[A][B] =/= [B][A]

One of the first things they told us in linear algebra was that matrices aren't commutative. That is to say, that if you have the matrix product AB, it won't necessarily be the same as the matrix product BA. This was wildly different from what I had learned prior in high school (and Calculus II), because numbers and most variables are commutative. Only a fool thinks that 2 x 1 is different from 1 x 2.


I was reminiscing about my history of math education after reading a post in one of the forums I frequent. It dealt with personality types (specifically, the identification of a specific person), and the poster remarked how, despite a basis of feeling processes, the expression thereof was more in line with a 'thinking' process and therefore, that person should be classified as a thinker. I gaped at the post for a bit, and then began laughing.


It was essentially the same thing as saying '2x1 = 1x2.' Sure, it works, but not for personality processes. I wanted to point and smirk and say the first thought on my mind after my trip down mathematical memory lane; you're an idiot.


Personality processes are like giant transformative matrices; they combine a ton of linear, isolated factors and variables and transform the majority in bulk. However, you cannot ascribe that the outward behavior of a personality is the same as the 'inward' process itself; the best example is a process called 'lying.' Here, if we were to construct a 'lie' transformative matrix, we can see that the outward behavior 'output' is radically different from the inward thought 'inputs.' Better yet, this process isn't commutative at all. If we start off with a thought and then lie about it, it's unlikely it would be the same as if we start with wanting to lie, and then what we're going to lie about. This subtle- but vital change in 'order' makes the scenario completely different; the first would perhaps be someone trying to conceal some information they don't wish the other party to know, and the second someone who wants to lie for a different reason, perhaps to 'test' someone's reading ability or what have you.


For someone to brazenly claim that the expression of a thought born from feeling through a thinking process is the same as the thinking process itself is pure silliness. Order here matters. If one's thoughts are born from an emotional process, it doesn't actually matter whether or not they express it through thought or feeling; the base process is 'Feeling.' The former, incorrect viewpoint only arises from when one simply doesn't have all the information; whether this occurs from a failure in sensory and perception abilities or not is beyond the scope of this point. 


I read elsewhere an idea that personality output can be influenced by 'shell' personalities, in which case an intrinsic, natural, and intuitive process is 'discarded' in favor of another due to strain, stress, or some other factor. In my own rather simplistic world, this is the complex process behind 'who I am' and 'who I want to be.' Oftentimes, our expectations of ourselves will manifest as this shell, which we project outward. However, much like a chocolate shell around a peanut, it doesn't fundamentally change our core processes; it is simply an additional transformational matrix placed around our natural personality. Changing our personality, fundamentally, means altering the very origin, not transforming the expression thereof or, worse, reinforcing a process for the sake of inner stability and nothing else.


It's depressing, however, to see that people who pride themselves on sensory abilities are unable to divine processes in such a simplistic manner. Just ask anyone who took linear algebra; this logic chain's incredibly simple, and does a great to explain behavioral 'disconnects.' On a more optimistic note, to those of us who do understand these processes, it empowers us to be able to alter our origin core processes and accept our identities at the same time.


Today, I will return to Cali in three days. Therefore, I am lazy.


Cheers.