- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,193
- 246,464
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Creativity based on Sensing VS. Intuition? (Design&Art)
- Thread starter Impact Character
- Start date
-
- Tags
- art creativity design intuition sensor
There are a lot of funny details around here. Also forum sp00ks
arrow = totally a wormhole
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,193
- 246,464
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
arrow = totally a wormhole
One of them definitely is. Try to find it! ...or maybe that's a bad idea. Hmm.
*excuses herself.. has to scan and see the illustration..for couple of hours..*
Lol don’t stare too long or you’ll be pulled in and never heard of again!!
Maybe S's express their creativity based on what they observe, maybe like political and social artists who represent societal problems in their art. Also, maybe their art is easier to understand for more people. As an INFJ, my art is ENTIRELY contrived from my inner self, leaving no sign or inspiration for anything around me. It all comes from me. So maybe that's one difference?
D
Deleted member 16771
All art is in some sense derivative, in terms of epistemology.
The difference between Sensors and Intuitives, I feel, is something like the difference between the iterative and revolutionary processes.
The problem for Intuitives is that we don't tend to respect iterative artistic endeavours so much, which is a shame because they can offer much more subtle and profound insights as more revolutionary work.
The Intuitive can often become so enamoured of novelty that he loses sight of meaning.
Look at modern swordsmithing. Arguably the finest works are those crafted from within a preexisting tradition, where the aim is of perfection and a certain embodiment of an ancestral cultural psyche. Compare this with the soulless designs of modern fantasy swordsmithing and the difference in value is night and day.
I think sometimes Intuitives can have a rather unflattering opinion of the thought processes of Sensors, but if we imagine, just for a moment, that they think as deeply about things as we do, then their work takes on a sublime profundity, quite arresting in its difference from our own processes.
This is a great insight and I agree very much with it. Intuitives are great at art but don’t have a monopoly on it, any more than they have a monopoly on spirituality for example.
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,446
- 89,068
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Good observations. I have great appreciation for this.
I've tried to articulate what it is like to be a visual artist and an intuitive in some other threads on this forum. Opening up about personal aspects of my thoughts and life always seems so damned self-involved. Bleck.
I see a clear difference in art made by sensors and my own work as an intuitive, and I see a clear difference in the types of people who prefer one or the other. @Deleted member 16771 is hitting on some of the key points I've noticed.
I do notice, however, that despite the ability to think deeply (which we all have) sensors focus more on forum, color, composition, etc and less on meaning.
I like the analogy of the sword smiths, but I think an ISFP would be just as likely to conjure up a fantasy sword as an INFP, while intuitives who are dedicated to craftsmanship could prefer the traditional sword exactly because it has that deep meaning, which is a link to history and tradition. My own default would be the historical sword.
D
Deleted member 16771
You make some great points, Asa, upon which I have to concede.
I think you're probably right, in that there's a clear difference in how S and N each interact with art or artistic traditions, and I don't know if you'll go with me on this, but I feel that there's also a parallel with the way artists express their 'free will', with Ns seeming to express a qualitative autonomy over their S counterparts, who are themselves concerned with achieving something rather different. Sensors seem to not feel constrained by rules, but rather enlivened by them in a way I'm not sure I understand.
For some background on this question... actually I'll spoiler tag it because it might be a little too long:
I once did a lot of work on the theology of grace in fifteenth-century Italy, specifically focusing on Savonarola, and the long and short of it is that Savonarola conceived of grace as a zero-sum tug of war between the 'supernatural light' of God, and the free will of the individual. That is, the notion of free will was antithetical to grace or divinity.
And this idea was pervasive in Renaissance Italy, especially I found in Florence.
Thus when Vasari made his classic definition of the fine arts, it embodied this notion of grace.
The fine arts of painting and sculpture had the characteristic of grace because they were concerned with verisimilitude, and by that time it had become a theological truism (the seeds of later Enlightenment deism, I think) to believe that grace was obtainable a posteriori ex mundo - that is, by the observation of God's creation, in either the human form or the rest of nature.
Now Vasari was clear which of the arts were not to be considered fine arts, and for me they can be categorised by their association with the creative free will of the artist, most notably poetry (but also goldsmithing, &c.).
Thus after the Renaissance and into the nineteenth-century, I think this essentially Early Modern conception of divine grace persisted to create in the fine arts a certain passivity and conservatism, with creative free will being confined to arts like poetry.
Of course there are other practical reasons for this, but that is the core ideological origin I think.
In my mind, I associate the creative free will with something of the intuitive nature, and this willingness to iterate within established traditions with something of the sensor nature.
However, I hope you can see that this sensor nature is not devoid of meaning. There is a certain kind of 'channeling' (like having grace) they submit to which does have a sublime quality. While sometimes they might not be able to explain their work in terms of meaning, they are nonetheless chasing some kind of pure aesthetic expression which has a very different and particular value. Sometimes it is as though they are working under the unconscious influence of grace rather than consciousness.
Does any of that make sense?
And this idea was pervasive in Renaissance Italy, especially I found in Florence.
Thus when Vasari made his classic definition of the fine arts, it embodied this notion of grace.
The fine arts of painting and sculpture had the characteristic of grace because they were concerned with verisimilitude, and by that time it had become a theological truism (the seeds of later Enlightenment deism, I think) to believe that grace was obtainable a posteriori ex mundo - that is, by the observation of God's creation, in either the human form or the rest of nature.
Now Vasari was clear which of the arts were not to be considered fine arts, and for me they can be categorised by their association with the creative free will of the artist, most notably poetry (but also goldsmithing, &c.).
Thus after the Renaissance and into the nineteenth-century, I think this essentially Early Modern conception of divine grace persisted to create in the fine arts a certain passivity and conservatism, with creative free will being confined to arts like poetry.
Of course there are other practical reasons for this, but that is the core ideological origin I think.
In my mind, I associate the creative free will with something of the intuitive nature, and this willingness to iterate within established traditions with something of the sensor nature.
However, I hope you can see that this sensor nature is not devoid of meaning. There is a certain kind of 'channeling' (like having grace) they submit to which does have a sublime quality. While sometimes they might not be able to explain their work in terms of meaning, they are nonetheless chasing some kind of pure aesthetic expression which has a very different and particular value. Sometimes it is as though they are working under the unconscious influence of grace rather than consciousness.
Does any of that make sense?
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,446
- 89,068
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
@Deleted member 16771, Happy New Year.
Yes, it does make sense.
I agree.
I'm not sure the divide is linear. Ns have a tendency to get stuck deep in the folds of purpose and meaning, which sometimes leads them down the road of established tradition. Sensors can be free spirits. (I think sensors are more likely to be free spirits because they're attuned to living in the moment.) Traditionalist sensors could gravitate toward time-honored traditional work, while free-spirited sensors could gravitate toward experimental work that is about color, form, and/or material.
Yes, it does make sense.
I agree.
I'm not sure the divide is linear. Ns have a tendency to get stuck deep in the folds of purpose and meaning, which sometimes leads them down the road of established tradition. Sensors can be free spirits. (I think sensors are more likely to be free spirits because they're attuned to living in the moment.) Traditionalist sensors could gravitate toward time-honored traditional work, while free-spirited sensors could gravitate toward experimental work that is about color, form, and/or material.
IMO, it's the Sensors who are able to master the "10% new" rule for success. Intuitives generally need to work on the intellectualization of their idea if they want to have success in a creative domain because they can come up with stuff that is 90% new if they are especially gifted.
Source
@Wyote @John K @Ginny I hope you don't mind that I quoted you here for the loop of thoughts
Much love and creative but anchored originality!
INFJs as Artists
What follows was originally posted by Elaine Schallock (INFJ) as a response to a question about INFJs as artists:
“Art” as it’s typically understood in colloquial terms generally refers to a fairly narrow set of talents primarily limited to expression in the “Sensing” fields (visual arts, musical arts, culinary arts), but I’m not convinced that the term “art” isn’t considerably more broad than that (ie. a skilled doctor performing surgery could be considered “an art” as could a brilliant physicist’s theorizing on laws of the universe). In other words, I’m not entirely clear where science becomes art and/or art becomes science…
But before I lose you in this type of philosophizing, let’s return more appropriately to the question at hand which is ultimately whether art (as you describe it here, which is primarily visual) is exclusively an Se process. In short, the answer is “no.” A finished object (or artpiece) fundamentally contains an idea. You cannot separate the artist’s conception (N) from the artwork itself (S). As an INFJ it can be very compelling to make into tangible reality (S) the visions we’re harvesting in our minds/imaginations (N) in order to give us the illusion of fulfilling the functional stack.
INFJ as Artist: An Optimal Career Choice?
What I would be curious to know, and be honest with yourself, is whether during this process you find it easy to become perfectionistic, stressed out, anxious, and controlling? This isn’t to say that often in the initial stages of an art project there isn’t a lot of excitement and optimism, but for the INFJ, before long, the excitement that we experienced in the “conception” phase begins to wane as stress takes over when the vision fails to meet the expectations we have for its actualization. I, along with other INFJs, have been known to work and overwork a creation because we find it difficult to ever be satisfied with the end product. Then comes the imminent sense of failure, lack of control, and exhaustion (and in the worst case scenario, destruction).
On the rare occassion that the art actually manages to capture the idealism of the Ni conception, that release of psychic libido is so intoxicating that it is enough to cause us to forget the hell we endured to get there – thus starting the cycle all over again. This is analogous to what a gambling addict might experience as he suffers the agony of loss, excessive stress, debt, and anxiety; he may be close to giving up entirely, but when or if he finally wins, the thrill of it puts enough gas in the metaphorical tank to get him through another string of losses (even if, in reality, the wins are not enough to offset the sum of losses over time). So the cycle continues.
Perhaps the most troublesome (and potentially most confusing) aspect of the Ni type as Se artist is the way in which this process manages to “bastardize” Ni into Ne; in other words, rather than Ni acting in its authentic form as a function which extracts a singular theory/meaning from Se phenomena already existing or occurring in the universe, it infuses the universe with a potential idea(s) for an artpiece not yet existing and then attempts to manufacture it. Rather than interpreting what is (Ni) it proffers ideas about what COULD be (Ne). As you can see, this is extremely tricky stuff. And a lot of INFJ’s attempt to rationalize their desire to make art by arguing that their artwork IS an interpretation of what is (Ni). Whereupon I would argue that once one has reached an age where they have generally mastered language and have a good command of vocabulary (the tools of N artists) they can consider putting down the crayons and paintbrushes (the tools of S artists).
This isn’t to say that visual aids are never useful or should never necessarily be employed by INFJs. For the most part these are limited to diagrams as an enhancement to what is written/said but not as the primary channel for expression/interpretation. Again, the line is very fine between using art as an expression of idealism/beauty (Se) and art as an aid for Ni interpretation. If an INFJ can manage to harness the art (as in the example of using it on occassion as an aid or diagram to the written word) rather than let the art control him/her by demanding perfect execution, it could be considered healthy. This is like playing with fire though, and in my experience more INFJs fall into the latter camp.
To bring this full circle, I will say that I believe that producing wisdom/insight (a la Ni) IS, in fact, an artform. It’s an N art. As an N art, as stated above, it requires different tools for expression – abstract tools – tools that cater more directly to the mind than the five senses, namely words. As N dominants we need to work on seeing the CONCEPT as art. That’s our gift – the gift of insight. What ultimately happens is, when we relinquish the desire to control the Se outcome and focus on the theory production, the tension we feel that needs to be reconciled between the outside world (Se) and our interpretation of it (Ni) is slowly lifted, but this time in a sustaining and renewable way. We ultimately make peace with the imperfections of the Se world, not by singlehandedly trying to beautify it by directly adding more art to it, but indirectly – passively – through our interpretation of it.
As a side note, we (as N types) can’t in good conscience bemoan Se types who feebly attempt to give some sort of deep wisdom or insight without realizing that our comparable folly is trying to be superior Se performers (artists, athletes, etc.) It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but the long term effects of breaking the addictive pattern of indulging the inferior function outweigh the brief highs we incur on the way.
What follows was originally posted by Elaine Schallock (INFJ) as a response to a question about INFJs as artists:
“Art” as it’s typically understood in colloquial terms generally refers to a fairly narrow set of talents primarily limited to expression in the “Sensing” fields (visual arts, musical arts, culinary arts), but I’m not convinced that the term “art” isn’t considerably more broad than that (ie. a skilled doctor performing surgery could be considered “an art” as could a brilliant physicist’s theorizing on laws of the universe). In other words, I’m not entirely clear where science becomes art and/or art becomes science…
But before I lose you in this type of philosophizing, let’s return more appropriately to the question at hand which is ultimately whether art (as you describe it here, which is primarily visual) is exclusively an Se process. In short, the answer is “no.” A finished object (or artpiece) fundamentally contains an idea. You cannot separate the artist’s conception (N) from the artwork itself (S). As an INFJ it can be very compelling to make into tangible reality (S) the visions we’re harvesting in our minds/imaginations (N) in order to give us the illusion of fulfilling the functional stack.
INFJ as Artist: An Optimal Career Choice?
What I would be curious to know, and be honest with yourself, is whether during this process you find it easy to become perfectionistic, stressed out, anxious, and controlling? This isn’t to say that often in the initial stages of an art project there isn’t a lot of excitement and optimism, but for the INFJ, before long, the excitement that we experienced in the “conception” phase begins to wane as stress takes over when the vision fails to meet the expectations we have for its actualization. I, along with other INFJs, have been known to work and overwork a creation because we find it difficult to ever be satisfied with the end product. Then comes the imminent sense of failure, lack of control, and exhaustion (and in the worst case scenario, destruction).
On the rare occassion that the art actually manages to capture the idealism of the Ni conception, that release of psychic libido is so intoxicating that it is enough to cause us to forget the hell we endured to get there – thus starting the cycle all over again. This is analogous to what a gambling addict might experience as he suffers the agony of loss, excessive stress, debt, and anxiety; he may be close to giving up entirely, but when or if he finally wins, the thrill of it puts enough gas in the metaphorical tank to get him through another string of losses (even if, in reality, the wins are not enough to offset the sum of losses over time). So the cycle continues.
Perhaps the most troublesome (and potentially most confusing) aspect of the Ni type as Se artist is the way in which this process manages to “bastardize” Ni into Ne; in other words, rather than Ni acting in its authentic form as a function which extracts a singular theory/meaning from Se phenomena already existing or occurring in the universe, it infuses the universe with a potential idea(s) for an artpiece not yet existing and then attempts to manufacture it. Rather than interpreting what is (Ni) it proffers ideas about what COULD be (Ne). As you can see, this is extremely tricky stuff. And a lot of INFJ’s attempt to rationalize their desire to make art by arguing that their artwork IS an interpretation of what is (Ni). Whereupon I would argue that once one has reached an age where they have generally mastered language and have a good command of vocabulary (the tools of N artists) they can consider putting down the crayons and paintbrushes (the tools of S artists).
This isn’t to say that visual aids are never useful or should never necessarily be employed by INFJs. For the most part these are limited to diagrams as an enhancement to what is written/said but not as the primary channel for expression/interpretation. Again, the line is very fine between using art as an expression of idealism/beauty (Se) and art as an aid for Ni interpretation. If an INFJ can manage to harness the art (as in the example of using it on occassion as an aid or diagram to the written word) rather than let the art control him/her by demanding perfect execution, it could be considered healthy. This is like playing with fire though, and in my experience more INFJs fall into the latter camp.
To bring this full circle, I will say that I believe that producing wisdom/insight (a la Ni) IS, in fact, an artform. It’s an N art. As an N art, as stated above, it requires different tools for expression – abstract tools – tools that cater more directly to the mind than the five senses, namely words. As N dominants we need to work on seeing the CONCEPT as art. That’s our gift – the gift of insight. What ultimately happens is, when we relinquish the desire to control the Se outcome and focus on the theory production, the tension we feel that needs to be reconciled between the outside world (Se) and our interpretation of it (Ni) is slowly lifted, but this time in a sustaining and renewable way. We ultimately make peace with the imperfections of the Se world, not by singlehandedly trying to beautify it by directly adding more art to it, but indirectly – passively – through our interpretation of it.
As a side note, we (as N types) can’t in good conscience bemoan Se types who feebly attempt to give some sort of deep wisdom or insight without realizing that our comparable folly is trying to be superior Se performers (artists, athletes, etc.) It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but the long term effects of breaking the addictive pattern of indulging the inferior function outweigh the brief highs we incur on the way.
Comments
- Val says
That’s a rather harsh assessment of INFJs as artists. I am an INFJ artist myself, and I would admit there are times that I can overwork a piece or freeze up with perfectionistic tendencies, but this would primarily be when I am trying something unfamiliar and untried. But that is growing as a person or an artist! Trying new things and jumping the hurdles. I believe passionately that I am meant to express myself and my intuited insights through writing and art, it is without a doubt one of the most fulfilling things in my life. I would hate to see anyone believe that they should not be or could not be an artist. Art is a most subjective thing. It’s difficult to define. To limit. To predict. It is deeply personal. And there is no right or wrong. It’s beautiful and lasting. It’s not something to be judged. It’s something to be experienced. As an INFJ artist, I think my particular style of art often includes wide issues that I have pondered, or sometimes small bits of irony. It can be quite photorealistic, or loosely sketched. It’s as expansive as the range of thoughts I had the day I was creating. It IS a lifeline for me. I do not always trust people in my life with my deepest thoughts, sometimes not even written words, but I am learning to trust the canvas. I can remember what I felt that day, and yet find new perspective, hope, and insight as I revisit my art in the future. Anyway, thanks for letting me comment.
-Valerie
- Sarah says
I am INFJ and went to school for art until I hit a wall and couldn’t continue. “Art” since then was soured a bit for me until recently because, as you describe, I was rarely satisfied.
I won’t tell you the whole long story but the short version is I realized that part of my trouble was that I didn’t know what my inner artistic voice was looking for. What made meaning for me as an artist. Who I was as a person connecting to life and art.
Anything I did that was more focused on the form, I was dissatisfied with. Anything that focused on the connection, spark, detail of life, that defining thing of the person or object- that’s when I was more satisfied. I was satisfied because that’s what had meaning for me as a person and I didn’t realize that until recently, just before I turned 36. :-/
Since then, I’ve used that to be more satisfied in taking care of my boys, in creating graphics, and exploring more in my artistic expression.
Rather than avoiding art, I am now embracing it and know what I’m looking for in it, because I know who I am and what has meaning for me in art and life.
- INTP married to INFJ says
Disclosure; I’m an INTP married to an INFJ artist (she was art major in college at least) for many years, here are my observations seeing it from the outside, and from a perspective of Ni/Ne.
Art clearly is a very difficult and desirable field for INFJ’s, both in my personal experience and internet reports here and elsewhere; it’s an activity that INFJ’s deeply want but the evidence is that they find it hard or impossible to fulfill. My observation is that it’s too easy to fall into an inferior crutch, in the form Elaine describes here and in other ways. They do this by either never starting (actually making art), or if they do start the process spirals out of control. Notice these are characteristics of an inferior domain activity.
So my observation is that INFJ’s should _not_ take up art in a serious way as a career choice or life purpose, but keep it in the hobby category. Is that harsh? Maybe, but it’s hard to argue with the evidence. Unfortunately INFJ’s have an extremely difficult time swallowing this pill, it seems more than other types they they learn they aren’t made to indulge their inferior activities as much as they would like. Like a Greek Hero, for all their amazing insight into others INFJ’s can have a lot of difficulty in understanding themselves in my estimation, and in particular with their relationship with Se.
- Srinivasan says
Great article. I chose to pursue a career as a professional athlete but never really fit in with the S types. Now I know why. But through my study of Jungian psychology over the past year I understood many things about myself and that has helped me greatly in improving myself as an athlete. The most important thing I would like to say is if you are an artist or athlete infj, drop the perfectionist tendency asap. You will start to deeply enjoy it, just like I do now.- Srinivasan says
Learn to relax when you are in the S domain. It’s possible. I can do it at will now.
- Srinivasan says
- Subaru says
How do you think Fe factors into this? I think I’m an infj and I’m an artist…in the loosest term, I approach it more as a hobby but ..it sells.
I ask about Fe because I’ve seen art described as a good Fe exercise for INFJs to channel their emotions, out into the world. And this is how I find I use art. It’s more about emotional outpouring, than Ni visions. It’s more of a fluid, responsive state, than a perfectionistic one, I’d liken my state when indulging in art to that of punching a punching bag, and there really isn’t room for my perfectionistic tendencies in that kind of Se action. So, it seems to me, more of a Fe/Se thing, than a Ni/Se thing. And in that regard I thought it was a good way of engaging my auxiliary function, which I do tend to neglect.
All of this said, I do understand what you’re saying, and it might even be quite profound for me. I’m processing.
- K. says
Thanks for this very interesting article! I’ve been looking for information about INFJ artists for a while.
I agree that it’s a little harsh though. I’m an INFJ artist myself, I earn a living with my art, so I assume other people find it good enough to buy it and that it is a possible path for an INFJ.
Just a quick word about my personal journey: I’ve always drawn (mainly humain characters) and I think I was quite good at it, even as a kid (according to my classmates). Later, I studied art and I graduated as the best student in my year. Since then, I work as a freelance artist, and it goes quite well except — you guessed it — I wasn’t satisfied. At all.
A few years ago, I tried to change my style from a realistic human figure to more abstract compositions. I intended to use them as patterns for home accessories and sell them. It was a complete disaster, and it took me years to realize. I was never happy with anything, and I can only write about it now, because I know it’s behind me.
Then I understood that I failed because my attempt was to make meaningless art. Creating beautiful patterns to respond to an audience and sell as much products as I can is not art, it doesn’t have a message, it’s empty. I discovered at that time that I’m an INFJ and it helped me understand that I could never be happy with such an activity. Every good piece of art starts with a good reflexion, but I think it’s even more important for INFJs than for the other types.
So I got back to my realistic human figures, and I am working as hard as I can to make them say something about what it is being a human in the 21st century. It might be harder for me than for an Se to draw in a realistic way, but to be honest, I don’t really find it hard to make a connection to the outside world and was surprised to read that Se (Extraverted Sensing) was my (our) Inferior Function. My mother is very down to Earth and always helped me to enjoy the small things in life, such as a good meal, the wind on my face and so on, so maybe it still helps today, I don’t know.
During my spare time, I also started painting. I make abstract art, but for a reason, with a message that I’m happy to explain whenever I’m asked to.
I hope this comment will help other INFJs who feel, like me, the need to create. I think my mistake has been to let down my natural artistic preferences, it made me lose a huge amount of precious time. It might be harder for an INFJ to achieve a self-satisfying result, but with hard work it’s possible and I still think it’s worth a try. Just keep in mind to express something that really matters to you.
There have been several thoughts about thinking posted recently - and they have set me thinking ..... oh dear
I've quoted a couple from Ginny and Wyote (thankyou both)
Anyway, in the video Alan Watts talks about sight being multi dimensional and just happens without effort, while thought is only one-dimensional and takes quite a bit of effort (see from about 6:30 onwards). I think Ni is very like sight - it comes without any effort as a sort of complete picture, and like a landscape in the outer world some parts are clear and some obscured. All too often, I start to describe it to myself - and yes, the thoughts are just a single stream that breaks up into fragments and hops about all over the place leaving me inwardly breathless and stressed. It takes me serious effort to put order into these thoughts
The way we are brought up, by our families and then in education, we are taught to trust thought almost as a sort of religion - and to mistrust any other way of understanding the world and ourselves. For some of us, it's hard to let go of thinking, like any other addictive habit. Sometimes I am 'seeing' in Ni, without any narrative and it's very good. I wish I could paint or draw so that I could express this without any words. Not that we can do without thinking, and it has been very good to me as well - but it would be even better if it would just bloody shut up sometimes so I can see what's going on without the distraction.
Does anyone else like mind maps? - I find they are are great way of expressing insights (Ne as well as Ni) in 2D instead of linearly. I used to use them a lot at work when I was trying to get some shape into a complex situation. When I'm trying to capture things in a narrative I'm always in danger of forgetting all the related issues that pop into my head at the same time as the one I'm working on, or putting them in the middle of somewhere they don't belong. I find mindmaps free up my insight, remove the chains of linear thought from it to a significant amount, visually emphasise the structure of the thing I'm considering and reduce the stress of capture. They are brilliant for studying a new topic as well, and for revising it afterwards, if you start off learning by creating a series of mind maps that give a synoptic view.
There are some quite good apps that do mind mapping, though they don't have the same tactile feel or artistic freedom of ones you draw yourself on paper. One of the advantages of the computer maps is that they can be presented linearly once they are complete so that you can turn them into a narrative document if that's needed without having to re-enter the details in the map. I use Xmind on my desktop which has a free or paid option:
https://www.xmind.net/xmind8-pro/
I wish threads were 2D like mindmaps - it would be good if they had a tree structure so that related topics could spin off in different directions from individual posts within the thread. I suppose they wouldn't be a thread then - they'd be a web, or a net ... or a tangle very likely
@Wyote @John K @Ginny I hope you don't mind that I quoted you here for the loop of thoughts
Much love and creative but anchored originality!
Last edited:
What I find horrifying sometimes is how often "10% new" is wanted, though how bad "90% new" is actually needed.
Yet you have to go through at least 3 to 5 years (or more) of "10% new" plain procedure before anyone officially conciders you as enabled for a "90% new" position.