Breaking the Meta | Formalization & Structuring of Cognitive Function(s) | MBTI & BEYOND!

[TimeAsylums]

Minimal Requirement​

Please have at least read all of the PJ (least formalized)* and RK (most formalized)* links in Sources

Introduction​

As any TJ knows, formal declarations (definitions) are everything. This is an attempt to formalize and analyze the methods by which the cognitive functions in/dependently function. I will be primarily working with the terms "Synthesis (intuition)," "Analysis (thinking)," and information gathering / "perception." I am attempting further formalization and analysis*

+ See Notes for minor clarification(s)

The Meta​

> Thanks to Jung et al., we have these loose* identifiable cognitive functions

>> I recognize the possibility that there are an unknown number of possibilities of permutations of these cognitive functions -> therefore it is heavily expressed that *the formal structure is not static.

>I can not account for IQ [e.g., 140 INTP ?/? 170 INTP]

>I can not account for a hierarchy of levels or a function's "strength." [e.g., Ti ?>? Ti]

>I can not account for the (non)interaction/play of the two previously mentioned

The Method & Structure​

>, Or Oversimplifications & Overgeneralizations
>>, Or Stereotypes Are Useful, Just Inefficient
>>>, Or Deduction

• Logical (Rational) Analysis / Thinking
  • Te
    • Formal System
      • Explains Te's common association with "building."
  • Ti
    • Informal Logic
      • Explains relation to critical thinking
        • Explains relation to RK's "downward thinking."
        • Explains relation to common use of Ti with regressive
        • Explains relation to common use of Ti with subjective

• Synthesis / Unconscious Intuition / Perception
  
  >extremely necessary to have read RK
  
  • Se
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
      • Self explanatory; the "higher/stronger" the Se >>>
  • Si
    • Internal sensory perception awareness
  • Ne / Ni
    • RK on Synthesis >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(psychology) [IRRATIONAL] -> In so far that it comes from the senses (PJ); see Notes
      • Intuition is simply the unconscious (System 1) reasoning
        • Ne = deductive reasoning
        • Ni = inductive reasoning

Sources​

PJ

Te

http://personalityjunkie.com/10/extraverted-thinking-te-intjs-entjs/


Te + Ti

http://personalityjunkie.com/11/te-ti-fe-fi-laws-part-i-natural-laws/

http://personalityjunkie.com/04/introverted-thinking-ti-intp-vs-intj-extraverted-thinking/

Ne

http://personalityjunkie.com/10/extraverted-intuition-ne/

Ni

http://personalityjunkie.com/10/introverted-intuition-ni/

Ne + Ni

http://personalityjunkie.com/10/extraverted-intuition-ne-vs-introverted-intuition-ni/

http://personalityjunkie.com/10/entps-enfps-ne-vs-intjs-infjs-ni/

http://personalityjunkie.com/05/ne-si-ni-se-myers-briggs-function-pairs/

RK

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2010/12/psych-model-of-inter-personality.html
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2010/12/creativity-is-not-right-brained.html
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2008/12/fundamental-cognitive-traits.html

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/07/horizontal-vs-vertical-thinkers.html
(RK: Analysis (T) = Vertical thinking (conscious logical Thinking); Synthesis (N, unconscious automatic spontaneous) = horizontal thinking - Socionics Ne = lateral combinatory thinking.)

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/07/thinking-non-linguistically.html
(RK on thinking in "words v pictures," his words "non-linguistically" (pictorial v non pictorial) [see my "Do you think in words or pictures" thread]

read comments as well

Jung

Heaven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

• Cognitive "functions" are merely a reduction of what we have perceived or assumed to be differential actions of the brain
  • zomg, are cognitive functions empirical?!
    • http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cognitive+functions+empirical&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,6&as_vis=1
      • joo tell me

Self

Notes​

• After you have read PJ, and THEN RK, you should find that Analysis = MBTI T, and Synthesis = MBTI N, RK Gives very subtle points on possible differences or hierarchies of Synthesis and Analysis. I believe this to account for Dom/Aux >> Tert/Inf + I/E; and for the things that I mentioned in The Meta that I can not account for

If you want to know "Why?," see RK and psychohistory

Thus TimeAsylums mastered the field of Psychology

FIN​

 

[redbaron]

That font is worse than two holocausts © Minuend, January 2014.

Usage of, "zomg" lowers IQ of all readers by approximately eleven points.

0.7/10.

 

[TimeAsylums]

So, if you have read through the entire format and structure by now, the question is

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? [causality dilemma]

and the reality is that it's just the human brain(mind) trying to understand(comprehend)

When it's all put together, it's a toroid in motion, viewed from top down:

fucking beautiful

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=423125&postcount=4

…You Do understand. holy fucking shit.

You’re not a nutcase.

Your IQ/Visual representation…does understand

and now i get it

mother.fucker.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz1Jwyxd4tE

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Thus TimeAsylums mastered the field of Psychology

Premature mental ejaculation, as usual.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? [causality dilemma]

False dilemma. First came the female chicken with ovaries, followed by parthenogenesis.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Premature mental ejaculation, as usual.

It feels so good, but so wrong, as usual

simply acknowledging that mathematics et al. encapsulates psychology

False dilemma. First came the female chicken with ovaries, followed by parthenogenesis.

Hence "...the reality is..."



But yes, you are correct; I should use formalizations + structure all of the time

 

[Cherry Cola]

there is complete lack of explain, there is no clue to whats going except that something is and its cool, very frustrating, -8/10

no one wants to be the thin man in the ballad

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

there is complete lack of explain, there is no clue to whats going except that something is and its cool, very frustrating, -8/10

no one wants to be the thin man in the ballad

It's... uhm.... complicated?

Details may have to wait a few weeks.

Premature mental ejaculation

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Metafoundation time.

Relevant threads to be incorporated:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18097 especially this post.
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18382
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18633
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=15567
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18885
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18467
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18622

+superstructure w/Puffy & T.I.
I can finally think again.

*EDIT: And these as well *looks in Auburn's direction*:

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18249
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=15753

And uhm... of course:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14655

And every reference to any word with the prefix "schizo" I've ever made, and shoutouts specifically to Gilles Deleuze and Paul Feyerabend.

*EDIT II:

This too: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=19069

And all of the posts made by nebnobla during his short time here.

|Reminder to dumpster dive Absurdity's threads also|

 

[TimeAsylums]

there is complete lack of explain

Disregarding your play of satire off of RB's off of me appearing quite pedantic in another unrelated thread, I will explain.

BUT *DISCLAIMER*, THIS is entirely INFORMAL as COMPARED TO THE OP I do ask that you have read the entire OP, if you only read this post and then try to contend/add/derive, it's going to be negatively destructive. If there arises a contingency, and it becomes clear that you have not read the entire OP, I am not going to even bother engaging.


The Wikipedia links Te - Formal logic; Ti - Informal logic; Ne - Deductive Reasoning; Ni - Inductive Reasoning,

They aren't just similar.

They're one.

The chicken/egg thing was a joke, that is, those that sought out to create the formal definitions may not even have realized they were explaining human understanding via human understanding. (The whole, perception of our reality is simply our[human] understanding of it - mathematics et al.)

Extraverted Thinking doesn't just use formal logic, it is formal logic, etc.

Ne doesn't just "use" deductive reasoning, it is.

etc.

this is why you'll get the (s)TJs that will go "but that is against the law." It's not necessarily out of a 'love' for the law. It's the formal reasoning in play. The formal reasoning lacks its counterpart (Ti's) informal reasoning. Read both of the wikipedia links. "Informal reasoning" is also defined as the "critical thinking." The critical thinking is NOT formal reasoning by any means - and hence the "subjectivity."

and so forth

If you had read RK's links as well, you will see how he calls some thinking "regressive," (he actually says "thinking that goes to infinitesimally small details); This is what Ti (informal reasoning does); You know how you see INTPs not first seeing the big picture? They need to understand everything first and foremost by breaking down the pieces into logical pieces. Breaking down isn't just figurative either, it's quite literal.

After understanding the formal definitions and structure of the functions you can reason out every single interaction and interplay of the types and functions quite easily.

I repeatedly, in the past, likened deduction and induction to Ne/Ni respectively, but I never ever grasped it on this fucking level. Read all of the links (PJ -> RK -> Wiki -> My thread); just read the entire damn thread.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I can finally think again.

hopefully it's contagious

Welcome back

 

[TimeAsylums]

Continuation of post #10

Regarding the toroid...

If you've ever seen the quote

we are the universe experiencing itself

^That explains everything.

(THD can/will go into detail about waves + amplitude + etc)

Also, read ALL posts on this page -> http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/search/label/Physics

+ http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
(not too much math)

 

[Base groove]

Can I post in this thread without reading all the material?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

(THD can/will go into detail about waves + amplitude + etc)

Can I post in this thread without reading all the material?

...Like he's going to tell you no...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

How do we feel about a book written as a collection of essays akin to Herman Daly's Towards a Steady State Economy? (The structure involved, not the contents of that particular book).

(A book modeled on a toroid wherein each author composes a single chapter that connects the chapters immediately before and after, leaving the reader with a holistic metastructure. What's that, Finnegan's Wake? Yeah, I thought so, punk. )

 

[TimeAsylums]

yes


The real beauty is that now I can speak in terms of people of "Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, concrete, and in/formal logic"


But, yes


formalizing and structuring all the relevant information would be a +

It would make it of the easiest palatable and digestible manner for everyone, and be holistic and almost...complete

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

formalizing and structuring all the relevant information would be a +

You wouldn't happen to have a lot of whiteboard space and/or a lot of windows that can be used as dry erase surfaces, would you? Linoleum floors?

Because every inch will be covered by the end of the week and your house will become a torus.

Never complete though. Well, maybe in a few years...

 

[TimeAsylums]

You wouldn't happen to have a lot of whiteboard space and/or a lot of windows that can be used as dry erase surfaces, would you?

lol...visual referencers...

You haven't seen my mind

Never complete though. Well, maybe in a few years...

Entirely worth it. I've been on Intpf for 10 months now, and good things accomplished.

The more we learn of ourselves, of others, of the universe...the greater understanding...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

lol...visual referencers...

You haven't seen my mind

And you can't see mine unless it's plastered all over every sealed surface of your house in dry erase marker.

360 degree coverage. Better than Verizon.

 

[TimeAsylums]

360 degree coverage.

I expected a far better reference from someone of your caliber.

Like "N-dimension coverage"
or "tesseract"
c'mon "360 degree?" :P

:P My mind doesn't need to see it in tangible existence, my intangible cognitive schemas are massive

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It's only 360 degrees because the rest of nth-dimensional space will be... unusually sticky...

 

[TimeAsylums]

Regardless, we are only two,

nonetheless, your visual frame of reference and my linguistic frame of reference just might be able to achieve something

meta*meta^meta


edit: on Nebnobla, it looks like he had a really good fucking grasp on stuff, from his posts in WALKYRIA's thread, it looks like he understood it via the formal

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Regardless, we are only two,

nonetheless, your visual frame of reference and my linguistic frame of reference just might be able to achieve something

meta*meta^meta


edit: on Nebnobla, it looks like he had a really good fucking grasp on stuff, from his posts in WALKYRIA's thread, it looks like he understood it via the formal

Neb is awesome. I think I scared him off. Hope 1) he's doing well 2) he comes back.

Tentative incomplete list of people of interest/resources (in no particular order. Multiple functions/services/roles [proposed authors/reviewers/resource providers] are pooled here, so don't anyone get their panties in a tizzy. Basic/reductionist descriptions of abilities used. No label =/= useless, just irreducible):

forumites

THD (systems, ecology)
TA (Jung et al)
RadicalDreamer31 (comp sci, systems)
Auburn & phoenixrising (Jung & 3-D animation)
Lyra
Puffy (dat synchronicitah)
Absurdity
LoR
nebnobla (nanotech)
clockwork
Vrecknidj (math, ngin)
Da Blob (psychological metaphysics)
animekitty (quantum metaphysics)
Cog (A.I.)
lightspeed (computer sci, altered states)
Latte
Architect (programming)
The Introvert (ecology)
Snafu (reincarnate. NAO!!!)
Proxy (econ, ngin)
RB
BG (pathy)
r4ch3l

Episkopians

White Rabbit (economics & mumonsatanic)
Kaligula (Saturn)
C.R. (computer sci, crypto)
McCutch (quantum physics)
Implied Consent (war)
M.H. (anarchy)
T.A. (anarchy)
D.S. of Cali and shoes
D.D. (crypto)
M.S. 3.14 (crypto)

I foresee synthesthetes (yeah, that's a word now) 1) milking analysts 2) composing the superstructure 3) giving it to analysts to review.

Group exposure/generally open source is a given, but some definitely deserve individual invites.

 

[TimeAsylums]

After all ~50 of us have aggrandized enough capital, we will buy the land and start the commune

 

[TimeAsylums]

no, but seriously, we'll formalize this into a book if it's the death of me

much analysis and much to do

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

commune

Spoiler

Torus.

commune

Now see... that, that's just taking it too far.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Torus

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2012/09/realistic-starships-are-tubes.html

 

[Absurdity]

I'm irreducible?

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'm irreducible?

Te vs Ti reductionism joke to be made

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm irreducible?

You know you like it.

 

[Analyzer]

Ti informal logic creates or builds Te formal systems.

 

[Absurdity]

|Reminder to dumpster dive Absurdity's threads also|

I think this is really the only relevant one.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I think this is really the only relevant one.

Is there a qualitative change in the process when intelligence goes meta?

Yes; when intelligence is recognized as meta, the focal point changes to a higher level of organization which in turn causes a shift in priorities. It will be noticed in our behavior, or at least the behavior of those with the requisite amount of intelligence and awareness.

Precisely - that was the goal of the OP

Meta'ing on now ->

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

which then catalyzes the change at the next highest level of organization...

I think this is really the only relevant one.

You underestimate our capacity to pull relevance out of our asses.

 

[TimeAsylums]

In order to acquire the next meta

I believe it is necessary

I will offer a 1,000 pt ego reward to anyone who can formally and structurally explain feelings/emotion.

If you don't give a formal and structured definition i reserve the right to make fun of you.

Because, honestly, I have no fucking idea

What I've got so far

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Emotions are a complex state of feeling

Emotion = feeling*feeling

 

[Black Rose]

Emotion follow the tension/release mode axis.
Either you build energy or release energy.
This energy has positive affect or negative affect.
That should make a four quadrant chart to start.

Spoiler

 

[TimeAsylums]

Emotion follow the tension/release mode axis.
Either you build energy or release energy.
This energy has positive affect or negative affect.
That Should make a four quadrant chart.

Sigh, all I got from that was all I got from the wiki as well

[bIMGx=300]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Lövheim_cube_of_emotion.jpg[/bIMGx]

still lacking formal structure in definition

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

*notes that the wiki image doesn't fold into a torus but animekitty's does*

 

[TimeAsylums]

*notes that the wiki image doesn't fold into a torus but animekitty's does*

If you fucking visual referencers could comprehensively explicate verbally...


Obligatory "Feeling and emotion is harder to understand than thinking" joke to be made. (Unless it truly is 100% simplified down to the neurotransmitters -> in which case it really is simply the lack of using in/formal logic)

 

[Black Rose]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.6527.pdf

 

[TimeAsylums]

Additional Notes/tangents to be added in to meta formal structure theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baddeley's_model_of_working_memory

^This is literally all that the past ~thousands of years of Psychology has come up to offer, and guess what? We're now currently stuck here as well (somewhat same meta).

Multiple Intelligences // Some people are visual references / some are not / some are both / other methods of referencing "thinking" (See RK / How do you think thread)

T doms are expected to have an incredibly high capacity of working memory

~Visuo-spatial sketchpad, thus far no correlation to any function or type (Jung stated Ni ~visual, Ne ~verbal/linguistic, but I haven't truly seen that in everyone yet), but anyway those with stronger visuo-spatial sketchpad expected to have higher visual reference as well

Language/semantics, Ne highly verbal...yada yada yada

Central executive ties everything together yada yada yada

That's basically the best formal definition out there right now AFAIK

so we're working to inter-relate and formally structure the MBTI cognitives (which we have done all except for F functions) and then meta that up to this.

 

[TimeAsylums]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.6527.pdf

Informative, but not explicative.

same info as wiki

 

[TimeAsylums]

emotions are a reorganisation of the organism-environment system, and that emotion and knowledge are in fact only different aspects of the same process

This agrees with every major theory in the past whenever, including Jung (enantiodromia of T-F), and seeing that the neurotransmitters are emotions...

lolololol. wishful thinking, attempted to wiki "illogic"


I desperately want to say that Thinking (logic) is simply the Central executive's working memory (higher form of cognition), and that "emotions" are simply the neurotransmitters, BUT the problem with that is then why would the use of T (MBTI/Jung) suppress F, and vice versa? It isn't right, it doesn't fit. That would be fucking saying the use of higher cognition impairs the users ability to understand/access the perception/awareness of the emotion...


hmm...

 

[Black Rose]

Ethics vs Logic

http://cognitivetype.com/thesis/

 

[TimeAsylums]

Ethics vs Logic

http://cognitivetype.com/thesis/

Informative, not explicative, and especially useless.

simply gave a typical 1 PJ post loose explanation on N/S T/F

also, on Ethics v Logic

Logicians can easily be ethical...not so much the other way around.

I'd be more concerned with Morals

I know socionics has the tendency to call the F functions - Ethics

but that doesn't help me further explicate this definition


...also


if F was ethics.... That would mean emotion/feeling is totally unrelated to either...

holy fucking shit If that was true...

 

[Black Rose]

if F was ethics.... That would mean emotion/feeling is totally unrelated to either...

rational(T/F) or irrational(S/N)

 

[TimeAsylums]

rational(T/F) or irrational(S/N)

explicate where or what emotion/feeling is? plz?

 

[TimeAsylums]

if anyone is watching this, animekitty is excellently explicating to me via recursion

aka, im a fucking idiot

 

[Black Rose]

[BIMG][/BIMG]

explicate where or what emotion/feeling is

disequilibrium of qualia
The phenomenal in Buddhism
a disturbance in the force

http://www.businessinsider.com/body-maps-show-of-emotions-2013-12

 

[TimeAsylums]

[BIMG][/BIMG]

disequilibrium of qualia
The phenomenal in Buddhism
a disturbance in the force

http://www.businessinsider.com/body-maps-show-of-emotions-2013-12

shit ...so it is separate from N/T/F/S ... Goddammit

Latte...or minuened, or someone tried to tell me that