Se and aggression

[strrrng]

I sense the potential for a brilliant theory, explaining the necessities of chess through socionics, and a collective participation of this forum in developing and implementing it...

[Gilly]

Personally I think it's actually a great demonstration of how, while certain functions take precedence over others in certain situations, in reality, we really do all use all of our functions, all the time.

[marooned]

Does thinking several moves ahead necessarily have to be Ni?

Actually looking at chess from a socionics pov could be a helpful exercise to help understand the IM elements better. Good idea.

[strrrng]

Does thinking several moves ahead necessarily have to be Ni?

no, not really...naturally following internal patterns into the future typically is, which translates to thinking 3 moves ahead most of the time.

[marooned]

I think what I'm trying to get at (in my own mind) is this:

I'll define players A and B, and trace player A's thoughts.

Player A is thinking about making move A. Here are his/her thoughts.

If I make move A

Likely moves in response by player B

move B
move C
move D
move E
move F

Most likely: move B, move F with B>F

If move B, then I may make move G or H in response
If move G, Player B likely to make move I.
If move H, Player B likely to make move I or move J.
I want them to make I, so I like G best.

If move F, then I may make move K or G.
If move K...

blah, blah, blah

So... what will happen
Player A: move A
Player B: move B
Player A: move G
Player B: move I
Player A: move M
Player B: ...

blah blah blah

This sort of seems like it's more Ti than Ni. "If-then" strategic thinking seems like a Ti thing. I don't know if that's what was meant by thinking several moves ahead. But Ni is much less concrete. I think it could be very helpful in chess, but perhaps in a different way. ?

[strrrng]

yeah, Ti is helpful in chess to calculate probabilities mostly. you're right, that was a more linear, if-then thought pattern. The way I meant that Ni thinks 3 steps ahead is kind of like this: ok, there's piece A...piece B over there, piece C...(now opponent)...ok, piece D, E and F....the relation between my A and his F....ok...now A, C correlates with this...oh ok....now this is what is likely to happen...

it sounds muddied because it's this visual, abstract way of dealing with the things where the internal patterns of the relationships between the pieces literally bounce off one another until some "vision" is reached....when I played Steve in chess (a Ti-ENTp), I noticed myself not so much looking at anything too logical besides the natural cause-and-effect stuff...I was mainly picking up on trends within (I can't stress internal enough) the pieces and I can recall a few times where things turned out the way I thought, even though it wasn't a concrete understanding.

[marooned]

yeah, Ti is helpful in chess to calculate probabilities mostly. you're right, that was a more linear, if-then thought pattern. The way I meant that Ni thinks 3 steps ahead is kind of like this: ok, there's piece A...piece B over there, piece C...(now opponent)...ok, piece D, E and F....the relation between my A and his F....ok...now A, C correlates with this...oh ok....now this is what is likely to happen...

it sounds muddied because it's this visual, abstract way of dealing with the things where the internal patterns of the relationships between the pieces literally bounce off one another until some "vision" is reached....when I played Steve in chess (a Ti-ENTp), I noticed myself not so much looking at anything too logical besides the natural cause-and-effect stuff...I was mainly picking up on trends within (I can't stress internal enough) the pieces and I can recall a few times where things turned out the way I thought, even though it wasn't a concrete understanding.

This makes sense.

But does that mean chess is an Ni game or just that you play it in an Ni way?

[strrrng]

This makes sense.

But does that mean chess is an Ni game or just that you play it in an Ni way?

both. there will be times where you will not be able to calculate, where you will simply have to know what will happen.

[ataronchronon]

I think the original assertion by Rick was that chess is an game.

What you guys are trying to do is describe what functions make a good chess player. That is totally different from saying what kind of information is present in the game.

The goal of chess is the conquer the other person's space and trap their king. Although you may use , , , , or whatever to accomplish this, the goal is ultimately one of , which makes the game .

[marooned]

Re: Strrrng

I don't think it means chess is an Ni game.

What you guys are trying to do is describe what functions make a good chess player. That is totally different from saying what kind of information is present in the game.

Agree. I might add though that I think you can be a successful chess player if you are any type. I think all 8 IM elements can be helpful in winning.

[Jimbean]

I would consider the book The Art of War as a good book for Se types, and maybe to understand Se for those who have that as a weakness.

[strrrng]

I would consider the book The Art of War as a good book for Se types, and maybe to understand Se for those who have that as a weakness.

really?! I didn't know there was a book that described how to perceive information in a specific way, namely the external statics of objects. awesome! now I'll go buy a book that 'is' every function and become great at them...

books, games, whatever, aren't functions...I love how we personify this shit. the only thing a function is, is information processing.

[Jimbean]

That is not what I meant.

[Brilliand]

But The Art of War is about Se, like some math textbooks are about Ti. So it's good practice, if you can make sense of it...

[strrrng]

yeah, I mean, the guy's thinking may be Se, specifically Se-Ti, but jim's phrasing just conveyed it in an artificial way.

I really don't see how the art of war actually is Se...it's a bunch of phrases/small paragraphs spaced out on pages just listing tactics

[The Exception]

This sounds really spot on. I know I must definitely have weak .

Anytime I have gotten angry/aggro, it's channeled through a rather uncontrolled emotional expression, and I'm always *really* uncomfortable with it. I just don't know how to be firm without my emotions ultimately getting in the way to some extent.

I'd have to say I'm very averse to aggression in general.

Same here. Se is my PoLR.

[FDG]

Not sure about my experience. I would say that my anger is genuine and well-controlled when related to T matters - ex. when somebody is misgiving informations and the like. Vice versa, I cannot really feel it controlled when I am pissed for typical "F" reasons.

[Ezra]

I really don't see how the art of war actually is Se...it's a bunch of phrases/small paragraphs spaced out on pages just listing tactics

I think Sun Tzu was an LIE. How to get the battle won most effectively (Te) combined with a natural talent for seeing what may or may not happen, based on various phenomena (Ni).