I'll know it when I see it

[The Exception]

Is there a type or socionic function that is most likely to use this phrase?

I know that's often the case with me. I'm not sure if its an LII thing or a holographic thinking style thing but I often times have trouble accurately explaining step by step to someone how to do something unless, I can physically do the thing in front of the person. If I physically do it, I can see the next step and point it out to them but if I don't have that visual cue, its like I can't verbally remember the next step.


Here's an example. I'm helping someone with some computer application and I know how to do it but I don't precisely remember the whole sequence of clicks to get it to do what I want it do. However, if I actually go into the program, visually there will be cues that will tell me where to click on next.

Anyone else think this way? Is it holographic thinking style? Or something else?

[ashlesha]

i'm the same, i think this might be normal? like not being able to recall the digits of a telephone number until you move your thumb around and pretend you're dialing it.

[Slacker]

I don't know but I'm like that to. As is my sister - we were out once and she coudln't remember her PIN until she was pressing the numbers. Like her hands knew what to do. She's EII.

Not sure if it's type related or if people just establish habits for stuff.

[Sir Knight]

That's not really a type thing as much as it is a muscle memory/unconscious competence thing. Essentially you just punch something in so many times that you don't even need to expend any conscious effort towards remembering it, you just type it in and go.

[The Ineffable]

I'm exactly the same way, what WL wrote, but not the other example, which isn't IMO the same thing (that sounds related to reflex or unconscious).

It sounds Irrational, Ne/Si-Base, more precisely.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't know but I'm like that to. As is my sister - we were out once and she coudln't remember her PIN until she was pressing the numbers. Like her hands knew what to do. She's EII.

Not sure if it's type related or if people just establish habits for stuff.

I do that sometimes.

I used to call it photographic memory, but I don't think it is.

[crazedrat]

Its state specific memory. Thats why if you study while drugged up on caffeine you will perform better if you take the test on caffeine.

[munenori2]

I'm kind of notoriously good at describing step by step stuff if I've done it two or three times, but I use the title phrase a lot, it just tends to be where I don't know how to explain something I'm thinking but if someone else talked about it I could point to it and be like, "yeah, that's what it was."

[ashlesha]

I'm exactly the same way, what WL wrote, but not the other example, which isn't IMO the same thing (that sounds related to reflex or unconscious).

It sounds Irrational, Ne/Si-Base, more precisely.

i do the same thing WL wrote too, i was just trying to give another example cos i thought they were the same thing. like one is muscle memory and the other is eyesight memory? lol

[The Ineffable]

i do the same thing WL wrote too, i was just trying to give another example cos i thought they were the same thing. like one is muscle memory and the other is eyesight memory? lol

I got the idea. I think they're maybe not the same thing as IMO her example is like the usual things you should remember but they just don't stick, it's just spontaneity and stuff. Oh and when I think about that example I can immediately tell that's totally me - and makes me different than most people. About the other, I have to think about it, and it sounds more common or something .

[krieger]

NTR

[DividedsGhost]

Is there a type or socionic function that is most likely to use this phrase?

You'll know it when you see it!

Hahahaha.

[Creepy-Snaps]

NTR

Actually I do believe it is type related.

Aren't ENTjs notoriously known for asking for someone to PROVE something to them? Or SHOW it to them? Asking for a demonstration. As opposed to another type, I think ENTp, who usually just says EXPLAIN it to me.

It's almost like 'knowing it when you see it' is justifying external proof, logical real-world consistency, with what's being said, which generally correlates with .

[krieger]

Aren't ENTjs notoriously known for asking for someone to PROVE something to them?

not true at all. they just have their own set of biased assumptions they don't demand proof for and which they want everything outside this belief base reduced and related to.

[Beautiful sky]

It's almost like 'knowing it when you see it' is justifying external proof, logical real-world consistency, with what's being said, which generally correlates with .

yes
I should know right...I'm a magnet for it.

[The Exception]

Actually I do believe it is type related.

Aren't ENTjs notoriously known for asking for someone to PROVE something to them? Or SHOW it to them? Asking for a demonstration. As opposed to another type, I think ENTp, who usually just says EXPLAIN it to me.

It's almost like 'knowing it when you see it' is justifying external proof, logical real-world consistency, with what's being said, which generally correlates with .

That's what I was thinking.

[krieger]

you people are embarrassing.

That's what I was thinking.

he's not agreeing with you. unless you just made 180 degree turn in opinion.

[FDG]

That's what I was thinking.

But that seems to be completely different from what you were suggesting in your original post...

anyhow, as a specimen of ENTj, I generally don't care that much about it. As long as your explanation makes sense (to me) I won't need a material proof (unless my money / time is at stake, of course).

when it comes to the phenomenon warrior librarian was describing, it seems to be related to how familiar you are with a given task - the more familiar, the more likely you'll be to remember specific steps.

[Aiss]

I got the idea. I think they're maybe not the same thing as IMO her example is like the usual things you should remember but they just don't stick, it's just spontaneity and stuff. Oh and when I think about that example I can immediately tell that's totally me - and makes me different than most people. About the other, I have to think about it, and it sounds more common or something .

Funny you should think it makes you different. I was just about to write that IME almost everyone is like that.

[The Ineffable]

when it comes to the phenomenon warrior librarian was describing, it seems to be related to how familiar you are with a given task - the more familiar, the more likely you'll be to remember specific steps.

People seem to not understand this matter, each has his/her own interpretation. Indeed it was not explained, it's not even easy to explain, though who experiences it knows precisely what's it all about. I make no claim that I'm telling the same thing as the OP, as WL may turn it however she wishes, but what I'm talking about is not about familiarity, as you remain the same way even in your area of expertise. When you're like this, you will not be able, for instance, to impress in interviewer for a job just by talking, your abilities are not something you can clearly talk about, you don't have a method and what you do doesn't have a name or a description.

In my case, in most of the positions I was hired by recommendations or tests, it was very hard for me to make an entry into a field as I am totally incapable to tell what I can do, but either what I have already accomplished - though the greatest amount of my contributions are a huge pile of bits-and-pieces - or that I can try (or try again). Not only that I don't know what I exactly I can do, but others can't tell it as well. Everytime I do something is a jump into the unknown, I never try to remember procedures, names, conventions, steps, whatever.

I think that, more or less the same, this is an issue of all Alpha and Delta Irrationals, because of this peculiarity they often don't know how to sell themselves at their true price. I'm pretty convinced that it's Alpha/Beta Irrationals, however I can't tell this for sure right now, but as usual I'll keep this in mind and will come to a conclusion in time. Someone accustomed to Socionics should immediately tell that it's related to Irrational something, my first thought was that it's either p+Bodies or p+Merry, however, based on observations, this is peculiar to the four types I mentioned. (all this IMO and IME, of course)

Funny you should think it makes you different. I was just about to write that IME almost everyone is like that.

You likely think about something else, please read the details above. This is not something common, not even something fully socially-accepted (in education, etc).

[The Exception]

People seem to not understand this matter, each has his/her own interpretation. Indeed it was not explained, it's not even easy to explain, though who experiences it knows precisely what's it all about. I make no claim that I'm telling the same thing as the OP, as WL may turn it however she wishes, but what I'm talking about is not about familiarity, as you remain the same way even in your area of expertise. When you're like this, you will not be able, for instance, to impress in interviewer for a job just by talking, your abilities are not something you can clearly talk about, you don't have a method and what you do doesn't have a name or a description.

I don't do well in job interviews. I'm terrible at those tell me a time when you............ sorts of questions. I know I've done X effectively numerous times but I can't just pull up the concrete evidence at will.

How I've tried getting around this is right after the job interview write down the questions that were asked to the best of my memory and then when I'm at work again, pay more attention to concrete examples of situations I've been in that fit those questions so if the question is asked again I'll be able to provide a decent answer.

In my case, in most of the positions I was hired by recommendations or tests, it was very hard for me to make an entry into a field as I am totally incapable to tell what I can do, but either what I have already accomplished - though the greatest amount of my contributions are a huge pile of bits-and-pieces - or that I can try (or try again). Not only that I don't know what I exactly I can do, but others can't tell it as well. Everytime I do something is a jump into the unknown, I never try to remember procedures, names, conventions, steps, whatever.

I wish there wasn't so much weight placed on the job interview. Alot of people hate the thought of employment testing but I like it. Not personalitiy testing, but aptitude testing I would totally be okay with. I know what I have the potential to do and the sense of what I'm good at and not good at. I know what kinds of work environments I thrive in and which ones I don't. I have a hard time articulating all of this in an interview unless I practice the questions to death. I know several people who would give me a strong reference but rarely are references checked unless they are truly serious about offering you the job. You gotta do well on the pesky interview for the references to get checked.

I think that, more or less the same, this is an issue of all Alpha and Delta Irrationals, because of this peculiarity they often don't know how to sell themselves at their true price. I'm pretty convinced that it's Alpha/Beta Irrationals, however I can't tell this for sure right now, but as usual I'll keep this in mind and will come to a conclusion in time.

What about LIIs? I would think they would have problems selling themselves to some extent with the weak .

I don't think I'm an irrational type. Small chance of ILE I suppose but I don't see any other one possibily fitting me.

[The Ineffable]

warrior-librarian, sincerely i have no much experience with them in these situations (interviews), or I don't remember. I know one I took care of his CV & some encouragements (the guy was really good but very cynical) and once some company asked me about someone for a small job and I recommended him. He refused the job because the available time to do it was too little, he could decide immediately how long it'll take and if he can do it. This is one of the questions that always terrify me, "how long it will take, in your estimation?", so considering that he did that immediately and resolutely, I assume this is a great difference between us.

I have work experience with LIIs instead. Hmm they use to specialize very much, they know few things and know them well and easily decline what's outside their known abilities with no regret (apparently, to me). Like when asked "can you do that?" they just reply "yes/no" not something like "I could try" or something, like I would do. They kind of "know" what they do and overall how long it'll take, not some kind of trial-and-error. It would be good to hear some opinions of Ij types, talking about it in their own words.

How I've tried getting around this is right after the job interview write down the questions that were asked to the best of my memory and then when I'm at work again, pay more attention to concrete examples of situations I've been in that fit those questions so if the question is asked again I'll be able to provide a decent answer.

I wish there wasn't so much weight placed on the job interview. Alot of people hate the thought of employment testing but I like it. Not personalitiy testing, but aptitude testing I would totally be okay with. I know what I have the potential to do and the sense of what I'm good at and not good at. I know what kinds of work environments I thrive in and which ones I don't. I have a hard time articulating all of this in an interview unless I practice the questions to death. I know several people who would give me a strong reference but rarely are references checked unless they are truly serious about offering you the job. You gotta do well on the pesky interview for the references to get checked.

Maybe that works, but I gave it up long ago. I was never good at it and I don't find possible to cover all possible questions that dumb-ass can ask. And there are others much better at this than me, I can't even hope that I could ever beat them at their own game. I play the card of originality, passion and adaptability because that's me and because I can afford it, as in my field there are many weirdos but you never know who's the jackpot.
---

Regarding your type: . We thought Ij now this.

[717495]

Understanding The People Around You - Filatova
...The only serious reasons Professionals (LSEs) can accept are facts. They underpin their statements with facts and require the same from other people. When they begin a new project, they methodically collect all the information about the upcoming enterprise, analyze all possible options, and act only once they understand all the details.

I find this to be generally true. Not sure how related to the OP it is, but in any case I'm sure lots of people relate to remembering an image of sorts, but not being able to pinpoint what exactly it is or what details. Like with haunting music stuck in my head, I often remember only faint harmonious traces. Of course when I see the real thing, everything tends to come back to me and I can hum the rest, or if I see an idea implemented in real life, there is a better chance for me to develop it into something else. That's the way it works. That's why most people need examples after abstract concepts are explained.

[cracka]

As far as the original post goes, I'm very much the same way.

Everytime I do something is a jump into the unknown, I never try to remember procedures, names, conventions, steps, whatever.

If this is done on purpose, I don't get it? What good comes out of not remembering those things?

In my line of work, it's the fact that I DO remember everything, even the smallest details, that make me better than everyone else at what I do. I'm a walking instruction manual for the equipment I work on every day, and often people will just ask a question to me if they need to know something instead of going into the specs for the tool to look for it. I can actually say, it's helped my career a lot being this way.

I guess there may be some career or job out there where this would help, I just can't get my head around why anyone would be like that and would like to hear more about it?

[jughead]

polijumkmkjbn wtf you change types more than anyone.

Bolt: you may be on to something, your foreign language accent clouds my ability to understand

[ashlesha]

polijumkmkjbn wtf you change types more than anyone.

so he's open-minded and not a stereotype. don't hate.

[marooned]

i do this as well. i don't tend to be a step-by-step person in general.

i've noticed with computers that a lot of people have learned how to use them visually and kinesthetically (myself included) via learning by interacting with the computer or by trial-and-error. this builds in one's mind a picture of the sort of "mind" of the computer and an increasingly intuitive idea of how it works. the memory and knowledge of what to do next relies on visual cues that tie together the kinesthetic pieces (and steps are understood visually and intuitively and not really as "steps" anymore, as the understanding has sort of transcended thinking of it that way). because learning is based on interacting and visual cues and intuition, words in terms of what things are called and ways to verbally articulate step-by-step processes are de-emphasized by the mind (that sort of understanding is not needed to use the computer in the way the mind has learned... that would be more useful if one were intellectualizing the computer in a detached way where one doesn't really ever use it but has a great need to talk about it a lot). also regarding tasks on a computer there are often multiple ways to approach it or to accomplish something and so it ends up being more situational rather than there just being one way to do everything and so trying to verbalize step-by-step processes can be rather pointless and only useful if there is a particular process that one rarely uses and forgets all the time (as then it could be helpful to write it down so it doesn't have to be re-figured out over and over... of course chances are someone else has already done this first and it can be easily found via an internet search).

[717495]

polijumkmkjbn wtf you change types more than anyone.

Heh, it does kinda piss me off when other people do it, but in a very insouciant way. Anyway, incase you're curious I was just reading the Filatova descriptions from her book and looking at her VI, and realized how much those fit me, the description for ILI also fits me but not the whole type feel. They go abouts defining for IEI and ILI each in their own way. I think that's a hint, if you can relate strongly to both descriptions and both -DS descriptions, then you should be one of those. Cuz I don't relate to any of the others, but I can pinpoint people I know who do.

Anyway, what's this thread about?

[The Ineffable]

If this is done on purpose, I don't get it? What good comes out of not remembering those things?
...
I guess there may be some career or job out there where this would help, I just can't get my head around why anyone would be like that and would like to hear more about it?

Not on purpose, in my case, but I neither make an effort against it. This is how I am working, in the end, and while I get my job done I see absolutely no problem. I'm an adept of ROWE, btw.

Why would anyone be like that? ...because this is how they are, I suppose? I could tell you that at an ex workplace, me and an IEE were the best to some things, solutions. I was on the technical part, doing tools for and troubleshooting everything, he was with tips-and-tricks, little useful programs and how-to's. We called him "Frenzy" as he was fast in speech, ADHD maybe and grabbing your mouse all the time to show you how. Both of use had this "problem" of not being very organized and being vague in explanations, though we became kinda indispensable there. In fact he entered the company though the same "back door", namely telling the LIE boss "just let me show it to you". The LIE guy was never missing a potential opportunity, of course .

i've noticed with computers that a lot of people have learned how to use them visually and kinesthetically (myself included) via learning by interacting with the computer or by trial-and-error. this builds in one's mind a picture of the sort of "mind" of the computer and an increasingly intuitive idea of how it works. the memory and knowledge of what to do next relies on visual cues that tie together the kinesthetic pieces (and steps are understood visually and intuitively and not really as "steps" anymore, as the understanding has sort of transcended thinking of it that way). because learning is based on interacting and visual cues and intuition, words in terms of what things are called and ways to verbally articulate step-by-step processes are de-emphasized by the mind (that sort of understanding is not needed to use the computer in the way the mind has learned... that would be more useful if one were intellectualizing the computer in a detached way where one doesn't really ever use it but has a great need to talk about it a lot). also regarding tasks on a computer there are often multiple ways to approach it or to accomplish something and so it ends up being more situational rather than there just being one way to do everything and so trying to verbalize step-by-step processes can be rather pointless and only useful if there is a particular process that one rarely uses and forgets all the time (as then it could be helpful to write it down so it doesn't have to be re-figured out over and over... of course chances are someone else has already done this first and it can be easily found via an internet search).

Ha! You read my thoughts designated to answer cracka's question of what are these people good for.

IMO, the people I include myself in are very good where stability and rigor are not required, but where new problems and challenges appear and obstruct proper development. I think this is where the two connect - "why don't they verbalize?" and "what are their abilities?". When your company or project gets stuck, this is in fact mandatory, to forget everything you knew. Some companies and projects so pitifully but surely collapse based on this stubborn adherence to what "they know". You just laugh and watch them going down as you can tell for sure that they stand no chance while they keep adhering to their stale procedures, nomenclature, their meetings go all the same manner (as they "know"), the doom is inevitable. The same goes for politicians, actors, music bands, who knew that things are a certain manner, they can talk hours about their expertise, however they don't catch up with realities.

Indeed, those kinesthetic people in question don't see things in a certain manner, this is probably why they don't verbalize and collate everything, but why they're so good problem-solvers and innovators. Conventions are human, they're not in the things themselves; they're good to communicate but counter-productive when they're out-of-date (the conditions change).

[The Ineffable]

Here is (again) an example of such person, who I typed as IEE, he's exactly the kind of person I'm talking about, just watch the video and read about the guy and the book, this would maybe cover everything I'd need to tell on the matter, cracka. (he calls what he's allegedly lacking as "fluff", "group think", "extra stuff" of the West Coast )

The guy wrote a book collaborating with someone else, here are its covers:
http://37signals.com/rework/images/front-cover.png
http://37signals.com/rework/images/back-cover.png
---

Another such successful example is Linus Torvalds, who I type as SLI. In the interviews, he always declines to explain what he was trying to accomplish, what was his vision, what's his role in history, what purpose does he has, how exactly did he do it, etc. He *just did it*, he could have never convinced anyone with the value of his work, but it happened that it worked and stuck with people. Excerpts from his "coding style" document:

Another measure of the function is the number of local variables. They
shouldn't exceed 5-10, or you're doing something wrong. Re-think the
function, and split it into smaller pieces. A human brain can
generally easily keep track of about 7 different things, anything more
and it gets confused. You know you're brilliant, but maybe you'd like
to understand what you did 2 weeks from now.

...

Comments are good, but there is also a danger of over-commenting. NEVER
try to explain HOW your code works in a comment: it's much better to
write the code so that the _working_ is obvious, and it's a waste of
time to explain badly written code.

---

Now talking about code, comments and me, I think I previously wrote about my firing by that pedantic ILI. He himself hired me based on what he knew about me, though when we had to work together we clashed. He was like some sort of teacher and was asking me to tell in advance what I'm going to do, what's my methodology, how I did different things and *what* I was doing. I was obviously unable to provide him with these beautiful literary compositions that could make him confident that I know what I'm doing.

But now regarding code comments, this was a big issue between us. He asked me to comment the code like he did - there were a lot of comments in it telling what's each no-name function and library. However, when I was asked to add mine on my functions, IIRC, I literally told him "what am I supposed to write about it?", it is what it was supposed to be, what we discussed . That was a really disappointing moment for him, and I understand why, though my view is radically different and I don't think it's necessarily wrong. In fact, I find rich software documentation so confusing and useless, in most of the cases one thing you imagine reading it, a different thing is what happens when you try the code out.

I was later hired by the director of that company for a different endeavor of his, for the record. My results had no direct connection with the requirements of that ILI supervisor.

[cracka]

The way you explain it makes sense, I just read your initial post differently and wanted it explained a bit. Oh, and I wasn't trying to imply anything negative in my post, I really did just want to know what you meant. Thanks Bolt.