Having a 'Game Plan'?

[Aster]

I find myself asking people what they are doing today or tomorrow a lot and what time they are doing it. Or "What time will you be back?", to the point where people have asked me if I'd like them to make a schedule for me before. And of course I say yes. It kind of frustrates me when they have no idea, or they just say "later", so I find myself trying to guess at least. I always like to have an idea, at least, or a projected time. I like to time estimate. Also, when I'm going somewhere, I like to know what the game plan is. What time are we leaving. What are we doing, and when we can expect to be back. I don't like to just get in the car and go. Some people seem ok with just winging things like that or not having a projected time.


So is this rationality? Something else? What IE's are at work here?

[Chae]

That's .

[Chae]

What my tells me is that you'd be talented at chess.

[Chae]

An example is when my hubs and I went somewhere he told me he would like to see the bridge where we were going before it got dark, and I thought that was odd because I thought there was no way we would make it there on time. So I looked at the clock and time estimated in my head, running through events I thought were likely to happen. Bathroom breaks, stopping to eat, projected traffic, and I said, "10:45. We'll get there around 10:45." And he said, "No way, surely not that late." We hit the bridge at 10:46. I do that a lot I guess... maybe it's Ni I've always thought of it as a game I do in my head.

Yes, it is. Also note that sneaks in there when you say something is "odd" and calculate likely events. You can see the difference in extroverted and introverted intuition quite well here. can also be a game but it's not in your head, it happens outside of you in opportunities and is nowhere near as precise as one-way-track as you demonstrate it.

[Chae]

I think I'll also add the reason I was hesitant to label this as Ni is I've read on this forum and another that some didn't think the definition of time was a good definition of Ni. That it was too simplistic or something...maybe it would be better to discuss what dimension it is. Also, I feel like there are a few things going on in OP, because there is the need to plan, also. And I thought that was Te?

would be how you put it to use, mere does not include utility - just the future insight of what will happen. Action is still necessary. So that your dual has 4D to your 4D naturally makes this work out because they consider the usefulness of the forecast. Time summarizes it correctly, but sure it can be more differentiated and specific to IEI/ILI/EII/LII that's no issue.

To the other post: If you wanna play chess then running against would also create an interesting dynamic.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This is weird to me cuz aren't people more flexible than this? No offense but I always thought 'game plans' sounded corny and self help book-y.

I'd be hesitant to ask people what time something was gonna be over with because it might sound like I never wanted to go in the first place, so why am I even going at all? Rude.

This is a p vs j thing to me, though that could be too mbti-ish for some people's tastes.

[The Exception]

I find myself asking people what they are doing today or tomorrow a lot and what time they are doing it. Or "What time will you be back?", to the point where people have asked me if I'd like them to make a schedule for me before. And of course I say yes. It kind of frustrates me when they have no idea, or they just say "later", so I find myself trying to guess at least. I always like to have an idea, at least, or a projected time. I like to time estimate. Also, when I'm going somewhere, I like to know what the game plan is. What time are we leaving. What are we doing, and when we can expect to be back. I don't like to just get in the car and go. Some people seem ok with just winging things like that or not having a projected time.


So is this rationality? Something else? What IE's are at work here?

I think rational types are more prone to this and but I also think it might be related to Ni in socionics (which is an irrational function).

I am LII, a rational type with strong demonstrative Ni.

I kind of like having a rough game plan, but I'm rather flexible about the details. I don't need to know exact times, just an approximation will do. The exception would be if I had other plans like an appointment scheduled, then I would want a more fixed time, to ensure things don't conflict with each other.

This is weird to me cuz aren't people more flexible than this? No offense but I always thought 'game plans' sounded corny and self help book-y.

I'd be hesitant to ask people what time something was gonna be over with because it might sound like I never wanted to go in the first place, so why am I even going at all? Rude.

This is a p vs j thing to me, though that could be too mbti-ish for some people's tastes.

I don't think it's necessarily rude to want to know when something is going to end. I guess someone might see it as rude if you don't explain why you're asking. I mean it's perfectly okay to say something like, I'd love to come, but I have a paper that needs to get done for class that's due tomorrow so I can only stay until a certain time.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

okay, i hear ya. well with exercising yeah I'm not very sporty lol and would dislike it if some pushy person tried to extend a workout session longer than I wanted. lol. 45 minutes at most then i'm gonna hold out my hand like Daria trying to stop the volleyball.

[Jeremy8419]

What's the plan?
So like this time?
And something like this?

To self
And then there's this
And then there's that
....

Calculates

50-100 different possible courses of events and their outcomes

Looks up cartoons and pets cats

[ouronis]

It puts me in a bad mood to do things with people who don't care about this kind of foresight, but I usually just want to know about what we're doing and not what they're doing with the rest of their day.

[Bertrand]

my father is LSI and he just retired so we're going on a little trip. He plans what I consider to be the most minute shit out, but I can tell it means a lot to him and he does get kind of salty if I imply it doesn't matter or "ill play it by ear." Its like I'm not going to list off exactly what clothes I'm bringing because I don't know and I don't care. He finds it interesting conversation, I find it tedious and a waste of time. I feel like for him half the adventure is planning the thing out, but in a very bottom-up Ti way. Its like he's going to "control" the trip by constructing it block by block from the bottom up with the best logic and variables such that its gonna be great! whereas I prefer to just minimize planning and react to the exegencies of the circumstances, because I find that most efficient. obviously Ill try to remember my toothbrush and the other necessities but beyond the absolute requirements, "the plan is no plan" because I've found that to, in general, produce the best results with the least effort

out of respect for him however I'm doing my best to humor him in a non patronizing way. when I shifted the conversation from clothing options to how proud I was of him for all he's done for the family and how much I appreciate it, it was like I took the wind out of his sails (I only realized in retrospect maybe it would be received as such). LSIs are weird

[Bertrand]

lol. My stepfather is an LSI and he's just like this. I've been on several vacations with him and he plans everything down to the last detail and is the ultimate control freak about it. He makes lists of everything we are doing and the times we are doing it. Checks them off. Pre-planned everything. I have great respect for him. Some say he's an asshole. But he's like one of the few people irl I admire. He knows what he's doing and he's got his crap together. I find it admirable.


I couldn't plan things like that, no way. But yeah, I pack to prepare, too

my dad has the calming influence of my mom (EIE) on him so he's mega chilled out. one time I had a girlfriend and her dad was LSI but way more uptight and would freak out of things went off the rails, even if there was a good reason for it. like he would refuse to take opportunities that presented themselves for fun, which is like the whole point (of holiday), in order to adhere to the plan because the anxiety of going off script was greater than any potential gain from an "unknown" opportunity. it was really hard on his family because it basically dominated them completely in such a way they weren't free to have fun. they were basically beholden to his literal ego for the entirety of the trip which really made the "vacation" more like "work" which was sad, because the Dad really wanted a happy vibe but he just did not know how to produce it, or see how he was harming it. in the end no one was happy

they immigrated here from south africa though where things are fucking insane. I imagine he kept them safe via his crazy maximalism, and in that light was very respectable. its just sad once they got here and the kids spent more of their lives here than there, that they found themselves in such an unhappy dynamic

[squark]

I find myself asking people what they are doing today or tomorrow a lot and what time they are doing it. Or "What time will you be back?", to the point where people have asked me if I'd like them to make a schedule for me before. And of course I say yes. It kind of frustrates me when they have no idea, or they just say "later", so I find myself trying to guess at least. I always like to have an idea, at least, or a projected time. I like to time estimate. Also, when I'm going somewhere, I like to know what the game plan is. What time are we leaving. What are we doing, and when we can expect to be back. I don't like to just get in the car and go. Some people seem ok with just winging things like that or not having a projected time.


So is this rationality? Something else? What IE's are at work here?

I'm not sure. I ask when things are going to happen too, but I also have no problems just getting in a car and going somewhere if there's nothing I need to do. Last weekend drove circles through 2 states for a couple days with some family, none of us with anything but our wallets and clothes on our backs, just seeing where we'd end up and what we'd find along the way. And in the past I've gotten in my car and driven thousands of miles across country without as much as a map.

However, I ask when things are going to start (so I can get there on time) and how long they'll last and so on, so I know what to expect and so plans don't conflict.

If it's rationality, I have a split-personality on that. Meeting responsibilities, arriving places on time - those things matter to me, but if I don't have to be anywhere then let's just see what happens. I'd rather not plan. I also pack much lighter than most people. But that part in particular is related to carefree/farsighted (and I'm very much carefree) http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...and_farsighted

Now, Ni as an ego function is not related to time-keeping, as in it's not about measuring seconds and minutes, which is what you're describing in your second post. It's about seeing patterns through time, not about time itself or counting seconds. Ni leads can even sort of seem beyond time in some ways because they're seeing it in this stretched-out kind of way where all time is connected, not divided and measured into neat little boxes of the current day. In contrast, you're very aware of keeping track of time and the passage of it on a day-to-day kind of basis, and making estimations of when you'll be where at what time.

To see what it's related to, look for the types that do find that kind of thing difficult to do. Who has the hardest time actually being on time, or estimating how long something will take? (sometimes this is ascribed to Ni-polr, and sometimes to weak Te depending on the author, so don't put too much weight on it) But also, your particular take on time-keeping sounds more individual than a universally-held type distinction.

[Myst]

my dad has the calming influence of my mom (EIE) on him so he's mega chilled out. one time I had a girlfriend and her dad was LSI but way more uptight and would freak out of things went off the rails, even if there was a good reason for it. like he would refuse to take opportunities that presented themselves for fun, which is like the whole point (of holiday), in order to adhere to the plan because the anxiety of going off script was greater than any potential gain from an "unknown" opportunity. it was really hard on his family because it basically dominated them completely in such a way they weren't free to have fun. they were basically beholden to his literal ego for the entirety of the trip which really made the "vacation" more like "work" which was sad, because the Dad really wanted a happy vibe but he just did not know how to produce it, or see how he was harming it. in the end no one was happy

they immigrated here from south africa though where things are fucking insane. I imagine he kept them safe via his crazy maximalism, and in that light was very respectable. its just sad once they got here and the kids spent more of their lives here than there, that they found themselves in such an unhappy dynamic

Good example of non-socionics factors interacting.

Let me add more variation to that in terms of how I am as an LSI. Often I don't plan out everything to the last detail, no. I quickly get the main logical points of the plan for the main objective then I move inside these restrictions which may allow for pretty big range of movement still and it allows for adapting on the spot for the local objectives. Then with certain things I do get incredibly rigid like that and then that's when I have more trouble with some things getting in the way. First mode is a more "big picture" mode (not intuitive) and I relate it to Se, information-wise (utilization of Te information probably supporting it in the background unconsciously, allowing for more expediency). Latter mode is more detail oriented, mostly Ti details, with a lot less Se information being accessed. I can still extend awareness of Se information when needed and become decently adaptable again.

[Bertrand]

Good example of non-socionics factors interacting.

Often I don't plan out everything to the last detail, no. I quickly get the main logical points of the plan for the main objective then I move inside these restrictions which may allow for pretty big range of movement still and it allows for adapting on the spot for the local objectives. Then with certain things I do get incredibly rigid like that and then that's when I have more trouble with some things getting in the way. First mode is a more "big picture" mode (not intuitive) and I relate it to Se, information-wise (utilization of Te information probably supporting it in the background unconsciously). Latter mode is just Ti, with a lot less Se information being accessed. I can still extend awareness of Se information when needed and become decently adaptable again.

yeah I know if my dad had nothing going on and I said "hey, want to drive around for a few hours and do nothing?" he would likely be down. At that point the plan would be exactly that and now a lot of what he would be rigid about would be sticking to that, or if not sticking to it per se, doing everything to make it work, like maybe he'd be like yeah let me grab a coke and then he'd systematically lock the house down and turn off all the devices and make sure the dogs went outside, he wouldn't just leave. Then, when that was done we'd settle in for the trip and spend about, exactly, 2 hours driving and he would know 1 minute in exactly how many miles out we should go before we head back, etc etc. Its not rigidity or lack of adaptation for its own sake, its more about being very aware of all the elements that go into the goal and accounting for them in a way that reduces out any disruptions and virtually guarantees the objective will be met, but in a maximalist way. Its very linear, with a more or less fixed goal, and up front he will have in his mind all the steps that need to be taken in order to guarantee the outcome, in that way he's extremely proactive vs reactive. to him I feel like if he needs to react on the spot he counts that as a kind of failure, unless he's already accounted for "at moment x, we will reach a decision point based on x or y" in other words, he'd even like to be aware up front of certain potential forks in the road etc, and then he would Ti those as best he could narrowing the range down, trying to get the best handle on it up front etc etc

I feel like in general this is a good way to keep Hamlet safe who is liable to start initiatives that without this kind of maximalism could easily end up out of control. its also a way to shut down the wackier ones by running through them and figuring out if they're even possible, up front

[Myst]

yeah I know if my dad had nothing going on and I said "hey, want to drive around for a few hours and do nothing?" he would likely be down. At that point the plan would be exactly that and now a lot of what he would be rigid about would be sticking to that, or if not sticking to it per se, doing everything to make it work, like maybe he'd be like yeah let me grab a coke and then he'd systematically lock the house down and turn off all the devices and make sure the dogs went outside, he wouldn't just leave. Then, when that was done we'd settle in for the trip and spend about, exactly, 2 hours driving and he would know 1 minute in exactly how many miles out we should go before we head back, etc etc. Its not rigidity or lack of adaptation for its own sake, its more about being very aware of all the elements that go into the goal and accounting for them in a way that reduces out any disruptions and virtually guarantees the objective will be met, but in a maximalist way. Its very linear, with a more or less fixed goal, and up front he will have in his mind all the steps that need to be taken in order to guarantee the outcome, in that way he's extremely proactive vs reactive. to him I feel like if he needs to react on the spot he counts that as a kind of failure, unless he's already accounted for "at moment x, we will reach a decision point based on x or y" in other words, he'd even like to be aware up front of certain potential forks in the road etc, and then he would Ti those as best he could narrowing the range down, trying to get the best handle on it up front etc etc

I feel like in general this is a good way to keep Hamlet safe who is liable to start initiatives that without this kind of maximalism could easily end up out of control. its also a way to shut down the wackier ones by running through them and figuring out if they're even possible, up front

Yeah that's how I work too, except I don't make the plans too detailed usually, I'll just use my Se awareness to take care of the unplanned "movable" details. But I do relate to keeping the main points of the plan in a strict way. I would know those elements too for a car drive. I'm not very focused on contingency planning in terms of making plan B, C, etc, I'm more like you say here, narrowing the range down, getting the best path planned out that avoids the Ne PoLR problems.

[squark]

@reverie, silke said something in another thread (relating it to this one) that I hadn't thought of regarding tactics/strategy http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1196146

Putting strategic and farsighted together I think may cover a lot of what you're describing.

[The Reality Denialist]

can be bit non-scheduled type, though. If I have understood correctly they can dissipate to nowhere just like that and then find back just in time. They are master's of their own time.
valuers might have some point in time where they have connected something meaningful and it is sacred.

valuers are more rigid: you have connected several specific events to somewhere. base is bit more relaxed.

[Myst]

can be bit non-scheduled type, though. If I have understood correctly they can dissipate to nowhere just like that and then find back just in time. They are master's of their own time.
valuers might have some point in time where they have connected something meaningful and it is sacred.

valuers are more rigid: you have connected several specific events to somewhere. base is bit more relaxed.

Hm too many things (incl. nonsocionics factors too) affect the way of planning. I can relate to both here, Ni definitely sets some such immutable points for me in future and I suppose being Ni HA I take this very seriously and it drives me consistently in my commitment for something. The Ne part also applies if you just meant imagining a specific event (well, a rough draft of a vision of the specific event) and being committed to it working out. I hate it then if it doesn't. This (where I care this much) usually happens with events that are related to people somehow.

Then I see Reinin was also mentioned. Carefree/Farsighted, I relate to the Carefree surprisingly well but with Tactical/Strategic nope I can't really choose there, well, I don't think Reinin works anyway, but if we assume it does work, it may be modified by Judicious/Decisive (which to me is simply Si/Ne vs Se/Ni valuing so it has validity as far as that) and maybe even by Rationality/Irrationality. I'll describe my case below... if you want to analyze it out in terms of these factors and/or other factors, feel free to


Quoting from wikisocion on Tactical/Strategic to compare myself to the criteria:

"Tactics

Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

Strategy

Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them."

Well I can't say I'm clearly one or the other. See below for more:

1. I focus on local objectives by default where the global objective (overarching, more distant "endpoint", sort of the objective of the entire big picture, call this the goal, I think) is not often being paid direct attention to but it consistently drives me. The methods are directly linked to local objectives. If local objective changes, linked method or methods of course changes too. I change the current local objective to a new one if I run into something that seems to require it but I can take a while pushing at the current local objective getting stuck before I realize I need to change it or before something comes up that makes me adjust and change it (switch to new one happens very quickly then). While pushing at it, I manipulate some details of current method(s) being applied. So I primarily focus on the methods for the local objective but I relatively easily look at the local objective and much less frequently at the global objective but that gives the meaningful context to all the other things. Otoh, that meaning for the context is not meant in a practical sense: I don't think often enough of syncing the local objectives and the methods with the global objective or goal, this syncing of them to it happens infrequently.

2. The global objective and the entire goal is defined first and not modified by the local objectives or by methods either, I will take the goal more seriously than that in its overarching expression of an idea. It's immutable in that form. It can come with a "vision". But the specific manifestation of this goal may be modified sometimes if I do review it, though I review it infrequently. This modification is indeed easily based on the methods or where exactly I can get with my methods. But I'm also willing to sometimes seek out new methods when I realize that this is all I need to do. Changing things in this way can be a pita though if the new method is unfamiliar and is used to fix up the direction of a complex course. Waah I can feel so disoriented while managing the change until I reorient properly.

3. I don't like to have too many options, no! I prefer to defend goals over that. Hate deviating.


Wikisocion also says: "The key element in understanding this group is the dichotomy of "goal/purpose—method/pathway". The consciousness of the Strategist is to a larger degree orientated towards the goal/purpose itself and not towards the actions undertaken in process of achieving it, while the consciousness of the Tactician is largely focused on the path i.e. the actual actions ("steps") but not their end goal. This encompasses not only the conscious activities of individuals, which decisions they undertake, and so on, but also external circumstances, background events, and other concurrent factors. On a general level it is possible to speak about a difference in "reference points": either the course is corrected in accordance to some fixed goal (Strategist) or the course becomes fixed and goals become variable (Tactician)."

According to this I relate to Tactical more as far as focusing on the actions or steps in the process of achieving the goal. I do not however like the idea of external circumstances or other background events getting in the way, no way, I'm too set for my direction towards the purpose/goal to want to deviate. I just don't focus on the goal directly if that's what Strategic means, I don't sync up the methods for it too often as described above. Otoh, I explained above about how I can also change the specifics or actually achievable manifestation of the goal sometimes. The overall "idea" of the goal I do not like to change however, that has too much meaning to me, it's immutable in the way I see Ni. Otherwise, the course is definitely fixed in the sense of how I don't easily fix up my methods if they do not work. The change is a pita as I said above. I *will* do it for the overall "idea" of the purpose however.


I talked to someone once who was Judicious and their take differed in that they took the direction less seriously. They did not like the idea of goals actually, with their Ni devaluing, it seemed. He was more Tactical seeming in this way superficially but his type is actually Strategic (I remembered this wrong at first). I could find his description if anyone is interested.