# Thread: understanding complex shapes and type

1. Originally Posted by nebbykoo
I saw a cube as soon as I looked at it.
Ditto.

It's interesting to me that many might look at it and NOT see a 3-D cube [with intricacies within] right away? It seemed so obvious to me. Curious.

Then I thought I was 'supposed' to see something different and cube was way too obvious, so then I started seeing all the shapes within, and pretended the outer-cube-lines were simply threads and weren't part of the solid triangular shapes within...etc...

2. And yet it's really not a cube at all, so seeing something else is not wrong in the least. On that basis, I don't think this reveals much at all. Maybe it just shows one's exposure to other images of cube-like figures in the past.

3. Originally Posted by nebbykoo
And yet it's really not a cube at all, so seeing something else is not wrong in the least. On that basis, I don't think this reveals much at all. Maybe it just shows one's exposure to other images of cube-like figures in the past.
True.

(Cubes were always one of many doodling mechanisms for me growing up....)

4. Originally Posted by nanook
>spoiler

-> too obvious to even cross my mind.

i was trying hard to find something different IN it. which is possible of course, because it contains divided parts. bended pyramids. it's rather difficult to go through all of them and only through real ones.
Same here.

Though on second glance, I see a few different shapes--it depends on whether you treat some of the points as vertices or just points of intersections of lines.

5. I can see a lot of things in it. There's nothing suggested by the carving itself that it's primarily intended to be a 3D cube.

6. Originally Posted by INTP
That Se dom thing was just an example.

Anyways, how sure you are on being N and P? You are pretty new to the forum, so i dunno if you are new to typology too and people do make mistakes on their type at first quite alot.
not 100 percent sure, of course, as all this is so tentative, but from what i've read, it would seem that nothing else fits.

not sure on the T vs. F part at all. but then, if INFPs are supposed to obsess over spiritual growth and discovering or retaining their "true" or "whole" self, while INTPs are not, then i have to be INFP.

7. I everywhere see the same shapes

It's interesting to me that many might look at it and NOT see a 3-D cube [with intricacies within] right away? It seemed so obvious to me. Curious.
Same here, plus I saw the planar triangular areas connecting the corners. But then my work involves ordered materials so I am used to looking at three-dimensional symmetric structures represented in two dimensions.

Now considering the following, from Magritte:

9. I saw the cube almost immediately and saw the connectedness of it, but because of the prompt I spent a little time looking for other shapes as well.

My mind roughly went from: diamondy shape thingy --> diamondy cube thing --> cube---> hypercube?--> various stretched out cubes that look like diamonds. But not all of us are used to seeing 2D drawings as representing 3D. I took a drawing class and enjoyed learning how to make things look 3D, so that way of reading it stuck with me more. So I don't know how much of this is going to relate to type.

I don't buy that these sorts of things have one answer. They are lines that suggest (or may not suggest) something more. Our view on these lines might suggest something of our type

10. Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity
I saw the cube almost immediately and saw the connectedness of it, but because of the prompt I spent a little time looking for other shapes as well.

My mind roughly went from: diamondy shape thingy --> diamondy cube thing --> cube---> hypercube?--> various stretched out cubes that look like diamonds. But not all of us are used to seeing 2D drawings as representing 3D. I took a drawing class and enjoyed learning how to make things look 3D, so that way of reading it stuck with me more. So I don't know how much of this is going to relate to type.

I don't buy that these sorts of things have one answer. They are lines that suggest (or may not suggest) something more. Our view on these lines might suggest something of our type
But you see everyone has seen 3d objects more than 2d objects. Tv and computers constantly show 3d shapes in 2d surface. The gradient i added(or actually just made it stronger) is whats called an monocular cue of distance, which is the third dimension, so even tho its just a computer screen you see the cube in, its not a "flat" surface that the cube is on

#### 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