So of all the people to make some crazy thing like this, it's this guy on youtube who talks about anime for a living:
Here's a brief explanation:
(https://i.redd.it/oa17w4j804t41.jpg)
https://i.redd.it/oa17w4j804t41.jpg
For anyone interested, full video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSyGye7D2ao
For anime fans, this is the master chart of where people think that anime characters would fall:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bZs0mqADjToj89-YgO9cnUS8hNjXV5OZ
I think I would probably be in the newtype category- what is crazy is how he said that a coder could create something intuitively to solve a novel problem, but not even be able to explain it, and that's actually happened to me at work!
(sadly, there is no self-test yet, but you can probably give a good estimate if you are self-aware enough)
Which type do you think you fall in? Wondering how drogulus or 71db would fit in here, pretty sure they'd be in some corner area.
(btw, Trump apparently is an anime character also, and was listed under "Pure Instinct" type ;D)
After thinking about this the last hour,
Me: Fascinator
71db: Human Calculator... (this corner of the quadrant is basically regarded as the Asperger area, I could have a misunderstanding about this but seems maybe correct, lateral thinking but always expressable in language). The thing he says about this type is that they tend to have a good understanding of the world but narrow down so much that they live in their own little bubble and have frustrations with others not quite understanding them- sounds familiar to me.
drogulus: Newtype... incomprehensible posts that are as abstract as it gets, so is the only reason why I thought I could shift my own x-axis by one to the left. At least I can write posts that others can understand, though I'll admit it takes some effort. Part of the difficulty, also, is that lateral thinking will trip me up when I picture the next three responses to my posts. You need to watch Serial Experiments Lain. ;)
Note that this is NOT related to personality or IQ, it's about how one naturally thinks.
A better video explanation he does here, though at the same time I wouldn't recommend it to most people because it's extremely long and uses anime characters as examples- but still highly detailed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ndTCR4aKg
He types himself as "Quick-witted," which I agree with. The joke is that he's semi-autistic (developing this system, for example lol), but he's better at putting words to things than I am, for example (that area is also next to Human Calculator, too).
Are we talking about the Braverman Test here?
Nope, I had googled it and saw that Braverman seems to be suggesting which chemicals are being used in the brain or something.
This new system just happens to have the same name- no guessing anything about chemicals or anything.
I like this attempt... No idea how accurate it is. But would be amazing if you can draw some conclusions like "oh, I'm newtype so it means an overactive limbic system."
For top left it's obvious Elon Musk is the perfect example. When he was a kid, he complained about his hyperactive brain and himself and others thought he might be insane. But what part of the brain? Must be the neo-cortex. The amount of thought is the lateral thinking and the concrete/practical/real world stuff he is focused on is indicative of most likely lexical thinking.
Also: Correcting my previous guess- I think drogulus would fit at the top left, actually. It's more hyperlexical (I must be confusing decipherability and clarity).
Extreme upper right hand would be snyprr or deprofundis... their posts are abstract as hell and jump around constantly. I think using ellipsis is also a good indicator of this. I'm very very close to writing this way, always editing and rereading my posts so they could be understood.
I think:
Top left-autism/aspergers
Top right-schizo-
Bottom left-OCD
Bottom right-ASPD
Are the potential extremities.
(https://preview.redd.it/tjmqy2e5rcu41.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ca26da34e9c5d807410d8cea3704d42c23c0913d)
It says reddit but could also be for GMG. ;D
So someone made a brief quiz, and I got Newtype, which is exactly what I guessed!
(lateral: 80%, impressionist 85%)
Maybe it's an okay starting point, it's only a few questions and still relies on a lot of self-awareness.
But I really would like it if someone else took it as well and let me know their results...
https://editor.p5js.org/tfroman/present/5PK0Mlv4E
Could be all of them, but analyst would be closest to how I live.
Maybe newtype is not my thing.
Quote from: greg on April 26, 2020, 07:41:55 PM
So someone made a brief quiz, and I got Newtype, which is exactly what I guessed!
(lateral: 80%, impressionist 85%)
Maybe it's an okay starting point, it's only a few questions and still relies on a lot of self-awareness.
But I really would like it if someone else took it as well and let me know their results...
https://editor.p5js.org/tfroman/present/5PK0Mlv4E
I got Overseer: Lateral 65%, Impressionist 55%. Not sure exactly what that's supposed to prove.
Quote from: Mahlerian on April 27, 2020, 07:19:19 AM
I got Overseer: Lateral 65%, Impressionist 55%. Not sure exactly what that's supposed to prove.
It's not supposed to "prove" anything. The website can now sell your data. That's the point.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 27, 2020, 07:39:09 AM
It's not supposed to "prove" anything. The website can now sell your data. That's the point.
Not sure where you are getting that idea from. The original link was created by a member of the subreddit for neurotyping, just as a small attempt to try and create a self-test for this idea. And it's an entirely anonymous test...
Quote from: Mahlerian on April 27, 2020, 07:19:19 AM
I got Overseer: Lateral 65%, Impressionist 55%. Not sure exactly what that's supposed to prove.
Cool. I don't think it's trying to prove anything, just trying to give people an idea of where they may fall on the chart.
And the chart itself is probably best understood using examples and archetypes to back up the concepts. So in the subreddit there are a lot of posts of examples, so it's something someone compare themselves to- like, oh, my thought process might be similar to that person or character since we are in the same area of the chart.
Quote from: Henk on April 27, 2020, 07:09:39 AM
Could be all of them, but analyst would be closest to how I live.
Nicely said- that's basically how the system works. Anyone can be anything, but how you choose to live is going to largely be related to how you think. Imo it's more about natural tendencies.
I could see that type for you. Mostly it's obvious that you are a highly parallel thinker. For lexical vs. impressionist it might be a bit hard to tell sometimes just by reading other people's writing, but your writing is very clear, so that's why I would probably guess that you are moderately lexical.
There is an attempt to map this to brain regions... of course all of this can't be taken too seriously, but it is kinda cool if it does make some sense to connect these ideas together to make some sort of model.
(https://preview.redd.it/gyeyjllpglu41.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2b4ffded0072f22616ad2f9ae081419d0bb3cff1)
I had some idea of a person being a tree, where the seed is the person's DNA, the soil is the upbringing/childhood development, the trunk is the regular brain processes that are used, and the branches are situational things that describes works in conjunction with the trunk to describe the outward behavior...
Also, I had some theory about addiction and this concept.
My theory is that people who are highly lateral thinkers but do not have either a powerful enough IQ/working memory may be more likely to struggle with addiction. Just one factor but likely a big one.
I have heard many times that addicts are trying to drown out their overwhelming thought load. One example is a YouTuber, CG Kid, whose channel is about his past addictions to many different drugs. He thought about the cause of his addictive personality for many years and concluded that having the urge to do drugs even when things are going well is because it's a way to drown out his thoughts. Now, I don't know what his IQ is, so if it's high then it wouldn't make my theory look good. But if it's average then it just means that his highly lateral thinking is causing a lot of thoughts which may not be easily resolved, leading to constant stress.
Thought and memories should probably be swapped in the scheme. A mammal has no memory but does think.
But a nice scheme.
Other animals than mammals also can think probably. Like for example a crow. Maybe they rationalize, but they are smart so I guess they think.
Quote from: greg on April 27, 2020, 08:08:08 AM
Not sure where you are getting that idea from. The original link was created by a member of the subreddit for neurotyping, just as a small attempt to try and create a self-test for this idea. And it's an entirely anonymous test...
Cool. I don't think it's trying to prove anything, just trying to give people an idea of where they may fall on the chart.
And the chart itself is probably best understood using examples and archetypes to back up the concepts. So in the subreddit there are a lot of posts of examples, so it's something someone compare themselves to- like, oh, my thought process might be similar to that person or character since we are in the same area of the chart.
Nicely said- that's basically how the system works. Anyone can be anything, but how you choose to live is going to largely be related to how you think. Imo it's more about natural tendencies.
I could see that type for you. Mostly it's obvious that you are a highly parallel thinker. For lexical vs. impressionist it might be a bit hard to tell sometimes just by reading other people's writing, but your writing is very clear, so that's why I would probably guess that you are moderately lexical.
There is an attempt to map this to brain regions... of course all of this can't be taken too seriously, but it is kinda cool if it does make some sense to connect these ideas together to make some sort of model.
(https://preview.redd.it/gyeyjllpglu41.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2b4ffded0072f22616ad2f9ae081419d0bb3cff1)
I had some idea of a person being a tree, where the seed is the person's DNA, the soil is the upbringing/childhood development, the trunk is the regular brain processes that are used, and the branches are situational things that describes works in conjunction with the trunk to describe the outward behavior...
You can't choose always how you want to live. Living is becoming. Becoming is about power. You can 'become who you are' and then all is well.
Curious about your model tho.
Quote from: Henk on April 27, 2020, 09:34:25 AM
You can't choose always how you want to live. Living is becoming. Becoming is about power. You can 'become who you are' and then all is well.
'Become who you are' can be called a concept. A concept is a 'power of becoming'. (Deleuze)
And according to Nietzsche we need to study physics to as well prescribe for us the law to become who you are.
That's something Deleuze doesn't know about it seems to me and why I feel closer to Nietzsche.
The reason I write this is that I read a quote by Foucault in which he says he likes 'Deleuze's Nietzsche' more than Nietzsche himself.
Probably this raises some agony inside me.
And often Deleuze isn't of much help. Foucault neither. And much of Guattari's writings has been digested and transformed by Deleuze probably.
Deleuze really is a bastard and son of a bitch but it's difficult to not appreciate his and his followers writings.
Deleuze didn't care about our planet. Guattari did, but isn't read probably because Deleuze made the impression of Guattari being his little helper.
Deleuze's book 'Critical and Clinical' is probably his best work.
Quote from: greg on April 27, 2020, 08:08:08 AMCool. I don't think it's trying to prove anything, just trying to give people an idea of where they may fall on the chart.
And the chart itself is probably best understood using examples and archetypes to back up the concepts. So in the subreddit there are a lot of posts of examples, so it's something someone compare themselves to- like, oh, my thought process might be similar to that person or character since we are in the same area of the chart.
I just think that the test is a little short; that said, it's probably about accurate that I prefer lateral over linear thinking, but can work with either comfortably.
Quote from: Mahlerian on April 27, 2020, 11:55:54 AM
I just think that the test is a little short; that said, it's probably about accurate that I prefer lateral over linear thinking, but can work with either comfortably.
So does Henk, as you can see. 😎
Maybe short has its advantages? Rather than being lost in the details with overly specific details for a broad concept?...
Quote from: Henk on April 27, 2020, 09:19:50 AM
Thought and memories should probably be swapped in the scheme. A mammal has no memory but does think.
But a nice scheme.
No idea what you mean by "no memory"... ??? Especially since you need memory to form habits and remember stuff like your home or your parents, which mammals do remember.
Quote from: Henk on April 27, 2020, 09:41:34 AM
'Become who you are' can be called a concept. A concept is a 'power of becoming'. (Deleuze)
And according to Nietzsche we need to study physics to as well prescribe for us the law to become who you are.
That's something Deleuze doesn't know about it seems to me and why I feel closer to Nietzsche.
I feel like the meaning in this is really obscured by semantics/word choice. Like there shouldn't be a difference between "become who you are" and "become who you want to be."
Memory in the meaning of remembrances, nostalgia and such. Memories in the sense of thinking about past happenings. Mourning and rejoicing for example.
And a lizard also has memory in the sense you describe.
Become who you are and become who you want to be. Ok, could be semantics, but they don't lead to the same thing. Huge huge importancy in word choice. 8)
Just take into account that we have a different background. America and Europe are not the same.
Also you are a computer scientist, if I can call you so, so that could explain your different meaning of memory.
The scheme just needs improvement if you ask me. I understand it, but the brain is far more complex in reality.
But it may also depend on what would be the purpose of the scheme.
Quote from: Henk on April 27, 2020, 12:53:39 PM
Memory in the meaning of remembrances, nostalgia and such. Memories in the sense of thinking about past happenings. Mourning and rejoicing for example.
And a lizard also has memory in the sense you describe.
Become who you are and become who you want to be. Ok, could be semantics, but they don't lead to the same thing. Huge huge importancy in word choice. 8)
To be honest and more clear:
Become who you are means to myself: become a thinker on morality and stuff and a poet as well
Become who you want to be would be more Deleuzian: Anti-Oedipus. But that feels also like losing myself so I read that book at the moment to see if I can follow it.
And what I am is an artist.
Quote from: greg on April 27, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
I feel like the meaning in this is really obscured by semantics/word choice. Like there shouldn't be a difference between "become who you are" and "become who you want to be."
That seems true to me. Shouldn't be.
Quote from: Henk on April 27, 2020, 09:34:25 AM
You can't choose always how you want to live. Living is becoming. Becoming is about power. You can 'become who you are' and then all is well.
This falls short.
(https://preview.redd.it/f594pom1vdv41.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=d495e0c76ea100da3cf6b9f24b4a3dec101e3a0e)
(https://preview.redd.it/be37owxvcyv41.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=68a7bffb3391da1609d3242aaced38cdfb48b337)
I wonder how accurate these are...
since in the political compass quizzes I do test a bit towards lib left, and I also test as primarily auditory learner (which matches my top-right "newtype" typing).
Would be nice if there were scientific studies done on all of these concepts, trying to relate them together to create some sort of system. It could turn psychology into a more respectable and developed field.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/qlJh8f-MBY9S0p3BSojNOzF5pp6MLKO-bwB0LcGwerA.png?auto=webp&s=e82458a1f50663ae0d69bfcfe2eb54aef2bcce00)
link for enlarged image:
https://external-preview.redd.it/qlJh8f-MBY9S0p3BSojNOzF5pp6MLKO-bwB0LcGwerA.png?auto=webp&s=e82458a1f50663ae0d69bfcfe2eb54aef2bcce00
This is good one, veerry nice. 8)
This is supposed to be about what type of gamer you are.
Explorer first does align with me being newtype. I can imagine some overlap with real life as well. I love traveling solo, for example, so that would fit.
IMO You can order the rest as well... I'd say for me:
Explorer->Achiever->Killer->Socializer
Updated characters chart:
https://i.redd.it/zm299ne06cx41.png
So basically I'm exactly where they put Shinji Ikari (from Neon Genesis Evangelion). ???
Even IQ and temperament are the same...
I think Elon Musk might actually be the real life Senku (from Dr. Stone- see above character chart). IQ's probably match and they are about in the same place where I'd put them. Their overall approach is pretty much developing the world through science. Basically you can think of Senku as an anime shounen protagonist version of Elon Musk.
Originally I'd have put him at the extreme left of lexical thinking, but after listening to his newest interview, he mentioned the problem of language being inaccurate to describe thought (which is what he wants neuralink to capture). So I thought recognizing that problem exists alone should put him a bit more to the right, though overall I think he is a very lexical thinker, just not 100%.
Quote from: greg on May 09, 2020, 11:20:23 AM
IMO You can order the rest as well... I'd say for me:
Explorer->Achiever->Killer->Socializer
My guess was correct. It's called the Bartle test, you can take it here:
https://matthewbarr.co.uk/bartle/
Quote
The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology
You are 80% Explorer
What Bartle says:
♠ Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.
You are also:
73% Achiever
27% Killer
20% Socialiser
This result may be abbreviated as EAKS
Probably no one is reading this thread, but a post on the subreddit caught my attention:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Neurotyping/comments/gs7o9u/impressionismlaterality_symmetry_the_ivp_a/
It basically tries to draw some lifespan of how new ideas are conceived and transformed throughout society based on different people from this system.
(https://i.imgur.com/hGhQZwG.png)(https://i.imgur.com/2oLD5WG.png) (https://i.imgur.com/g9XddHP.png)
Possibly the quickest way to understand the system lol. Everyone knows these characters/real people.
(https://i.redd.it/idvef46omk151.png)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Neurotyping/comments/gsewcr/neurotype_chart_normie_edition_show_this_to_your/
(https://preview.redd.it/d3s321vkqp051.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8278a444c060fa354ffb03147f7e25c7c3d8656a)
Crime as neurotypes:
(https://preview.redd.it/dk0f6ei9ts851.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a3209251f63325455cd1f23a0406351a0a22600c)
Huh, guess my crime is Terrorism. And second most likely being a tie between Cult Leader/School Shooter/Arsonist. :P ;D
Of course probably most of those are debatable in positioning, but the top left and bottom right seem the most obviously correct.
My concern is with what I call CSA, which I just made up, a term for conscious self awareness.
If you asked most people, they would say they have CSA, though they don't necessarily broadcast their opinion about it. I find the concept more slippery than it's usually taken to be, when people take it to be at all. I find it hard to identify the elements of CSA very far from the opinion that you are experiencing it, or have done in the past.
Another thing about CSA is it seems to have arrived fairly recently in human history, or perhaps just prior to human history, which seems to require CSA to get off the ground.
Quote from: drogulus on July 07, 2020, 11:02:02 AM
My concern is with what I call CSA, which I just made up, a term for conscious self awareness.
If you asked most people, they would say they have CSA, though they don't necessarily broadcast their opinion about it. I find the concept more slippery than it's usually taken to be, when people take it to be at all. I find it hard to identify the elements of CSA very far from the opinion that you are experiencing it, or have done in the past.
Another thing about CSA is it seems to have arrived fairly recently in human history, or perhaps just prior to human history, which seems to require CSA to get off the ground.
Which parts of the brain are involved in CSA? Any neuroscience background by chance? Frontal lobe maybe?
Quote from: greg on July 07, 2020, 02:08:17 PM
Which parts of the brain are involved in CSA? Any neuroscience background by chance? Frontal lobe maybe?
Yes, it's purely by chance. CSA is kind of a committee of the whole. It's stuff that's widely shared by many subsystems, kind of a network phenomenon. I think of it not as a "me" thinking my thoughts, but as the committee voting on the thoughts that think "me". But an extras ingredient is needed to produce the kind of CSA people have when they are having it, and that is the set of ideas about the self that have developed during the past 3,000 years. It's not that old fashioned people thought they didn't have CSA, but that it hadn't occurred to them that they did have it.
It looks like I never added the new version of the quiz for this! (it's better and more polished than the old one)
http://neurotypology.gq/Test/
There are two version of the test which are nearly identical but provide different wording. I recommend test #1 because it includes the "neutral" options for selection.
My results on test #1:
(https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1TOqM_vlqGmc1KBx9W7pAD9yvdcOm4zVJ)
My results on test #2:
(https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1bghLPvh5qNzVcBM3d_LzMEAvb67fdvMZ)
Here is a sort of flipping of the chart
(https://preview.redd.it/e7il18ee2ra51.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ae9e7282f86c41140551d6c6b2af07f2b3576c60)
I have yet to make an image of this, but I pictured (as these assessments seem to be widely agreed on):
Extreme versions of each:
Artificial- Mark Zuckerberg
Natural- Donald Trump
Chaos- Kanye West
Order- Dwight Schrute (from The Office)
(this sort of flipping is similar to my "diagonal" interpretation of the political compass, I guess flipping it is also another option)
I made a neurotyping chart for modern metal:
(https://preview.redd.it/uf9ul4ti1bc51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ba9877e60375bb097bee36d1d5cbadb53df756d)
4th column
Newtype: Car Bomb- Mordial (2019)
Aesthetician: Animals as Leaders- The Madness of Many (2016)
Impressionist: Opeth- Heritage (2011)
Pure Instinct: Sunn O)))- Black One (2005)
3rd column
Fascinator: Periphery- Periphery (2010)
Overseer: Meshuggah- Catch 33 (2005)
Externalist: Pig Destroyer- Book Burner (2012)
Clearsighted: Evoken- Atra Mors (2012)
2nd column
Analyst: Necrophagist- Epitaph (2004)
Quick-witted: Leprous- Pitfalls (2019)
Understanding: Slipknot- We Are Not Your Kind (2019)
Level-Headed: Saint Vitus- Saint Vitus (2019)
1st column (disclaimer: I don't listen to any of these bands- just had to research to fill the chart somehow)
Human Calculator: Fleshgod Apocalypse- Labyrinth (2013)
Technician: Earthside- A Dream In Static (2015)
Contemplative: Nightwish- Endless Forms Most Beautiful (2015)
Bookkeeper: Weedeater- Jason the Dragon (2011)
"Charts charts charts golf golf golf"
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on July 23, 2020, 07:42:08 AM
"Charts charts charts golf golf golf"
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Is that some reference I'm missing?
Quote from: greg on July 15, 2020, 08:26:36 PM
Here is a sort of flipping of the chart
(https://preview.redd.it/e7il18ee2ra51.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ae9e7282f86c41140551d6c6b2af07f2b3576c60)
One more thought about this...
The artificial vs. natural is basically the classic nerd vs. jock conflict.
Since I lean quite a bit into the chaos part, it's kinda the midway point. So as a third party it can be a sort of mediator against situations where you are with two people that are in this sort of conflict... thinking of examples in school where this was the case.
Seems higher IQs seem to cluster around the Artificial side, and the typical type of autism in either Order or Artificial. But always many exceptions... would consider my childhood friend who was in gifted and is now a doctor to be midway between natural and chaos. Like when he announced to me that he would be joining gifted class it was slightly surprising... from a personality perspective he wasn't the type to match up, though you could tell he wasn't dumb even if he often did dumb things.
Quote from: greg on July 23, 2020, 08:38:13 AM
Is that some reference I'm missing?
I think it's just a momentary lapse. I'm OK now.
(https://preview.redd.it/e5gc12tv8xd51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1aeba7c7cef8b69d5c2b49bacccff5a179d7c2dd)
This is an interpretation I came up with, some of it my own and some of it repackaged into a single word.
Could even be the quickest way of typing oneself without having to understand the system (or how they measure up relative to what is average), if they are aware of what archetype they fit into most.
^
The reddit board liked it, other than the usage of "technician." I kinda agree, but I was (somewhat covertly) trying to give it a musical perspective.
The Innovators write the music. The Performers perform it for others. The Technicians analyze the technique and teach it. The Theorists study the composition.
Anyways, the conflict between nerd and jock (top left vs. bottom right) has been established. But what about top right vs. bottom left?
...top right is thought of as "goths" while bottom left was thought of as "preps."
Personally, although I was friends with some goths (though never continuously part of their clique exactly), tbh I couldn't ever identify groups of "preps" for some reason.
I had no grievances with any of the specific groups, but I'd say it was more like Me vs. the institution of school itself. I just found it sooooooooo boring. School itself can be a replacement for preps.
And there is some linkage between ADD and top-right lateral/impressionistic type of thinking, and the way there is a conflict between ADD and schools telling kids to sit still for long periods of time (which I can't do, the fidgeting and thinking about something else will always happen unless I make great efforts to listen and sit still).
There are articles about this, also pointing out the most watched TED talk, which is about schools killing creativity. This is the fundamental clash between newtype vs. bookkeepers.
Hilariously awesome stuff.
(https://preview.redd.it/rdhatlsvlgu51.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0866bd21377e7fd95264ac55e304c68da5d631fc)