Well I have to keep your image of me consistent with your expectations, lest your little mental world will fall apart.Originally Posted by Bertrand
Well I have to keep your image of me consistent with your expectations, lest your little mental world will fall apart.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
lol did you just call my mental world little
Dual fight!
If the history of such fights is any indication, this will not end well.Dual fight!
HOWEVER, we can hope for the best.
@Tallmo
Interesting. I have always had problems with simple visual images, like mirroring a shape or drawing a 3-D block. I think this has to do with my blindness on my one eye since birth. My visual abstraction skills seem underdeveloped, so i have a hard time following directions, playing volleyball etc.
I think it has something to do with predisposition. I've always been good at interpreting texts, extracting meaning from abstract symbolic imagery, understanding metaphysical descriptions etc. I've been preoccupied with these things for a long time, while i've ignored my visual, external world therefore hampering the internal, visual process.
I always figured everyone had great visual memory and imaginative ability. For my own part, I can pretty easily imagine moving scenes in my head and remember crystal clear scenes of places I've been before. Does everyone not do this?
I found it pretty odd that a computer science person I knew said his dreams were never really visual, if he remembered any. They were always vague and abstract. There weren't any visual scenes or physical objects pictured in them.
I wish I had more information on this topic...
The more abstracted, simple shapes are actually more difficult for me to visualize and work with than ordinary physical reality in my head. So maybe we have some similarity there that shows it's not entirely related to your lack of vision in one eye.
I have total lack of stereovision due to different condition.
I can't play tennis for example. I have no clue about the ball relation to me.
My visual memory is not that great either. I prefer not to follow detailed instructions when it comes to moving around. I kind map it out. Just show me map and I don't need anything else. I just fill my head with conditionals taken from possible directions.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@Aramas
Definitely. I have trouble with most everything visual, though. Shapes, directions, how to button my shirt, you name it.
I don't think it necessarily has something directly to do with my blindness, but moreso the effects of that. I've naturally been focusing on other ways of percieving the world around me, because i'm handicapped visually. This of course affects the internal, imaginative interpretation of my percieving of the world.
I think almost 100% verbally, if i have to visualize, it has to be a conscious effort taking more energy and giving a not so great result (image is blurry at best). I am always surprised when i hear people who thinks mostly visually, it shows how much we can be different in our way to process perceptions.
According to Gulenko, rationals would think internally in images, irrationals in words. https://socioniks.net/article/?id=7
"In addition, the Rational well-speak and audio channel of communication. These are verbal (verbal) types. They clearly articulate and consistently unfold their thoughts in speech or on paper. In the inner thinking process, they switch to visual images.
External speech is the weak point of irrationals. It is less clear and consistent with them, with leaps and leaks of the main line of the narrative. Irrational children are more likely to have bad diction. Their main information channel is visual (visual). Because of this, they perceive the world more holistically, synthetically. The perceived visual information is processed internally by a verbal method."
I must be an irrational type then by this assessment. I have a weird thing where I can't read out loud and gain reading comprehension at the same time. It's gotten better with practice, but I used to have to read twice when reading out loud. Once so pronounce, and once, silently, to understand.
I've always had problems verbalizing. My words always come out wrong unless I'm writing. It's gotten a bit better with years and years of experience, but I'm still terrible. People sometimes get the impression I'm an idiot. Others think I'm really smart. Kinda funny, that dichotomy.
I visualize with ease and mostly think in images, and I have mapped these imaging processes to words. But I do have self-talk, which per psychology is normal to have, and often I am not aware of it. I have to slow down and pay special attention to access that.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
While I create a lot of mental imagery, it isn't as if I always see actual physical images in my head, like say a projection of some flowers on a tree (which is what people often seem to imagine when they think of imagery - direct superimposition), although I can do this with effort, if I think about it enough, that would still be a truly abstract image created in my mind, purely ideational rather than something experienced through the senses and recollected. I have a very poor memory for such things, and strong intuition is a means to compensate. So my speculation is at best tangentially related to what I can see around me; for example I might look at a few rocks and perceive a pattern based on how they are ordered relative to each other in space (vertical and horizontal), and then superimpose that pattern in my mind and create an association of, say, musical notes that reflect it (with height = pitch and distance = time). In other words, I perceive the potential essence of something rather than its physical form, which means that every experience creates images simultaneously (sometimes more than one concept at once, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and atomic bombs and the origin of the universe, which can be quite strange, but hey), I often perceive abstract, shifting shapes and contours in my head (these represent the patterns and dimensions described above, and can therefore be assembled) which I enjoy taking apart and recombining, and this enables me to conduct the above process in reverse order as well, which means it is often a way for me to spontaneously draw inferences about the world, which may seem quite random at first, including to me.
Yes, i don't know how Gulenko came up with these generalizations, it doesn't work for me too, if i am not mistyping.
From this thread :
- If there is low/non-existent mental imagery, it would be correlated to statics types, which makes sense with the style of thinking of statics (discrete-fragmentary thinking : https://socioniks.net/article/?id=155)
- EIE would have high mental imagery (Chae, golden)
- LIE would have high spatial imagery / object rotation (Adam Strange, FDG)
Yes discrete-fragmentary style makes sense for me.
The way you are describing mental imagery here implies clear physical boundaries and details; that the image is holistic as opposed to being considered the sum of a number of divisible parts (naturally, the ways in which this may be manipulated will depend on the system invented; function = form). Still, it must be quite remarkable to perceive such rich mental imagery and then describe it elegantly in words, as those types claim to do, although of course, this would naturally come at the expense of some other abilities. So much in life is a trade off.
This is interesting. I wonder if synesthesia, where two sense get entwined relates to irrationals too. I have number-line synesthesia so when someone says I'll see you Friday I see the days as hills along a slight bend as part of a huge circle (the year) and Friday which hill it is as compared to today's, and if they say at 6pm I see where 6 is halfway up the hill (the crest is midnight). If I explain I used to live in Italy but I melbourne I see a line from Italy to melbourne and flashes of the houses in both, If I say my birthday is in August and my son's is november I see a circle of the year and the two spots on the circle in relation to each other, etc it's all automatic I can't control it. I don't know if I have mild Mirror-touch as well or just a good imagination because when I see someone brushing someone else's hair I get tingles in my scalp and when they bite something had my teeth hurt. My ex, irrational, had colour/sound synesthesia.
Though I'm into reading I struggled to read aloud in public throughout school, though now after years I am confident to do so. But interestingly I have noticed sometimes I can read my son an entire book correctly without pause and at the end of reading I realise I have been thinking of some completely different train of thought without realizing simultaneously and I feel bad that I missed the book, like my brain was not all there for it.
When I studied in Italy it was weird because for uni students it's normal to read aloud to themselves while studying, it's such an oral/aural culture and the exams are all oral, so the library was filled with whispering students! At first I tried to resist but I eventually went along with it too, I had learnt through speaking and listening not really from studying anyway so I didn't mind to badly but it was an adjustment. For uni exams you just get given the texts and have to know them then come before a panel of professors who ask you a few questions and you talk about what you know.
I'm going to start a new thread using an idea from here to launch about something I've been pondering.
@muhtempus @Myst (thought this could be useful and I find the topic also interesting by itself as it seems connected to what others call "visual types").
I'm not sure about my type yet (either IEI or EIE), but most of the time when I'm thinking or talking about something, even if these are not events, but logical, abstract things, I see colors, see patches, like "holes" when I feel for example something is missing and incoherent. I also see connections like this sometimes, like darker and lighter patches and patterns.
Usually when I'm thinking about something less abstract, I can see things too, people, objects, the items and Gods or anything if that thought.
I'll try to explain it further if you need it, or I understand it more, because this is still very unclear to me. But it basically feels like it comes with the big picture and helps me a lot to understand and see the whole, realize I'm missing something or what it is, how I feel about something or what I think is the root cause of anything.
I'm not sure about the causality, if I realize something from the images, or in the meantime I realize things I see images, but meh.
Edit: This has been helping me sometines, when things get too mundane and everyday, symmetrical, plain, civil, or stupid. I'm doing an office job now with data and micromanaging, and while it makes my mind numb and almost meditative, when I get out of the building, I am looking for organic and biological, just beautiful and meaningful things. So I either try to read something that I feel has meaning, or I am consciously looking for images and things that are nice and different.
Edit 2: My dreams are mostly very telling (to me), and rich in symbols. I also have sometimes nowdays random scenarios and images popping up in my head and then try to find what does it mean, because they have the same patterns and motives. Sometimes it's not visual, but a line from a song starts to repeat in my head, and then I have to analyze it a bit, why and what does it say to me, and then realize something hidden inside
Last edited by 0i0; 07-11-2018 at 04:24 PM.
People have to get away from this type dichotomy-based thinking. The simpler and more accurate explanation is that this is simply a manifestation of Ni creative. Static / dynamic doesn't have anything to do with it. (I don't know what type you and @Aramas are but I'm fairly sure @golden is EIE).
Why people would have to get away from this dichotomy if it can sometimes help to assert a type(with the combination of positive/negative and left/right) ?
Yes i just said that the EIE and LIE in this thread expressed those features, and the people lacking in those same qualities were typed as some static types, i didn't see any lacking ability to visualize in the Ni-ego in here.
Though it would be interesting to here from Si-ego.
Do say more on it if you can.
I think I understand it to a degree though, I have this sporadically actually, I think. Or something similar to this... It first feels fascinating but it drains me fast mentally if I were to stay with it for long. It always follows logic I worked out about something though, it cannot come up without me first analysing in a more strictly logical "mathematical" way. Then what happens is that I see this logic in these abstract shapes, it's like colours, patches, yes, and these illustrate the logic in a really abstract way and show coherence in a way that is more abstract and global than if I just "logic it out". I think I don't tend to see it for incoherent things or when something is missing. But I have had examples where it would illustrate how some bad reasoning is wrong.
I see it as Ni actually. I discussed with some Ni egos before about this, that's what I base this on. Also where you talk of root causes, it sounds very Ni too. Along with the issues of coherence.
That's cool. The pattern I can follow when reflecting on dreams or when comparing them to other things is the pattern of feelings: i.e. the emotion/emotions I felt in the dream, those show me a "thread" that I can try and follow sometimes. If that makes sense. It seems surprisingly easy to me though it's just because I don't expect it to be easy. And it's likely that I do not actually get far with it on my own. As for following truly abstract patterns... that's really hit and miss to me, for some reason. Sometimes I am very aware as to what the abstract symbolic thing in the dream matches exactly, because I've seen it awake too, then sometimes I can just feel it out because it's a topic I've been dealing with, and then sometimes I have no idea, and I don't try to speculate either (that part would require stronger Ne I think, to be able to get somewhere with Ni, but it's too much of a bottleneck for me in these cases).Edit 2: My dreams are mostly very telling (to me), and rich in symbols. I also have sometimes nowdays random scenarios and images popping up in my head and then try to find what does it mean, because they have the same patterns and motives. Sometimes it's not visual, but a line from a song starts to repeat in my head, and then I have to analyze it a bit, why and what does it say to me, and then realize something hidden inside
The symbols where I can see an exact match btw are very idiosyncratic to me. Then there are some that seem more universal, and as long as I can connect them to my feelings, I can figure / "feel" them out, I think. This is when I'm already dealing with the topic... i.e. I've discovered the emotional side of things enough to be able to connect the symbolic stuff to them and then I can explain what they mean.
It's nice that you know what I'm talking about, "(...) and these illustrate the logic in a really abstract way and show coherence in a way(...)", basically, yes. It's also different from when I "just know" things, as when that happens, I don't necessarily see images, but it's just a knowledge that's instantly there for me. When I see this mental imagery, I think it's a way for my brain to understand something that doesn't come automatically, almost like it's producing me a quick visual map.Do say more on it if you can.
I think I understand it to a degree though, I have this sporadically actually, I think. Or something similar to this... It first feels fascinating but it drains me fast mentally if I were to stay with it for long. It always follows logic I worked out about something though, it cannot come up without me first analysing in a more strictly logical "mathematical" way. Then what happens is that I see this logic in these abstract shapes, it's like colours, patches, yes, and these illustrate the logic in a really abstract way and show coherence in a way that is more abstract and global than if I just "logic it out". I think I don't tend to see it for incoherent things or when something is missing. But I have had examples where it would illustrate how some bad reasoning is wrong.
I see it as Ni actually. I discussed with some Ni egos before about this, that's what I base this on. Also where you talk of root causes, it sounds very Ni too. Along with the issues of coherence.
That's interesting. I think I know what you mean by patterns of emotions, I use them sometimes, when I can't remember a dream I had, but I start to "try" emotions, and think about random things, and when a few hits me, I realize what was probably the topic, a scene or an emotion I had in a dream, almost like my heart and brain remembers. And yes, it's like a thread that I can try and follow, seeing if if there are other memories of emotions or images from that dream, so for me this is not a logical thread, more about emotions and images. Is it logical for you?
I usually use symbols from a dream in a way that I've met it before awake, but sometimes I try to play around with logic, and try to analyze what other things a symbol can imply. Also, sometimes I see the mental images again, leading me like a map towards other connections and meanings. It's hard to explain, but I can try, if you need me to. It's interesting though how certain parts are the same for us (and probably for other people too).
This seems like a circular question. My point is, this dichotomy doesn't help. Other dichotomies like the strength and quadra ones are helpful, however.
The same type of thinking should not be present in Si creatives since they have weak and inaccessible Ni.Yes i just said that the EIE and LIE in this thread expressed those features, and the people lacking in those same qualities were typed as some static types, i didn't see any lacking ability to visualize in the Ni-ego in here.
Though it would be interesting to here from Si-ego.
So how would an Si creative write a novel? What would s/he be imagining and how? Consider this rhetorical if you like.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
They would have a harder time producing and delving into scenarios purely out of their imagination. I actually knew an ESE who wrote a story. Simply put it lacked depth, it came across as a children's book or something. Very linear, this happened then this etc. Compare to e.g. work by Tarantino or David Foster Wallace who play around with different narrative techniques and are sensitive to the temporal dimension of storytelling.
On a more positive note, Stan Lee is an ESE who has been successful in writing. I'm not too familiar with his work but I recall @Expat said that for Spiderman he drew heavily on his own real-life experience in NYC, which is a more Si-based approach. Coupled with Ne it could make for some very interesting stories: you see a spider in your environment (Si) and think, what if a human had the same abilities (Ne)?
edit: here is my analysis of Lee and his Si-based approach
Interesting, I always wonder about people’s writing processes. One author who described her process as a series of “what ifs” was Dianna Wynne Jones. To develop imaginary worlds.
Maybe the reason novelists remain relatively rare is that they need to envision, depict sensory details, understand human interactions, have an ear for dialogue, and structure a plot, and more. Whatever they aren’t inherently adept at is going to be addressed through craft. But then they have to find models and mentors that show them to balance out their weaknesses.
I’m thinking of an EIE dramatist-poet-publisher who emphasized, among other things, helping students use concrete language to convey sensory detail. I think he taught this because it’s what he had to consciously master.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Interesting how that's two different things for you, "just knowing" and then these images that are less automatic.
Ah I don't consciously try stuff like this... I just try to feel the thread without thinking anything and then I either get something coming up or I don't but usually I get at least a little, so that's why I said it's surprisingly not that hard. And then yeah I can interpret it logically enough. The "thread" itself isn't logical thoughThat's interesting. I think I know what you mean by patterns of emotions, I use them sometimes, when I can't remember a dream I had, but I start to "try" emotions, and think about random things, and when a few hits me, I realize what was probably the topic, a scene or an emotion I had in a dream, almost like my heart and brain remembers. And yes, it's like a thread that I can try and follow, seeing if if there are other memories of emotions or images from that dream, so for me this is not a logical thread, more about emotions and images. Is it logical for you?
Analyzing what it may imply... I tried that maybe a couple of times, asking others about it. But I would not accept most possible interpretations, they seemed too random and arbitrary, unless I could feel it connecting to something for me, or have it match something specific for me. I guess I was motivated enough to hear out some possibilities though, and try to contemplate their meaning a bit, that way my Ni fired up a little bit too eventually.I usually use symbols from a dream in a way that I've met it before awake, but sometimes I try to play around with logic, and try to analyze what other things a symbol can imply. Also, sometimes I see the mental images again, leading me like a map towards other connections and meanings. It's hard to explain, but I can try, if you need me to. It's interesting though how certain parts are the same for us (and probably for other people too).
Yeah, do explain more if you can/want to.
This writing processes topic is good.
When I did write stuff (just to myself, not published lol, it'd be nice one day maybe), the plot, characters, scenes, details of events really just would come to me from idk where. Is it more complex than that for most writers?
(Jk, not a serious question.)
EDIT: OK, I can say one thing more concretely... I would just have a feel of coherence for the plot and some of the, so to speak, psychological background for it (because that would also be a part of the stories). Still, I don't know where that sense would come from. I'd just know if it was good, making sense and coherent. (Not with concrete logic, but more feeling out that psychological thing.)
Has anyone tested this yet?
Unfortunately they are all unhelpful to some degrees.
Socionics is more about finding the type the less inconsistent with your inner working than the one consistent with your inner working.
Just look how the socionists can't even agree on the definition of the information elements, which is the basis of the system, so when a system has so poor edification, how to expect being able to get a coherent picture of the types, if they exist.
It's just each adding his own speculation and giving way to contradictions between the theories.
So, looking to quadras and strenght of elements in psyche, you have to use information elements definition, you fall back to the same issue than directly trying to assess your type with these same definitions.
Trying to evaluate your types via other dichotomies can avoid having to use those definitions, just hoping than these one are working often enough.
I just don't get why not upgrade the system's definitions to be more refined, taking into account more of how cognition works, instead of trying to base everything on the same few things always.
Sorry - this thing with trying to type with dichotomies randomly makes about zero logical sense to me.
I see you said not a serious question re the bolded. Which is good because I don’t know!This writing processes topic is good.
When I did write stuff (just to myself, not published lol, it'd be nice one day maybe), the plot, characters, scenes, details of events really just would come to me from idk where. Is it more complex than that for most writers?
(Jk, not a serious question.)
EDIT: OK, I can say one thing more concretely... I would just have a feel of coherence for the plot and some of the, so to speak, psychological background for it (because that would also be a part of the stories). Still, I don't know where that sense would come from. I'd just know if it was good, making sense and coherent. (Not with concrete logic, but more feeling out that psychological thing.)
I’m not a writer, I’m just someone who has helped a lot of writers make their writing into books. I interfaced them with the reader and the market. So people’s writing processes remain a bit mysterious to me.
Someone tried studying brains during fiction writing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/s...f-writers.html
Let me know if a copy-paste is needed. One quote:
”I think both groups [novice vs expert fiction writers] are using different strategies,” Dr. Lotze said. It’s possible that the novices are watching their stories like a film inside their heads, while the writers are narrating it with an inner voice.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Simply because they can't.
I am assuming this is based on empiricism, linking said dichotomies to said types, so there is some kind of logical consistency behind, though doubtful to be always true and to be obvious to the person trying to evaluate her type, but the same can be said of other methods.
ESE is named Hugo after Victor Hugo. His works tackled pretty deep religious and philosophical questions.
Yes, part of why I wondered about writing processes is that I have read plenty of fiction books I thought were written by S types and I am assuming there is some inner process that allows for building a fictive world that does not depend on N.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Yeah, it's just it for me seems pretty unconscious.
Thanks for the link btw, I didn't need any copypaste, it loaded fine.
I would say I'd have failed at the brainstorm part lol, but whatever I'd have come up with to finish the lines with, it'd have come out of nowhere, it being a mostly not conscious process, would be only weakly visual (very short flashes of 1-2 not at all very vivid or elaborate but still dynamic images). Definitely hardly any verbal reasoning to build up the story line, no extra inner voice.
I guess when I did build longer story lines to elaborate them and to write them down, it was a bit more of the visual part, still not very vivid. And still not much of a deliberate verbal reasoning. Maybe for determining the logic for some general frame of the story, but otherwise no.
@golden I edited the post now
Empiricism without a proper explanation, and with observations being too inconsistent overall.
And why can't they?
Anyway though, I don't think the ability to imagine is limited to N types.
Going beyond the acknowledgment of the information elements, your statement apply for socionics, it's just maybe even more inconsistent.
Socionics is very schematic, when it tries to delve deeper into its own theories it fails now, some possible reasons :
-absence of standardised methods, allowing to consistenly recognize information elements in action, it would need large sample of people brain scans, and being able to determine their types from there, then recognizing certain zones activation with certain information elements and from there being able to give deeper definitions of those.
-the most schematic definition of the information elements is wrong, or missing, there is more to the core of the psyche working.
-a lot of the psyche manifestations are multi-elemental.
I would think the bolded is really obvious
Think of these as:
2. There is a guy, let's call him Adrian. Adrian often has a facial expression like this, Adrian wears clothes like that, Adrian once made a noise like this or that, when someone was talking, also, hey, there is Suzy, whom I can see around Adrian, and I already know Suzy is an X and Y type of person. Sometimes these small elements and details don't become realized in my head - I am only left with one big impression - that Adrian is a douchebag. Or Adrian is a really nice person. Or Adrian is afraid of heights. Or whatever. Basically, it often feels like that even though I realize and know about different information elements, I just... somehow even as I know about them, I forget some of them, or glance over them, and what is stronger in me is the actual final conclusion and impression, and because of that I sometimes have to go back and analyze what lead me to that in the very beginning.
1. Imagine going into a forest, where you find a golden feather (this is the more ambigious part, I guess the Ni), and you start to think, "hm, what is this golden feather?", and then you are like "ah, I used to have a golden bird, when I was small... but why should I think about my childhood right now, why does this golden feather want to remind me of that ?" And then you go down and down, trying to find the connections, or make a coherent structure, until you snap out of that picture, there is no forest anymore and no golden feather. You are left with the what triggered the forest and the golden feather, let's call it situation X, and the childhood association.
So there you go - situation X had to do something with your childhood, and whatever you understood from it, voilá.
3. And sometimes, when I speak to people, they mention something, and it seems there is no even process anywhere, I just immediately have this click - Oh, yes, he does this, because 20 years ago he <insert>, his family was like <insert>, and now he is desperately <insert>. But sometimes it still misses these elements I wrote down for you, until I give a bit of time.*
Basically, the impresson comes first, then the details that would explain the impression.
Yes, I think this is similar to what I was trying to describe. Almost like following an old memory or a light déja vu.Ah I don't consciously try stuff like this... I just try to feel the thread without thinking anything and then I either get something coming up or I don't but usually I get at least a little, so that's why I said it's surprisingly not that hard. And then yeah I can interpret it logically enough. The "thread" itself isn't logical though
I'm wondering if they were really random and arbitrary, or it just seemed like that, compared to the structure you've already built (no offense). It happened to me sometimes, that people felt what I was talking about was arbitrary and didn't make too much sense, some cases I think they just didn't want to face something yet, so I didn't push it, or actually I was wrong, and it was about something else, but by then, they were able to express the emotion or thoughts they had about these pictures - what felt true to them. So it was at least useful in a way.IAnalyzing what it may imply... I tried that maybe a couple of times, asking others about it. But I would not accept most possible interpretations, they seemed too random and arbitrary, unless I could feel it connecting to something for me, or have it match something specific for me. I guess I was motivated enough to hear out some possibilities though, and try to contemplate their meaning a bit, that way my Ni fired up a little bit too eventually.
*Almost like, they are there, I see them, but they are still... in a kind of fog? It can happen to me sometimes, that I am left with impression, and even when somebody explained something to me with the actual elements, I focus so much on the overall impression, that the details are hiding behind this fog, and sometimes I even forget about them.
Last edited by 0i0; 07-31-2018 at 01:39 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
