Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
"The term conceptual model may be used to refer to models which are represented by concepts or related concepts which are formed after a conceptualization process in the mind."

I'm curious how users of different cognitive functions approach conceptual models, conceptual systems, and conceptual frameworks.

I know that Ti-Ne is the classic conceptual model builder, but I'm fascinated by the vastly different ways individuals see the world. Everyone perceives the world differently, and makes judgements differently.

I'm an Ni-Te user. I use conceptual models, but I see them more as one giant interconnected dynamic system. Different models within the system work for different purposes. They aren't necessarily correct, but they can be useful for the time being. This system is constantly changing and growing, as more frameworks become apparent, and connections are recognized. My ideal is to understand my own personal system and be able to see from as many perspectives as possible, to get the broadest picture possible.

I don't know how this differs from a typical Ne-Ti. Is it that Ti doesn't allow for inconsistency while Ni allows for paradoxes depending on context?


I actually have no idea if peoples' internal maps have anything to do with the Cognitive Functions, or if they are completely individualized. I'm also curious how a model based on values looks like, and if sensors develop models based more on real world experience/application.

I would love to hear any input!

tl;dr: Models are fun. No, not that kind!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Another good thread by spades :) I was thinking about this a lot recently, so I'll share a few things.

I'll explain how I think it works for me right now. I'm not completely sure of my type. I'm also not sure how much of my way of thinking is normal or common. I'm also not sure how much internal models and how they work are based on personality types. I'd love to hear how other people's compare.

I have several scales of models.

Lets see. There are social models, like how I represent PerC, my country, or my group of friends. This is often a little vague, and all I know about it right now is that when I change what social situation I am in, I experience the world differently.

There are individual models. So each person I know is modeled in my head, starting with some generic ideas, and then becoming more specific as I get to know people more. So, for example, I might be aware that someone is anxious or confident. I have some vague, wordless ideas that wrap up these concepts.

There are also physical models. For example, force, pressure, acceleration, gravity, warping of space time, and wave motion, to name a few, are represented by some images, visualizations, and sensations that seem to match real-world situations. So, if I'm looking at a building, I might visualize where all the forces travel through the building. Other things are more curiously represented. For example, temperature. It is represented in my head by temperature. When someone says "imagine something hot," I can do so. I wouldn't say hot=red and cold=blue and draw a colourful picture. I would simply imagine a hot part and a cold part. However, it's not really "hot." My mind has come up with some way of modeling temperature that incorporates all the experiences I have ever had with heat to make some sort of impression or concept that incorporates all those aspects. Other things, like pressure, I model as a physical sensation. The sensation doesn't exist, but when I think about pressure I imagine myself (I'm not sure how) being very tiny and being there and being squeezed.

My models are often visual and related to what I see in the world around me. Some of them have no explanations. Others have formulas attached, if I've learned a mathematical model to represent them. Sometimes mathematical models come along that change the way I was looking at the problem. This is really cool, because then I've still got the same physical reality, but a completely different way of explaining it.

Most of the time these concepts are completely indescribable with words (I've done a poor job here) although I enjoy learning more equations ect because I can learn how to talk about these concepts with other people. Even writing down my models for myself causes them to lose a lot of their meaning. For example, today I was studying and came up with a new way to explain things to myself about what I was learning. I tried to capture it with a few words, but it was futile. It'll have to stay in my head as a concept.

EDIT: I just want to add one more thing. Model creation and updating is very fluid and instantaneous for me. It's like living in a stream of images, where every interaction or experience creates some new models in my head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
I think an example of my thinking would better illustrate how my approach to concepts works than actually trying to describe it. I'm an Ni-Te thinker.

Valdyr said:
Let's take personal identity as an example. Normally, we have a bunch of things that frequently occur together in people we regard as the same person. Psychological continuity, possession of memories, an accumulated social history, a given human body, a given genetic code, etc. These all feed into our "same person" node, and in the vast majority of situations, this is fine. If we want to know if a person is guilty in a court of law, for example. Sure, we may sometimes be missing a given observable here or there; for example, two people have the same name. But we have enough of the others that the approximation is more than good enough for our purposes.

But our intuition is inadequate in borderline cases. There is a famous thought experiment called the teletransporter. Suppose there was a machine that could record all the physical states of all the particles in your body, and can also construct objects out of raw elementary particles to the same degree of precision. It would save this information, and then annihilate every particle in your body. Immediately following this, it would reconstruct "your" body in exactly the same state as it was when you were annihilated, and let this body continue on its merry way. Would you have survived or not? Or return to my brain transplant example from an earlier post. If we could transplant a brain, with all its memories and psychological continuity, into a different body, would the resulting being be the body donor or brain donor?

I don't think there is a "hard" answer, only "for all relevant purposes" answers. Would you have survived the teletransporter? I think that in every relevant way, yes. What about the brain transplant? Depends on why we want to know if it's the same person. If the new being needs gene therapy for its liver, it "is" the old person, but if we're wondering about, say, its personality, it "is" the brain donor. There is, in my view, no further fact that makes them essentially the same person; "I" am an approximation.
In short, my models are always approximations, and I keep in mind the fact that most of them have no ontological import. If a model works for relevant purposes, that's good enough for me, because ultimately I think everything reduces to the physical. We can make the map correspond very precisely to the territory, but the map still isn't the territory.
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Most of the time these concepts are completely indescribable with words (I've done a poor job here) although I enjoy learning more equations ect because I can learn how to talk about these concepts with other people. Even writing down my models for myself causes them to lose a lot of their meaning. For example, today I was studying and came up with a new way to explain things to myself about what I was learning. I tried to capture it with a few words, but it was futile. It'll have to stay in my head as a concept.
Thanks for the response! Just the kind of thing I was looking for. I agree, that most of the time they are indescribable by words, as words themselves are an approximation of our approximations =P A lot of information is lost along the way, but it's sometimes very worth the try. I actually want to draw out my own "current working model", just to have it on paper. I've tried this before with mini models, and it usually ends up as unclear flowcharts that are probably illegible to other people.

In short, my models are always approximations, and I keep in mind the fact that most of them have no ontological import. If a model works for relevant purposes, that's good enough for me, because ultimately I think everything reduces to the physical. We can make the map correspond very precisely to the territory, but the map still isn't the territory.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" ~ George E.P. Box
I agree. Thanks for sharing! I also really enjoy thought experiments like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
I do the reverse from what you described. I build a system off of models. It seems strange for me to build systems and... try to fit models into them? To me, that sounds like you will always get some form of "square peg, round hole" with that. I take models and make a system that perfectly fits them.

Is this the Ni vs. Si difference? Because if I finally figured it out... :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
I do the reverse from what you described. I build a system off of models. It seems strange for me to build systems and... try to fit models into them? To me, that sounds like you will always get some form of "square peg, round hole" with that. I take models and make a system that perfectly fits them.

Is this the Ni vs. Si difference? Because if I finally figured it out... :crazy:
Yes, yes I think this is the Ni - Si difference. You really helped me clarify this idea as well.

So, lets see if I've got it right. Si starts with a bunch of models and shapes the world to meet them. I suppose that is where Ne comes in? In seeing possibilities in how those models can be used to build systems?

How did you get your models?
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I was actually going to mention something like this in my OP, but wanted to see what people would come up with first. I've read about this in two separate places now and I'm fairly confident of its validity. I'll try to explain it in my own words here:

There are two major ways of Perceiving the world: Se-Ni (or Ni-Se) and Si-Ne (or Ne-Si).

From here:
Ni-Se results in One external reality as the axiom, and many possible personal interpretations of every situation. Ni-Se types are experiencer-interpreters.

Ne-Si results in Many external possibilities, and one personal interpretation of every situation. Si-Ne-types are hypothesiser-axiomatics.
My conclusion:

Se-Ni: Sees the external world how it is (static) and the internal world how it could be (dynamic).
Si-Ne: Sees the external world how it could be (dynamic) and the internal world how it is (static).

Of course, the Judging functions have their own two spectrums and compliment these.

So, perhaps relating to your square peg/round hole analogy:

Se-Ni: The square peg won't fit? Change the hole to be square.
Si-Ne: The square peg won't fit? Change the peg to be round.

Excellent discussion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
So, lets see if I've got it right. Si starts with a bunch of models and shapes the world to meet them. I suppose that is where Ne comes in? In seeing possibilities in how those models can be used to build systems?

How did you get your models?
For the first part, yes! That is exactly how I imagine my Ne working.

I suppose my five senses would take in the raw information. Then my si would look at it, see how it correlates to my other models, and then make a model off of what the important parts are (what is important, of course, being determined by judging functions). Then ne comes in and makes the systems.

So, this might explain pure S vs N

S: Makes Models
N: Makes Systems

Then, adding Pi vs Pe (this is how pi-pe would work, not sure about pe-pi though...):

Si: Refers back to previous models, makes new model (Singular)
Ni: Refers back to previous systems, makes new system (Singular)
Se: Creates new models from Ni results
Ne: Creates new systems from Si results

So, perhaps relating to your square peg/round hole analogy:

Se-Ni: The square peg won't fit? Change the hole to be square.
Si-Ne: The square peg won't fit? Change the peg to be round.
Ah, but for Si-Ne, the hole was never round. It sees a square peg, and fashions a square hole for it. Or, for Ne-Si, many holes that could work with a square peg (Like, say, a rectangular hole).
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Ah, but for Si-Ne, the hole was never round. It sees a square peg, and fashions a square hole for it. Or, for Ne-Si, many holes that could work with a square peg (Like, say, a rectangular hole).
Hmm, I guess I mean for those times where the external (peg) and internal (hole) conflict, because it does happen. I'm now trying to devise a scheme that goes with the judging functions too.

Oh, to add to my response to above post, I think perceiving in and of itself doesn't make any models/systems. It's the judging functions that judge incoming information to make a complete model/system. *Ponders over this*.
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Alright, let me attempt this with pegs and holes!

1. You see a square peg.
Se: "This is a peg. It is square". / Ni: "This is a peg. Why is it square?"
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"Yes, it fits fine. I will use it".
or
Si: "This is a peg. Pegs are square". / Ne: "This is a peg. Can pegs be other shapes?"
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"Yes, it fits fine. I will use it".

2. You see a round peg.
Se: "This is a peg. It is round". / Ni: "This is a peg. Why is it round? How does it relate to square pegs?"
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"No, it doesn't fit! I'll have to change the hole if I want to use it. Or discard it".
or
Si: "This is a peg. It's not square like the other peg". / Ne: "This is a peg. There are probably other shapes too".
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"No, it doesn't fit! I'll have to change the peg if I want to use it. Or discard it".

Hmm...this is quite difficult. Actually, ignore all this. It doesn't fit XD. Well, it was fun anyway.

Edit: I'd like to add that step 1 should be repeated multiple times before step 2. Of course, anyone can change their views, I just think that Si users tend to require more hard evidence before they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,790 Posts
I guess this just confirms what has already been said:
I approach models from a very practical standpoint (Ti-Se-Ni). I have a lot of "passive understanding" of conceptual models (Ni, I guess), but I find I often have a hard time coming up with them or adding to them myself (which would probably be a Ne-based task). Related to this, I have no problem at all creating models to explain concepts I've experienced first-hand, which is pretty obvious if you think in terms of Se-Ni.

An interesting (if geeky) side note, is that the Unix concept of small tools which each do one thing well, and can be "stacked on" (or technically "piped to") each other, appeals very much to my sense of how things should work and how I perceive the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
I wanted to check on that Se-Ni vs Ne-Si thing.

So Si starts with models and uses them to shape the world. Whereas Se-Ni accepts physical reality as being true, and then comes up with explanations (in the form of models) for why the world is the way it is.

I can see Si-Ne going from models (Si) to systems (Ne). I'm not too sure how Se-Ni is comparable although I'm wondering if it isn't that Se is the system (I often assume the big world out there is one huge, complicated system) and then Ni models it, in an attempt to explain it and understand it.


Actually, this makes a lot of sense. Pi is modeling, Pe is a system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
I wanted to check on that Se-Ni vs Ne-Si thing.

So Si starts with models and uses them to shape the world. Whereas Se-Ni accepts physical reality as being true, and then comes up with explanations (in the form of models) for why the world is the way it is.

I can see Si-Ne going from models (Si) to systems (Ne). I'm not too sure how Se-Ni is comparable although I'm wondering if it isn't that Se is the system (I often assume the big world out there is one huge, complicated system) and then Ni models it, in an attempt to explain it and understand it.


Actually, this makes a lot of sense. Pi is modeling, Pe is a system.
Ha, and I saw the modeling vs systems as S vs N, because that is how it worked in me. That is why threads like this are good.

Also, I have a new theory:

The dominant percieving function starts with raw information as its base
Dominant Pi: Raw information -> model(s)
Dominant Pe: Raw Information -> systems(s)

The secondary percieving function starts with the dominant perceiving function's results as its base
Secondary Pi: System(s) -> Models(s)
Secondary Pe: Models(s) -> System(s)

This theory would explain why our understanding of our secondary perceiving function is so often colored by our dominant. On the other hand, how would S and N factor into this theory?
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
You guys are awesome!

When I made this thread, I had included that I thought Ne-Ti was models and Ni-Te was systems, and then went on with a hypothesis that J's use systems and P's use models. I erased it though, because
a) I don't have a clear understanding of their difference (so I asked to see what would be said!)
b) I don't think it's a fair hypothesis because I used myself (INTJ) and my friend (INTP), which is not a lot of data.

I saw models as describing something in a holistic but static manner of precision, and systems as something that sees it on a time scale of "what has been" and "what could be". I think it gets muddled where judging functions come in though. For example, an ENTP's Ne would focus on all the possibilities, but eventually creates a Ti map of the most logical ones.

An interesting (if geeky) side note, is that the Unix concept of small tools which each do one thing well, and can be "stacked on" (or technically "piped to") each other, appeals very much to my sense of how things should work and how I perceive the world.
Thanks for the response! The Unix analogy actually helps a lot. Putting pieces together sounds very Pe-Ti. For me, I like to start off with a big picture first, then find out the details slowly. It might explain why even though I've used Ubuntu for years, I never bothered to tinker with it (unless something goes wrong), because that would involve learning all the theory first.


Thanks guys. Keep it up! My responses aren't fully formed, I apologize. I'm really just procrastinating studying for my finals, but I'm done tomorrow!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,790 Posts
I wanted to check on that Se-Ni vs Ne-Si thing.

So Si starts with models and uses them to shape the world. Whereas Se-Ni accepts physical reality as being true, and then comes up with explanations (in the form of models) for why the world is the way it is.
Exactly. Compared to a well-functioning xNTP, I basically suck at coming up with original ideas, but I'm very good at finding (or learning) the tools needed to solve a specific task.
To continue on the Ubuntu example @Spades gave, I instead enjoy tinkering with complex systems, since I just learn the tasks needed to accomplish what I want to do right now - and suddenly, in a week or five, I've got a deeper-than-average understanding of something that originally looked really complex to me.

I can see Si-Ne going from models (Si) to systems (Ne). I'm not too sure how Se-Ni is comparable although I'm wondering if it isn't that Se is the system (I often assume the big world out there is one huge, complicated system) and then Ni models it, in an attempt to explain it and understand it.
I like what you guys are doing here. Let's see how this fits:
I didn't learn mathematics properly until the school curriculum started having the physics and the maths courses follow each other, so that we got the tools for solving our physics problems in maths class. Suddenly everything began making perfect sense.
Discuss.
 

·
MOTM February 2014
Joined
·
4,775 Posts
Most of the time these concepts are completely indescribable with words (I've done a poor job here) although I enjoy learning more equations ect because I can learn how to talk about these concepts with other people. Even writing down my models for myself causes them to lose a lot of their meaning. For example, today I was studying and came up with a new way to explain things to myself about what I was learning. I tried to capture it with a few words, but it was futile. It'll have to stay in my head as a concept.
This is largely how I would describe Ni, except I don't have handy formulaic or visual expressions. The best way I can visually describe Ni is that it's a series of "webs" or "tables" that are all connected by a giant "source," always rearranging to provide a deduction.
"IF-THEN" statements could even be correlated, but tbh I'm unsure of how much that's Te and/or E6.

I might be wrong, but the main difference of Ni vs Ti seems to be that:
- Ni allows for possibly-false information. "It might be untrue, it might not; it's useful either way."
- Ti needs things to be true from their standpoint.

Ti is rather flexible unless they've already decided that it's true/false. Ni, being a perspective function, is flexible unless the new information conflicts with the other judging functions. I think that in Ni-doms, unless they're acting on auto-pilot (tertiary defense, maybe?), there's a sort of "lag" as new information is processed, entered, and judged (if applicable).

A lot of times, I don't see a need to "judge." Ti, being a judging function, probably does.

(Also sorry to not be in line with the other posts, I had nothing else to add to the awesomeness theorizing :p)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
@Paradigm
To continue your Ti/Ni comparison I want to suggest that Ni is willing to accept things without complete understanding, whereas Ti needs to have every detail understood and accounted for before accepting it as true. My ISTP friend often gets hung-up (from my perspective) on making sure that every detail is understood. I don't get hung-up on things like that as much, because I am willing to say "It seems to be true but I'm not sure why" and then, after thinking about it, come up with some hypothesis or explanation of why it is that way, which may or may not be correct :p. (I'm not trying to be negative towards ISTPs, I think we complement each other actually because otherwise I wouldn't think about some things enough.)

@zynthaxx
Math was taught to me with applications all through my school career. I loved the Thinking and Problem Solving questions the best, because I could start with an idea or visualization and apply the math I had learned to solve it. Math did become more interesting when I started learning higher-level physics because it was so fascinating to see formulas that encompassed the ideas that I was thinking about.

I'm going to pull some definitions here, just to help clarify discussion.

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.
A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language
EDIT: Both from wikipedia, that source of all knowledge XD.

So it makes sense that Pi is modeling (condensing reality down to some easily-storable ideas) and Pe is systems (exploring all the parts or components).

I'm not sure how the judging components come into play, but they will have something to do with determining the structure of (and what is allowed into) the systems and or models, coming to conclusions from the systems or models, and deciding which conclusions need to be applied to self and which conclusions to apply to others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Alright, let me attempt this with pegs and holes!

1. You see a square peg.
Se: "This is a peg. It is square". / Ni: "This is a peg. Why is it square?"
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"Yes, it fits fine. I will use it".
or
Si: "This is a peg. Pegs are square". / Ne: "This is a peg. Can pegs be other shapes?"
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"Yes, it fits fine. I will use it".

2. You see a round peg.
Se: "This is a peg. It is round". / Ni: "This is a peg. Why is it round? How does it relate to square pegs?"
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"No, it doesn't fit! I'll have to change the hole if I want to use it. Or discard it".
or
Si: "This is a peg. It's not square like the other peg". / Ne: "This is a peg. There are probably other shapes too".
Ji: "Does this peg fit my value/logic holes?" / Je: "How can I use this peg?"
"No, it doesn't fit! I'll have to change the peg if I want to use it. Or discard it".

Hmm...this is quite difficult. Actually, ignore all this. It doesn't fit XD. Well, it was fun anyway.

Edit: I'd like to add that step 1 should be repeated multiple times before step 2. Of course, anyone can change their views, I just think that Si users tend to require more hard evidence before they do.
I really like this example. Let me tweak it a bit though. I think a dialogue makes it more interesting. Plus, I'd tweak the Si/Ne examples a bit.

This is transcribed from too many conversations with Se/Ni people.

Se - Hey guys, I just found a round peg!
Ni - Weird. I just knew Se was going to run into a round peg today. I don't know how I knew though.
Si - I don't believe you. Let me see!
Ne - Yeah, you never know. There are all kinds of pegs out there. Are you sure it wasn't oblong?
Se - Why won't you guys just take my word for it? I saw a round peg!
Si - Screw this. I'm just going to go outside and look for myself.
Ni - I wonder why Si always questions everything Se says. He must have it out for Se.
Ne - You can't really know other peoples' motivations. More than likely, he just likes to verify things.
Se - Really? Can you share a concrete example of a time when Si has verified anything?
Ne - Why won't you trust me? I gave you the most likely explanation.
Si - Wow guys! It looks like Se was right! The peg really was round!
Ni - I knew he would say that!
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Se - Hey guys, I just found a round peg!
Ni - Weird. I just knew Se was going to run into a round peg today. I don't know how I knew though.
Si - I don't believe you. Let me see!
Ne - Yeah, you never know. There are all kinds of pegs out there. Are you sure it wasn't oblong?
Se - Why won't you guys just take my word for it? I saw a round peg!
Si - Screw this. I'm just going to go outside and look for myself.
Ni - I wonder why Si always questions everything Se says. He must have it out for Se.
Ne - You can't really know other peoples' motivations. More than likely, he just likes to verify things.
Se - Really? Can you share a concrete example of a time when Si has verified anything?
Ne - Why won't you trust me? I gave you the most likely explanation.
Si - Wow guys! It looks like Se was right! The peg really was round!
Ni - I knew he would say that!
This made me chuckle! Now I want to start a thread of silly function conversations! It would be a breeding ground for typism though >_<
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top