What function is this?

[tcaudilllg]

Consider a situation when you withdraw to yourself and consider the outcome of various potentialities. For example, imagining the existence of a partner -- real or imagined -- and imagining their reaction to things said to them by yourself. Just as in real life, one response leads to another, leads to another. Eventually an entire conversation has been undergone within the confines of one's own imagination. How does this happen, and what functions would allow the perception of its flow?

One possibility I'm considering is . It would seem to me that one can consider the potential of multiple objects in one phase of -only consideration. For example, when an INTj begins producing possibilities from their analysis of observed structures, they can observe many possible activities possessed by various objects they have been made aware of, interacting with each other in the space of their imagination and giving life to an entire virtual world. Clearly the litmus test for this hypothesis lies in the experiences of other INTjs and INFjs, too. I need your assistance.

[KSpin]

Consider a situation when you withdraw to yourself and consider the outcome of various potentialities. For example, imagining the existence of a partner -- real or imagined -- and imagining their reaction to things said to them by yourself. Just as in real life, one response leads to another, leads to another. Eventually an entire conversation has been undergone within the confines of one's own imagination. How does this happen, and what functions would allow the perception of its flow?

I do it ALLLL the time. I'm even doing it right now, damnit.

Edit: This does usually present another problem I have, though, in that I cannot remember whether I've -actually- had that conversation yet with the individual, so I am at risk of repeating myself.

It could actually in corporate pieces of aswell.

[tcaudilllg]

Consider a situation when you withdraw to yourself and consider the outcome of various potentialities. For example, imagining the existence of a partner -- real or imagined -- and imagining their reaction to things said to them by yourself. Just as in real life, one response leads to another, leads to another. Eventually an entire conversation has been undergone within the confines of one's own imagination. How does this happen, and what functions would allow the perception of its flow?

I do it ALLLL the time. I'm even doing it right now, damnit.

Edit: This does usually present another problem I have, though, in that I cannot remember whether I've -actually- had that conversation yet with the individual, so I am at risk of repeating myself.

Thank you for your reply. At the moment I am only focused on the correct apprehension of extroverted intuitive experience. But rest assured I will be coming back to ask more about your own imagination later.

[KSpin]

Consider a situation when you withdraw to yourself and consider the outcome of various potentialities. For example, imagining the existence of a partner -- real or imagined -- and imagining their reaction to things said to them by yourself. Just as in real life, one response leads to another, leads to another. Eventually an entire conversation has been undergone within the confines of one's own imagination. How does this happen, and what functions would allow the perception of its flow?

I do it ALLLL the time. I'm even doing it right now, damnit.

Edit: This does usually present another problem I have, though, in that I cannot remember whether I've -actually- had that conversation yet with the individual, so I am at risk of repeating myself.

Thank you for your reply. At the moment I am only focused on the correct apprehension of extroverted intuitive experience. But rest assured I will be coming back to ask more about your own imagination later.

Hahaha... dick. Although you should realise that I replied before you added the second paragraph.

Shall I give you my reasoning now? is used for forecasting of events. I would say that predicting what someone is going to say would require some sort of forecasting, predicting, right?

[krieger]

I am currently of the belief that all human cognition springs forth from the recognition, interposition and subsequent completion of the patterns detected in the received data stream, so my answer would be that any person, regardless of their functional preferences, experiences this 'future sight' in one way or another. The difference engendered by 'type' would be the focus of the resulting images; which details are present and which are not.

[tcaudilllg]

I am currently of the belief that all human cognition springs forth from the recognition, interposition and subsequent completion of the patterns detected in the received data stream, so my answer would be that any person, regardless of their functional preferences, experiences this 'future sight' in one way or another. The difference engendered by 'type' would be the focus of the resulting images; which details are present and which are not.

I disagree. I've been told by sensors, in particular, that visualization is hard for them. It makes a great deal of sense for the use of visualization to be an intuitive quality. For example, an ESTp cannot be "seeing the obvious" at all moments if he has imaginative imagery clouding his perception of his immediate environment.

All people have intuition, but not all people use it in the same way. Strong intuition allows richer imagery than does weak intuition.

[raisonpure]

I do it all too often for my liking as well, though I thought it was the bane of . It can be hard for me to say something without anticipating the other's response -- I need to have an idea of how to maneuver the conversation beforehand. It's often not in accordance with reality, so I wish I could stop rehearsing for almost every situation. There are a lot of IM conversations that I've played out in my head, but never got the chance to enact in reality. And never will.

[krieger]

It's a complicated matter. Sensoric pattern interposition is probably more akin to memorization than to visualization...

I bet that when one asks an ESFj how to make [whatever her favorite meal is], she will be able to tell you in detail the steps one has to undertake to prepare it. This is what I consider a process of visualization, be it that the focus is on the details rather than on the generalities.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Slacker]

I do this too. I don't know if that makes it but I definitely make up people and situations and think about how they'd react to things.

[Slacker]

I thought maybe I'd better describe exactly what I do as it sounds like different types might do somewhat similar things using different functions?

I have this terrible habit of thinking of various things that could happen. I seem to generally focus on bad things, but it certainly isn't always bad things. But for this example I'll focus on that since it's what happens most often. Sometimes I'll start to think of bad things that could happen. What would I do if my husband died? If he left me? If he left me for someone else? What if something happened to my daughter? What if she got into an accident? What if she died in an accident?

OK so let's say I'm dropping my daughter off at preschool and I know she has a field trip that day and someone else will be driving her. I'll start to worry. What if they're in a car accident and she dies? Is there water at the place she's going? What if she drowns? What if she gets lost? And even little things- what if wets her pants. LOL

Eventually I might focus on one particular potential thing. Let's say that she dies in a car accident. Then I wonder who would tell me and how. Would I get a phone call? Would they wait until I went to pick her up? And I might come up with a conversation in my head about what they'd say and how I'd respond. I'll go through the whole conversation. And I'll make changes and do it different ways.

This is awful, isn't it? I wish I could stop doing it. It doesn't control my life or anything but I definitely find my mind wandering like that from time to time.

I also think about things that are more likely to happen. Like we're planning to have another baby. I have someone in my family who has had terrible problems with infertility for years and years. I wonder in my head how I'll tell her about it and I go through possible conversations. I think in this kind of case it prepares me and helps me come up with a way of finding the most gentle way of telling someone something. But I don't know why I go through the other scenarios. I don't think that helps me with anything.

I told my husband that I'd figured out where I'd live if we ever got divorced or he died. That kind of freaked him out for a minute. He said, "Is there something you know that I don't know?" I said no, I just think about this kind of thing, and after he determined that I don't have plans to kill him or divorce him, he decided it was hilarious that I would think about it to the point where I'd decided where I'd live. I also decided that he could keep the cat because he likes her and she bites me. He said he appreciated that.

[reyn_til_runa]

I often (re)produce detailed scenes without trying, but the conversations within the scenes tend not to be based on reality for more than a minute or two.

conversations tend to be like:

"hey there male friend of mine, i see you have the torso of a man but the legs of a female....(followed by male friend professing his love for me, telling me how it is okay for us to make out despite the fact that he has a girlfriend)....(followed by my getting up to check the stove, then call a friend to discuss my new job - talking in detail about some situation that never happened or would happen,

<providing the insight from both sides of the conversation, generally allowing myself to say the questionable thing and the other person to do the questioning. the other person frequently responds with: "hm? no, i don't think so" which leads me to have to explain X again, a zillion times>

(followed by my returning to the couch to find male friend getting up, looking over his shoulder, walking away, revealing the backs of his legs, which truly looked like a V...(followed by my sprawling monologue concerning the inverted legs of my male-female friend and why i may have possibly allowed myself to become distracted enough by the phone/stove to completely forget about his presence on the couch)....."

this was from earlier today, as well as I can remember it. it was quite long and seemed perfectly normal until I saw the backs of his female legs.

If this is not *the function* you are looking for, I suggest you change the title of the thread.

[Exodus]

This reminds me of the fourth dimension of functions (base + demonstrative), whose description says specifically not to confuse it with Ni.

[KSpin]

This reminds me of the fourth dimension of functions (base + demonstrative), whose description says specifically not to confuse it with Ni.

And what if your Base IS ?

[Kristiina]

I agree that it's and I think types just have strong that's why they do it. It's like, when I do it, I often end up using and I end up being confused with possibilities, "but what if the other person says something else in stead..."

[BLauritson]

I know I definitely do this. It's usually when I'm on my own at home, depending on my mental health at the time and what's occurred recently, I tend to imagine different fantasies based on reality. It's more or less the same as how reyn_til_runa described it - it starts with a real scene and then often goes off on a tangent. Quite often, if it involves a conflict I've had in the past, I usually end up beating the shit out of the person who angered me. Unfortunately when I do this, I have a tendency to clench my teeth together, which is starting to cause me pain in one of my teeth due to doing this too much, so I'm making an effort not to do that now.

Other times, when I'm in a less healthy state (usually depression) I sometimes imagine the reaction of someone I know if I were to commit suicide. Those are often interesting - reveals a lot of insights about my relationship with that person. It's like my Fi is expressing itself to me through my Ni. Wow, I made references to a couple of functions. I'm so clever.

[KSpin]

I know I definitely do this. It's usually when I'm on my own at home, depending on my mental health at the time and what's occurred recently, I tend to imagine different fantasies based on reality. It's more or less the same as how reyn_til_runa described it - it starts with a real scene and then often goes off on a tangent. Quite often, if it involves a conflict I've had in the past, I usually end up beating the shit out of the person who angered me. Unfortunately when I do this, I have a tendency to clench my teeth together, which is starting to cause me pain in one of my teeth due to doing this too much, so I'm making an effort not to do that now.

Other times, when I'm in a less healthy state (usually depression) I sometimes imagine the reaction of someone I know if I were to commit suicide. Those are often interesting - reveals a lot of insights about my relationship with that person. It's like my Fi is expressing itself to me through my Ni. Wow, I made references to a couple of functions. I'm so clever.

The 'beat-the-shit-out-of-them' day-dream I've had all too often.

[tcaudilllg]

These responses are about what I expected.

It's a complicated matter. Sensoric pattern interposition is probably more akin to memorization than to visualization...

I bet that when one asks an ESFj how to make [whatever her favorite meal is], she will be able to tell you in detail the steps one has to undertake to prepare it. This is what I consider a process of visualization, be it that the focus is on the details rather than on the generalities.

There is a great deal of difference between memorization of images and the apprehension of possibilities by means of intermixed memories of plausible representations of known ideas. (which is our means, as evident from the responses here, of experiencing strong intuition.)

I've heard from some ESFjs that they think more easily in memorized words (auditory thinking) which are interconnected in a kind of "web" of relevant ideas, than in "movies" or changing imaginary scenarios. I've heard ISTps speak of similar experiences.

[Exodus]

This reminds me of the fourth dimension of functions (base + demonstrative), whose description says specifically not to confuse it with Ni.

And what if your Base IS ?

Then you play out Ni stuff in your head.

[FDG]

I know I definitely do this. It's usually when I'm on my own at home, depending on my mental health at the time and what's occurred recently, I tend to imagine different fantasies based on reality. It's more or less the same as how reyn_til_runa described it - it starts with a real scene and then often goes off on a tangent. Quite often, if it involves a conflict I've had in the past, I usually end up beating the shit out of the person who angered me. Unfortunately when I do this, I have a tendency to clench my teeth together, which is starting to cause me pain in one of my teeth due to doing this too much, so I'm making an effort not to do that now.

Other times, when I'm in a less healthy state (usually depression) I sometimes imagine the reaction of someone I know if I were to commit suicide. Those are often interesting - reveals a lot of insights about my relationship with that person. It's like my Fi is expressing itself to me through my Ni. Wow, I made references to a couple of functions. I'm so clever.

The 'beat-the-shit-out-of-them' day-dream I've had all too often.

I've honestly avoided to do them as of late because most of the time they end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy

[tcaudilllg]

I know I definitely do this. It's usually when I'm on my own at home, depending on my mental health at the time and what's occurred recently, I tend to imagine different fantasies based on reality. It's more or less the same as how reyn_til_runa described it - it starts with a real scene and then often goes off on a tangent. Quite often, if it involves a conflict I've had in the past, I usually end up beating the shit out of the person who angered me. Unfortunately when I do this, I have a tendency to clench my teeth together, which is starting to cause me pain in one of my teeth due to doing this too much, so I'm making an effort not to do that now.

Other times, when I'm in a less healthy state (usually depression) I sometimes imagine the reaction of someone I know if I were to commit suicide. Those are often interesting - reveals a lot of insights about my relationship with that person. It's like my Fi is expressing itself to me through my Ni. Wow, I made references to a couple of functions. I'm so clever.

The 'beat-the-shit-out-of-them' day-dream I've had all too often.

I've honestly avoided to do them as of late because most of the time they end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy

Do you use these scenarios as a means of considering appropriate roles?

[BLauritson]

What do you mean exactly? Also, are you referring to the violent fantasies or imagining how people would react to my self-inflicted demise?

[tcaudilllg]

What do you mean exactly? Also, are you referring to the violent fantasies or imagining how people would react to my self-inflicted demise?

I was specifically enquiring of FDG, because he is an ESTp, role function. If my hypothesis that intuition = visualization (not including memorized imagery) is correct, then he should be considering various forms of role in the contents of his imagination.

Also of interest: consider that Augusta called intuition the perception of potential energy. Does that mean then, that is the perception of kinetic energy?

[krieger]

To what function/function pair do you attribute this tendency on augusta's and your own behalf to describe psychological occurances in analogies with physics..?

[tcaudilllg]

To what function/function pair do you attribute this tendency on augusta's and your own behalf to describe psychological occurances in analogies with physics..?

The function of analogy? Probably .

What do you think?

[krieger]

Slave Ni. Here's how I see it:

Intuition and sensation work as pairs. Sensation offers the "real" information, intuition gives only the phantom concept that makes it easy for us to think by taking in a shitload of concepts at the same time.

In the case of Ne-Si, the subjective perception is the "real information". You know how you saw something, but leave in the middle what it really was. This gives a certain freedom, as what you saw could literally be anything. I see Ne as the function that tries to define or redefine everything it takes in: it's what makes us INTj's wonder "what is Ni? What is Se? I know what it looks like, but what is it really?"

Ni-Se works the opposite way. You first recognize the object as something already seen before, and then take control over the perception of it, leaving the meaning of the objective stuff intact. The subjective percept, or the 'situation', is something artificial, which you can then think and speak about with greater efficiency.

I've told you before that I think slave functioning means "the base (atomistic) experience of reality". I think that when one reads a sentence, the first appraisal of the meaning of it, occurs through the slave type.

So when the both of us read a sentence, I would be using Ne, whereas you would be using Ni as a perceptive function. I'm going to take a guess that....

when you see a word like 'energy', you don't hessistate much to attribute meaning to this word. The word energy pretty much has a meaning that can be taken for granted, and that can easily be imported into a different context (what Ni does).

But for me, it's different. When I see 'energy', the first thing that comes to mind is that I don't have sufficient "real information" to understand it's meaning. Energy isn't really a word that connects to a lot of concrete subjective perceptions, so as a concept I distrust it.

The roles would probably be reversed in the case of those terms that smilingeyes is so fond of: internal, external, taciturn, narrator... Those don't "mean" anything from Ni-Se's standpoint, but to Ne-Si they are useful, as long as there are observations at the ready to identify them with.

That preference to think of objects as "real" as opposed to phantom concepts could also explain a thing or to about your irritation towards mathematical jargon. (not that I'm anywhere near fond of it myself)

[tcaudilllg]

Slave Ni. Here's how I see it:

Intuition and sensation work as pairs. Sensation offers the "real" information, intuition gives only the phantom concept that makes it easy for us to think by taking in a shitload of concepts at the same time.

In the case of Ne-Si, the subjective perception is the "real information". You know how you saw something, but leave in the middle what it really was. This gives a certain freedom, as what you saw could literally be anything. I see Ne as the function that tries to define or redefine everything it takes in: it's what makes us INTj's wonder "what is Ni? What is Se? I know what it looks like, but what is it really?"

Ni-Se works the opposite way. You first recognize the object as something already seen before, and then take control over the perception of it, leaving the meaning of the objective stuff intact. The subjective percept, or the 'situation', is something artificial, which you can then think and speak about with greater efficiency.

I've told you before that I think slave functioning means "the base (atomistic) experience of reality". I think that when one reads a sentence, the first appraisal of the meaning of it, occurs through the slave type.

So when the both of us read a sentence, I would be using Ne, whereas you would be using Ni as a perceptive function. I'm going to take a guess that....

when you see a word like 'energy', you don't hessistate much to attribute meaning to this word. The word energy pretty much has a meaning that can be taken for granted, and that can easily be imported into a different context (what Ni does).

But for me, it's different. When I see 'energy', the first thing that comes to mind is that I don't have sufficient "real information" to understand it's meaning. Energy isn't really a word that connects to a lot of concrete subjective perceptions, so as a concept I distrust it.

The roles would probably be reversed in the case of those terms that smilingeyes is so fond of: internal, external, taciturn, narrator... Those don't "mean" anything from Ni-Se's standpoint, but to Ne-Si they are useful, as long as there are observations at the ready to identify them with.

That preference to think of objects as "real" as opposed to phantom concepts could also explain a thing or to about your irritation towards mathematical jargon. (not that I'm anywhere near fond of it myself)

Interesting. You seem to have your own insights into exertion theory. Why not write an explanation of your thoughts on the non-socionics type theories forum for us to read? You obviously take a different approach than myself. Certainly you have insights not available to myself by virtue of IE type differences.

[Logos]

I agree that it's and I think types just have strong that's why they do it. It's like, when I do it, I often end up using and I end up being confused with possibilities, "but what if the other person says something else in stead..."

Could you not just as easily say the reverse though? That it is , but that types just have strong and that is why they do it? :wink:

[Kristiina]

I agree that it's and I think types just have strong that's why they do it. It's like, when I do it, I often end up using and I end up being confused with possibilities, "but what if the other person says something else in stead..."

Could you not just as easily say the reverse though? That it is , but that types just have strong and that is why they do it? :wink:

I could. But I won't.
Actually I really do think that playing out one scenario with a fixed beginning and one outcome is , even if it does require some Ne to do it properly.

[Park]

Consider a situation when you withdraw to yourself and consider the outcome of various potentialities. For example, imagining the existence of a partner -- real or imagined -- and imagining their reaction to things said to them by yourself. Just as in real life, one response leads to another, leads to another. Eventually an entire conversation has been undergone within the confines of one's own imagination. How does this happen, and what functions would allow the perception of its flow?

For what it's worth, I do it too. Most often when I need to make a decision on how to act, trying to decide between various ways to begin (& direct) my act in order to reach a certain goal/result. I try to imagine as many possibilities as I can in order to estimate (& choose) to most efficient path that at the same time has the most chances to get me on the track I want to be on, which sometimes also helps me keep out of things I don't want to to put myself into. If you know what I mean...

[tcaudilllg]

Consider a situation when you withdraw to yourself and consider the outcome of various potentialities. For example, imagining the existence of a partner -- real or imagined -- and imagining their reaction to things said to them by yourself. Just as in real life, one response leads to another, leads to another. Eventually an entire conversation has been undergone within the confines of one's own imagination. How does this happen, and what functions would allow the perception of its flow?

For what it's worth, I do it too. Most often when I need to make a decision on how to act, trying to decide between various ways to begin (& direct) my act in order to reach a certain goal/result. I try to imagine as many possibilities as I can in order to estimate (& choose) to most efficient path that at the same time has the most chances to get me on the track I want to be on, which sometimes also helps me keep out of things I don't want to to put myself into. If you know what I mean...

Sounds like role. Choosing the right path means avoiding sticky situations that can make you look bad.

[redbaron]

I do this -- I have conversations with real or imagined people in my head from time to time. I have even gotten angry, cried, laughed out loud, etc. as though it was real.

I do this too. A lot.

[krieger]

Interesting. You seem to have your own insights into exertion theory. Why not write an explanation of your thoughts on the non-socionics type theories forum for us to read? You obviously take a different approach than myself. Certainly you have insights not available to myself by virtue of IE type differences.

Most of it is very hard to describe... Like I said, exertion Ne catches a glimpse of what a 'thing-an-sich' is without actually having real information about it. Anything I'd write up would end up sounding incredibly technical.

I am working on a prolog based socionics 'expert system' that should help organize my understanding of the model. When it is finished I may be able to demonstrate some of what I spoke about in this thread.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting. You seem to have your own insights into exertion theory. Why not write an explanation of your thoughts on the non-socionics type theories forum for us to read? You obviously take a different approach than myself. Certainly you have insights not available to myself by virtue of IE type differences.

Most of it is very hard to describe... Like I said, exertion Ne catches a glimpse of what a 'thing-an-sich' is without actually having real information about it. Anything I'd write up would end up sounding incredibly technical.

I am working on a prolog based socionics 'expert system' that should help organize my understanding of the model. When it is finished I may be able to demonstrate some of what I spoke about in this thread.

That will be interesting indeed.

[Jarno]

I do it ALLLL the time. I'm even doing it right now, damnit.

It could actually in corporate pieces of aswell.

I agree with this 100%.

I do this a lot. it's probably a typical ILI thing. And because it's all done in your imagination, it involves some