What about them, then?Again, I am talking about "biological neural networks", which we model with "artificial neural networks".
Then we don't have anything to talk about, because we're using two different systems.I've said it before and I'll say it again: Aushra Augusta was wrong.
I don't want to waste time arguing over unresolvable differences. Best of luck to you sir.
That is virtually identical to physiognomy, which is a pseudoscience.A "static physical trait" is basically just an "explicit fixed property of the body". This can include everything from "facial characteristics" to "body shape" to "shoulder width" to "ass roundness". They run in families because they are inherited, but that doesn't mean they can't be type related.
Last edited by xerx; 01-27-2014 at 06:00 AM.
An Se type's concern is that of the explicit impressions an object releases within the psyche, in this sense, yes, they are utterly dependent on an objective orientation to reality.
That in no way precludes any form of obliviosity from an Se type.
not on the scale in the video. unless they have real adhd.
You didn't answer my question, but it doesn't matter. Superunknown put it best:
I mentioned them in an earlier post to which you replied with the claim that doing so made me look stupid, so I proceeded to make you look stupid by showing you how little you know about the brain
The "conditions" are the same but the "objects" differ. See what I did there?
Take a minute and consider my posts.
Psh, "pseudo-scientific" is pretty much all of psychology.
EDIT:
lmao, I just realized that I quoted superunknown when I should've quoted xerx. Damn formatting.
nah, there's a ton of experimental psychology.Psh, "pseudo-scientific" is pretty much all of psychology.
I don't waste my time on trash. Bai.I mentioned them in an earlier post to which you replied with the claim that doing so made me look stupid, so I proceeded to make you look stupid by showing how little you know about the brain
The "conditions" are the same but the "objects" differ. See what I did there?
Take a minute and consider my posts.
yeah but that stuff is boring
aww c'mon, quasi-identibro
Last edited by Olduvai; 01-27-2014 at 07:55 AM.
Just take a gander at this:
False Analogy: Asserting that X is like Z, and that since Z has property Y, then X also has property Y.
Fairly ubiquitous practice in Socionics when discussing the theory and what different concepts mean. Aushra herself often employed false analogies when discussing information metabolism and functions (though it's not certain how literal these were meant to be taken).
Example: "Se is like Kinetic Energy. Kinetic Energy pertains to movement. Therefore Se pertains to movement."
Example: "'Your idea' is like physiognomy. Physiognomy is a pseudoscience. Therefore 'your idea' is a pseudoscience."
Regardless, if you actually think about it, my idea isn't much like physiognomy, anyway. It really isn't even my idea, either; it is Filatova's:
On Filatova's portraits - from Wikisocion:
Originally Posted by :
It should be noted that Ekaterina Filatova did not herself use visual identification ("V.I.") to diagnose the types of the people in her books. She simply began to notice similarities between people of the same type and tried to capture them through photos.
Who are the people in the pictures? from Socioniko.net:
Originally Posted by :
Visitors of our site often ask us whether the people whose pictures are placed together with type descriptions have been “typed” correctly. OK, we answer.
These portraits have been photographed by Yekaterina S. Filatova, a socionist from St. Petersburg, since 1991. She gave us her permission to place some of her pictures at our site. She did not use any “visual identification” methods – she is rather much critical towards such methods, and never wants to “type” pictures which some people send to her. On the contrary, she first determined the type of the person (by interviewing, in course of long contacts, etc.) and only then, when this person expressed his/her agreement with the type description and his/her permission for being photographed, she made his/her pictures in several standard perspectives (which allowed comparing pictures of different people with each other). In addition, she often received feedback from these people and kept contacts with them, since many of them were her former students, colleague professors or even practicing socionists. If anybody later expressed his doubts about the correctness of his/her type identification, then his/her pictures were removed from the collection to a separate folder marked “dubious” for future verification. The total number of portraits made by her exceeds several thousands, and the most reliable of them have been published in her books.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote