# Which cognitive function is this?



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> So essentially you are admitting to the fact of not being an inferior Se type? I would have no problem to answer this question from a sensory perspective. It's not that difficult at all to be honest, and would likely be quite similar to what was written in the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I recognize the OP's daydream; actually I have been modeling very similar scenarios while reading about that particular accident.
I don't particularly focus on the feelings of the people involved, though. I can feel the panic of a passenger seeing landing lights heading straight at them right outside their window, but I would be more focused on wondering if I would have made the same mistakes as the pilot given a similar situation, and what one could have done to prevent or mitigate the accident at any given point in time up to the moment of impact. Actually, I've even given myself similar conditions in a flight sim just to identify the points of no return.

And yes, I can identify with Dexter's situation modeling from the clip.

I don't dare to guess if any particular combination of functions would be more or less likely to fantasize on that kind of event, though. The ESFP I know best could very well do something similar, and she, superficially, "should" be similarly shallow as the ESTP type was accused of being earlier in this thread. The main difference between us would be that where I went on to try to put the daydream into practice and follow all the Wikipedia links to similar events, she would find this specific event to be enough for her to think about.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> No, in this case I actually don't, because in this case the experience is in fact actually the same and our psyches are just as colored in the same direction. When I engage sensation I engage Se and that's just how simple it is.
> 
> Study the OP. The OP is clearly engaging sensation, the OP types as an inferior sensation type. Can you see a qualitative difference in how it's being engaged in this particular fantasy exploration? It would be akin to claiming that when I am describing a visual scenario in one of my stories it is of subpar quality or cannot live up to some expectation of what Se is like just because it is my inferior.
> 
> Archaic eruption is different. That's the entire point.


I don't know how else to explain that someone who is experienced at something is going to be better equipped to explain how that experience works, compared to someone whose experience is limited. It's not a matter of "can" and "can't" - it's a matter of "effective" and "ineffective."

This isn't some complicated, newfangled theory that I'm pushing to satiate my ego. It's just common frickin sense.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

zynthaxx said:


> I recognize the OP's daydream; actually I have been modeling very similar scenarios while reading about that particular accident.
> I don't particularly focus on the feelings of the people involved, though. I can feel the panic of a passenger seeing landing lights heading straight at them right outside their window, but I would be more focused on wondering if I would have made the same mistakes as the pilot given a similar situation, and what one could have done to prevent or mitigate the accident at any given point in time up to the moment of impact. Actually, I've even given myself similar conditions in a flight sim just to identify the points of no return.
> 
> And yes, I can identify with Dexter's situation modeling from the clip.
> ...


I think then we all can agree that such a thought process might be influenced by Ti, with the empathetic flavor being provided by Fe.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I would say it's a poor differentiation of the sensory in general to be honest, because it doesn't really explicitly seem to state either sensation orientation. But given the OP's type that I think is quite correct to one degree or another, then it should be Si, not Se, but if you were to honestly ask me about this I would just call it Sensation with an Si bend because it's clearly working with Fe and the OP is not an ESTP. Actually, I am not sure ESTPs are overly prone thinking about stuff like this in the first place. ESTPs are very much "what you see is what you get" more so than other types which is to say they can't be imaginative, but it's imagination in the actual. ISTPs would be a bit more zany in that regard due to stronger Ni but even so, I think xSTP when imagining stuff like this would be more like this:
> 
> @_monemi_ @_PaladinX_ @_zynthaxx_


I've written stories before, posted them online and what I found interesting was which type of stories I wrote got high traffic and passed around. Thriller with a lot of lemons. I took them down because readers started trying to read into my stories and that made me really uncomfortable. I'd really rather they just enjoy the bloody story and stay out of my head. But it was pretty cool seeing how many readers I could have follow me. I've had fun making period pieces like a story about H. H. Holmes following one of the girls that ended up in his Chicago house. Readers said that my writing was chillingly realistic and made them feel like they were actually there or in some way true. Obviously not true because I didn't do nearly enough research on Holmes but know enough about 19th century history to now what was going on during World's Fair and transportation in the US and every day life from that era, to make it feasible. 

I like some symbolism but I don't want to beat them over the head with meaning or lessons. I'd rather it be open to interpretation. Just subtle. What I found annoying was feedback from people who don't know jack about me, digging and calling me an introvert and crap like that. Just fuck off. They don't anything about me. They have no right to tell me who I am or what I'm thinking. Enjoy the story and tell me what you think about the story. Let's not make this personal.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

ScarrDragon said:


> I think then we all can agree that such a thought process might be influenced by Ti, with the empathetic flavor being provided by Fe.


Well, I think your cognitive functions might shape what you focus on in the scenario of the daydream, but the general concept of reading about something horrible and pondering it and its consequences is probably generally human - anyone with some empathy or even curiosity could do it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I don't know how else to explain that someone who is experienced at something is going to be better equipped to explain how that experience works, compared to someone whose experience is limited. It's not a matter of "can" and "can't" - it's a matter of "effective" and "ineffective."
> 
> This isn't some complicated, newfangled theory that I'm pushing to satiate my ego. It's just common frickin sense.


Is it? Because I doubt experience need to be a part of theoretical or conceptual understanding. I can know or understand something better than someone who has done it for years. Just because they've done it or are considered an authority on the subject doesn't make them authority on the subject just because they have more experience. It certainly does not make them better at me as a default state.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ScarrDragon said:


> Well, a rather foolish title since I already know which cognitive functions I use. I just want to gain a better understanding of how I use them. @_arkigos @Raawx @ephemereality_
> Recently, I was watching Breaking Bad, specifically the first episode of Season 3. Basically, it concerned an airplane disaster and in the course of events, the infamous Tenerife airport disaster was mentioned. I became curious and immediately started researching about it, and it did turn out to be a horrible incident, not only because of the proverbial fact that it was an accident which cost many lives. Well, it would be unnecessary and futile to go into the details of how the accident occurred so I'll just cut to the point. I eventually started thinking about the passengers in the airplane. I thought about what they might have been doing in the last few minutes of their life. Were they nonchalant about their morbid fate, or already concerned about their impending doom? Did they consider the series of minor problems that took place before the incident to be just that - typical shortcomings before take-off? Or did they have a gloomy sense that something was wrong? I then found myself seated in that airplane, even though I had no idea how its interior looked. I then tried to imagine how I would behave in that scenario. Would I be oblivious to the fatality? Die completely ignorant of why I even died? Or would I see the other airplane moving towards the airplane I was seated in? If so, how would I react? Will there even be enough time for me to react at all? And so, what about the pilot? He probably had the most horrific view. Did he, in vain, regret pursuing this profession? How did he stare death in the face? And wait, surely since the accident occurred in the vicinity of the airport, it must have been perceived by some bystanders inside the terminal? If so, did they empathize with the victims? Or did they feel a sense of relief for not having boarded one of those airplanes? Probably the former, because (at least, in my opinion) no sane individual would be comfortable with having the latter cross his mind for a second. And if he does feel it, he would be reluctant to admit it. The empathy would be there, fake or artificial. There is also indifference. But relief? Probably not. Of course, I eventually realized I had been watching Breaking Bad moments ago and decided to quit this peculiar mental investigation, preferring to entertain myself than to dwell on a deplorable incident of the past.
> 
> Maybe that's why I find the idea of dying in an accident like an explosion fearful. To have no knowledge of why you died, even though it's absolutely useless because in a matter of seconds you will be dead. It puts death in the perspective of insignificance. Death by accident can be seen as random because you do not expect it. Having the end of your life be the consequence of a random event? It does sound somewhat disturbing.
> ...


I worked in aviation for years and have a long history of interest in it. One of my favourite topics to study is aviation accidents and incidents. One of my favourites is Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . If you had been one of the people going down on landing, with the roof missing, your view going down looking straight ahead would have been sky and horizon. At least, that's what I calculated. One passenger was so distressed, he bent his metal armrest to a 90 degree angle with one arm. That's some superhuman strength right there. A lot of the passengers either pissed or shit themselves but that's not unusual for aviation accidents. There is enough time to stress out. I've given a lot of thought to what those passengers went through. Especially while working with the engineers and mechanics. It's extremely important to understand exactly what happened and the seriousness of day to day operations and getting things right. Not to get lax about it all. 

Human factors play a large role in modern aviation accidents. All of the manuals and sign off sheets we deal with were written in blood. Something happened, someone died or was injured. And that is why each and every new precaution is added. Going back over the incident and looking at the evidence gives you an opportunity to approach the problem and look to see how you can make sure nothing like this happens again. I don't know if Se is more likely to do this than other functions, but I mostly certainly do playback these incidents in my head and figure it out. What freaks people out is that I've spent so much time on this stuff and after intensive investigation, not baulk at flying. A four day workshop on human factors in aviation disasters and I still flew home cheerily. I want to understand exactly what happened out of morbid curiosity and to make sure it doesn't happen again. Part of that is understanding things like why passengers don't speak up when they see something wrong. It is very relevant what passengers experienced in their last moments and to empathize with them. While it is sad, I don't get too bogged down in it.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Is it? Because I doubt experience need to be a part of theoretical or conceptual understanding. I can know or understand something better than someone who has done it for years. Just because they've done it or are considered an authority on the subject doesn't make them authority on the subject just because they have more experience. It certainly does not make them better at me as a default state.


There is nothing to win here man. Just let it go. I won't think any less of you.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> There is nothing to win here man. Just let it go. I won't think any less of you.


It was never about me personally in the first place.


----------



## Megakill (Nov 3, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I remember, as a young child, dumping out a coin jar to set them as armies in array in my bedroom. I wanted them to be as vast and immersive as possible. I remember that heads was alive, and tails was dead. When a quarter would 'land' on the battlefield, I'd slam the ground with my fist so a bunch of pennies would fly. If they landed on heads, they were merely dazed... if tails, well.... that's war.
> 
> I think the point is how visceral it is, and also how... er, hrm.... I guess I'll start this part of the conversation earnestly. I guess I tend to see that Se/Ti wants to 'win' or conquer a challenge... where as Ne/Ti wants to play out the perspectives more........... maturely? Is that the right word? Probably my bias, but I feel less connected from the present viscera in general. More 'meta', more interested in seeing the story take a high level 'realistic' organic feel.
> 
> ...


Yes, "fuck defeat, there is a way" is definitely me. When I'm at my best it means I can accomplish goals and keep my composure. However, there is always the rare occasion when I take things too far and must have my way at all costs. This is partially the enneagram 3 in me and partially the Se/Ni. Ni blocks out my ability to put things in perspective (one track mind) and then Se kinda kicks me in the ass and says "you better get this done NOW because it's the only thing that matters".

Of course the mood I am in will totally change how this comes across. Either I am having fun and challenging people playfully or I turn into bad-sportsmanship-mode in which case someone saying "what if we just lose?" as even a joke would probably irk me since competition is my favorite drug.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Megakill said:


> Yes, "fuck defeat, there is a way" is definitely me. When I'm at my best it means I can accomplish goals and keep my composure. However, there is always the rare occasion when I take things too far and must have my way at all costs. This is partially the enneagram 3 in me and partially the Se/Ni. Ni blocks out my ability to put things in perspective (one track mind) and then Se kinda kicks me in the ass and says "you better get this done NOW because it's the only thing that matters".
> 
> Of course the mood I am in will totally change how this comes across. Either I am having fun and challenging people playfully or I turn into bad-sportsmanship-mode in which case someone saying "what if we just lose?" as even a joke would probably irk me since competition is my favorite drug.


I guess this is where the difference between enneagram 3 and 7w6 kicks in. In a game, I'm more accepting of loss. In real life, I don't accept defeat well. I had several run ins with a boss (aka Satan). When he overruled and I had a complete lack of respect for him as a superior, I didn't accept his authority. We butted heads frequently. Eventually, he got fired. I'm much better at accepting defeat in a game than I am in real life. In real life, I don't take it well. It's best for me to not look at things as a win vs lose situation. A kid poses a threat to my child and that puts me in direct conflict with their parent. The parent is going to have to remedy the threat to my child or it's not going to be pretty. The problem comes in when there is antagonism. I have an antagonistic relationship with my half sister. We're pretty brutal and people walking into the middle of our verbal exchanges are shell shocked. 

I fight for the things I care about and don't except defeat well. But games... I'll give it my best shot, but I have good sportsmanship. It's the real life situations that I take things too far because I can't just accept defeat.


----------



## Megakill (Nov 3, 2013)

monemi said:


> I guess this is where the difference between enneagram 3 and 7w6 kicks in. In a game, I'm more accepting of loss. In real life, I don't accept defeat well. I had several run ins with a boss (aka Satan). When he overruled and I had a complete lack of respect for him as a superior, I didn't accept his authority. We butted heads frequently. Eventually, he got fired. I'm much better at accepting defeat in a game than I am in real life. In real life, I don't take it well. It's best for me to not look at things as a win vs lose situation. A kid poses a threat to my child and that puts me in direct conflict with their parent. The parent is going to have to remedy the threat to my child or it's not going to be pretty. The problem comes in when there is antagonism. I have an antagonistic relationship with my half sister. We're pretty brutal and people walking into the middle of our verbal exchanges are shell shocked.
> 
> I fight for the things I care about and don't except defeat well. But games... I'll give it my best shot, but I have good sportsmanship. It's the real life situations that I take things too far because I can't just accept defeat.


I have a weird Ti so I pretty much rationalize everything in life to a game...where everything is go big or go home Lol.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I wonder whether this particular kind of rationalization is a function of introverted thinking. Whenever I detect something that is outlandish or incongruous while playing a game that disrupts the flow of the game, I get an ephemeral sense of discomfort and try to come up with an explanation or back-story, even if it has to be equally or more outlandish, as to why that peculiarity occurred. Everything has to make sense. When I play a game, I have to immerse myself in it, as if I'm genuinely inside that virtual world. Perhaps that's the reason why I'm not too fond of video-game MODs and Create-A-Character modes (I like the idea but not the application, take the Create-A-Wrestler mode for example, I try to create realistic wrestlers as if I'm an actual WWE trainer scouting for talent while my cousin creates Batman and Santa Claus which bugs me, then I try to come up with a story where Batman has turned deranged through years of fighting his arch-nemesis Joker and after slaughtering each and every villain in Gotham, he develops a predilection towards violence and becomes a wrestler to quench his need for physical stimulation; as for Santa Claus, it's just yet another neighborhood Santa Claus who's broke and divorced because his wife does not want him to visit naughty children after night [fears of pedophilia] and he wants to beat people up; eventually both of them bail out when they realize that it's all scripted and create their own Fight Club with Tyler Durden's help).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ScarrDragon said:


> I wonder whether this particular kind of rationalization is a function of introverted thinking. Whenever I detect something that is outlandish or incongruous while playing a game that disrupts the flow of the game, I get an ephemeral sense of discomfort and try to come up with an explanation or back-story, even if it has to be equally or more outlandish, as to why that peculiarity occurred. Everything has to make sense. When I play a game, I have to immerse myself in it, as if I'm genuinely inside that virtual world. Perhaps that's the reason why I'm not too fond of video-game MODs and Create-A-Character modes (I like the idea but not the application, take the Create-A-Wrestler mode for example, I try to create realistic wrestlers as if I'm an actual WWE trainer scouting for talent while my cousin creates Batman and Santa Claus which bugs me, then I try to come up with a story where Batman has turned deranged through years of fighting his arch-nemesis Joker and after slaughtering each and every villain in Gotham, he develops a predilection towards violence and becomes a wrestler to quench his need for physical stimulation; as for Santa Claus, it's just yet another neighborhood Santa Claus who's broke and divorced because his wife does not want him to visit naughty children after night [fears of pedophilia] and he wants to beat people up; eventually both of them bail out when they realize that it's all scripted and create their own Fight Club with Tyler Durden's help).


Interesting. I just want it to be fucking realistic like, when I tried out the first Dragon Age some years ago I was so put off because I wanted to play a character similar to myself so something akin to chaotic neutral but such an option didn't exist. I wanted to rewrite the entire fucking game and dialogue and crap so I had options that suited my own way of playing the character but that kind of freedom did not exist so I just quit playing. The frustration was too much to bear. I was essentially better off writing a dark fantasy novel myself. At least I had full control over the dialogue and could play the game in the way I wanted to.

To me, what's important is that I observe reality to be XYZ way, then I want whatever creation in the game world to be just so too. Any deviation from that norm is seen as somewhat unrealistic, especially if the limitation is too severe and is not seen to be found within a natural variance of things. 

@Raawx how do you feel in relation to the above?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Interesting. I just want it to be fucking realistic like, when I tried out the first Dragon Age some years ago I was so put off because I wanted to play a character similar to myself so something akin to chaotic neutral but such an option didn't exist. I wanted to rewrite the entire fucking game and dialogue and crap so I had options that suited my own way of playing the character but that kind of freedom did not exist so I just quit playing. The frustration was too much to bear. I was essentially better off writing a dark fantasy novel myself. At least I had full control over the dialogue and could play the game in the way I wanted to.
> 
> To me, what's important is that I observe reality to be XYZ way, then I want whatever creation in the game world to be just so too. Any deviation from that norm is seen as somewhat unrealistic, especially if the limitation is too severe and is not seen to be found within a natural variance of things.
> 
> @_Raawx_ how do you feel in relation to the above?


I don't think I've experienced that to the same extent that you have. In fact, I don't know if I've experienced that at all. I really enjoy customization within a game--especially when it comes to games that allow you to make your own empire or whatever--but I don't think I've ever wanted to rewrite a game or dialogue. I mean, I'm pretty easy to please. As long as the game mechanics are fine, I'll be happy. I know it's kinda "bad" but I'm too lazy and I often even skip the back-story. 

However, I do very strongly agree with what @ScarrDragon has written. I don't quite believe he's an Se user either.


----------

