> Originally Posted by floramacivor
18 - 63 Extreme Systemizing
It looks like any kind of score higher than E makes one an extreme S?
About a year ago, I took an online quiz that supposedly determines if you're on the autism scale -- with my social skills, having a hard time looking into people's eyes sometimes, I began to wonder if I might be on the scale somewhere. I wasn't anywhere near the scale for autism. I'm just socially inept without a label to blame it on.
It's not the proportion, but rather, if you score is higher than a certain number greatly exceeding the average, like a bell-curve, you register as an extreme systemizer the same way you would register as a somebody with high IQ. Except.. I'm not sure if scores in the eq-sq quotient even have any established correlation to intelligence level or capacity,however.. It's like MTBI in the sense that it gauges preference. The fact that this is an INTJ forum and everybody is registering as an extreme systemizer does not surprise me in the least bit.
Something I find interesting, however:
>The systemiser ***intuitively*** figures out how things work, or what the underlying rules are controlling a system.
>INTJ - The "Strategist"
Temperament: NT (Intellectual) Primary Function: Introverted Intuition
Population: ***1.5% (2.5% male, 0.5% female)***
> Brain Types of Experimental Control Groups
Respondent Extreme E E Balanced S Extreme S
Males ~0%~ 17% 46% 31% ~6%~
Females ~7%~ 47% 32% 14% ~0%~
~~~The percentages switch!~~~
>This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in ***the specialized knowledge systems*** that most INTJs start building at an early age.
>At work, INTJs use their ***conceptual strengths to analyze situations and then develop models to understand and anticipate***
While:
>INFJ - The "Confidant"
Temperament: NF (Visionary) Primary Function: Introverted Intuition
Population: 1% ***(0.5% male, 1.5% female)***
>They are introspective, caring, sensitive, gentle and complex people that strive for peace and derive satisfaction from helping others. INFJs are highly intuitive, ****empathetic**** and dedicated listeners. These traits tend to act as a "tell me what's wrong" sign on their forehead, hence the nicknames Confidant, Counselor or Empath.
~~~~
Okay, now the summary:
>INTJ - The "Strategist"
Temperament: NT (Intellectual) Primary Function: Introverted Intuition
Population: ***1.5% (2.5% male, 0.5% female)***
>INFJ - The "Confidant"
Temperament: NF (Visionary) Primary Function: Introverted Intuition
Population: 1% ***(0.5% male, 1.5% female)***
> Brain Types of Experimental Control Groups
Respondent Extreme E E Balanced S Extreme S
Males ~0%~ 17% 46% 31% ~6%~
Females ~7%~ 47% 32% 14% ~0%~
~~~The percentages switch!~~~
Extreme E: INFJ Females as Extreme S: INTJ Males
Extreme S: INTJ Females as Extreme E: INFJ Males
0.5%(INTJ female) : 2.5%(INTJ male)
0.5%(INFJ male) : 1.5%(INFJ female)
0.5%(INTJ female) : 0%(extreme systemizing female)
0.5%(INFJ male) : 0%(extreme empathizing male)
2.5%(INTJ male) : 6%(extreme systemizing male)
1.5%(INFJ female) : 7% (extreme empathizing female)
6%(extreme systemizing male) : 7%(extreme empathizing female)
0%(extreme empathizing male) : 0%(extreme systemizing female)
0.5% (INTJ Female) : 0.5% (INFJ Male)
1.5% (INFJ Female) : 2.5% (INTJ Male)
~~
Now is it just me, or does there seem to be a correlation between Extreme E, Extreme S, mtbi type, intuition, and the proportion of gender differences between Dominant Intuitives with a given auxilliary function, be it Thinking(INTJ) or Feeling(INFJ) and stereotypical gender associated with that type? Would INTJ be the symbolic model of the extreme male brain while INFJ was the symbolic model of the extreme female brain? And it is said that style of thinking is tied to prenatal environment,among other things, and the amount of exposure an individual had to testosterone.. Well.. would this explain why in MTBI, the extent of your Intuitive preference is said to be an aspect of personality that remains more consistent? It certainly presents itself like a connection to me, anyways
~Jacqui~
Squaring of the circle.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
How The Human Genome Project's Data Could Be Utilized More Efficiently
Why do I exert so much energy just for the sake of copying and recopying things? Writing so much is extremely time consuming and I'm not even sure of if it helps me or not, but I guess it must..
When I see my words on paper, in front of me, it is recognized by my mind as symbol work, and isn't that how people learn: through symbols and associating meaning to them? When I stop to think about humanity like this, I'm left in awe, marveling its complexity and even my own ability to understand it.. I do think, however, reality may have simply been a byproduct of each of our minds. Something that's fascinating to me is the fact that two humans can give birth to another human.. and that human they produced could grow up to produce more humans,too. I figure the body system, like everything else, functions like an equation. I wonder what chemicals and isotope the human body is composed of, what even sperm or an egg are made of, and how their growth is stimulated..
And neurochemistry? If you can alter that without having to alter the DNA(which you can), you could potentially manipulate the natural growth patterns of your body!
I wonder what causes errors in DNA/RNA replication and translation.. I know DNA mutations are what cause death, eventually, because genetic coding works like computer coding.. altering it alters the process, itself.
I'm not sure if I would want to try manipulating my DNA coding without being absolutely sure I knew what I was doing, because with 4 nucleotides, I imagine it functions like 4 number/variable binary coding would. It certainly appears that way when you consider the types of mutations that could cause cancer. If scientists don't already do this, I bet something that would help aid the fight against cancer would be recruiting patients with a specific localized type of cancer, scanning their DNA sequences onto a hardrive, and creating a program that automatically identifies matching strands of sequencing, compares that to volunteers who don't have cancers' DNA sequences, ruling out the similarities in sequence shared with the non-cancer subject, then identifying the similarities remaining among the cancer patients so they figured out its most probable cause or predisposition(or checking the DNA sequence of the cells that were already mutated and cancerous. From there, they could figure out how to modify DNA more efficiently..
Chemotherapy isn't reliable because it fires a bunch of radiation at cancerous cells with the hope of altering the sequence so it's no longer cancerous.. but that has SO many unintended consequences and side-effects...
Certain viruses and strains of bacteria(like botulism?) have been used to rearrange DNA coding outside of the body, but what I would like to know is, if DNA mutations happen on a cell-by-cell level and cell division isn't isn't idiosyncratic, then how do they eventually acquire the same pattern? How are cells abke to coexist with different DNA sequences within the same body and how does DNA sequence remain constant, then, over time? Why, when a person gets cancer, does it concentrate in a certain area?
Maybe if somebody wanted to identify which parts of DNA were associated with dysfunctions of certain body parts, they could use the same approach I I suggested for finding the genes associated with cancer, except instead of cancer patients being compared with healthy control subjects, they would focus on patients with different dysfunctions of the same organ. OR they could even figure out the genes associated specifically with a given disease, then among the remaining similarities, figure out which causes what universally..
To me, these are pretty simple concepts, and they may or may not be so obvious to others, but if they are so obvious, why aren't scientists already using them? Or ARE they..? If they are, then why is it taking so long for their discoveries to be put to use in the medical community? The only reason I predict there may be complications would be that there may still have been too many similarities, but.. wouldn't the results still give them at least a general idea? Unless dispositions are widespread.. but.. they really should work on figuring out the commonalities typical in humans, then how they differ from other animals(unless they had already accomplished that with "The Human Genome Project").. OH!
Another way they could identify the cause of a certain type of disorder is through comparing human and animal DNA!
This whole theory is based upon the assumption that certain traits tend to have certain association areas in a DNA sequence just like there are association areas of the brain and common areas that are the source of dysfunction in patients with the same disorder. They have the whole human genome mapped out, so what the hell are they waiting for? And with computers, it shouldn't take that long.. especially if they chunked the sequence, distributing it across different operating systems, as opposed to assigning the whole task to one..
Would DNA mutations occur because of the lack of available nucleotides to code with in a given instant? My logic says that if sunlight and other cancer causing agents can cause the body to produce given chemicals,acting as triggers for those chemicals production (the pineal gland, for example, responds to certain parts of sunlight,and reacts by either witholding or producing melatonin to signal the rest of the body to begin preparing for sleep). That would inadvertently affect the body's tally of available basic resources, probably depleting it. And if the body was deprived of glucose, for example, its equillibrium would be thrown into a flux and the neurochemicals/hormones necessary to preserve would not be produced to the same extent unless some sort of compromise was made someplace else in the body system (I wonder,also,how the hypothalamus plays into this, besides being the sort of director totally reactionary to stimuli). Maybe certain types of radiation even decay certain proteins before being full metabolized.. those proteins being the source of polypeptides the body may reduce to redistribute the resulting nucleotides according to where they are needed? Wouldn't that cause the process of aging? Isn't that what sunlight does to the skin? Hmmm.....
When I see my words on paper, in front of me, it is recognized by my mind as symbol work, and isn't that how people learn: through symbols and associating meaning to them? When I stop to think about humanity like this, I'm left in awe, marveling its complexity and even my own ability to understand it.. I do think, however, reality may have simply been a byproduct of each of our minds. Something that's fascinating to me is the fact that two humans can give birth to another human.. and that human they produced could grow up to produce more humans,too. I figure the body system, like everything else, functions like an equation. I wonder what chemicals and isotope the human body is composed of, what even sperm or an egg are made of, and how their growth is stimulated..
And neurochemistry? If you can alter that without having to alter the DNA(which you can), you could potentially manipulate the natural growth patterns of your body!
I wonder what causes errors in DNA/RNA replication and translation.. I know DNA mutations are what cause death, eventually, because genetic coding works like computer coding.. altering it alters the process, itself.
I'm not sure if I would want to try manipulating my DNA coding without being absolutely sure I knew what I was doing, because with 4 nucleotides, I imagine it functions like 4 number/variable binary coding would. It certainly appears that way when you consider the types of mutations that could cause cancer. If scientists don't already do this, I bet something that would help aid the fight against cancer would be recruiting patients with a specific localized type of cancer, scanning their DNA sequences onto a hardrive, and creating a program that automatically identifies matching strands of sequencing, compares that to volunteers who don't have cancers' DNA sequences, ruling out the similarities in sequence shared with the non-cancer subject, then identifying the similarities remaining among the cancer patients so they figured out its most probable cause or predisposition(or checking the DNA sequence of the cells that were already mutated and cancerous. From there, they could figure out how to modify DNA more efficiently..
Chemotherapy isn't reliable because it fires a bunch of radiation at cancerous cells with the hope of altering the sequence so it's no longer cancerous.. but that has SO many unintended consequences and side-effects...
Certain viruses and strains of bacteria(like botulism?) have been used to rearrange DNA coding outside of the body, but what I would like to know is, if DNA mutations happen on a cell-by-cell level and cell division isn't isn't idiosyncratic, then how do they eventually acquire the same pattern? How are cells abke to coexist with different DNA sequences within the same body and how does DNA sequence remain constant, then, over time? Why, when a person gets cancer, does it concentrate in a certain area?
Maybe if somebody wanted to identify which parts of DNA were associated with dysfunctions of certain body parts, they could use the same approach I I suggested for finding the genes associated with cancer, except instead of cancer patients being compared with healthy control subjects, they would focus on patients with different dysfunctions of the same organ. OR they could even figure out the genes associated specifically with a given disease, then among the remaining similarities, figure out which causes what universally..
To me, these are pretty simple concepts, and they may or may not be so obvious to others, but if they are so obvious, why aren't scientists already using them? Or ARE they..? If they are, then why is it taking so long for their discoveries to be put to use in the medical community? The only reason I predict there may be complications would be that there may still have been too many similarities, but.. wouldn't the results still give them at least a general idea? Unless dispositions are widespread.. but.. they really should work on figuring out the commonalities typical in humans, then how they differ from other animals(unless they had already accomplished that with "The Human Genome Project").. OH!
Another way they could identify the cause of a certain type of disorder is through comparing human and animal DNA!
This whole theory is based upon the assumption that certain traits tend to have certain association areas in a DNA sequence just like there are association areas of the brain and common areas that are the source of dysfunction in patients with the same disorder. They have the whole human genome mapped out, so what the hell are they waiting for? And with computers, it shouldn't take that long.. especially if they chunked the sequence, distributing it across different operating systems, as opposed to assigning the whole task to one..
Would DNA mutations occur because of the lack of available nucleotides to code with in a given instant? My logic says that if sunlight and other cancer causing agents can cause the body to produce given chemicals,acting as triggers for those chemicals production (the pineal gland, for example, responds to certain parts of sunlight,and reacts by either witholding or producing melatonin to signal the rest of the body to begin preparing for sleep). That would inadvertently affect the body's tally of available basic resources, probably depleting it. And if the body was deprived of glucose, for example, its equillibrium would be thrown into a flux and the neurochemicals/hormones necessary to preserve would not be produced to the same extent unless some sort of compromise was made someplace else in the body system (I wonder,also,how the hypothalamus plays into this, besides being the sort of director totally reactionary to stimuli). Maybe certain types of radiation even decay certain proteins before being full metabolized.. those proteins being the source of polypeptides the body may reduce to redistribute the resulting nucleotides according to where they are needed? Wouldn't that cause the process of aging? Isn't that what sunlight does to the skin? Hmmm.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)