Archive for October 2010

Another post, on the notion of combinations

October 25, 2010

If we can assume that my tri-definition stands (so far, it’s worked for me), then I would like to advance it one small step.
First, I would like to note that I seemed to combine the way people think according to one of the three ways I described with the way a person speaks according to that way. This is not always the case for the same individual. In fact, I believe (based on people I’ve met and analyzed mainly in the past 7 months) that there are 9 types of individuals, each with its unique aspects and characteristics. And, yes, I have met all 9 types in the past 7 months.

Now, on to the notion of combinations. Whereas we all analyze information in a certain way, that is not to say that we manage to express it in the same manner we have analyzed it. In fact, in my opinion 6 of the 9 do NOT do so!

A perhaps useful analogy is that if we compare the way one analyzes a situation to “input”, then the way we explain what we mean is the “output”. And last I checked, printers and CPUs work slightly differently…

At my workplace, most of the individuals are Intuition analyzers who speak in Logical terms. That is to say that they see the big picture, of where things are going – what the future probably holds, and try to explain it by reconstructing the logic/building the world “back” step by step. That is why one of the main tools that they use – the S&T tree fits them like a glove. It gives a global overview, and walks through it in strict logical steps.
But to explain what my theory is – these people have the bird’s eye view. And they strive to explain things in logical terms. That’s it. Luckily for them, many forms of science adopt this attitude warmly, and the road to success for these individuals is fairly accessible.
I mark these individuals Il – Capital I for analysis by intuition and lower-case l for what I have called “striving” for logic.
And this brings me to the real issue – that of combination. I think I was wrong to say that these individuals “strived” to explain the world through logic. It is not that they said “hey, I use intution heavily and that was wrong/there is something better to do”. Rather, these individuals have recognized the usefulness of logic, or seen a need to express in clear terms such as logic has, and recognized that they could use their utilities in order to obtain this.

In other words, it doesn’t really matter WHY or HOW they originally became such individuals. Rather, I am just demarking them as people who analyze through their intuition – they can see the big picture and the tensions, and then they explain it to others using logic. C’est Tout.

I have found two points of interest to me about these individuals. Firstly, while they are for the most part very much kings of their own destiny, they just don’t get art in the way that I do. They just don’t. Secondly, I have no idea what they are passionate about in the way that i get passionate about things.
This is not to say that they are not passionate.
Nor is this to say that they do not appreciate art.

However, one such individual said that he doesn’t see the point of certain forms of art. And I have seen them emotional, but not passionate in the way I get passionate. To note, the former seems more significant to me, and the latter seems to me more a matter of chance.

But the fact of the combination intrigues me to a great degree.
I shall try to describe the other 8 types (Ii, Ie, El, Ei, Ee, Ll, Li, Le) in other posts.

I would LOVE comments. PLEASE!!!!


What am I rambling about?

October 20, 2010

The biggest problem of the world that I deem fixable is the inability to properly communicate.
This includes both input (listening, reading, etc.) and output (speaking, writing, etc.), of course.
I believe that the only way to improve communication is if we address the ways in which people hear and speak (input and output), based on the way they analyze situations.
I cannot and will not attempt to explain how one becomes an analyzer of a certain type. I do not have the ability to backtrack far enough, and I do not understand enough of how the brain works. I can only count on the way I recount human behavior and my analysis thereof.

And when I have asked “how do people talk and hear?” the best answers I have recieved have been of two types. The first being “neural networks”, and the other being psychoanalytical (Freud! Jung! German names!). These were both complex answers, which required much additional learning. Happy to learn, but unhappy at not finding a simple, accessible answer.

And so, I tried asking myself the question of how I speak and how I listen, and the answer was “too fast for your own good”.
So then I rephrased it. I asked “what do you hear?” And the answer was “patterns and emotions”. Ah! A start!
So I asked my writing partner, and he basically said “balance! connections!”
And I asked another friend, and she basically said “Black and white! Stepping stones!”

SO I asked some more, and I got repetitions of those 3.
And then I thought, that if I could combine them, I could really help people hear each other.

Please give me comments, so I can know if this makes sense.

Thank you, Nicky

October 20, 2010

From Nicky Castles
‎”Intuition will tell the thinking mind where to look next.”
— Jonas Salk


October 20, 2010

been a while since I posted on this, but:
I went to the hematologist yesterday. I am so healthy that instead of waiting 4 months until he sees me next, he wants to wait 6.

a little more on intuition

October 19, 2010

A colleague recently asked me about the notion of “intuition”, and we agreed that it does not include “instinct”, but the rest of the explanation was lacking.
So, here’s another shot at it.

There are 3 ways I see that people reach conclusions.
One is by using stark definitions, and by working linearly. Stage 1 leads to 2. stage 2 leads to 3. Stage 3 leads to 4 etc.
Another is by using patterns. That is to say “In another place there were elements that I can see parallels thereof in this situation. Try a similar plan of action to achieve something similar”. (Or continuing in this manner could lead to an expected type of result).
The third is to foresee events, not based on patterns (seeing similarities), nor based on linear action (seeing short-term results), but on the way things interact in the big picture, and by guessing the result. Yes, guessing. Sometimes more educated, sometimes less so. But still, guessing. And by that I do not mean blind guessing, but rather experience has shown general directions, so my intuition says that that direction is plausible.
It’s more a direction finder than specific solution finder.

holidays too long

October 2, 2010

I know that I shouldn;t complain, but this whole holiday thing where we didn’t really do anything was too much
and on Sunday R goes back to nursery school
and I go back to work
and life goes back to normal

and I took some paracetamol, so hopefully I’ll get some sleep

Ideas are for sharing because otherwise, your masturbating inside your brain.