Questionnaire for typing
Type me questionnaire
What do you study or do for a living? How did you come to do that? What do you like or dislike about it?
I am currently a student in high school and a prospective cognitive science, philosophy and computer science major. Since a high school education is rather run-of-the-mill, I'll describe my reasoning for this potential major instead. Though the path that I have outlined above is by no means conclusive, I would say that these three disciplines will prove among the most useful for the future up ahead - we are only just now beginning the discover the structure (with innovations from mid-century last century in linguistics) behind how information is structured in the brain - indeed, it seems that language is imperative as a medium to this purpose. Artificial intelligence technology is a valuable way to sort data structures of any kind, but indeed, it has a very specific potential employment - related to its application in attempts to use language as a set of intermediary categories (referred to by computer scientists as "hidden layers") in order to simulate the *computational* operations of the human mind. The applications for an automaton that could imitate human cognitive faculties are numerous, but the most notable world problem (haven't really thought about this yet so any thought beyond this is in the realm of speculation) that has a potential solution by these means could be politics (and the rational weighing of interests via an understanding of human computations of them). Philosophy, too, is integral to this process, and some may argue that a precise replication of the structure is impossible via the grounds of our experience of it being subjective. I lose interest when this becomes a question of ontology, my primary interest is in the *tasks* enabled by the imitation of these processes, and questions of *experience* seem redundant to actual results brought by these processes.
What else do you do on a daily basis? What are your interests and hobbies? Why do you do them?
One of my primary tendencies is to shift interests / "objects" (insofar as ideas and theories and models and even fictional universes and such) mentally over the course of several months - so apart from schoolwork, I would say that the bulk of my time is spent pondering and accumulating / understanding information regarding these areas of interest. Most of my classmates are surprised by my status as a "walking enclyopedia" (a label for myself that I find endearing but false at the same time), but I would say that rather than emerging from any significant intellect, mostly, it has its origin in intensive reading and exploration of ideas. Often, I construct meta-narratives enscapulating most of the ideas that I have studied, and so I would say that my thoughts tend to be *cumulative,* that is, they are a synthesis of everything that I have obtained and thus continue to become more and more nuanced and collected as time goes on. Because of this, I would say that my own knowledge doesn't grow at a fixed rate, but indeed, grows at a rate that's higher than fixed because the amount that I *glean* (that I am able to synthesize into genuine insight) grows at a rate that increases as time goes on. It's possible that an analogy could be drawn to an exponential curve (though I don't really think it would be mathematically viable) as a help for conceptualizing them. I'll often apply my readings and musings to "projects" - and I have made several, including rudimentary computer operating systems, bootloaders, essays (a lot of them about the nature of cognition / computing), and systems (a few of which I have regarding typology).
What are your values, and why?
I would say that I value pure knowledge, but in truth, I think such a statement would be false, because I don't think that I bear much patience for pontification of questions on ontology and the nature of the distinctions between objects (indeed, who cares if the set of all sets can't contain itself if there's no purpose to answering that question?). This is why I would frame my foremost value as being *applied understanding,* that is, not being a hardarse that needs to find a productive application for everything (because oftentimes the most productive advancements to human thought can't be anticipated in the moment or immediately), but rather, I value knowledge that can be *channeled* to certain ends. Let me illustrate an example of this by providing an analysis of modern-day research. The major fields that are available and desired seem to be computer science, cognitive science, business (as ever) and also economics. There are a few options that can be extrapolated on what to study for this. On one hand, one could study a pure combination of cognitive science and philosophy and elucidate an abstract understanding of the mind. Though this satisfies curiosity, I don't quite see how this solves direct problems (which involve allocation of the mind and not an understanding of it). I would rather focus my attention to a pursuit which combines abstract aspects (which includes structure) that can also be manifested as results (so computer science, algorithms). These include *procedures*, which effectively serve as translations from the abstract (theory) to the concrete (employment of them to solve problems effectively). Typology faces the problem of having overly abstract categories with little to no concrete grounding, a problem I wish to tackle in the near future by corroborating Jungian functions as ideas with current neuroscientific research (to align them and create an empirical typology). Pontification is redundancy on its own, it must be directed.
Socionics uses nonverbal behavior for typing as one of classical methods since Augustinavichiute. So to be typed by normal Socionics way you need to give a video or IRL communication.
To type by questionnaires only, and plus sometimes by 2-3 photos - is the practice since times when Internet was slow and expensive (before end of 2000s) and digital photo devices were not common. It was not normal typing and mainly used to give "just something". Videos give close to IRL info about nonverbal. The additional problem with questionnaires is that people know the theory and may higher distort the info to fit some types which they suspect at themselves. Unlike with words, to distort naturally nonverbal is almost impossibly.
If you want the correct type - give normal typing info. Or you may use tests - it will be better than to be typed without a half of important data.