Mental Imagery ?function?

[nyessss]

I'm getting mixed messages from people and media in general. It seems like mental imagery is linked to imagination, or traditionally, "Ni". I theorized it stemmed from "Si" as well, but I'm unsure. Additionally it appears types with the "panoramic" cognitive style also sport better mental imagery. What are everyone's opinions and anecdotes about mental imagery? I'm asking because I have near non-existent mental imagery, however, I am good at associations usually attributed to the intuitive functions. It always seems like an exception exists to any generalization I make about this, but I want a clear link to "the" mental imagery function.

[Bertrand]

I think it has to do with what its blocked with and whether its accepting/producing. I think producing intuition blocked with logic is most likely the standard conception of "mental imagery" which is sort of like a big picture view of many inter related parts hanging together in a logical relationship. that said, I think mental imagery can mean literally anything because all humans are capable of it and for that reason all have something in mind which is real that counts as mental imagery. the best way to get at this is ask the person what they mean when they said mental imagery. I don't think, in the final analysis, its tied to one function like "Ni", I think rather it can be experienced in 16 different ways

[Singu]

Well it seems to me that whatever that you're going to imagine is necessarily going to be linked to your memory, as in things that you have actually seen in the past.

So really the only way to imagine something "new", as in something that has never been imagined before is either through total randomness, or through abstract thinking, that is, logic. So you're probably going to play around with variables, you can swap things around with the if-then causal chains and imagine that if we suppose that those imagined things are true, then considering all the logical chains are completely consistent, we must be able to see certain "new" results.

This also seems to happen with certain fusions, when you imagine two seemingly unrelated things, and you make some sort of logical connections between them.

[Pallas]

I'm pretty sure by mental imagery he means pictures in your head. I'd think Ni and Si are about equal based on type descriptions. Rational functions would be useless since they seem like they're about abstract/"verbal" thinking (especially Ti.) It probably depends on the kind of mental imagery. There's the Static vs. Dynamic thing. But when I think mental imagery, I think of a fully-moving scene. I can't believe anyone would actually think in still pictures, so Static is probably the completely abstract/verbal thinking that people occasionally report.

I think just NT types don't use much mental imagery due to being abstract though. SFs probably don't either since they are too focused on their immediate surroundings. Democratic quadras must have it rough being unable to visualize an ideal world and be proactive.

[Olimpia]

First of, I would make a distinction between imagination which leans towards fantasy, daydreaming, and narrative imagery; and a spatial understanding of objects, e.g. "X-Ray vision".
I'd ask you which of the two you mostly mean when you talk of "mental imagery"?

Generally, being good at mental imagery is a matter of higher visual/spatial intelligence, but as I said, I'd make a distinction between the two subsets of it.

Strong Ni seems to "boost" the more narrative imagination in the "inner eye" (it is as if you were watching a movie).
While strong Ti seems to "boost" the spatial understanding of objects – especially in combination with Sensing, and the result of that is typically "X-ray vision".

Types who tend to be best at "X-ray vision" of objects have been mostly (spatially gifted) ISTx > ESTx in my experience. That is also where the stereotype of ISTx being mechanics comes from; in combination with higher visual intelligence, they are best at imagining the inner workings of machines etc.

So all in all, I'd say that a combination of high visual intelligence and being INTx (strong Ni and Ti) would result in the most profound and all-encompassing mental imagery that involves both the imaginative and spatial aspects.

I'd stress once again as a closing thought that at the end of the day it counts more what your level of visual intelligence is. There are xSI types with a good imagination; they have been gifted with enough visual intelligence which compensates for/or seems to "boost" their Ni. On the other hand, there can be Intuitive people who have lower visual intelligence and hence their imagination is not as vivid, or ISTx who have lower spatial intelligence and hence they would not make the best mechanics.

[Myst]

I'm getting mixed messages from people and media in general. It seems like mental imagery is linked to imagination, or traditionally, "Ni". I theorized it stemmed from "Si" as well, but I'm unsure. Additionally it appears types with the "panoramic" cognitive style also sport better mental imagery. What are everyone's opinions and anecdotes about mental imagery? I'm asking because I have near non-existent mental imagery, however, I am good at associations usually attributed to the intuitive functions. It always seems like an exception exists to any generalization I make about this, but I want a clear link to "the" mental imagery function.

I also have near non-existent mental imagery utilized by default, heh. I can visualize something I've seen before, but mostly only what I've seen before and I don't dwell on such imagining. For problem solving I have such visuals of static sensory pictures flash very quickly, so quickly that they do not even get fully conscious, so I usually don't even notice them, but somehow they underpin my brand of logic for certain cases of deliberate thinking/problem solving (e.g. organize my day, organize a task, solve certain problems that came up etc). These pictures are not very vivid.

The movie-like imagery people mention here, I can actually have that sometimes if there's an emotional motivation for it. Not often. Again not extremely vivid stuff but it's okay. And for imagining spatial locations in the movies, I have to have locations that I've already seen in real life. I can't conjure up ones I've not seen. The exception is my dreams at night lol. Idk why it gets creative there.

Well it seems to me that whatever that you're going to imagine is necessarily going to be linked to your memory, as in things that you have actually seen in the past.

So really the only way to imagine something "new", as in something that has never been imagined before is either through total randomness, or through abstract thinking, that is, logic. So you're probably going to play around with variables, you can swap things around with the if-then causal chains and imagine that if we suppose that those imagined things are true, then considering all the logical chains are completely consistent, we must be able to see certain "new" results.

This also seems to happen with certain fusions, when you imagine two seemingly unrelated things, and you make some sort of logical connections between them.

Trust me I call all that pretty new/novel things being imagined. I do none of that. I have tried before as part of some exercise... Specifically, imagining some history scene and imagining actions to be taken and why. I wasn't terrible with it actually but it was draining af, because I felt disconnected from my surroundings.

Mental imagery is associated with working memory:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595480/

Well this is troubling, since Socionics doesn't have a concept of memory. Saying things like "Mental imagery is associated with Ni or Ti" is pointless, since you're just associating the concept of mental imagery with Ni or Ti, but you're not explaining how that mental imagery works. You can say "Mental imagery is Ni", but it's like so what? The only use of that is you have shortened the words to "Ni".

Yeah, if you want an explanation of such stuff, Socionics's model isn't meant for that and its purpose was never that. Look, I get it that you are really into cognitive psychology lately and that's actually really cool but please for the love of god, don't expect Socionics to really do anything for that, and don't blame it either for not delivering what you want it to. It was NEVER designed for that. Maybe one day you will realize this.

Socionics gives some basic observations on it and that's it, the model itself is for analyzing certain general trends for your internals and for people and nothing more. The model is *not* for making sense of the cognitive observations Socionics does note in some definitions etc.

The article looks very cool though as a neat summary and some new points in it for me, thanks for linking it.

I'm pretty sure by mental imagery he means pictures in your head. I'd think Ni and Si are about equal based on type descriptions.

What Socionics type description said this about Si? Please link to it. I've never seen one.

Rational functions would be useless since they seem like they're about abstract/"verbal" thinking (especially Ti.) It probably depends on the kind of mental imagery. There's the Static vs. Dynamic thing. But when I think mental imagery, I think of a fully-moving scene. I can't believe anyone would actually think in still pictures, so Static is probably the completely abstract/verbal thinking that people occasionally report.

You can't believe it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do see still static pictures if I want to recall my day for example. A lot of snapshots then. By default I'm not focused on them though. But it's not a problem for me to visualize these.

My logic seems to rely on some pictures too that don't get fully conscious like I said above... but it's also got abstract and also verbal aspects, yeah.

I think just NT types don't use much mental imagery due to being abstract though. SFs probably don't either since they are too focused on their immediate surroundings.

OK, I'm SF

First of, I would make a distinction between imagination which leans towards fantasy, daydreaming, and narrative imagery; and a spatial understanding of objects, e.g. "X-Ray vision".
I'd ask you which of the two you mostly mean when you talk of "mental imagery"?

Generally, being good at mental imagery is a matter of higher visual/spatial intelligence, but as I said, I'd make a distinction between the two subsets of it.

Strong Ni seems to "boost" the more narrative imagination in the "inner eye" (it is as if you were watching a movie).
While strong Ti seems to "boost" the spatial understanding of objects – especially in combination with Sensing, and the result of that is typically "X-ray vision".

Types who tend to be best at "X-ray vision" of objects have been mostly (spatially gifted) ISTx > ESTx in my experience. That is also where the stereotype of ISTx being mechanics comes from; in combination with higher visual intelligence, they are best at imagining the inner workings of machines etc.

So all in all, I'd say that a combination of high visual intelligence and being INTx (strong Ni and Ti) would result in the most profound and all-encompassing mental imagery that involves both the imaginative and spatial aspects.

I'd stress once again as a closing thought that at the end of the day it counts more what your level of visual intelligence is. There are xSI types with a good imagination; they have been gifted with enough visual intelligence which compensates for/or seems to "boost" their Ni. On the other hand, there can be Intuitive people who have lower visual intelligence and hence their imagination is not as vivid, or ISTx who have lower spatial intelligence and hence they would not make the best mechanics.

I don't have an X-ray vision of objects but I think my LIE ex bf did. He anyway had more of it than me for sure. I have spatial intelligence but not this very Intuitive-sounding* form of it, I instead have it about real objects (like I said, it's not about their inner structure tho', that to me is Ne anyway) and surroundings around me. I'm also decent at doing those spatial tests with abstract cubes and whatnot. But I am most comfortable with manipulating real objects without imagining their inner crap that cannot be directly experienced or directly deduced with concrete reasoning, and with navigating in my spatial surroundings.

So anyway I suspect there is more than one kind of spatial intelligence.

*: I realize that it's not necessarily all Intuitive, for sure some SLIs have some form of this intelligence too, and I don't know about the other S types, maybe, I'm just saying that to me it feels Intuitive for some reason. Just what my brain would try to utilize for it for some reason, I think. ...Thinking further on it, the way I break down *new* unfamiliar objects for mechanics purposes is by really actually checking all their concrete parts in an almost sequential fashion initially and deducing logic for them. None of the "inner structure imagination", which is why I said what I said above.

EDIT: oh and actually I am like this (with having to work on it some) when it comes to their *mechanics* specifically. If it's simply about the material structure of the object without considering the more complex functional purposes, then I am way faster/more natural with the spatial intelligence bit. I see how any object looks from the inside as far as I've seen the object (easily constructing what they must be looking like from the inside or just the currently unseen parts spatially based on what I've seen, to the extent that this is deducible at all). So I can manipulate them readily. But that's not enough to do more complex mechanics repairs lol, for that I have to analyze out the function of the parts so then it becomes that thorough initially slow-ish process for that if the thing is completely new. If not new, okay... For new stuff though, that is where LIE ex would run circles around me with his Intuition or the V-S thinking or whatever else.

Exactly what do you mean b it.

It is bit crazy. I suddenly see mentally foe example balls dividing into pieces. Then forming certain sorts of statures divining itself into pieces which again begins to restructuring itself. Lines are forming pointing towards something, things filling up, suddenly planet starts to bounce on top of trampoline that is wired on top street lamps etc. Sudden expansion of realization in terms of scalability of the understanding and how we are just limited emerges etc.


Then there is mundane imaginary. That is coined together by logical absurdities.

I've just got a glimpse (almost!!) into Ne. lol

[Singu]

Yeah, if you want an explanation of such stuff, Socionics's model isn't meant for that and its purpose was never that. Look, I get it that you are really into cognitive psychology lately and that's actually really cool but please for the love of god, don't expect Socionics to really do anything for that, and don't blame it either for not delivering what you want it to. It was NEVER designed for that. Maybe one day you will realize this.

Socionics gives some basic observations on it and that's it, the model itself is for analyzing certain general trends for your internals and for people and nothing more. The model is *not* for making sense of the cognitive observations Socionics does note in some definitions etc.

Then maybe you should tell that to the people who *do* think that Socionics can explain things, since that's my entire problem. Like what do these things have anything to do with Ni, Si-PoLR etc? Absolutely nothing!

Do I expect the Big 5 to be able to explain these things? No! Because the Big 5 doesn't even pretend to have the answers for these things! It's not an explanatory model! Do people go around saying, "This is Neuroticism thing, this is Openness thing"? No! So don't blame me for those things, the entire ridiculousness lies in those who *do* expect explanations from Socionics. I don't, obviously.

[Myst]

Then maybe you should tell that to the people who *do* think that Socionics can explain things, since that's my entire problem. Like what do these things have anything to do with Ni, Si-PoLR etc? Absolutely nothing!

Do I expect the Big 5 to be able to explain these things? No! Because the Big 5 doesn't even pretend to have the answers for these things! It's not an explanatory model! Do people go around saying, "This is Neuroticism thing, this is Openness thing"? No! So don't blame me for those things, the entire ridiculousness lies in those who *do* expect explanations from Socionics. I don't, obviously.

I only criticize you for bashing Socionics's model for this when it's not the model's fault that people want different things from it than what it actually offers. You yourself did misinterpret the model, clearly, based on our recent talk in the idontgiveaf thread.

Blah blah blah, what is the point of saying "This is Ni, this is Ti, this is causal-deterministic thinking", etc? Absolutely nothing, since all it's doing is changing the words of the description. They're not explaining anything. So it doesn't add anything new.

OK now, go get a big book on some scientific topic and then take one sentence out of the book without any of its logical context and you can do the exact same criticism for that sentence.

But yeah, have to be careful on what explanation you attach to an observation, sure.

[Singu]

I only criticize you for bashing Socionics's model for this when it's not the model's fault that people want different things from it than what it actually offers. You yourself did misinterpret the model, clearly, based on our recent talk in the idontgiveaf thread.

I don't think blaming people is a good idea. It's not the people's fault if the model doesn't work. People may misuse models of physics or chemistry to blow something up and cause an accident, but that's because it actually worked, but it was abused. Any good model would be careful to note what it is and what it is not, what it does and what it doesn't. Yes, these things are really spelled out so that people don't absolutely misinterpret them. That's just good theory. Besides how else are you supposed to test it otherwise? Things can't be vague and too broad.

OK now, go get a big book on some scientific topic and then take one sentence out of the book without any of its logical context and you can do the exact same criticism for that sentence.

But yeah, have to be careful on what explanation you attach to an observation, sure.

Well the whole point is that Socionics doesn't even have a context for that.

[WinnieW]

Generally, being good at mental imagery is a matter of higher visual/spatial intelligence, but as I said, I'd make a distinction between the two subsets of it.

Types who tend to be best at "X-ray vision" of objects have been mostly (spatially gifted) ISTx > ESTx in my experience. That is also where the stereotype of ISTx being mechanics comes from; in combination with higher visual intelligence, they are best at imagining the inner workings of machines etc.

So all in all, I'd say that a combination of high visual intelligence and being INTx (strong Ni and Ti) would result in the most profound and all-encompassing mental imagery that involves both the imaginative and spatial aspects.

I can do exploded view of technical devices as mental images. Does this count?
I can move and replace parts of a device as mental image (projection).

[The Reality Denialist]

I can do exploded view of technical devices as mental images. Does this count?
I can move and replace parts of a device as mental image (projection).

Ummm. I don't really do that but people can not comprehend when they put me in front of computer screen. I just look at it and see abstracted underpinnings in my mind.

Someone: Help me!!!
Me: I have never done this but do a then b then c and d but you can also do it many different ways.

[Myst]

As a side note, I am LIE-Te and also have “x-ray vision” of objects. I’ve always been able to do those “rotate the object in space” tests, and when I look at objects, I can, if I wish, see them as if they are rotating 3D CAD models with all their inner parts in place.

I don’t know if this matters, but I also have surprisingly (to me) good eye-hand coordination. I first noticed it when a woman knocked a porcelain teacup off the table and I thoughtlessly caught it before it hit the floor. Enhanced Se?

On the other hand, my self-awareness of my body’s position with respect to the environment is poor. I back into things all the time. Maybe this is related to Si-PoLR?

Lol the rotating CAD models, nice. That just hurts my brain.

Your issues with sensing your body in the environment is related to low Sensing yeah.

"Enhanced Se", I don't see enough data here on what kind of information you process for that so no comment on that.

Yeah, I'm also like this.

I don't think it's just a 'male thing' because i know a lot of guys that have a good sense of their immediate environment but are relatively bad at mentally imaging 3d mechanical objects.

I suspect it's a Te ego thing. I just do not have this going on for me consciously like you LIEs describe it just like my LIE ex related to this too. Maybe the strong Ne/Ni also would add to the ability, I don't know. I'm more like I said above to Muddy, about the mechanics of that pistol, while Te egos supposedly see it as dynamic movements fine e.g. doing rotation directly

What adds to my suspicion is how you mention many guys you know are relatively better at having a sense of their immediate environment yet not this... It shows a clear dissociation between the cognitive skills for Se vs Te. I am exactly like those guys btw.

I'm crappy at mental rotation. My brain lays out schematics of functionality in terms of estimated guessed connections.

Ti ego that's crappy at mental rotation, hm. I wouldn't say I'm crappy at doing tests about it but I use static pictures and calculations based on them instead of actually working with dynamic movement. In that way yeah I'm crappy at it because I don't actually do the rotation itself but use other methods. So in this way I can visualize actual objects as static pictures of the objects and I very easily know what they look like from any angle etc. (like I described in an earlier post in this thread), but I do not imagine any dynamic rotation movement for any kind of abstract mechanics of the object.

I can do exploded view of technical devices as mental images. Does this count?
I can move and replace parts of a device as mental image (projection).

Sounds Te ego to me as per my theory outlined above. As far as this theory is good, ofc. If you remember, I already thought Fe PoLR for you, but if you are adamant you are Intuitive, you could be ILI over SLI. Decently similar to the LII typing too

Yeah, that's true.

Anyway, adding to the topic - I don't know if it counts as mental imagery, but I if I've lived somewhere for a couple of weeks, I can often tell when it's gonna rain soon by looking at the clouds. With some precision, not just "it's going to rain soon" but rather "it'll rain between 5:40 and 5:45" - and a couple of people have commented that I'm good at it. Usually I automatically get some internal imagery when I do this. I always assumed this is "Ni" in socionics.

Yeah that's Ni but how the fuck do you do this

Describe some of that internal imagery if you can, I'm curious.

I think mainly verbally but as I've gotten older I've learned to visualize complex schemes. kind of like a flow chart in my head.. its still low res and by no means a movie, but its definitely got an organic quality, like I think of complex situations like cells, as in the biology sense, with lots of internal moving parts and interactions. I really don't think in terms of movies and spend most the time talking to myself internally. its hard for me to imagine people visualizing vivid scenes in their head, to me its not like that at all. at most its the thought of the happening like its an idea but not an image. i can picture some stuff but its like snapshots where im really focused on a few particular details and the rest is kind of assumed to be there but mainly obscured by a kind of fog or darkness

I wonder if this is the weak Ni of Ni HA. I mean I kind of relate with how the dynamic scene visualizing isn't me but I got some limited ability to do it.

The 'connections' I make are usually like branches that I can follow. Not merging things together, necessarily. Like I'll think of something like balloons and the image of balloons will flash in my mind, and then that leads to an image of clowns, that leads to me thinking of IT, that makes me think of basements, that makes me think of a job my SO is working on, and then that makes me think about stained glass, and that makes me think of blue bottles, then I think about messages in a bottle, and then I think of Moby Dick (these are each images that flash in my head, kind of like going through a deck of cards of moving pictures, that are associations for me). So someone might say balloons, and then I might soon start talking about Moby Dick, and they are like where did that come from. lol (...) I see mental imagery when I read, too, but it's hazy like my dreams and not any different than my usual imagery, besides being more consistently focused on a certain path and theme. I have a hard time sustaining my own imagery in the same theme too long, like a daydream, before it starts unraveling. If I write it down, it helps sustain it, while adding ideas to move it forward, otherwise I can get stuck in a loop.

The way you describe it is reminiscent of Ni to me and weak N in general but I'm not sure.

I could also start at the idea of balloons like a piñata, generating more stuff out of it, maybe comparing balloons to the feeling of wanting to float away, but being grounded by a tether, and I do this not by imagery, but relating to the balloon.

Relating to the balloon, what do you mean by this? If you can elaborate on it a bit.

I'm also kind of calculative and cautious, I guess. I don't just like jumping into situations unless I run a bunch of possible situations by first, and am aware of the potential and/or most likely consequences. Or maybe an idealized version. I do this by visualizing them. I also have a lot of intrusive imagery of horrible things happening to me. Like this morning of me accidentally leaving the gas pump in the gas tank and driving off and this whole dramatic scene. I get a lot of that. Like when I was thinking of answering this question, a painting with running watercolor flashed in my mind, because I was thinking of my mental imagery and that image just 'popped' up. No idea why, or where it came from. But it's because my memories are watered down like that, but why that image I get a lot of these association images. Most of the poetry I write is heavy in imagery and metaphor for that reason. Idk if thats related to a function or not, it's just the way my mind works...

It is possible this shows subconscious Ni superid (=its actual information processing process isn't consciously accessible to you, just some resulting images and ideas get into your consciousness) and the panicky part could be your Ne PoLR lol. Along with generally valuing Ni, Ni+Rationality specifically, wanting things to go according to specific course. I'm not sure if you are ESI or EII on the whole btw, and I never really tried to figure that out, as I only saw some pictures of you before, didn't look at more than that... I just noticed this reading your posts in this thread.

PS: And I know IEI was also brought up for you but I see Fi, and no Fe creative. No attempt at "manipulative" expressions to manage other people's emotionality in the moment.

[The Reality Denialist]

Ti ego that's crappy at mental rotation, hm.

I have never had stereovision regarding to binocular use. I just can't do it due to eye muscle issues that were fixed too late in order to ever develop it.

Apparently I'm not bad at 3D geometry in math (based on test scores) but I still fail at rotation tests. I think I should take more time and put more effort to slice the objects.
Just few days ago I was the guy who put bit unconventional yard swing together because lots of people had problems due to missing instructions and they had never actually seen it IRL. So probably I don''t suck at it hopelessly.

[WinnieW]

Sounds Te ego to me as per my theory outlined above. As far as this theory is good, ofc. If you remember, I already thought Fe PoLR for you, but if you are adamant you are Intuitive, you could be ILI over SLI. Decently similar to the LII typing too

Based on the description of the socionic types I relate to some aspects of SLI and ILI, but neither of both type profiles overall.

You say that I use a lot of in this forum, does this make me an -ego type consequently or inevitably?

The best match based on writen soconic profiles for me is LII.
I relate more to being suggestive than vulnerable, because I was prone to manipulation by ego types when I was younger.
What I rarely communicate to other people but part of my nature is that I care more about other people. I'm willing to help other people that are in need, even if they are faking to be in need.
And I feel not uncomfortable about expressing emotions.

If being able to visualize objects in my mind, move and rotate them at will, is so called Holographical-Panoramic Cognition, then I have to be one of the following type SLE, LII, IEE, ESI, according to Viktor Gulenko.

[Myst]

Based on the description of the socionic types I relate to some aspects of SLI and ILI, but neither of both type profiles overall.

You say that I use a lot of in this forum, does this make me an -ego type consequently or inevitably?

The best match based on writen soconic profiles for me is LII.
I relate more to being suggestive than vulnerable, because I was prone to manipulation by ego types when I was younger.

I don't know what you mean by Fe manipulation so no comments.

What I rarely communicate to other people but part of my nature is that I care more about other people. I'm willing to help other people that are in need, even if they are faking to be in need.

So you are a decent human being. Good.

And I feel not uncomfortable about expressing emotions.

Recently you said the exact opposite of this...

If being able to visualize objects in my mind, move and rotate them at will, is so called Holographical-Panoramic Cognition, then I have to be one of the following type SLE, LII, IEE, ESI, according to Viktor Gulenko.

First word: if.

I don't know what it is, I don't know if it's Te or what, but it's not H-P, because non-H-P types also admitted to doing this in this thread.

[FDG]

Yeah that's Ni but how the fuck do you do this

Describe some of that internal imagery if you can, I'm curious.

First of all - i have an interest in meteorology / climate so that helps, I just pay attention to this stuff. If someone doesn't care about it, he's probably never going to be good at it. I've also lived in a couple of different places and always paid attention to this - socionics functions only work when experience backs them up, imho.
It's not fully conscious but I think I pay attention to the different colors and shapes of specific clouds when it's gonna rain / when it's just passing / etc. etc. and after some time I have some model in my head.
Wind speed is something you can gauge quite easily based on how some specific trees which are common in your area are moving.
Then the internal imagery is really just like a movie with some time index on the right tbh. I think I got it from old VHS tapes or something.

The same kind of imagery is useful for some types of math for example differential equations, stochastic calculus...completely useless for other types of math such as matrix algebra where i suck completely.

[Myst]

@aster

The specific way you described your panicking is what had me think of Ne PoLR of ESIs. I've seen it enough in them. But sure, I don't know you, I'm just going by the few words you wrote about it.

Anxiety and rumination on their own aren't Ne PoLR of course.

Interesting, the rest of the stuff you wrote about. As for symbolizing how you feel... ok seems really very Feeling there, no news there though lol.

Identity crisis over typing, oh I don't think that sounds very Ne either for you tbh. It doesn't sound like it's natural for you to just accept there are so many options and possibilities for your type. It does also drive me mad, that sort of thing, but I get more pissed off than anxious is the difference.

It's cool if you already got at least as much as "Fi" from Socionics and if you don't find the rest helpful that's totally fine.

Btw this bit, "If you can't explain everything in a theory, and you have to pull in enneagram to justify your socionics typing, does that mean you are just trying to make excuses for not everything fitting?" This seems really Fi too, lol, like you are somehow unable to imagine non-personal (Ti) reasons for someone trying to explain things.

As for the thread you linked, it was interesting, thanks. @Golden 's post in there makes sense in terms of how the same information processing can just have various sensory modalities.

Yeah, well, I wouldn't exclude ESI for you or even for the person you were referring to (my 2nd choice for her type). You two actually have some similarities (like this kind of inability to see that Ti isn't personal - BTW I'm not saying this as criticism or anything, just observation).

[Myst]

Heh what's this with possible ESI-Fi's being so much into perspectives. Both of you (I'm only sure of ESI for Bertrand though). And lungs would do the same before settling with ESI after like a decade or whatever. And I think she dropped it recently lol.

Anyway yeah @aster that sounds like weak Ni / Ne because of getting bad control emotions (this is a nice side theory to main Socionics model and it makes a lot of sense to me, links: http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...emocii-funkcij and http://en.socionicasys.org/bibliotek...onal-functions).

Plus you really dislike being pulled in different directions, not really liking Ne much lol

I did read before that the difference in Ne PoLR of ESI and LSI is that LSI blocks out the alternatives while ESI gets lost in them and gets negative/anxious/panic.

What pisses me off is people pressuring me, telling me I am a certain type, or you do this because you are X type, people following me around harassing me, or you are a clear this or that. And I think it's rude, limiting, and kind of aggressive. I just don't respond well to that type of thing. It's like I want to send a big FU their way, but that's usually a last resort.

You don't like the bad side of beta ST

Tho' I'd like to see you send the big FU their way lol


@Bertrand Like I said before a few times, I'm positive on ESI for your typing. Idk what you type as right now. I don't really see the spreadsheet as group pressure btw. It's just nice to have all the opinions collected in one place so it's too bad you aren't on it. Anyway if you want to discuss your typing, as to why I type you as that, I'm fine with it. Oh and, I'm probably sure of my self-typing because of the Ne PoLR brand I got Jk, I did take my time to settle on my typing actually. I did type as IEI (for a short time a loong time ago) and then SLE before getting to LSI.

[Singu]

I don't relate to Se descriptions of force. People like to explain this away by saying I'm softer because I'm enneagram 9. They can't explain it in socionics, so they pull in another theory to explain it. If you can't explain everything in a theory, and you have to pull in enneagram to justify your socionics typing, does that mean you are just trying to make excuses for not everything fitting?

This has puzzled me as well. It's like people think that they can just mix-and-match different theories, even though they are directly in conflict with one another. For instance, Socionics says that there are 16 types, while Enneagram says that there are only 9 types. They are in fact rival and conflicting theories. Either one of them is wrong, or they're both wrong. There can't be two theories that explain the same phenomena in different ways. That's like saying there are two realities.

[Muddy]

I'd stress once again as a closing thought that at the end of the day it counts more what your level of visual intelligence is. There are xSI types with a good imagination; they have been gifted with enough visual intelligence which compensates for/or seems to "boost" their Ni. On the other hand, there can be Intuitive people who have lower visual intelligence and hence their imagination is not as vivid, or ISTx who have lower spatial intelligence and hence they would not make the best mechanics.

I think being a good mechanic is really just 95% based off pure knowledge and experience, rather then any specific type of intelligence. If you know what every part does and ran into possible every problem least once, you'll know actually what to do to fix something with zero need for visualizing. If there is any skill at all involved with mechanics, I'd say its having enough patience to acquire the knowledge you need before getting frustrated and throwing in the towel.

[Olimpia]

I think being a good mechanic is really just 95% based off pure knowledge and experience, rather then any specific type of intelligence. If you know what every part does and ran into possible every problem least once, you'll know actually what to do to fix something with zero need for visualizing. If there is any skill at all involved with mechanics, I'd say its having enough patience to acquire the knowledge you need before getting frustrated and throwing in the towel.

well each skill requires training.

the best pianists practiced a ton AND have higher musical intelligence ofc

practice and experience are/were assumed in my comment

[Muddy]

well each skill requires training.

the best pianists practiced a ton AND have higher musical intelligence ofc

practice and experience are/were assumed in my comment

Playing a musical instrument is a bit different because you need to being to get down the rhythm of whatever music you are playing, which requires a level of coordination and muscle memory not everyone possesses equally. With mechanics, your skill depends almost purely off of how many different problems you solved in the past, which provide you with knowledge to fix the same mechanical problems in the future with very little mental effort.

I'm not saying mechanics doesn't ever require intelligence or skill, I'm just saying it's possible to be a decent mechanic in the eyes of most people just by learning steps and not ever having to ever tinker with or visual anything at all.

I hope you aren't mad at me for starting a debate again lol. :<

[Myst]

I think being a good mechanic is really just 95% based off pure knowledge and experience, rather then any specific type of intelligence. If you know what every part does and ran into possible every problem least once, you'll know actually what to do to fix something with zero need for visualizing. If there is any skill at all involved with mechanics, I'd say its having enough patience to acquire the knowledge you need before getting frustrated and throwing in the towel.

Lol I think you just have a hard time imagining it when someone doesn't have the natural skills for it. You will have the patience because you are okay with engaging with this sort of thing because you have affinity for it already. I personally have little patience with it, I'm not interested in it, I will do it however if I need to and I can do an OK job, but yeah, I'd rather just not have to deal with it. I will get frustrated easily and get really pissed off at times, though I don't throw in the towel. I just go back to problem solving and solve it eventually.

More on the cognitive skills aspect. On MBTI forums (yeah not Socionics, but I see correlations there) there are topics about how the ISTPs (Te in socionics) typically love mechanics even without too much experience initially while the ISTJs (Ti in socionics) get frustrated and pissed off like me. Of course with experience ISTJ is totally ok with this thing too. But the initial learning is very different. I don't know exactly how much of this is due to cognitive type but at least some of it would be. Example, someone on this forum once posted a diagram of the internals of some pistol with actually moving parts (it was a gif or whatever) to explain how Te really gets to work with the moving parts easily and Ti has to build their own static blueprint first. I agree with how that was a good illustration of Te vs Ti based on the theory definitions. I'm also the static Ti version very much. I take my time to build that blueprint, and with the low Ne along with that Ti, I'll get pissed off when an unexpected bad outcome comes up I am totally okay though once I built that understanding...

Playing a musical instrument is a bit different because you need to being to get down the rhythm of whatever music you are playing, which requires a level of coordination and muscle memory not everyone possesses equally. With mechanics, your skill depends almost purely off of how many different problems you solved in the past, which provide you with knowledge to fix the same mechanical problems in the future with very little mental effort.

I'm not saying mechanics doesn't ever require intelligence or skill, I'm just saying it's possible to be a decent mechanic in the eyes of most people just by learning steps and not ever having to ever tinker with or visual anything at all.

I don't visualize for the mechanics so I would agree with that part. But if you could solve problems in the past then that already depended on skill.

That's fascinating lol. I pretty much never imagine things in text form and just assumed everybody imagined things in movie form like I do.

Whoah, ok, I was thinking about ILI vs SLI for you because clearly you are Te ego with Fe PoLR otherwise, this much did get clear from all collected data over time, but this possibly confirms leading Ni for you. Especially with how natural you think this thing would be for anyone to have. No lol, not everyone has it.

What I saw as Ne/Si for you was possibly just Irrationality. Though I won't exclude it for now, but I'm not aware of Si imagining things as a movie like Ni does. If you say more on it, I'd be able to say a more definite conclusion.

[The Reality Denialist]

Exactly what do you mean b it.

It is bit crazy. I suddenly see mentally foe example balls dividing into pieces. Then forming certain sorts of statures divining itself into pieces which again begins to restructuring itself. Lines are forming pointing towards something, things filling up, suddenly planet starts to bounce on top of trampoline that is wired on top street lamps etc. Sudden expansion of realization in terms of scalability of the understanding and how we are just limited emerges etc.


Then there is mundane imaginary. That is coined together by logical absurdities.

[Singu]

Mental imagery is associated with working memory:

Recent research suggests that visual mental imagery functions as if it were a weak form of perception.

Evidence suggests overlap between visual imagery and visual working memory – those with strong imagery tend to utilize it for mnemonic performance.

We use the term ‘mental imagery’ to refer to representations and the accompanying experience of sensory information without a direct external stimulus. Such representations are recalled from memory and lead one to re-experience a version of the original stimulus or some novel combination of stimuli.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595480/

Well this is troubling, since Socionics doesn't have a concept of memory. Saying things like "Mental imagery is associated with Ni or Ti" is pointless, since you're just associating the concept of mental imagery with Ni or Ti, but you're not explaining how that mental imagery works. You can say "Mental imagery is Ni", but it's like so what? The only use of that is you have shortened the words to "Ni".

[Adam Strange]

As a side note, I am LIE-Te and also have “x-ray vision” of objects. I’ve always been able to do those “rotate the object in space” tests, and when I look at objects, I can, if I wish, see them as if they are rotating 3D CAD models with all their inner parts in place.

I don’t know if this matters, but I also have surprisingly (to me) good eye-hand coordination. I first noticed it when a woman knocked a porcelain teacup off the table and I thoughtlessly caught it before it hit the floor. Enhanced Se?

On the other hand, my self-awareness of my body’s position with respect to the environment is poor. I back into things all the time. Maybe this is related to Si-PoLR?

[Singu]

As a side note, I am LIE-Te and also have “x-ray vision” of objects. I’ve always been able to do those “rotate the object in space” tests, and when I look at objects, I can, if I wish, see them as if they are rotating 3D CAD models with all their inner parts in place.

I don’t know if this matters, but I also have surprisingly (to me) good eye-hand coordination. I first noticed it when a woman knocked a porcelain teacup off the table and I thoughtlessly caught it before it hit the floor.

I think males are naturally good at these things, apparently.

[Pallas]

I think males are naturally good at these things, apparently.

All dads are LSE confirmed

[FDG]

As a side note, I am LIE-Te and also have “x-ray vision” of objects. I’ve always been able to do those “rotate the object in space” tests, and when I look at objects, I can, if I wish, see them as if they are rotating 3D CAD models with all their inner parts in place.

I don’t know if this matters, but I also have surprisingly (to me) good eye-hand coordination. I first noticed it when a woman knocked a porcelain teacup off the table and I thoughtlessly caught it before it hit the floor. Enhanced Se?

On the other hand, my self-awareness of my body’s position with respect to the environment is poor. I back into things all the time. Maybe this is related to Si-PoLR?

Yeah, I'm also like this.

I don't think it's just a 'male thing' because i know a lot of guys that have a good sense of their immediate environment but are relatively bad at mentally imaging 3d mechanical objects.

[Chae]

I was deeply unsettled reading OP has no mental imagery at all. To be fair: The inside of my own mind looks like Salvador Dalí just made out with Guillermo del Toro, I can't think how it would be like sans any fantasy.

[Pookie]

You are being vague with Mental Imagery being the context and content of your question.

Describe it more, like... Pictures? Visuals? What do you "see"?

[Exodus]

If present, mental imagery suggests either form of intuition in socionics (especially as a leading function), not Si. It's less clear what it would mean if it were absent.

[chrys]

I have random visual fragments of memory that are too fleeting to see completely and really have no details so it kinda is useless when I need to be specific about what I remember.

So I have really bad visual memory, It's literally like the memory of a blind person.

It could be that I spend so much time in the "synthesizing new memories" part of my brain that I neglect to remember the source of the memories. I don't have much fun with reality enough to have full details of it.

[Pookie]

NF here ^, and I'm entirely an auditory learner.

[timber]

Pretty much my entire mental memory is in images. I can memorize images easily. I frequently visualize as well.

[Singu]

But males are better at mentally rotating things than females, on average.

[FDG]

But males are better at mentally rotating things than females, on average.

Yeah, that's true.

Anyway, adding to the topic - I don't know if it counts as mental imagery, but I if I've lived somewhere for a couple of weeks, I can often tell when it's gonna rain soon by looking at the clouds. With some precision, not just "it's going to rain soon" but rather "it'll rain between 5:40 and 5:45" - and a couple of people have commented that I'm good at it. Usually I automatically get some internal imagery when I do this. I always assumed this is "Ni" in socionics.

[The Reality Denialist]

I'm crappy at mental rotation. My brain lays out schematics of functionality in terms of estimated guessed connections.

[schwiftyrickty]

My thoughts are almost 100% verbal. I have to make a sincere effort to imagine images and for the images to actually move in a realistic way or be 3D might be impossible without drugs. If I tried to imagine movement or a story or something in a visual way, I'd be more likely to just see the words of what's happening. I've actually had dreams where I'm reading and instead of imagining what it is I'm reading, I just see the words on the page lol. I'm not sure if any of this makes sense.

I like to write fiction and I used to get high before brainstorming because it helped me imagine in actual pictures, sometimes even moving pictures. I don't really think it works anymore. I can't get high enough.

My imagination is broken. Maybe it's time for me to take acid for the first time in ~6 years.

[Muddy]

My thoughts are almost 100% verbal. I have to make a sincere effort to imagine images and for the images to actually move in a realistic way or be 3D might be impossible without drugs. If I tried to imagine movement or a story or something in a visual way, I'd be more likely to just see the words of what's happening. I've actually had dreams where I'm reading and instead of imagining what it is I'm reading, I just see the words on the page lol. I'm not sure if any of this makes sense.

I like to write fiction and I used to get high before brainstorming because it helped me imagine in actual pictures, sometimes even moving pictures. I don't really think it works anymore. I can't get high enough.

My imagination is broken. Maybe it's time for me to take acid for the first time in ~6 years.

That's fascinating lol. I pretty much never imagine things in text form and just assumed everybody imagined things in movie form like I do.