Mental Imagery ?function?

[The Reality Denialist]

The following one is a example of causal-deterministic thinking, I guess. Do you agree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk1N6Th4AoA#t=25s

If I ever went so homicidal and that action oriented.

The way SEE operates looks very decipherable to me (it i so easy to see how they inside their mind build schematic how to push through someone's will based on target's qualities constructing chain of actions) while ESI is like total mystery.

The other way that I go is usually Dialectical Algorithmic. In fact there are lots of parts in Model G EIE and ILI profiles that seem amazingly good for me.

[Singu]

Blah blah blah, what is the point of saying "This is Ni, this is Ti, this is causal-deterministic thinking", etc? Absolutely nothing, since all it's doing is changing the words of the description. They're not explaining anything. So it doesn't add anything new.

[Myst]

Then maybe you should tell that to the people who *do* think that Socionics can explain things, since that's my entire problem. Like what do these things have anything to do with Ni, Si-PoLR etc? Absolutely nothing!

Do I expect the Big 5 to be able to explain these things? No! Because the Big 5 doesn't even pretend to have the answers for these things! It's not an explanatory model! Do people go around saying, "This is Neuroticism thing, this is Openness thing"? No! So don't blame me for those things, the entire ridiculousness lies in those who *do* expect explanations from Socionics. I don't, obviously.

I only criticize you for bashing Socionics's model for this when it's not the model's fault that people want different things from it than what it actually offers. You yourself did misinterpret the model, clearly, based on our recent talk in the idontgiveaf thread.

Blah blah blah, what is the point of saying "This is Ni, this is Ti, this is causal-deterministic thinking", etc? Absolutely nothing, since all it's doing is changing the words of the description. They're not explaining anything. So it doesn't add anything new.

OK now, go get a big book on some scientific topic and then take one sentence out of the book without any of its logical context and you can do the exact same criticism for that sentence.

But yeah, have to be careful on what explanation you attach to an observation, sure.

[Myst]

I think being a good mechanic is really just 95% based off pure knowledge and experience, rather then any specific type of intelligence. If you know what every part does and ran into possible every problem least once, you'll know actually what to do to fix something with zero need for visualizing. If there is any skill at all involved with mechanics, I'd say its having enough patience to acquire the knowledge you need before getting frustrated and throwing in the towel.

Lol I think you just have a hard time imagining it when someone doesn't have the natural skills for it. You will have the patience because you are okay with engaging with this sort of thing because you have affinity for it already. I personally have little patience with it, I'm not interested in it, I will do it however if I need to and I can do an OK job, but yeah, I'd rather just not have to deal with it. I will get frustrated easily and get really pissed off at times, though I don't throw in the towel. I just go back to problem solving and solve it eventually.

More on the cognitive skills aspect. On MBTI forums (yeah not Socionics, but I see correlations there) there are topics about how the ISTPs (Te in socionics) typically love mechanics even without too much experience initially while the ISTJs (Ti in socionics) get frustrated and pissed off like me. Of course with experience ISTJ is totally ok with this thing too. But the initial learning is very different. I don't know exactly how much of this is due to cognitive type but at least some of it would be. Example, someone on this forum once posted a diagram of the internals of some pistol with actually moving parts (it was a gif or whatever) to explain how Te really gets to work with the moving parts easily and Ti has to build their own static blueprint first. I agree with how that was a good illustration of Te vs Ti based on the theory definitions. I'm also the static Ti version very much. I take my time to build that blueprint, and with the low Ne along with that Ti, I'll get pissed off when an unexpected bad outcome comes up I am totally okay though once I built that understanding...

Playing a musical instrument is a bit different because you need to being to get down the rhythm of whatever music you are playing, which requires a level of coordination and muscle memory not everyone possesses equally. With mechanics, your skill depends almost purely off of how many different problems you solved in the past, which provide you with knowledge to fix the same mechanical problems in the future with very little mental effort.

I'm not saying mechanics doesn't ever require intelligence or skill, I'm just saying it's possible to be a decent mechanic in the eyes of most people just by learning steps and not ever having to ever tinker with or visual anything at all.

I don't visualize for the mechanics so I would agree with that part. But if you could solve problems in the past then that already depended on skill.

That's fascinating lol. I pretty much never imagine things in text form and just assumed everybody imagined things in movie form like I do.

Whoah, ok, I was thinking about ILI vs SLI for you because clearly you are Te ego with Fe PoLR otherwise, this much did get clear from all collected data over time, but this possibly confirms leading Ni for you. Especially with how natural you think this thing would be for anyone to have. No lol, not everyone has it.

What I saw as Ne/Si for you was possibly just Irrationality. Though I won't exclude it for now, but I'm not aware of Si imagining things as a movie like Ni does. If you say more on it, I'd be able to say a more definite conclusion.

[Myst]

As a side note, I am LIE-Te and also have “x-ray vision” of objects. I’ve always been able to do those “rotate the object in space” tests, and when I look at objects, I can, if I wish, see them as if they are rotating 3D CAD models with all their inner parts in place.

I don’t know if this matters, but I also have surprisingly (to me) good eye-hand coordination. I first noticed it when a woman knocked a porcelain teacup off the table and I thoughtlessly caught it before it hit the floor. Enhanced Se?

On the other hand, my self-awareness of my body’s position with respect to the environment is poor. I back into things all the time. Maybe this is related to Si-PoLR?

Lol the rotating CAD models, nice. That just hurts my brain.

Your issues with sensing your body in the environment is related to low Sensing yeah.

"Enhanced Se", I don't see enough data here on what kind of information you process for that so no comment on that.

Yeah, I'm also like this.

I don't think it's just a 'male thing' because i know a lot of guys that have a good sense of their immediate environment but are relatively bad at mentally imaging 3d mechanical objects.

I suspect it's a Te ego thing. I just do not have this going on for me consciously like you LIEs describe it just like my LIE ex related to this too. Maybe the strong Ne/Ni also would add to the ability, I don't know. I'm more like I said above to Muddy, about the mechanics of that pistol, while Te egos supposedly see it as dynamic movements fine e.g. doing rotation directly

What adds to my suspicion is how you mention many guys you know are relatively better at having a sense of their immediate environment yet not this... It shows a clear dissociation between the cognitive skills for Se vs Te. I am exactly like those guys btw.

I'm crappy at mental rotation. My brain lays out schematics of functionality in terms of estimated guessed connections.

Ti ego that's crappy at mental rotation, hm. I wouldn't say I'm crappy at doing tests about it but I use static pictures and calculations based on them instead of actually working with dynamic movement. In that way yeah I'm crappy at it because I don't actually do the rotation itself but use other methods. So in this way I can visualize actual objects as static pictures of the objects and I very easily know what they look like from any angle etc. (like I described in an earlier post in this thread), but I do not imagine any dynamic rotation movement for any kind of abstract mechanics of the object.

I can do exploded view of technical devices as mental images. Does this count?
I can move and replace parts of a device as mental image (projection).

Sounds Te ego to me as per my theory outlined above. As far as this theory is good, ofc. If you remember, I already thought Fe PoLR for you, but if you are adamant you are Intuitive, you could be ILI over SLI. Decently similar to the LII typing too

Yeah, that's true.

Anyway, adding to the topic - I don't know if it counts as mental imagery, but I if I've lived somewhere for a couple of weeks, I can often tell when it's gonna rain soon by looking at the clouds. With some precision, not just "it's going to rain soon" but rather "it'll rain between 5:40 and 5:45" - and a couple of people have commented that I'm good at it. Usually I automatically get some internal imagery when I do this. I always assumed this is "Ni" in socionics.

Yeah that's Ni but how the fuck do you do this

Describe some of that internal imagery if you can, I'm curious.

I think mainly verbally but as I've gotten older I've learned to visualize complex schemes. kind of like a flow chart in my head.. its still low res and by no means a movie, but its definitely got an organic quality, like I think of complex situations like cells, as in the biology sense, with lots of internal moving parts and interactions. I really don't think in terms of movies and spend most the time talking to myself internally. its hard for me to imagine people visualizing vivid scenes in their head, to me its not like that at all. at most its the thought of the happening like its an idea but not an image. i can picture some stuff but its like snapshots where im really focused on a few particular details and the rest is kind of assumed to be there but mainly obscured by a kind of fog or darkness

I wonder if this is the weak Ni of Ni HA. I mean I kind of relate with how the dynamic scene visualizing isn't me but I got some limited ability to do it.

The 'connections' I make are usually like branches that I can follow. Not merging things together, necessarily. Like I'll think of something like balloons and the image of balloons will flash in my mind, and then that leads to an image of clowns, that leads to me thinking of IT, that makes me think of basements, that makes me think of a job my SO is working on, and then that makes me think about stained glass, and that makes me think of blue bottles, then I think about messages in a bottle, and then I think of Moby Dick (these are each images that flash in my head, kind of like going through a deck of cards of moving pictures, that are associations for me). So someone might say balloons, and then I might soon start talking about Moby Dick, and they are like where did that come from. lol (...) I see mental imagery when I read, too, but it's hazy like my dreams and not any different than my usual imagery, besides being more consistently focused on a certain path and theme. I have a hard time sustaining my own imagery in the same theme too long, like a daydream, before it starts unraveling. If I write it down, it helps sustain it, while adding ideas to move it forward, otherwise I can get stuck in a loop.

The way you describe it is reminiscent of Ni to me and weak N in general but I'm not sure.

I could also start at the idea of balloons like a piñata, generating more stuff out of it, maybe comparing balloons to the feeling of wanting to float away, but being grounded by a tether, and I do this not by imagery, but relating to the balloon.

Relating to the balloon, what do you mean by this? If you can elaborate on it a bit.

I'm also kind of calculative and cautious, I guess. I don't just like jumping into situations unless I run a bunch of possible situations by first, and am aware of the potential and/or most likely consequences. Or maybe an idealized version. I do this by visualizing them. I also have a lot of intrusive imagery of horrible things happening to me. Like this morning of me accidentally leaving the gas pump in the gas tank and driving off and this whole dramatic scene. I get a lot of that. Like when I was thinking of answering this question, a painting with running watercolor flashed in my mind, because I was thinking of my mental imagery and that image just 'popped' up. No idea why, or where it came from. But it's because my memories are watered down like that, but why that image I get a lot of these association images. Most of the poetry I write is heavy in imagery and metaphor for that reason. Idk if thats related to a function or not, it's just the way my mind works...

It is possible this shows subconscious Ni superid (=its actual information processing process isn't consciously accessible to you, just some resulting images and ideas get into your consciousness) and the panicky part could be your Ne PoLR lol. Along with generally valuing Ni, Ni+Rationality specifically, wanting things to go according to specific course. I'm not sure if you are ESI or EII on the whole btw, and I never really tried to figure that out, as I only saw some pictures of you before, didn't look at more than that... I just noticed this reading your posts in this thread.

PS: And I know IEI was also brought up for you but I see Fi, and no Fe creative. No attempt at "manipulative" expressions to manage other people's emotionality in the moment.

[Bertrand]

I wonder if this is the weak Ni of Ni HA. I mean I kind of relate with how the dynamic scene visualizing isn't me but I got some limited ability to do it.

I'd put it more in the camp of people claiming to be ambidextrous, speak 5 languages, have a photographic memory, etc. I think it goes more to what is meant by vivid or dynamic in the same way speaking 3 words of french doesn't make you "semi-fluent." there's a dunning-kruger thing going on here where people who miss details in real life can't exactly gauge with accuracy how well they've reproduced them in their head, so a lot of these claims become a function of weak intuition in the sense that they don't really even know what they're saying or can't possibly know in some kind of comparative sense without some kind of objective metric. There actually is a good metric for ability to represent ideas spatially in ones head and manipulate them and its called IQ, which is precisely what IQ tests test. But now we're in the realm of people bragging about online tests they took. There's a lot of self contained idiocy that goes along with claiming you have what amounts to a super power, so to not be a part of that I would not associate with weak Ni or weak anything

[The Reality Denialist]

Ti ego that's crappy at mental rotation, hm.

I have never had stereovision regarding to binocular use. I just can't do it due to eye muscle issues that were fixed too late in order to ever develop it.

Apparently I'm not bad at 3D geometry in math (based on test scores) but I still fail at rotation tests. I think I should take more time and put more effort to slice the objects.
Just few days ago I was the guy who put bit unconventional yard swing together because lots of people had problems due to missing instructions and they had never actually seen it IRL. So probably I don''t suck at it hopelessly.

[Bertrand]

alright thanks for my daily dose of autism squark

[Myst]

I'd put it more in the camp of people claiming to be ambidextrous, speak 5 languages, have a photographic memory, etc. I think it goes more to what is meant by vivid or dynamic in the same way speaking 3 words of french doesn't make you "semi-fluent." there's a dunning-kruger thing going on here where people who miss details in real life can't exactly gauge with accuracy how well they've reproduced them in their head, so a lot of these claims become a function of weak intuition in the sense that they don't really even know what they're saying or can't possibly know in some kind of comparative sense without some kind of objective metric. There actually is a good metric for ability to represent ideas spatially in ones head and manipulate them and its called IQ, which is precisely what IQ tests test. But now we're in the realm of people bragging about online tests they took. There's a lot of self contained idiocy that goes along with claiming you have what amounts to a super power, so to not be a part of that I would not associate with weak Ni or weak anything

Uh? I was saying that I have a limited ability to do it. This was not bragging in any form or shape whatsoever.

Or do you mean you want to see your Ni to be better than weak? And so other people who talk about strong Ni must just be bragging?

I have never had stereovision regarding to binocular use. I just can't do it due to eye muscle issues that were fixed too late in order to ever develop it.

Apparently I'm not bad at 3D geometry in math (based on test scores) but I still fail at rotation tests. I think I should take more time and put more effort to slice the objects.
Just few days ago I was the guy who put bit unconventional yard swing together because lots of people had problems due to missing instructions and they had never actually seen it IRL. So probably I don''t suck at it hopelessly.

Oh I don't fail at the tests I just don't feel I'm a true natural at it unlike when it comes to things like navigating in an actual spatial situation or dealing with spatial aspects of actual objects in front of me etc

I guess you also utilize your own approach for this.

...So again, is this a Ti vs Te ego thing, I wonder

[WinnieW]

Sounds Te ego to me as per my theory outlined above. As far as this theory is good, ofc. If you remember, I already thought Fe PoLR for you, but if you are adamant you are Intuitive, you could be ILI over SLI. Decently similar to the LII typing too

Based on the description of the socionic types I relate to some aspects of SLI and ILI, but neither of both type profiles overall.

You say that I use a lot of in this forum, does this make me an -ego type consequently or inevitably?

The best match based on writen soconic profiles for me is LII.
I relate more to being suggestive than vulnerable, because I was prone to manipulation by ego types when I was younger.
What I rarely communicate to other people but part of my nature is that I care more about other people. I'm willing to help other people that are in need, even if they are faking to be in need.
And I feel not uncomfortable about expressing emotions.

If being able to visualize objects in my mind, move and rotate them at will, is so called Holographical-Panoramic Cognition, then I have to be one of the following type SLE, LII, IEE, ESI, according to Viktor Gulenko.

[WinnieW]

...people claiming to be ambidextrous

I'm a little bit less clumsy using my right hand doing work compared to my left hand. Does this count as ambidextrous?

...speak 5 languages...

Hmm. I guess my abilities in languages were better in the past. Now I'm fighing a lot with different words in my mind while writing them down, always looking for words that fit better what I want to express.

...have a photographic memory...

I don't. I'm bad at memorizing and remembering visual details.

Looks like I'm faulty.

[Myst]

Based on the description of the socionic types I relate to some aspects of SLI and ILI, but neither of both type profiles overall.

You say that I use a lot of in this forum, does this make me an -ego type consequently or inevitably?

The best match based on writen soconic profiles for me is LII.
I relate more to being suggestive than vulnerable, because I was prone to manipulation by ego types when I was younger.

I don't know what you mean by Fe manipulation so no comments.

What I rarely communicate to other people but part of my nature is that I care more about other people. I'm willing to help other people that are in need, even if they are faking to be in need.

So you are a decent human being. Good.

And I feel not uncomfortable about expressing emotions.

Recently you said the exact opposite of this...

If being able to visualize objects in my mind, move and rotate them at will, is so called Holographical-Panoramic Cognition, then I have to be one of the following type SLE, LII, IEE, ESI, according to Viktor Gulenko.

First word: if.

I don't know what it is, I don't know if it's Te or what, but it's not H-P, because non-H-P types also admitted to doing this in this thread.

[Singu]

I only criticize you for bashing Socionics's model for this when it's not the model's fault that people want different things from it than what it actually offers. You yourself did misinterpret the model, clearly, based on our recent talk in the idontgiveaf thread.

I don't think blaming people is a good idea. It's not the people's fault if the model doesn't work. People may misuse models of physics or chemistry to blow something up and cause an accident, but that's because it actually worked, but it was abused. Any good model would be careful to note what it is and what it is not, what it does and what it doesn't. Yes, these things are really spelled out so that people don't absolutely misinterpret them. That's just good theory. Besides how else are you supposed to test it otherwise? Things can't be vague and too broad.

OK now, go get a big book on some scientific topic and then take one sentence out of the book without any of its logical context and you can do the exact same criticism for that sentence.

But yeah, have to be careful on what explanation you attach to an observation, sure.

Well the whole point is that Socionics doesn't even have a context for that.

[Myst]

I don't think blaming people is a good idea. It's not the people's fault if the model doesn't work. People may misuse models of physics or chemistry to blow something up and cause an accident, but that's because it actually worked, but it was abused. Any good model would be careful to note what it is and what it is not, what it does and what it doesn't. Yes, these things are really spelled out so that people don't absolutely misinterpret them. That's just good theory. Besides how else are you supposed to test it otherwise? Things can't be vague and too broad.

Socionics writings and some socionists do spell these things out. I wanted to be the umpteenth person to spell them out but then one day I realized some people just won't get it anyway and keep misusing the model. With these incredible oversimplifications like you yourself made them. (Though I might still get around to writing that summary on Socionics, and maybe it will actually be helpful to some, I don't know.)

Unfortunately yes, things can be just broad trends. And this model does deal with such. As for how to test for such trends: after operationalizing the model, you can statistically test for their presence. This is completely normal, a lot of scientific studies in psychology only do this, nothing more. If you get a correlation of 0.3 in a study of yours, you can already get very happy because you've managed to show that there is an effect. Even if it is vague and broad. Yup.

If this bothers you, go do a more concrete tangible science instead.

It personally does bother me so I prefer the more concrete neuroscience over all that "softer" psychology research but I realize there is a use for this at times even in my life and Socionics definitely helped me see some patterns and trends for that. Along with other psychology stuff I studied on my own. Those give a perspective for Socionics too, I noticed people without psychology or other people related knowledge are more apt to misuse the model.

Well the whole point is that Socionics doesn't even have a context for that.

It does. It just doesn't need to be overextended in a way it was never meant to be used.

[Singu]

@Myst Alright well fuck that. "There just isn't good enough evidence for Socionics (working)" should be good enough reason for abandoning Socionics immediately. I guess this makes the majority of people deluded.

I mean look, if you want proper statistical stuff, then there's already the Big 5 for that. Socionics does nothing new or different. And statistical trends are mostly self-reports and answers of questionnaires. They're not really vague stuff.

[Myst]

@Myst Alright well fuck that. "There just isn't good enough evidence for Socionics (working)" should be good enough reason for abandoning Socionics immediately. I guess this makes the majority of people deluded.

I mean look, if you want proper statistical stuff, then there's already the Big 5 for that. Socionics does nothing new or different.

Big 5 doesn't describe interesting aspects of consciousness states and information types that I've yet to see anywhere else in psychology and that I actually find valid observing myself and a few other people's reports. Other psychology stuff also doesn't describe certain dynamics of how some things work regarding these which I also found very valid and helpful in analysing some people stuff in my life. This is the case even though some scientific research results do corroborate these observations. Just nobody in psychology dealt with this data besides Jung, and Jung's followers, so far.

[Myst]

And statistical trends are mostly self-reports and answers of questionnaires. They're not really vague stuff.

Yes, such statistical trends are vague and general by definition. They only show trends for operationalized concepts where the concepts themselves* are often vague and broad. (Only the operationalization is concrete.) Often, it turns out that a lot of possible other variables were not considered, so follow-up studies where these variables do get to have an effect find entirely different results lol. And so on... So yeah I personally find all of it too vague and broad, in neuroscience there is at least something to actually point at (brain stuff).

*: Big 5 traits are also pretty vague and general and broad and their correlations to other things are also general broad etc...

[Singu]

Big 5 doesn't describe interesting aspects of consciousness states and information types that I've yet to see anywhere else in psychology and that I actually find valid observing myself and a few other people's reports. Other psychology stuff also doesn't describe certain dynamics of how some things work regarding these which I also found very valid and helpful in analysing some people stuff in my life. This is the case even though some scientific research results do corroborate these observations. Just nobody in psychology dealt with this data besides Jung, and Jung's followers, so far.

Those "aspects of consciousness states" and stuff are just the result of people talking about their introspective states on the forums, etc. They kind of work outside of Socionics. Basically, it's just "psychoanalysis". I don't think this is anything, new, either. It's just that modern psychology has dropped those subjects.

Now, are these talks about introspection interesting? Possibly. But that could have the same problems as the "psychoanalysis" does, and fall into the rabbit hole of nothingness and meaninglessness. It's like you can talk for ends and ends about how your current behavior is due to how your mother treated you as a child or something, and all this talk could just be leading us to the wrong end. There's just nothing leading us to the right path, because it can't be tested and so hence we won't know whether we're wrong about things or not. It's basically just "anything goes".

But I know that just saying this won't make people quit. They'll need an alternative. They'll need something else to talk about to fill their meaningless lives with and pretend like they're talking about something deep and yet undiscovered by the mainstream science. They'll need to feel like as if they're on the cutting edge, like they're pioneers. I guess this is the appeal of such a cult.

[Myst]

Those "aspects of consciousness states" and stuff are just the result of people talking about their introspective states on the forums, etc. They kind of work outside of Socionics. Basically, it's just "psychoanalysis". I don't think this is anything, new, either. It's just that modern psychology has dropped those subjects.

It's not psychoanalysis, god, please look up the meaning of terms before you use them.

Socioncis is way more cognitive than psychoanalytic (and yeah I don't go near purely psychoanalytic theories. Too much bollocks for me).

I never said it's new. I only said that there isn't focus on this in psychology so far.

Now, are these talks about introspection interesting? Possibly. But that could have the same problems as the "psychoanalysis" does, and fall into the rabbit hole of nothingness and meaninglessness. It's like you can talk for ends and ends about how your current behavior is due to how your mother treated you as a child or something, and all this talk could just be leading us to the wrong end. There's just nothing leading us to the right path, because it can't be tested and so hence we won't know whether we're wrong about things or not. It's basically just "anything goes".

That's not how I use all this. I test often enough, I don't like rabbitholes.

If someone's prone to getting into rabbitholes, I suggest they go outside to do more things so they have less time for rabbitholes.

But I know that just saying this won't make people quit. They'll need an alternative. They'll need something else to talk about to fill their meaningless lives with and pretend like they're talking about something deep and yet undiscovered by the mainstream science. They'll need to feel like as if they're on the cutting edge. I guess this is the appeal of such a cult.

Useless subjective assumptions and the worst is that you generalize it to "people" on the whole.

Some of it is ridiculous too: how the fuck would a fringe russian theory be cutting edge?

[Singu]

That's not how I use all this. I test often enough, I don't like rabbitholes.

Right, and how do you "test" it? You just use your own observations, which is just as unreliable as it can get. It would be full of biases and errors.

It's like stuff like dowsing and psychic reading, they think that it "really works", in their own experience and anecdotes. Then they do an actual test, and they get only like 1/6 correct, which is just as good as random chance. Then they blame the test for being wrong, they're not in the right condition, etc.

It's basically just DELUSION. These people are DELUSIONAL. Then they blame me for pointing out the obvious, and cry "Wah you're so arrogant, how could you call me out on being an idiot!" lol!

[Myst]

One more comment because I wasn't clear with this before: when I refer to "Socionics model", I mean the most basic one, not any of the crazy nuanced ideas on properties of functions etc. I did actually try to test for those nuances too in the past btw, but of course it soon turned out they had no substance whatsoever. And I also found how to disprove them logically too, so at that point it was really bye bye for those nuances.

[Myst]

Right, and how do you "test" it? You just use your own observations, which is just as unreliable as it can get. It would be full of biases and errors.

I must be doing something right with my little subjective observations if I manage to avoid rabbitholes decently well and instead extract understanding that I've actually applied successfully, no?

No I don't conduct psychology studies for this stuff for sure. Still I try to eliminate bias where I can. One thing I do pay a lot of attention to is that observations must be consistent. As soon as there is an issue with that, it has to be investigated. And then the conclusions have to be applied consistently too, and again if there is a problem there, it's not to be ignored. And yeah, so I do test by applying whatever reasoning or rule and seeing if it works out at all.

But again, I don't just use Socionics. I use other psychology understandings too. It gives me perspective for Socionics too.

[Myst]

Right, and how do you "test" it? You just use your own observations, which is just as unreliable as it can get. It would be full of biases and errors.

It's like stuff like dowsing and psychic reading, they think that it "really works", in their own experience and anecdotes. Then they do an actual test, and they get only like 1/6 correct, which is just as good as random chance. Then they blame the test for being wrong, they're not in the right condition, etc.

It's basically just DELUSION. These people are DELUSIONAL. Then they blame me for pointing out the obvious, and cry "Wah you're so arrogant, how could you call me out on being an idiot!" lol!

Okay, so why are you spending time on a forum that's full of delusional people in your opinion?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Please everybody stay on topic in this thread, it's supposed to be about mental imagery and what function(s) that might relate to, and not the validity of socionics as a whole. There are 23483217 other threads if you want to discuss that.

[Myst]

Please everybody stay on topic in this thread, it's supposed to be about mental imagery and what function(s) that might relate to, and not the validity of socionics as a whole. There are 23483217 other threads if you want to discuss that.

You are right, if this comes up again, I'll redirect it all to one of those threads.

[Myst]

@aster

The specific way you described your panicking is what had me think of Ne PoLR of ESIs. I've seen it enough in them. But sure, I don't know you, I'm just going by the few words you wrote about it.

Anxiety and rumination on their own aren't Ne PoLR of course.

Interesting, the rest of the stuff you wrote about. As for symbolizing how you feel... ok seems really very Feeling there, no news there though lol.

Identity crisis over typing, oh I don't think that sounds very Ne either for you tbh. It doesn't sound like it's natural for you to just accept there are so many options and possibilities for your type. It does also drive me mad, that sort of thing, but I get more pissed off than anxious is the difference.

It's cool if you already got at least as much as "Fi" from Socionics and if you don't find the rest helpful that's totally fine.

Btw this bit, "If you can't explain everything in a theory, and you have to pull in enneagram to justify your socionics typing, does that mean you are just trying to make excuses for not everything fitting?" This seems really Fi too, lol, like you are somehow unable to imagine non-personal (Ti) reasons for someone trying to explain things.

As for the thread you linked, it was interesting, thanks. @Golden 's post in there makes sense in terms of how the same information processing can just have various sensory modalities.

Yeah, well, I wouldn't exclude ESI for you or even for the person you were referring to (my 2nd choice for her type). You two actually have some similarities (like this kind of inability to see that Ti isn't personal - BTW I'm not saying this as criticism or anything, just observation).

[Bertrand]

I can identify with a lot of that, I think it is mostly normal. I think some types are more sure of what they are because they know themselves (Ni base) better than anyone... and I think some types at least act like it (Se base). Other types are excellent rationalizers so they give off similar resistance to adverse typing, but deep down they trying to digest any new information too. I often wonder about my own type and like to entertain perspectives on it, if they're coming from specific individuals whom I can talk to, because I can investigate it (I'm still against the spreadsheet because I think its a form of group pressure, but I don't want to argue over that here..). Anyway I think there's some truth to the idea that type is not "real" in the sense of it being more a label and the true you is set, instead what you have are people's opinions about how you come across based on their personal understanding of the system. Since there's no objective measurement, and I don't think Fe counts, its normal people have different ideas than eachother and even ourselves. If for no other reason people can observe the same phenomenon, adequately understand it, and nevertheless call it two different things. In that sense one must consider everything someone says in light of who it is saying it. So you sort of "get a say" in what it must mean, because you've got to balance all these different opinions coming at you and the one common factor is that all those people also have types. You don't have to be an expert typer to know one person seems more right than another. Its not that you're totally accurate, but it means something is there. Jung when he analyzed a patient was always on the lookout for resistance, he thought resistance occurred when something was up, it was not his job to just explain it away and impose his opinion. He always sought to reduce the resistance and only settled on a final solution when both the patient and doctor were satisfied, because anything less meant there was some unresolved psychic issue that clouded things... In that sense one must be honest if they reject certain opinions and as best one can try to articulate why, because that is the path forward. To just accede and move on pushes the whole thing underground and robs the process of its true value... In dealing with nothing but amateur typers I imagine this process goes on for a very long time for some because of past patterns of complicating the situation along with all the other natural difficulties that come with typing someone accurately..

[Myst]

Heh what's this with possible ESI-Fi's being so much into perspectives. Both of you (I'm only sure of ESI for Bertrand though). And lungs would do the same before settling with ESI after like a decade or whatever. And I think she dropped it recently lol.

Anyway yeah @aster that sounds like weak Ni / Ne because of getting bad control emotions (this is a nice side theory to main Socionics model and it makes a lot of sense to me, links: http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...emocii-funkcij and http://en.socionicasys.org/bibliotek...onal-functions).

Plus you really dislike being pulled in different directions, not really liking Ne much lol

I did read before that the difference in Ne PoLR of ESI and LSI is that LSI blocks out the alternatives while ESI gets lost in them and gets negative/anxious/panic.

What pisses me off is people pressuring me, telling me I am a certain type, or you do this because you are X type, people following me around harassing me, or you are a clear this or that. And I think it's rude, limiting, and kind of aggressive. I just don't respond well to that type of thing. It's like I want to send a big FU their way, but that's usually a last resort.

You don't like the bad side of beta ST

Tho' I'd like to see you send the big FU their way lol


@Bertrand Like I said before a few times, I'm positive on ESI for your typing. Idk what you type as right now. I don't really see the spreadsheet as group pressure btw. It's just nice to have all the opinions collected in one place so it's too bad you aren't on it. Anyway if you want to discuss your typing, as to why I type you as that, I'm fine with it. Oh and, I'm probably sure of my self-typing because of the Ne PoLR brand I got Jk, I did take my time to settle on my typing actually. I did type as IEI (for a short time a loong time ago) and then SLE before getting to LSI.

[Singu]

I don't relate to Se descriptions of force. People like to explain this away by saying I'm softer because I'm enneagram 9. They can't explain it in socionics, so they pull in another theory to explain it. If you can't explain everything in a theory, and you have to pull in enneagram to justify your socionics typing, does that mean you are just trying to make excuses for not everything fitting?

This has puzzled me as well. It's like people think that they can just mix-and-match different theories, even though they are directly in conflict with one another. For instance, Socionics says that there are 16 types, while Enneagram says that there are only 9 types. They are in fact rival and conflicting theories. Either one of them is wrong, or they're both wrong. There can't be two theories that explain the same phenomena in different ways. That's like saying there are two realities.

[para]

I have very intense mental imagery when listening to music. The images are often very abstract with only a vague symbolic meaning to either the music or the lyrics. I'm not sure if this is IE related in any way?

[WinnieW]

I have very intense mental imagery when listening to music. The images are often very abstract with only a vague symbolic meaning to either the music or the lyrics. I'm not sure if this is IE related in any way?

This phenomena is called Synesthesia. Do you see only patterns or different colours while listening to music?
I guess some programmers were inspired by this to code some visual animations for audio player software (e.g. MilkDrop for Winamp).

[para]

@WinnieW
I don't really see colors, per se. I moreso subconsciously 'imagine' different scenarios or patterns. It seems to appear like i'm thinking of something, but i'm not in direct control of them.

I do possess absolute pitch. Maybe this has something to do with it?

[WinnieW]

@WinnieW
I don't really see colors, per se. I moreso subconsciously 'imagine' different scenarios or patterns. It seems to appear like i'm thinking of something, but i'm not in direct control of them.

Synesthesia can appear in different variations. Some people see different moving patterns only while listing to music. It depends on the person.

I do possess absolute pitch. Maybe this has something to do with it?

I'm not an expert in this field of knowledge, but that may well be.

[Tallmo]

I think it might be connected to weak intuition in some cases. Intuitives don't necessarily need to imagine things visually, because they intuit it.

I've many times noticed that if I try to solve some problem, the only way to approach it is to visualize it. This is a very restrictive method. Then I have to mechanically look at it in my mind and figure out how to solve it, without intuition.

I always visualize numbers (some kind of synestesia). I have to make them concrete so I can deal with them.

Just some food for thought. There are probably lots of aspects to this.

[Bertrand]

I think that's right, a lot of times developing an image of a thing is actually concretizing it in order to transmit it to other people. with pure intuitions it hasn't even reached that stage--Ni is like the "backdrop" to everything, its so vast it can't even be expressed as an image. It kind of depends what people mean by image, because the kind of thing that is transmissible i.e.: communicable via some kind of diagram or representational picture has already been filtered through rationality and some form of sensing. Thus these videos or images of mental images can't in some sense do it justice. That is somewhat different than conveying a pure intuition which generally comes across by just a goofy look on one's face

in any case its very difficult because there are many different multi level relationships at work when talking about this sort of thing

[FDG]

Yeah that's Ni but how the fuck do you do this

Describe some of that internal imagery if you can, I'm curious.

First of all - i have an interest in meteorology / climate so that helps, I just pay attention to this stuff. If someone doesn't care about it, he's probably never going to be good at it. I've also lived in a couple of different places and always paid attention to this - socionics functions only work when experience backs them up, imho.
It's not fully conscious but I think I pay attention to the different colors and shapes of specific clouds when it's gonna rain / when it's just passing / etc. etc. and after some time I have some model in my head.
Wind speed is something you can gauge quite easily based on how some specific trees which are common in your area are moving.
Then the internal imagery is really just like a movie with some time index on the right tbh. I think I got it from old VHS tapes or something.

The same kind of imagery is useful for some types of math for example differential equations, stochastic calculus...completely useless for other types of math such as matrix algebra where i suck completely.

[FDG]

I'd put it more in the camp of people claiming to be ambidextrous, speak 5 languages,

You know these things aren't that uncommon, right?

[Chthonic Daydream]

Images just pop up in my head but sometimes I have sequences that are so vivid and twisted they actually scare me. I have trained myself not to go down that rabbit hole too often because it's awful, but I do dive in sometimes.


For example, one day there was an awful smell of gas in the appartment because our gas tank had leaked a little, but it was supposedly fixed now.
I started to imagine what an explosion would be like.
I was sitting on the couch at that time, and I envisioned a match and the conflagration.
It was fast, and then in slow motion: I could see the "Boom", the quaking of the walls, the TV bursting forth from the explosion to smash me alive, my head being cracked open by the TV and face impaled by the shards, my parents thrown on ragdolls and catching fire--
It wasn't pretty.

But I'm not one to do this too often.
Most of my dreams are very vivid though.

[The Reality Denialist]

Those meteorology and related stuff is result oriented approach. Following natural patterns. There is that video where Jung described Ni in natural/result form.

Natural stuff might work but it is so messy.

As result thinking it refers to detachment. I think it is something like watching flowing water without swimming in it.

[Bertrand]

You know these things aren't that uncommon, right?

this is totally in keeping with the dumb braggadociousness I expect from a certain kind of person; like I said before, it tells you more about their standards than their real ability

in any case its not about any one of those categories because I'm sure you're chomping at the bit to inform me multi linguism is not uncommon in europe. the point was always to represent a category of things people exaggerate because they can't separate their own underlying perception of the true scope of things and their place in it. the particulars are unimportant. in fact if you know it is common some place it is keeping with the general thrust which is people overrate themselves constantly-- just because they're talking about their own powers of abstract perception does not mean such a claim is not subject to the forces it presumes itself to lord over, as if that subordinates the phenomenon rather than being at its mercy. the dunning kruger phenomenon is saying that one's self perception of one's own rank in things is overinflated because of an inability to comprehend the true scale of things, because one cannot see the scale for what it really is without first having ascended up an appreciable amount. there's a kind of name it and claim it thing going on within typological circles that makes people think they can assimilate to themselves certain qualities simply by talking about them, but only in the most superficial manner, never with any real insight, which is the sine qua non of possession of certain qualities, particularly abstract perception; superficiality is, of course, associated with a different quality