'Scientific Skill' and Personality

[Rebelondeck]

Brain capacity is independent of type; type being the operating system loaded onto the brain. With higher overall capacities, one can even compensate for shortcomings in the operating system itself but with uneven distribution of capacities, it stands to reason that some apps may not be able to function properly while others motor at high speed - and being a subtype has a similar effect. Many people with whom I've worked closely were high capacity types; they could turn their hand to almost anything. But, for example, an IEI was able to easily do electronic design but certainly didn't remain content doing it for very long. There seems to be some correlation between type and contentment in certain careers but I doubt that there's a correlation between type and the career that one would desire or choose - if one actually has the luxury of choosing.

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Brain capacity is independent of type; type being the operating system loaded onto the brain. With higher overall capacities, one can even compensate for shortcomings in the operating system itself but with uneven distribution of capacities, it stands to reason that some apps may not be able to function properly while others motor at high speed - and being a subtype has a similar effect. Many people with whom I've worked closely were high capacity types; they could turn their hand to almost anything. But, for example, an IEI was able to easily do electronic design but certainly didn't remain content doing it for very long. There seems to be some correlation between type and contentment in certain careers but I doubt that there's a correlation between type and the career that one would desire or choose - if one actually has the luxury of choosing.

a.k.a. I/O

I like the analogy of brain capacity and the operating system, but I do think that there is a correlation between sociotypes and the careers that they would ideally choose, even apart from the “brain capacity” question.

[Rebelondeck]

I like the analogy of brain capacity and the operating system, but I do think that there is a correlation between sociotypes and the careers that they would ideally choose, even apart from the “brain capacity” question.

More people seem to be in specific careers/jobs because of circumstances, influences and education availability more so than type. Most choose careers to make money, or to fulfil certain images or expectations that are not necessarily related to type or aptitude. Aptitude tests pointed me toward being a journalist not an engineer but I didn't know one who had a descent income and I was better at maths than at grammar; luckily, I was a natural in engineering perhaps due to my S-influenced upbringing because all of my colleagues were S-types - but S-types are more plentiful. I would agree that the ones who stand out are usually where their types suit the job but more than two-thirds of staff seem to be mismatched personality-wise to their job. The best at engineering by far on my staff was a technologist by training and pay-grade.

a.k.a. I/O

[Singu]

Brain capacity is independent of type; type being the operating system loaded onto the brain. With higher overall capacities, one can even compensate for shortcomings in the operating system itself but with uneven distribution of capacities, it stands to reason that some apps may not be able to function properly while others motor at high speed - and being a subtype has a similar effect. Many people with whom I've worked closely were high capacity types; they could turn their hand to almost anything. But, for example, an IEI was able to easily do electronic design but certainly didn't remain content doing it for very long. There seems to be some correlation between type and contentment in certain careers but I doubt that there's a correlation between type and the career that one would desire or choose - if one actually has the luxury of choosing.

a.k.a. I/O

But it's possible to emulate any other OS or app within an operating system, so that can't be it. It must mean that there is a universal logic that can emulate any kind of possible logic. If one can imagine what it's like to be another type, or to understand it as we're attempting to do, then it must mean that we're successfully emulating another type inside of our head.

So there is no difference in logical abilities between a "T" type and an "F" type", or a "smart" person and a "dumb" person. It just means that a smart person can perform things quicker, and may have more memory. But memory can always be offloaded to external memory.

[Rebelondeck]

But it's possible to emulate any other OS or app within an operating system, so that can't be it.....
So there is no difference in logical abilities between a "T" type and an "F" type", or a "smart" person and a "dumb" person.......

On a computer, it's possible to emulate another OS but running apps on the emulation takes longer. It would take a significant brain illness or injury for it to switch to another OS configuration but then it wouldn't be an emulation. The brain has limited energy resources which is likely why we need type - to limit the amount of processing. T and F are really different processes but yes, they can achieve the same end; one is just more efficient at running certain apps. I agree that processing and memory access speeds are likely elements of being "smart" but intelligence is perhaps better defined in terms of I/O bandwidth. There are countless sources of deficiencies to make one stupid or appear stupid and not all are related to computing power; there can be numerous dumb apps on a smartphone.

a.k.a. I/O