T and J and applied theory

[Lark]

Basically.
It also leads to being both "directive" and "structure-focused"; bot of which are forms of "task-orientation".

This is awesome, its also very much me, I think task centering could save the world and most people at lot of grief.

 

[Mycroft]

I tend to agree with bologna - Mycroft's definition seems pretty capitalism-centered, for lack of a better word. Efficiency is present in areas other than the profit-focused ones, like law and agriculture.

Just to be clear, this definition isn't one I have any strong opinion about either way, it just seems to me to be the standard understanding of what constitutes "applied theory".

As several people have made evident, depending on how we want to define "application", just about anything can be said to have practical application.

(Thanks to the link to machine ethics, BTW, that sounds interesting. I'll give it a once-over when time permits.)

 

[FireShield98]

Does the combination of T and J mean that you're more interested in applied theory or putting theory into practice than theorising per se or for its own sake?

Most likely. Last year in English, we had to write a satire article on our school, and I managed to write eight pages satirizing how so much of what we learn in school is useless in the real world.

 

[garbage]

true, but often they(at least i) tend to correct words that have meaning to the underlying message. for example if someone speaks of repression when its actually about suppression, correcting that would change the whole message, even tho its not apparent to people who doesent know the difference.

Yeah, I can totally understand this point of view. It's why I say that "pedantry" is how that tendency can come across to me--since, well, my point of view isn't exactly universal. That is, I can understand where correcting specific words may change the entire meaning of a message, and it can be important for us to get our terminology straight. My personal approach (my bias) tends to be one along the lines of .. "well, whatever, you get the gist of what I'm saying, right?"

but yea nitpicking is a bad habit, but usually i just do it if someone is getting on my nerves(nitpicking gets on their nerves).

Haha, this is a great way to get on the nerves of people who deserve it

im not saying that any type is incapable of seeing to root causes, im just talking about type tendencies. also if someone of any type is profession in his field, naturally he has the advantage over other people who might typologically have tendency to be better at something than the average person.

I think that many of us have differing approaches to resolving "the big picture," or at least differences in what we believe is important. For example, some types may truly believe in "a penny saved is twopence dear" or "Save your pennies, and your dollars will take care of themselves."--that is, that if one concentrates on details, then the big picture will illuminate or take care of itself. My personal approach (again, my bias) is to focus on "big-picture" relevance or application directly--I don't trust it to follow directly from taking care of minutia.

I'm also of the mind that, if we have the choice, we often pick careers or positions that suit our interests and mindsets. I know that many systems engineers I know are analytical people who view phenomena in terms of systems. A career choice definitely feeds back on itself, though, and makes those skills even stronger.

As several people have made evident, depending on how we want to define "application", just about anything can be said to have practical application.

I've had to take on this mentality, myself. I have such a bias toward wanting myself, my projects, and my time to be useful that I have to think of times of rest and "fun" as useful (e.g. that they provide life balance and sanity) so that I stop avoiding them. That doesn't mean that my way is the "right" or "logically correct/precise" way to view practicality, but it's useful to look it at in that way--and so I do. .. which in and of itself speaks volumes about my bias toward productivity, utility, effectiveness, and application.

You got me thinking: less personally--sometimes it's a 'stretch' to regard a certain idea or theory as having a practical application. That sort of mental exercise, though, might help us discover applications where we might not have looked for them before.

(Thanks to the link to machine ethics, BTW, that sounds interesting. I'll give it a once-over when time permits.)

 

[Lark]

Most likely. Last year in English, we had to write a satire article on our school, and I managed to write eight pages satirizing how so much of what we learn in school is useless in the real world.

I did something like that suggesting that the real lessons learned were about fighting, violence, bullying and might making right.

My school days were miserable, I saw adults and authorities fail through being impotent to do anything or corrupt and uncaring.