Visualizing in time

[Delilah]

I've noticed some people are very good at visualizing things in time, so like visualizing the next few steps, or the time something will be achieved, or visualizing certain results that are to be had. I'm not very good at this and i suspect it is a dynamic perspective. What do you think? Is it just dynamic or is it tied to a certian function?

Before you say it's Ni...:

A SLI i used to know would often do this, and even tried to help me with it too, saying things like, time will heal the [issues], try to put things in age perspective (so like you're young etc).

Any comments?

[The Reality Denialist]

Seeing developments.

It is collection of patterns you have encountered in your life. When it has better dimensionality it gets an ability to generalize things.

Wound in finger heals maybe it does the same thing with toes maybe overall health improves when you are young (needs to take into account more and more variables). Then I could say that we could use healing as a metaphor (it get subjectively more wishful or pessimistic in thinking and gets more and more subjective). I think this is very static detached way to look at it.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

it's nice that this person you type SLI tried to comfort you. maybe they could tell you were not able to do it yourself for whatever reason? would you find those suggestions useful/redundant/pleasant but not something you'd like to entertain further?

[Sol]

it's Ni by common texts
imagination is N. at least, time is more Ni than Ne

> A SLI i used to know would often do this, and even tried to help me with it too, saying things like, time will heal the [issues], try to put things in age perspective (so like you're young etc)

S types may use N too. they use it only lesser than S

visualization is generally sensation, especially Si.

the evident heresy
S is about current sensations from the physical world. imagination is the opposite to this - N
Si is about sensational comfort, aesthetics of physical, - subjective relation to objective sensations
it's N types who have better fantasy, create new ideas, better operate by abstractions which are an imagination

[falsehope]

Visualising I think is intuition, I have it pretty much advanced and my sensor friends have issues with this. Usually with my friend LII at work we are laughing at sensors that they are drawing like in kindergarten, and they seriously do, some very simple things which are very easy to visualise they struggle to picture on paper.

[para]

Hm. Using myself as a reference point, i tend to not visualize the next few steps, but rather see distant parts of the past and future when i slip into imagination. My visualization of time seems like more of an information-gatherer, a way to interpret the world. So i tend to see areas of interest as different temporal states, which of course links to visualization of these different periods. This has fueled my interest in anything old. I always tend to be more focused on the roots of something than it's actual, current state.

Though i'm unsure that everything of temporal nature (in thinking) has something to do with strong Ni, i think the visualization characterizes it?

[falsehope]

I don't know, my SEI friend when confronted with problem sometimes tries to visualise it on the paper and struggles with it while I know instantly how it should be presented. The same is with other sensors.
It may has something to do with the thing that visualisation is not just presenting images as they are, it requires abstract thinking to solve the problem and producing it in organised form and that is very intuitive.
SEI on the other hand is very good in drawing pictures from the photo. Can copy every detail perfectly and get very good image in overall. But when confronted with problem tries to put in on the paper struggles a lot.
At work, when they ask me to draw something I do it in an instant and it's proper and very good, but when sensors do it, they need several days before they reach anything usable, and the difference in ability is really striking.
It depends on what you mean by visualisation. If this involves visualising complex things while solving problem then intuitives are a lot better. If it requires reproduction then sensors are much better because they can spot small things in the picture. They are sensors after all.

[falsehope]

I don't know, my SEI friend when confronted with problem sometimes tries to visualise it on the paper and struggles with it while I know instantly how it should be presented. The same is with other sensors.
It may has something to do with the thing that visualisation is not just presenting images as they are, it requires abstract thinking to solve the problem and producing it in organised form and that is very intuitive.
SEI on the other hand is very good in drawing pictures from the photo. Can copy every detail perfectly and get very good image in overall. But when confronted with problem tries to put in on the paper struggles a lot.
At work, when they ask me to draw something I do it in an instant and it's proper and very good, but when sensors do it, they need several days before they reach anything usable, and the difference in ability is really striking.
It depends on what you mean by visualisation. If this involves visualising complex things while solving problem then intuitives are a lot better. If it requires reproduction then sensors are much better because they can spot small things in the picture. They are sensors after all.

Sensing artists usually produce pictures from photos. They do not use their imagination to produce picture. It works visual to visual with no imagination involved. When they think they do it in also a sensing way and they need to use their eyes to process information, not their eyes of imagination. When it comes to imaging things in the head, the intuitives are a lot better.

[ooo]

Sensing artists usually produce pictures from photos. They do not use their imagination to produce picture. It works visual to visual with no imagination involved. When they think they do it in also a sensing way and they need to use their eyes to process information, not their eyes of imagination. When it comes to imaging things in the head, the intuitives are a lot better.

Yet when you want to portray something that's not under your eyes, one of the tip is to imagine to touch your object, make it alive and sensual in your mind

[Bertrand]

1) You need proper definitions for functions rather than descriptions.
2) Intuition thinks in terms of ideas, Sensation thinks in terms of visualization, visuals are a form of sensation.
3) Si is the function that structures different visuals.

I think its something like the initial question was about visualizing in time, which is more Ni in the sense of experiencing (not as a projection onto a screen in your head but as more of a feeling) the transformations in time, but the actual "visualization" is a Si thing. I think when Ni people "see" transformations in time its not some kind of visual impression yet, its more like a unique sense of trajectory, but if they concentrate they can produce an image or diagram out of it [1]. I think types will go through this process in different orders with accents on different stages. Like I think for some the visualization will arise first and then they'll focus on the trajectory and transformations and for others they'll have a strong hunch about things and then have to focus on reducing it to a more static form, etc. I think both forms of introverted perception are interwoven more closely than people realize. I think there's a kind of mystique over both functions and an implied hard separation but the more I think about the more I think they run together. A good example of this is someone like Nietzsche who I think in his writing uses a ton of both Si and Ni. I actually think drawing on them both is a source of creative inspiration, because its like how lots of people get hunches and so forth but few people can really strategize or build policy in a way that accounts for tons of factors in time and then convey that in a understandable format etc (i.e.: make it static)

[1] I also think this is bound up with Ne, when you make something static its more of a Ne thing, so when you "feel" and by this I mean sense in the Si sense a hunch, like a feeling in your gut or a buzzing in your head, it may be the Ni through the lens of Si in some sense (like danger sense or some such--again interwoven) but when you can reduce it to an image theres a Si representation but also an element of Ne staticization. I think in the final analysis visualizing time and especially conveying it a complex process. and further it depends a lot on what people have in mind when they use the term visualization since I think TIMs experience time and visualization a little differently to begin with, hence there's this interplay of subjective factors and meanings in asking and answering the question

[Bertrand]

oh man you gotta see that other IEE's post where he redefines Ni as having nothing to do with time

[Delilah]

I think its something like the initial question was about visualizing in time, which is more Ni in the sense of experiencing (not as a projection onto a screen in your head but as more of a feeling) the transformations in time, but the actual "visualization" is a Si thing. I think when Ni people "see" transformations in time its not some kind of visual impression yet, its more like a unique sense of trajectory, but if they concentrate they can produce an image or diagram out of it [1]. I think types will go through this process in different orders with accents on different stages. Like I think for some the visualization will arise first and then they'll focus on the trajectory and transformations and for others they'll have a strong hunch about things and then have to focus on reducing it to a more static form, etc. I think both forms of introverted perception are interwoven more closely than people realize. I think there's a kind of mystique over both functions and an implied hard separation but the more I think about the more I think they run together. A good example of this is someone like Nietzsche who I think in his writing uses a ton of both Si and Ni. I actually think drawing on them both is a source of creative inspiration, because its like how lots of people get hunches and so forth but few people can really strategize or build policy in a way that accounts for tons of factors in time and then convey that in a understandable format etc (i.e.: make it static)

[1] I also think this is bound up with Ne, when you make something static its more of a Ne thing, so when you "feel" and by this I mean sense in the Si sense a hunch, like a feeling in your gut or a buzzing in your head, it may be the Ni through the lens of Si in some sense (like danger sense or some such--again interwoven) but when you can reduce it to an image theres a Si representation but also an element of Ne staticization. I think in the final analysis visualizing time and especially conveying it a complex process. and further it depends a lot on what people have in mind when they use the term visualization since I think TIMs experience time and visualization a little differently to begin with, hence there's this interplay of subjective factors and meanings in asking and answering the question

Yes, i think that's what i am trying to explain. It's like these people i have in mind as examples have a unique impression of a trajectory and they can see it develop.

I think my example was more Si related because the focus was on healing. The Ni i'd guess would view things as already being too late (you're aging rather than you're still young, there is no time you should have already taken care of something etc ) - that is how i view NI, at least in ILI (it's as if for ILI it's already late)

[Delilah]

it's nice that this person you type SLI tried to comfort you. maybe they could tell you were not able to do it yourself for whatever reason? would you find those suggestions useful/redundant/pleasant but not something you'd like to entertain further?

Yes, i think so, i would have found it very helpful if i found myself in the same situation

I remember a few times, as SLI was trying to get me to see what he was visualizing, he even said something like "think, just think for a second" - as if he could tell that that was not my main way of interacting with the world. Which makes me wonder, what if it's related to Te? It is a dynamic function after all and very rational too. Any suggestions?

[ouronis]

I'd say there a few parameters here: complexity, number of steps, vividness of detail, and speed to get your mind jiggered to imagine it. I am bad at seeing a full vision; I'll see symbolic parts of the situation. I am also bad at rejiggering my mind because I basically have to formulate a solution to the problem of visualizing a thing's essential parts (which depends on specific context) to visualize it. I would say your theory about dynamics would hold in respect to these weaknesses, at least ostensibly.

[Bertrand]

Yes, i think that's what i am trying to explain. It's like these people i have in mind as examples have a unique impression of a trajectory and they can see it develop.

I think my example was more Si related because the focus was on healing. The Ni i'd guess would view things as already being too late (you're aging rather than you're still young, there is no time you should have already taken care of something etc ) - that is how i view NI, at least in ILI (it's as if for ILI it's already late)

yeah I imagine theres the Ni egos, further subdivided into Ni base or Creative. Talking about visualization in time from the point of view of Ni base or Creative is probably different, like any other function between those two positions. And then there's the people for whom its conscious but weak, and then unconscious and weak, and then unconscious and strong. I have a feeling each of these categories visualizes time a little differently. I feel like Ni base doesn't even think they really think about time, they just build it in and they probably learned the "time" concept in a way that was so different and static and low res compared to how they experience it they think its two different things. this is why I think sometimes people resist calling Ni time, because the nature of Ni is such that if you have a strong innate grasp on it, you probably don't think of the way people think of it vis-a-vis soicionics, in much the same way Fi base doesn't really think of Fi through the lens of a Ti theory, they experience it directly. Although you can reflect on it directly (once you're aware of the concept), it would be like calling Fi "emotion" or "subjective ethics" it really means much more to the person in question such that it could be that those phrases don't describe it at all, hence they think people are referring to something else, namely the concept people mean when they say emotion and not the experience of the Fi base person in question (fi base may not realize they live in the flow of emotion any more than anyone else). this makes it seem like two different things, and they are two different things, its just that the one is trying to refer to the other. but how is anyone supposed to know that when they've lived their whole lives viewing the world through that lens and never having thought about it as a distinct quality.

I think the way time gets built into IEI especially is they say stuff without realizing theres an entire set of assumptions built in that subtly reach into the future, its like they don't realize they're implying a very specific trajectory, both when they refer to past events and when interacting with them in the present. theres always this extra dimension to their expressions that people dont always see because not that many people build that dimension into their expressions. to unwind it is very difficult too because its not as simple as just saying "that's an assumption" because one assumption is linked to another and another and another ad infinitum. they don't realize their entire worldview on the level of perception is a complex web of interrelations that is not quite rational but that all hangs together that if you pull on any of it it implicates the rest. this means they're always ready to go on forever as soon as you start down the rabbit hole, and this is another aspect of being swept up into the time component. by this I mean not only is there an implicit world of perception undergirding any little peep they let out, its all woven together such that they don't even feel like they're master of the web, rather theyre just sort of stuck in it, in the same way if you look around you're encased in physical surrounding. what this means is when you run into them they sweep you into that web and if you want to get out its very difficult because theyve accounted for everything at the onset so theyre subconsciously referencing that at all times and most people aren't even thinking about those things. this became obvious to me when I saw IEI and LSE fight on some bravo tv show at the gym, it was like without realizing it LSE had left the real world and was in the IEIs world as soon as they started relating and so as soon as things started to go bad he had no way to get out because it was like every way in which he responded she was 10 steps ahead of him, not because he was wrong, but because she had built in to her entire way of being wrong a bubble that to expose where the error lied one would have to traverse outside it, and LSE could not do it because he could not see the path out, by continually only putting one foot in front of the other she lead him around and around, but he constantly made the "wrong" move in her estimation. but LSE couldnt stand being lead like this because he knew it was nevertheless "off" or "not right" he just couldnt rationally work his way in the face of the overwhelming tide of irrationality he was caught up in...

so you think how do people "visualize" time, well IEI doesn't visualize it so much as breathe it. On the other hand LIE owing to their demonstrative Ne can staticisize it better, and view it through the lens of thinking itself, and thus picture the thing in its fullness as a snapshot. They know how to work their way out, unlike LSE which is what allows them to supervise IEI. if theyre really clever they can expose the bubble itself, which humiliates the IEI sometimes, but in any case, even if they can't verbalize the big big picture they "know" whats going on and can through creative Ni "carve" a way out, which leaves IEI more or less defenseless because thats their main way of handling things, although they themselves don't realize it--they just think they're right all the time, which is the source of their emotional conviction and Fe potential

so you can see here Ni base doesn't mean you necessarily "visualize" time, I think every type experiences it differently. It would be interesting to hear all types weigh in on what they think time even means and what it means to visualize it because when you consider the deep deep dynamics you can see how different types talking about presumably the same thing will nevertheless be coming from very different places

[Bertrand]

alright thanks for sorting me out domr

check out static and dynamic and see what you think about that

[Bertrand]

do you think the static and dynamic qualities refer to real phenomena or they're simply made up distinctions that add needless complexity to the model for its own sake?

i'm also not referring to that, I'm referring to talanov's research about how static and dynamic is the primary difference between quasis and telling them apart

[Bertrand]

I can predict the future where you declare it useless so lets not even bother

[Bertrand]

say what you will Im still not delivering the juicy research until you admit NTs are the best (although Talanov self types EIE)

[Bertrand]

what's most interesting is IEI feeling stuck in a web of abstract associations is a lot like being stuck in a physical prison, its like you can bust out but then you're stuck on earth, and you go into space and then you're stuck in the universe. ultimately there's no escape, which is precisely how the SLE feels but the other way around, he actually is in the physical world, trying to get some spiritual elevation. so the IEI is stuck in this abstract world of feeling and SLE is stuck in the world of objects and they help lead eachother out of their respective prisons. the deal with conflictors is they just throw them back on their egos, they can't relax and get support on their superid because they're constantly feeling the need to defend what they perceive as "wrong" via their ego, so in that sense it increases those feelings of being trapped. SLE/IEI lead eachother in a mutually satisfactory way out of the box they're in, whereas LSE just runs IEI in a circle and vice versa

[Bertrand]

yes I view conflict as a kind of reverse synergy. i do think they have the same goals in some sense, which the goal coincides inasmuch as things like humanitarian introvert and pragmatic extrovert go together. people all have the same goal across the one level [1] and then get more and more differentiated as you proceed toward the individual. in other words, everyone at bottom wants the same stuff they just call it different things, what characterizes conflict is the increasing tension as each goes about pursuing their own goal in a way that escalates conflict (via attempts to improve things that have the reverse of intended effect in the eyes of the other, they have the same goal but construe the same thing differently. thats the biggest thing, people think there's real differences but its almost always an illusion--this is what makes people wonder how opposed quadra function at all, and yet somehow they do) rather than relaxes the other person... goal is a multifaceted word, on one level anyone who disagrees has a different goal, on the other hand they might have a higher level goal in mind and the disagreement centers on how to best get there, thus they have two goals: 1) to get their way 2) to reach the longer term goal. in general people have the same goals at some levels and different ones at others, the nature of conflict is the asymmetry between goals that draws people in but makes things worse. this is why conflict is considered an attractive relation at range. if it was purely repellent it could never escalate to the degree it does. duality is the situation where goals 1 and 2 naturally go together, its the harmony of being yourself and getting what you want and giving the other person what they want all at the same time

"Love can be themselves and to preserve its integrity. Love is a paradox in which two beings become one and yet remain two. "

have you ever noticed you make categorical judgements as if you're some kind of authority but are almost always the one who ends up being wrong? why not tone that down and show more humility. you can have a discussion and ask questions without first saying correct. incorrect. etc. you sound like a smug asshole. just fyi because I wonder if no one has ever mentioned this your entire life



[1] in other words there are goals generalizable to all of humanity, things like maslow's heriarchy

[Bertrand]

you sound a lot like cuvinin right now (EIE). its okay Ill just mock you at every turn until you calm down

not all humans have exactly the same goals, but there are categories that are constructed on the basis of a common goal, not a concrete goal but an abstract one, i.e.: clubs and so forth, if you think conflict is literally a rote opposition of all goals thats not even possible. which one is going to stand for being against water. what would that even look like, SLE likes cats EII likes dogs. obviously there is overlap

ohh I see you edited your post to agree with me and now there's not even an argument. jesus, nevermind

With this understanding, conflict is not the worst relationship because you are still trying to accomplish the same goals and you have the same synergy as dual, it's just that you fundamentally cannot settle your differences (specifically J/P) and agree on a common approach, just like quasi-identical (except here you can settle the J/P difference because of the same 4D functions).

the initial post had implicated "this understanding" as being wrong, which I was trying to address, but now its clear we agree on the fundamental point I think. when i say throws you back into your ego I mean you disagree over how to proceed as a matter of ego, i.e.: the disagreement is merely one of approach

[Bertrand]

I dunno you're the one who asked me for help on your book that will never materialize, what were you thinking then about my understanding

[Bertrand]

prove me wrong domr, raise my self esteem

you seem to be operating on the presumption that it will happen and this relates back such that you can be a jackass and speak from authority today as if its a done deal. and anyone who doesn't act like this has low self esteem. actually you're just an idiot, and trying to pass a bogus check. if I told you in response to your "query" I plan to revolutionize science, football, and your mom would that entitle me to act as if. is that what you call self esteem, because generally that's what people call delusional, and if anything a kind of overcompensation. they did this study on kids that took shots they knew they couldnt make when they had low self esteem. consider that. thanks for the bit of projection

[Bertrand]

btw if you think I am jackass then Jung is a jackass too because his work is written with the same tone of authority i.e. aristocracy.

somehow Im able to think of you as a jackass but not jung, strange

oh I see you're saying Im supposed to regard you like jung because you think you both write in a similar manner

well there's a lot of things wrong with that assertion

anyway eat the poo poo, write the book, etc. catch ya later