Do Ni people visualize gant charts?
ganttchart.jpg
Ni is gant chart?
Do Ni people visualize gant charts?
ganttchart.jpg
-Slava
ENTP/INTP
no
Definitely not.
I would say its more like a spiderweb; ill visualize how my thoughts connect from one to the other and note my impression. Visually im very spacially oriented with the organization of ides. A chart is limiting, a graph would work better as theres quadrants and a principle that I start at the intersection and branch myself outwards.
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.
Ahh, wut. Gant chart says how long something takes? Why would that be Ni or even intuition at all? Maybe Thinking.
Ni is intuition of time
nope, Ti and Te are about charts. Also Fi (just not as technical).
Ni is like a whirlwind or vortex.
Ni is based on inner objects and their relationship to one another and is essentially steeped in imagery. Graphs are an excellent representation of the relationships seen as images for the Ni user, at least for NiTe.
Can you explain to me how you visualize charts? Because I really don't know what you are talkingabout. NiTe to me is essentially just the DA cog style oriented very abstractly. I think the optical illusion comparison Gulenko gave is a spot-on concrete analogy.Originally Posted by Jimmers
I'm not familiar with Gulenko's analogy. Do you have a link for that?
I'm really not sure exactly what I'm talking about because it is incredibly difficult to describe, but basically, when I read something like a line graph, I visualize the relationship on the graph. Let's say we're talking about the Ideal Gas Law and we graph the relationship of pressure to volume when the temperature is constant. So as pressure on the gas increases, the volume decreases, an inverse relationship. I see Pressure as a force and Volume as an object and I visualize the effect one has on one another. It plays like a short animated clip.
But that is when I'm converting from graph to an understanding of the relationship represented by the graph. It's crisp and clear. However, if it's new information, it is much less crisp and clear, and my brain tries to create images out the information when I'm forming connections.
The most common image I have is very bizarre, but effective. Let's say that the quantity of object A increases at the expense of object B. When I notice that particular relationship, the relationship becomes a visual abstraction where object A expands and object B contracts.
It is analogous to a balloon that you pinch in half. Depending on where you pinch the balloon, one side will be larger than the other, and by pulsating my hand, I make one side expand and the other contract. So, one side increases at the expense of another, but they are connected in the middle. The image is very much like this.
I realize that it is probably very subjective and may not apply to anyone else. I am hoping that it does. I'm a very visual, spatial, and creative thinker, but not necessarily logical. I'm very good at logic, but I don't view the world in a strictly logical sense for sure. I am really always looking for relationships and patterns, and I have a tendency to create images. I think this is the reason why I've been good at the arts and the sciences.
Hopefully I don't sound too cray-cray.
I have an INTj (although potentially ISTj) friend who thinks in a similar fashion; he says he can't actually see things in his mind, he can't play things in sequential order, and while he can understand how one event can lead to another, it isn't clear to him all the little details which happen in between, his mind just doesn't process like that. I bring this up because you're trying to understand Ni in such a direct and literal way that you would compare it to something as technical as a gantt chart. A gantt chart is probably closer to how you, as an INTj, think in, and projected this onto Ni by taking Ti and making it more "perceptual".
The way I imagine Ni works is that it takes our mental model of the world--the one we developed early as children which told us that, while our loved ones were no longer in sight, they still existed somewhere else in reality ergo no need to cry--and reviews and manipulates it at the will of its user, resulting in an ability to "see" into the individual's model of the past and future (which is more useful in relation to reality the more accurate a person's model of reality is, but can also be used in fictional models such as in fantasy novels to easily keep track of what happens and when), the ability to compare different objects in that model to forge new relationships/meanings between what those two objects mean in relation to one another, and the ability to modify the model's objects into new objects within one's mind, i.e. mental imagery, otherwise just called "imagination": the literal product of which is sometimes much too abstract and complex to explain, esp. if one allows Ni to simply run freely as is often the case with Ni-doms, but it can certainly be used, and most often is in adults, to imagine a design or painting or invention or method of conducting activity in the real world before ever having tried it. (This also seems to be why Ni-doms have a stigma of being perfectionists; while they do have a great sense of what X should be in their mind, it infrequently comes out as imagined in reality, which is of course highly discouraging.)
An easy example of Ni usage is when an individual opts to understand how the timeline of Ancient Rome matches with the timelines of other empires and the unfolding timelines of modern nations, and what actions can be taken to avoid (or accelerate, if you're into that kinda thing) another great collapse today.
I think the cognition you are talking about is not necessarily proprietary to Ni, but really just general abstract cognition. I know exactly what you are talking about and I've often wondered if it's related to Ni dominance, but instead I just think it's a consequence of reaching Piaget's formal operational stage (which is the cognitive stage where one gains the ability to think abstractly). I think it's more like a broad skill such as mathematical ability and either A. one's type just overlays a pattern for those skills or B. it's wholly independent of type. I don't know which though. Gulenko never really says how predominant the cognitive style is when it comes to thinking in different areas or just everyday lower level thought.
The analogy I was talking about was just mentioned by Gulenko in his cognitive styles article. He mentions the optical illusion analogy in the last 2 paragraphs of the "scientific sphere" subsection under Dialectial-Algorithmic Cognition.
Here is the link:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko
I'm still impressed by how well he captured the thought process with that comparison. Any time I'm debating or discussing something with someone I often have a conceptualization just like the vase-face optical illusion. It's not that I'm actually literally seeing a vase and a face, but that I see both opposing sides to an issue at once and understand how they meld together and both make sense in a sort of moving image.
Last edited by Contra; 11-12-2014 at 03:52 AM.
charts.... idk it sounds more Te+Si
I was going to reply sooner, but it has slipped my mind, and then I found myself thinking about this topic again today. I do think that Piaget's formal operational stage is probably how Ni can be developed to its fullest potential and once the brain has matured to such a stage, many of the imaginative wanderings of an Ni-dom can become fully developed and hopefully realized.
I think Ni is very difficult to describe and I do really like the vase-face analogy, as I think it does a great job of describing how the brain can conceptualize two different, and perhaps opposing views at once. Beside that though, Ni in general is steeped in mental imagery and the connections I personally make form very subjective images that allow me to see how things relate in unique ways, ways in which other Ni users may not because of its subjectivity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote