Types as Neurological Binary codes

[Eric B]

The hypothesis is that the factors of temperament are the root of personality through neurological elements, rather than the cognitive processes, which themselves are believed to have a neurological basis.

It's all about a person's stimulatability.
We can make 1 a need for more stimulation, and 0 a need for less stimulation.

There are two dimensions of stimulatability.
How much one is willing to actively move to gain stimuli (e), and how much he wants to passively receive it from others (w).

If we divide this into the areas of surface social skills (I), leadership and responsibilities (C), and closer personal relationships (A), we will have a six digit binary code.

xxxxxx (x=variable)

The values of each digit represent:
ewewew
IICCAA

For the 16 types, we only need the first four digits.

The way it translates into the type factors:
eI = extraversion (1)/introversion (0)
wI = informing (1)/directing (0)
eC = pragmatic (1)/cooperative (0)
wC = motive (1)/structure (0)

ISTJ 0000xx
INFJ 0001xx
INTJ 0010xx
ISTP 0011xx
ISFJ 0100xx
INFP 0101xx
INTP 0110xx
ISFP 0111xx
ESTJ 1000xx
ENFJ 1001xx
ENTJ 1010xx
ESTP 1011xx
ESFJ 1100xx
ENFP 1101xx
ENTP 1110xx
ESFP 1111xx

Temperaments, Interaction Styles
SJ xx00xx
NF xx01xx
NT xx10xx
SP xx11xx
Chart the Course 00xxxx
Behind the Scenes 01xxxx
In Charge 10xxxx
Get Things Going 11xxxx


We now can also map the cognitive functions to this neurological binary, through their common effects on type:

(Also, Y and Z will indicate that the values must be different from each other, and it can be either way: Y=0, Z=1 or Y=1, Z=0).

Se xx11xx
Si xx00xx
Ne x1YZxx
Ni x0YZxx
Te x0x0xx
Ti xY1Zxx
Fe xY0Zxx
Fi x1x1xx

Looking at it this way, there would be six "switches" in the brain so to speak, determining our personality; with the first four determining our cognitive preferences.
(It would also further explain why the preferred functions-- the first two determining type --must always be Ji/Pe or Pi/Je alternations. Try to pair two e's or i's; or P with P or J with J, and you will get a conflict in one or two digits).

 

[INTP]

there are way more than six regions in our brains that determine our psychological types. i think that those (mbti/jung)functions are most likely packs of brain regions that like to work together and maybe how sensitively these regions of brains react to different neurotransmitters(and some functions might be more about neurotransmitter related than brain region related). or maybe these different brain regions give different type of approach on things(and therefore cause N to be I or E for example) based on what other brain regions they connect to.

i dont really understand what you are trying to do with those numbers replacing types if you arent trying to figure out same type of stuff that i wrote about, and if you are, you are ways off and i suggest you to check how brains work in more depth

 

[Eric B]

Sorry, but I don't know what you wrote about, or if I did, then I forgot about what exactly you're referring to at the moment. Perhaps rings a bell, though, but not sure.

After posting, I thought about the notion of the different functions being said to reside in the different hemispheres, and realized I should have pointed out that the function-attitudes as I listed them are perspectives and not the actual "functions" themselves. Type is determined by us preferring two functions, which become our predominant perspective of information gathering and decision-making; and that would be what is determined by the "binary".

What I'm trying to do is just another way of looking at type and how it relates to neurology, and from a perspective of temperament being more elemental than simple function preference. (After all, the binary values are the temperament factors).

 

[Lily flower]

This is very interesting.

 

[Eric B]

Individual function codes

Still trying to develop this idea, and while I was able to produce codes for the eight function-attitudes, the four original functions by themselves (S, N, T, F) were a bit more difficult. S/N have a definite pattern, but it's T/F that required much more thought.

S: --XX-- (xx00xx-SJ/Si, xx11xx-SP/Se)
N: --XY-- (xx01xx-N+F, xx10xx-N+T)

Again, of the two middle digits; the first is cooperative(0)/pragmatic(1), (which I associated with "expressed control"). The second is Structure(0)/Motive(1), (which would fit "wanted Control").

These are what I held to be the original temperament factors of delay and sustain in Keirsey's model, just like E/I and directing/informing in the Interaction Styles, and classic temperament theory. Keirsey of course paired Cooperativeness with S/N, and then structure/motive became a cross factor (pairing together opposite temperaments SJ and NT, and SP and NF), later discovered by Berens.

I think there might be something to this in the brain. The expressive/responsive factors I am using may be connected with stimulatability to the outside world, and thus may have to do with particular regions of the brain. So I could see where having the two areas governing our conative skills with similar levels of stimulatability might make us focus more on concrete or tangible reality, while having them different might make us focus away from the tangible, onto the abstract or conceptual. Don't know exactly how, but I can't help notice that the congruence of one would figure in a person preferring to see what's there, and incongruence would lead one to focus on what is not there.

T and F were harder to define

(Omitting the first digit, which is I/E):
T: 000 (STJ), 010 (NTJ), 011 (STP), 110 (NTP)
F: 001 (NFJ), 100 (SFJ), 101 (NFP), 111 (SFP)

It's hard to see a common thread in those numbers.

Trying different things, what I found is from looking at the "pure" tendencies of the preference:

T: directive (0--), pragmatic (-1-), structure-focused (--0).
F: informative (1--) , cooperative (-0-), motive focused (--1).

The T/F preference will be determined whenever two or three of these digits are matched.

What made it hard is that I was looking at patterns of 0 and 1, with T leaning towards 0's representing "low wanted' or "task-focus, and F leaning towards 1's representing "high wanted" or people-focus.

However, T/F also figure in expressed Control, but in a reversed fashion. T will tend towards pragmatism (1), and F towards cooperativeness (0). (This based on the insightful studies of a guy named Roger Bissell).
From there, I could finally see the pattern, of two out of three determining the preference.

The "purest" T in this respect would be NTJ (010), directive, pragmatic and structure focused.
STJ (000), is directive, cooperative and structure focused. STP (011) is directive, pragmatic and motive focused. NTP (110) is informative, pragmatic and structure focused.

So you look at something like 001, which has these two 0's together, but one of those 0's represents cooperativeness, and the other directiveness, and the single one represents motive focus. So there's only one match to the ideal T leaning, so this falls on the F side (NFJ).
The most "pure" F in this respect is NFP (101), informative, cooperative, motive. SFP (111) is informative, pragmatic, motive. SFJ (100) is informative, cooperative, structure,

It also works for J/P (which I discovered first, from noticing the patterns in the 1's and 0's):

J: 000 (STJ), 001 (NFJ), 010 (NTJ), 100 (SFJ)
P: 011 (STP), 101 (NFP), 110 (NTP), 111 (SFP)

The J's clearly favor the 0's, and the P's, the 1's. This I looked for in T/F, but it fit J/P instead.
J/P are similar to T/F, in the wanted scales, with J favoring 0, and P favoring 1. Yet in cooperative/pragmatic, they are opposite of T/F, with J favoring 0 (cooperative) and P favoring 1 (pragmatic). That actually matches the other two digits, hence, it is more obvious.

So it's the same principle: two or three out of three.
STJ (000: directive, cooperative, structure) is the "purest" J in this respect. SFJ (100: informative, cooperative, structure); NFJ (001: directive, cooperative, motive); NTJ (010: directive, pragmatic, structure)
SFP (111: informative, pragmatic, motive); NFP (101: informative, cooperative, motive); NTP (110: informative, pragmatic, structure); STP (011: directive, pragmatic, motive).

So again, the point is that if these digits might represent points in the brain (through their stimulatability), then this might show where functional preference might be formed in neurology.