Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Merging Scenarios / Possibilities

  1. #1
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Merging Scenarios / Possibilities

    Which function would you associate with a tendency to see things as a playing field of multiple possibilities that could all be true at once? Think reading a sentence or looking at a situation / image and being aware of 2-3 different potential interpretations and holding them as competing meanings active in your mind rather than taking things at face value only. It sounds like a preference for surveying ´what could be´ rather than going for ´what is´, but does it smell like or ?

  2. #2
    chairpersonality Holon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    TIM
    O,!C,I;IEI
    Posts
    516
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It depends on what topic is being considered. In my opinion, a development on your question would be "which intuitive elements think about which topics in pluralistic or singular terms?"

    I also wouldn't think that two functions should have similar domains just because they're inverses along I/E. Depending on the school of thought, for instance is more "psychological" (what is going on inside a mind), while is more "bricoleur" (how circumstances could be different). Their similarities are less in what they are, and more in what they aren't: concrete, sensory things.

    Of course, different authors from different backgrounds will totally contradict one another.

    scribbles in the dark

  3. #3
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think your scenario may end up dipping heavily into extra-socionics cognition.. but people say I'm , so fwiw:

    i don't really "hold" possibilities in my mind. i don't keep track of my internal thought processes or how i arrive at a conclusion.

    i just use my imagination (or memory) to create a "raw" target concept, which I mentally tweak until it accounts for the facts in front of me (and their logical extension). instead of sitting down to compare and contrast equal and distinct possibilities, i usually end up forming a "general theory" which can then be used to promote or reject different possibilities.


    [ EDIT: i may use the former every once in a while.. not sure ]


    but i'm left handed, so i'm probably not the best source.
    i'm bowing out now.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am pretty decent at doing what rosewood described, but I'm not sure it can be ascribed to my socionics type.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,596
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm not sure what you mean but i'm reminded of when i tried to read thus spoke zarathustra and got annoyed because all the footnotes from the editors went into interpreting nietzche's words to mean something so radically different from what he actually said that i couldn't make the connection myself and it seemed like anybody could just make up anything they wanted and say that it was what nietzche was really trying to say. but i'm definitely capable of reading more than one meaning into something and seeing emotional/spiritual/aesthetic value in that sort of ambiguity. though when it comes to trying to find a truth or a practical application i want something much more..."what is."

    edit: that totally didn't answer the question. i dunno. is it what you meant, though?

  6. #6
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That sounds like Objects > Fields since the alternative pathways don't intersect whatsoever.

    Whatever it is, i dont do it
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  7. #7
    Memory of Tomorrow Reuben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oh baby, baby, baby
    TIM
    No idea
    Posts
    1,928
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are 2 ways I would answer this question.

    (1) Ne seems to be the element you are talking about. Clearly we are talking about perception, so no judging elements. We're talking about possibilities, so no sensing elements. Ni is about holding true to a certain outcome, a static ideal, a strong internal image, so not Ni. So we have Ne left - the element that deals with possibilities of how things can be (not will be, or should be, but can be).

    (2) Every element when developed to its potential will be able to perceive multiple possibilities of how things can be at any given moment. For example, an Fi-ego will be able to regulate and develop relationships easily as he or she can see how it may or may not develop over time. The Si-ego can manipulate his or her sensory experiences by influencing the environment, but first he or she must be able to fit together sensory information to see what are the possibilities, and which ones are more preferable at any given moment. The same goes for all the other elements. Humans in general require experience, time, and knowledge to percieve multiple possibilities in any field of knowledge, and I daresay in any element.

    So while we would traditionally assign this ability to Ne, to some extent the ability to view multiple possibilities is a quality that, I believe, transcends all elements. Of course we can argue that it is the Ne in the individual that helps out with all that potentiality thing for the leading function, but then what about the ISTj who is able to see creative logical solutions to things that others miss? And the ISFj who can deal with certain interpersonal issue with creative strength that don't come easily to others? It appears to me that with or without strong Ne, a person will need to see how things can potentially be, in multiple ways, before executing his or her strong element in any situation.

    And I think I'd like to end off my post by bitching about the terminology used heh. The word you are looking for, I believe, is element, not function. I'm sure you know that function refers to 'leading function', 'creative function', role function' etc, while elements refer to Ne, Ni, Fe and so on. But in the case that you do mean function, and I'm being a pompous ass, then the short answer is that it is usually our conscious strong functions, i.e. leading and creative, that are able to do this potential/possibility thing (although I'm inclined to say that unless your creative function is exceedingly well-developed, this ability is usually reserved for the leading function).

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rosewood View Post
    a tendency to see things as a playing field of multiple possibilities that could all be true at once? Think reading a sentence or looking at a situation / image and being aware of 2-3 different potential interpretations and holding them as competing meanings active in your mind rather than taking things at face value only. It sounds like a preference for surveying ´what could be´ rather than going for ´what is´, but does it smell like or ?
    You've just described how my mind works (it being both a blessing and a curse) therefore my bet is on

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's more Ne.

  10. #10
    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

    'all be true at once' sounds more Ne... Ni can deal with competing meanings, but usually seeks to arrive at a singular course.

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    i'm not sure what you mean but i'm reminded of when i tried to read thus spoke zarathustra and got annoyed because all the footnotes from the editors went into interpreting nietzche's words to mean something so radically different from what he actually said that i couldn't make the connection myself and it seemed like anybody could just make up anything they wanted and say that it was what nietzche was really trying to say. but i'm definitely capable of reading more than one meaning into something and seeing emotional/spiritual/aesthetic value in that sort of ambiguity. though when it comes to trying to find a truth or a practical application i want something much more..."what is."

    edit: that totally didn't answer the question. i dunno. is it what you meant, though?
    I've seen this as well. overall I think Ne types have a slightly greater tendency than Ni types to make 'references'... where the concepts are disparate and connected through a kind of linear symbolization... Ni types tend a bit more towards holism, having a more internal focus imo.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  11. #11
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reuben View Post
    But in the case that you do mean function, and I'm being a pompous ass, then the short answer is that it is usually our conscious strong functions, i.e. leading and creative, that are able to do this potential/possibility thing (although I'm inclined to say that unless your creative function is exceedingly well-developed, this ability is usually reserved for the leading function).
    I believe the 4D elements/functions are the ones that have the ability to see things progress from the state theyre in - to something not readily apparent. So i'd say Leading / Demonstrative, more than Leading / Creative.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  12. #12
    Memory of Tomorrow Reuben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oh baby, baby, baby
    TIM
    No idea
    Posts
    1,928
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I believe the 4D elements/functions are the ones that have the ability to see things progress from the state theyre in - to something not readily apparent. So i'd say Leading / Demonstrative, more than Leading / Creative.
    I think you get what I'm saying. That exactly.

  13. #13
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,779
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rosewood View Post
    It sounds like a preference for surveying ´what could be´ rather than going for ´what is´, but does it smell like or ?
    The merging imagery and branching parallel scenarios sounds closest to Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition, in which case this is not caused by either Ni nor Ne, as two of the DA types are -valuing, ILI and EIE, and the other two value , LSE and SEI.


    Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

    "The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive. The working name of this style is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Representatives of this style are Sociotypes EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI.

    As Dynamics, these types synthesize associational images. As Evolutionary types, they increase deductive complexity of them. As Negativists, they work well with contradictions and paradoxes.
    ... In speech it often uses syntactic constructions "if-then-else", the predictive branches of a developing process.
    ... This thinking is more comparable to a symphony of flowing interwoven imagery, rather than a mechanism of clearly established instruction sets.
    ... Occasionally Dialectics lose control over the parallel streams of thought fluctuating in their heads.
    ... A real-life model of this thinking—double-images periodically passing into each other."

  14. #14
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm fairly sure that I do what the OP is describing, but I don't know what part of my type it is related to. I just assumed it was an Ni thing. Perhaps Silke is right because I had originally thought that, if I did this, than Alpha NTs would do something much more radical in relation to possibilities, but after having an ILE roommate this last semester that couldn't be farther from the truth. It would make sense that Silke is correct because the ILE cognitive style is opposed to the Dialectical-Algorithmic style.

  15. #15
    suedehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I want to say Ni-Creative/Ne-Demonstrative for some reason. Like being consciously prepared for a few possible, realistic outcomes ahead of time, although I might be off?

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do this, but I don't really think about it. I thought everybody did this to be honest. I should read this cognitive styles article.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It depends perhaps what aspect of the multiple truths one is interested in. The different truths are either arranged according to differences in a time-oriented fashion or not. In the latter case, subjective intuition may perceive the convergence of possible experiences in time within the same user's mental sphere as "one" in a strange way, whereas the Ne-Ti or Ne-Fi way may be more likely to capture in ethical or logical principles influencing an object, which largely determine the nature of possible trajectories without observing their convergence. So in this case, the object is in multiple universes as opposed to one changing one.

    There are two slightly different thing at work, though, maybe. Creativity vs face value can apply to any information element, whereas strictly focusing on potential for its sake sounds like Ne for instance. Not taking things at face value could definitely refer to the 4D and 3D aspects, namely knowing how time and situation intimately play into the assessment made through some information element.

  18. #18
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rosewood View Post
    Which function would you associate with a tendency to see things as a playing field of multiple possibilities that could all be true at once? Think reading a sentence or looking at a situation / image and being aware of 2-3 different potential interpretations and holding them as competing meanings active in your mind rather than taking things at face value only. It sounds like a preference for surveying ´what could be´ rather than going for ´what is´, but does it smell like or ?
    Easy Day

Posting Permissions

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