wtf???Originally Posted by MysticSonic
wtf???
+2
Hm...I didn't really choose my words very well. I meant the sort of thinking involved in chess is strongly tied to Ni.
NOTE TO IDIOTS: this statement in no way, shape, or form, implies that strong Ni means talent at Chess. It only means that chess is a highly Ni thing.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Te is probably the second biggest component in Chess...which is why I believe Chess is a predominantly Ni-Te activity. Ni sees the developmental patterns needed to inform Te, which takes the Ni data and turns it into a concrete plan. Fundamental sort of thinking involved in chess.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
mystic- youre just spewing complete BS here. chess is more about seeing what possibilities will entail than finding a long term plan. on the other hand, both of these (and neither of these are limited to one specific function) are needed for success in chess.
bottom line: this is simply not function-related.
there's alot of different ways to play chess... my way is very off the cuff and spontaneous. queen is nearly always used as a throwaway for a feignt and I'm most dangerous with my horsies. does mean I have strongtoo?
my friend in jail plays alot of chess but he's an ENFp
"chess is more about seeing what possibilities will entail"
Ok...how is this not Ni-Te? Developmental, this-then-that, entailments, right?
The question I'm more interested in, though, is why this would be Ti(not directed towards you, Niffweed, but more towards those who've said that it is Ti)?
"than finding a long term plan."
I didn't say this. Please keep your misunderstandings of what I say away from your statements of what you think I said.
"on the other hand, both of these (and neither of these are limited to one specific function) are needed for success in chess. "
Maybe. I suck at Chess, so I can't really say I know in total what is needed for Chess. I can see, however, the sort of thinking involved in Chess, and it is definitely developmental. Thinking a turn ahead or so seems to be, to me at least, what most skilled chess players do whilst playing.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
The problem I'm having with this discussion is that I'm sure all of the functions can contribute in some way to playing chess. I think that people would probably employ a combination of whatever functions they are strong in and whatever functions they need to use. An NT type will probably use NT when playing chess. But does that mean that an ST type would use NT as much as the NT type, or that chess is only an NT activity? Are there perhaps other ways to play the game than through NiTe? For instance if I play chess on my computer, and my computer kicks my ass, I doubt it was using Ni. I realize that's a bad example. I think what I'm saying is that there are many different ways to approach a problem (any problem), including the problem of winning a chess game. I don't think that NiTe is the only way to do it, or even necessarily the best way to do it. I think there are too many factors involved to limit it to that.
I had (in my first post way back there) put strategy games and such with Ti not because I think that strategy games require the use of pure Ti, but because I thought that the point of Scarlett's post was that she just wanted some examples to make the difference between Ti and Te more clear (not that I helped her to do that). So even though everything she stated is going to probably use all the functions, if I narrowed the scope to just Te and Ti, and had to say whether "really enjoying puzzle type games (chess ... the whole idea of figuring something out/figuring opponent's logical strategy out)" is more Ti or more Te in a land where Te and Ti are the only functions that exist, then I'd say it's more Ti than Te. Of course I sort of diverged from this narrow scope in my later responses as I couldn't seem to refrain from bringing N into the mix as well. All in all, the more I think about it the more I can't pin that down to just one function, or even see a reason to narrow the scope. So in that sense my response doesn't work. Or maybe it would be better to say, it just doesn't work at all. :wink:
I think activities that require sole focus on just it tend to render functional preference rather useless. For instance, sports seems to require a great deal of Se, but this does not necessarily mean that people with weak Se can't be great at sports. In sports, one knows one has to use Se, so even if one is weak in it, one musters all they can from their Se(which isn't necessarily completely crippled with those with weak Se, a common misconception), and thus they are able to compete with those whom use the function "on a casual basis." Thus, even though one does not necessarily need Se to play sports, most sports still require a great deal of Se to play. The person playing the sport isn't considering the rest of reality(which, if he wasn't, would cause him to focus on the parts of reality that he most prefers to focus on), so he is able to focus completely on the information data required in that sport...I think.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I think that sports require more than just Se. There is often a strategy involved--a game plan. Decisions need to be made. I think that all of the functions go into sports as well. Se does seem to be at the essence of physical activity (or action in general)... but sports are about more than just Se. There is also the matter of physical skill/natural physical ability, as well as experience and training, as well as attitude and self-esteem, people-skills, leadership skills, etc... So I don't think it's just a matter of Se. However, Se-dominants might be more inclined to take an interest in sports than, say, Ni dominants. So there could be a correlation there.
I know, but to deny that sports do not require a great deal of Se seems a little silly.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I think we may be starting to talk in circles around each other... hmm.
I think you're saying sports use a lot of Se, but that doesn't mean that people weak in Se can't be good at sports, just that they will have to use a lot of Se in order to play sports.
I think what I'm saying is that although sports call for a lot of Se there are a lot of other factors involved (be those other Socionics functions or simply other factors that don't even pertain to Socionics). So although sports do require a lot of Se, that isn't all there is to it.
"So although sports do require a lot of Se, that isn't all there is to it."
Is that even an issue, though? From the simple fact that there is a lot of Se involved, one can conclude that one has to use a lot of Se to do well at it. So, because of this, and because of the fact that we know there are people with weak Se who are good at sports(if you don't know any, then it should be at least intuitively obvious that there exists such people), then we can conclude that having strong Se is not required to be good at sports. This causes the issue of explaining how such a case might be possible. My explanation of the case is my central post above.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
So you think that sports is about Se and chess is about NT? People "weak" in Se can be good at sports--but they'll have to use Se? People "weak" in NT can be good at chess--but they'll have to use NT?
I was trying to point out that I don't think chess is necessarily about NT. I do think that sports may be more about Se than chess is about NT though.
In the case of sports, physical activity is required. Se is used in physical activity. But physical activity is only one aspect in sports. So I wouldn't say Se is at the essence of sports just as I wouldn't say NT is the essence of Chess. So someone weak in Se who's good at sports might be good at sports for other reasons than just simply because they're using Se even though it's a weak function for them. Maybe their strategies in sports are exceptionally good. Or maybe they're good at reading people and thus anticipating what actions the other players will take. Or perhaps they are good at leading the team to "victory."
Gah. Now I'm talking in myself in circles. I don't forsee this going anywhere.
Newest thoughts on Te vs. Ti. [I decided to place these here for lack of a better idea of where to place them.]
I think these can be confusing because there's a sort of relativity present. I'll try to get at what I mean.
Te comes from the outside.
Ti works on the inside.
As an example, in my somewhat ad hoc type thread when I mentioned that the more strongly I feel about something, the less likely I am to consider logical implications, that was a piece of Ti reasoning. I recognized that there seems to be a rather inverse relationship between T and F, in that as one increases the other seems to decrease. I realize this is overly simplified.
Then I went on to say that this doesn't necessarily mean anything in regards to whether I am a T or F type because this simply may reflect the nature of how T and F are interconnected and will then perhaps be true for anyone. In other words, if something prompts F to increase thereby causing T to decrease (because that's how they're related) then that only reflects how they are related and says virtually nothing about whether I am more T or more F. This piece of reasoning may have been Te, as it evaluated the prior Ti reasoning from the outside.
Ti can be used to understand something in and of itself, as it is, as though it does not change.
Te can be used to question whether this understading of this thing is even relevant to an issue at hand, and to point out that just because this is how it is now, that isn't necessarily how it will be at a later point in time.
My thoughts are still evolving, and I am still not entirely happy with them.
I was hoping to move onto Fi vs. Fe more, but I still haven't seemed to have gotten over this roadblock.
agreed. when looking at it specifically, Ni-Te seems best; when looking generally, NT seems best; when being realistic (or whatever), any person can be good.
I am a good player and the way I play is right in line with Ti-Ne....analyzing cause-and-effect and pros/cons, spotting patterns and seeing how they will develop, good at probability, and sometimes see too many possibilities. Since N is a function of possibilities whether extroverted or introverted, could it be that the Ne person sees infinite possibilities and finds it hard to make a decision while the Ni person sees all the possibilities, but has a feel for which is the most likely, thus making their decision easier?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote