User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Mind Treason

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INXJ
    Posts
    33

    Default Mind Treason

    There are three general parts of my mind: the perceiver, the rationalizer, and the portrayer. Now, most of the time, the perceiver and the portrayer are in cahoots. they like to toy with me. The perceiver will get some type of input, and the portrayer will skew it just enough to make me go crazy. Once I go off the deep end, the rationalizer will show me how I totally screwed up; however, by the time I figure this out, it's completely too late. I rationalize how to fix the situation. Of course, by this time, the perceiver and portrayer have found something new to mess with me over. Thus I find myself in this endless loop. to make it worse, the portrayer has just about gotten me convinced that the rationalizer is in on the whole thing. Urg, more craziness!



    Because the entire idea of mental treason is totally subjective, I step outside of my own mind and look at things from someone else's point of view. Again, this is completely crazy because I am not someone else; I am me. furthermore, the fact that I can honestly believe that I can do this makes me crazy on a whole new level. I proceed anyway, constantly questioning the validity of my observations. I take a scientific approach.



    1. form a thesis. Any input to my mind is subject to distortion and ultimately irrational thought patterns.

    2. Test Thesis. Subject myself to known inputs with known outcomes. Also subject myself to known inputs with unknown outcomes.

    3. Collect and analyze data.

    4. Adjust thesis if needed.

    5. Repeat steps one through four until conclusive data has been obtained.

    Conclusion: Not only do I think way too much, but I over analyze pretty much everything. Also, I can have a lot of fun if I turn down the sensitivity of my perceiver, I.e. get really drunk. Vodka usually does the trick. Uh hum, obviously, my rationalizer is incapacitated as well. the fun part is that the portrayer is full-steam ahead.

    Anyone else relate?
    Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart. -- Confucius

  2. #2
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Not precisely... but I do have three aspects of my mind that appear in dreams, that play similar roles.

    What do you mean by "portrayer" and "rationalizer"? Could you describe them more clearly?

  3. #3
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Sure I relate...

    "rationalizer" should, I'm guessing, be defined as not merely the function which "rationalizes" the sensation-perception of the "perceiver-portrayer" functions but rather tests the rationality of their presentation and then adjusts accordingly, as you've mentioned... instead of "rationalizer" I would say something less catchy but more intuitively suggestive of this aspect of the "rational" function as "ratiocinator".

    The problem you're facing is the classic problem that all empiricists face... justifying their experience-based knowledge... to me, the most satisfactory response is to evaluate mental 'presentations' (perceiver-portrayer sensation-perceptions) according to a framework of cohesiveness... do current presentations match with past, remembered presentations and resultant opinions/beliefs? If not... pour me another...
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INXJ
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    Sure I relate...

    "rationalizer" should, I'm guessing, be defined as not merely the function which "rationalizes" the sensation-perception of the "perceiver-portrayer" functions but rather tests the rationality of their presentation and then adjusts accordingly, as you've mentioned... instead of "rationalizer" I would say something less catchy but more intuitively suggestive of this aspect of the "rational" function as "ratiocinator".

    The problem you're facing is the classic problem that all empiricists face... justifying their experience-based knowledge... to me, the most satisfactory response is to evaluate mental 'presentations' (perceiver-portrayer sensation-perceptions) according to a framework of cohesiveness... do current presentations match with past, remembered presentations and resultant opinions/beliefs? If not... pour me another...



    Right, well, at least mostly. Ratiocinator would definitely be a more fitting name.

    The breakdown is somewhat like this: the perceiver gets input, sensory or otherwise; the portrayer grasps the data and does a first-pass type evaluation of the given input; and then the ratiocinator does something with the data. It's like the portrayer is the "N", and the ratiocinator is the "TJ" parts of my mind. The ratiocinator has to make sense of and respond to what it is given by the other two parts. It doesn't necessarily do the over all evaluation; it is more focused on the specific meaning and end result. I realize that I am mixing types and functions, which doesn't necessarily work. I was just trying to explain the differences between the impressionistic and the deterministic aspects of my mind.

    A perfect example is the time I told my boss that I thought we should do bla. He said, "no, that's not important right now." I perceived the fact that he said, "no, that's not important right now." However, the portrayer decided to modify so that it was more like him saying, "no, that's not as important as your other work right now." So I told him that I would work on it on my own time. My ratiocinator, given the specified input, thought that it was ok to work on bla as long as the more important work was done. After that, he thought I was being hard-headed and not respectful of his authority. I didn't work on it, but you can see how somewhere along the way, the message got a little scrambled.

    I didn't mean to imply that this is a constant state for me; however, it is significant enough that it should be noticed so that I can control it before I get into too much trouble. Really, I find it amusing, but those around me get frustrated.
    Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart. -- Confucius

  5. #5
    The King Liason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    182

    Default

    that must suck. As an INTJ we already have countless theories and ideas shouting at us, but you have 3 different viewpoints with which you use to dissect them all. Speaking in your terms, I don't have any of the ones you have. I have simply a logical view. I suppose it's closest to the rationalizer. The greatest difference I suppose is that I don't perceive or portray. I make simply logical analysis and conclusions. This just means that your perceiving trait and event empathizing trait are in confusion. You need to find out how to harmonize them so that they will thread together and effectively enhance your thinking process. As to how to do that, I don't know for I don't have those traits.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  6. #6
    Senior Member norepinephrine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falling2fast View Post
    A perfect example is the time I told my boss that I thought we should do bla. He said, "no, that's not important right now." I perceived the fact that he said, "no, that's not important right now." However, the portrayer decided to modify so that it was more like him saying, "no, that's not as important as your other work right now." So I told him that I would work on it on my own time. My ratiocinator, given the specified input, thought that it was ok to work on bla as long as the more important work was done. After that, he thought I was being hard-headed and not respectful of his authority. I didn't work on it, but you can see how somewhere along the way, the message got a little scrambled.
    Wow. I would find that an incredibly unsatisfactory state of affairs. My assumption has always been that I have been hired for a position because my input would be valuable. Therefore, if I were to propose to work on "blah" on my own time (and after the boss's priorities had been dealt with) I would expect that decision to be honored.

    And three months down the road when the time I'd spent on "blah" proved valuable... well, at that point, it would probably be my boss who took credit.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INXJ
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norepinephrine View Post
    Wow. I would find that an incredibly unsatisfactory state of affairs. My assumption has always been that I have been hired for a position because my input would be valuable. Therefore, if I were to propose to work on "blah" on my own time (and after the boss's priorities had been dealt with) I would expect that decision to be honored.



    Yeah, well... He is a control freak. I don't blame him though. In the end it worked out.

    I do hate having my good ideas smothered out before I'm given a chance to prove myself. I have a lot of ideas, and I realize that all of them are not that great. Thus the thread.
    Men's natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart. -- Confucius

Similar Threads

  1. Everyone should have their mind blown...
    By proteanmix in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-26-2011, 04:37 AM
  2. The Human Mind - the sum of its parts or something more?
    By Geoff in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 06:14 PM
  3. Buddhist "Mindfulness" -- Compatible with Ti?
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 10:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO