# Why do NJ's see life as a game of chees?



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Hmm, I do, too, relate life a lot to chess, but not in a manipulative way.

More in a, "Okay, what is going to happen next, and how should I counter it?" 

NJ, especially XNFJ, know what kind of response they will get based on what they, themselves, say. So in a sense, it might seem like manipulation because we know what words mean and what they induce in people. 

If I'm having a good conversation with someone, and I say, "You're like my best friend," I know I'm about to learn what they think, because people naturally reply back with the same to confirm, or they try to cleverly get out of that conversation topic. 

The main exception here is NJ playing the chess game with another NJ... then it's like a battle of the passive gods. xD


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

I came here expecting halloumi. I am severe disappoint.


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

Because we'd be tying our arms behind our back if we didn't. It's really just a way of organizing perception through an attitude of 'anticipation', it isn't intrinsically manipulative or anything.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

It is exactly that. People are already trying to move you around on the board. We didn't start the game. We were just born on the board. I break the rules whenever I can.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

A game of chess? I think life is a bit more complicated than a contrived game of strategy. Although it does sound like it would be fun to be the chessmaster but who could possibly be so arrogant as to think they could control people as a piece and expect them to behave perfectly and rationally and exactly as they were expecting? Certainly not I.

Perhaps people who have no conception of what strategy is would believe such a thing.


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

Short answer? Yes. Longer answer? Fuck yes. At least when it comes to me life/relationships are the best boardgame there is :'D


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

MNiS said:


> A game of chess? I think life is a bit more complicated than a contrived game of strategy. Although it does sound like it would be fun to be the chessmaster but who could possibly be so arrogant as to think they could control people as a piece and expect them to behave perfectly and rationally and exactly as they were expecting? Certainly not I.
> 
> Perhaps people who have no conception of what strategy is would believe such a thing.


You make it sound like you are the only player. That's not how I see it at all. The idea is that everyone's playing, and some people are better at it than others. I find it exhilarating when I meet a player who's better than me, bring on the challenge!


----------



## Vayne (Nov 6, 2014)

Because that's how at least i perceive life. People are bound by need. We can move pawns or chess pieces by binding them with favour or law. Life is a game. With humans as his pieces. There's a lot of way to manipulate and move pawns as we wish. It's just how we play it in order to build our own success.
We are the pawn and the player.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Straystuff said:


> You make it sound like you are the only player. That's not how I see it at all. The idea is that everyone's playing, and some people are better at it than others. I find it exhilarating when I meet a player who's better than me, bring on the challenge!


You make a good point. I just have a problem with viewing life as a game. A game is inconsequential. Whether you win or lose doesn't really matter as your life will pretty much be the same after it's over. I try not to trivialize the decisions I make and I do my best to understand that every action has a consequence and that every consequence has a real effect. Sure, most things a person decides throughout the day are mostly inconsequential but I think that to lessen the importance of one's actions on their environment and others is treading on dangerous territory. Although I suppose the best player is one who knows when to treat life as a game of chess and when not to if that makes any sense.


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

MNiS said:


> You make a good point. I just have a problem with viewing life as a game. A game is inconsequential. Whether you win or lose doesn't really matter as your life will pretty much be the same after it's over. I try not to trivialize the decisions I make and I do my best to understand that every action has a consequence and that every consequence has a real effect. Sure, most things a person decides throughout the day are mostly inconsequential but I think that to lessen the importance of one's actions on their environment and others is treading on dangerous territory. Although I suppose the best player is one who knows when to treat life as a game of chess and when not to if that makes any sense.


That's actually really interesting! You seem to think about this in a more concrete way than I do (which makes sense, you are a sensor after all). I think that life is pretty much the same as a game you know? When we're dead in a large scale it doesn't really matter what we did, at least when it comes to most people. The idea is that every person creates the meaning for themselves in small scale and fights for it. And the fighting part, whether it's about finding a perfect partner or becoming the president, is the game. You need a goal. You need a stategy. You need to be sharp and smart to achieve your goal. I guess this is pretty damn symbolic way of thinking about it but it makes perfect sense to me. So yeah, I hope you like Ni :'D


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

I have studied poker a little bit before, that really changed my mindset on the world. That you have to play the card in your hand to the best of your ability and knowledge.

Some people get born into having the strongest hand in life, but they keep failing, because they don't know how to play their hand in the most intelligent way.

Other people get born into this world in poverty, and around people crying with a victim mentality. But somehow they have this urge to learn and grow as a human being. So a person who has been going from poor to rich, could probably do it over and over again. If you took a rich guy (who had created his own wealth) and you stole all his money, I am pretty sure he is able to turn his bad hand into the most profitable again, because he simply know how to play the game of capitalism for example.

For every choice there will always be a consequence. If you want to be a winner, a good idea could be to do all the moves which has positive expected value, and then keep minimizing your mistakes, while all your actions has a positive expected outcome.

For example if I play sports. Then instead of trying to show off, and make tricks. I might be a much more consistent winner in the long run, if I don't really take big chances. Big risk, big reward is usually a mentality for losers. People playing lotteries. The more intelligent people would try to control as much as they could, and know by being consistent they would beat the more inconsistent people in the long run. Maybe a guy is getting lucky and earn millions in 1 week winning the lottery. But you can be sure it is a much more secure approach to riches if you don't play lottery, and invest the money in positive expected value actions instead, and you stay consistent. That seems to be a formula in life which works every time.

The art is then just, it is easy to understand that you should be consistent, and not take big chances. At least for my brain the theory is not the most difficult at all. That makes perfect sense. The difficult for my personality is the discipline to be consistent. That I have to do the same stuff, day in day out, without wavering a tiny bit. It requires a backbone and discipline that I haven't developed yet. You have to bite the lemon, even though you feel like throwing up sometimes. When your mind/impulses/emotions try to seduce you to relax, you have to be strong enough to ignore them, and keep going. Like a state of meditation.

Going from A to B without getting distracted. That is my Achilles-heel in life.

I would like to share a story that inspired me to these thoughts by Osho:

"This comes again and again in everybody’s life: whatsoever you are doing you get tired of, you get fed up, you get bored with it. It is very easy to be interested in a new thing – it needs great guts to remain interested in an old thing. That’s what makes a person a genius. Otherwise everybody will become a genius. The only difference between a genius and an ordinary person is that the genius has the guts to stick at something even when he is feeling bored, fed up.
These are plateaus that come. Mm? you work with great joy because something is new – there is a great exploration, new territory and you are enchanted… it is like a romance, a honeymoon. But by and by you become acquainted with the territory; you have looked into all the corners of it and there seems to be nothing new. Now you know all about it so the sensation is no more there, the thrill is no more there.
Now, it is at this point that if you can stick at it and make efforts to find something new in it, you will break through one plane, and on another plane the exploration starts again. If you simply listen to this boredom and you drop out, then those seven years will have gone down the drain.
That’s how many people lose their life energy: they don’t stick at things. It really needs courage to remain with the old, because when the plateau comes and everything seems to be just a repetition, doing the same thing again and again and again, one feels to change – change the wife, change the husband, change the job, change the friend, change the town, go somewhere else, do something new. But with the new again after seven years the same will happen!
You can change ten times in your life and after each seven years the same will happen, so the whole life will be a wastage. If you go on digging on the same spot for seventy years you will reach to some depth – and it can be reached from anywhere.
Now photography is such a creative thing and it is going to be more and more creative in the future because more sophisticated instruments will be available – they are available. You can do a thousand and one things with photography now; just a few years ago they were just impossible to do. One has to be creative, inventive… one has to look for new ways, new visions, new dreams. And sometimes this is natural, this is part of nature: one feels stuck.
Those who drop out are the rolling stones: they don’t gather any moss. And it has nothing to do with the work itself – it is just the tendency of the mind. Photography or painting or music, or dancing – anything – will come to the same point, and once you have made a pattern it will be repeated. This is really a sheer wastage of energies.

Go on working in it. If you are feeling stuck, that simply means that you have to explore new ways, new directions, new dimensions in it; and they are always there! Life is so mysterious that it is never finished. A man can go on working with a small thing and can devote his whole life to it and still there will be much to be explored after he has died.
This is the whole art of being a genius. The genius is just a little more stubborn than ordinary people, that’s all. He does not listen to the mind – he goes on hammering: he digs a hole. A sufi master – Jalaluddin Rumi – once took his disciples to a field. There were eight holes in the field and no hole had any water; the whole field was wasted. The disciples asked, ’Master, why have you brought us here?’
He said, ’To teach you something. This farmer wants to dig a well. He digs eight feet, ten feet, then he gets fed up with it and he thinks that this place is not right; he is bored so he starts digging at some other place. He has done this work the whole year round – he has destroyed the whole field and not a single hole has become a well. Now if he had dug at the same spot that well would have been one hundred feet deep.’ Jalaluddin said to his disciples, ’Remember this – the same applies to the inner world too.’
Just gather yourself together and don’t try to find excuses – simply start working with your total energy. From tomorrow morning start without thinking about it! Just go ahead, and within a few days it will be broken… and when it is broken, you will feel so thrilled. Whenever any plateau is broken, life takes on such a beauty and the work becomes such a joy. Then it is a second honeymoon and on a deeper level. And I am saying this to you to be remembered as a golden rule – it is so in every way, in every direction of life.
If you love a man, one day you will feel finished; that is the right moment to go on loving, to gather your energies and to explore the man again. If you can break that plateau you will see a new man arising before you… fresher than ever, younger than ever, more beautiful than ever. In fact you had never known such beauty and such depth. You have broken one more screen – the man is more available to you… again one day you will feel stuck! And remember: those who lose heart and escape, are great losers. Be a little more stubborn, stick to it. For three months do all that you can do with effort and then you tell me, mm?"


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Straystuff said:


> That's actually really interesting! You seem to think about this in a more concrete way than I do (which makes sense, you are a sensor after all). I think that life is pretty much the same as a game you know? When we're dead in a large scale it doesn't really matter what we did, at least when it comes to most people. The idea is that every person creates the meaning for themselves in small scale and fights for it. And the fighting part, whether it's about finding a perfect partner or becoming the president, is the game. You need a goal. You need a stategy. You need to be sharp and smart to achieve your goal. I guess this is pretty damn symbolic way of thinking about it but it makes perfect sense to me. So yeah, I hope you like Ni :'D


Well, I can't really disagree with anything you wrote. However, I guess what you see as the game is what I simply see as a goal. Something I must accomplish because I've deemed that it's worth spending time and effort on.

I guess my main objection to seeing life as a game is that may cause you to become callous and uncaring as a result of viewing your actions as being within an arena of little to no consequence. I think that becomes especially relevant when you're working with people. Like lets say you've recruited a few people and are sending them on their way to do your bidding. However, you made a miscalculation and may have sent a few on something that is destined for failure. In a game, the general sentiment would be, "who cares it's just a game, I won't make the same mistake again." However, being considerate of the consequences the sentiment could very well be more along the lines of, "Damn, I hope I didn't screw them over because of a mistake I made."

That's the way I see it anyways. Like I was saying earlier, trying to be mindful of the consequences, especially because the battles so to speak are all a result of numerous factors leading up to it and are often decided before it even begins.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Actually it isn't chess, it is a fight. People try to dress it up as chess, but it is a fight. Other pieces are trying to remove you from the board, or use you in their strategy. Let them try. Nobody invades my space. I touch no one, and no one touches me. They tell me the game has set rules, but I know everybody is playing by their own. Like Lee said, the world expands, and I contract. It contracts, I expand. The world moves me, and then I return to form. 

*A good martial artist does not become tense, but ready. Not thinking, yet not dreaming. Ready for whatever may come. When the opponent expands, I contract; and when he contracts, I expand. And when there is an opportunity, "I" do not hit, "it" hits all by itself.

**Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely — lay your life before him.

**“The great mistake is to anticipate the outcome of the engagement; you ought not to be thinking of whether it ends in victory or defeat. Let nature take its course, and your tools will strike at the right moment.”*


You lay your life in front of the world every day. We are all dead anyway. Living itself is victory. We wake up dead every day and reclaim our lives. 

"As of this moment, we are all dead. We go into battle to reclaim our lives. This we do gladly, for we are Jem'Hadar. Remember: victory is life."


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I know it's been done, but I can't resist.

We _all _know that life's a big game of cheese. In fact, I'm fairly sure that the meaning of life is cheese.

I apologize to all who are lactose intolerant, I don't mean to offend. But, you know it's true. It's why you take lactase. GET THAT CHEESE. Or ice cream. I think they might duel to the death at one point, and if they don't, I'll probably make some kind of hilarious illustration. 

Anyway...

Although chess can teach us a lot about how to understand life, I'm not so sure it's about the rules of chess as much as it is the way in which we move in chess, and considering obstacles, mobility, and the entire board. I really see the beauty in chess-- The heart of it. Josh Waitzkin for the win.

I think the rules can represent the restrictions we might have in life, though.

But, you could think of _any _game as a metaphor for life. Try me.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

I always find the cheesiest way around the board.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Cheese


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is exactly that. People are already trying to move you around on the board. We didn't start the game. We were just born on the board. I break the rules whenever I can.


Its imposible to break the rules.  As its impossible to fly. There are some fundamental rules that can not be broken.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

The more fancy moves someone does in the game, the funnier it gets ;D


----------



## MrsAcidTea (Oct 27, 2014)

I like riddles and experiments. Maybe because of this. Also I try acting in different ways and just want to know how people react. 
Also I ask many, many, many questions. Also many level ups. It's interesting how you came to the point that NJ's all see the world as a game~


----------



## I_destroyedtheuniverse (Jul 24, 2014)

Because life is tangy like cheddar.


----------



## Friday (Jun 1, 2012)

Life is a game. Some people are bad at playing the game. Others cheat at the game. Some refuse to play the game. Others blame the game.

It's not manipulation if you play into peoples habits. I just call that setting them up. You're not changing what they do. You're just putting them into a situation where they do what they do best. 

I wouldnt call life "chess" because it's not just you against the world. I would call life a game of poker played on a very large table.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Kintsugi said:


> cheese?


like the title says-chees
I always thought it was chess but alas I was wrong
it's been chees all along
don't mous eat chees?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Friday said:


> I wouldnt call life "chess" because it's not just you against the world. I would call life a game of poker played on a very large table.


I like that analogy even better.

Yes, I'd say poker is a really good way of putting it. Especially since poker involves feints and tells and wagers. Chess is a game with symmetrical information, but poker is asymmetrical, which is a better reflection of how life actually is, since we don't ever really know all the variables.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

You know I get it and neither agree nor disagree. But I would say, as poster previously mentioned, poker would be a better metaphor for it to an extent. 

As an overall sort of deal I do wonder how accurate it is. 
Doesn't every piece in chess have the same motive? Pieces work as a whole but as essentially individual programed structures, all striving towards the same goal. Do people really function like that? Will a chess piece spontaneously fall of the board and commit suicide?

We are all playing a game. But with very different motives and mindsets. So can you essentially set it to only one?

So I wonder.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

O_o said:


> You know I get it and neither agree nor disagree. But I would say, as poster previously mentioned, poker would be a better metaphor for it to an extent.
> 
> As an overall sort of deal I do wonder how accurate it is.
> Doesn't every piece in chess have the same motive? Pieces work as a whole but as essentially individual programed structures, all striving towards the same goal. Do people really function like that? Will a chess piece spontaneously fall of the board and commit suicide?
> ...


Hmm... I think of chess as more complex than that. Every piece in a game of chess has a role to play on the board, and they do not all have the same objectives/motives. Sometimes, a piece must be sacrificed in order to gain mobility, and an edge. Perhaps the _overall _objective is a checkmate. Perhaps.

But, there are countless chess problems that people have spent hours, maybe even years, thinking about and considering what the _best _move is in each of those 'situations'. Perhaps there are still some problems unsolved. _That's _what I enjoy about chess. Solving those problems. Not so much the end.

And aren't our lives made up of situations, moments, and the choices we make, much like what the pieces in chess do? 

And if you don't plan ahead just a bit, you make a wrong move-- You get set back.

I think that if we consider life to be a chess game, each piece represents a situation.

If chess represents life, then wouldn't the _entire game_ represent life, rather than just the one chess piece?

I think one can learn a lot about life through chess, because there are a lot of similar problems we face in the real world, if you think about it metaphorically.

I've spent quite some time considering chess problems, and enjoying chess... I even play it on my phone during moments of idleness. roud:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Friday said:


> Life is a game. Some people are bad at playing the game. Others cheat at the game. Some refuse to play the game. Others blame the game.
> 
> It's not manipulation if you play into peoples habits. I just call that setting them up. You're not changing what they do. You're just putting them into a situation where they do what they do best.
> 
> I wouldnt call life "chess" because it's not just you against the world. I would call life a game of poker played on a very large table.


This is where you are wrong. That is Si thinking. This world was not created by us. The system already existed. The rules and board could be different. I want them to be. That is "eternal yesterday" thinking. Everybody is trying to move us around. It is a machine. It was on, and running, before I showed up. I didn't plug it in.



*When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity.* The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow — you are not understanding yourself.


*Do not deny the classical approach, simply as a reaction, or you will have created another pattern and trapped yourself there.*


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

It's the opposite way round.
Life is not a 'game' the 'game' is based off life.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm... I think of chess as more complex than that. Every piece in a game of chess has a role to play on the board, and they do not all have the same objectives/motives. Sometimes, a piece must be sacrificed in order to gain mobility, and an edge. Perhaps the _overall _objective is a checkmate. Perhaps.
> 
> But, there are countless chess problems that people have spent hours, maybe even years, thinking about and considering what the _best _move is in each of those 'situations'. Perhaps there are still some problems unsolved. _That's _what I enjoy about chess. Solving those problems. Not so much the end.
> 
> ...


My entire point automatically hold fault since I've never played chess (or poker for that matter. so it's arguable that for a large part I don't really even know what I'm talking about). 

But you make a good point, about each piece having particular settings different from others. I was viewing it from the overall 'they're working as a function for the main unit to win', the main unit would be the one controlling all of their moves. So a part of that stuck a little odd because : who is the main unit? And what is this main unit "winning"/recieving? How is this represented in the real world? Through a possible "god" like being? Because in the end they do work all as functioning units on a specific team, regardless of where each moves, who gets sacrificed etc. Is there a goal to chess other than this main unit winning the other?

In chess everything is for the purpose of the whole. If each person is represented through an individual piece. Who is the whole?

But I get it. We are the whole, each piece is a different part of us.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm... I think of chess as more complex than that. Every piece in a game of chess has a role to play on the board, and they do not all have the same objectives/motives. Sometimes, a piece must be sacrificed in order to gain mobility, and an edge. Perhaps the _overall _objective is a checkmate. Perhaps.
> 
> But, there are countless chess problems that people have spent hours, maybe even years, thinking about and considering what the _best _move is in each of those 'situations'. Perhaps there are still some problems unsolved. _That's _what I enjoy about chess. Solving those problems. Not so much the end.
> 
> ...



This highlights a good point. People spend hours trying to move one little piece of wood, the strategy over that. How much do we try to understand other pieces in real life? We don't even know what they are. They are all the same. It is a great analogy. Everybody actually is a pawn, but some pieces insist they are bigger and can do more. What can that piece actually do in the real world? What can a pawn do over a Queen outside the rules of chess? I can make another game where I cut off her head, to make her smaller, and look like the pawn.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

O_o said:


> My entire point automatically hold fault since I've never played chess (or poker for that matter. so it's arguable that for a large part I don't really even know what I'm talking about).
> 
> But you make a good point, about each piece having particular settings different from others. I was viewing it from the overall 'they're working as a function for the main unit to win', the main unit would be the one controlling all of their moves. So a part of that stuck a little odd because : who is the main unit? And what is this main unit "winning"/recieving? How is this represented in the real world? Through a possible "god" like being? Because in the end they do work all as functioning units on a specific team, regardless of where each moves, who gets sacrificed etc. Is there a goal to chess other than this main unit winning the other?
> 
> ...


That's what I mean-- Each piece is _not _each person. 

Each piece represents one of life's many problems/choices/situations. roud: 

And _you_ are in control of each of those problems/choices/situations-- Just like in real life.

Will you go out for dinner, or stay in and eat? From the mundane, to the complexities of life-- One could easily see a parallel in a chess game.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> That's what I mean-- Each piece is _not _each person.
> 
> Each piece represents one of life's many problems/choices/situations. roud:
> 
> ...



Nope, I definitely get it now. 

Now the only part which wouldn't fit would be the end, nay?

In chess the win is objective. You either win or you lose. In life it isn't.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This highlights a good point. People spend hours trying to move one little piece of wood, the strategy over that. How much do we try to understand other pieces in real life? We don't even know what they are. They are all the same. It is a great analogy. Everybody actually is a pawn, but some pieces insist they are bigger and can do more. What can that piece actually do in the real world? What can a pawn do over a Queen outside the rules of chess? I can make another game where I cut off her head, to make her smaller, and look like the pawn.


Well, what I meant was that we are all playing our own game of chess, and these pieces represent different times/choices/places in our lives.

I think that's what I was trying to say, anyway. :kitteh:

But, you strike on some interesting ideas. We do all start out the same, don't we?
@O_o Oh, my friend... The end is the sad part. We _all _get checkmated eventually, don't you see? Well, unless you're planning to gain immortality, like me. Then the chess problems continue without an end, yay!


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, what I meant was that we are all playing our own game of chess, and these pieces represent different times/choices/places in our lives.
> 
> I think that's what I was trying to say, anyway. :kitteh:
> 
> ...


Alright. 
each game : one "large step in life/issues" however you want to view it. 
each piece : one aspect of that/how one chooses to react/play out/do etc
life : multiple games. Too many to generally tally up whether "win or lose"

And about other people. Are they side by side with us playing but not interacting with us, feeding off of @FearAndTrembling 's point below me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, what I meant was that we are all playing our own game of chess, and these pieces represent different times/choices/places in our lives.
> 
> I think that's what I was trying to say, anyway. :kitteh:
> 
> ...


Yeah, we are all playing our own game. That is why the world is so messed up. Could chess work if every piece just randomly did what they wanted? Could a sports team? A business? A city?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> Nope, I definitely get it now.
> 
> Now the only part which wouldn't fit would be the end, nay?
> 
> In chess the win is objective. You either win or you lose. In life it isn't.


The game could go on forever, if the pieces just left each other alone and cooperated. We decide when it ends. God and the devil are playing it with us obviously. lol. It is a very long game.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Why is it always chess? Is there really something unique about chess that makes it more like life than any other game? Would the world implode if there ever were an NJ who is not familiar with chess?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> Alright.
> each game : one "large step in life/issues" however you want to view it.
> each piece : one aspect of that/how one chooses to react/play out/do etc
> life : multiple games. Too many to generally tally up whether "win or lose"
> ...


It all comes back to Charlie Sheen again. He just says he is winning. Because the entire fucking board says he is losing, but he knows there is no objective standard for that. He goes against the control of the game. It isn't his game. In his game, he always wins. lol. He does too. Love this guy.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The game could go on forever, if the pieces just left each other alone and cooperated. We decide when it ends. God and the devil are playing it with us obviously. lol. It is a very long game.


Here is where my genuine confusion actually comes in. 
There don't seem to be enough variables present to represent real life. 
So there are multiple ways to see it, right?

1: 
each piece as a living separate individual, playing out on the same board
all controlled through a general thing (not an individual)
problem : what exactly is the controller? Who is it towards?

2: each piece as a representative of an aspect of a problem/decision etc
the board a representative of a large stepping stone in life, etc
the controller being the individual (essentially controlling their life through these pieces)
problem : what about other individuals? Where are they set into all of this? Our lives interact

3: similar to two only involving 1 game, rather than the multiple which would have to occur for #2
each piece representative of a large stepping stone in life. 
controller being the individual
Again. Same problem, difference is only 1 game. 

There don't seem to be enough variables present to represent all. At least I don't see it yet.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

O_o said:


> And about other people. Are they side by side with us playing but not interacting with us?


Hmm, I think that you could think of it like... We switch boards and control different pieces. And other people who come into our lives and are a part of our decisions, suddenly take control of the opponent's pieces. roud:

It's like an infinite room full of chessboards, and people are continually running to different boards to make different choices with other people.

And then, when we make a choice by ourselves, _we _control the opponent's pieces as well as our own.

I guess it makes it complicated, but life isn't easy. :laughing:



@ElectricSparkle: As I've said-- You could use _any_ game as a metaphor, if you really wanted to. I think Weiqi might be a rather exciting example as well. :kitteh:


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

INFJs and ENFJs are super nice and generally don't care if you return the favor.
As for us XNTJs... Well...


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

O_o said:


> See for me it's like I want it to all slow the fuck down, the ideas. Just fucking WAIT, stop constantly slamming into me you pieces of shit, I'm trying to figure these few things out right now and finally thought I had it down for 5 seconds and began piecing in these details and things were sort of starting to actually fit until you had to invade my head and now I'm not certain again.


Sigh... This brings back memories of the time I spent in detail-jail. *Shudder*

The food they served... It was just too much for my taste buds. roud:

Anyway! I think that the problem is that if the idea doesn't fit, you gotta find more ideas, until you find the right one! But, of course, there's never going to be a perfect idea, so you'll keep searching. Getting attached to some, but then losing interest when another one comes along. Filling in the details always comes at the end, for me. 

I start with a theory/idea framework, then I fill in the details. And I will configure it and modify it until it all works together nicely. I very rarely scrap the framework once I've finally chosen it, though.

I'm glad I don't approach people this way, or I'd be in a lot of trouble. :kitteh:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I like to hope, naively, of course, that the future will bring life extension, and immortality, within my lifetime, somehow... Because, there is never _enough _time, to learn, understand, and do... It would take up many, many lifetimes.
> @__: Yeah, same.. It needs to have _perfect symmetry, _dammit! And there should be an 8 in it. Because 8 is...


No. No No. That futurism stuff is just another false God. I am just gonna whip out Lee and CS Lewis, because they nailed it:

*The Now is truth. - This evening I see something totally new, and that newness is experienced by the mind; but tomorrow that experience becomes mechanical, because I want to repeat the sensation, the pleasure of it - the description is never real. What is real is seeing the truth instantaneously, because truth has no future.*


*The Now is all-inclusive. - NOTHING EXISTS EXCEPT THE HERE AND NOW.*

*Flow in the living moment. - We are always in a process of becoming and NOTHING is fixed. Have no rigid system in you, and you'll be flexible to change with the ever changing. OPEN yourself and flow, my friend. Flow in the TOTAL OPENESS OF THE LIVING MOMENT. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Moving, be like water. Still, be like a mirror. Respond like an echo.*


*The Now is total awareness. - The "space" created between "what is" and "what should be." Total awareness of the now and not the disciplined stillness.*

*Being in the Now. - Listen. Can you hear the wind? And can you hear the birds singing? You have to HEAR IT. Empty your mind. You know how water fills a cup? It BECOMES that cup. You have to think about nothing. You have to BECOME nothing.*


*The Moment is freedom. - I couldn't live by a rigid schedule. I try to live freely from moment to moment, letting things happen and adjusting to them.*


*The Now is creative. - If you are in the NOW, you are creative.*


*The Now is inventive. - If you are in the NOW, you are inventive.*


*There is no anxiety in the Now. - When you are in the NOW, you can't be anxious, because the excitement flows immediately into ongoing spontaneous activity.*

*To live now you must die to yesterday. - To understand and live now, there must be dying to everything of yesterday. Die continually to every newly gained experience-be in a state of choiceless awareness of WHAT IS

*Joseph Campbell:

*Eternity isn't some later time. Eternity isn't a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now which thinking and time cuts out. This is it. And if you don't get it here, you won't get it anywhere. And the experience of eternity right here and now is the function of life.
*


and Lewis:

I also like this passage from The Screwtape Letters. Here, "The Enemy" is God, that is how the demon refers to God in the book. Again, this is from the Demon's point of view, educating another how to best bring more souls into "Our father's house", or hell:

*The humans live in time but our Enemy destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself, and to that point of time which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which our Enemy has of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered them.

Our business is to get them away from the eternal, and from the Present. With this in view, we sometimes tempt a human (say a widow or a scholar) to live in the Past. But this is of limited value, for they have some real knowledge of the past and it has a determinate nature and, to that extent, resembles eternity.

It is far better to make them live in the Future. Biological necessity makes all their passions point in that direction already, so that thought about the Future inflames hope and fear. Also, it is unknown to them, so that in making them think about it we make them think of unrealities. In a word, the Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time--for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.*


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> No. No No. That futurism stuff is just another false God. I am just gonna whip out Lee and CS Lewis, because they nailed it:
> 
> *The Now is truth. - This evening I see something totally new, and that newness is experienced by the mind; but tomorrow that experience becomes mechanical, because I want to repeat the sensation, the pleasure of it - the description is never real. What is real is seeing the truth instantaneously, because truth has no future.*
> 
> ...


Interesting philosophies! I like.

I don't really live in the future, though.. I _do _live in the present. 

It's just that when the now of the future comes, and that now just happens to provide an opportunity for immortality, I'd take it...

For now, I do what I always do-- Reach out to learning experiences, growth, skills, and my creative aspirations. roud:


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Sigh... This brings back memories of the time I spent in detail-jail. *Shudder*
> 
> The food they served... It was just too much for my taste buds. roud:
> 
> ...


LOL! Yeah I'm glad I don't really approach people that way too, I don't think. 

I genuinely don't mind details... honestly, they help make me confident, they help piece together. The idea is the puzzle, the thoughts are the pieces and the order I piece them together are the details. My goal is to finish the puzzle and form the conclusion, not to cut it off midway and start a whole other puzzle from another idea. The ideas are the ones which usually do the breaking apart (not always. They can often do the backup up.). And as someone who genuinely wants it all to fit perfectly (all of the details, all of the variables, everything to sort of form a uniform image) I can't necessarily just... jump all the time really and abandon. I have to process and first reason why abandonment is necessary before abandoning, be certain as to why it doesn't fit, I think. Whenever I write in "I thinks or maybes" it's generally because I haven't fully processed. That's why I'm such an obsessive little shit and its a slow process.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

childofprodigy said:


> Right but I move/command all the other pieces, the other pieces are to sacrifice themselves/dedicate their life/existence for me, and if I die, the game is over...


...well, the game is over for you. But the rest of us pieces go off and have ourselves a cheese party.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> LOL! Yeah I'm glad I don't really approach people that way too, I don't think.
> 
> I genuinely don't mind details... honestly, they help make me confident, they help piece together. The idea is the puzzle, the thoughts are the pieces and the order I piece them together are the details. My goal is to finish the puzzle and form the conclusion, not to cut it off midway and start a whole other puzzle from another idea. The ideas are the ones which usually do the breaking apart (not always. They can often do the backup up.). And as someone who genuinely wants it all to fit perfectly (all of the details, all of the variables, everything to sort of form a uniform image) I can't necessarily just... jump all the time really and abandon. I have to process and first reason why abandonment is necessary before abandoning, be certain as to why it doesn't fit, I think. Whenever I write in "I thinks or maybes" it's generally because I haven't fully processed. That's why I'm such an obsessive little shit and its a slow process.


I must understand every sentence in a book. I must do that. I cannot go beyond it, if I don't. Say I am reading through a Biology textbook. I am a computer; every single part and picture, must be recorded accurately. Because if I don't' understand one sentence or concept, I may get the paragraph wrong. If I get the paragraph wrong, I got the page wrong, and the chapter, and the book. So missing a single sentence is like not even reading the thing. It is all in there for a reason. I won't go beyond it, until I find that reason, and how it fits in the larger narrative. It must fit my internal narrative. I remember it that way. I said that facts are like buoys in rivers. They don't actually tell you much. But that is all most people remember. You have to remember the river. If I don't understand the river, I never go to the next buoy. I want to know the river. Buoys can move around, and easily be replaced. You can do anything with the river.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

YamahaMotors said:


> I know for sure that INFJ's are some of the least strategic people on earth. I'm not sure about ENFJ's but they're probably not very strategic either. Most people with a weak Te are poor strategists. Te is the main reason why I'm strategic. I decide what my goals are and I then want to ruthlessly do whatever it takes to get to that goal. I want find out what will work and do only what works. Ni helps me gain a deep understanding of all the elements of a situation and Te helps me create a step by step plan to get to the end goal. The past few days I decided to go back to the fundamentals and really study business strategy to make my business efforts more successful. With a first rate strategy & a good plan, you're much more likely to be highly successful. I was doing pretty good before, but then something changed and profits suddenly went down drastically, and I was forced to rethink everything and really think hard to figure out how to send my profits back up again.


*takes a tissue in hand, fogs YamahaMotors' Te, and then polishes it* There. Now you'll be able to see out of it clearly.

Trust me, INFJ's, ENFJ's, INTJ's and ENTJ's all kick butt when it comes to being strategic. They just do it in very different ways. We know you think your way is the best (superior), so I hate to break that delusional bubble, but....haha. You don't have the monopoly.

And no NJ's, not everyone looks at life as a game of chess. Take it from an INFP who rarely has a game plan.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is exactly that. People are already trying to move you around on the board. We didn't start the game. We were just born on the board. I break the rules whenever I can.


Yay! *slides her knight diagonally across the board, impaling a bishop* What, you never heard of that rule? Hmm, that's how I learned it.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> As its impossible to fly.


I'm not convinced of this yet.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I must understand every sentence in a book. I must do that. I cannot go beyond it, if I don't. Say I am reading through a Biology textbook. I am a computer; every single part and picture, must be recorded accurately. Because if I don't' understand one sentence or concept, I may get the paragraph wrong. If I get the paragraph wrong, I got the page wrong, and the chapter, and the book. So missing a single sentence is like not even reading the thing. It is all in there for a reason. I won't go beyond it, until I find that reason, and how it fits in the larger narrative. It must fit my internal narrative. I remember it that way. I said that facts are like buoys in rivers. They don't actually tell you much. But that is all most people remember. You have to remember the river. If I don't understand the river, I never go to the next buoy. I want to know the river. Buoys can move around, and easily be replaced. You can do anything with the river.


Take it for you to word this so well, I'm genuinely envious of those skills and I'm sure a lot of people are.
(and I will get back to your message as soon as my biology test is over tomorrow at 12)


----------



## Sharpnel (Aug 3, 2014)

We see the world as a wheel of cheese, indeed.

I couldn't help it.


----------



## rainrunner (Jul 15, 2014)

Most NJs I know like cheese so it's only fair that NJs see life as a game of cheese. Because whoever consumes the most cheese obviously wins at life.

But I think you have the question backwards - why do people who see life as a game tend to be NJs? <- That would be more logically correct for the type of answer I assume that you are looking for. </logic police> Anyway, to answer your question: Ni = big picture thinking, seeing connections. J in the J/P dichotomy means that the person is probably more organized and success-driven. So it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that "people who see life as a game" is correlated with scoring as NJ on a MBTI test.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

I'm pretty sure most do not think life is a game of chess.

I'm pretty sure that's only from TV super villians.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Laeona said:


> I'm not convinced of this yet.


Haha, Iv yet to fly successfully. One can use tools and exploiting what we know about the world to make planes and such. But we can not, naked without additional stuffs or genetic manipulation fly as the species of human. Unless you change the gravitational force on earth or make the air density thick as water.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

Because of this beautiful function we share: Ni

NTJ's are better at the whole chess board thing though. I don't want to hurt peoples feelings.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Haha, Iv yet to fly successfully. One can use tools and exploiting what we know about the world to make planes and such. But we can not, naked without additional stuffs or genetic manipulation fly as the species of human. Unless you change the gravitational force on earth or make the air density thick as water.


I fly all the time.  

Are you going all INTJ on me, Captain?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Cause chess has a decisive outcome of win/lose/draw which they project onto life in the form of symbolic maneuvering (as opposed to living in the moment) to compensate for weak Se?


----------



## Quercetin (Dec 5, 2012)

MNiS said:


> who could possibly be so arrogant as to think they could control people as a piece and expect them to behave perfectly and rationally and exactly as they were expecting?


A case for serfdom and slavery was being made, though I'm not sure if they knew that's where they were headed with social Darwinism. 

Relative to chess, brute calculating force is far more powerful then our 'intuition'. This was settled back in 1997. 

Physics is a better ally in understanding life then chess ever was in my experience. 

Every head is a world in itself. Some are cheese heads.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

Am I supposed to answer this with the supposition that all xNxJ types consent to the analogy that life is a game of chess? I personally do not believe this to be true.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Because of the impact that any of your decisions has on your life.

Because there are recurring patterns in both.

Because of Ni.

Because one of the favourite words that people usually say when they want to say something random is "cheese" (which is irony, seeing how it's supposed to be a random word).


----------

