Cognitive functions

[no_name]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 are the cognitive functions scientifically valid?

How is depression or introversion scientifically valid? 
 

Also, by cognitive functions I am referring to the 8 cognitive functions. Then by typology I am referring to the ordering and stacking of these functions. So there are 4 things actually -> functions, typology, Myers and Briggs/MBTI, Myers and Briggs/MBTI test

Edited April 16, 2022 by no_name

[Carl-Richard]

27 minutes ago, no_name said:

How is depression or introversion scientifically valid? 

They're merely descriptions that have to be operationalized using some alternative measurement (e.g. a questionnaire/test, physiological measurements, brain activity etc.) in order to become "empirically useful" (predicting behaviors etc.).

You do this by seeing if these measurements correlate with the behaviors you want to investigate (e.g. "does depression correlate with lower work performance?" "Depression" can be represented by say a measurement like serotonin levels in the brain. These measurements are often crude and limited, but at least they allow you to find correlations that can help predict future behaviors.

Me going on a tirade here earlier was most probably based on a misunderstanding (which I just recently acknowledged – see the previous comment if you missed the edit), unless you want to clarify that, and I'm sorry for that.

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, no_name said:

A related question - what can a person do with their critical function? Is there any hope to fix it? 

It's your 4th function that you should focus on improving, called the inferior/vulnerable function.  It's the weakest part of you that's "you".  By developing it, you're just becoming a better version of who you are and always will be.  The 4th function will always be coming up in your life as it's something you always use, so it's good to develop it.

But sure, you can improve anything you spend time using.  To make a function happy you can also just make the function it's paired with happy.  iirc, functions go +-+- +-+-.  The 1st & 4th are connected, and so are the 2nd & 3rd.  It's the same for the shadow functions.  The negative functions can be unstable and easily triggered, but by making the connected positive function happy, you make them both happy.

 

By making the child function feel safe and happy, the parent function can relax as it knows its child is safe. And by making the hero function feel safe and happy, the inferior function can relax.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

58 minutes ago, no_name said:

 Also, by cognitive functions I am referring to the 8 cognitive functions. Then by typology I am referring to the ordering and stacking of these functions. So there are 4 things actually -> functions, typology, Myers and Briggs/MBTI, Myers and Briggs/MBTI test

Got it.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@thisintegrated Guess me.

[thisintegrated]

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@thisintegrated Guess me.

I see Ti, Ne, Si.

• Interested in abstract ideas and open minded (Ne)
• Makes many mental connections from any given input (Ne)
• Logical (kinda) (Ti)
• Doesn't take anything seriously; half the posts are a joke (Si)
• Historical focus/interests (Si)
• More responding than initiating (INTP over ENTP)
• Profile pic gives off INTP vibes (INTP)
• No examples of Fe (INTP over ENTP)
• No examples of Se. A complete blindspot (INTP)

When your posts look like:

Quote

!kcab daehkcarc etirovaf ym ,oaml

I can't be sure, and ENTP is a possibility.. but I'll say you're an INTP.

Edited April 16, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

J

[thisintegrated]

57 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

J

Are you sure?  I don't see the Ni, but I do see the Si and Ne as you'd find in an INTP.

The only thing from an INTJ that could make sense is the Te and Fi.

 

How did you conclude what your type is?  INTJs are insecure about their inferior Se, and how they are perceived.  I don't see this from your writing style.  In fact, I see the opposite.  You're also agreeable, and open to new abstract ideas, which is uncharacteristic of an INTJ.

Well in case you're actually an INTJ.. you're still an INTp in Socionics (NiTeSiFe-SeFiNeTi)??

 

Edit:  Actually, according to the Socionics interpretation of Ni, you're definitely Ni.  Although I think Socionics is the superior model, I don't use it much as it gets super confusing using both models, and the world has made MBTI the standard model.

Edited April 16, 2022 by thisintegrated

[something_else]

23 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

If you want, I can figure out anything for anyone.  Just ask.  Just need a few sentences from them at least

Funny you say that, I published a dataset of MBTI types and a decent amount of text content written by members identifying with that type

No one managed to write an algorithm that was able to get better than like 10-15% accuracy on type prediction from their written text

It wasn’t a perfect dataset by any means, it was skewed towards INXX types and it was also them writing about (for the most part) MBTI topics. But it still showed that predicting type from a persons language is shaky at best, and machines are pretty fucking good at this kind of language processing task now

An entire community of machine learning experts couldn’t produce a model that did much better than chance!

I won a monetary prize for creating that dataset though, so it definitely wasn’t total trash either

This correlates with general findings that people tend to change type when tested a lot. A person will test differently depending on a lot of randomish factors that change over time.

I went through phases of thinking I was about 6 different types depending on my mood, for example

Now I don’t think MBTI is useless, but I also don’t think you can deduce nearly as much as you think you can about a person from their 4 digit type

Edited April 16, 2022 by something_else

[thisintegrated]

32 minutes ago, something_else said:

Funny you say that, I published a dataset of MBTI types and a decent amount of text content written by members identifying with that type

No one managed to write an algorithm that was able to get better than like 10-15% accuracy on type prediction from their written text

It wasn’t a perfect dataset by any means, it was skewed towards INXX types and it was also them writing about (for the most part) MBTI topics. But it still showed that predicting type from a persons language is shaky at best, and machines are pretty fucking good at this kind of language processing task now

An entire community of machine learning experts couldn’t produce a model that did much better than chance!

I won a monetary prize for creating that dataset though, so it definitely wasn’t total trash either

This correlates with general findings that people tend to change type when tested a lot. A person will test differently depending on a lot of randomish factors that change over time.

I went through phases of thinking I was about 6 different types depending on my mood, for example

 

I think you're underestimating just how much data you'd need for this.  Even GPT-4 will be nowhere near powerful enough to determine "INTx" from seeing someone's profile pic, or determine "Fe" from their "attitude".

You'd have to explicitly teach the algorithm what each function does, and give millions of examples, and explain how they relate to each other.  Just letting AI "go at it" won't produce any meaningful information.I predicted 3 people in this thread, and was off by a letter at most (okay, 2 in one case).  And that's with just a few sentences for data.  Much better than chance.  With people I've seen on camera or IRL, of course, it's more like 90%+ accuracy.  And I've not typed anyone in over a year, so there are far better "typists?" out there than me.

 

32 minutes ago, something_else said:

Now I don’t think MBTI is useless, but I also don’t think you can deduce nearly as much as you think you can about a person from their 4 digit type

I won't argue with someone's who's not even studied functions.  I have experience with every model out there, and MBTI/Socionics are by far the most useful to know, with by far the greatest predictive power.  MBTI, with the 4 letters alone, is maybe about on par with Big 5.  With the 16 functions though, you can't even compare the two.

 

Have you heard of Socionics?  Did you incorporate that into your data?  How well read are you on it?

 

I don't think anyone would argue that "there's no such thing as introversion and extroversion".  Yet your algorithm couldn't even identify something this obvious and well accepted in society.  First maybe try to identify I vs E, and then consider moving onto the more abstract concepts that even humans need time to grasp.

Edited April 16, 2022 by thisintegrated

[something_else]

15 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I think you're underestimating just how much data you'd need for this

Machine learning is superior or near to human performance in the field of text classification. If it were possible for humans to do it, it would be possible for machines to do much better than chance

Dude, you’re fucking steeped in MBTI to the point of not even being able to acknowledge it’s limitations. Like you’re not even willing to accept the idea that it isn’t the perfect model

I’m not gonna argue with someone who isn’t even willing to entertain the idea that their model isn’t perfect 

I’m not saying MBTI is trash, I’m just saying it isn’t perfect

[thisintegrated]

6 minutes ago, something_else said:

Machine learning is superior or near to human performance in the field of text classification. If it were possible for humans to do it, it would be possible for machines to do much better than chance

Dude, you’re fucking steeped in MBTI to the point of not even being able to acknowledge it’s limitations. Like you’re not even willing to accept the idea that it isn’t the perfect model

I’m not gonna argue with someone who isn’t even willing to entertain the idea that their model isn’t perfect 

I’m not saying MBTI is trash, I’m just saying it isn’t perfect

I never suggested it's perfect.  All I'm saying is the people who do research on it have to be experts in understanding the theory to have any chance of getting results.  It's not just gonna "figure it out" by itself.

 

So you've never even heard of Socionics? What hope did you expect to have at this?

And why did the algorithm fail at even telling apart extroverts from introverts?  This is a clear indication the study is inherently flawed.  

 

And how did that guy earlier today in this thread predict my type?

And how do I consistently have "far above chance" results at typing people based on just a few sentences?

 

Well? You're an expert doing "real science" on this.  You want to find the truth, even if it conflicts with your biases, right?

You really can't rest until you figure out why the results are always far greater than chance.

Edited April 16, 2022 by thisintegrated

[no_name]

@Carl-Richard so what I was trying to say is that cognitive functions are also merely descriptions. In my first post I mentioned that I am surprised that they aren’t more popular, because I think they are extremely valuable. For example, knowing whether a person is an introverted thinker or extroverted thinker could help to pick out a job for them that’s suitable, or help them in school (right now teachers use the same mold on everyone while every kid is different)

And it’s ok, no problem.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, no_name said:

@Carl-Richard so what I was trying to say is that cognitive functions are also merely descriptions.

That's also my view, but this changes when you start talking about typology (and claims about the frequency one uses the functions). Once you start talking about correlations to behavior (and correlating the functions with each other), you're in the realm of science. What are the justifications for combining these functions into types?

[something_else]

16 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

And how do I consistently have "far above chance" results at typing people based on just a few sentences?

…

You really can't rest until you figure out why the results are always far greater than chance.

Because you have no ground truth. You don’t know if you’re correct

You’re self judging yourself as being good at assigning people imaginary types that don’t actually exist concretely in reality, so there’s no way for you to know if you’re right or not

 

[something_else]

16 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

And how do I consistently have "far above chance" results at typing people based on just a few sentences?

…

You really can't rest until you figure out why the results are always far greater than chance.

Because you have no ground truth. You don’t know if you’re correct

You’re self judging yourself as being good at assigning people imaginary types that don’t actually exist concretely in reality, so there’s no way for you to know if you’re right or not

 

[thisintegrated]

3 hours ago, something_else said:

Because you have no ground truth. You don’t know if you’re correct

You’re self judging yourself as being good at assigning people imaginary types that don’t actually exist concretely in reality, so there’s no way for you to know if you’re right or not

 

There is clear consensus on every person who's a public figure.  Check out personality-database.com.  Every person has a clear consensus.  Study the site enough, and maybe you'll start seeing patterns.

But again, you avoid every point I've made.  Introversion/extroversion isn't arbitrary nonsense.  It's a very obvious and well-accepted phenomenon.  Your denial of this is clearly indication of your bias.

[Carl-Richard]

57 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

There is clear consensus on every person who's a public figure.  Check out personality-database.com.  Every person has a clear consensus.  Study the site enough, and maybe you'll start seeing patterns.

Many profiles I've seen are pretty divided.

[thisintegrated]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Many profiles I've seen are pretty divided.

They're not.. the vast majority have a clear winner at the top of the MBTI list.

E.g. a random person I clicked on just now:

https://imgur.com/a/k0hjbJS

Edited April 17, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

They're not.. the vast majority have a clear winner at the top of the MBTI list.

E.g. a random person I clicked on just now:

https://imgur.com/a/k0hjbJS

The first two people that came to mind were Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.

https://www.personality-database.com/profile/11583/sam-harris-western-philosophy-mbti-personality-type

https://www.personality-database.com/profile/11071/jordan-peterson-psychology-neuroscience-mbti-personality-type

 

Jordan Peterson has 1919 votes, and the top voted type has only 845 votes (44.03%).

Sam Harris has 281 votes, and the top voted type has 142 votes (50.53%).