Lexical vs Impressionistic Thinking.Which are you?(Also,click here if you love anime)

[lmfao]

Came across some psychological system that an anime YouTube called Digibro made in categorising anime characters but can also be applied real life people. In addition the dichotomy in the title of this thread, there's "lateral vs linear". Check bottom of post for video link.

Lexical Thinkers will have the degree to which they can understand something be closely related to their ability to codify their thoughts into "verbal/logical syntatic form" (I'm just trying to give a rough, accurate phrase here). The tendency for them is to process and express things in terms of language and words. Their cognition is more "orderly" in this sense as well. Extremely lexical thinkers will have a hard time understanding things which can't be put into words. * 

Impressionistic thinkers will understand things but find it more difficult to put it into words, and might find other methods of communication more preferable. The structure of their mind just doesn't lend itself as easily to processing or communicating in precise words. Their communication and thinking is less so in the form of some symbolic logic system. A lot of them might be more artistic, implicit and "naturalistic" in how they interact with the world. 

A common conflict which can arise in communication is when an impressionistic thinker uses language very loosely as a tool to point to or paint a picture or communicate some image/impression rather than communicating a precise point. The lexical thinker will demonise the impressionist thinker as a lunatic or as being nonsensical, leaving the impressionistic thinker frustrated and thinking they're talking to someone autistic and not on the same "intuitive plane" as them. On the other hand, impressionistic thinkers will perceive curious and honest lexical thinkers who explore things in their way with more precise verbal questioning and exploration to be dismissive/aggressive and missing the point. It isn't that they are missing point just that they're trying to build more and that this is their mode of being.  I see this conflict happening all the time in this forum and in real life

*Whilst it maybe be easy from this to think that Lexical Thinkers are always stuck in their head, lost in concepts, and hence worse in spirituality, this is not the case. Lexical Thinking and Impressionistic Thinking strange-loop into each other (yin + yang shit). An example of an amazing lexical thinker would be Peter Ralston, who's insatiable curiosity for what is exactly going on in consciousness formed him into a genius and master. 

You can think of the existence of lexical thinking as an attempt to see reality with greater clarity and visual resolution. It is a way of seeking clarity in hazy unconsciousness. In trying to understand reality in general, it's a strange-loop mixture and it is both hazy and precise at the same time. Think Alan Watts prickles and goo analogy. 

Another thing, within this video, laterality vs linearity is also talked about as an independent dimension to lexical vs impressionist. Lateral thinkers will have multiple things and multiple threads with the things they say, and will hence be harder to understand because of it. Lexical lateral thinkers will still have it very rough in trying to communicate with people. Lateral Impressionistic thinkers will have it even worse in trying to communicate to people, even if their understanding of themselves and the world is exceptionally intelligent. Whilst you can consider something around the vicinity of "IQ" to be an enabler of high laterality, it does not imply high laterality. As with the previous dichotomy, both have their advantages and strange-loop into each other. 

Here's the video. For a few minutes at the start he talks briefly about his model in general, what the different terms mean and his system in general. Then he talks about the 16 quadrants he made for different degrees and combinations of (lexicality/impressionistic)-ness and (linearity/laterality)-ness. In the YouTube description are timestamps for the different quadrants and columns he examines in his chart. 

God I find this shit so fun. If I had to put myself on this chart somewhere, it would probably be at somewhere between analyst and fascinator. Leaning towards analyst, maybe quick-witted. Biologically I'm lexical but have gotten more impressionistic as I get older. 
Also, take the titles given in this chart with a grain of salt. They aren't to mean you act upon some specific role "e.g. caretaker", the names are just there to try and communicate some impression about the category. Check the YouTube description timestamps if you want to see a description of each type. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by lmfao

[lmfao]

@cypres Yeah, that's a good question. I know that sometimes I think in images and have gut feelings sometimes that I can't really put into words. I think it might be a bit more common for impressionistic thinking to think in images, but that needn't be the case. I think many highly lateral thinkers in general think in images. Impressionistic folks are more inclined to artistic stuff on average I think. 
Unsymbolised thinking is generally associated with the impressionistic realm. But it needn't always be that way, I would think. e.g. Someone who's lexical might be into Zen forms of consciousness work, and to quote R.H Blythe 

Quote

Zen is the unsymbolization of the world 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by lmfao

[The observer]

@lmfao Thanks! This is a great thread, I absolutely relate to it. And yes, I would say I'm more lexical than impressionistic in this specific phase of my life as I used to struggle so much with articulating my thoughts. Recently, I started shifting from vague expressions to accurate descriptions because I thought it was limiting my communication, especially here. Somehow, I get how impressionists think, relate, and express their thoughts but I have to say when trying to pose a theory, it's generally better to express it in a detailed objective manner than in an artistic intuitive manner. The receivers will understand/interpret your theory differently to each other, so by being lexical at least you guarantee that you are being as objective as possible but then the interpretations which are out of your hands will differ, some will understand your theory like you intended and some won't. Lexical expression gives smaller room for interpretation and thus makes the communication of models more effective. Of course, some people (whether lexical or impressionists) are able to understand and get how impressionists express their thoughts/theories, and that's great. But there's a bigger risk of misinterpretation, at least in our modern times as we're generally more used to the scientific approach. I will watch the video and perhaps give my feedback here. Thanks again.

Edited April 25, 2020 by The observer

[Ya know]

I would say through reading, writing and talking  with others I have the skill of communicating clearly which would place me on the lexical side, but I think more intuitively and understand the limitations of language in conveying ideas - especially as they are subject to idiosyncratic interpretation. 

So honestly I would say both. Lexical as a result of education, but my true method is impressionistic. 

[w4read]

Nice thread, and interesting model! I was only familiar with the 4 letter combination model, but i think this one brings another interesting perspective. 

Personally I would say I go straight into the "analyst" category, very lexical and lateral. I realize my best potential when I'm put in a situation where there is some sort of structure to the problem that is going to be solved and where the steps of the process is defined. I tend to be stuck in my head and use a lot of time trying to formulate stuff to write the "perfect" comments that totally reflects what I think with the uppermost precision.

I lack creatvity and tend to be more logical. I also think in terms of pictures, which has made me use visualization a lot on found that to be a very powerful technique. Many times I'm not able to follow conversations when it goes to fast and I lack the quick witted, on the spot, and intuitive communication.

According to the other model I am an ESTP, even though I'm not sure if I really fit into this category.

I think actualized.org has made me implement som impressionistic thinking in the terms that you view the reality in a totally new way, but as far I've really only grasp the things that has some sort of logical implications to them.

I feel like my sticking point is to be able to be more impressionistic, but it feels like the rationalistic paradigm has my balls to some degree.

Any recommendations to how I can learn to think more impressionistic and become more creative?

Thanks!

 

[GodDesireOnlyLove]

ho great post, will made my fun today ( I m into MBTI since a month now )

I m apparently very close from L in death note ( INTP ),

funnily story about it ( ok not so funny ) I was a lot more fan of "kira" when I was a kid and was happy about the death of L.

Although I appreciated both characters.

but now that I grew up, I got more attached to L character and vision, that I believe was way more mature than the childish Yagami one.
 

Apparently L = INTP 

Yagami = INTJ
 

One of my best friend is INTJ, we both respect each other, but we both play the dick game all the time hahahahaha

then we proceed to respect, then battle again;

now I m gonna eat your post.

Great way to understand more communication, I m enjoying this post more than I believed I would.
what type do you believe you are into lmfao; if I may ask ?

highly lateral & lexical ( depend my energy though for "lexical" I think it's more in my head. I communicate very "impressionisticly" now ( I learned too ), especially because people tend to not be not so much into process, so I cut down to an artistic expression of all my "lexical thinking"  )
 

16:18 - Category 4: Human Calculators (Very Lateral, Very Lexical)

Edited April 26, 2020 by GodDesireOnlyLove

[lmfao]

On 25/04/2020 at 7:56 PM, w4read said:

I think actualized.org has made me implement som impressionistic thinking in the terms that you view the reality in a totally new way, but as far I've really only grasp the things that has some sort of logical implications to them.

@w4read  Yeah I can relate to this. I mean in the analyst category, you can often take interest in the impressionist and can see that point of view more, but your default cognition process will be on the more lexical side. 

I have similar OCD/Perfectionist-like streaks running through me in trying to write something "perfect". If I'm making notes in uni on a topic and the lecturer misses out something or says something slightly incorrect, it bothers me a lot and I make like 2-3 footnote side comments for my future self to read so that they don't get confused. 

@GodDesireOnlyLove For which system do you wanna know my type, mbti or this thing? MBTI wise I'm INTP. I mean for this thing, I'm quite unsure. I don't evaluate myself to be very hyper intelligent or creative compared to what I could be or others can be, so I'm perhaps not extremely lateral. Relative to this model I could be. I'm likely analyst or quick-witted possibly. I think I've always been around that region, even if I've started to enjoy more impressionistic domains of experience. 

When I was younger a few years ago (im 19 now), I was a bit more lexical, more entranced by semantics and verbal nit-picking. I still engage in that sort of thing, but I like to make it as colourful and dynamic as I hopefully can. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by lmfao

[tenta]

I guess am between brooder and reasonable person. Also I don't know why human calculator is on the top of lateral reasoning, a calculator is not lateral.

[lmfao]

Random entry:

In regards to neurotyping and the lexical vs impressionist dichotomy. The fact that creative writers are often on the impressionistic side of things shows the grey area of this all. They're using lexicon to be impressionistic. And math which is the best analogy for pure lexical thinking is reducible to verbal-philosophical statements.

A dictionary alone doesn't characterise a language really. Because if you look up the definition for a word you get more words, and each of those words are defined with more words, which are in turn defined by more words. It's a web of circular ,meaningless assertions. In isolation, a dictionary is meaningless. But it isn't in isolation. 

The network of meaningless words and associations is endowed with meaning by, and constructed in the first place by, some ineffable process. Which you might call "induction". It involves context. At the most simple level, you hold an object in front of a baby and say "ball". The baby gets it. And in general that induction, which is the very basis of learning and grasping something, is not describable.
--
The fact that this indescribable process of grasping can be pointed to and alluded to by words like "induction" will in most cases create an ignorance about the process. Because often accompanying the naming of something is the illusion that it has been understood, and "explained away". There then comes the feeling that since it's been explained away it is no longer magical. The word "induction" is pointing towards a process that involves consciousness, the observer, the subject. But I imagine the typical modern day philosopher might get lost in semantics and not see the bigger picture and magic about that.

This isn't just about this particular topic, but about the general notion of naming something and making words for something.

But it hasn't been explained away, any such notions that it has been aren't looking closely enough at existential assumptions, and circularity of the minds' thoughts. There often isn't any basis to your mental noise when inquiring into these things. Your mind just has a response for things that you don't know why it gives.