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 likeor
?
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,
Of course, different authors from different backgrounds will totally contradict one another.
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.
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
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?
That sounds like Objects > Fields since the alternative pathways don't intersect whatsoever.
Whatever it is, i dont do it
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
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).
You've just described how my mind works (it being both a blessing and a curse) therefore my bet is onOriginally Posted by rosewood
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
That's more Ne.
'all be true at once' sounds more Ne... Ni can deal with competing meanings, but usually seeks to arrive at a singular course.
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
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.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I think you get what I'm saying. That exactly.
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 areIt sounds like a preference for surveying ´what could be´ rather than going for ´what is´, but does it smell like
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Easy Day
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote