Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Holographic Thinking

  1. #1
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Holographic Thinking

    what do we know about this type of thinking? who here from the left ring of supervision can comment? i'd like help understanding this better.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is above all stable. Where Positive/Process strives for impact, Negative/Result strives for control. It involves a kind of sluggish manouverability where the person has the ability to quickly change course while at the same time not making a lot of movements. The best analogy for this is a kind of kung-fu fighter that stands still and only steps out of the way when the opponent throws a punch at him.

    The above goes for the EPs as much as it goes for the IJs. Negative/Result EP types (ESTp, ENFp) can look a little IJ'ish for this reason. Their level of volatility/abruptness is lower than that of ENTp and ESFp.

    Example of a negative/result EP type (Clancy Brown, long blond haired male, ESTp):

  3. #3
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    It is above all stable. Where Positive/Process strives for impact, Negative/Result strives for control. It involves a kind of sluggish manouverability where the person has the ability to quickly change course while at the same time not making a lot of movements. The best analogy for this is a kind of kung-fu fighter that stands still and only steps out of the way when the opponent throws a punch at him.

    The above goes for the EPs as much as it goes for the IJs. Negative/Result EP types (ESTp, ENFp) can look a little IJ'ish for this reason. Their level of volatility/abruptness is lower than that of ENTp and ESFp.
    ah i see what you mean about control and small changes of course. i can picture it. what about the thought process? it's easy for me to understand cause and effect, vortex, and dialectic thinking, but i can't quite wrap my mind around holographic. also, there was something somewhere about how holographic thinkers will discard things or something like that...i'd like to know more about this ring of supervision.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  4. #4
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you can get a Te to explain to me what it is then I can help

    otherwise, there's too much of something going on here that I don't understand..not abstract thinking, but I haven't really grasped this concept from its roots up to be able to comment.

  5. #5
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's kind of like sizing up an idea/situation/etc. as inherently different than, and disconnected from, every other thing, so that the most relevant aspects are captured. vortex complements this by synthesizing things based on assumed relevance.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Result is often described as "multi-tasking". The thing is, depending on whether you're talking about Positive/Result/Dynamic or Negative/Result/Static, the exact way in which the person multitasks can differ greatly.

    I think Positive/Result/Dynamic most conforms to the obvious interpretation of the term. It is all about the person making very quick movements and being in a constant way active while not "investing" deeply in any single movement so that s/he can retreat from the activity almost instantly after initiating it.

    Negative/Result/Static, though, is about simply not acting. Positioning yourself strategically and waiting until the right moment to move arrives. This is not multitasking so much as it is simply being ready.

    The common factor between the two is the lack of investment in any single activity or goal, which allows the constant tailoring of one's course.

    ah i see what you mean about control and small changes of course. i can picture it. what about the thought process? it's easy for me to understand cause and effect, vortex, and dialectic thinking, but i can't quite wrap my mind around holographic. also, there was something somewhere about how holographic thinkers will discard things or something like that...i'd like to know more about this ring of supervision.
    One thing I think characterizes the thought process is that it spends more time on the stage of "learning to understand" a problem (or subject matter or environment or... etc). Basically it spends a lot of time familiarizing itself with the topic. Once this familiarization stage is completed, it can act very quickly and decisively in that particular environment, but it becomes difficult to attain the same level of control in any new endeavor. Positive/Process types on the other hand sort of "rush" to materialize their understanding, so they reach the point at which they can decide quicker, but they don't ever get to the point where a topic is "familiar" to them. This means that they need to keep making an large effort no matter how familiar they are with the subject in question.

    Negative/Result is all about reaching that state of familiarity where a very relaxed kind of control is possible, but one needs to make a big effort to get there.

    Negative/Result: slow to understand, very relaxed control once familiar with the topic
    Positive/Process: quick to understand, pretty much never reaches state of relaxation and keeps making the maximum effort

  7. #7
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One thing I think characterizes the thought process is that it spends more time on the stage of "learning to understand" a problem (or subject matter or environment or... etc). Basically it spends a lot of time familiarizing itself with the topic. Once this familiarization stage is completed, it can act very quickly and decisively in that particular environment, but it becomes difficult to attain the same level of control in any new endeavor. Positive/Process types on the other hand sort of "rush" to materialize their understanding, so they reach the point at which they can decide quicker, but they don't ever get to the point where a topic is "familiar" to them. This means that they need to keep making an large effort no matter how familiar they are with the subject in question.

    Negative/Result is all about reaching that state of familiarity where a very relaxed kind of control is possible, but one needs to make a big effort to get there.

    Negative/Result: slow to understand, very relaxed control once familiar with the topic
    Positive/Process: quick to understand, pretty much never reaches state of relaxation and keeps making the maximum effort
    interesting. sounds very intj. does this apply to the rest of the ring of supervision? i can see the waiting and watching with all the types in this ring, where is the discarding? they discard that which is unfamiliar? and the term holographic, does this refer to their need for a thorough, transparent understanding of a thing? and, how does this differ between the ethicals and logicals of this supervision ring?

    i am definitely positive. i can't wait too long or i become bored and will lose motivation for action. it's almost like i need to be a little confused so i am motivated to quench the quest for knowledge. once i feel like i know or understand, i become bored on and unmotivated and won't do productive work.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting. sounds very intj. does this apply to the rest of the ring of supervision?
    Probably to a lesser extent, but what I wrote is all based on my understanding of Accepting/Creating and +/-. It follows directly from my interpretations of the terms.

    Accepting/Creating and +/- are both processes with a beginning and end, or more accurately put, a primitive state and an advanced one. The primitive state is a state of preparation, the advanced state one of action and appliance.

    Accepting/Creating seems to be the process that preceeds +/-. So Accepting/Creating is also a bit like a preparation state to +/-. Accepting/Creating has more to do with learning to understand a situation and +/- more with working with the situation from one's understanding.

    In Result types, the two processes are oppositely aligned. What is advanced in one is primitive in the other and vice versa. This basically means that the Result types extensively prepare first for what is a primitive state in the other process. They are constantly working on teaching themselves to get the preparation in the later process done as well as possible.

    In Process types, the two process are aligned, so what is primitive in one is also primitive in the other. So this means the preparation is immediately followed by an appliance.

    Where Result types can only start on the +/- process until the Accepting/Creating process is done, Process types can start on +/- immediately because it runs on the same track as Accepting/Creating. The tradeoff is that - function is Creating (taking effort), so there is no comfortable slide downward from there. It's a mentally intensive activity where Result gets an easy break.

    ps. I base most of this on a comparison of my working habits with those of ISTjs and ENTps

  9. #9
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    understood, even if it is rather abstract. not sure what you mean in describing a transition from accepting/creating to +/-. although i have not paid a lot of attention to the subtheory of +/-.

    i have thought that progress moves from alpha irrationals, to beta rationals, to gamma irrationals, to delta rationals....then to delta irrationals, to gamma rationals, to beta irrationals, and finally to alpha rationals. that this is the complete cycle of information development and social progress. that there is a jump in the supervision/benefit rings that occurs in delta. that the age of delta is middle age, that maximum social power and civilization lies in delta.

    alternatively, or perhaps simultaneously, ideas are born in alpha and disseminated through the rings of supervision and benefit in opposite directions. so, perhaps there is a jump in delta and information is moving across the rings and through the quadras at once.

    so, in concert with the forms of thinking: cause and effect pairs with dialectic in the beginning through middle stages of implementation of an idea, while a refinement and feedback loop occurs through the holographic/vortex cycle.

    alternatively, or again, perhaps simultaneously, the idea is born in alpha and the left and right rings of social progress give a different interpretation of the idea and push it through the quadra cycle. cause and effect/positive thinking moves faster initially, though, making the initial spread and implementation of an idea arrive in fuller development at delta more quickly. perhaps the cause and effect/dialectic rings are smaller, since they have a smaller space to cover, they seem faster.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  10. #10
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i work right now with a dual pair of deltas, IEE and SLI. they think i'm taking over. doing everything. i think it's just hard for them to keep up with my thinking. i'm leaving, though, for a different job. soon, after i'm gone, they will realize that i've only laid the flexible infrastructure that they can bring to fuller development in time.

    i'm interested in the topic of thinking and how it applies to work and how information tends to travel. the strongest support i've received at work has been from an EII (who knew?) another ILE, and an EIE. i think the explanation for this is the rings of supervision and benefit....with the underlying explanation of thought forms. consequently, your supervision partners are very much connected to you in terms of the way they think. it could actually be a resolution to the other problems in the relation...

    i work in a government agency that is exploding with new ideas right now, very different from business as usual in the government.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  11. #11
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    it's kind of like sizing up an idea/situation/etc. as inherently different than, and disconnected from, every other thing, so that the most relevant aspects are captured. vortex complements this by synthesizing things based on assumed relevance.
    Was this for me?
    It's perfect and I can understand it well.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have thought that progress moves from alpha irrationals, to beta rationals, to gamma irrationals, to delta rationals....then to delta irrationals, to gamma rationals, to beta irrationals, and finally to alpha rationals. that this is the complete cycle of information development and social progress. that there is a jump in the supervision/benefit rings that occurs in delta. that the age of delta is middle age, that maximum social power and civilization lies in delta.
    +/- is the progression between functions within a quadra in this cycle rather than between quadras. It is the process you describe on a miniature level.

  13. #13
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    +/- is the progression between functions within a quadra in this cycle rather than between quadras. It is the process you describe on a miniature level.
    ergo, there is a little jump between the supervision rings in every quadra.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  14. #14
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,779
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Possible examples of H-P:


    V. Gulenko: This is imprecise, multi-perspective thinking. It is mosaic-like. It works according to the principle of a hologram - the creation of three-dimensional representation of the object through the imposition of several of its sections. It is suitable for solving complex multifactor problems that have no clear-cut algorithms.


    Quotes:

    "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary." - SLE.

    "I never over analyze the things that people say or do - I feel like people's intentions are always very clear to me." - ESI.

    "Why the hell would I need to think about reasons? If I have them, I do stuff; if I don't, I might as well do it just the same. Oftentimes the conclusion would be the same either way, but I get there faster if I just chop out a large bulk, if not all, of the deliberation. When shit hits the fan, I stop all thinking and just do something, then everything is fine. Seems I'm most comfortable when there is an uproar and agitation and the whole pandemonium is unleashed." - IEE.

    "I don't really focus on what they're doing or why. It's just not important to me. I'll meet someone for the first time and pay hardly any attention to what they're doing, tbh. Usually people say the wrong things or look awkward at first because they're nervous, shy, or just not open to me yet—I'm not going to analyze the things they say. It just isn't of much significance to me. However, I do tend to gather impressions of people when I first meet them, but it's by observing something else. I suppose you could call it a person's undertone? Like if you meet some girl who acts extroverted and bubbly, it's not hard for me to look past that and see one general face to her—a more solid, internal, static thing that serves as a core despite her outward expressions. I guess it's like spotting depression in someone even if they act like they're on top of the world. And yeah, if I do meet someone that looks like they're acting against who they are, it feels obvious to me. That sort of impression tends to last too, and I'll wonder if they'll ever start showing who [I think] they are. And even though I'm not going to really judge them for it, I still can't get over the sense of internal friction they give off, and I feel like I can't get close to people like that. I do trust my impressions, though. How I feel about them can and probably will change over time, but who I think they are pretty much stays the same." - ESI.

    "There are two aspects to any person: essence and behavior. Typology based on behavior improves with complexity: the more dichotomies you come up with, the more accurate it is. On the other side, typology based on essence strives for simplicity: it's about reducing personality to its minimal expression. There is no limit about how far you can go about complexity and this is why there are so many behavioral typological systems. But simplicity has a limit and that limit is probably Socionics." - IEE.

    "Lets say you're in a room that has no walls, no floor, and no roof. This room is completely free of conventional rules except for those of your own choosing (rules such as gravity for example). Now in this room, the focus of your attention is an object that you are dissecting or even expanding upon. You don't have to come into direct contact with the object in order to move it in anyway. However you choose to view the object will allow you to view in this way. You could choose to inverse the object in anyway shape or form to accurately/properly analyze it from your desired perspective." - LII.

    "My frame of perception is constantly shifting, or I'm layering one on top of the other." - LII.

    "Ti delves into possible realities. First, a schema appears before the mind's eye, then the facts are filled in depending on the context, but the facts are never given value. There is no seeking of facts for their own sake." - LII.

    "I just started writing it and kept writing, and it evolved and evolved. It’s like filling in a crossword puzzle. You know that word has got to be "abracadabra", right? Because there’s no other word it can be until you get halfway through and you see that the word down the middle has a P in the middle of abracadabra and there is no P. So therefore, one of them has to be wrong. They can’t both be right. And the same thing is true about structuring a drama. You go along and say, “I know this has got to happen at the end of the second act,” until you realize you’ve spent two years, and it doesn’t work. So something’s wrong. Either the first and third acts are wrong or the second act is wrong. How am I going to fix it? The structure is the whole thing — getting the movie to eat up 15 lines on a sheet of paper so you can write it." - SLE.

    "Well, you can’t help but make a distinct movie. If you give yourself up to the form, it’s going to be distinctively your own because the form’s going to tell you what’s needed. That’s one of the great things I find about working in drama is you’re always learning from the form. You’re always getting humbled by it. It’s exactly like analyzing a dream. You’re trying to analyze your dreams. You say, “I know what that means; I know exactly what that means; why am I still unsettled?” You say, “Let me look a little harder at this little thing over here. But that’s not important; that’s not important; that’s not important. The part where I kill the monster — that’s the important part, and I know that means my father this and da da da da da. But what about this little part over here about the bunny rabbit? Why is the bunny rabbit hopping across the thing? Oh, that’s not important; that’s not important.” Making up a drama is almost exactly analogous to analyzing your dreams." - SLE.
    Last edited by silke; 06-10-2017 at 09:59 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •