Pattern recognition

[redbaron]

I know an SLE (pretty sure that's his type) who is very good at pattern recognition. Not only literally recognizing visual patterns but also seeing how something will turn out based on having seen it before. Projecting into the future, if you will. He may be dualized, I dunno for sure. He seems well-rounded and healthy.

So is pattern recognition Ni? Or Se? I think it's Se.

[Ezra]

I know an SLE (pretty sure that's his type) who is very good at pattern recognition. Not only literally recognizing visual patterns but also seeing how something will turn out based on having seen it before. Projecting into the future, if you will. He may be dualized, I dunno for sure. He seems well-rounded and healthy.

So is pattern recognition Ni? Or Se? I think it's Se.

It's pretty typical of SLEs, because they of all types (in Filatova's words) are the best at assessing/calculating/observing and interpreting situations to "predict" future outcomes. That's why we often say we have good intuition, but it's not real intuition.

IEIs don't predict based on the past/present. They get these intangible "aha!" moments where things connect. Kirsten described it well - she said it's like you know the cogs are moving in your head, but you don't know what's being produced until it comes almost out of the blue.

[Pookie]

Yeah with SLE's i feel its pure intellectualization. This means this because of that, that, and that.

As an IEI, i don't even really know what i mean exactly until i say it out loud and put it into words. In my head, they're impressions. "Nah that wont work" or "Oh, you're onto something". I think normally uses deductions from observable stimuli, and in their head they are quite aware of what words fit their current thought process.

[redbaron]

this one's over 40.

[discojoe]

Meh. I don't even try to recognize patterns; I focus on the world through a sort of Sun Tzu-like mentality. Rules, codes, protocols, etc. Any kind of spacey Ni functionality is limited to either melancholic self-indulgence or a kind of laser beam into the root causes of phenomena.

It is also possible that I do recognize patterns but am not aware of it.

Anyway, it sounds like something an SLE would be good at, I guess. SLEs and LIEs, probably.

[krieger]

this is way too general. every function engages in pattern recognition on some ontological plane. all that differs is the emphasis and the bias.

also, sorry to break it to you all, but Se is not an all purpose superman function that gives you both kick-ass willpower, the ability to control a situation better than any other function AND mysterious general purpose powers of intellectual recognition. socionics doesn't work that way.

here's a little pattern that i'm recognizing in this thread:
INFp Poster: "there's this neat intractable skill subjectively recognizable skill that is uniquely featured by MY DUAL"
Gamma Poster: "no, it's MY QUADRA and yours that does this best"
ESTp Poster: "hell yeah, MY TYPE is great at this"
etc.

[redbaron]

[ashlesha]

lol

[silke]

this one's over 40.

I was doing orientation with an older SLE (I believe he was 38?) and was amazed at his ability to quickly grasp things. He drew the connections right away such that I didn't have to explain everything step-by-step and reiterate anything for him. Made me wonder if this was a product of his DS-Ni, or general intelligence, or may be he was just bluffing a bit that he understood everything.

this is way too general. every function engages in pattern recognition on some ontological plane. all that differs is the emphasis and the bias.

to the contrary this is quite specific, we're not talking about every function but Ni and Se here

[krieger]

"pattern recognition" is about as general as any description of a mental skill can get.

[discojoe]

this is way too general. every function engages in pattern recognition on some ontological plane. all that differs is the emphasis and the bias.

also, sorry to break it to you all, but Se is not an all purpose superman function that gives you both kick-ass willpower, the ability to control a situation better than any other function AND mysterious general purpose powers of intellectual recognition. socionics doesn't work that way.

here's a little pattern that i'm recognizing in this thread:
INFp Poster: "there's this neat intractable skill subjectively recognizable skill that is uniquely featured by MY DUAL"
Gamma Poster: "no, it's MY QUADRA and yours that does this best"
ESTp Poster: "hell yeah, MY TYPE is great at this"
etc.

Go away. I mean that as politely as possible.

[discojoe]

And oh yeah, I do recognize patterns. My masterful grasp of economics involves intricate pattern recognition.

[krieger]

Go away. I mean that as politely as possible.

believe me, i don't need the encouragement.

And oh yeah, I do recognize patterns. My masterful grasp of economics involves intricate pattern recognition.

like i said: every function engages in pattern recognition on some ontological plane. all that differs is the emphasis and the bias.

[rat1]

I just assumed she was talking about the specific task of recognizing patterns within a matrix of shapes.

[FDG]

"pattern recognition" is about as general as any description of a mental skill can get.

lol. yeah.

and btw every type sucks pretty badly at predicting future outcomes. that's a characteristic common to basically all humans.

if otoh you're talking about raven progressive matrices, then it's not type related, ofc

[Morcheeba]

lol. yeah.

and btw every type sucks pretty badly at predicting future outcomes. that's a characteristic common to basically all humans.

if otoh you're talking about raven progressive matrices, then it's not type related, ofc

I excel in predicting outcomes. I have a shirt that says "I'm always right", and I can't tell you how many times I jokingly ask a friend if I should get that shirt out to remind them that yes I was right, they shrug and walk away with their tails in between their legs.

[Korpsy Knievel]

here's a little pattern that i'm recognizing in this thread:
INFp Poster: "there's this neat intractable skill subjectively recognizable skill that is uniquely featured by MY DUAL"
Gamma Poster: "no, it's MY QUADRA and yours that does this best"
ESTp Poster: "hell yeah, MY TYPE is great at this"
etc.

...says the Ti supremacist. Too fucking funny.

[FDG]

I excel in predicting outcomes. I have a shirt that says "I'm always right", and I can't tell you how many times I jokingly ask a friend if I should get that shirt out to remind them that yes I was right, they shrug and walk away with their tails in between their legs.

you're probably working with too easy predictions then.

[Morcheeba]

you're probably working with too easy predictions then.

Well it depends on what you believe an easy prediction could be. I guess it varies as far as the situation goes. But, I can tell you that I have won alot of money at casinos, and have helped people win big because I get a feel of which machine is gonna pay out and which one will be a dud.

[FDG]

Uh? That's luck, not prediction, lol.

[Jarno]

Well it depends on what you believe an easy prediction could be. I guess it varies as far as the situation goes. But, I can tell you that I have won alot of money at casinos, and have helped people win big because I get a feel of which machine is gonna pay out and which one will be a dud.

haha

change your t-shirt to 'charlatan'

[Morcheeba]

Uh? That's luck, not prediction, lol.

Nah, I don't believe in pure luck, if that was the case, then we could say that I had luck in other cases where a cause and effect relationship occurs, this is not the case for me however, lol.

[Morcheeba]

haha

change your t-shirt to 'charlatan'

Yeah, well I never claimed I was psychic, if you wanted me to read your palm I guess I could come up with generalizations, then I would wear your shirt but you would have to make it for me.

[FDG]

You don't have to believe in something for it to be true, really. So even if you say "I don't believe in luck"...it was still luck. These are very widespread logical fallacies (unfortunately).

[Jarno]

So even if you say "I don't believe in luck"...it was still luck. These are very widespread logical fallacies (unfortunately).

yeah I remember some friends of mine were willing to put a lot of money on the roulette table on Red if there had been a streak of Black. Cause the chance would be really small that it would be Black again. I was baffled about that kind of reasoning.

I went home told the story to my dad, and he answered, well if you start the game, Black and Red are 50/50 chance. But when you've hit black 3 times in a row, there's only a 45% chance that it will hit again. I was baffled again.

People are so stupid, I should start my own casino :-)

[Ezra]

and btw every type sucks pretty badly at predicting future outcomes. that's a characteristic common to basically all humans.

lol, true.

[Slacker]

I excel in predicting outcomes. I have a shirt that says "I'm always right", and I can't tell you how many times I jokingly ask a friend if I should get that shirt out to remind them that yes I was right, they shrug and walk away with their tails in between their legs.

My EIE and LIE parents say this, and they aren't always right. They just have convenient memories.

[rat1]

A casino is arranged so that certain machines put out more than others. It's all designed to have passerbys see people winning and then join in; but at the same time it changes throughout the day. The output of casino machines is not totally random. There are books that will teach you how to guess which machines are hot at a time and which aren't. Some people make a whole art out of it and manage to break even at casinos.

[Jarno]

A casino is arranged so that certain machines put out more than others. It's all designed to have passerbys see people winning and then join in; but at the same time it changes throughout the day. The output of casino machines is not totally random. There are books that will teach you how to guess which machines are hot at a time and which aren't. Some people make a whole art out of it and manage to break even at casinos.

yes I believe that. But morcheeba said that she had a hunch, not sound knowledge based on the workings of the machine. This would come close to paranormality.

anyways, I have a book on black jack card counting, you can beat that too, but just with a minor margin.

[rat1]

But morcheeba said that she had a hunch, not sound knowledge based on the workings of the machine. This would come close to paranormality.

Not really. A person may unconsciously equate widely seen & acknowledged machines on the outside rows with social value and desirability. And that alone can form the basis of the hunch. The value a person places on the machine is actually what makes it valuable. The whole thing is arbitrary. So I would be surprised if she didn't have a hunch about those machines, actually.

[717495]

and btw every type sucks pretty badly at predicting future outcomes. that's a characteristic common to basically all humans.

Yes, though I'm not the type who cares much about prediction stuff. I'm more the fantastical type. So I think automatically has that focus, where as s have it subconscious. It's weird how they make more about the real world, even though its the introverted one. If I were to write my own theory on personality I would think somewhat different at first. But this is Socionics, theory on relationships. So it's not necessarily all clear the reasoning unless you're actively experiencing it.

[silverchris9]

My dad is LSI, and he's pretty good at predicting things. I think it's the combination of Se and Ti. Ti can be good at generalizing, especially TiSe in the presence of Ni. I think it goes back to "semiotic uncertainty." TiSe can generalize from experience, that is, experiencing things, then abstracting (using Ti) to general rules. And of course, those rules can have predictive power. I think I had a post about this before, but I think it's of the form:

But I think Ni is better at making predictions that are prior to (at least apart from) experience, and based instead on abstract similarities between things, types and such.

So: SeTi = generalizations from experience applied to current situations; NiFe = perception of (usually temporal) interaction of abstract characteristics.

NiFe = More useful in when one has not experienced a similar situation. A more analogical or metonymic mode.
SeTi = More useful when one has experienced a similar situation or a situation containing some of the same "component parts." Also tends to be more useful, strictly speaking, for giving a specific directive, an action that should be changed, a more useful tactic to substitute in for a less useful one.


Also, there's the question of function blocking. In general, SEEs will have better predictive capacity with ethical/interpersonal issues, and SLEs with logical/procedural issues, although both are capable of either. (Note that both, interestingly, are equally applicable to and important in business: the question 'is John the kind of person that will do well in this position' is as important as 'is John's method of handling this task one that will lead to failure or success). Similarly, IEIs will have better interpersonal predictive skills, and ILIs better data-based predictive skills.