# Brain Maps and the functions



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Left Brain : Right Brain

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS (Fe, Te, Ni, Si)

uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe


RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS (Ne, Se, Fi, Ti) 

uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

It's very hypothetic, but if functional specialization for brain's halfs exists I'd wait it as: Left for rational/judging functions, Right for irrational/percieving. But the more probable, - there is no univalent functional specialization for halfs of brain, it would be too easy.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Remember, Information Elements in socionics are not exactly the same thing as a cognitive function, and certainly not the same thing as any of the mapped processes above. IE's are not explicit mental processes, they are related to information metabolism. Everything in socionics, particularly the intertype relations and Model A, is founded on this principle. At any given point, we are expecting, taking in, and reacting to different kinds of information from the environment and people around us, but not everyone is doing these things in the same way, and these differences create different personalities and different interaction patterns. 

When we deal with something like a cognitive brain map, we're looking more at how certain areas in the brain are responsible for operable functions. I'm not sure that an Information Element, for what it is, can really be "mapped" to a region since it isn't as clear of a mental process.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Figure said:


> Remember, Information Elements in socionics are not exactly the same thing as a cognitive function, and certainly not the same thing as any of the mapped processes above. IE's are not explicit mental processes, they are related to information metabolism. Everything in socionics, particularly the intertype relations and Model A, is founded on this principle. At any given point, we are expecting, taking in, and reacting to different kinds of information from the environment and people around us, but not everyone is doing these things in the same way, and these differences create different personalities and different interaction patterns.
> 
> When we deal with something like a cognitive brain map, we're looking more at how certain areas in the brain are responsible for operable functions. I'm not sure that an Information Element, for what it is, can really be "mapped" to a region since it isn't as clear of a mental process.


"Due to the fact that differences in personality types are just differences in information signals exchange with the environment, personality types can be called the information metabolism types (IM types)."

This doesn't mean we can change types from one day to another, does it? IM elements and cognitive functions are defined differently but are in essence the same, right?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

I think the real brain maps largely correspond with Lenore Thomson's brain map. 

Introverted Thinking in Socionics:

Ti: perception of an object's position in space (logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments)

Introverted logic (thinking), external statics of fields. Ti is responsible for understanding logic and structure, categorizations, ordering and priorities, logical analysis and distinctions, logical explanations. Ti interprets information according to how it fits into a validating system. Ti is particularly aware of logical consistency and how concepts relate to each other in meaning and structure, independently of particular purposes.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Psychological functions and Information metabolism models

"The Polish psychiatrist, A. Kempinsky, has compared energetic metabolism (EM) to assimilation and processing the information by a human psyche. The essence of his information metabolism (IM) theory is the fact that outer information signals are similar to foods. By analogy with the energy metabolism of the cells Kempinsky showed that information is perceived by certain channels of a human psyche, assimilates, accumulates, is kept there, then is transformed and partially goes out to interact with the outer world, and some part of it remains inside and makes the person’s inner world. A. Kempinsky introduced the following image: *“The human psyche is fed with the information. His mental health depends of the quantity and quality of this information”. *

Information metabolism is the process of assimilating, processing and transferring information by the human psyche. 

That is why socionics has the second name of the information metabolism theory. 

By analogy with the natural cell metabolism, the information flow coming to a person is decomposed into separate components by the human psyche. But only a certain channel, not at random, but exactly tuned into each of these components, is responsible for receiving and processing this information. In this connection* A. Augustinavichuite writes: “C.G. Jung’s discovery is the discovery of the selection mechanism of signals perceived by the psyche. This mechanism can be called an information metabolism (IM) code or the rules of the language with the help of which information is transferred”. 

Mental type determines the way of receiving information from the outer world by an individual and the selection of this information. The certain individual psyche structure determines the certain kind of “filtration system” for information processing. These are Jung’s functions (logics, ethics, intuition, sensorics). Dominant functions ensure a larger volume of information processed that weak ones." 
*

Socionics = IM + Jungian cognitive functions


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Tellus said:


> This doesn't mean we can change types from one day to another, does it? IM elements and cognitive functions are defined differently but are in essence the same, right?


This tells nothing concerning type change neither whether socionics information aspects are same as MBTI functions. You're reading too much into it and seeing things that you want to see but that aren't actually there.

Also you're likely not ILI since you're trying to find similarities and convergences so hard (which is relegated to positivism).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> This tells nothing concerning type change neither whether socionics information aspects are same as MBTI functions. You're reading too much into it and seeing things that you want to see but that aren't actually there.
> 
> Also you're likely not ILI since you're trying to find similarities and convergences so hard (which is relegated to positivism).


"This doesn't mean we can change types from one day to another, does it?" It was a rhetorical question  

"IM elements and cognitive functions are defined differently but are in essence the same, right?" This is from another discussion.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Tellus said:


> "This doesn't mean we can change types from one day to another, does it?" It was a rhetorical question
> 
> "IM elements and cognitive functions are defined differently but are in essence the same, right?" This is from another discussion.


Fair enough  but it make your posts hard to follow or debate because you take parts of different discussions without building any context for them.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Tellus said:


> "Due to the fact that differences in personality types are just differences in information signals exchange with the environment, personality types can be called the information metabolism types (IM types)."
> 
> This doesn't mean we can change types from one day to another, does it? IM elements and cognitive functions are defined differently but are in essence the same, right?


No, absolutely not. Your type does not change day to day/ever. If you want to consider brain maps and changes in cognitive function dependence Dario Nardi has sidenoted that, for example, INTJ maps tend to "look more like" that of ISFP as they age, but type itself does not change. The quote is saying exactly that _because_ these differences are so innate, they actually form the different personality structures presented by socionics theory. 

The second part of your question - I do not see them as the same thing categorically (although I used to, quite casually, until I realized where the other people yammering about how different they are were coming from). I think they point to the same hazy "it" that we credit Jung with having conceptualized, but that it _is_ important to understanding them as relating to information and not rote cognitive processes in socionics. I still use the IE's with Beebe's numbered model and think it works fine (in the sense that there's rarely a discrepancy between the two in my judgment), but understanding why the relations work the way they do has greatest depth when it is done in the context of the information shared between the people involved much more than some arbitrary cognitive "function."


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

See below


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Figure said:


> No, absolutely not. Your type does not change day to day/ever. If you want to consider brain maps and changes in cognitive function dependence Dario Nardi has sidenoted that, for example, INTJ maps tend to "look more like" that of ISFP as they age, but type itself does not change. The quote is saying exactly that _because_ these differences are so innate, they actually form the different personality structures presented by socionics theory.
> 
> The second part of your question - I do not see them as the same thing categorically (although I used to, quite casually, until I realized where the other people yammering about how different they are were coming from). I think they point to the same hazy "it" that we credit Jung with having conceptualized, but that it _is_ important to understanding them as relating to information and not rote cognitive processes in socionics. I still use the IE's with Beebe's numbered model and think it works fine (in the sense that there's rarely a discrepancy between the two in my judgment), but understanding why the relations work the way they do has greatest depth when it is done in the context of the information shared between the people involved much more than some arbitrary cognitive "function."


My first question was actually rhetorical.


"until I realized where the other people yammering about how different they are were coming from"

Could you explain further, please? 


"but that it is important to understanding them as relating to information and not rote cognitive processes in socionics"

Read post #6 


"but understanding why the relations work the way they do has greatest depth when it is done in the context of the information shared between the people involved much more than some arbitrary cognitive 'function.' "

I agree, i.e. information metabolism: relations of duality...


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

@_itsme45 _ 

edit: 
crap, wrong thread


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

liminalthought said:


> @_itsme45 _
> 
> edit:
> crap, wrong thread


What?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Tellus said:


> LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS (Fe, Te, Ni, Si)
> RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS (Ne, Se, Fi, Ti)


Bullshit.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Bullshit.


Okay, so you have noticed a discrepancy? Where?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Okay, so you have noticed a discrepancy? Where?


Sol_, Figure already fleshed that out in more detail. But okay I'll add some thoughts;


As for Lenore Thomson's brain map, it was never meant to be an actual map. Just a simplified whatever.


Also, as an example, take her example of Ti that you quoted, a lot of that Ti will be using the left hemisphere.


You can check out Dario Nardi's work if you wish, you will see that it really isn't that simple.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Okay, so you have noticed a discrepancy? Where?


Because within the context of Socionics it really is bullshit to say Exxj and Ixxj use only the left side of their brains while Exxp and Ixxp use only the right side. Even a cursory examination into how the brain works would disprove such an assertion. Which is to say, you use both sides for the most part equally. There are several fields in science devoted to understanding something as basic as cognition and none that're wrapped neatly into functions like Jungian functions. The brain is really much more complicated in mechanism so it would be much more accurate to say the cognitive functions are a meta container of brain functions.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Sol_, Figure already fleshed that out in more detail. But okay I'll add some thoughts;
> 
> 
> As for Lenore Thomson's brain map, it was never meant to be an actual map. Just a simplified whatever.
> ...



MBTI Brain Types | Lenore Thomson Bentz

LTB: The only purpose of the brain map is to show how type preference relates to what the brain actually does. It doesn't mean that preference is a predetermined neurological structure, and it doesn't mean that you can drill into the cranium and locate the functions, cradled happily in their separate quadrants. What I'm trying to indicate is that tasks associated with the various functions implicate different parts of the brain.

For example, if the left frontal lobe of the brain is anesthetized, discrimination and executive judgment are rendered impossible. The frontal cortex is crucial to the tasks we associate with Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling.

If the right back hemisphere is anesthetized instead, executive judgment remains possible, but it occurs without reference to real subjective experience, spatial awareness, and contextual evaluation -- aspects associated with Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling. Without this input, the left brain simply fabricates whatever appears to "explain" how consequence is related to cause. 

Tellus: "I think the real brain maps *largely* correspond with Lenore Thomson's brain map."


"Also, as an example, take her example of Ti that you quoted, a lot of that Ti will be using the left hemisphere." 

What part of Ti do you mean?


"Sol_, Figure already fleshed that out in more detail."

Where?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Because within the context of Socionics it really is bullshit to say Exxj and Ixxj use only the left side of their brains while Exxp and Ixxp use only the right side. Even a cursory examination into how the brain works would disprove such an assertion. Which is to say, you use both sides for the most part equally. There are several fields in science devoted to understanding something as basic as cognition and none that're wrapped neatly into functions like Jungian functions. The brain is really much more complicated in mechanism so it would be much more accurate to say the cognitive functions are a meta container of brain functions.



"Because within the context of Socionics it really is bullshit to say Exxj and Ixxj use only the left side of their brains while Exxp and Ixxp use only the right side."

We have *eight* cognitive functions, right?


"There are several fields in science..."

I am sure there is plenty of research behind those brains maps (post #1).


----------

