Typology Central - View Single Post

Santtu · 09-12-2007, 04:19 PM

I just read one blog entry from these forums and something is starting to become clear to me.

Whereas I feel offended for having my N-type initiatives being promptly evaluated as "impractical", from what I understand, that may be just honest truth-seeking on S types part. I read about the exasperation of one S who got tired of what he considered empty claims, as they were provided without data and references.

I got convinced that it's not short-sightedness or stupidity that makes a person to need such convincing data. It is how ideas can be presented for persons coming from different backgrounds and having reasonable doubts against spurious claims. N does get misunderstood in the process.

Perhaps its naivety on N's part that they expect that all the facts and source material is readily available to their target audience without having to point it out. What kinds of thought patterns could make person neglect to provide details? I asked that question myself and wondered, why do *I* do that.

I have a poor episodic memory, meaning recollection of when some events happened. I am often unable to provide the source of my data, as I dont remember where it came from. WHen I first saw the data, I made the judgement of whether to use it or not, and tested mentally what prior knowledge it supports and what it refutes. My main task from that point was to put the data on "trial", to test it from different angles to see if it's to be relied upon. Remembering where it came from just didn't get stored so exactly, for if I read a minor news on a newspaper, I can follow the links and see where it goes to.

I often notice getting good results in presentation when I study for something in an exacting way, reference my work and make detailed account of the thought process. Moreover, it helps when I make an appealing introduction, state the requirements and show the benefits gained from my proposal. I understand how such thing may be needed for something serious.

It makes me sad to think of the trouble of doing all that, if I consider all that a chore, so that everything around the main idea is just some filler that you have to write/tell to please your audience. I just wish that some people wouldn't need so many details, as I'm not trying to fool them into anything. I also think it's not fair to share the job so that I do a great trouble in preparing my case, so that the recipent has everything in easy bits and he/she can then approve or reject it. Well, most often approve it.

The imbalance of work to be done in presenting and accepting an idea is a problem when the one presenting the idea won't personally benefit from it so much. In such cases, I would just wish to have my idea accepted with lesser trouble.

09-12-2007, 04:19 PM	#18 (permalink)
Santtu Survey Monkey Join Date: Sep 2007 Type: enTj Posts: 1,542	I just read one blog entry from these forums and something is starting to become clear to me. Whereas I feel offended for having my N-type initiatives being promptly evaluated as "impractical", from what I understand, that may be just honest truth-seeking on S types part. I read about the exasperation of one S who got tired of what he considered empty claims, as they were provided without data and references. I got convinced that it's not short-sightedness or stupidity that makes a person to need such convincing data. It is how ideas can be presented for persons coming from different backgrounds and having reasonable doubts against spurious claims. N does get misunderstood in the process. Perhaps its naivety on N's part that they expect that all the facts and source material is readily available to their target audience without having to point it out. What kinds of thought patterns could make person neglect to provide details? I asked that question myself and wondered, why do I do that. I have a poor episodic memory, meaning recollection of when some events happened. I am often unable to provide the source of my data, as I dont remember where it came from. WHen I first saw the data, I made the judgement of whether to use it or not, and tested mentally what prior knowledge it supports and what it refutes. My main task from that point was to put the data on "trial", to test it from different angles to see if it's to be relied upon. Remembering where it came from just didn't get stored so exactly, for if I read a minor news on a newspaper, I can follow the links and see where it goes to. I often notice getting good results in presentation when I study for something in an exacting way, reference my work and make detailed account of the thought process. Moreover, it helps when I make an appealing introduction, state the requirements and show the benefits gained from my proposal. I understand how such thing may be needed for something serious. It makes me sad to think of the trouble of doing all that, if I consider all that a chore, so that everything around the main idea is just some filler that you have to write/tell to please your audience. I just wish that some people wouldn't need so many details, as I'm not trying to fool them into anything. I also think it's not fair to share the job so that I do a great trouble in preparing my case, so that the recipent has everything in easy bits and he/she can then approve or reject it. Well, most often approve it. The imbalance of work to be done in presenting and accepting an idea is a problem when the one presenting the idea won't personally benefit from it so much. In such cases, I would just wish to have my idea accepted with lesser trouble.