A theory for the basis of type

[Architect]

A lot of struggling recently on why or why not typology exists. I thought I'd discuss a theory I've been kicking around the back of my head.

§ Summary
Psychological type exists at all not due to some built in characteristic (e.g. genetic programming or motivational choice), but because of the fundamental nature of consciousness. It is psychic energy that must take some form to usefully interact with the world; that form is type.

§ Implications

• Animals, or aliens, would therefore display type to the degree they are conscious. Animals would obviously at least be "S" types, some extraverted (Lions perhaps) and some introverted (moles, or shrews).
• The 16 letters may be it, it may not be possible for consciousness to even posses another (such as H for "hubris")
• The amount by which a type shows up in a population are likely genetically determined, not the preference for say S or N itself.

§ Problems
We don't know know what consciousness is yet, we don't have a good working definition. However, this theory possibly answers that question. Consciousness = type.

§ Discussion

The basis for this is that consciousness seems to be psychic energy that therefore must be directed at and interacted with the world somehow. Given this there are obvious implications. The most direct way for the psyche and the reality to interact is through in a Sensate manner. Since logically a thing cannot exist (have differentiation) without its opposite, therefore we can derive Intuition as not-sensation (Intuition is dealing with the inner world or not-world - i.e. imagination).

You can see a thing by again, seeing it's opposite. In this case the opposition to type is the concept of Being you find in Eastern religions. This is existence without type - just pure consciousness without direction or form.

 

[John_Mann]

Put some memetics on it.

 

[Architect]

Put some memetics on it.

The theory doesn't need Memetics, it seems you don't understand it.

 

[John_Mann]

Sorry but I can't think about fundamental nature of mind without the need of memetics. But I think you are talking about the "mechanics" of mind/consciousness and the memetics it's more about "made-of".

 

[Cognisant]

We don't know know what consciousness is yet, we don't have a good working definition. However, this theory possibly answers that question. Consciousness = type.

It dosen't

It is psychic energy that must take some form to usefully interact with the world; that form is type.

The "psychic energy" is information processing, the brain receives input from the senses, processes that information, thus determining an appropriate output, that being whatever actions that person makes.

Typology is as much a discussion of information processing methodologies as spirituality is a discussion philosophy, in other words typology is a poor man's substitute for being educated. Certainly we can classify people by generalised types based upon stereotypical assortments of traits (what is the single defining trait of being an introvert? How many introverts actually demonstrate all the traits of introversion all the time?) but that's hardly scientific, it's really only conjecture and pop psychology.

Clearly if we're to have a scientifically valid form of typology we need to figure the mechanics of consciousness, the information processing methodology being used, because only then can we assess it by verifiably objective criteria.

 

[BigApplePi]

We don't know know what consciousness is yet, we don't have a good working definition. However, this theory possibly answers that question. Consciousness = type.

Here is a def in two words:
Consciousness = focused awareness.

Other awarenesses are more diffused. Non-sentient things are not aware at all. A bacterium has some awareness but probably can't pull together enough focus to be conscious and even if it did, it wouldn't have the diffused awareness to back it up.

Hyper consciousness = focused awareness including the awareness one has a focused awareness

 

[Montresor]

The "psychic energy" is information processing, the brain receives input from the senses, processes that information, thus determining an appropriate output, that being whatever actions that person makes.

... ... (more stuff) ...


Clearly if we're to have a scientifically valid form of typology we need to figure the mechanics of consciousness, the information processing methodology being used, because only then can we assess it by verifiably objective criteria.

THIS! This is what I've been trying to say!
Typology is nothing without physiological backing.

Typology is simply the expression of different means of information processing.

Some walk the path of the analyst/artist, taking simple observations and corrupting them with dichotomies, definitions, and abstract theories ...

Others walk the path of the scientist, arrogantly ignoring any sort of "pseudoscience" like typology, or more specificially, physiognomy.

There are ingrained differences in the way we process the data and this also dictates the "functional stack" an individual uses. MBTI capitalizes on statistics and packages the information for the masses. "Cognitive typing" operates under the facade of "going back to its roots" but, unfortunately, the OBSERVATIONS and THEORIES of Carl Jung hardly do very much for actually understanding the reasons why these differences exist.

There's a feedback system in the brain that rewards certain processes and suppresses others; it's active all the time. Expression of type is a product of a lifetime (long or short) of this reinforcement system.

 

[BigApplePi]

(what is the single defining trait of being an introvert? How many introverts actually demonstrate all the traits of introversion all the time?) but that's hardly scientific, it's really only conjecture and pop psychology.

Clearly if we're to have a scientifically valid form of typology we need to figure the mechanics of consciousness, the information processing methodology being used, because only then can we assess it by verifiably objective criteria.

Suppose we say we are largely animals underneath and that is what occupies our unconscious. Some of us may physiologically or psychologically get along better with the outside world and some of us not so well, preferring the inside world. It doesn't have to be all the time, but a preferred amount of time. That is not precisely defined, so we can leave it fuzzy as a correlation and we conjecture it is true. This "getting along" or compatibility is unconscious but some of it bubbles up to consciousness especially when we study it here. How objective do we want to be about this? Well how objective do we want to be about being precise about any of our behavior? If our behavior among our peers were completely random, we would have no theory. We conjecture it is not random and we struggle to define it.

We say we know when our bathwater is cold, luke warm or hot, but how important is it to define those terms? Answer: it depends on how much we want to know the difference. If we determine we can communicate better on something a type A has that a type B doesn't, we want to know if we are talking to a type A or type B. The more we can tell the difference, the better will be the communication reward.

 

[Architect]

Hmmm, I'm not sure you guys are following, let me say it differently.

What if, the form, patterns, or mechanisms of consciousness are not a product of choice? Meaning that if you have a physical reality on one hand, and a consciousness on the other, there has so be a Sensor way of interacting with the world from the consciousness. Since there is a S, there has to be it's opposite the N. Like wise there has to be an E (interacting with the world) and it's opposite I (interacting with the self). Thinking is required as it originates in the neocortex, which is where consciousness appears to reside, and feeling also needs to exist as it's opposite (and resides more in the old brain and the body). J and P are a bit more problematic, but they always have been.

And remember ... everybody has all functions (and therefore letters E,I,S,N,T,F,J,P) within them. Preference for a type (I think this is something you guys are misunderstanding in what I'm saying) has another basis. I'm not talking about preference, but purely the existence of type at all.

 

[Montresor]

Hmmm, I'm not sure you guys are following, let me say it differently.

What if, the form, patterns, or mechanisms of consciousness are not a product of choice? Meaning that if you have a physical reality on one hand, and a consciousness on the other, there has so be a Sensor way of interacting with the world from the consciousness. Since there is a S, there has to be it's opposite the N. Like wise there has to be an E (interacting with the world) and it's opposite I (interacting with the self). Thinking is required as it originates in the neocortex, which is where consciousness appears to reside, and feeling also needs to exist as it's opposite (and resides more in the old brain and the body). J and P are a bit more problematic, but they always have been.

And remember ... everybody has all functions (and therefore letters E,I,S,N,T,F,J,P) within them. Preference for a type (I think this is something you guys are misunderstanding in what I'm saying) has another basis. I'm not talking about preference, but purely the existence of type at all.

Type is a representation of consciousness so we can understand it. How are you sensing? How are you perceiving? How are you thinking? How are you feeling? The mechanisms differ for every person.

The variations in type are due to neural reward circuits that develop early on and reinforce patterns of thinking and behaviour.

I'm not convinced with your argument that these processes reside in the neocortex. In fact, I'll just say it: I believe you are wrong. The neocortex's role is that it displays these processes in a meaningful way.

 

[Architect]

Type is a representation of consciousness so we can understand it. How are you sensing? How are you perceiving? How are you thinking? How are you feeling? The mechanisms differ for every person.

The letters and functions are, the mechanisms aren't. I'm saying the mechanisms, as represented by letters, functions and type are real and may be determined by the nature of consciousness and reality. I don't see any contraction here.

The variations in type are due to neural reward circuits that develop early on and reinforce patterns of thinking and behaviour.

Agree, but that isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm not convinced with your argument that these processes reside in the neocortex. In fact, I'll just say it: I believe you are wrong. The neocortex's role is that it displays these processes in a meaningful way.

Only mammals have a neocortex, reptiles and fish do not. Would you say a fish has greater degree of consciousness than a dog? Or even equal?

 

[Auburn]

The reward-system (which would make sense to rest in the thalamus) is definitely required for consciousness, I believe. And this is because the wheel can't roll forward without a primal incentive.

True, consciousness would not exist without some form of drive. But this drive itself isn't the cognitive processes. Small lizards, bugs and even bacteria have a drive/instinct. But it's primarily an instinct/programmed-response connected to sensory organs. In many ways smaller animals are like clockwork dolls that are little more than their instinct, made manifest.

I'd have to agree with Architect here, that mammals are the ones that display more correctly what we now see as consciousness. Dolphins, Bonobos, Chimpanzees and humans are all mammals and have rather large neocortexes -- and all display high-complexity behavior (such as Dolphin's sonar language, and Chimp's social behaviors).

I think it is the vast space in our neural network that allows for us to have higher levels of abstraction folded over itself. The more neurons exist in the neocortext, the most associations can be made. That is the core of consciousness. Consciousness is the process if interrelating sensory stimuli (saving those relations) as well as compartmentalizing them. It is a very giant "if(then)else" algorithm.

The more data variables it can store and recall with this equation, the greater the (illusion?) of intelligence arises from the inter-folding of what are innately no different from the instinct responses of lower lifeforms.

 

[own8ge]

Hehe, did my recent threads inspire you? ^^

 

[BigApplePi]

Hmmm, I'm not sure you guys are following, let me say it differently.

What if, the form, patterns, or mechanisms of consciousness are not a product of choice? Meaning that if you have a physical reality on one hand, and a consciousness on the other, there has so be a Sensor way of interacting with the world from the consciousness. Since there is a S, there has to be it's opposite the N.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Let's take the "S." Everyone has to react with an S. We could have a person who leads internally with T and follows with external intuition as a preference. Both are conscious. The leaves S as tertiary or last since everyone has to have an S. Some may prefer the outside the self S and some may prefer the more passive inside the self ... not to share it. Are you saying this Ti is not a choice? Yes if the internal thinking is due to a perceived harsh environment or one to be judged.

 

[Cognisant]

To clarify on my earlier point, I'm not saying typology is useless, for enabling like minded people find each other on the internet typology is quite effective, despite being mostly arbitrary pop psychology.

@Architect
There doesn't have to be type, you're putting the abstraction before reality, for example I'll create a new form of typology right now:

Short / Tall
Fat / Thin
White / Black
Nerd / Jock

Based upon these criteria I can sort everyone into sixteen people types.
I'm a Tall Thin White Nerd, if maybe a little borderline on being thin.

Now if we got all the Tall Thin White Nerds together we would notice some similarities, especially if we compare them to all the Short Fat Black Jocks, which only makes sense, after all three of the metrics involved are based upon indisputably physiological factors and the fourth likely has something to do with the brain as well.

Although of course this is absurd.

 

[BigApplePi]

Although of course this is absurd.

Is it absurd if yer trying to attract ESTJ's?

 

[Hadoblado]

I tentatively disagree with your assertion that the 'something being unable to exist without its opposite' premise is grounds to infer what you do from sensation and intuition. The opposite of sensing in this regard would be an abscence of sensing, not intuitive abstraction. The opposite of intuition is an abscence of intuition. They are both positive processes which may or may not be mutually exclusive, but I fail to see how they are opposites.

 

[Montresor]

Believe me when I say now, I had no basis to say "I think you are wrong", I just ... sorta ... thought you were wrong. I never actually referenced anything except my inner rolodex.

Clearly you are right that consciousness resides in the grey matter. D'OH! Thinking back, I might have assumed you meant prefrontal cortex in particular. The reason I made this assumption is that recently I've come across a document claiming Ti and Te both originate from the prefrontal regions, and you mentioned thinking originating in the cortex,

ifso facto: i'm an idiot

I would suggest the "reward system" that I'm referring to, when it comes to "learning" functions (i.e. instrumental conditioning) - might originate in the nuclei of the amygdala, where the most deep-seeded and primal types of learning originate from.

In fact, the amygdala is strongly associated to emotional response systems and has connections to certain cranial nerves, @Auburn I'll draw your attention to this excerpt from the Wiki article. Not expecting much discussion just general interest.

Spoiler

The amygdala sends impulses to the hypothalamus for activation of the sympathetic nervous system, to the thalamic reticular nucleus for increased reflexes, to the nuclei of the trigeminal nerve and the facial nerve, and to the ventral tegmental area, locus coeruleus, and laterodorsal tegmental nucleus for activation of dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine.

It looks like the amygdala is the executive processor ... and the thalamus is simply a relay center, not a decision-making center. Interesting how the amygdala has connections to some of the same cranial nerves I identified earlier, the same ones that might be creating the facial expressions and eye movements you are studying.

In the interest of keeping this post succinct, I'll opt to not say any more. I've already derailed this thread enough.

 

[Auburn]

Hey, don't beat up on yourself like that! ^^
I find it fascinating that you're (and Architect) thinking about all these things too. I love these sort of conversations. No need to halt now!

Intriguing, that would be a very curious. I think it's definitely something close to involuntary (referring to the expressions) and the fact that it's consistent, independent of the specific arrangement of the neural-network, suggests it might be connected to a more instinctual part of the brain than the neocortex? Not to say the functions are there, but the facial quirks happen in tandem with the activation of those regions. Hmmm.

But I'm admittedly very ignorant about all of the specifics. This hypothesis may be unwarranted. I'll need to brush-up on neuroscience.

 

[BigApplePi]

I tentatively disagree with your assertion that the 'something being unable to exist without its opposite' premise is grounds to infer what you do from sensation and intuition. The opposite of sensing in this regard would be an abscence of sensing, not intuitive abstraction. The opposite of intuition is an abscence of intuition. They are both positive processes which may or may not be mutually exclusive, but I fail to see how they are opposites.

If we try to link the two by saying intuition deals with generalities and sensation with particulars, then I agree. On an intensity scale, the opposite of dealing with generalities is not to deal with generalities and the opposite of dealing with particulars is not to do so. But in another dimension, that of particulars and generalities of particulars, the opposite of particular is generality. If we hold a cognitive function's intensity constant the opposite of sensation is intuition.

Try that.

 

[Architect]

To clarify on my earlier point, I'm not saying typology is useless, for enabling like minded people find each other on the internet typology is quite effective, despite being mostly arbitrary pop psychology.

There doesn't have to be type, you're putting the abstraction before reality, for example I'll create a new form of typology right now:

Short / Tall
Fat / Thin
White / Black
Nerd / Jock

I don't get the distinction; you're illustrating my point. To have corporeal form as an animal follows certain rules or constraints, such as the ones you illustrate above. By definition, from the physical rules of our Universe, creatures have to be either Short or Tall. Given that we live with a G2 sun in the Goldilocks zone, black or white is another.

Likewise for type the idea is that it isn't completely arbitrary, it is dictated by the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Neither of these are putting the abstraction before reality, they are a direct result of reality. The one thing we can definitively say about consciousness is that it is the ability to separate Self from Other, or "inside" (my head) and "outside". By this then logically a first characteristic is E (outside) and I (inside). Once you investigate outside and inside you get S (physical) and N (non physical/mental).

PSA; some folks on this thread seem to think I'm asserting this as the Absolute Truth. I'm just exploring an idea and looking for a discussion. However the more we talk about it the more plausible it seems.

 

[Cognisant]

But what does colour, height, weight, or whatever have to do with a person's personality? Granted there may be a coincidental relationship, statistically tall people may be more confident, but statistical analysis of a population isn't to the individual, what I'm saying is that it's irrational to assume that a tall person is confident just because they're likely to be.

Likewise for type the idea is that it isn't completely arbitrary, it is dictated by the fundamental nature of consciousness.

But you don't know what the fundamental nature of consciousness is and without that typology may as well be completely arbitrary because whatever types there are, based upon whatever metrics we use, the result is always going to be a generalisation, a stereotype.

I don't mind discussing typology itself, I know stereotypes can be useful because they're often right, but they're not always right and I have to stress that point because typology is not an insight into the nature of consciousness, it dosen't tell us anything we don't already know, indeed typology is quite the opposite, it simplifies the complexity of psychology into a more manageable system.

The merest suggestion that typology gives insight is to me terrifyingly backwards, it's pop psychology overwriting real scientifically valid psychology, which I fear is actually happening or rather has been the case for quite a while now, for instance modern psychology's fixation on statistical models and applying them to understanding the individual which as I just said at the beginning of this post, is irrational.

 

[Cognisant]

Just had a great idea

Two types with indisputable personality altering physiological differences: Men and Women.

Architect I dare you to define the inherent personality difference between genders.
I double dare you

 

[Brontosaurie]

[disclaimer: the following post will consist of mundane exercises in regression and circularity.]

isn't that the very thing jung was onto? the processes of perception and evaluation as the basis of consciousness, with degrees of abstraction for each of them split in the functional dichotomies, coupled with the directional aspect.

i'm not sure whether jung differentiates in essence between T and F, and N and S, as between perception and evaluation, but it's possible and, i think, beneficial to interpret those dichotomies as representations of the polar extremes on a continuous scale rather than objectively distinct, definite operations. this interpretation supports the MBTI emphasis on top functions. more specifically it supports the idea that an INTP for example would be not only a person who introverts his thinking, but one who thinks its judgements. tertiary and inferior functions become as irrelevant as the shadow functions.

importantly, perception and evaluation are not fundamentally different things either. evaluation of significance is a prerequisite for selective, attentive, meaningful perception. if we implement this continuity as well we arrive at Jung's original model, rendering even the auxiliary function inapplicable.

alternatively, we collapse further, thus reducing it all to a two-dimensional matrix comprising level of cognitive abstraction, i.e. the popular concept of intelligence, and direction, i.e. extraversion.

i assume you're familiar with the big 5 model. it's interesting to note that some evidence suggests enough correlation between its 5 factors to warrant a conflation of these into one - meaning the only valid personality assessment would be that of good-bad, strong-weak.

 

[Architect]

Two types with indisputable personality altering physiological differences: Men and Women.

Architect I dare you to define the inherent personality difference between genders.
I double dare you

I'll take that dare.

Well we know there is a bias with men to be T and women to be F. This theory doesn't get into that because it doesn't address preference, just type existence. Regardless I suspect that F is born from consciousness having to confront physical self/I and physical other/E, for example hormones. Women have greater hormone fluctuations, so they have a greater propensity for F. Further gay women tend towards the pseudo-male "dyke" persona. Maybe there's tie in with hormones there too.

So consciousness encounters physical F and non physical T, and women are 75% because their physical selves are a much "bigger deal" (as childbearers) then to men. Also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some genetic or societal programming here too.

 

[Architect]

But what does colour, height, weight, or whatever have to do with a person's personality?

Non sequitor. Personality doesn't have a relationship to Plancks or the Gravitational constant either. That has no bearing on whether it relates to the Type characteristics I discuss. You're making the point that somehow type being a classification system for psyche being false without coming up with the specific reasons for it so. Stop drawing these comparisons to other classification systems and address the theory it self. Why isn't Type E & I a response to consciousness engaging with self and other? That is the only valid refutation you can make here.

Granted there may be a coincidental relationship, statistically tall people may be more confident, but statistical analysis of a population isn't to the individual, what I'm saying is that it's irrational to assume that a tall person is confident just because they're likely to be.

You seem to be say here that Correlation neq Causation, which I completely agree with. However it isn't applicable as I'm not talking about correlation. I'm taking Type as experimentally true and developing a theory as to why that is. You can't argue that extroverted and introversion don't exist can you?

But you don't know what the fundamental nature of consciousness is and without that typology may as well be completely arbitrary because whatever types there are, based upon whatever metrics we use, the result is always going to be a generalisation (sp), a stereotype.

Ah here is the difference. I'm taking the approach of a physical scientist here, old habits die hard. You see I don't know what consciousness is and I don't care. I'm taking the phenomenon - Type - as an observed given, and developing a theory as to why it exists at all. Trying to get at what consciousness "is", is much more difficult.

Now I've got a testable theory. We can imagine some experiment where you take an animal, AI or baby and raise them without exposure to "other" (other animals, people, etc). My theory predicts they wouldn't differentiate an E or I preference.

And in fact we have examples of this, babies that are raised without a lot of human contact (i.e. in an orphanage and other circumstances) are severely developmentally disabled. Another is blind and deaf people like Hellen Keller.

I not an expert in developmental psychology, but I'm not trying to define what it "is", but how to "measure it".

 

[BigApplePi]

The title of this thread is, "A theory for the basis of type."
Has this been answered? I saw it proposed there could be a male type and a female type; a tall type and the small type. I say the way we slice type is arbitrary. It's like how we slice an orange. We can slice it any way we wish. However it's most convenient to slice an orange around the equator. Jung decided to slice type his way ... the way MBTI has expanded on. How did this come about? What principle?


"Whatever it is we wish to understand can be analyzed, meaning broken into parts. The task is to decide how to make the breakdown. Is it formal, haphazard, natural, or merely narrative? Should components be evaluated equally? What technique is to be used to decide the analysis?" -- taken from HIERARCHY - UMS. How about adding, "Is it practical?"

 

[Cognisant]

Oh, right

I not an expert in developmental psychology, but I'm not trying to define what it "is", but how to "measure it".

Well that's simple enough, testing, we just need to figure out what we're testing for, but without knowing what consciousness is we'll be like blind men groping an elephant, for instance IQ tests are ideally a standardised measurement of intelligence and there's no doubt that doing well at an IQ test indicates competence in some specific skills, but I doubt anyone these days would consider it a valid assessment of overall intelligence, not while there's garbage men in Mensa and the intellectually handicapped writing symphonies.

Perhaps we should come up with a broad range of testing that tests for everything?

Or perhaps focus on things like reaction speed, responses to stimuli (testing hearing, taste, touch, vision, etc), the speed at which a simple yet monotonous task can be completed (for example adding together a long string of numbers) or how many levels of abstraction can be understood (e.g. I know you know but do you know I know you know I know you know?). This is just performance testing but to use the analogy of a car, without knowing how the engine works performance testing is all we can really do, and for all we know we're judging it's pushing power by top speed and acceleration when actually torque would be more important.