Where will you be 5 years from now

[guitarplayer]

Courtesy of @mF, let's look ahead.

Further along the GOALS space...

The 5 year plan is a rolling one meaning that at the beginning of each year I re-calibrate direction based on new information learned the previous year.

I have the 5 year goals illustration sheet pasted to my wall in front of my desk as a constant reminder to be working towards these goals by making meaningful progress on the projects.

No need to draw it.

# Writing out identity based goals.

## Backgroud
An idea from Atomic Habits by James Clear that you can think ahead to the goal that you want to accomplish and think about the actions that the type of person who could accomplish that goal would do and then do those things daily. T[he] categories that I try to work on every day or depending on the season, every week.

No need to share it, but go for it if you feel like it.

I have rediscovered joys of journaling with Parker medium rollerball pen so am pouring out my mind and soul into a notebook, but might gather some stuff for here to break the ice.

[daylen]

probably/hopefully in a similar place with similar age-adjusted health, a more accurate universe model, more money in the bank, and a good deal of less consequential variation

[IlliniDave]

That's an interesting one.

In 5 years I'll be 65. I'd like my biological age to be 55 or less, with a stretch goal of 50 or less

I'd like to average 8hrs sleep per night over a continuous 12-month period

I'd like to be able to pick up my guitar at any random time and play the song Limelight (Rush) from beginning to end, including the guitar solo, without any mistakes.

I'd like to have boated then released at least one 30" or larger walleye

I'd like to have elicited 1,000 genuine smiles from people I come in contact with

That's not so much a vision of where I'd like to be as a checklist of interim accomplishments that would indicate some growth along axes that interest me. More thought might allow me to refine such a vision better

[mountainFrugal]

My current 5 year vision: viewtopic.php?p=295761#p295761

[J_]

Living in three (or more) European countries every year. Our little motorboat will be sold then. No car (anymore).

Rowing in our dutch rowing-club on waters near our home, sometimes kayaking. Swimming, walking and cycling. In winter snowshoe walking and, if condition is ok, xc skiing. Member of the maintenance team of the rowing club. Writing short poems/observations.

Visiting interesting places in the world with my VR spectacles.

Reading new and old books. Become better in french language, playing the piano with very simple but musical pieces (like those of Arvo Pärt). (Hope) to see parts of Nordic Ideology become (further) realised.

Follow/participate this forum.

[guitarplayer]

Our little motorboat will be sold then.

But we've not agreed the sale yet! Besides we have to see the boat first

[J_]

@guitarplayer: Hope you guys will visit us soon.If you want you can sleep and cook in the boat then.

[7Wannabe5]

This thread is interesting to me for two reasons.

1) My current 10 year vision at age 60 is so fuzzy white blank that I can literally put myself to sleep at night with attempt to conjure it up. I think part of the "problem" is that it is my perception that I have already hit most of the big rides at the amusement park. I should note that I'm not feeling particularly unhappy about this "problem."

2) I've recently been exploring the possibilities and associated practice of introverting from Ne -> Ni rather than Ne -> Ti. This feels relevant to this thread, because one of the practices towards this is focusing on a vision.


Another thing I discovered in my attempt to move from Ne to Ni is that an intermediate or mediating practice is creating goals in the form of questions to be answered. So, a first approach for me would be more "What questions do want to answer over the next 5 years?" and then my lifestyle will fuzzy-to focused manifest as the Visual Display of the answers to these questions.

[J_]

from Ne -> Ni rather than Ne -> Te

@5w7 what does it mean?

[7Wannabe5]

@J_:

Well, Ne-> Ti is like going out and quickly gathering whatever you find on an exploratory walk (Ne), maybe berries, a poster about an upcoming event, a conversation with a stranger about fishing, 20 returnable deposit cans, and an odd sock by the side of the road, and then more slowly processing (Ti) all of them into your system as pie, calendar note about event, new fishing hole notation to map, $2 in piggy bank, and a sock puppet.

With Ni (it seems to me), you start out with end vision (dinner tonight) and you organize your strategy related to getting to "dinner tonight" before you begin your walk, but not in a rigid manner. You are more efficient than (Ne), because you are focused enough to bypass the event poster and the odd sock, but you are still open enough to "see" the berries and the deposit cans, and hear the fishing hole advice. And your continued focus on "dinner tonight" will likely spin-up sub-vision of "fishing gear", but still keep all of your vectors pointing towards "dinner tonight." So, now you are also looking for "something like a rod", "something like a line", "something like a net", "something like a hook", but still keeping look out for "edible mushrooms" or "donut box gently placed on top of donut shop dumpster." You are going to be out on your walk longer than when purely Ne driven, because you have a more specific vision than "anything of value" and also an approximate deadline, but when you finally get home your processing (Te) will likely be more straight-forward, and you won't likely have to go out again to round up a few needful ingredients as soon as purely Ne driven individual.

OTOH, the downside is that it is significantly less likely that you will ever make a sock puppet.

[J_]

Thanks 5w7. It means you want to become more focussed and less easely diverted by your so curious and imagine-rich brain?

[7Wannabe5]

@J-:

No, more like I want to experiment with more focus. More like scuba diving than growing gills. Sort of an expansion on my framework/approach for my final project for my recent grad degree. I was able to stay pretty focused for 8 weeks through the method I devised, because it was iterative. And the research questions I was trying to answer also helped keep me focused, because they were difficult questions. However, it's not the case that I am interested in doing a research project related to my life or anything necessarily related to data science. Maybe more towards approaching a few visions that are somehow similarly challenging? Maybe some goals or challenges that are more like open-ended exploratory puzzles than marathon? Dunno.

OTOH, I could just straight-up compete with my birth age peer IlliniDave for youngest biological age 5 years from now with results to be based on a diverse collection of metrics such as my waist-to-hip ratio vs. his shoulder to waist ratio with WINNER TROPHY to be presented at ERE Fest 2030

Seriously, part of the problem is that my simple vision would be something like I am sitting on a beach in a ridiculous old lady swimsuit building a sand castle with two of my grandbabies. But, I have zero-percent control over achieving this goal, and it is also oddly kind of terrifying on many levels it wouldn't have been until fairly recently. I was relatively quite carefree as a young parent myself. So much could go wrong.

[jacob]

@J_ - Ne takes an idea and then automatically brainstorms as many associations or patterns that this idea belongs to. In mathematical terms, the Ne-mind finds the union between the idea and every set of patterns it belongs to.

Ni is the other way around. It takes a bunch of ideas and then automatically finds the one or patterns that match all these ideas. In mathematical terms, the Ni-mind finds the [small] intersection of patterns that fit the ideas.

These two approaches are incompatible because they work in opposite directions with the mind generally not being aware of the way pointing opposite of itself. Remarkably, the two functions show up differently on brain scans: viewtopic.php?t=12759

Sorting it out is left to a different mode of processing. Here, thinking (typically causative logic).

You can see the difference in processing between my response and 7wb5's response. I found a pattern (unions and intersections) that describes the difference. It was not something I derived logically---it just appeared intuitively. What I did derive was the way of explaining this pattern that I'm writing here.

Whereas 7wb5 is basically painting the full Ne-picture of Ne in the first paragraph and Ni in the second paragraph. Because it's an extroverted N, you get to hear about it directly without any "post-processing" to make sense of it. As such, making sense of it is basically left up to the listener. This "listener" would be both you (and me) but also 7wb5's secondary function.

To my Te-function, the experience of someone else's Ne is like having someone dump their unorganized notes on you. This is not very helpful (to me) since the difficult part (for me) is actually in making Te-sense of the Ne-data. However, [7wb5's] Ti-function doesn't necessarily seek a A->B-....-> causative explanation like Te does. Conversely, Ti does not necessarily need to reach a conclusion. Perhaps the best way to distinguish Te and Ti is that Te is like a processor and it's function and desire is in cranking out an explanation. Whereas Ti is more like a giant logical structure in the mind, where things are derived from first principles. As such, receiving a shotgun blast of Ne is simply data points that the Ti can then extend it's derivative chains towards.

These are very different ways of thinking.

[7Wannabe5]

Yes, Te asks "What can be concluded?" and Ti asks "Does this make sense?" That is why Te seems reductive to an NeTi user. Kind of like I drew somebody a map placing many items in logical relationships and they just use it to draw the most obvious conclusion vector and then just throw away all the other useful information on the map. Like the moral of a story can serve for the whole story. However, being able to make these sort of short-hand conclusions makes it easier for Te users to quickly make decisions and take action and cut down all the trees, etc. That is why it is the function most associated with The Executive and also most correlated with money earning ability.

And it can be seen with Jacob's description of Ni vs. mine that I can only kind of bend or warp my brain that way a bit. However, this also confirms my notion that I am on the right track with considering the process of answering questions. If I am looking at my Ti map of logical associations, I won't necessarily be compelled to draw any sort of conclusion. My only compulsion is to notice when something does not make sense or defies logic or is arbitrary or redundant to the logical structure. But if I ask myself a question and try to answer it by examining my Ti map of logical associations then that is superficially like drawing a conclusion, but it isn't really a conclusion, because I am not done with my map.

I would now write, "I hope this makes sense.", but a Te user would still just draw a conclusion.

[guitarplayer]

Yes, Te asks "What can be concluded?" and Ti asks "Does this make sense?"

[…]

I would now write, "I hope this makes sense.", but a Te user would still just draw a conclusion.

Where do you assign “I think what I want to say is [content]”?

[jacob]

Where do you assign “I think what I want to say is [content]”?

Uh oh ... I don't think it's literally possible to assign statements to various functions even if diction is very precise. For example, did you really "think" or was "I think" just a grammatical filler to fit the English language? Did you actually "want" and if so is that a value-judgement on your own behalf or on others? Or does this formulation express some uncertainty in that you're not quite sure about how to say [content]?

In short, pretty much everybody could say that sentence and it wouldn't mean anything in terms of diagnosing a type.

Stack-theory is kinda hairy in that it takes reductionism right up to the point where mistakes can be made. Recall the car model. At the minimum, both front seats should be considered because they work together with one introverted and one extroverted, one perceiving and one judging. Thus, the Ni in a NiTe (INTJ) front-seat is not structured in the same way as the Ni in a TeNi front seat (ENTJ) and both of these are different if the partner function was F-based rather than T-based.

[7Wannabe5]

Where do you assign “I think what I want to say is [content]”?

Maybe a primary Ti user with a fairly balanced Fe? NeTi is more "I say what I think.", but this is not to be confused by what most people mean by this which is more towards, "I say what I feel." For example, "The emperor has no clothes." vs. "The emperor sucks!" My DS36 uses TiNe and he thinks before he speaks; rather like daylen writes. However, your inclusion of "what I want" maybe implies a level of social filtering or audience awareness rather than or beyond the pause for full thought collection of a TiNe user. Te has no social filter, so primary users of Te often come off as rude or awkward, because they want to cut through the feelings and all the twinkling smaller connections in the Ti net to THE POINT or CONCLUSION so they can MAKE DECISION and TAKE ACTION. This is not to imply that primary Te users have no feelings, it's just that they are capable of moving from thought to action without them. What David Deida refers to as The Killer masculine energy.

An interesting thing I recently learned is that although this ability to separate actions from feelings is what is often meant by the term "compartmentalization", NeTi users also possess an ability to "compartmentalize" which allows/compels us to primary perform well as generalists. The Ti logic web is seen from the perspective of abstract theory, but it is expanded on the ground through exploration, and dopamine drives expansion in whatever direction seems most likely to be interesting or revelatory. Therefore, the entire edge of the known map is a potential work-space for an NeTi generalist, but since it is impossible to cover the entire edge, the generalist creates camps or "compartments" intermittently strewn along the edge. When I feel myself becoming "bored" with working in one "camp" or "compartment", it's usually not just because further revelation in that direction has become more difficult to achieve (dilettante or distractive dysfunction); it's because I also feel like I am neglecting other "camps" (wide frame functioning or functioning towards resilience.) For simple example, an ENTP might prefer to take the 101 course for every branch of science rather than climb the ladder 101,201, 301, etc. in just one branch of science, but would also strongly prefer the relatively big picture theoretic over the more narrowly applied, Economics not Finance, Physics not Mechanics, Permaculture not Market Gardening. This is why humans who use TiNe are usually primarily interested in Math or Language/Linguistics or Philosophy; everything else is derivative of these. ERE is much more interesting than FIRE, because FIRE is derivative of ERE, but ERE is not derivative of FIRE, so for a fairly balanced NeTi user such as myself, there is no motivation to learn/do FIRE rather than ERE, for the same reason that once you comprehend the concept of multiplication, you can easily derive a wide variety of algorithms, methods, or models to perform such a task as needed. OTOH, a Te user will often prefer a collection of Finance Formulas for the same reason he likes his set of metric wrenches.

Okay, wrapping back around to the 5 year vision topic, if I consider what I enjoyed about working on my final project for my recent grad degree, it was that the autonomy of the project (as opposed to most of my previous work towards the grad degree) allowed me to bring stuff from a few of my other previously established "camps" or "compartments" together with the stuff from the IT/Data grad program "camp" to create a greater whole. So, maybe my overview for 5 year vision would be something like completion-NO strike "completion"- iterative approach to a few big integrative projects which might be framed in a form towards answering research questions. For simple more concrete example, I could attempt to write a work of climate fiction that also explores aspects of human sexuality, and the way I would approach this project would be by determining a collection of open ended questions I was attempting to answer through this project. Since the questions would be open-ended, the integrative project could be approached in an iterative manner starting with something like minimum viable product. And the overall effect of approaching a number of "projects" in this manner would tend towards the result of Level Yellowing my perspective which would also be roughly akin to moving a bit from Ne to Ni. Now, I do hope that this made some sense.

[Henry]

In 1979, my girlfriend dumped me for my best friend. I got so upset, I cried. The entire school knew about it by the next day. I recently found her on-line. She looks like someone painted a face beneath the Wicked Witch of The West's black dyed ass hairs. Every day I struggle as to whether I should let her know this fact. I hope to have this issue resolved, one way or the other, by 2030.

[guitarplayer]

I just remember how astonished I was when I first heard that sentence. Like, how can you not be sure what you want to say. I since use it occasionally semi playfully when talking to people. Or when I am pressed to say something but I've not actually thought stuff through, so it works like a tool. I like how it has this ring of dissociating self from what the self is doing.

But here I brought it up primarily in the context of @7w5 'what can be concluded' and 'does this makes sense' so the question was directed to @7w5 which I should have noted.

On the thread's topic, I am still working on my piece.