# 4midable 4D



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

I did it. I made the worst (*best?*) pun in all of fucking existence.

So for those of you who weren't quick to the uptake, this is about dimensionality. 

There's a general consensus that someone with a function of higher dimensionality is more competent and effective in that area. For example, an Se dom is typically understood to be better at applying force than an Se DS type. An Fe PoLR type is typically expected to be woefully incompetent at understanding and manipulating emotions and atmospheres.

The problem is that this often does not hold as a rule. There are plenty of Fe PoLR types who are better at social navigation than even Fe doms can be. There are many Ti PoLR types who create more logically sound arguments than actual Ti doms. And it isn't restricted to PoLR. Several people weak in Fi understand personal relationships better than Fi types. Several Ni superego types care strongly about/are readily on time and can have beautifully evocative, symbolic thinking. There are plenty of other combinations and examples. 

Competence is an extremely environment- and personality-dependent thing. Your individual personality may have accorded you some strengths and weaknesses that run very contrary to your Sociotype. Moreover, you could have extensive training or experience in some area of supposedly "weak" perception/judgment that places you far above actual "strong" users of that area. 

So the question is: *is dimensionality really directly related to competence in an area? *


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

The IEs are supposed to be categories of information we perceive. However, those categories of information rarely exist in a "pure" form in the real world. You won't encounter "pure Fe" or "pure Ti" or "pure Se" anywhere. Even activities that heavily emphasize one type of information will contain other types of info.

For example, math. Math is (for good reason) heavily associated with Ti. However, the ability to solve complicated mathematical problems also involves the ability to notice nuance in the problem (mostly perception-related) and can be augmented through raw practice and learning the methods necessary (which more closely resembles the way Te types reason) instead of the underlying logic. General intelligence also plays a huge factor. You WILL encounter people with weak (including 1d) Ti who are considerably better at math than people with 4d Ti -- there have been ESE scientists.

Social interaction is another example. Strong Fe is generally associated with strong social skills, but social interaction is much more than being able to "feel" the emotions of others. A person with no skill at Fe can still, through experience, learn what is expected in social situations. A person who is good at observation can become good at reading facial expressions and estimating people's reactions. A person who is naturally confident will often bend a social situation in their own way, and others will try to comply with them, which will give the illusion of social competence as the conversation will naturally turn _their_ way.

Dimensionality is an important part of competence, but there are mitigating factors. First, people tend to compensate for their weak IEs with stronger ones. Socionics after all is the attempt to create a logical structure to explain personal interactions, founded by someone with Fi PoLR, just one obvious example of people compensating for their PoLR with their strong IEs. Second, other concerns, such as culture, Enneagram type and other personality characteristics, life experience and motivations can cause people to overemphasize certain parts of their psyche, giving an illusory image of their competence (particularly common with inert subtypes overemphasizing their HA function). And finally, it's important to remember that the first dimension of every IE is experience, and level of experience can vary wildly depending on how much a person tries to use that IE -- a person who tries very hard to be good at their Ti and carefully observes others (particularly their dual) using their PoLR can develop increased competence with it through imitation and practice.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I guess, a Te-dom that is too anal about his or her leading Te function will miss the point and get stuck on all the Te stuff. 

Everyone got a 4D judging function and a 4D perceiving function. Noone is blind.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Dimensionality is an important part of competence, but there are mitigating factors. First, people tend to compensate for their weak IEs with stronger ones. Socionics after all is the attempt to create a logical structure to explain personal interactions, founded by someone with Fi PoLR, just one obvious example of people compensating for their PoLR with their strong IEs. Second, other concerns, such as culture, Enneagram type and other personality characteristics, life experience and motivations can cause people to overemphasize certain parts of their psyche, giving an illusory image of their competence (particularly common with inert subtypes overemphasizing their HA function). And finally, it's important to remember that the first dimension of every IE is experience, and level of experience can vary wildly depending on how much a person tries to use that IE -- a person who tries very hard to be good at their Ti and carefully observes others (particularly their dual) using their PoLR can develop increased competence with it through imitation and practice.



Why would acquired competence be illusory and somehow less real than natural competence? Do you mean that out of two people of different Sociotypes exposed to the same cultural/environmental elements and with the same personality and interests, the one with the higher dimensionality function will surpass the person with lower dimensionality, in terms of competence? That's definitely possible.

My issue with dimensionality is that it tries to create a direct relation to competence, and so you see a lot of people who say "I can't be this type. I'm way too good/bad at X thing that this function does." 

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say dimensionality dictates innate aptitude (across various vectors) and preference, but not necessarily competence itself. Aptitude and preference often lead to competence, because it's kind of like repeatedly exercising a specific area you're fond of, but there could be various other preferences and influences both inside and outside the individual's personality that could lead to them developing other areas of their type far more, and not necessarily unwillingly. 

I also think that experience is one of the biggest teachers in EVERYONE'S life. So wouldn't it be entirely possible to make up for all the other vectors simply by virtue of accumulating tons of experience? (Of course, acquiring tons of experience in something you're not naturally fond of requires a disproportionate amount of interest in that area, which brings into question whether you're actually the type you claim to be or not.)


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Not sure there is a connection between dimensionally and competence. And I never thought it was... Who said this? Morso correlation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> My issue with dimensionality is that it tries to create a direct relation to competence, and so you see a lot of people who say "I can't be this type. I'm way too good/bad at X thing that this function does."


I think this correlation is a simplification of what dimensionality is though, because again, everyone has some kind of experience with something. We are all exposed to all IEs and we can gain great proficiency applying that IE in something simply via practice.

What really reveals the dimensionality of an IE is when you are not placed in a situation you are comfortable and you know, but a situation you do _not_ know, but requires you to properly apply that IE and to disseminate information via that IE, especially if this situation has absolutely no correlation or similarity to something you know from before. Reasonably, then the person who is 4D will pick up information and adapt to this information faster than someone who is 1D, assuming everything else is equal.

However, since the real world doesn't operate on such ideal circumstances, dimensionality is more a guideline and should be applied as a general rule of thumb than something which is a hard rule to go by.



Captain Mclain said:


> Not sure there is a connection between dimensionally and competence. And I never thought it was... Who said this? Morso correlation.


Correlation is a form of connection, lol.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Correlation is a form of connection, lol.


I guess I should have written direct connection.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> What really reveals the dimensionality of an IE is when you are not placed in a situation you are comfortable and you know, but a situation you do _not_ know, but requires you to properly apply that IE and to disseminate information via that IE, especially if this situation has absolutely no correlation or similarity to something you know from before. Reasonably, then the person who is 4D will pick up information and adapt to this information faster than someone who is 1D, assuming everything else is equal.
> 
> However, since the real world doesn't operate on such ideal circumstances, dimensionality is more a guideline and should be applied as a general rule of thumb than something which is a hard rule to go by.


But that's just too limiting, isn't it? That's the same scenario I asked Zam earlier and while it's a reasonable assumption I still feel it places too many limits on what you are and are not capable of. Plenty of times I've picked up and understood Ti information faster than Ti types, for example. Plenty of times I've brainstormed more than Ne types.

In the event one gathers enough experience (as a dimension) in a certain function, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to assume their powers of abstract intelligence will be capable of generalizing that information into principles that they can apply contextually and globally as well? By simply knowing their shit well enough, despite being theoretically weak in that area, they can reproduce the same thing someone dimensionally strong in that will create. To say that they simply cannot would be placing a hard limit on personality and intelligence, which is simply unacceptable, because people grow and learn all the time.

It still leads me to conclude that the only difference is preference -- for example, I will choose to apply Se contextually and globally over any sort of Ti, despite the volume of Ti information I gather -- and that the furthest we can assume dimensionality limits our personality is as an "initial limit" pretty much. Sort of like, I have to travel a longer mile to learn and understand Ti than I need to travel for Te, for example. But my competence in either area is unlimited by dimensionality and only dependent on preference and the effort I employ.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

The more and more I investigate typology, the less and less I see it is applicable in the real world :/


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Btw about Fe PoLR having people skills. Howard Stern strike me as a good example of an ILI that use people skill a lot and also is very interested and well read in physiology even some Freudian stuff. That is not equal to Fe or Fi but he is using his Te and Ti and Ni to understand and communicating with people. See he is using other methods to accomplish that which feeling function usually accomplish naturally. It does not mean he is using feeling, he is using thinking and intuition. But it is very different and he might do some really abusive stuff there for lacking feelings. However he might be in company of people that complement him. He does not use feeling data so he might miss a lot of stuff. He is using thinking data and accomplishing things. Therefor he is a thinker but at the same time spend all his effort doing relations and feeling things what people traditional connect is a feeling thing. But he is not. To be able to see and understand this I think is very useful in itself. 

No. Thinkers is not the superior type that can be everything.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> But that's just too limiting, isn't it? That's the same scenario I asked Zam earlier and while it's a reasonable assumption I still feel it places too many limits on what you are and are not capable of. Plenty of times I've picked up and understood Ti information faster than Ti types, for example. Plenty of times I've brainstormed more than Ne types.


Outcome != innate skill. Another way to put is that a person can be extremely innately talented at football but they have never played football in their life. They will then still be bad at playing football compared to someone who has played it their entire life. 



> In the event one gathers enough experience (as a dimension) in a certain function, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to assume their powers of abstract intelligence will be capable of generalizing that information into principles that they can apply contextually and globally as well? By simply knowing their shit well enough, despite being theoretically weak in that area, they can reproduce the same thing someone dimensionally strong in that will create. To say that they simply cannot would be placing a hard limit on personality and intelligence, which is simply unacceptable, because people grow and learn all the time.


That's the point though; they are not fixed categories. The purpose is to become a more well-rounded individual by being able to eventually disseminate information beyond what you can reproduce on your own but it is also much more difficult to do that on your own. 

Take logical coherence, for example. Every 4D Ti person is not going to be coherent all the time as they slip up just like everyone else; the ability in itself to construct a logically coherent argument is not necessarily Ti but just general intelligence. I mean, god, I've seen so many dumb Ti types on this forum lol, no offense. 

However, what _is_ Ti is how much emphasis you a) place on your ability to be logically coherent in argument over other factors in an argument (Ti types argue for consistency in itself being the end-point and what is the most desirable and they identify with their skill to be coherent) and most of all b) whether you place emphasis on living your life based on a sense of coherence. The logical coherence of a Ti ego specifically, extends beyond their ability to craft logically sound arguments, but is most of all oriented towards placing themselves and their experiences within a framework that is _perceived_ by themselves, to be coherent and where all aspects are symmetrically reflected. I would say this is why Ti types have such a hard-on for certain numerical patterns and seem to enjoy symmetry as a concept a lot for example, because such patterns are utterly consistent with each other e.g. the power of 2. 

Unfortunately for the Ti type, all this may not at all be coherent to an outsider or to someone of greater intelligence than the Ti type themselves. Coherency is what the end-point is, what is sought after, in the case of Ti. For a Ti PoLR for example, coherency is only useful if it serves a greater goal or a point, usually in service of Te e.g. in order to know how to produce a result I need a rule to follow. 



> It still leads me to conclude that the only difference is preference -- for example, I will choose to apply Se contextually and globally over any sort of Ti, despite the volume of Ti information I gather -- and that the furthest we can assume dimensionality limits our personality is as an "initial limit" pretty much. Sort of like, I have to travel a longer mile to learn and understand Ti than I need to travel for Te, for example. But my competence in either area is unlimited by dimensionality and only dependent on preference and the effort I employ.


In this case though, I am not sure the distance is what differs as in it takes more time to travel down the Ti vs Te lane, as much as it is that you are more willing, by and large, to travel down the Te lane and as such you will also naturally choose to disseminate and thus also become more adept and skilled at, Te, than you do Ti. 

I think dimensionality is more like a muscle and you can learn to train it if you choose but since you choose to stretch muscle A, you cannot also simultaneously stretch muscle B, because B is in opposition of how muscle A works.

I also think that dimensionality is just a convoluted way of saying what Jung already wrote about the dominant-inferior interaction where you will be more skilled at the dominant than the inferior, since just like a muscle that you use, it will grow stronger over time because you use it more than the muscle you don't use which will grow weaker.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Outcome != innate skill. Another way to put is that a person can be extremely innately talented at football but they have never played football in their life. They will then still be bad at playing football compared to someone who has played it their entire life.


That's what I said earlier:

_Perhaps it would be more accurate to say dimensionality dictates innate aptitude (across various vectors) and preference, but not necessarily competence itself. Aptitude and preference often lead to competence, because it's kind of like repeatedly exercising a specific area you're fond of, but there could be various other preferences and influences both inside and outside the individual's personality that could lead to them developing other areas of their type far more, and not necessarily unwillingly. 
_
However, I find it so pointless. For example, I've met a lot of idiotic Ti doms. As far as I'm concerned, I'm better at Ti than them. What is the point of even acknowledging some random innate aptitude they have if they simply don't fulfill it, and I can outmatch them in every area? What is the actual, *real* USE of that aptitude if they can't develop it? Applies to anyone of any type. If you haven't developed your aptitude at something, there's effectively no point in saying you're "theoretically" good at that function. Someone with X function as 4D might as well just have an effective dimensionality of 2D if they don't know anything about how to apply that function.

If you've got a shitton of potential for football and choose to play video games all day, there's no point in acknowledging you have that potential. It's effectively useless in the moment.



> That's the point though; they are not fixed categories. The purpose is to become a more well-rounded individual by being able to eventually disseminate information beyond what you can reproduce on your own but it is also much more difficult to do that on your own.
> 
> Take logical coherence, for example. Every 4D Ti person is not going to be coherent all the time as they slip up just like everyone else; the ability in itself to construct a logically coherent argument is not necessarily Ti but just general intelligence. I mean, god, I've seen so many dumb Ti types on this forum lol, no offense.
> 
> ...


All of this is in agreement with what I said earlier: that dimensionality really only dictates a) preference and b) the "starting point" for your function growth. If you're 2D you got less to develop than 1D, obviously. Which is what I meant with my Ti vs Te example. I got less work to do for Te than for Ti.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> However, what _is_ Ti is how much emphasis you a) place on your ability to be logically coherent in argument over other factors in an argument (Ti types argue for consistency in itself being the end-point and what is the most desirable and they identify with their skill to be coherent) and most of all b) whether you place emphasis on living your life based on a sense of coherence.


How would one distinguish someone who is Ti base from someone who simply chooses to focus on it for whatever reason? Is type a choice, which can therefore be changed at will?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> That's what I said earlier:
> 
> _Perhaps it would be more accurate to say dimensionality dictates innate aptitude (across various vectors) and preference, but not necessarily competence itself. Aptitude and preference often lead to competence, because it's kind of like repeatedly exercising a specific area you're fond of, but there could be various other preferences and influences both inside and outside the individual's personality that could lead to them developing other areas of their type far more, and not necessarily unwillingly.
> _
> However, I find it so pointless. For example, I've met a lot of idiotic Ti doms. As far as I'm concerned, I'm better at Ti than them. What is the point of even acknowledging some random innate aptitude they have if they simply don't fulfill it, and I can outmatch them in every area? What is the actual, *real* USE of that aptitude if they can't develop it? Applies to anyone of any type. If you haven't developed your aptitude at something, there's effectively no point in saying you're "theoretically" good at that function. Someone with X function as 4D might as well just have an effective dimensionality of 2D if they don't know anything about how to apply that function.


Hence it's a theory. See, for example, let's assume you are an ILE now over an SEE - do you really think they would reason or arrive at the same conclusion you do, here? Innately I agree that if the end-result does not match the inner experience, then it may not be considered relevant, but that is why it is a system of classification rather than prediction. It does not try to predict a person is XYZ, as much it is interested in understanding why, so to speak, a person is XYZ. That kind of inquiry is Ti in itself, though, and high-dimensional use of Ti would in this case, also, be at some level interested in and to understand that kind of information. If we look at what you are doing here, it's an outright dismissal of Ti content because it does not match, conveniently, a Te (hidden) agenda. 

Hence clubs are based on common temperament rather than valued IEs i.e. NT, SF, NF and ST. Even if Te egos devalue Ti, they are nonetheless interested in systems just as much as Ti types are, but their interest in said systems have different foci. 



> If you've got a shitton of potential for football and choose to play video games all day, there's no point in acknowledging you have that potential. It's effectively useless in the moment.


Sure is, but dimensionality theory is about the potential rather than the actual. 



> All of this is in agreement with what I said earlier: that dimensionality really only dictates a) preference and b) the "starting point" for your function growth. If you're 2D you got less to develop than 1D, obviously. Which is what I meant with my Ti vs Te example. I got less work to do for Te than for Ti.


Ok. 

Well, at some level I think dimensionality theory is overly nitpicking anyway, just like I feel about +- signs. I feel that Jung's original idea i.e. if X is dominant you use it a lot so therefore you will naturally develop proficiency in it over Y which is the inferior because you do not use this, so you will naturally be worse at it due to avoiding its development, is sufficient anyway.



Recede said:


> How would one distinguish someone who is Ti base from someone who simply chooses to focus on it for whatever reason? Is type a choice, which can therefore be changed at will?


Ego preference though yes, I would say in socionics, type is more a freedom of choice in a sense, that can be changed at will, than Jungian type is, for example. I can choose to pay attention to X information over Y information but due to various psychological factors, I may find some more or less painful.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Ego preference though yes, I would say in socionics, type is more a freedom of choice in a sense, that can be changed at will, than Jungian type is, for example. I can choose to pay attention to X information over Y information but due to various psychological factors, I may find some more or less painful.


Is it always preference of focus rather than ability that defines ego functions? For instance, when someone constantly uses a function as their main preference but in ways others see as poor, would that still be considered their base function? What about the notion of someone overusing their HA? How would that be determined? I guess I'm wondering in general how much emphasis should be placed on preference of focus vs ability in typing someone, given that dimensionality doesn't seem to be equivalent to ability. 

Also, do you see preferences as what we actually choose to put emphasis on, or what we would be ideally suited to put emphasis on? For instance, let's say someone places the most emphasis on an element that they don't actually like but feel is expected of them, then later in life begins focusing on a different element. Has the person actually changed type or were they the latter type all along?


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

Isn't the dimensions about _how_ you can use it, rather than by definition how good you are with it. 
Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of functions

So say LSE and Ni. I'm using 1D Ni, using it only by experience. Then say I have a lot of experience with Ni, I was raised by two Ni-leading parents, and are therefore very experienced with Ni. That'd give me a lot of opportunities to use my Ni, even though it's only 1D. 
Also, shouldn't it matter how much you are using the functions? If I've been using Fe a lot all of my life, I'll have experience in it. So I'll know how to use it pretty well, right?

_Wasn't actually raised by two IxI, that was just an example._


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Pinina said:


> Isn't the dimensions about _how_ you can use it, rather than by definition how good you are with it.
> Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of functions
> 
> So say LSE and Ni. I'm using 1D Ni, using it only by experience. Then say I have a lot of experience with Ni, I was raised by two Ni-leading parents, and are therefore very experienced with Ni. That'd give me a lot of opportunities to use my Ni, even though it's only 1D.
> ...


I say it is more like, how close we have it for use. Like a toolbelt. The 4D functions are the hammer and knife, lower dimensions are those things that are small and in pockets and hard to reach.


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> I say it is more like, how close we have it for use. Like a toolbelt. The 4D functions are the hammer and knife, lower dimensions are those things that are small and in pockets and hard to reach.


Okey, so lower functions are harder to reach. But even if they're hard to use, I can still learn to use them well if I use that specific function a lot, right?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Recede said:


> Is it always preference of focus rather than ability that defines ego functions?


I would say yes. For example, in socionics, I have the ability to consciously focus on other IEs than those in my ego but fundamentally, at some level, I'll always revert back to my ego because that's what I am the most comfortable with and feel the most natural at doing. 



> For instance, when someone constantly uses a function as their main preference but in ways others see as poor, would that still be considered their base function?


Imo, no. Also define "constant use". 



> What about the notion of someone overusing their HA? How would that be determined?


Logic and for me specifically, deduction. Take an ILI for example, so we have Ni and Fi then as the two most prominent if the HA is over-emphasized; however, an ILI is vastly different from an ESI or EII in numerous factors such as static vs dynamic etc. From here we can surmise that if the pattern seems to fit Ni and overall the emphasis on cognition is on Ni, then ILI is far more likely than EII or ESI. Of course, the way it happens to me is intrinsically very intuitive and I don't quite think of it that way, but if I were to break down the process, it's something like that. 



> I guess I'm wondering in general how much emphasis should be placed on preference of focus vs ability in typing someone, given that dimensionality doesn't seem to be equivalent to ability.


I don't look so much at ability personally, unless it is obvious that it is extremely poor. What I tend to look at is probably more something akin to naturalness, what seems to be the most natural and how that naturalness is manifested. 



> Also, do you see preferences as what we actually choose to put emphasis on, or what we would be ideally suited to put emphasis on?


Yes. People for example often try to emphasize their super-id as being desirable outcomes in their lives e.g. the conversation that occurred just a few posts above here where I explained to NH why the dimensionality theory is the way it is. Usually this manifests more because it is a form of idealization i.e. I wish it would be this way but it is not. 

The reason why I mention this relationship with the super-id is precisely because you may not necessarily see much conscious focus on this aspect of information in someone else (exception being HA, perhaps), but it illustrates how the super-id IEs are valued but at the same time not something that many show up much in people. 

Similarly, we can look at the id block that may show up a lot in people e.g. the demonstrative, but is at the same time entirely devalued unless it serves a larger purpose fitting the goal of our ego block. 

So in the former there's a lack of presence but yet it's valued but in the latter there's plenty of presence but unvalued. Therefore presence alone is not necessarily a meaningful factor to look at unless one looks at how it _is _present i.e. ego presence is different from id presence. 



> For instance, let's say someone places the most emphasis on an element that they don't actually like but feel is expected of them, then later in life begins focusing on a different element. Has the person actually changed type or were they the latter type all along?


Not changed type since the core egoic preference does not change. In this case, for someone to change type, their functional makeup has to change too, so Te HA suddenly becomes say, Te ignoring or something like that. The idea of model A is more that every TIM has a specific relationship to every IE in accordance to each function in the model A; socionics typing is about figuring that out.


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I would say yes. For example, in socionics, I have the ability to consciously focus on other IEs than those in my ego but fundamentally, at some level, I'll always revert back to my ego because that's what I am the most comfortable with and feel the most natural at doing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i love your insights it makes me fangirl in awe with puppy eyes


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this, necessarily.
> 
> I really got into chess a few years back, and particularly based off of Josh Waitzkin's tutorials on 'Chessmaster grandmaster' on the PC, he approaches it from a completely different angle. He teaches that it's _not _memorizing moves that makes a great chess player-- Although, of course it helps to study the masters (As it is in every skill), and memory _does _, of course, play a role.
> 
> ...


Heh, I always thought about the chess in the same vein. You only learn the rules and then freefloating, dealing with the situation you're in, calculating possibilities, and figuring out which one is better and which move your opponent will respond with.
Memorizing moves is boooring. It takes all the fun away. Plan to get more into chess one day.:kitteh:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

To_august said:


> Heh, I always thought about the chess in the same vein. You only learn the rules and then freefloating, dealing with the situation you're in, calculating possibilities, and figuring out which one is better and which move your opponent will respond with.
> Memorizing moves is boooring. It takes all the fun away. Plan to get more into chess one day.:kitteh:


It's a really great game. Waitzkin was like, "Get into the 'heart' of chess", and once I had a taste of it, I was like-- Wow. This is a beautiful game.

Totally recommend that PC game with Waitzkin in it. Or you could even youtube it. 




Just awesome. Get it! :kitteh:

Also... This youtube video is ironically referencing his arguments against memorization as well, haha.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this, necessarily.
> 
> I really got into chess a few years back, and particularly based off of Josh Waitzkin's tutorials on 'Chessmaster grandmaster' on the PC, he approaches it from a completely different angle. He teaches that it's _not _memorizing moves that makes a great chess player-- Although, of course it helps to study the masters (As it is in every skill), and memory _does _, of course, play a role.
> 
> ...


Understanding myriads of ways to get out of a situation requires memory though, you can't play chess seriously without knowledge of theory, without knowledge of at least one opening. You can learn without studying, but that's going to require lots of practice.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> Understanding myriads of ways to get out of a situation requires memory though, you can't play chess seriously without knowledge of theory, without knowledge of at least one opening. You can learn without studying, but that's going to require lots of practice.


My point wasn't that you shouldn't memorize at all-- As I said, as with all skills (Drawing and painting, music, engineering, architecture-- Everything!), it takes studying the great masters, and learning what they knew, and to some extent-- Memorizing.

My point was that memorizing isn't _the most important element. _It isn't what's at the heart of what makes a great chess player. (Or a great architect, or a great artist, or a great musician-- Etc, etc.)


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> My point wasn't that you shouldn't memorize at all-- As I said, as with all skills (Drawing and painting, music, engineering, architecture-- Everything!), it takes studying the great masters, and learning what they knew, and to some extent-- Memorizing.
> 
> My point was that memorizing isn't _the most important element. _It isn't what's at the heart of what makes a great chess player. (Or a great architect, or a great artist, or a great musician-- Etc, etc.)


The most important element is having spent at least 10 000+ hours into your craft, might it be painting, chess, music, etc... The most important component is dedication. Memory is a by product of those efforts, but it's still a necessary component. In chess, there are those who know the theory and those who don't, those who don't loose to those who do, it's a fact.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> The most important element is having spent at least 10 000+ hours into your craft, might it be painting, chess, music, etc... The most important component is dedication. Memory is a by product of those efforts, but it's still a necessary component. In chess, there are those who know the theory and those who don't, those who don't loose to those who do, it's a fact.


It's a simple equation. 

Interest+Time+Effort = Payoff. :kitteh:


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

General intelligence is a huge mitigating factor. Take George Patton for example, most people think he was SLE, meaning he had 1-dimensional Ni. However, he accurately predicted we would end up fighting the Russians after WWII and argued to the government that and got fired. 1-dimensional Ni of a smart guy > 4-dimensional Ni of a dumbass.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Night Huntress said:


> But that's just too limiting, isn't it? That's the same scenario I asked Zam earlier and while it's a reasonable assumption I still feel it places too many limits on what you are and are not capable of. Plenty of times I've picked up and understood Ti information faster than Ti types, for example. Plenty of times I've brainstormed more than Ne types.


Examples of what you call Ti information where you did it faster than Ti types with a general intelligence similar to yours? Devil's in the details.




> In the event one gathers enough experience (as a dimension) in a certain function, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to assume their powers of abstract intelligence will be capable of generalizing that information into principles that they can apply contextually and globally as well?


The condition of gathering enough experience isn't realistic enough.

If you start out as a Ti PoLR type, there will be lots of obstacles present in your brain to your unbuilding your Fi creative and building Ti up instead.

And a *lot* of experience would be needed to fundamentally change the way the IE is processed.

Going into a bit more detail on the nature of those obstacles. Currently, processing the Fi IE is what gets rewarded so you will have to actively go against that, consistently, almost all the time, to be able to do Ti instead. And when I say you have to go against it, the conscious "you" can't even control all the processes going on in the brain. The reward/punishment system in your brain is not enough under your control for that. Now, even if assuming you can force yourself to pay attention to Ti instead of Fi in a usual life situation, it would be much much harder to keep this up than when you are dieting going against your usual eating habits - the dieting task is simpler, actually.




> By simply knowing their shit well enough, despite being theoretically weak in that area, they can reproduce the same thing someone dimensionally strong in that will create. To say that they simply cannot would be placing a hard limit on personality and intelligence, which is simply unacceptable, because people grow and learn all the time.


Yes, they can reproduce the same results in a specific situation if it's practiced enough.

Your last sentence in this quote is not very logical, sorry. Just because the brain has some plasticity, it doesn't make the idea "unacceptable" that there are limits on this plasticity.




> It still leads me to conclude that the only difference is preference -- for example, I will choose to apply Se contextually and globally over any sort of Ti, despite the volume of Ti information I gather


If you prefer Se over Ti that much, it's unlikely you'll gather much of a volume for Ti information.




> But my competence in either area is unlimited by dimensionality and only dependent on preference and the effort I employ.


I don't think you understand dimensionality.


Anyway, to answer your original question. Dimensionality doesn't equal competence in that IE in general because competence depends on other factors too, of which dimensionality is one large factor but there are other such factors, e.g. general intelligence. It's closely related otherwise. Competence not in general but just in a specific situation, in a specific task, will also depend on practice for that specific type of situation. It will also depend on how well you can utilize other IE's for the task.


PS: I didn't have time to read the entire thread (I usually do that before I reply), if I repeated some arguments then I hope I managed to emphasize them better. And regardless of that, I'm definitely interested in examples for picking up Ti information like that, and it being definitely Ti, not Te or something else.


----------

