# What do your thoughts look like?



## Rayos (Mar 28, 2012)

When I'm doing things, I don't tend to "think," were think means that if you read my mind, you'd be able to hear words. The only time I do that kind of thinking is when I'm explaining a concept to myself or planning out how to do something. That kind of thinking usually gets displayed as white font (pretty sure it's times new roman) against the black backdrop of my mind.

Unless I've become so good at doing something that it's just habit (like picking up things or walking) I don't think. When I'm talking to a person, no thoughts are going on in my head, it's more like now I'm just thinking aloud now instead of in my head. If someone asks me something that I have to ruminate on, I also don't think. There's just no time. For me, it's as if an order for a certain product was sent into my mind and now I'm waiting for it to return. I put on a face to make it look like I'm thinking to the other person and then eventually the order "arrives" (or it doesn't, in that case that I know nothing about what we're talking about) and I get back to talking.

My memories tend to be very fuzzy and they're usually in third person but the can be in first person. People tend to extremely fuzzy and it's less like there in my memory and more like there's this conceptual representation of the person in their place. But at the same time, I can have very vivid memories that have a quality more akin to a movie than to those fuzzy images I described before. Though, those high quality memories are almost always about things that I have a lot of experience with so I guess that's no surprise. Surprisingly, though, faces are still rendered poorly in my memory and I have to really try to remember the face of person before it begins to settle, which is funny because faces are one of the main thongs I use to recognize people, along with voice and body type.


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

My mind would be a total mess. A shitload of different thoughts, ideas, details, etc. I'm quick to forget because of how disorganized it is.


----------



## TheRudeMustache (Mar 17, 2014)

no pictures i can grasp just flashes of moments, feelings. I remember bad things so much easier which sucks. sometimes there is nothing going on but feelings swirling no matter how hard i try to conjure up something. I remember textures of surfaces well...walls skin food anything. I also remember art well and can almost picture it.


----------



## SoulRefugee (Jan 27, 2014)

It's more like a storage room you find in those crime shows, if I need to recall a memory or think about something, my mind pulls out a file and all the information gathered for that concept is put on display. It's actually kind of cool, cause my head turns into something close to a computer. As I experience more things, it adds to the file, so I become more proficient in that field. Sometimes I'll have a concept such as say trying to type someone I know, well I'd first go to the mbti file to check up on the functions, then to experiences with that person, then to mix both files together to come up with my own answer.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

Like a schizophrenic drawing (not a VanGogh)


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Maybe it is that NTs recognize that thinking about things and imaging them are two distinct things and that the former isn't absolutely necessary, although useful but rather the latter is what matters in the end. Thinking for instance about a Rubik's cube seems to be an example where the line seems very blurred, as thinking about it immediately result in imaging one, but the concept of a Rubik's cube can be imagined in an infinite number of ways, from different angles, at different distances, and at various positions in relation to you, having different size, different colour combinations, be in different states, be 3x3x3 or 4x4x4 etc.. All these images are not stored in your brain; they would not fit there. Instead they are generated from some kind of mental algorithm that draws images in your imagination. It's not necessary to think to imagine those images either, to think about Rubik's cubes, just analyzing what a Rubik's cube needs to have to be one, can in principle be done without imaging them. Similar to doing algebra, it's just symbol manipulation without the need to visualize anything. Mathematical concepts can often easily be visualized but some only in very indirect ways. The level of indirection makes it more or less necessary to think in pure abstractions. With other concepts such as determinism and free will, you cannot really visualize anything; no images can be generated corresponding to these and you don't have any other option but through symbol manipulation. At this level purely abstract thought is absolutely necessary and many people, even NTs err in this realm, as most people are accustomed to thinking with imagination as a crutch.


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

Euclid said:


> Maybe it is that NTs recognize that thinking about things and imaging them are two distinct things and that the former isn't absolutely necessary, although useful but rather the latter is what matters in the end. Thinking for instance about a Rubik's cube seems to be an example where the line seems very blurred, as thinking about it immediately result in imaging one, but the concept of a Rubik's cube can be imagined in an infinite number of ways, from different angles, at different distances, and at various positions in relation to you, having different size, different colour combinations, be in different states, be 3x3x3 or 4x4x4 etc.. All these images are not stored in your brain; they would not fit there. Instead they are generated from some kind of mental algorithm that draws images in your imagination. It's not necessary to think to imagine those images either, to think about Rubik's cubes, just analyzing what a Rubik's cube needs to have to be one, can in principle be done without imaging them. Similar to doing algebra, it's just symbol manipulation without the need to visualize anything. Mathematical concepts can often easily be visualized but some only in very indirect ways. The level of indirection makes it more or less necessary to think in pure abstractions. With other concepts such as determinism and free will, you cannot really visualize anything; no images can be generated corresponding to these and you don't have any other option but through symbol manipulation. At this level purely abstract thought is absolutely necessary and many people, even NTs err in this realm, as most people are accustomed to thinking with imagination as a crutch.


See, when I use the Rubik's cube, it's not that I'm thinking about literally solving a Rubik's cube, per se. It's symbolic of the idea of twisting my thoughts around to figure something out. I actually call them "thought cubes" and they are stored in a paradoxical place I've built that consists of a finite room with four walls and within it is an infinite shelf where I keep my thought cubes. And rather than being made of colored squares, the sides of the cubes contain pictures of the conflicting thoughts that I'm having that I'm twisting around to make a final picture. And they're not always cubes, sometimes they are round (I know, I know, just roll with it, haha!)

I find that I won't fully grasp the entirety of something until I can put it into an image. This is why when I was in school, I was naturally inclined to geometry since it's spatial and visual, but I was shite with algebra. I couldn't ever find a way to put algebra into an image. This is probably one reason why people who don't use imagery in the way I do are going to be a lot better at algebra than I am :wink:

Things like determinism and free will, for me, would be represented as a "metaphysical me", though it is representative of my will even though it looks like me. I would see determinism as the universe, the universe being a conscious entity with thought and intention. I know that probably doesn't make much sense. The universe seems to be my go-to imagery when I'm at a loss for anything better. I normally scroll through all my mental images trying to find the best fit, and when all else fails, it's the universe. And much of my images appear 3D-like with the universe as a backdrop such as seeing geometric shapes and spatial thinking, I usually see the shapes in the context of them floating amongst the stars and cosmos. Don't know why that is..... 

The Ne-Ni illustration in my signature is an example of how I put my thoughts into a final image. I actually made this illustration myself using Adobe Illustrator in an effort to bring my thoughts into the concrete realm by illustrating it as best I could with the technology available roud:


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

> What do your thoughts look like?


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

AlliG said:


> See, when I use the Rubik's cube, it's not that I'm thinking about literally solving a Rubik's cube, per se. It's symbolic of the idea of twisting my thoughts around to figure something out. I actually call them "thought cubes" and they are stored in a paradoxical place I've built that consists of a finite room with four walls and within it is an infinite shelf where I keep my thought cubes. And rather than being made of colored squares, the sides of the cubes contain pictures of the conflicting thoughts that I'm having that I'm twisting around to make a final picture. And they're not always cubes, sometimes they are round (I know, I know, just roll with it, haha!)
> 
> I find that I won't fully grasp the entirety of something until I can put it into an image. This is why when I was in school, I was naturally inclined to geometry since it's spatial and visual, but I was shite with algebra. I couldn't ever find a way to put algebra into an image. This is probably one reason why people who don't use imagery in the way I do are going to be a lot better at algebra than I am :wink:
> 
> ...


I was merely thinking of a plain old Rubik's cube there so, doing nothing fancy with it you seem to have done, and I have no idea what you are doing ;D
Interesting subject nonetheless. I was watching a Chomsky video someone linked me to the other day and was being dismissive of his idea of studying consciousness through introspection as some kind of science, and here I am saying this now lol. The way I typically solve math problems, unless it's simple is first visualizing it into some graph, and then convert it all into algebra, do the equation crunching and if I'm unsure about the result, I compare the result with the graph, but the graph is often vital for me to find all the relationships I need to solve the problem. But you have something I don't have, because I frankly don't know how you are doing that. I've heard of that expression before that some people think in pictures while others think in words, but I've never really given it much thought before.

And yes, free will is the metaphysical you, precisely. I'm a phenomenal determinist, but that's another story (it only applies to the physical world), but epistemologically it's metaphysics, but not ontologically unlike free will, so that's how those tie together without conflicting. Still no pictures here for me. 

I like your Ne-Ni diagram. It's kind of how I thought them too. Though I think Ne is like a popcorn machine with popcorns flying in every direction exploring the theoretical or practical limits in a domain, and Ni as a spider spinning a spiderweb of theory or ideas.


----------



## cremedelacrop (Jan 18, 2014)

*Nothing to see here...*

Nothing to see here...


----------



## suzypike (Mar 30, 2014)

It's usually what I saw and felt overshadowed with how I felt (my inner reaction) to it. 
So pictures + feelings.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

I basically see in GIFs. I'll quote myself from another thread that asked a similar question.



Kavik said:


> When I retreat fully into my mind it's like locking myself in a sandbox. The external world disappears and I see all of the ideas I have from a fixed view the way you would see one of Hugo's movies. He filmed from the perspective of an audience watching a stage, though I see no frame and can change my distance relative to the subjects, and on that stage I can seamlessly move objects using my mind. I can see facial expressions morphing, water dripping, giant beasts rearing, mist swirling, a boat rocking in the ocean, indomitable mountains, falling rubble with people trapped underneath, and cars careening off bridges and smashing into lakes or exploding.
> 
> I typically don't see the whole picture all at once. I prefer to zoom in on significant parts that can range from the size of a grain of sand to half a person's body, usually from the chest up. Though, I can expand up to a scenic view of a sunset back dropping a fishing port with moving parts that I can glance around at. A black void always exist where visuals are absent. It penetrates the surroundings, putting my object of interest into sharp relief.
> 
> ...


----------



## jim87 (Apr 17, 2014)

What a great question...one I really have to "think" about to answer....

First of all lets distinguish thoughts from memories....

Memories can consist of anything sensed or perceived.....actually...I guess you can even remember your own thoughts and thinking.

Thoughts are something that are willed?....something you are doing?...something active....

The first thing I thought to say as an answer was...my thoughts are always in the form of words....that's how I communicate with myself...but then I thought....how can that be correct...there is more to my thoughts....there must be.....

I would have to say though that mostly my thoughts consist of self-talk....what I am thinking about...in words usually...and memories....what I am recalling.....

Maybe intuition has to step in here...because if we put it all together as far as thoughts go....our thoughts are made up of what we have sensed and intuited....thus perceived, as MBTI goes....and then our T and F is how we act on our words or what we think with...

Just kind of brainstorming here.......this is really a great question.....to describe what your thoughts consist of....thanks.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

This is interesting. I don't know, haha. I would say my memories are very sensory. I have trouble remembering faces, but I remember the way things smelled. I remember certain details very specifically, like the way the birdseed felt at my late grandmother's house, and the smell of it. But I can't remember the layout of the house and any visual memories I have of it are from photographs. I remember the sensation of being held, and I remember voices. I'm bilingual so sometimes both my memories will switch languages. I have a very sharp memory for many long-term things, but my short-term is not so great--I'd rather focus on what's going on right now than what happened yesterday. Hmm...I guess when it comes to my thoughts, I think with a voice, not pictures. I often have to "think out loud" to reach what I am trying to figure out.


----------

