Post by The Doctor on Oct 25, 2016 17:18:59 GMT -5
It has occurred to me that the signals might be a better indicator than previously assumed.
I've noticed that a lot of people have ambiguous signals. For example, their smile appears to be both Fe and Fi, while not clearly either. I usually have to make a judgment call as to which it is.
However, when I get these people to take cognitive function self assessment tests, they usually score ambiguously on Fe and Fi - in proportion - to how much of each function they exhibit.
More importantly, based on what has been discerned about the relationship between the T5 and F8 regions of the brain governing Fe and Fi, they seem to also self report similar proportions of use when I interview them. Also, the scan data supports evidence that there is a lot of variance between subjects, with respect to activity and use in these regions.
Fe = T5 > F8 Fi = F8 > T5
Sometimes this preference is very clear. Sometimes it's subtle.
My assumption here is that cognitive functions are not necessarily static concepts with an automatic hierarchy, but instead variable mechanisms developed by individuals - that can be evidenced quite clearly, even when ambiguous signals appear. Those ambiguous signals are likely accurate, and the subject likely uses both functions heavily.
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
I've been keeping this idea in limbo for a while now.... as I do encounter similar situations. The same observations can be explained both ways: via 4 function model or 8 function model. But this itself is problematic because it brings to light the relativity of the interpretation and the need to over-rationalize the topic toward one direction or the other. Though I suppose it takes more effort to try to squeeze everything into 4 functions.
It's quite an uncomfortable thought. My Ti dislikes this idea. Delineation (J) runs in opposition to the fuzziness of multi-variability and gradients. And I always hope to find those clean divisions that *truly* distinguish the qualities of things/substances. It's not a feeling/aspiration that ought to guide a truth-pursuit, though, I admit.
Somewhere deep down I think I already know that the long-term future of psychology will need to be conceived of as a very multi-variable (we're talking 100's) system of bio-chemical feedback. That is, once we have instruments sufficient to test it that way, the same way we can test a human for hundreds of different biological variables/hormone-levels/labs/etc.
We may one day consider these models we're working with (jung, freud, briggs, enneagram, ct, etc) as primitive attempts to answer the Question of Consciousness. Eventually to be replaced by a comprehensive bio-chemical theory of consciousness --a type of full consciousness "metabolism" theory.
That would be a wonderful day.
But also a sad day for the laymen metaphysical philosopher.
It's quite an uncomfortable thought. My Ti dislikes this idea.
I know this feel bro.
It's difficult for me to form these perspectives. I can literally feel internal mental resistance trying to force everything back into neat binary definitions, but time and again those definitions fail to accurately display reality.
I like to think that what is really going on are a series of factors in how the brain interacts with itself, and most importantly how it learns to interact with itself through development. Patterns emerge, but they're formed on a deeper level of components, and it's a mistake to assume these patterns are the components.
To give a basic example:
Let's assume that the relationship between T5 and F8 involves varied levels of activity in each region. The end result is a gradient of performance, as the level of activity in each of these regions is demonstrably not binary.
T5 <---------|---------> F8
Therefore, the following is more likely the case than not (relative to the levels of activity in each other):
T5 <--*------|---------> F8 = seen as clear Fe T5 <---------|------*--> F8 = seen as clear Fi T5 <---------|-*-------> F8 = seen as ambiguous Fi, possibly Fe T5 <-------*-|---------> F8 = seen as ambiguous Fe, possibly Fi T5 <---------*---------> F8 = seen as entirely ambiguous F.
These relative levels of activity simultaneously impact VR signals. A clear Fe or Fi smile is obvious, but the ambiguous movements are likely a combination of both regions influencing the mouth movements simultaneously.
Therefore, when we inject levels of activity (arbitrary scale of 10), the following becomes apparent.
T5 (2) <--*------|---------> F8 (0)= seen as faint Fe with no Fi T5 (2) <---------|------*--> F8 (6) = seen as clear Fi with slight Fe T5 (2) <---------|-*-------> F8 (3) = seen as ambiguous Fi, possibly Fe, both indicators moderately weak T5 (2) <-------*-|---------> F8 (1) = seen as ambiguous Fe, possibly Fi, both indicators especially weak T5 (2) <---------*---------> F8 (2) = seen as entirely ambiguous F, both indicators moderately weak.
T5 (7) <--*------|---------> F8 (3)= seen as clear Fe with some Fi T5 (7) <---------|------*--> F8 (10) = seen as clear Fi with strong Fe T5 (7) <---------|-*-------> F8 (8) = seen as ambiguous Fi, possibly Fe, both indicators very clear T5 (7) <-------*-|---------> F8 (6) = seen as ambiguous Fe, possibly Fi, both indicators clear T5 (7) <---------*---------> F8 (7) = seen as entirely ambiguous F, both indicators very clear
Most importantly, all of these states are possible in a person through the course of a moment as levels of activity shift, and these VR indicators might actually be the most accurate tool for measurement of activity from moment to moment as the individual moves through various levels of activity in various regions and shifts how their brain interacts with itself.
The 'preference' can be defined as the average point of all signals, but the reality of 'personality' is actually the range of operation. For example, let's assume that a subject averages 7 on Fe signal strength very consistently staying in the range of 6-8. However, their Fi signal strength averages 5 because the Fi signal strength is usually in the 2-3 range but regularly spikes into the 9-10 range. The takeaway would be that this is an Fe preference, but the reality is that this is person's personality preference is consistently strong Fe with moderate Fi that occasionally overpowers Fe. The difference is very significant, both to how personality theory actually works and the individual's personality... especially if another subject also averages 7 on Fe signal strength and 5 on Fi signal strength with the opposite configuration - fairly consistent 3-5 Fe strength but with spikes into the 9-10 range, but a very consistent 4-6 Fi signal strength. While these two subjects score similarly in averages, their mechanisms are clearly in opposition. Meanwhile a third subject very consistently averages both 7 Fe and 5 Fi signal strength. They all have the same scores, but don't all operate the same, and it is in those distinctions that I think we will uncover the most discerning patterns.
This seems to be a more accurate assessment of how people operate to me, as much as I'd rather they fit into neat little boxes. But, a better understanding of how the mind actually works is what all this is about.
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
Aye. That's a neat way to measure strength levels. Along those lines, what do you think of the Human Connectome Project's find of over 100 brain regions? I found this reposted on Nardi's Neurotypes facebook.
The 16 channel EEG breakdown is not really the full answer either. We may not even have the concepts of "T5" and "F8" last too long, once more granular definition takes hold. So things would get even more complex.
The emergence of consciousness may need to involve a lot more processes/functions I.E. ..simple things like what we call Pi memory recall may be a broader net result... and product of 6-10 different regions working together in different ways, and in different proportions in different people. Each contributing an element in the machinery of cognition.
This goes way over my head, really fast, and I get quite overwhelmed at the prospect of trying to figure it all out. It probably can't be figured out via conventional models because the variables are becoming far too many. I feel that in the future, classical/analog theoretical models (those that use clean delineations & axioms) will become obsolete and everything will need to be modeled after massive data crunching -- likely with some heavy computational power.