Tag Archives: Mind

Personality Types: The Result of Humanity’s Evolution?

A Sensors role is to maintain and protect society, and they tend to think in a one-by-one manner, when it comes to concepts.

An intuitive’s role in society is to innovate, design, enhance, invent, and lead during times of great change or chaos. They tend to think about a million different things at the same time, lol.

I like to look at personality types from an evolutionary standpoint.

Personality types evolved into the psyche of individuals, because each type of personality carries out a certain role or function in society. Therefore, it is the mix of all different types, each taking up a certain portion of the population.


The percentage of a specific type when compared to the entire population is not relevant to how important that type is.

Society, Nature, The World, Time, Magic, God, and Mayor McCheese all combined forces to figure out what society needed to survive, progress, and continue to enhance.

Sensors vs Intuitives – What Role Does Each Type Play in Society?

I hear often, when talking to another intuitive person for the first time about personality types, the same general complaint:

“So and so” [A Sensing Type] thinks I’m weird. [An Intuitive Type]

The best is the look on the person’s face, when I respond with: “Well, they (The Sensing Type) are absolutely correct.”

“Weird,” by definition, is something that is abnormal, uncanny, strange, unusual, or unexpected.

So, the Sensing-dominant person is correct for multiple reasons:


Right off the bat, 70% of the population prefers Sensing, versus only 30% favoring Intuition. This means that intuitives are actually less likely to exist, according to pure statistics.

The Sensing Type person is probably “normal,” which means conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. They are significantly more populous in society, making them more expected.


Introduction to Socionics

What is socionics?

Socionics is a theory of human interaction based on fixed patterns of information processing known as “socionic types.” A socionic type (there are 16 of them) is a description of some very fundamental ways in which a person’s psyche works. These psychic qualities define to a large degree a person’s relationships with others, his or her perception of life as a whole, and the niche he or she strives to occupy among people.

Each person’s psyche is a lopsided construction that attempts to pursue certain kinds of information (stimuli) while minimizing others. This is what socionic type describes. This lopsidedness creates a need for social cooperation. The nature of close cooperation (relationships) between people depends on how well-suited people’s lopsided psychic tendencies are to each other. This is what intertype relations are about.

The origins of socionics

As the story goes, founder of socionics Aushra Augusta (she shortened her last name from “Augustinavichiute” to “Augusta” to make it easier for foreigners) was mulling over fundamental issues of human existence (“why are some relationships good and others bad despite everyone’s intention to have good ones?”) in Vilnius, Lithuania in the 1970s, when she came across a number of typological systems that influenced her thoughts — Kretschmer’s psychosomatic types (i.e. endomorphs, mesomorphs, and ectomorphs), Kempinsky’s (now a forgotten Polish psychiatrist) concept of “information metabolism,” and — most of all — Carl Jung’s typology of psychological types.

Augusta created symbols to represent the functions described by Carl Jung and — together with a circle of fellow researchers/hobbyists — eventually created what is known as the “socionic model of the psyche” — a neat description of the psyche where each of the 8 information elements has its place in each person’s psyche. This was quite a development on Jung’s typology and introduced many new concepts, including the mechanisms that explain how types interact.

Socionic types

The 16 socionic types differ on four axes (called ‘dichotomies’): rationality/irrationality, extraversion/introversion, intuition/sensing, and logic/ethics. Each type has one characteristic from each of the dichotomies, making 16 possible combinations. This does not mean there is a complete absence of the opposite mechanism, however. It means that one is more flexible and multi-faceted, while the other is more rigid and simplistic.

Although types often display similar values, life strategies, general behavior, and facial expressions, such traits such as IQ, musical talent, sports abilities, charisma, “personal power,” etc. are little related to type. A review of how socionists have typed famous people will demonstrate this. No type is inherently “predisposed” for success or failure in life. A common error of socionics enthusiasts is to try to relate non-socionic traits to socionic types.

In addition, socionics does not view type structure as being so rigid that a person can change little in life. One’s positive or negative thinking patterns, overall outlook on life, and emotional health are not tied to type and are quite flexible. However, socionic type is one of the things — along with inborn physiological traits — that does not change, even if outward behavior, emotional states, and attitudes do. Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so “deep” that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??).


Intertype relations

The basic difference between socionics and other typologies is socionics’ theory of intertype relations. Socionics is not a typology of personality, but a typology of perceptual traits that define one’s relationships with others. Hence, we should not be surprised to see significant personality differences between individuals of the same socionic type — as long as we see that there is a similar pattern of intertype relations.

Intertype relations describe the nature of interaction and information interchange between two people at a close psychological distance by describing how partners’ psychic functions interrelate. These socionic relationships range from very difficult and potentially harmful to one’s self-realization to very beneficial and pleasant to the psyche. Intertype relations most influence one’s informal relationships with others, where one chooses friends based on pleasure and mutual benefit (cooperation).

Duality and dual relations

Socionics_duality_ILE-SEI   ILE & SEI

A unique aspect of socionics is the discovery of complementary psychic structures. Jung and his followers recognized a particular attraction between individuals with certain leading functions, but these observations were not developed into a full-fledged theory, and the Meyers-Briggs system does not seem to address them at all.

Each of the 16 socionic types has its ‘dual’ type. The essence of dual relations is that the natural information output of one type is the preferred information input of the other. Having a dual or dual around stimulates one to use one’s strengths as much as possible. Even their mere physical presence tends to exert a calming and balancing influence. Dual relations develop around the strongest functions of each partner and keep mental and physical functioning balanced, while directing partners’ energy towards constructive and rewarding activities.

Socionics and the MBTI

At some point Augusta and her associates learned of Isabel Briggs Myers’ and her mother Katharine Cook Briggs’ development of Jung’s typology across the ocean in the United States. Newcomers to socionics in the West often have to face the difficulty of trying to distinguish between the two typologies. They are fundamentally different and cannot be treated as “the same types, but with different type names.”

Those who look deeply into socionics and the MBTI recognize that socionics’ theoretical apparatus is more systematic and logical in nature — and simply larger. Indeed, socionics was created by a “thinking” type, while the MBTI was created by “feeling” types (a quick review of sites on the two fields will make this clear). That is just the beginning of the differences.

I personally, of course, find socionics to be a big improvement on the MBTI, but I’m sure there are ardent followers of the MBTI that hold the opposite opinion.

The four socionic dichotomies appear to be very similar to the dichotomies used by the MBTI system. However, close inquiry reveals that there are many subtle differences. If you assume the dichotomies are the same and equate each socionic type to an MBTI type, some socionic types will overlap to a large degree with their MBTI counterparts, others will partially overlap, and yet others will seem to be completely different. If the types were truly equivalent, a similar theory of intertype relations would have arisen in the MBTI system — but there is none. On the whole, MBTI and socionics types seem to correlate in roughly 30% of cases. That is not nearly enough to consider the two typologies close approximations of each other.

The socionics community

There is a large socionics community across the Russian-speaking world. In many if not most large cities of the former Soviet Union there are people who hold evening classes on socionics and social gatherings for people interested in socionics. Centers of socionics are Kiev (Ukraine), Moscow and St. Petersburg (Russia), and Vilnius (Lithuania). Here socionics conferences take place where socionists present and discuss papers and studies and most books on socionics are published (there are now maybe 40 or 50 books on socionics, primarily in Russian, but also with a few in Ukrainian and Lithuanian).

At the same time, socionics is a decentralized field of study. There is no central body that is universally recognized as the single authority in the field or that dictates methodology, type identification, etc. Socionics arose outside of the academic world (although Augusta was a sociologist) and has not yet obtained official academic recognization, though it is now often mentioned in psychology courses in universities around the former USSR. Competent and respected socionists generally are known in the community and publish in community journals and participate in seminars and professional dialogue.

Socionics is held together by numerous enthusiasts and scattered professionals — who publish books and journals, teach courses, diagnose types, and consult individuals, families, and even entire organizations.


My Mind: From Chaos to Solution


I automatically see connections between all elements of an issue:

  • The problem.
  • The people involved.
  • The circumstances leading up to the situation.
  • The environmental factors.
  • The outside influences.
  • The potential reasons for misunderstanding.
  • The manner in which the individual elements affect each other.
  • All of possible solutions.

All of these thought processes occur in my mind, simultaneously.

Sparking rapidly in complete chaos.

Bouncing off of one another, crossing paths, combining, and creating new sparks.

An uncontrollable storm of pattern spotting, analogous connections, contradictions, divergence, and convergence.

I can’t help it.
I can’t explain it.
I can’t turn it off.

Destruction and Healing

Different parts of my mind go to battle with each other, and then they construct new bridges to mend the dissonance they created.

As a result, a new layer of understanding emerges that didn’t previously exist.

Sitting atop this new layer, radiant and obvious, is the solution.

The more complex and challenging the issue, the more useful having this ability is:

Watching me tie my shoes or get ready to go out for the evening is amusing. I come across as a clumsy, scattered-brained moron.

Being in the right environment is crucial.

Now, take a room filled with the most talented people in the world, trying to solve an impossible problem or create an entirely new way of doing things.

They may be completely stuck in a deadlock. They may be ready to give up entirely. Put me in that same room for a little while, and it’s like witnessing magic.

Groups and a Diversity of Opinions

Other people, especially with a diverse set of opinions, to bounce ideas off of, only multiplies what already happens in my mind.

In a group situation, it may take some time to process and readjust the patterns of thought, based on the input of others. However, what it really provides is more elements to play with and more dots to connect: a bigger playground.

Out of Nowhere

Despite being the person with perhaps the least topic-oriented experience, I will typically see that one connection hidden in everyone’s blind spot.

Somewhere in that same general area, the solution to their problem will present itself.


It’s quite a powerful ability, but it’s something I only can direct or shape, not something I have complete control over.

It’s not a matter of how it’s chosen to be utilized, but where it’s placed.



Similarities between AI and the Human Mind

The main distinguishing feature between the human mind and AI is consciousness (Frantz, 2003). While it is true that computers are far from being fully assimilated to the human brain, advances in the field of AI shed light on many features of the human mind that were previously unknown and that is a reliable indicator that there are innumerable similarities between the two.

The most obvious contrast is the brain and mind in humans compared to hard drive and software in computers. Brain is the entity responsible for storing information and executing the mechanical aspect of information processing while the hard drive carrying the same function in computers. The mind on the other hand is responsible for directing the brain on what, which and how to process the vast stored information in the brain while the software executes similar function in computers.

More interesting is the fact that information is received and processed by humans much the same way as is with AI. The learning process for example involves three steps: acquisition, storage and retrial of information (Frantz, 2003). Though humans can acquire information through natural senses such as sight and hearing and AI conventionally acquires information through input devices such as the key board on a computer or a scanner on the cash register, the gap between the two means of information acquisition is being bridged.

On the other hand, storage of information and its retrieval is carried with astonishing ease in AI compared to humans and in fact storage and retrieval in AI is far more efficient and often that makes it out perform humans in problem solving (Pinker, 1997).

There is a difference in processing speed which might indicate that operation mechanisms are different but the end result isn’t much different. The feelings of touch and smell are being now perfected in machines which denote the possibility of complete assimilation in the years to come. The variance in the abilities of each will be discussed elsewhere in this paper but the point we stress here is the fact the sequence of events in the process of learning is similar, at the very least on the sequence of events involved in learning.

Humanization of Robots

Many observers in the field agree that AI is hugely reliant on brute force calculations rather than strategy (Belsie, 1995). There are examples proving that computers are becoming increasingly strategizers rather than just information processing machines. As noted by Frantz “the ID3 algorithm not only diagnose soybean diseases with an accuracy which would make most any psychic jealous, but it does so with maximum efficiency. That is, it asks the right questions in the right order so as to make the diagnoses in the minimum amount of time” (Frantz, 2003). He contends that AI has discovered patterns in data and discovered tactics in chess that humans never though of.

While past decades have seen massive improvements in robotics, AI has a long way to reach the abilities of the human brain. Some of the areas of improvements are as follows: First, AI lack consciousness, that is to say computers require massive advances before they attain the ability to be aware of the world around them. Being fully conscious would mean that computers are able to make decisions that have not been pre-coded in them. They also lack more incalculable functions such as “musical and artistic aptitudes” that humans enjoy. They are still in their dark ages when it comes to responding to emotions such as smile and tears. Kurzweil calculates that in order for robots to reach these abilities they would require a calculating power of at least 20 billion calculations per second which conventional silicon chips are far from realizing (Kurzweil, 2000).

Such assumptions indicate that even the most mysterious of feelings such as love are just basic number crunching carried out in a more intense, faster and massive manner. Second, AI is far from realizing the ability necessary for survival that the human brain takes for granted; namely the ability to repair faulty parts when necessary (Setton, Dolly, Forbes, 2001).

Third, whereas AI are mainly depended on brute force calculations, humans make good amount of their decisions based on intuition which is defined as analytical thinking that is imbedded in habit so that when faced with similar situation recalculation is no longer necessary and action is taken spontaneously (Belsie, 1995).

The above are some of the interesting phenomenon that AI lack and which the human mind exploits regularly, but they are not by any means a complete list.

Artificialize-tion of the Human Mind

Having established the brain muscles that are lacking in the artificial brain lets now explore the opposite, strengths of robots that could make humans super beings. AI is considered to be an absolutely pure cognitive power.

In its ability to execute “what if” questions in a manner and speed which humans are far sloppier and slower, AI has indeed the edge in terms of speed and efficiency and has proved itself in chess competitions against world champions such as Kasparov (Pinker, 1997). It already carries most of the cognitive work that would have been impossible for humans to handle. In almost all the fields that humans need for their survival AI is employed.

In our field of psychology there is ample opportunity to benefit from AI’s ability to function rationally. For example, it could help us combat relapses of mental illnesses that have already been treated or just a good advice read from a self help book and accepted as rational but which we fail to follow once under enough pressure. Imagine a brain so fast that once a lesson has been learned on how to handle a particular interpersonal situation the response will always be carried out in a computerized manner! For instance, if our professor has learned that snapping at a student because she presented a sloppy paper is grossly unprofessional but repeats the behavior, our professor could benefit greatly from improvement in the “if this” then “that no matter what” processes; in which case he will always react according to acceptable professional customs. We would no longer have to deal with the pain of repeating same foolishnesses as we often do.

Perhaps the most important feature in which AI is superior to humans is its ability to share knowledge; what one computer knows can easily be transferred to millions of machines (Kurzweil, 2000). The point here is that our inability to have brute rational strengths that AI has, renders us victims of emotions and are bound to run into same situations and repeat same errors; sadly enough, in some cases those errors result in wars, famine and much suffering for humanity.

Artificial Intelligence-Mind Interface

Humans created AI and ironically, as detailed above, the human brain might actually realize improvements by aid from its own creation; a creature that could transform humans into some sort of super human creature or even affords them some god-like qualities. While that may sound like a cheap joke, scientists from the computer field and neuroscientists are hard at work to transfer strengths of each side to the other. Kuwato Robotics of Japan have produced most advanced robots and contend that they are increasingly learning from them on how do certain human function take place.

By understanding how robots function they are optimistic that they will gain more “insights into how people think, make decisions and interact with the world” (Huang, 2005). Computers that are more humans and humans that are more computers is an actual science with clear sets of goals and ambitions.

Scientists believe that by reverse engineering the human brain it is feasible to achieve the humanization of robots. By humanizing robots, the possibility for transferring AI abilities into humans becomes a reality. At present this is of course a science that is more fiction than facts however, the mere fact that scientists have valid theories on how to create an electronic organ that is similar to the way the brain is made gives us hope that we will get there.

For example scientist know that “if a machine that matched the brain was built, mapping 10000 billion neurons, each with about 1000 connections, and assumed that a function of each connection could be represented by one bit, it would need ten square meters of silicon at today’s electronics density rates” (Kavanagh, 2005). Managing to realize such calculations does give a basis for exploring the human-machine interface and open up a door way much as reaching mars gives hope for reaching the sun. If we consider that scientists have made enough progress to allow the brain to control artificial limbs, it is a very encouraging factor that human-machine interface is a possibility (Huang, 2005).

If we reach that point we would be in a “positive” vicious cycle whereby humans are improved by AI and vice versa and perhaps humans have by now managed to bring AI to a point where it has become a tool for their own evolution into super humanity.

Conclusion and Summary

Much progress has been realized in the world of AI which in turn is proving essential in the understanding of the human mind processes and structure. Human mind is superior to AI in many ways such as consciousness and intuitiveness. On the other hand, AI possesses a more brutal form of rationality which renders it quite beneficial in those functions which require speed and accuracy.

The possibility of AI and Human brain gaining improvements by learning from one another or otherwise borrowing features from each other are promising and could lead humanity to a world far different from what we experience today. A world where machines feel more and humans feel less and think more.

It is interesting note of introspection that humans could one day afford robots the ability to love or ability to kill and enslave. Even more interesting is the prospect of reaching a point where humans can selectively choose which stimuli affect them emotionally. So that just as AI functions according to the software’s demands so humans might be able to suppress certain desires such as sex selectively and have only their spouses able to stimulate them sexually.

It is also quite interesting to consider that AI could one day help us become more saint-like.




Research on the function of the human mind and Artificial Intelligence (AI) suggests that the similarities between the two are far more profound then ever envisaged. The main aim of this report is to asses the processes involved in the function of the brain and of AI. With the idea that Mind = Software and Brain = Hardware in mind, a thorough discussion will ensue to highlight the similarities and differences between human and AI information processing qualities. Attention will be given to the possibilities of that advances in the field of AI has had a significant impact on our understanding of how the human mind functions and the effect of our understanding of the human mind in aiding scientists to excel in the field of AI. The sheer possibility that brain know how can improve the field of AI and vise versa makes it a central discussion in…

View original post 1,749 more words

Strategic Thinking and Systems Thinking

Strategic Thinking is also called Systems Thinking, critical thinking, solutions thinking, future and forward thinking, long-term thinking, and high level thinking. It is not analytic thinking, which is tactical, mechanistic, reductionist, and either/or thinking, one-best-method.

  • Systems Thinking focuses on relationships, multiple outcomes, holism and boundaries, the environment, the larger system, and feedback.
  • Strategic Thinking is about clarity and simplicity, meaning and purpose, focus and direction, relationships and feedback, and desired outcomes.
They are the Same Thought Process

Despite being referred to differently, depending on the context, Systems Thinking and Strategic Thinking are fundamentally the same concept, only applied in different circumstances.  It is a heuristics-based mindset, exactly what’s needed more of in today’s business environment.

Systems Thinking Skills

Senge’s 11 Laws of Systems

In The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Senge suggests 11 laws of systems that support that essential understanding:

  1. Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions. Leaders are happy to solve problems, but don’t always think about intended and unintended consequences. Too often, our solutions strike back to create new problems.
  2. The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back. Humans have a stubborn tendency to bully our way through tough situations when things are not working out as we would hope. We charge ahead without taking time to think through solutions to find better alternatives. Sometimes we solve problems; more often, especially in the current environment, we find ourselves up to our ears in more problems.
  3. Behavior grows better before it grows worse. Short-term solutions give temporary improvement at best but never eliminate fundamental issues and problems. These underlying problems will make the situation worse in the long run.
  4. The easy way out leads back in. Leaders often have a few quick fixes in their “quiver” of solutions that have brought quick and easy success in the past. Too often, the easy way out is retrofitting these fixes to any situation without regard to the unique contexts, people and timing.
  5. The cure can be worse than the disease. Often, the easy and familiar solution is not only ineffective but addictive and dangerous. It might even induce dependency.
  6. Faster is slower. At the first taste of success, it is tempting to advance at full speed without caution. Remember that the optimal rate of growth or change is far slower than the fastest growth or change that is possible.
  7. Cause and effect are not always closely related in time and space. We are good at finding causes, even if they are just symptoms unrelated to root causes.
  8. Small changes can produce big results — but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious. The most grand and splashy solutions — like changing company policy, vision, branding or tagline — seldom work for transforming change. Small, ordinary but consistent and repetitive changes can make a huge difference.
  9. You can have your cake and eat it too — but not all at once. Rigid “either-or” choices are not uncommon. Remember that this is not a dilemma if we change our perspective or the “rules” of the system.
  10. Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants. As a leader, failing to see the systems as a whole is at your peril. This flaw in perception and vision often leads to sub-optimal decisions, repeated tasks, lost time and energy, and maybe even losing followers.
  11. There is no blame. People and organizations like to blame, point fingers and raise suspicions about events, situations, problems, errors and mistakes. Sometimes we even believe the blame we throw around. Ourselves, the cause of events, situations, problems, errors and mistakes are all part of the system.
Understanding Systems Thinking is Essential

In fact, it is the foundation and catalyst of leading change.

W. Edwards Deming first pointed out the need to understand the system in post-World War II America. Deming stressed that learning must be emergent, designing out the system aspects that are wasteful, sub-optimizing, and unnecessarily redundant.

To improve performance, the system has to change because the system drives 95 percent of any organization’s performance. He also said that any improvement that does not involve human system change methods was doomed to failure in the short-, mid- and long-term; you cannot implement a new system in an old environment and anticipate success.

The Key to Achieving the Necessary Human Mindset Change Lies in Curiosity:
  • Ask questions.
  • Learn by doing.
  • Observe.
  • Think about what could be.
The Future

Deming’s messages fell on deaf ears in the U.S. post World War 2 boom. Thinking did not change, and thinking must change for the system to change.