[NT] Block logic

[ThinkingAboutIt]

I was reading about different types of logic and there are two kinds in particular that help me to understand why people may not always follow or understand each other...

Step logic - greek origins, often uses tightly contained step logic which reason a premise to a conclusion (one perspective/point of view), each step linked tightly to the next in coherent, rational, logical fashion.

Block logic - hebrew origins, polarity of thought, concepts are expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks do not necessarily fit together in any obvious rational or harmonious pattern. View depends on perspective and there are multiple perspectives.

Step logic is what most 'westerners' use today.

Which type do you use most often? I use block logic often and am wondering if other INTPs or NT's do as well?

 

[Nocapszy]

not very clear.
examples?

 

[ThatGirl]

block, step, block, block, step, block

 

[avolkiteshvara]

This got me curious. Couldn't really find too much on this. It appears to be intimately tied in with religion. However I did find one example:

Step
I got out of bed and went to the kitchen for my coffee and breakfast. After reading the paper I drove to work. I read the daily reports and finalized the yearly report. I drove to the restaurant for lunch with my wife. I attended a meeting with the office staff. I drove to the market for our evening desert. At home we ate a leisurely dinner and ate our desert.

Block
I got out of bed and went to the kitchen for my coffee and breakfast. At home we ate a leisurely dinner and ate our desert. After reading the paper. I read the daily reports and finalized the yearly report. I attended a meeting with the office staff. I drove to the restaurant for lunch with my wife. I drove to the market for our evening desert. I drove to work.

The difference appears to be dynamic vs. linear thought process. So S vs. N.

So I yeah I would say I am more block. Fits with my ADD Intuitive personality.


Good find TAI

 

[ThatGirl]

Block
I got out of bed and went to the kitchen for my coffee and breakfast. At home we ate a leisurely dinner and ate our desert. After reading the paper. I read the daily reports and finalized the yearly report. I attended a meeting with the office staff. I drove to the restaurant for lunch with my wife. I drove to the market for our evening desert. I drove to work.

Okay, I can go on a tangent just as much as the next person. But even those should be chronological.

That example is just retarded.

 

[Nocapszy]

Block
I got out of bed and went to the kitchen for my coffee and breakfast. At home we ate a leisurely dinner and ate our desert. After reading the paper. I read the daily reports and finalized the yearly report. I attended a meeting with the office staff. I drove to the restaurant for lunch with my wife. I drove to the market for our evening desert. I drove to work.

i never heard anyone talk that way.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Its not my example. Just something I found.

However I do understand what they're getting at.

First block is eating, second block is working, third block driving.


Don't you guys have different ways of thinking/organizing shit other than time orientation? You should, you are all NTP.

 

[thisGuy]

Its not my example. Just something I found.

However I do understand what they're getting at.

First block is eating, second block is working, third block driving.


Don't you guys have different ways of thinking/organizing shit other than time orientation? You should, you are all NTP.

oh...you are trying to generalize the way Ne/Ni making connections

 

[Blank]

I have NO idea if this is going to even come close to this (and don't criticize these thoughts, I was just BS'ing around earlier today,) but I had a discussion...mostly with myself while my cousin was in the room about the nature of the universe and this very interesting entropy chart thingy that I saw on the forum.

MY Block thought pattern:
Hrm... The universe is technically flat...Does that mean we are technically three-dimensional beings living in a two-dimensional space? [My cousin interjected that we weren't and compared it to paper.] But then, it's really a matter of perspective, and that if we really think about it, the eye only projects 2d images, but the brain adds depth to it.
A high entropied state can be the equivalent of this coaster. I could break it, and it could be a representative of the big bang..............Time could continue for a freakishly long time until the low entropied state becomes that of a high entropied state, because the physics of space are different than that on the earth. Explosions keep on expanding and there's nothing to slow it down. Stars explode and scatter everywhere and become extremely condensed...Could that be a representative of the universe, that at one time, the universe as we know it was whole and then fragmented in a low entropied state, but over time, high entropy could return because the space between the fragments have become so great, it's just like the universe at the very beginning all over again. I could smash this coaster and while it would have low entropy, over a period of time, it would return to the earth due to things like the weather, so in space, gravity could act as the same kind of thing. Maybe then, space and the universe are cyclical. It explodes, and over eons, the fragments condense and explode all over again. Matter would continue to be created this way from the ever-increasing amount of potential energy...or as Hawking and other scientists have theorized, black holes could take matter out and transfer them to other dimensions or something like that. Therefore, time is a property relevant only to states of low entropy, because in a state of high entropy, time cannot be observed because there's no way to distinguish between "events," whereas in low entropy, it's distinguishable due to the relative position of one object progressing from one point to another and that the universe has the potential to move from periods of high entropy to low entropy and back again.


Sorry if that makes no sense whatsoever, and don't take it to be anything other than BS.

EDIT: To clarify that block of text, I was merely pondering how Time is a product of entropy. For example, if the universe were devoid of everything except for an orange and you were a disembodied eye watching the orange, there is no way to accurately judge time, or if "time" is even occurring because you have no reference point, kind of like how time is supposed to stop in a black hole. However, if the orange was suddenly cut into eight parts and the parts started drifting away from the center of where the orange was, "time" would begin as a reference point between the parts of the orange in comparison to when the orange was whole...I just had to make that process work in my head with the task of trying to see how the orange could fit back together again in my mind. I don't expect the crazy jumping from idea to idea to help anyone else see how it could fit...Because in a logical step pattern all of those seemingly have very little correlation to each other or anything at all.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

Its not my example. Just something I found.

However I do understand what they're getting at.

First block is eating, second block is working, third block driving.


Don't you guys have different ways of thinking/organizing shit other than time orientation? You should, you are all NTP.

That is why I did not give an example.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

That is why I did not give an example.

Mmmm.........I'm not afraid of being wrong in any argument; I actually hope to get different view points from others. But when these bungholes offer one sentence refutation without addressing the main subject they're attempting to criticize without revealing weaknesses. And in that attempt to hedge their exposure they should how weak their position really is.


So fuck it man. Give an example. Explore. Discuss. Be wrong.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

I have NO idea if this is going to even come close to this (and don't criticize these thoughts, I was just BS'ing around earlier today,) but I had a discussion...mostly with myself while my cousin was in the room about the nature of the universe and this very interesting entropy chart thingy that I saw on the forum.

MY Block thought pattern:
Hrm... The universe is technically flat...Does that mean we are technically three-dimensional beings living in a two-dimensional space? [My cousin interjected that we weren't and compared it to paper.] But then, it's really a matter of perspective, and that if we really think about it, the eye only projects 2d images, but the brain adds depth to it.
A high entropied state can be the equivalent of this coaster. I could break it, and it could be a representative of the big bang..............Time could continue for a freakishly long time until the low entropied state becomes that of a high entropied state, because the physics of space are different than that on the earth. Explosions keep on expanding and there's nothing to slow it down. Stars explode and scatter everywhere and become extremely condensed...Could that be a representative of the universe, that at one time, the universe as we know it was whole and then fragmented in a low entropied state, but over time, high entropy could return because the space between the fragments have become so great, it's just like the universe at the very beginning all over again. I could smash this coaster and while it would have low entropy, over a period of time, it would return to the earth due to things like the weather, so in space, gravity could act as the same kind of thing. Maybe then, space and the universe are cyclical. It explodes, and over eons, the fragments condense and explode all over again. Matter would continue to be created this way from the ever-increasing amount of potential energy...or as Hawking and other scientists have theorized, black holes could take matter out and transfer them to other dimensions or something like that. Therefore, time is a property relevant only to states of low entropy, because in a state of high entropy, time cannot be observed because there's no way to distinguish between "events," whereas in low entropy, it's distinguishable due to the relative position of one object progressing from one point to another and that the universe has the potential to move from periods of high entropy to low entropy and back again.


Sorry if that makes no sense whatsoever, and don't take it to be anything other than BS.

EDIT: To clarify that block of text, I was merely pondering how Time is a product of entropy. For example, if the universe were devoid of everything except for an orange and you were a disembodied eye watching the orange, there is no way to accurately judge time, or if "time" is even occurring because you have no reference point, kind of like how time is supposed to stop in a black hole. However, if the orange was suddenly cut into eight parts and the parts started drifting away from the center of where the orange was, "time" would begin as a reference point between the parts of the orange in comparison to when the orange was whole...I just had to make that process work in my head with the task of trying to see how the orange could fit back together again in my mind. I don't expect the crazy jumping from idea to idea to help anyone else see how it could fit...Because in a logical step pattern all of those seemingly have very little correlation to each other or anything at all.

I bet you like Ludwig Boltzmann

 

[Blank]

Never heard of 'em. =D

EDIT: INTERESTING. Within perpetual bigness, there is perpetual smallness. Within perpetual chaos is perpetual order.

Makes sense!

 

[Provoker]

The difference appears to be dynamic vs. linear thought process.

This is a highly questionable statement. It does not follow that just because one thinks in bigger chunks that one is thinking in a non-linear way. What is critical in this assessment is the level of abstraction. Take for instance a history textbook that covers the 20th century. In effect, it will be much more broad in scope than a text that deals specifically with the 1930s. The narratives may be consistent, but the level of abstraction is what varies. The former case is much broader than the latter, yet not necessarily less linear in terms of the reasoning, coherence, and so forth. In fact, in many ways there is a lot of evidence for the opposite thesis. Namely, that coherence and linearity are enhanced by a higher level of abstraction which is linked to the block-thinking orientation. In summary, while on a micro-level it may appear as though the step thinker is more linear, if one steps back-as global historians do-there could be a much broader linear theme at work. It would be correct to point out that my interpretation is based on a specific definition of block-thinking, wherein block-thinking can occur within the confines of linearity. Perhaps the best way to describe it, which is honestly the way I think about it, is through a mathematical analogy with sets. In effect, a cluster of ideas is housed in a set. The set is what we might otherwise call a concept. And when I communicate I typically communicate in sets (concepts) in a linear way. If one inquires into the nature of a particular set, then I elaborate on a lower level of abstraction-perhaps citing on the ground examples and logical reasoning to the support validity of the set (concept).

 

[avolkiteshvara]

This is a highly questionable statement. It does not follow that just because one thinks in bigger chunks that one is thinking in a non-linear way. What is critical in this assessment is the level of abstraction. Take for instance a history textbook that covers the 20th century. In effect, it will be much more broad in scope than a text that deals specifically with the 1930s. The narratives may be consistent, but the level of abstraction is what varies. The former case is much broader than the latter, yet not necessarily less linear in terms of the reasoning, coherence, and so forth. In fact, in many ways there is a lot of evidence for the opposite thesis. Namely, that coherence and linearity are enhanced by a higher level of abstraction which is linked to the block-thinking orientation. In summary, while on a micro-level it may appear as though the step thinker is more linear, if one steps back-as global historians do-there could be a much broader linear theme at work. It would be correct to point out that my interpretation is based on a specific definition of block-thinking, wherein block-thinking can occur within the confines of linearity. Perhaps the best way to describe it, which is honestly the way I think about it, is through a mathematical analogy with sets. In effect, a cluster of ideas is housed in a set. The set is what we might otherwise call a concept. And when I communicate I typically communicate in sets (concepts) in a linear way. If one inquires into the nature of a particular set, then I elaborate on a lower level of abstraction-perhaps citing on the ground examples and logical reasoning to the support validity of the set (concept).

I wasn't citing block or step as one more superior than the other. Just illustrating a different thought process and trying to understand the concept.

But yeah I thought about that. Even within the block or "set" there is a sort of linearity. Mmmmm now I'm thinking about "I Heart Huckabees". This makes me think that this concept was either discovered out of pomposity or I don't have a clue what Block Logic is(the 2nd entirely possible).

 

[sunset5678]

I try to daydream outcomes and alter reality into fitting with them. While I
realize reality is reality and I have to work with what I have, picturing how it
would look if it were to be reality is my motivator when it comes to putting
logic into action. I guess that's what seperates ENTJs from parts of the rest
of the world because even though we are sound thinkers, we are also movers
and shakers. It is hard to have our ambitions and enthusiasms damped by
'wait and sees,' 'i don't knows,' or 'dadadadada didn't work for that person.'
While 'real' people can make different choices and control urges to use ideas
to get power, it does make you see how powerful people like Eva Peron really
were because people worshipped her drive, charisma and the image of a utop-
ia she gave them, some feared her because of her drive and motives behind
the utopia she wanted to turn argentina into. and elphaba thropp from wicked
using her logic and catching onto the wizard not being so wonderful ended up
being feared. funny how logic is such a basic way of thinking but in a few fic-
tional cases or real cases in history it has ended up turning into grandure.

 

[FDG]

First block is eating, second block is working, third block driving.

Yes, but it's poorly written. There should be some sort of connection between sentences that hints at the common topic.

 

[run]

I get what you mean - cross sectioning information in different ways. Instead of eating-working-driving, you could organize the sentences in other ways.

Yes, I look for multiple ways to organize information.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

Yes, but it's poorly written. There should be some sort of connection between sentences that hints at the common topic.

But it encompasses the essence of block logic. Blank was also dead on to bring in entrophy as I also see it inclusive of thermodynamics law.

I am not here to teach it, just testing a theory

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

Never heard of 'em. =D

EDIT: INTERESTING. Within perpetual bigness, there is perpetual smallness. Within perpetual chaos is perpetual order.

Makes sense!

Yes it does make sense...and my initial theory was proven correct that INTP's would be the ones to 'see it' right away - even without a complete picture, even when it wasn't completely 'understood'

P.S. The quote is great!