Page 1 of 2

Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:32 am
by daylen
You may have noticed that I have been referring extensively to the cognitive functions recently. This is because I have spent a great deal of time tuning my perception of each function with the aid of various gurus. One in particular that has been tremendously helpful is Host Eric from TwFP (Talking with Famous People). https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6LNCc ... 9zg/videos

Here is an ENTP debate coach in his 50's that spends a great deal of time talking with and typing random people on the internet. He has developed his own system and has been debating the various details of it for many years now. This guy is an excellent talker (perhaps the best I have seen), but he is not a very good aesthetician.

I described a simpler version in my new blog with diagrams and extensions.. https://daylenjbonner.blogspot.com/2019 ... tions.html

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:02 am
by daylen
Michael Pierce has some of the best videos on the types and cognitive functions: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmDcT_ ... xtQ/videos

He made short demonstration videos for each of the functions that are funny yet informative. There are also whole type videos that are well edited and often provide references to philosophy (I think he studied philosophy in college).

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:56 am
by daylen
Some background information:

From one angle, humans are much the same relative to the tree of life. The genetic overlap between humans and other animals is stunning, but the effects of each gene on the emergent phenotype is not straightforward. The genetic code is like a storehouse for all the information used over the course of billions of years. Any one species at a point in time only uses a fraction of it and a fraction of that fraction is disproportionately effective in the members of that species.

A large part of our brain space is dedicated to keeping track of social information. This skews our view of how similar we actually are from each other. Reality is one derivative removed in our perception, so we are only aware of relative changes that are dramatic enough to fire a neuron cascade forming a durable circuit in the brain. Some circuits are required for others to initiate due to the hierarchical structure of the nervous system. Slight differences in these circuits may be amplified over time with use and such modifications may contribute to an emergent pattern in the mind that correlates with different personalities.

When disengaged from our environment we tend to settle into the DMN (default mode network). If something triggers us to engage, then various other circuits are initiated that negatively correlate with the DMN. The inability to transition between these mind states is a major factor in learning ability. Kids that get triggered into a high anxiety state cannot easily form new memories. Many people believe they are not "math people" because they developed a fear of it that disallowed them to process problems in the DMN, therefore the insights never did reach fruition.

There are three or four primary periods of life that contribute differently to the development of personality (I will stick with three here for simplicity):

1. Birth - Puberty: This stage has a complex relationship with personality. In general, if the child is well cared for and all their needs are satisfied, then the effect of this period on personality is minor relative to the next stage. Trauma and Mal-nourishment may lead to certain life outcomes that influence personality.

2. Puberty - Age 25: This is a very important stage in life were the frontal lobe is in climax development. Exposure to different people, places, strategies, and perspectives allows the child to search for their niche. During this stage, the child is starting to recognize their relative strengths and weaknesses. Pressure to conform or become independent can slow development during this period and force them into a cultural valley (which is likely adaptive for the times). Anxiety circuits help constrain rapid exploration that may lead to dangerous outcomes, and the dopamine circuits provide reward for the same process of exploration.

3. Age 25 - Death: Once the main period of exploration and conformity is experiencing diminishing returns, then the adult will tend to find a peak of least resistance. Surprise surprise, this typically looks like a regression back to the predetermined strategy emergent from the small sliver of effective genes. The second stage is still influential in the sense that it gives the agent a map of the territory, so that the agent can pin-point their position with a higher accuracy. This is not to say that the map is not still being worked out at this stage. It is just that the map is more personalized, so the complexity of the processing at this stage from the perspective of others is often overlooked due to dunning-Kruger.

A more detailed map of the environment and genetic predisposition allows agents to more easily take the path of least resistance through life. This is the nutshell of my intuition on the topic for now.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:10 pm
by Ego
daylen wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:56 am

When disengaged from our environment we tend to settle into the DMN (default mode network). If something triggers us to engage, then various other circuits are initiated that negatively correlate with the DMN. The inability to transition between these mind states is a major factor in learning ability. Kids that get triggered into a high anxiety state cannot easily form new memories.
Interesting. It makes me wonder if it is possible to train the DMN in the same way that some people have learned to prime their subconscious mind with a complex problem before going to bed or at the beginning of a long run and then wake up or finish the run with a fully formed solution.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:02 pm
by daylen
In some sense, that is what maturity does(*). The ability to swiftly navigate between emotional/social context, memories, background processing, and focused interaction is sort of the purpose of the DMN. Accurately gauging the relative impacts of various engagements helps us allocate time efficiently according to our own standard. Our sense of self is also coupled to the DMN.

It is like a strongly coupled circuit with several weaker circuits searching other parts of the mind (almost randomly). Every now and then a weak circuit finds something interesting and alerts the primary circuit to investigate more methodically. If the new circuit is found to be worthwhile, then it is strengthened with associations to other circuits (triggering it more often).

(*) Who knows how to train that? I certainly do not! :P

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:09 pm
by jacob
How to train for that? I have a modest suggestion:

Use Hebb's rule: Neurons that fire together wire together.

In terms of creativity or lateral thinking---that is the kind of ideas you have in the restroom---I've found it incredible helpful to focus my thinking on commonalities instead of differences. This was on the suggestion on a weird how-to-think-about-physics book I read as a freshman. The example I remember compared electricity to a hydraulic system. The differences are obviously that one is made of wire with electrons and the other one out of water and pipes. The commonalities would be that voltage is akin to pressure and current is akin to ... well current.

Do that for a while and Hebb's rule should rewire one's circuits so that all the details are wired to the [abstract] commonalities instead of the other way around. Those commonalities become the latticework (Munger's mental models). This allows one to laterally connect one detail through another via the commonalities. E.g. river->water->current=current->electric circuit->flip flop.

Gah! This would be easier to draw. My point is that the Ni-latticework becomes a latent variable or rather a latent graph. They are in my mind not necessarily explicit in the way they're often presented. Rather, they're just there based on lots of experience and often intuitively correct.

The primary circuit, at least for an INTJ, is established/elaborated by the Te ... that then needs to retrace the network and put it in words so the rest of the world can understand it.

I think this explains why writing thoughts down is a painful process for INTJs (Ni-Te) whereas INTPs (Ti-Ne) "only" have to do a core-dump because the T is already formed.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:17 pm
by daylen
Here is one interpretation for how the INTJ and INTP minds work (differently and similarly :) ). I do not know about you, but I have always felt like we are approaching similar problems from two different sides of the same bridge. Typically, I think we tend to immediately understand each other (perhaps because of a shared academic background), but the way we get there is completely different. It explains a lot about the history of thought (philosophy, math, physics, etc. in general). Much of intellectual history feels a bit like the incomplete version of this bridge. This gap produces a significant amount of confusion and outrage.

I drew some diagrams to demonstrate this:
Image

The outside edge is closer to the cortex in the brain where axons are densely packed, and the center links to the limbic system(+). Overall, both Ti-Ne and Ni-Te tend to have a similar structure, but the process that builds it is different. For instance, I just went on a walk and constructed this post in my mind (roughly) by linking several discrete points on the peripheral edge. When I use my Ne to search for metaphors/similarities, it is deliberately constrained by the Ti structure I am currently working with. When constructing a model, I need several constraints to guide my Ne or else it tends to get lost. Vague input -> Vague output

Now, I can also do the Ni-Te approach, but it is rare and not very effective. When Ni does work, it can be very profound for me. It feels like I am integrating several large [Ti] islands of thought, but at the end of the day, this integration is not that strong due to my infrequent use of the primary circuit. I prefer to detach from that circuit and explore well constrained circuits on the peripheral with brief, albeit powerful moments of integration.

(+) I could be wrong, but I think the DMN or Ni latticework is almost like a shell around the limbic system that monitors information flow to and from the cortex?

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:10 am
by jacob
I agree on the difference. It's also the stereotypical difference between a mathematician and a scientist. I studied both math and physics (in Denmark, you have to pick two university majors) but was never that good at math, because as one professor informed me I was too sloppy about the details(*). I would also often get stuck being unable to prove something if I found it too obvious. I have papers that degenerated into some Russell and Whitehead like exercise because I was supposed to prove [analytically] that the shortest path between a point and a line was a straight line perpendicular to that line.

(*) I got my "revenge" later as a TA when I had to stop one of the mathematicians from also covering the special case of the electron charge converging on zero.

Doing Ni-Te, I don't feel like I'm integrating Ti islands of thought. It's rather like the example above with the point and the line. I just know what the answer is, but I have to [sometimes painstakingly] figure out a T-path between the answer and the question. Te is often hard work. If something comes easy to me, it's because I've thought about it before, but the first time never is... whereas that's the impression, I get from Ti-people when it to me just looks like they're doing a core-dump of a structure they already have.

Ni-Te has N-like structure with T-paths that can be communicated.
Ti-Ne has T-like structure with N-paths that can be communicated.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:26 am
by 7Wannabe5
So what does Ne-Ti have?

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:00 am
by daylen
Similar to Ti-Ne, except that there would be more N paths relative to T Structure. This would also explain why you read fast compared to me. I like to read more technical/dense stuff as a slower pace. I am going to draw some more diagrams with what I know now after 20 wiki articles on the cortex. Last night I started getting into an area of research that combines algebraic topology and neuroscience. Supposedly, the brain is best mapped in 11 dimensions or something. :D

https://www.wired.com/story/the-mind-bo ... imensions/

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:10 am
by daylen
More food for thought: Many traditional and modern areas of medicine de-synchronize the DMN (including psychedelics). Also makes me wonder if the degree of synchronization in the DMN is correlated with increased conscientiousness? It makes sense given the research on PTSD, depression, alternative medicine, and so forth. Having an ego is smooth sailing until a giant wave comes along. :P

Though, it is clearly a trade-off because someone needs to have an ego for anything to get done. Monks are less than useless in this sense.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:00 pm
by daylen
Image
This fits with my cognitive function descriptions. Se-Ni converges onto a procedural action pattern. Si-Ne diverges from prior action to metaphorical relations. Fe-Ti translates between T-like conditional structures based on F-like selective signaling. Fi-Te personalizes F-like selection structure based on T-like generative signaling.

The center region includes sub-cortical structures such as the basal ganglia, hippocampus, amygdala, .. the DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) may also fit here.

I think all four processes train the primary circuit in a different ways. Ni-Te-Fi-Se forms a latticework-like structure (sustained direction), and Ti-Ne-Si-Fe forms a dictionary-like structure (quick redirection).

Image
Ti generation results in greater vertical differentiation in the neo-cortex. Fi selection results in greater vertical differentiation in the sub-cortical regions. These hierarchical structures lock in activity to the respective regions. Hebb's rule results in more local synchronization overtime (similar to momentum conservation).

Image
A steeper hierarchy slows down translational movement while simultaneously increasing accuracy. This is related to why computers use binary (accuracy is more important than speed). When Ne>Ti, movement between different modules in the neo-cortex is quicker but with a higher false-positive rate for pattern-matching.

This is a whole lot of speculation on an extremely complex topic. 8-)

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:06 pm
by GandK
Have you ever listened to any of the Personality Hacker podcasts? The hosts are really good. There are 300+ episodes on subjects like these... every aspect of cognitive function you could hope to cover, and multiple podcasts on pretty much every specific type. I even found a nice lengthy interview with an(other) INFJ-ESTJ couple that helped the communication in my marriage. Highly recommended.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:38 pm
by daylen
@GandK I have sampled some of their stuff. It is okay, but I do not find it information dense enough. My research is done in short, intense bursts. The more fun part for me is developing my own models. Most sources on psychology are too shallow or sparse, so I am trying to incorporate neuroscience and topology into the mix. Mapping behavior to biology is my prime interest, and I feel that I have partly entered into the "unknown" territory.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:08 am
by 7Wannabe5
daylen wrote:This would also explain why you read fast compared to me.
Also, why you think clear compared to me.
When Ne>Ti, movement between different modules in the neo-cortex is quicker but with a higher false-positive rate for pattern-matching.
That's not what it seems like. More like higher micro-positive* rate. Like I am searching for the big bright star to put on top of the tree, but I end up tangled in a string of blinking LEDs. I can't not go sideways, so I drop book quotes like bread crumbs to mark trail.


*For example, it is true (positive) that the arguments between the clergymen in Trollope's novels are very much like the arguments between affluent members of blue and red political circles in modern U.S., and this has something to do with the argument that Picketty makes in "Capital", but where do I go from there?-> -> Therefore, the empty pews in today's England are indicative of definite possibility of empty FITB in 22nd century America?

BTW, I just started reading a book, "Inprobable Destinies: Fate, Chance, and the Future of Evolution" by Losos, on the topic of recent increase in evidence for convergent evolution (debate between theories of Stephen J. Gould and Conway Morris), and I think it (or related papers since you prefer to read dense material) might be of some interest for your project, because thinking structures in non-related intelligent species might be analogous to swimming structures in non-related aquatic species in terms of design limitations and optimization.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:58 pm
by daylen
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:08 am
Like I am searching for the big bright star to put on top of the tree, but I end up tangled in a string of blinking LEDs. I can't not go sideways, so I drop book quotes like bread crumbs to mark trail.
:lol: Those are excellent metaphors for Ne-Si.

Agreed. This is only in comparison to types with Ti higher in the stack (INTP and ISTP). Overall, Ti in second slot would still be spot on with their micro-metaphorical connections and Si would back them up with a sequential memory "trail". The micro part denotes abstractions closer to the peripheral edge. Connections closer to the cortex/limbic boundary would be more accurate for Ne>Ti, because that counteracts the cost associated with going deep.

Ti>Ne would be more accurate with the micro-metaphors they choose to comment on. For instance, the ISTP is the best type at recognizing what they do not know and tend to stay in their area of expertise. INTP's are also like this, but with Ne in the second slot they can get carrier away at times. ENTP's would be even more likely to get carried away, hence Ne>Ti would increase the likelihood of seeing something that isn't there (false-positive). Though, ENTP's would still be the best type at general pattern-matching on topics they are not an expert in. If that makes sense.

I also thought it was interesting how you said "the big bright star", because I have heard that ENxP's often strive for Ni-convergence (probably one reason you are attracted to this forum). Often they do not recognize when they do manage to capture it until it is too late. Like a kid ready to graduate grade school only to realize that 45-min recess was much better than sitting in middle-school math class.

---------

I will definitely look more into evolution at some point. Convergent evolution is closely related to morphology (focus on form over function) which is fascinating.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:15 pm
by daylen
Generally speaking, N greater than T would have a higher false-positive rate. For humans, the cost of seeing stuff that isn't there is less than not seeing stuff that is. Ni-users are typically good at seeing how something will turn out even without any T constructions of it.

Ni-Ti is like laser vision that cuts though anything that does not "fit". This is awesome if you know what to look for but can be deadly if malfunctioning.

EDIT: Fixed it

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:18 pm
by Bankai
Is it not the opposite, ie not seeing a tiger that's actually there tends to be lethal while seeing an imaginary one will at most rise heart rate and offer an opportunity for some free exercise (sprint)?

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:21 pm
by daylen
I mis-spoke, hehe.

Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:59 pm
by daylen
@GandK I partly take back what I said. Sometimes, I do like less dense stuff when I want to wind down a bit. I will give Personality Hacker a better shot.