Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is my system that i put up for debate/argument.

A person lives through sensation (touch, taste, smell, sound, vision, propriecitation eg balance). sensation can either be mental (imagination, inner speech etc) or real (eg actually looking at this screen or drinking something etc) - aka all Things are obtained through sensation.

there are two types of things: symbolical and actual. words and diagrams are all symbolic perceptions ie they mean something else other than what they are. a word is just a shape/colour when read or a sound when heard but we link it to something else that is actual. symbolic perception is thus how much you project a meaning onto an actual sensation. because anyThing can be turned into a symbol depending on the practically/purpose etc another word for what Things you see could be perception.

thus the scale for personality types (eg where you are on this scale) is as follows. one end of the scale is symbolic perception and the other end is actual perception (ie how it is to you through your senses and nothing more).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Why is it that "Thing(s)" and "This" are the only things capitalized in your post? I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, but that's all I could focus on while trying to read your post.
'This' was just the start of the first sentence. 'A' was capitalised too though i should have capitalised all my sentences. i capitalised the first use of the word things. just so that when i went on to define the two types of things that the first definition of things was already defined. ie all things are obtained by sensation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
So, you're applying Hume's ideas and impressions to personality theory? Good luck with that.
thanks for the good luck and your short statement. hume's ideas seem close to mbti. i'm not applying hume's ideas. they don't seem the same as mine and i hadn't seen or heard of hume's ideas before coming up with my system.

also let's define personality. i define it as essentially ones behavior. but what causes one's behavior is the way their mind works. you may see someone as shy and that would be a part of their personality. clearly shyness isn't a chosen thing and is to do with the way their mind works. the emotions someone seems to pervasively have - emotions are a result of how your mind and perception works.

anyway i don't give the applied side of my system. here it is: when one thinks as how something actually is and therefore comprehends it mentally with the appropriate senses this is a form of creativity. this imagination and creativity actually makes you see things as they actually ie pay attention to your senses more (field guide to earthlings has a good diagramatic explanation of this). the more you pay attention to your senses the more micro expressions you pick up when watching someone and then this makes you feel what they feel as you watch them (and is at the crux of EQ). so realistically sensational thought is what leads to one to end up as an extrovert as they feel others emotional pain and joy and they enjoy parties living in the now their sensations right in the moment music etc. so to relate it to mbti definitions (which i don't think are real dichotomies so i'm just using the english definitions of them) my system extroversion = sensation = feeling. but regardless of whether my stuff is humes or not or whether there's these observable realities (which there are i've been changing my EQ lately (it's similar to mindfullness) and actually being in the moment sensation) what is your argument based on the way i described my system because to me that's all there is to it (as the basic level of the system).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
i just read a bit of hume's for first time ( i think - i have lived 20 years...) - nice how similar it is to my system. the difference however is his idea of the external world and the internal world which is shown by: an impression which is of something not from theexternal world; for example nervousness or anger.

in my system nervousness and anger ie emotions are part of the external world - they're observable and a sensation. if i had to define external and internal i would do so by whether something is a reaction or a creation. and whether somethings a creation a large part it means it's come from your subconcios mind. imagination is creation as long as it's not memroy of real things you've observed. visual sensation is just as external as emotions. that's the thing visual sensation when you realise at each moment it is just a load of colour and edge detection and there aren't any 'objects' only stuff you know are objects then that's technically just a sensation like any other.

'
Thus, for example, the background color of the screen at which I am now looking is an impression, while my memory of the color of my mother's hair is merely an idea'
also this i think memory can be either symbolic or actual. one time i remembered a thought after having a thought i remembered what someone had said that seemed similar and linked to it (to do with some science not an insult/compliment). another time i had a memoyr a static picture andi was seeing through my eyes of when i was a child in the trampoling room so that was an actual sensation type memory. like when drinking a lychee rubicon actually i was paying attention to seeing it on my table then my brain popped out a memory of seeing lychees for the first time in my life at a friends house ie the memory was an image of my friend there was some joke about lychees so it's a mixture of sensation (hume terms it impression) and symbolic (hume's terms it idea).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
the more you pay attention to your senses the more micro expressions you pick up when watching someone and then this makes you feel what they feel as you watch them (and is at the crux of EQ).
It depends who is doing this and who they are paying attention to.

so realistically sensational thought is what leads to one to end up as an extrovert as they feel others emotional pain and joy and they enjoy parties living in the now their sensations right in the moment music etc.
Many ENTJ I've met were completely clueless to what other people were feeling.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It depends who is doing this and who they are paying attention to.


Many ENTJ I've met were completely clueless to what other people were feeling.
thanks for arguing/debating. just to make the argument clearer - my system isn't related to myer brigs whereas myers brigs has 3 scales (ie dichotomies) essentially favourite world (introversion extroversion), perception (intuiting sensing), judging (thinking, feeling) my system just has one scale.

what do you mean by who is doing this and who they are paying attention to? are you defining the people by their mbti type? if so that already makes arguing a system that isn't based on mbti and doesn't think mbti is corect therefore confusing. but to try to counter argue regardless i believe that anyone who is in the mode of sensation (which i know how to get into now) will take in more sensory information ie be aware of it as they're in a thoughtless mode and then once a quantity of sensation is taken in given a tiny time period (aka with micro expressions) this produces feelings especially from the visual of faces ie simply what will happen to the brain under that input. i also have another theory that when you don't receive enough information to know the other persons state who is around you then your brain automatically produces chemicals for nervousness.

also with micro expressions i'm describing a thing you can't do directly on purpose at will (that's one of the reasons why i think my scale model is pertinent as although it's simplistic it's essentially knowable to move a long the scale as it literally defines your perception ie reality). you can't try to see micro expressions ( i don't think) you just have to be already be in that level on the scale. i think i know how to shift the scale and that is you can't change how your eyes literally see the world around you (they move subconsiously) as you're looking but if you think in terms of actual things rather than words and you understand things as they actually are to your senses this takes away the constant thought in your mind and puts you in the present ie happy. it's realistic too, if you start imagingin anythign your mind won't give you something horrible or dull it comes up with imaginative good stuff.

if the entj was paying attention to other senses and not visually seeing the person/people or hearing them then he wouldn't know their feeling. what i'm refering doesn't come from thought of others state but literally their emotion exudes from them on their facial expression and movement/posture and the really sensory thoughtless people get a palpable feeling from it - mirror neurons caused by sensory input. but anyway under my system an entj wouldn't exist because extroversion (by it's regular nonmbti meaning) = thinking = intuition. but that's just semantics anyway as in my system obviously if there's only one dichotomy then there's only two types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
what do you mean by who is doing this and who they are paying attention to?
When I am paying a lot of attention to micro-expressions I don't remember feeling what the other person was feeling.


are you defining the people by their mbti type?
Nope, I was thinking about people you hate, also people that have low or no empathy, etc.


i believe that anyone who is in the mode of sensation (which i know how to get into now) will take in more sensory information ie be aware of it as they're in a thoughtless mode and then once a quantity of sensation is taken in given a tiny time period (aka with micro expressions) this produces feelings especially from the visual of faces ie simply what will happen to the brain under that input.
In some people I think this happens frequently given average situation, not everyone though.

i also have another theory that when you don't receive enough information to know the other persons state who is around you then your brain automatically produces chemicals for nervousness.
I don't think blind people are all that nervous, it might be true for some.


also with micro expressions i'm describing a thing you can't do directly on purpose at will
I can do it :D. If you are talking about instinct then this is learned also.

Will read the rest latter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
When I am paying a lot of attention to micro-expressions I don't remember feeling what the other person was feeling.



Nope, I was thinking about people you hate, also people that have low or no empathy, etc.



In some people I think this happens frequently given average situation, not everyone though.


I don't think blind people are all that nervous, it might be true for some.



I can do it :D. If you are talking about instinct then this is learned also.

Will read the rest latter.
i don't mean to phrase it as paying attention to micro experssions, i mean you're just so aware of sensation in the present micro expressions just happen to be the level of sensory detail you pick up without trying to just naturally your eyes are fixed onto them. micro expressions you literally feel what they're feeling or even get a feeling from a cartoon face that's the level of (attention to) sensation you're getting. also it's definately like you're trying to pay attention and any thought like that could be enough to take you out sensation mode (which is utterly thoughtless). so i do think i haven't communicated exactly what i mean by micro expressions and all that. it's definately not what you think it is because it's the tiniest movements on the face meaning your eye focus is tracking from spot to spot so rapidly. those eye tracking videos can't find it but they show an aspie person where his eye focus (ie at one point in time the one individual point your eyes are on) when watching a drama show on tv is different to the normal guy. it's possible to put your brain in the state where it wants to sense more and visually process more and is thoughtless enough to do so - i've been doing it recently and it's what my hobby is at them moment but i don't like making it an exercise i want it to be my permanent state but still able to think. because each time you have a thought it's like a word or some symbol and as in my first post everything is a sensation so even if you're attending to thought ie words that's still a sensation that takes up many of the fractions of seconds required to see micro movement and even when you're looking at them in the mode if you began thinking about the micro expression ie categorising it thinking that was her eye area you'd probably go out of the mode quite soon as you enter thought what happens is all the information you're taking in so much gets kind of felt. and mirror neurons literally scientifically mean you will feel what they feel. this is also why my theory has the permanency of personality because how crazy is it to think that people literally feel something when they look at faces (on tv, youtube, real life, cartoon books) to me that's crazy but i'm now experiencing it more by knowing there's a scale of symbolic to actual.

i'd say pure bliss emotion is the emotion of being entirely sensory. makes sense that one would be happier if they think in images rather than words as images are just so much more interesting than the same words throughout your life.

blind people - good counter point. my counter point to that is that blind people don't have the sensation of vision altogether which means that they will entirely rely on sensation of sound; with people how their voice sounds. and if they're too thinking and distracted and don't get a feeling from the person through their sense (that they have) then perhaps the brain would produce a nervous chemical with them too perhaps.

not sure what you mean by instinct. what i'm referring to is all the stuff you just read above i think.

i agree with someone you hate (haven't felt hate in a long time i don't think - anger but not hate so i dont really know) probably would distract you and you wouldn't.... actually no i think even with hate you can be in a sensory mode and thus know feel them. that's why as alan stevens said to me on our skype chat three levels of empathy 1. a torturor needs to feel the other persons emotional pain just enough to be sure they're struggly . 2. you take on their pain and begin to hate them as you feel so bad also and think they've infected you. 3. you somehow take them out of the pain and... he didn't explain that bit very well but basically empathy is just literally a sensation of their state as you're looking at them so it's just a knowing you don't care about them yet. but i don't know about hate i guess it depends whether one can be far on teh sensory end of the scale and hate at the same time which i guess they can. why do hate that person if you'd let me know - i only get angry (from people on the internet or close family aka places where people 'get comfortable' with me) and then it fades away soon? like how does it come about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
I know it's the tiniest movements, they can be consciously perceived, there are quite a few books and studies about it.

People are considerably bad at recognizing what others are feeling, most think they are good.

About needing to think to much when categorizing micro-expressions consciously, it's like learning to use your car, at the start you do it consciously, after some time you don't have to think about it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I know it's the tiniest movements, they can be consciously perceived, there are quite a few books and studies about it.

People are considerably bad at recognizing what others are feeling, most think they are good.

About needing to think to much when categorizing micro-expressions consciously, it's like learning to use your car, at the start you do it consciously, after some time you don't have to think about it.
but i still think it's determined by changing your general mind that gives the ability - there are 10,000 micro expressions that's why you only perceive the sensation as a feeling. that's why i don't think it comes from learning but experience and you can only experience them by being thoughtless in the present which again you can't just decide and try to do but i think what i've been explaining and the neuroscience mindfullness video maybe and even then i don't think you'd conscios of the actual micro expressions but perhaps you could remember the feeling type the face was giving off. also you said 'recognising what others are feeling' - i'm not sure we entirely agree - i'm saying when you look at their face, posture etc you are literally feeling what they're feeling as they're feeling it in that point in time due to your mirror neurons firing just like their own neurons are firing as they do what they do. i'm not sure how many people get this whether it's normal or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
but i still think it's determined by changing your general mind that gives the ability
It depends, there are Aspergers with very good social skills, if what you mean by changing general mind is paying attention I think yes.

There are 10,000 micro expressions that's why you only perceive the sensation as a feeling.
Where did you got this number? Most people rely on a few cues - unconsciously - and are easy fooled.

that's why i don't think it comes from learning but experience
I will take you meant studying vs letting it to unconscious processing, people that spend some time practicing will develop some intuition, sometimes very reliable but there are lot of random variables, like the ones that make you believe that it is because of your underwear that you win.

you can only experience them by being thoughtless in the present
Expert intuition usually comes with a lot of conscious process before hand, like chess players "seeing" the next move. It can come from lazy ass attention too, it seems that we have attention directors towards faces/body language, if you change for a Asian most people can't read anymore (they don't understand what they are feeling).

which again you can't just decide and try to do
Yes you can and it tends to give way better skill with decent guidance.

i don't think you'd conscios of the actual micro expressions but perhaps you could remember the feeling type the face was giving off
You can be conscious, unless you are blind or something so you can't be conscious about looks.

also you said 'recognising what others are feeling' - i'm not sure we entirely agree - i'm saying when you look at their face, posture etc you are literally feeling what they're feeling as they're feeling it in that point in time due to your mirror neurons firing just like their own neurons are firing as they do what they do. i'm not sure how many people get this whether it's normal or not?
When I am doing this I'm not feeling what they are feeling. Even for people that rely a lot on empathy, they mostly believe they are feeling the same thing, although is either sightly off or completely off, thus politics :D.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
It depends, there are Aspergers with very good social skills, if what you mean by changing general mind is paying attention I think yes.


Where did you got this number? Most people rely on a few cues - unconsciously - and are easy fooled.


I will take you meant studying vs letting it to unconscious processing, people that spend some time practicing will develop some intuition, sometimes very reliable but there are lot of random variables, like the ones that make you believe that it is because of your underwear that you win.


Expert intuition usually comes with a lot of conscious process before hand, like chess players "seeing" the next move. It can come from lazy ass attention too, it seems that we have attention directors towards faces/body language, if you change for a Asian most people can't read anymore (they don't understand what they are feeling).


Yes you can and it tends to give way better skill with decent guidance.


You can be conscious, unless you are blind or something so you can't be conscious about looks.


When I am doing this I'm not feeling what they are feeling. Even for people that rely a lot on empathy, they mostly believe they are feeling the same thing, although is either sightly off or completely off, thus politics :D.
again thanks for arguing you'd be surprised (or not) by how some people will get so defensive.

'It depends, there are Aspergers with very good social skills, if what you mean by changing general mind is paying attention I think yes''- i'm not sure if social skills is exactly this feeling their state (we could call it vicarious experience) - i mean mirror neurons literally. isn't aspergers defined it's criteria as having awkward/difficulties with social situations hence they wouldn't be aspie if they had great success with it..guess that's a differnet argument. because anyway i don't mean social skills i don't think (i barely know what social skills actually is as a concept - seems like just a load of rules some people think are essentiall and varies amongst groups).


yeah that's part of my interest atm seeing how many normal people actual vicariously experience. apparently 42 muscles, 10,000 different micro expressions. i can't remember where i first came across it but if you google '10,000 micro expressions' or something there are a lot of sources stating it. maybe it can be learned to a degree but i'm pretty sure it's all about subconscious eye tracking. though once you're in the mode you might be aware wow i'm seeing a lot more i'm looking at this person like examining them i'm fixated. phenomenology describes this i think... (i'm still reading the wiki page on it thought).

didn't get the underwear winning part of the sentence but it's pretty late in the uk it's probably me being tired. about people spending some time improve i agree i think that's a general feature of the mind like you said it's like driving.
haha if 'underwear that you wear' point understood.

chess i'm not sure but i think that's an entirely symbolic thing actually. it appears like it's just a sensory look at the image but they're not looking at the shape of the pieces it's all maths and symbolic. i know how to shift into the mode where you get more visual information and then thus feeling that exudes from their face and that is by creative sensational thought. don't think in words ie symbolically think in actual imagination creativity etc. i'm not sure whether it stops for different races to you. there's quite a few interracial couples. i don't know i thoguth this was normal and the crux of people socialising like it's all about emotions and 2/3rds non verbal body langauge etc. what's your experience of it do your friends have it?

because there are 10,000 micro expressions ie tiny rapid movements of the facial muscles and fixed contractions i don't think you can control your eye to detect them. maybe with some good practice and knowing where to look but there face is this big and yet 10,000 different combinations... i think it's a subconscious thing and that's why it produces a feeling with your mirror neurons. i think it's like you're trying to say you can activate your mirror neurons by directing your eyes which obviously sounds far fetched. it's programmed into nature the reason people may not have it i think is due to the school system a very left brained experience.

actually i take it back you are conscious of when you're seeing the minute movements of their eyes and face etc once you've seen them. but i think you can only have your eyes track the face like that by getting your mind into a mode where it will process visually that way rather than just thinking about it and having a direct try to see it.

i don't think i mean empathy as the words normally used ... i mean vicarious experience and you do feel what they're feeling or at least have a strong sense of knowing what they're feeling. but no literally what they're feeling - due to mirror neurons. what does 'rely a lot on empathy' refer to? people want others to feel the same way they do? what's process of politics exactly? thanks i haven't been much of a people person lately.

but yeah the whole idea about microexpressions is that you can't see them because they're microscopic. only the visual processing unit of the brain pick up on them (ie subconcious) and produces a general feeling from the mirror neurons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
I've read a couple of books from the author that said there are 10.000 micro expressions (from 43 muscles) now that I've looked into it, Paul Ekman.

He say they can be consciously observed, since he observed and wrote books about it. :laughing:

For what is worth, most tells aren't that reliable, I've read the author say that you can get to a 90% top in detecting lies even with all the equipment and training (I believe he was talking about detective work, against a random person it's probably higher).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I've read a couple of books from the author that said there are 10.000 micro expressions (from 43 muscles) now that I've looked into it, Paul Ekman.

He say they can be consciously observed, since he observed and wrote books about it. :laughing:

For what is worth, most tells aren't that reliable, I've read the author say that you can get to a 90% top in detecting lies even with all the equipment and training (I believe he was talking about detective work, against a random person it's probably higher).
alright maybe one can consciously identify the one expression out of 10,000 they're looking at during the fraction of a second that it occurs and then see all the other ones that happen in the next fraction of a second. paul ekman may not be right.... out of a study of 20,000 people only 50 had the ability to reliably detect lies so you're probably right about most people. it doesn't just mean 10,000 indivual muscle movements it means 10,000 overall combinations of expression on the face. honestly based on your first comment to me when i mentioned micro expressions i think me and you have been referring to slightly different things for a while. honestly if you could see each movement that is microscopic on the face that is somewhat close to the size of a group of neurons that mother nature has designed as a display of emotions... that would make you like a god. the people who do pay attention very sensory they feel what's on the other persons face there's isn't a need to actually see the movements and think what they're supposed to mean what happens is your brain itself processes it as it was evolutionarily designed. like children/babies have this ability but we lose it as we go older and obviously they weren't taught how to recognise it wasn't a thinking task. that's why i think the way to go about doing it is to change your brain back to a state like it was a baby the sensory state.

anyway regardless of whether we will eventually agreedisagree on this. the system is as i describe it here: one can only perceive either symbolically or sensationally. symbols being words and diagrams and anything that you attach a meaning onto that isn't the thing itself. sensation being at it's most extreme no objects simply colours around you, just things are as they are experienced. in this world there are things and symbols and that's it is it not? there's the universe and then there's the word 'universe' or like the mathematical equations that describe it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,449 Posts
thanks for the good luck and your short statement. hume's ideas seem close to mbti. i'm not applying hume's ideas. they don't seem the same as mine and i hadn't seen or heard of hume's ideas before coming up with my system.

also let's define personality. i define it as essentially ones behavior. but what causes one's behavior is the way their mind works. you may see someone as shy and that would be a part of their personality. clearly shyness isn't a chosen thing and is to do with the way their mind works. the emotions someone seems to pervasively have - emotions are a result of how your mind and perception works.

anyway i don't give the applied side of my system. here it is: when one thinks as how something actually is and therefore comprehends it mentally with the appropriate senses this is a form of creativity. this imagination and creativity actually makes you see things as they actually ie pay attention to your senses more (field guide to earthlings has a good diagramatic explanation of this). the more you pay attention to your senses the more micro expressions you pick up when watching someone and then this makes you feel what they feel as you watch them (and is at the crux of EQ). so realistically sensational thought is what leads to one to end up as an extrovert as they feel others emotional pain and joy and they enjoy parties living in the now their sensations right in the moment music etc. so to relate it to mbti definitions (which i don't think are real dichotomies so i'm just using the english definitions of them) my system extroversion = sensation = feeling. but regardless of whether my stuff is humes or not or whether there's these observable realities (which there are i've been changing my EQ lately (it's similar to mindfullness) and actually being in the moment sensation) what is your argument based on the way i described my system because to me that's all there is to it (as the basic level of the system).


Hume breaks things down into ideas (what we would then call N) and impressions (S)


Also to say emotions are external seems obviously false. You and you alone can feel your feeling, its internal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Hume breaks things down into ideas (what we would then call N) and impressions (S)


Also to say emotions are external seems obviously false. You and you alone can feel your feeling, its internal.
mirror neurons you feel the feeling of others. that's what i meant by it. you get a feeling from music or a visual. whereas you get an emotion from some kind of under attack situation - anger, anxiety, fear (from physical threat), nervous, shame, guilt. i don't know of any positive emotions apart the one state of excitement i never experience pride as an emotion but i think it's to do with perhaps a fear of losings something... all emotions i see them as an animalistic thing put there by evolution so most of them are there to put us away from bad and are a negative deterring thing. i think 'feelings' are positive; they aren't reactions to the environment to you they're reactions to the environment as it is itself - ie mirror neurons you feel the state/emotion that they have.

'Hume breaks things down into ideas (what we would then call N) and impressions (S)' - makes sense to me. though i can't remember his exact descriptions for them but basically i agree there's one scale not 3 like in mbti. i think those 3 scales show symptoms/definitions of one scale. for example introversion is just symbolic thought where you attach meaning onto the outer world. so stuff like entp isn't a trait because extroversion = feeling (from what i understand of the mbti symptoms/definitions described). the scale is just symbolic to actual or idea vs impression. one brain two sides to it - ie one scale. that's what i think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Things that statistically are beneficial to a race tend to have a better chance of surviving. It's not like it is put there because it's good.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Things that statistically are beneficial to a race tend to have a better chance of surviving. It's not like it is put there because it's good.
what argument are you responding to? i made the point that the emotions are usually negative to do deter you from the situation that brought it about and generally what i've read about inter relational emotions they're all bad. yeah my point was that emotions are evolutionarily there to cause survival that's what i wrote and what you read.

also your argument with the emoticon about the guy must have observed it because he wrote about it... just because he wrote about something simply means he is writing about that something doesn't mean that he managed to observe the same thing i'm talking about aka 10,000 micro expressions that rapidly change that mother nature designed to activate mirror neurons ie that he consciously detected by thought and effort what his mirror neurons detect. yeah just coz he wrote about it doesn't mean anything so don't put screw faces after making your point it's annoying/rude. also you didn't like respond to my argument after that whole micro expressions debate either... how old are you out of interest (that's not me being offensive btw)?
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top