Socionics and Neuroplasticity

[Esaman]

Juggling? We are talking about types.
I do think that type might change in very extraordinary circumstances such as significant brain damage. The reason circumstances need to be very extraordinary and type is not the same as some singular skill (juggling) is that type is balance in relationship between most faculties in the brain. Learning some skill will affect one or few regions of the brain, changing type on the other hand require some change in all parts of the brain. That just not gonna happen normally since the particular balance has inertia and maintains/repairs itself (also one manifestation of plasticity).
Anyway, type being susceptible to change by brain damage and other extraordinary situations is not an valid argument against hereditary nature of type.

[Valkyrie]

Is juggling really a DNA-determined inclination?

The question really is whether the amount of change neuroplasticity can accomplish is enough to change socionics type, and I think the answer may be different at various stages of development, and in different situations (brain damage, psychological trauma, heavy use of medications etc.). You seem to be implying that it universally isn't. Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just commonsense-based conjecture?

This.

Though I would argue that even if neuro plasticity ended up "changing" type, that wouldn't necessarily debunk the concept of types itself. There are disorders that can make a male manifest almost identical to a female due to a hormone irregularity, and yet nobody will argue that the Male/Female dichotomy doesn't exist. Still these cases are 1 in ~4,000 or so.

What nurture/environment does to one's body and how it manifests is a topic all itself unrelated to what is innately coded in the specimen. So it may well be irrelevant that brain trauma/etc can alter type if we can confirm that without any dramatic events, the psyche does express itself in an ordering of types. We have to be realistic enough to accept that if types were real, there would still be grey area in a small percent of people --- as there is in any aspect of life -- which is not an invalidation but just a broader understanding.

[Atlast]

Crap, I've been gone too long. This thread needs some serious housekeeping.

dafuq that's what a suspected LSE told me the other day.He was into the science of subliminal people manipulation and has read a tone of books on it.The poor guy was trying to teach me texas hold 'em and black jack resulting in me doing whatever and him not noticing it (pheeew).Not nearly as traumatic as the first and last time I gave UNO a try,though.

Laughed at that . I see he's chosen a tough discipline; subliminally manipulating people is probably not his strong suit.

Type isn't inherited in any way whatsoever. For this to actually work your mum and dad would have to be both SLI to begin with, as in, blessed with deltaness by the holy spirit plus you have to distinguish between family resemblance and genetic resemblance. Many traits are familial but not heritable, that is, familiality is often confused with heritability, when it is supposed that the resemblance of parents and children is a demonstration of the power of heredity.

The greatest similarity between parents and offspring can be said, is in two social traits, religious sect and political party, in some countries, that is, U.S. for example. Yet no serious person would suggest that the very high family resemblance for these traits is a result of genetic determination.

EDIT: Meow, cluck, moo. These traits are actually heritable:
...
I don't see any type there. There, I challenged those geniuses you refer to this forum has to offer. Beer me now

Why do you say that personality traits are inherited like extroversion, neuroticism and arguably IQ and also say that type is in now way inherited? Also, why would SLI+SLI have to equal SLI and not SLI+SLI = XNXp or something? We don't know if it's a string of genes, a single one, scattered and seemingly unrelated genetic code, whatever. I don't think we can suppose to predict exactly how it works.

Those are different aspects, dingus.

Said it better than I could

Challenge this, challenge that. Why would anyone want to debate on complex subject with random people who seam invested and defensive in their position. Since we all have at best amateur scientific knowledge on the subject we can only exchange information and views without much authority. That is a discussion not a debate, and for discussion to take place you need to at least faint interest and receptiveness to what people disagreeing with you say.

That little aggressive taunt slipped through my repressed internet debate instincts. It was intended to rile you slightly and interest you in answers, if only tentative and temporary. Your analytic approach has no doubt reversed my intended effect, because you see that no empirical and definite result will come of any debate where no one possesses any expertise in the subject matter. However, I want to point out that imagination and speculation, even if unfounded, is the first step towards innovation and discovery (leads to experimentation leads to conclusion). I'm happy you've decided to participate later in the thread all the same

Without including the brain in the explanation? Hmm?

Well, when we say types are genetic, we aren't necessarily talking about heredity. We mean encoded in the very dna of a person, but how or for what reason...I do not know. Every type is a template.

A simple way of explaining it in the best way I can...

Take a prism in the shape of a triangle for example. This prism represents one of the 16 types. A prism is originally transparent and untampered with, which represents a person's original and most basic perception of reality (meaning from when they were first born). As you begin to introduce different spectra of colors (life experiences, environment, drugs, etc) into the equation, the focus/color (thoughts, actions, etc) of the prism begins to change. But it is always filtered through this lens, this prism in the shape of a triangle. It does not change into a prism in the shape of a rectangle, which would represent an entirely different type, it shape (type) always stays the same although its color (perception, thoughts and actions) has changed.

No amount of neuroplasticity, is going to change your type because you can only work with what you are given. If your brain, dna, whatever doesn't have the prerequisites for a certain function, it can only do so much and until it reaches it's limit.

Okay, as Octo said earlier, you did not prove anything definite with the analogy. However, I understand your position because of it, and I think your position is similar to the earlier discussed 'constant factor that designs the physical brain with inherent limitations according to type'. I admit, it is a possibility, one which I wish I could explore.

Atlast

iStock_000000447318Small_sunglasses_black.png

Juggling? We are talking about types.
I do think that type might change in very extraordinary circumstances such as significant brain damage. The reason circumstances need to be very extraordinary and type is not the same as some singular skill (juggling) is that type is balance in relationship between most faculties in the brain. Learning some skill will affect one or few regions of the brain, changing type on the other hand require some change in all parts of the brain. That just not gonna happen normally since the particular balance has inertia and maintains/repairs itself (also one manifestation of plasticity).
Anyway, type being susceptible to change by brain damage and other extraordinary situations is not an valid argument against hereditary nature of type.

Ah, I see what you meant earlier. You mean to say that we have an inherited disposition that our behavior then reinforces throughout life; not necessarily the position of Agee where the brain is physically limited from developing other typological characteristics, but instead that the most likely path is the one taken. I would agree, but not in the definite terms you state it in; I would instead employ a system of probability and not certainty. Extenuating circumstances may cause a variance because as Octo pointed out, the majority of human activities and behaviors we have the option of participating in are not always genetically related. Also, many ways of life are not always welcomed by its participants. If freedom of choice were absolute, I would agree that an individual disposed to a certain type would certainly stay there.

This.
Though I would argue that even if neuro plasticity ended up "changing" type, that wouldn't necessarily debunk the concept of types itself. There are disorders that can make a male manifest almost identical to a female due to a hormone irregularity, and yet nobody will argue that the Male/Female dichotomy doesn't exist. Still these cases are 1 in ~4,000 or so.

What nurture/environment does to one's body and how it manifests is a topic all itself unrelated to what is innately coded in the specimen. So it may well be irrelevant that brain trauma/etc can alter type if we can confirm that without any dramatic events, the psyche does express itself in an ordering of types. We have to be realistic enough to accept that if types were real, there would still be grey area in a small percent of people --- as there is in any aspect of life -- which is not an invalidation but just a broader understanding.

I agree, and that's the general position I've settle on. The abstract understanding a typological system like socionics (or Jungian typology) gives us of personality (an otherwise empirically enigmatic concept) is valid and useful. Making this speculative link between them does further our understanding IMO, and that was the purpose of this thread. It certainly wasn't to advance science, lol

[Absurd]

Why do you say that personality traits are inherited like extroversion, neuroticism and arguably IQ and also say that type is in now way inherited? Also, why would SLI+SLI have to equal SLI and not SLI+SLI = XNXp or something? We don't know if it's a string of genes, a single one, scattered and seemingly unrelated genetic code, whatever. I don't think we can suppose to predict exactly how it works.

Try to correlate extroversion, neuroticism and IQ with types. You get EXXx. Sure you can do a search and find people correlating neuroticism with irrationality and so on, so you have EXXp, for example. Next, you have to check which types, as in, people on here are intelligent and compare them with those unintelligent ones to paint a somewhat vague picture. I don't see any introversion traits there, as long, we're not going to start and discriminate. Introverts are more intelligent than extroverts, logical types more intelligent than ethical ones, etc.

For behavioral traits, the things that make up "personality," you hardly know what in the social environment you should begin to measure. As for those heritable traits I listed in this thread, when SLI+SLI is 100% inbred, that is, genetically identical, it is going to "produce" another 100% genetically identical SLI and so on.

[Esaman]

As for those heritable traits I listed in this thread, when SLI+SLI is 100% inbred, that is, genetically identical, it is going to "produce" another 100% genetically identical SLI and so on.

Absurd is ignorant fuck talking out of his ass. Is that a news to anyone?

1. There is no 100% genetically identical people except monozygotic - identical twins.
2. They obviously cannot have offspring since they have same sex.
3. In purely theoretical scenario of people having exactly the same DNA except having different sex chromosomes most of their offspring would still be non identical to them thanks to chromosome recombination and dominant and recessive genes.

[tcaudilllg]

Is juggling really a DNA-determined inclination?

The question really is whether the amount of change neuroplasticity can accomplish is enough to change socionics type, and I think the answer may be different at various stages of development, and in different situations (brain damage, psychological trauma, heavy use of medications etc.). You seem to be implying that it universally isn't. Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just commonsense-based conjecture?

Well given that it requires coordination, which is mostly a factor of dual-type, I'd have to say yes, it is.

And I shouldn't have even said that much. It's not like you'd credit "inspiration" posted to this forum.

[tcaudilllg]

possibly a stripper.

Possibly. A cute, unavailable stripper who likes looking at things under a microscope in her spare time.

[Absurd]

Absurd is ignorant fuck talking out of his ass. Is that a news to anyone?

I don't think it is, and it is not the first time I hear that coming from a guy self-typing LII. There were three before who got their panties in a twist. Geneticism claim them before I do and rip them apart like cattle they are.

1. There is no 100% genetically identical people except monozygotic - identical twins.
2. They obviously cannot have offspring since they have same sex.
3. In purely theoretical scenario of people having exactly the same DNA except having different sex chromosomes most of their offspring would still be non identical to them thanks to chromosome recombination and dominant and recessive genes.

1. Monozygotic twins are not identical at all. Thermograms show their differences.

2. It wasn't me who went on to prove socionics type-genes stuff correlation.

3. Identical as SLI and SLI. Those are identical via socionics theory mumbo jumbo. I do not know what idiot mixes genetics with something so "out there" as sociotypes and tries to prove it.

[Esaman]

2. It wasn't me who went on to prove socionics type-genes stuff correlation.

3. Identical as SLI and SLI. Those are identical via socionics theory mumbo jumbo. I do not know what idiot mixes genetics with something so "out there" as sociotypes and tries to prove it.

when SLI+SLI is 100% inbred, that is, genetically identical, it is going to "produce" another 100% genetically identical SLI and so on.

Those post are an hour and a half apart, it is not like you forgot. Whether this is conscious lying or unconscious denial you are best classified as mentally ill.

[tcaudilllg]

And yet they somehow have similar physiognomy, identical temperaments, similar philosophies... the works.

I'm not saying there aren't differences between monozygotic twins... but dual-types and politics aren't among them.

[Pookie]

I've known 2 sets of twins that were each others duals.

Also, only i am aloud to be creepy and talk about Octo's looks. You guys back off before we have to scrap.

[tcaudilllg]

I've known 2 sets of twins that were each others duals.

Also, only i am aloud to be creepy and talk about Octo's looks. You guys back off before we have to scrap.

Identical twins?

[Absurd]

Those post are an hour and a half apart, it is not like you forgot. Whether this is conscious lying or unconscious denial you are best classified as mentally ill.

The only way to post on this forum is to when drunk, that is to show some members respect and engage in very fruitful discussion with them. Inform me, oh wise one, when you have found socionics identicals to be genetically identical like monozygotic twins, who are not.

Put on your labcoat and do experiments.

I'm not saying there aren't differences between monozygotic twins... but dual-types and politics aren't among them.

I bet my billion dollar hat on it.

[Esaman]

The only way to post on this forum is to when drunk, that is to show some members respect and engage in very fruitful discussion with them. Inform me, oh wise one, when you have found socionics identicals to be genetically identical like monozygotic twins, who are not.

Still fucked up 9 hours later, drunk or however. You are the one who brought up the whole genetical identicity issue.

So making up bullshit you cannot follow yourself is somehow a sign of respect for participants of the forum and somehow helps discussion?

Is this a never ending train of bullshit for you? You are disgusting. Go hit your head against the wall repeatedly for the chance of random improvement.

[Absurd]

Still fucked up 9 hours later, drunk or however. You are the one who brought up the whole genetical identicity issue.

So making up bullshit you cannot follow yourself is somehow a sign of respect for participants of the forum and somehow helps discussion?

Is this a never ending train of bullshit for you? You are disgusting. Go hit your head against the wall repeatedly for the chance of random improvement.

Oh I see. Well then, on subject of brain and its genetic disorders I think you acquired a life threatening one. And do not advise me to suffer severe blows to my head, my type is going to change like the rest of participants posting on here. I can help you with a type change, what type you want to be, so I know how hard to hit.

And sure, I brought that "genetical identicity issue", and you lost.

[Leader]

This thread disintegrated fast.

Tcaud, at least read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on neuroplasticity before you ascribe your paranoid delusions onto various sections of the scientific community, mmmk?

Agee, no amount of handwavy analogy about prisms is going to change the fact that brains can and do change structurally to a great extent in response to certain external events. If you're saying type never changes, keep in mind that you're including cases of massive head trauma, lobotomy etc. And if type isn't based in the brain, then where?

What? I was doing what the OP asked. And it seems you didn't even understand my analogy, or you just didn't bother to read it carefully. Doesn't matter what happens. You can get hit so hard that it takes away half of your head....you'll still be that same type...just with half a brain. No amount of plasticity or trauma is going to change your core dna, although dna does mutate....but that's not that point. Type cannot change.

[Leader]

Okay, as Octo said earlier, you did not prove anything definite with the analogy. However, I understand your position because of it, and I think your position is similar to the earlier discussed 'constant factor that designs the physical brain with inherent limitations according to type'. I admit, it is a possibility, one which I wish I could explore.

Oh, you never said you wanted "proof". There is no "proof". Socionic is a theory, so I don't know why you made this thread if you wanted proof. But if you use common sense, then you'll see that I am right.

You're focusing on whether neuroplasticity can change a person's type or not...Why do people have these types in the first place? Do you think we start off as a blank slate? If your notion of plasticity changing a person's type was even conceivable than that means people change types all the time, because the brain does adapt extremely fast and it changes at every moment. But that's not the case is it.

[Leader]

As if anyone is saying that brain does not develops and adapts. The point is that most of development happens early on and heredity plays big role in directing it. Whatever inclinations and initial conditions DNA will set will be reinforced by practice/plasticity.
People apparently argue that mere fact of existence of plasticity is an argument against hereditary nature of type. When really plasticity facilitates development along hereditary inclinations as and more easily as in any other direction.

Exactly. End of thread.

[Leader]

" You mean to say that we have an inherited disposition that our behavior then reinforces throughout life; not necessarily the position of Agee where the brain is physically limited from developing other typological characteristics, but instead that the most likely path is the one taken."

Wait what...i've said this before, but its all saying the same thing.

[The Ineffable]

If the relationship between the physical structure of the brain and type is direct, then is not type only a temporary behavioral model? Wouldn't it be inaccurate one for rapidly changing brains (e.g. children, students, etc.)? Do you believe that the origin of the expression of one's type is not necessarily found in the brain?

If you guys don't believe in the validity of neuroplastic (or neuroscience in general) research, why? Sure, it's been discredited by the business world with their silly attempts at using it to make a profit and probably has its fair share of pseudo scientific crap. However, the scientific reality of neuroscience is undeniable, and it has been and is being used to undeniably sound effects in various brain-related injuries, especially strokes and spine related injuries.

For those of you who would still believe type is in some way inherited genetically or otherwise predestined for life, I challenge you to produce an argument for how that's possible without including the brain in the explanation or otherwise soundly denounce neuroscience philosophically (an approach I would accept and respect ).

I think one needs not to abdicate from a different view due to the limitation given by your options, as they present IMO a (unintentional) false dilemma. I am not required to approve or disprove of this neuroplasticity in order to have a different opinion.

First of all, I don't think that the type has to necessarily stand in one's morphology. Even if so, the determining mechanism can be so complex that we cannot even dare to imagine at our level of understanding. Imagine the possibility that types are determined by slight, but complex differences in chemical ratios - say in blood, "0.01% higher protein X, 0.0024 less salt Y, whatever hormone Z, [... and so on ...]". There can plausibly exist obscure, but precise and self-sustaining supporting mechanisms - in the end, life itself is an apparent tower of cards that somehow manages to stand despite the changes in the environment. This would be just one idea.

Now, I am more inclined to think that the type is a setting, rather than a configuration in substance. Probably energetic - you know, like polarization & shit. Pretty much how a memory, or how a though, or a feeling is set. I don't know what exactly these phenomena are supported on, materially, however I am not aware of direct, clear-cut correlations between the morphology or chemistry of an individual and its personality, let alone its psychotype. There is evidence that these mental processes which we perceive in a simple way, are supported in this whole chemical and structural "cloud", often maintaining their impress despite local physical modifications. So yeah, it is not that easy to pinpoint, and I'm convinced this is not yet done.
---

Whatever be the case, psychologically-speaking, as I mentioned with other occasions, I view the type as a very fundamental and unconscious preference, all the other being based on it, and this is what makes, IMO, the type resilient to change - it is very core and pretty much everything in the psyche is built upon it. It looks even impossible to make an analogy with any other kind of preference that can come to my mind, as they seem all based on non-intrinsic causes, unlike what I preceive this case to be, but an example could give you some shallow insight. Think of a psychological or biological reaction of an individual against a certain external agent - allergy, idiosyncracy, etc - it is not sound to expect it to be the cause of a change on itself, rather the contrary, to tend to preserve itself [1], unless it is exposed to some aggregate of external factors which has to be precise - but not necessarily unique - and unlikely to occur spontaneously, though not necessarily impossible to happen.

I find no common-sense in believing that a preference can change exclusively based on itself. I am justified to believe that this must be the case, as long as the most intuitive way to view the Sociotype is as a manner of cognition which precedes any other mental function. Cognition means how one fundamentally views things; obviously, at such low level, unaffected by the actual content of information, alternatives are IMO inherently rejected. Let alone that out of experience we observe that the core personal preferences are generally stable, which alone would be a reason to assume a solid persistence, but unlike the cognition, such preferences are dependent on data, which can be external and not necessarily subject to their influence - for example you are religious but there are different, even contradictory things you learned by the same or other means as the former. However, cognition is formal, *all* the information that is accumulated inherits - or perhaps more appropriately "instances" - its properties.
---

[1] - generally, manifestations that are not due to external factors, when they reach the point to be observable, they already have behind a mechanism of preservation.

[Absurd]

Oh shit, you moved heavy Ti/Fe people in here, Atlast. God bless you.

[Atlast]

Oh, you never said you wanted "proof". There is no "proof". Socionic is a theory, so I don't know why you made this thread if you wanted proof. But if you use common sense, then you'll see that I am right.

You're focusing on whether neuroplasticity can change a person's type or not...Why do people have these types in the first place? Do you think we start off as a blank slate? If your notion of plasticity changing a person's type was even conceivable than that means people change types all the time, because the brain does adapt extremely fast and it changes at every moment. But that's not the case is it.

Exactly. End of thread.

Ah, I did not want proof at all and did not mean what I said as a fault, but instead as a check. I did not expect anybody to be in a position to offer solid proof for their claims (aside from explanation and a few supporting connections to the real world/scientific community) and can only speculate on such things cautiously. Thus, I find any confident conclusions to be of suspect. I'm just interested in the varying ideas we have regarding the connection between neuroplasticity and socionics type. However, some ideas have more legitimacy than others, and I found your and Esaman's proposed answers to be both articulate and perfectly possible.

Note also that the brain can change quickly or slowly depending on its use. Muscle memory has some truth to it, and might be applied to any mental or physical skill; the longer we make use of a chain in our brain the stronger it becomes and the longer it lingers. Compare a drug addict of 1 month to one of 1 year; drastically different recovery lengths.

I think one needs not to abdicate from a different view due to the limitation given by your options, as they present IMO a (unintentional) false dilemma. I am not required to approve or disprove of this neuroplasticity in order to have a different opinion.

First of all, I don't think that the type has to necessarily stand in one's morphology. Even if so, the determining mechanism can be so complex that we cannot even dare to imagine at our level of understanding. Imagine the possibility that types are determined by slight, but complex differences in chemical ratios - say in blood, "0.01% higher protein X, 0.0024 less salt Y, whatever hormone Z, [... and so on ...]". There can plausibly exist obscure, but precise and self-sustaining supporting mechanisms - in the end, life itself is an apparent tower of cards that somehow manages to stand despite the changes in the environment. This would be just one idea.

Now, I am more inclined to think that the type is a setting, rather than a configuration in substance. Probably energetic - you know, like polarization & shit. Pretty much how a memory, or how a though, or a feeling is set. I don't know what exactly these phenomena are supported on, materially, however I am not aware of direct, clear-cut correlations between the morphology or chemistry of an individual and its personality, let alone its psychotype. There is evidence that these mental processes which we perceive in a simple way, are supported in this whole chemical and structural "cloud", often maintaining their impress despite local physical modifications. So yeah, it is not that easy to pinpoint, and I'm convinced this is not yet done.
---

Whatever be the case, psychologically-speaking, as I mentioned with other occasions, I view the type as a very fundamental and unconscious preference, all the other being based on it, and this is what makes, IMO, the type resilient to change - it is very core and pretty much everything in the psyche is built upon it. It looks even impossible to make an analogy with any other kind of preference that can come to my mind, as they seem all based on non-intrinsic causes, unlike what I preceive this case to be, but an example could give you some shallow insight. Think of a psychological or biological reaction of an individual against a certain external agent - allergy, idiosyncracy, etc - it is not sound to expect it to be the cause of a change on itself, rather the contrary, to tend to preserve itself [1], unless it is exposed to some aggregate of external factors which has to be precise - but not necessarily unique - and unlikely to occur spontaneously, though not necessarily impossible to happen.

I find no common-sense in believing that a preference can change exclusively based on itself. I am justified to believe that this must be the case, as long as the most intuitive way to view the Sociotype is as a manner of cognition which precedes any other mental function. Cognition means how one fundamentally views things; obviously, at such low level, unaffected by the actual content of information, alternatives are IMO inherently rejected. Let alone that out of experience we observe that the core personal preferences are generally stable, which alone would be a reason to assume a solid persistence, but unlike the cognition, such preferences are dependent on data, which can be external and not necessarily subject to their influence - for example you are religious but there are different, even contradictory things you learned by the same or other means as the former. However, cognition is formal, *all* the information that is accumulated inherits - or perhaps more appropriately "instances" - its properties.
---

[1] - generally, manifestations that are not due to external factors, when they reach the point to be observable, they already have behind a mechanism of preservation.

Very well put. I've gathered (I think) that you believe that type is built upon a foundation of preference since day 1, and that cognition is a process that supersedes physical brain structure in that it is reliant and affected by one's foundational typological preference. In that way, I agree with you, should this unconscious preference exist. I should think something along those lines does, for I've observed much the same IME.