Schema Theory/Visual Representations of MBTI Functions

[Kyrielle]

I found this today on the INTPc forum and thought it was really cool. So, I'm going to post it here to see what you guys think about it.

Schema Theory and Myers Briggs Functions

There's a link at the very top and bottom of the page to the visual simulators. It goes through the functions in this order: N, T, F, S, "balanced", ST, NF, NT, SF.

How well do you think these simulations correlate with your thinking processes?


For me, I found both the NF and NT simulations accurate, but the "balanced" one was probably closer.

(I did a search and I don't think anything like this has been posted yet.)

[WobblyStilettos]

OO YAY I'm just starting schema theory stuff in my psych class -goes to looky-

[Evan]

I don't like this:

The operation of each of the psychological functions (S, N, T and F) is assumed as follows:

* Sensing 'seizes and shapes' entities. This gives entities greater clarity and realism, represented by a node becoming blacker - the more it is shaped, the 'clearer' it becomes, so the blacker it becomes.
* Intuition creates new entities that are not directly connected to the existing schema. However, neither are these entities divorced from it - they are created in 'proximity' to the schema - ie their relation or connection to it is implied (it is an "unconscious" connection).
* Thinking creates conscious connections between entities. This is represented by lines between the nodes. The more effort Thinking puts into building a connection, the blacker it becomes.
* Feeling moves entitites away from the self or draws them closer, depending on their value. This is represented by entities become smaller or larger, to represent moving away or closer.

My take:
Sensing -- details the nodes
Intuition -- forms connections between nodes and/or forms connections between schemas (metaphor)
Feeling -- shines light on certain relevant nodes and/or schemas
Thinking -- checks for consistencies between nodes in a schema or consistencies between schemas (feeling has to shine the light first, though, or else thinking couldn't see anything)

Funny -- this is the framework in which I've always thought about MBTI.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by dissonance

Intuition -- forms connections between nodes and/or forms connections between schemas (metaphor)

Worthwhile read... I am just wondering if intuition can actually form connections.

It suggests the connections are there or worth checking out, but cannot ever prove or make manifest the connection. It's just a way of seeing but is always leaping out over the void without a net.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Worthwhile read... I am just wondering if intuition can actually form connections.

It suggests the connections are there or worth checking out, but cannot ever prove or make manifest the connection. It's just a way of seeing but is always leaping out over the void without a net.

What else would form connections? It's not that the connections are necessarily useful (that's for judging to decide).

Thinking can't do it, it can only deductively say true/false.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by dissonance

What else would form connections? It's not that the connections are necessarily useful (that's for judging to decide).

Thinking can't do it, it can only deductively say true/false.

Hmmm... Maybe we were looking at the word "connection" with a slightly different connotation, but I do see your point. I guess I was considering a "connection" in terms of "valid connection," any connection before Thinking has validated it is merely wishful thinking and essentially a guess of sorts... easily a "fake" connection and thus not actually a connection at all despite your calling it a connection.

I haven't had much time to think about the images I saw on the link, I didn't necessarily agree with them but hadn't yet determined what I didn't like about them.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Hmmm... Maybe we were looking at the word "connection" with a slightly different connotation, but I do see your point. I guess I was considering a "connection" in terms of "valid connection," any connection before Thinking has validated it is merely wishful thinking and essentially a guess of sorts... easily a "fake" connection and thus not actually a connection at all despite your calling it a connection.

Heh, something a T dom would definitely say.

I think of N as not-so-randomly connecting things to each other -- for N doms, the connection making goes so fast that Thinking is being dragged along for the ride. Thinking can grab the reigns for a second or two (as long as feeling shines the light on the connection) and check shit out, but N just keeps chugging along. (S stuff = the things that N connects)

For T doms, they'll check a schema for consistency with little Ns jumping in between, broadening the scope.

T doms are very focused, their spaces (the structure of nodes and connections) are much more orderly. N doms have a bigger space with less order. F doms shine light in exactly the part of the space that's relevant (like less ambient light). And S doms have incredibly detailed nodes and fewer connections. And then all of those things interact with each other in certain ways, blah blah.