understanding complex shapes and type

[INTP]

Do you find it hard to understand what shape this is? Were you even able to get it right before reading the spoiler?

Its

3d cube with all corners connected

Ps. Carved it on my ukulele

 

[King sns]

Do you find it hard to understand what shape this is? Were you even able to get it right before reading the spoiler?

this actually sounds very stand-offish/show-offey. Like a little kid on a skateboard, "you couldn't even get that jump, could you???!"

(Edit: No, I didn't see it right off, I can kind of see it now if I picture it being folded up- cool image, and really cool that you own a ukulele! I had myself giggling the other day over the prospect of owning a ukulele or giving one to a relative.)

I just said "diamond"

 

[INTP]

Do you find it hard to understand what shape this is? Were you even able to get it right before reading the spoiler?

this actually sounds very stand-offish/show-offey. Like a little kid on a skateboard, "you couldn't even get that jump, could you???!"

(Edit: No, I didn't see it right off, I can kind of see it now if I picture it being folded up- cool image, and really cool that you own a ukulele! I had myself giggling the other day over the prospect of owning a ukulele or giving one to a relative.)

I just said "diamond"

I didnt say i would had easy time understanding this if i saw it somewhere, so im not showing off my comprehension of complex shapes.. i was just interested if Se doms for example have easy time seeing it and Ne doms seeing it the wrong way easier(you cant get a diamond out of that, even tho it might look like a diamond at first), making faster judgment from external perceptions and being more guided by internal associations.

 

[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.

i wonder if this would have been so much easier, if it was displayed with proper vanishing point perspective. in school they forced me to paint cubes without vanishing point perspective. that's "technical drawing". i figure, someone without that "technical" experience would rightfully disagree with this being a cube, because cubes don't look like this. the natural mind tries to figure out, what this image represents, while considering it to be a propper representation of something real, meaning one featuring the vanishing point perspective. as such it would represent a weird stretched cube.

 

[King sns]

I didnt say i would had easy time understanding this if i saw it somewhere, so im not showing off my comprehension of complex shapes.. i was just interested if Se doms for example have easy time seeing it and Ne doms seeing it the wrong way easier(you cant get a diamond out of that, even tho it might look like a diamond at first), making faster judgment from external perceptions and being more guided by internal associations.

"you can't get a diamond out of that even though it looks like a diamond." Okay, I didn't realize there was one "true" answer to this- you're saying that you must fold the shape or see it 3-D in your mind. My geometry/ spatial reasoning has admittedly gone south since highschool. I also pictured a hang glider or a parachute or wings, or those little paper things that you make that you write words on that kids make, but not a cube.

 

[Rasofy]

I could make a kite using the same pattern, take a photo, and you'd think it was a cube.

 

[bluestripes]

Do you find it hard to understand what shape this is?

no, not really. at first it did appear flat, then it expanded in my internal vision, becoming more three-dimensional, and developed into a transparent cube with two flat surfaces inside that join the opposite corners and criss-cross. it took three to five seconds.

there is no possibility of my being Se-dominant, not with the way i limit my intake of the external world (sometimes severely) and break it down into small "doses". or even Si-dominant, though i do seem to have fairly strong Si, and it is something i understand.

this is very interesting. what ought to be made, i think, is a post with other pattern recognition tasks, such as the ones where you have to discern a concealed shape or choose one out of two overlapping/simultaneously existing shapes. then it would be possible to test one's perception of them and compare the results to other members who are either Ne- or Se-dominant.

 

[Silveresque]

I look at it and see all kinds of patterns forming and shifting, kind of like when you look at one of those optical illusions and your brain keeps shifting perspectives. But there really isn't any any right answer as to what kind of shape it is. It's not really a 3D cube with all corners connected (though that was my answer at first). It's really just a bunch of arbitrary lines that the brain interprets as a shape.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I saw a cube as soon as I looked at it.

 

[INTP]

no, not really. at first it did appear flat, then it expanded in my internal vision, becoming more three-dimensional, and developed into a transparent cube with two flat surfaces inside that join the opposite corners and criss-cross. it took three to five seconds.

there is no possibility of my being Se-dominant, not with the way i limit my intake of the external world (sometimes severely) and break it down into small "doses". or even Si-dominant, though i do seem to have fairly strong Si, and it is something i understand.

this is very interesting. what ought to be made, i think, is a post with other pattern recognition tasks, such as the ones where you have to discern a concealed shape or choose one out of two overlapping/simultaneously existing shapes. then it would be possible to test one's perception of them and compare the results to other members who are either Ne- or Se-dominant.

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.

 

[cascadeco]

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...

 

[Stanton Moore]

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.

 

[cascadeco]

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....)

 

[garbage]

>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.

 

[Qlip]

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.

 

[bluestripes]

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.

 

[entropie]

I everywhere see the same shapes

 

[Coriolis]

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:

 

[lunalum]

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

 

[INTP]

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