[MBTI General] Perception: zoom in or zoom out?

[CitizenErased]

Exchanging some thoughts with [MENTION=29457]Abendrot[/MENTION], I began thinking about how people perceive their surroundings: details first or big picture first?

Do you think it's related to MBTI types or not?

Personally, if I have to go with one of the two options, I notice details first, and then all those details start adding up until they become a huge structure/landscape, etc. I think that's the reason my brain becomes a little "slow" whenever I go to a place I've never been before. My big picture is formed by thousands of individual things. After I've placed every detail in its right place and taken a mental photo of the place, I start looking at the details and only then it's when I zoom in. It's like making a jigsaw puzzle. First I notice the pieces, then I put them together and then I look what's rendered in each piece and how it connects to the others.

I read somewhere that IPs are the most "zoomed in" whereas IJs where the most "zoomed out" when it comes to ideas, and EJs are the most "zoomed in" and EPs the most "zoomed out" when it comes to people/groups, but didn't say anything about the physical perception, so I'm curious

 

[Abendrot]

Perhaps it could have something to do with Ni-Se axis versus the Ne-Si axis.

 

[geedoenfj]

I always need first to know the general picture, I want an obvious big picture of what I am going through.. Once you give me the general picture and the tools to dig in, I will be ready for details, but of course I gotta be interested in the subject to start with, if I don't know the significance of it or like that subject, I will not do good with it..
I am never getting enough of knowing more details in whatever interests me, I keep the big picture as a reference, then it's just it's a continuous process of zooming in- zooming out, knowing more details then continually modifying my big picture depending on the details that I discover while digging in, it might as well change my whole perception, I am open to that..

 

[Obfuscate]

for me i come at it from both sides... small and large details meet in the middle... that is to say i notice many small things as i work on the big picture... as my idea of the place/thing/person settles in i return to small details, and then think about the way the details add up... so it is very much a back and forth process..

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Good question [MENTION=26997]CitizenErased[/MENTION]! Yes, I think this is somewhat type related (or more specifically 'function & order' related).

I tend to look at the large picture first. Consciously. But, while I am looking at the overview, details come into my view. Automatically.

So, if someone is telling me about a situation I will listen and think about how everything appears from a zoomed out perspective. Actively thinking. Or if I walk into a gallery or hotel room, I will do a cursory overview analysis. Like viewing a city below from atop a mountain.

But during that phase, details automatically come into focus: 'hmmm, that coastal highway has a traffic snarl or that sub-division is laid out oddly'.

When I am looking at pictures or watching movies with people, I will frequently say something I find interesting or admire and the response from other's is "Oh wow, HOW did you notice that!?". But, it isn't something I can take credit for, cuz those things just seem to jump out?

 

[geedoenfj]

When I am looking at pictures or watching movies with people, I will frequently say something I find interesting or admire and the response from other's is "Oh wow, HOW did you notice that!?". But, it isn't something I can take credit for, cuz those things just seem to jump out?

Thanks God someone finally does the same as I do That's totally me!!
Then I might watch the movie again and again just to make more of these notices in case that I missed something

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Cool!

Then I might watch the movie again and again just to make more of these notices in case that I missed something

So, are you someone who quotes movies then?

I will very rarely watch a movie or read a book more than once. If I do repeat the experience, it means it is one of my TOP fave's. But, I like the idea of you mining through them again for gems. Judging by the movie clips you share, I think you have sharp analysis and talent for curating films.

 

[geedoenfj]

Cool!



So, are you someone who quotes movies then?

I will very rarely watch a movie or read a book more than once. If I do repeat the experience, it means it is one of my TOP fave's. But, I like the idea of you mining through them again for gems. Judging by the movie clips you share, I think you have sharp analysis and talent for curating films.

I used to do that more often before I had my son, there are so many movies that I would like to watch few more times but I don't get the time to do so, and yes I do qoute a lot of those movies

 

[Psyclepath]

I compile the details, assessing the structure of each one. I examine the interpersonal space between each detail, and bring them together to eventually create a big picture. The relations between each detail are what's important to me, and the patterns that these create. The details themselves, mean a lot less.

However, it's hard for me to observe how I perceive - because my Ti is controlling virtually every perception I have.

 

[CitizenErased]

Just forgot to mention in my OP about my latin signature (which means "everything is singular/individual by virtue of itself and nothing else"). It comes from Pierre Auréole (Gothic scholasticism), to end a debate about "universals" and "particulars" (not going to tell the whole story): treat every particular as a universal (so now every particular universal has its own particulars, which are treated as universals with their own particulars...) That's how I see life, only that without the original "universal", which is the one I come back to once zooming in in the already zoomed in becomes useless (I sense not even I understood what I wrote, but I just wanted to say it).

Perhaps it could have something to do with Ni-Se axis versus the Ne-Si axis.

Interesting! Let's see if it adds up according to the people who post here

I always need first to know the general picture, I want an obvious big picture of what I am going through.. Once you give me the general picture and the tools to dig in, I will be ready for details, but of course I gotta be interested in the subject to start with, if I don't know the significance of it or like that subject, I will not do good with it..
I am never getting enough of knowing more details in whatever interests me, I keep the big picture as a reference, then it's just it's a continuous process of zooming in- zooming out, knowing more details then continually modifying my big picture depending on the details that I discover while digging in, it might as well change my whole perception, I am open to that..

The bolded really interested me, because I do quite the opposite: I look at object A and zoom in until there's nothing interesting for me, then I pass to object B, C, D... and then, when I zoom out, it's kind of scary... the amount of information I gathered makes me not understand the big picture as a whole but as a bag of objects I now have to put into place and relate to each other until it makes sense again, but the big picture is always "fragmented", composed by the little objects. It's like I can never make the big picture "compact/flat/unified".

for me i come at it from both sides... small and large details meet in the middle... that is to say i notice many small things as i work on the big picture... as my idea of the place/thing/person settles in i return to small details, and then think about the way the details add up... so it is very much a back and forth process..

So it's as if you had "bifocals for perception", interesting!

Good question [MENTION=26997]CitizenErased[/MENTION]! Yes, I think this is somewhat type related (or more specifically 'function & order' related).

I tend to look at the large picture first. Consciously. But, while I am looking at the overview, details come into my view. Automatically.

So, if someone is telling me about a situation I will listen and think about how everything appears from a zoomed out perspective. Actively thinking. Or if I walk into a gallery or hotel room, I will do a cursory overview analysis. Like viewing a city below from atop a mountain.

But during that phase, details automatically come into focus: 'hmmm, that coastal highway has a traffic snarl or that sub-division is laid out oddly'.

When I am looking at pictures or watching movies with people, I will frequently say something I find interesting or admire and the response from other's is "Oh wow, HOW did you notice that!?". But, it isn't something I can take credit for, cuz those things just seem to jump out?

This happens to me a lot, only that without seeing the big picture first. But I always talk with my hands, and as you can't see me, I need of some visual aid, I'll come back with a sketch.



It goes like this: ... Imagine you are in a corner and you have to get to another corner of the same block. You see all blurry enough just to distinguish the silhouettes so you don't hit them and the only clear things are the tiles on the sidewalk, as a signaling of where you have to walk. Suddenly your eyes move to the socks of a person passing by, because they don't match. You don't have any idea how you picked up on that because you were just looking at the tiles. Everything keeps blurry but the tiles and the socks. When the socks pass, everything is undistinguishable again. Well, that's what happens with people, only that the radar doesn't reach that far. What's terrible is that people can enter the "Interaction Zone", which means I can functionally ask them for a stapler or reply to "Good morning", but they are still blurry. Anyway, my brain picks things, just like with the socks, for example "when guy A talked about his new car, guy B made a twitch with the nose, he's jealous, but girl C touched her hair in a weird way, she probably likes money and will start dating A in about 2 weeks", and then it happens, but I still see silhouettes. Now suppose a guy is interested in talking to me, he says "I'll enter to the interaction zone, so she will notice me" (because in the rest of the people the interaction zone and "interesting people detection" have the same radius)... but no. Unless he says something extremely great or wears a funny hat, for me he's just another annoying moving thing that doesn't let me concentrate. Like a mosquito.

I compile the details, assessing the structure of each one. I examine the interpersonal space between each detail, and bring them together to eventually create a big picture. The relations between each detail are what's important to me, and the patterns that these create. The details themselves, mean a lot less.

However, it's hard for me to observe how I perceive - because my Ti is controlling virtually every perception I have.

Yes, to perceive your own perception is tough, but once you start thinking about how you think, perceiving how you perceive and such, you enter a vortex of introspection that never leaves you. And Ti "likes" that (as if it were a separate entity within you... like a tapeworm), because it's all about reconstructing your own inner framework and how to tell when you're biased by your own physiology, past experiences, etc and it may help you clear the way to see more "objectively".

 

[Bush]

Big picture first.

But it's not just a "Bah! I'm just not concerned with details because I'm a visionary! Synergy! Big picture!!" thing. It can get me into trouble if I'm not careful.

If I don't have the context for something, I do not understand it. It's foreign. It's incomprehensible. For example:

"Hey, when do you think that you could get [one of my tasks] completed?"​

"I'm thinking.. maybe two weeks..?"

"What!? I just told someone that we'd have it in a few days!!"​

"Alright, context. What's the context? Who's this guy? What are you guys looking for?"

[...]

"Yeah. You'll get it tomorrow. That'll give us time to look it over together and make changes if we need to."
​

Also, instructions for putting together a piece of furniture. I can take it step by step, but only after I skim through the whole shebang first, with special attention to what the thing looks like in the end.

 

[Abendrot]

It goes like this: ... Imagine you are in a corner and you have to get to another corner of the same block. You see all blurry enough just to distinguish the silhouettes so you don't hit them and the only clear things are the tiles on the sidewalk, as a signaling of where you have to walk. Suddenly your eyes move to the socks of a person passing by, because they don't match. You don't have any idea how you picked up on that because you were just looking at the tiles. Everything keeps blurry but the tiles and the socks. When the socks pass, everything is undistinguishable again. Well, that's what happens with people, only that the radar doesn't reach that far. What's terrible is that people can enter the "Interaction Zone", which means I can functionally ask them for a stapler or reply to "Good morning", but they are still blurry. Anyway, my brain picks things, just like with the socks, for example "when guy A talked about his new car, guy B made a twitch with the nose, he's jealous, but girl C touched her hair in a weird way, she probably likes money and will start dating A in about 2 weeks", and then it happens, but I still see silhouettes. Now suppose a guy is interested in talking to me, he says "I'll enter to the interaction zone, so she will notice me" (because in the rest of the people the interaction zone and "interesting people detection" have the same radius)... but no. Unless he says something extremely great or wears a funny hat, for me he's just another annoying moving thing that doesn't let me concentrate. Like a mosquito.

This strikes me as incredible . Do you really not see a big picture when you're perceiving your environment? For me I see the big picture first, and I'm immediately aware of the important/interesting things that are happening, and then the finer details begin to surface next. Oftentimes, I don't see the details at all. For example, I used to have a rabbit, and I would often forget if the rabbit was brown or black. Does this extend into memory as well? Do you tend to remember details better than the big picture or semantic meanings?

 

[Shaedow]

For me it's big picture. I have to know where things are going/ context/ the idea to know what details are being asked for.
Now this on my part leads to a lot of assumptions (usually correct) and skimming over details which can save a lot of time, however it is also a weak point when I miss something important.

As for my surroundings, often I am oblivious lost in thought. If bored I may notice random details. If in a new place I am aware of the uncanny resemblance to places I do know, I may see the general trends. As for memories, again big picture as they are general blur of what happened.

 

[CitizenErased]

Big picture first.

But it's not just a "Bah! I'm just not concerned with details because I'm a visionary! Synergy! Big picture!!" thing. It can get me into trouble if I'm not careful.

If I don't have the context for something, I do not understand it. It's foreign. It's incomprehensible. For example:

"Hey, when do you think that you could get [one of my tasks] completed?"​

"I'm thinking.. maybe two weeks..?"

"What!? I just told someone that we'd have it in a few days!!"​

"Alright, context. What's the context? Who's this guy? What are you guys looking for?"

[...]

"Yeah. You'll get it tomorrow. That'll give us time to look it over together and make changes if we need to."
​

Also, instructions for putting together a piece of furniture. I can take it step by step, but only after I skim through the whole shebang first, with special attention to what the thing looks like in the end.

Interesting! I look at all the pieces and just think of what they can be for and then sort of make the piece of furniture in my head, mentally crossing out the pieces I've already used. If my mental render stands, I start putting it togeter for real. The same when I reply emails. i just go paragraph by paragraph, never read the whole thing before (sometimes it's wrong to do so because X person may end their email telling me to go f*ck myself and I started responding like everything was cool, haha --doesn't happen often, but..)

This strikes me as incredible . Do you really not see a big picture when you're perceiving your environment? For me I see the big picture first, and I'm immediately aware of the important/interesting things that are happening, and then the finer details begin to surface next. Oftentimes, I don't see the details at all. For example, I used to have a rabbit, and I would often forget if the rabbit was brown or black. Does this extend into memory as well? Do you tend to remember details better than the big picture or semantic meanings?

My brain sees it; my eyes choose to ignore it. I also remember that way. If you asked me "when did we climbed a tree for the last time?", I won't have any idea. Now, if I see a pigeon with a weird shape on its back, I'll remember another time I saw a pigeon with a weird pattern on its back and I'll remember it was near a lamp post at night, and the lamp post was made of wood and had certain inscriptions on it, and then I'll remember the surroundings of the lamp post and remember it was my hometown, and then I'll remember the noise going on and then I'll remember it was carnival, and then I'll remember we climbed a tree to see the carnival from far away, and THEN I'll have my answer.

Another example: suppose you ask me what do I remember about a certain cab ride. Rembering goes from closer to me to further. I'll remember me sitting, then I'll notice the texture of the place I'm sitting, then what's near me, then how the car looks inside, then the smell it has, then who else is inside the car, then the voice of the driver, then what's beyond the driver, which is the immediate environment (the street, the shops, the people crossing the street, what they're wearing, everything), and theeeeeeen the general picture. I don't remember photos. I remember "videos" of me observing. When I walk near a place many times, I'm able to "update" information, like which tiles are loose vs. which ones were last week, or if a random balcony has more or less plants now than last summer. I'm a pain in the ass because no one can lie to me. I remember what someone was wearing when they said X thing and the whole "video" of facial expressions they made.

Another interesting thing is that I don't tie data together until later. It's like my 5 senses absorb ALL the data and do nothing with it, and then while sleeping or two days after I just have epiphanies, because I have flasbacks of details and how they're all tied together, and that's how I come with my predictions. i'm oblivious to everybody's personal life but I know what's going to happen to everyone.

For me it's big picture. I have to know where things are going/ context/ the idea to know what details are being asked for.
Now this on my part leads to a lot of assumptions (usually correct) and skimming over details which can save a lot of time, however it is also a weak point when I miss something important.

As for my surroundings, often I am oblivious lost in thought. If bored I may notice random details. If in a new place I am aware of the uncanny resemblance to places I do know, I may see the general trends. As for memories, again big picture as they are general blur of what happened.

This happens to me too. I scan places and see if they resemble any other place of my "memory catalog", and if they do, I then scan for the differences so I know WHAT is going to work differently and which are the consequences of X factor being different. But for that I need to appeal to my memory of details.

 

[Eilonwy]

It seems to me that the introverted functions look for details and the extraverted functions look for the big picture. Which functions are introverted and where they fall in the stack tend to determine which areas will be focused on in detail, and which functions are extraverted and where they fall in the stack tend to determine which areas will tend to be big picture. I think that the judging functions stand out the most in my case: Ti for details and Fe for big picture.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am big picture first for sure. I need context before I can do anything with certainty.
Without context you only have one big guessing game in my opinion. (and I dislike these)

 

[Jaguar]

Remaining at the zoomed in or zoomed out setting or even beginning with the same setting all the time would mean my lens is broken. I zoom in and out depending on the scenario.

 

[CitizenErased]

It seems to me that the introverted functions look for details and the extraverted functions look for the big picture. Which functions are introverted and where they fall in the stack tend to determine which areas will be focused on in detail, and which functions are extraverted and where they fall in the stack tend to determine which areas will tend to be big picture. I think that the judging functions stand out the most in my case: Ti for details and Fe for big picture.

This is interesting. When I was thinking about functions (related to this topic), I imagined the perceiving functions for details and the judging functions for big picture, not related to the introversion or extroversion of them. For example my Ne-Si focuses on details, one to absorb them from the environment and the other one to "store them", creating my personal world of meaning, while my Ti-Fe just build big-picture systems with the Ne-Si data: Ti applying the details to its framework and Fe by generalizing when it comes to people's activities/feelings, etc (all this people here have something in common).

I am big picture first for sure. I need context before I can do anything with certainty.
Without context you only have one big guessing game in my opinion. (and I dislike these)

I remember you, you're the "system-builder" moralist, right? (context) I think it's two different ways of "solving" the same puzzle. Do I look at the finished version for a while and then I interpret each piece according to that or I learn about ieach piece and learn how they can be connected and then understand how pieces relate to each other, so when you look at the big picture you know what you're seeing. Yes, sometimes not having the context of something can lead you to not interpret each object at that moment, but I prefer looking at each object without any sort of bias because I understand its "mechanics" and then I zoom out, see what the context is and say "for this situation, these objects have THIS meaning given by their context, but I know how they are and how they can have other meanings in another contexts". In my experience, if I look at something already knowing what I'm going to see (from what point of view), I fear I'll attach factors of the current situation to the objects composing it.

Anyway, I was talking more about perception of the surroundings. When I go to a house for the same time, do I make a mental blueprint of what the house is, or laugh at the irony of that little marble elephant figurine on the coffee table? I do the second, then zoom out; that way I have mental references to trace lines. Maybe it's a lack of Ni (? ... I build my blueprint of a place thinking of the relation between the objects: element A is surrounding element B, which is aligned with element C. I bring Ni because the INTJs I know treat every "scenario" as "this couldn't be any other way", so by looking at an object, every other object makes sense being where it is.

Remaining at the zoomed in or zoomed out setting or even beginning with the same setting all the time would mean my lens is broken. I zoom in and out depending on the scenario.

Interesting. Do you happen to know for which situations do you begin with the big picture and for which with details?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I remember you, you're the "system-builder" moralist, right? (context) I think it's two different ways of "solving" the same puzzle. Do I look at the finished version for a while and then I interpret each piece according to that or I learn about ieach piece and learn how they can be connected and then understand how pieces relate to each other, so when you look at the big picture you know what you're seeing. Yes, sometimes not having the context of something can lead you to not interpret each object at that moment, but I prefer looking at each object without any sort of bias because I understand its "mechanics" and then I zoom out, see what the context is and say "for this situation, these objects have THIS meaning given by their context, but I know how they are and how they can have other meanings in another contexts". In my experience, if I look at something already knowing what I'm going to see (from what point of view), I fear I'll attach factors of the current situation to the objects composing it.

Anyway, I was talking more about perception of the surroundings. When I go to a house for the same time, do I make a mental blueprint of what the house is, or laugh at the irony of that little marble elephant figurine on the coffee table? I do the second, then zoom out; that way I have mental references to trace lines. Maybe it's a lack of Ni (? ... I build my blueprint of a place thinking of the relation between the objects: element A is surrounding element B, which is aligned with element C. I bring Ni because the INTJs I know treat every "scenario" as "this couldn't be any other way", so by looking at an object, every other object makes sense being where it is.

Well the key trait of Ni-Fi loop is that it has expectations, probably even very long term expectations, therefore you as NTJ want to push situations and objects in directions you desire or need. So when you start to study the problem you already have something on mind ... and if this does not interest you then you will just do something else. I can't work without goal in mind, even if there isn't one I make up one. Even if it is something silly as "understand this problem".