.
Your leading function and your world
.
I would define my primary mode of thinking as conceptual and graphical.
To explain what conceptual means to me, I must first explain the difference between data and information.
Data is simply a record of some event, like the color of an object. The bigger the database is, the more detailed your perception of the world becomes. But even if you were able to register huge amounts of data, you would never be able to cover all possibilities. For example, you might know how a cat is, but only the cat you've observed. Other cats, you might have no clue about how they are.
Information, on the other hand, is the interpretation of the data through the means of logic. This, in roughly terms, will allow you to see a picture of a cat and determine some major features that every cat must have: like triangular ears, cleft lip, etc. and use this information to make a mental picture that, while not identical to any existing cat, will possess characteristics shared by every cat.
So I'm always "distilling" data to form information. I have an inherent ability to see the essence about anything, to build principles and to find connections. My perception is thus filtered well before it even enters the conscious arena.
This, combined with my preference of graphical thinking, gives me the ability to visualize any object that composes the universe and see easily the relationship between such objects at different scales.
One curious thing is that, in order to solve a problem, I must first visualize it. The solutions come to me by observing the situation in my mind. Often however, and related to my inability to handle data, the situation that I visualize in my mind will be different from the real one and thus the solutions might not be as effective.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I see it as, simply, the world working in a way that makes sense. 'Makes sense' in the sense of results, more than how it fits a pre-conceived notion, ideology, etc. For instance, in my approach to socionics. My focus on model A socionics is due to my judgment that it works - it works in analyzing, and even predicting, interpersonal relationships. If I did not see it working, in myself and among the people I see around me, I would have no interest in it whatsoever, regardless of how interesting the endless descriptions and theoretical models might be to others.
Since the 'things are working well' is not a given - they can stop working, or work less well, at any time - that requires constant follow-up and constant update. Two perfect applications of that are science (or engineering in particular) and business. The world we live in - above all the modern western world - is a world ruled by Te. Engineering and science are pitiless: they don't give a damn about your emotions, your preferences, your speculations, your desires: nuclear weapons that work wield the ultimate power of maybe splitting the Earth in two. If one of them doesn't work, it's totally useless, no matter how much thought or care or devotion was put into building it. The same goes for business, or ways to govern a country: you may well have a perfect model, and ideology, that makes sense internally, that assures huge economic growth with low unemployment and inflation. If it doesn't work, it is pointless to say 'no but it should work! It must work! Let's try again' or the like, if you are not willing to adapt it to the point it does work - even if you don't quite understand why it does.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
At the superficial level, this is true. But on a more deeper level, Te, like any other function, only serves to get you as much chow and pussy as possible
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
The moment when you are able to begin to conceive that not everyone shares your motivations, CA, is the moment when you will have made a huge step in understanding others - in a socionics context or otherwise. Until then, keep projecting.
I think you're taking what he said the wrong way.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Well, if he didn't mean it that way now, he has in the past, and/or will in the future. It's all right then.
Removed at User Request
The rule is politics, those psychic domains I told you about. (well, told the forum). People who have shared ideals care about each other. It's difficult to extend caring to people who you don't understand, because you don't know what they are capable of. People of similar beliefs feel similar threats toward those beliefs; this is what allows them to cooperate and to think along the same "wavelength".
I see people always saying "this is who I am, this is what I think". It's like they are constantly begging -- everybody -- to be taken up into the loving care of some supreme organizer and put to work doing deeds that will be of ultimate benefit to others. The question is knowing how to make sense of what they are pleading, so that they can be put to the most optimal use possible. For this purpose, techniques of interpretation are necessary. The problem is the sheer scope of the organization which is in place already: good, evil, and neutrality all have their place. If deeds of terrible misfortune, malignance, and malice are necessary... then what does that mean? What does it mean to make sense of Arda Marred? The challenge is one of building a new world on top of -- not against -- the natural one, while not damning oneself in the process.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-29-2008 at 09:42 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote