Perception of Time

[TimeAsylums]

Hi INTP heavy here

I do apologize if this thread has been made before, but I haven't seen it.
Anyway, I was browsing other forums and only came upon it once, but I can't seem to find it again.
Anyway, it was on how the Guardians/Idealists/Artisans/Rationals view/perception of time was uh...minimally drastic...but different from each other, i.e. the types focusing on a certain aspect of time and how it affects them...

It was along the lines of:
SJ's ( Si) dominant perception function): focused on 'yesterday/past'
NF's: on 'tomorrow/future'
SP's (Se) dominant perception function: 'now/present'
NT's: a little more interesting, you could essentially say the 'present' as well, but it's not like that, most of the types have a very 'linear' perception of time, a concrete past and present and future, although I have seen videos over at the NFgeeks saying the NFs aren't as linear, but still have a little concreteness in the theory of time. Anyway, this might be confusing if you haven't considered it...

Edited: thanks to Own8geInk, and sorry for the different terminology, edited for clarity

It's basically another extension of people's perception's (e.g. Do you think in pictures or words? [better phrased as visual/non visual thinker)

also, when Einstein described his perception ( and thoughts ) on time, everyone went crazy and ballistic, dont take this as condescending, but that seems more 'common sense?' (not putting down ANY of his ideas...lol)

anyway, (TL;dr) just curious on your own perception (And VIEW [as they are different]) on time.

 

[own8ge]

The phenomenon you speak of is absolutely true. However, here on INTPforum we do not group the types in a "Guardians/Idealists/Artisans/Rationals" fashion.

I could try to describe the phenomenon for you if you'd wish? It's rather advanced though; I'm rather astonished that you've seen a thread about it.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The phenomenon you speak of is absolutely true. However, here on INTPforum we do not group the types in a "Guardians/Idealists/Artisans/Rationals" fashion.

I could try to describe the phenomenon for you if you'd wish? It's rather advanced though; I'm rather astonished that you've seen a thread about it.

For all eyes that I just tarnished with my categorization, I do apologize (/not sarcasm), and I understand the differentiation in not doing so. Anyway, I do believe I understand the phenomenon (probably not as well as you could explain it, so please do), definitely weighing in heavily on the Perception functions.

And yes, I was surprised to find it too, because when talking to people in IRL they're like "what?"

Edit: I am sorta new here , only learned about the MBTI then Jung then the functions about a month ago, but my INTP self has devoured everything I could find so far..read some (two) books, mainly forums, online links etc.
...also dying to get at the mind of Jung :/ feel bad for not reading the 'red book' and all of his other works yet...'trying' to get around to it.

 

[Ink]

I remember reading that and it saying NTs view time in "snippets" as well... Which basically means we sometimes analyze the past, sometimes live completely in the moment and sometimes think about the future. Balance. Other temperaments aren't as balanced?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Other temperaments aren't as balanced?

haha now that's what I was dying to know as well
Edit: obviously they can have different views at different times, just wondering on their main/predominate preference., or whether they have a proclivity to do such..

 

[Hayyel]

Could you explain what the Guardian, artisan, etc. are? I'm out of the loop

 

[own8ge]

Could you explain what the Guardian, artisan, etc. are? I'm out of the loop

They are a generalization of types, which only takes the preference of Perception and Judgment into account.

Guardians = SJ
Idealists = NF
Artisans = SP
Rationals = NT

 

[Ink]

Could you explain what the Guardian, artisan, etc. are? I'm out of the loop

Guardian = SJ = Si dominant perception function
Artisan = SP = Se dominant perception function
Rational = NT
Idealist = NF

 

[TimeAsylums]

Could you explain what the Guardian, artisan, etc. are? I'm out of the loop

My fault for not better using the more 'correct terminology.' ^that separates them into the two SJ/SP/NF/NT, but I understand the arguments when combining them this way (Keirsey, jung, mbti etc) so I should stick to what we use here sorry

Ink & 0wn8ge beat me to it, but yep
Edit: Edited the OP to just make it clear

 

[own8ge]

How do the types have a perception of time?

I will be explaining only a fraction of the phenomenon. I'll hope it's enough for you to be able to understand it.

The perception of time is a result of thinking. You think within a specific manner which inclines a perception of time. If you would think only within the present moment, how you will perceive time will be based on the perception of the present moment. You will learn what time is within the bias you think in.

This can be strained back to MBTI as MBTI defines the bias we think in. It will define the preference of perspective of thinking. It will define whether you'd most often think whilst perceiving and judging the present moment, or whilst perceiving and judging the the bigger picture of the present moments combined. (Adaptive or Directive)

The Adaptive, is adaptive as it is adaptive, haha. It thinks by the perception of the present moment, Pe. The one reflects this with Si, the other with Ni. That is dependent on the type.

The NP thinks in Ne (as the present moment), and reflects this with Si. If we would draw a timeline:
PAST <----------------|PRESENT|---------------->FUTURE
Then Ne Si would look as followed (ignore the dots):
PAST <----------------|Ne|---------------->FUTURE
.........|-------Si-------|

This is as Si represent the concept of the known. It is based on what is known, and what is known is the past. Si is required for Ne as Ne is that of the unknown. You can't draw conclusions by exploring the unknown by reflecting it with the unknown. That would be ridiculous.

So how does NeSi / NP perceive time? Time is an objective exploration, and thus the NP will perceive time by the speed of Ne to Ne conclusions. Now, what are Ne to Ne conclusions? That is the Speed of thought. Perception to perception conclusions = speed of thought. Combine Perception to Perction conclusions and you will have the definition of thought.
Ne to Ne conclusions are being drawn by Ji (Ti or Fi which is dependant on the Type). These conclusions are being made by contrasting Ne with Si by discerning it with Ji.
Now, what is the difference here between Fi and Ti? Priorities. Priorities predefine the nesesairy time of proccesion. It will define how fast you must draw Perception to Perception conclusions. Discernment will thus define the speed of thought, and thus the perception of time. (I hope this is valid reasoning, I'll hate to write this all over again )

Now, as to NP, I will take NJ as a contrasting example.
NJ, Ni Se, would look as followed:
......................................|--------Ni-------|
PAST <----------------|Se|---------------->FUTURE
Ni is above the timeline as Ni > Se in the NJ.
Ni is the concept of the unknown, thats why it's being placed in the future. But, if Ni is the dominant function and it's future based, then the NJ has no clue whatsoever about what the purpose of his thoughts are? TRUE. WE HAVE NO CLUE! We just think, and let intuition do the work. We have no conscious purpose in mind. Haha, we are pathetic I know. *(I myself am an NJ).

With Ni being dominant over the objective perception of time, our focus is on NiJe. Internal perception. Our perception of time, is thus estimated by the speed of our Je (Ni to Ni conclusions).

 

[TimeAsylums]

own8ge heheheh you are quite resourceful and useful. I suppose this could close my thread, also that post would make quite a useful 'sticky' or something somewhere.

 

[TimeAsylums]

However, one more question for you, I mentioned somewhere, I find S to be quite the...archaic function, maybe I just don't understand it correctly ( I get all the other functions ), so how would one function without an S?

 

[own8ge]

However, one more question for you, I mentioned somewhere, I find S to be quite the...archaic function, maybe I just don't understand it correctly ( I get all the other functions ), so how would one function without an S?

I think this would be a more appropriate for Montresor to answer (He is S), but I'll do my try.

Without S we wouldn't be able to have any objective clue. S represents the known. That what is concrete. S is often defined as literal. It is our literal perception.

It's contrary is N. N is intuitive. N is interpretive. N is unknown.

Both perceptions are as necessary to think. When one has an N thought, this thought will be a thought that started out as a fraction of S being pulled inside out for N to analyze. Whilst analyzing S, N to N conclusions will be made. These N to N conclusions are made by judgment. Judgment which is being made for an S purpose. So basically, one can never really neglect S from N or vice versa.

That said, now why do we need S as in MBTI? (S types) (S>N).
If we'd all be N, there would be total chaos. And besides, then we would still have S but merely use a different objective measurement. See this thread: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16231

S and N complete each other. They are each other their correctors. The deeper the S thought is, the deeper the N thought could be. N is always based on S. So thank god for people having S>N, as they can execute deep S logic. Which, if being analyzed through N, becomes awesome.

I'm not sure If I've answered your question, I hope I did

 

[Ink]

So users with no Si really never thinks of the past??

 

[TimeAsylums]

thank you once again own8ge, I was just curious how I could enhance my Si, previously not even knowing how it functions, Ti easy, Fe (hard, but easy), Ne (oh, easy).

 

[own8ge]

So users with no Si really never thinks of the past??

I don't really think of the past. But if I do it lesser then others is hard to think about. As an example though, I will give the following:

I as an INFJ often watch movies 3 or 4 times.
An ENTP friend of mine, never watches a movie a second time.

Maybe that says something already? He also remembers data about the movies he watches. I don't remember anything. It has a lot less relevancy to me.

I don't think that I never think about the past. I just think about the past differently. From another perspective. And whilst thinking, I don't require this constant connection with the concrete perception of my past but rather the knowledge I have build up in the past. A Ni vs Si thing. Si is literal and thus notices all the concrete things from the past; Ni being interpretive, remembering the knowledge we have build up. Often I remember outcomes of calculations, but I forget (parts of) the calculation. I'm sure though of that the outcome.

For movies, I often remember: "I'm sure this is a good movie. It's one of the best movies there is, I'm certain." But once I think about it, I can't even remember the slightest thing about the movie. I've merely remembered the name and the outcome. And yet, I'm absolutely sure of the outcome.

TL;DR Whilst thinking Ni doesn't associate things with the past while Si would. (?)

 

[TimeAsylums]

read on personalityjunkie and 16types and forums etc, still cant grasp the meaning of the S. lol, trying to go off your recent post, but I don't associate things with the past...mm

 

[Montresor]

However, one more question for you, I mentioned somewhere, I find S to be quite the...archaic function, maybe I just don't understand it correctly ( I get all the other functions ), so how would one function without an S?

First just sort out the perceiving function pairs Se/Ni and Ne/Si this will help with your understanding.

Personally, I really like to think about this subject (cognitive typing) in a concrete, non-abstract fashion; there is little that can't be explained by a proper description of the corresponding neural activity.

So along these lines, and I tread carefully, I would suggest that each cognitive function has its own way of expressing itself in the brain.

In the case of the perceiving functions, I suspect that when the subject activates one (either his S or N function), the other follows behind. I find this to be somewhat consistent with the idea of the tertiary supporting the auxiliary.

Imagine Ne consisting of a predictable set of neural activity. When activated, we might see activity in varying regions of the cortex. Then imagine Si, which has its own set of neural activity. Imagine the brain sort of "cycling" between the Ne activity, and then the Si follow-through, and again, and again. This is how I like to see it.

Whether a person is an N or an S simply describes which member of the function pair is dominant, not whether they "have" the function.

SP: Se>Ni. When perceiving data, Se takes the lead, the world is perceived in a literal concrete fashion, and then (as above, see Ne), the brain would cycle from Se to Ni (and then back) as the data is further perceived inwardly, adding breadth and depth to the worldview ... providing Se with a "memory" of its own (some would prefer "foresight").

This doesn't say much about the perception of time, but as has been explained by own8ge, consciousness is not possible without both a J and P function.

 

[TimeAsylums]

First just sort out the perceiving function pairs Se/Ni and Ne/Si this will help with your understanding.

Personally, I really like to think about this subject (cognitive typing) in a concrete, non-abstract fashion; there is little that can't be explained by a proper description of the corresponding neural activity.

So along these lines, and I tread carefully, I would suggest that each cognitive function has its own way of expressing itself in the brain.

In the case of the perceiving functions, I suspect that when the subject activates one (either his S or N function), the other follows behind. I find this to be somewhat consistent with the idea of the tertiary supporting the auxiliary.

Imagine Ne consisting of a predictable set of neural activity. When activated, we might see activity in varying regions of the cortex. Then imagine Si, which has its own set of neural activity. Imagine the brain sort of "cycling" between the Ne activity, and then the Si follow-through, and again, and again. This is how I like to see it.

Whether a person is an N or an S simply describes which member of the function pair is dominant, not whether they "have" the function.

SP: Se>Ni. When perceiving data, Se takes the lead, the world is perceived in a literal concrete fashion, and then (as above, see Ne), the brain would cycle from Se to Ni (and then back) as the data is further perceived inwardly, adding breadth and depth to the worldview ... providing Se with a "memory" of its own (some would prefer "foresight").

This doesn't say much about the perception of time, but as has been explained by own8ge, consciousness is not possible without both a J and P function.

Ew...concrete ideas
but yes I understand all of the functions now, it took some thinking and a lot of reading from other pages, but this does explain it too. Thank you

 

[Pyropyro]

Honestly, it seems that I'm everywhere BUT the present.