User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 55

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    It sounds like you havn't really understood what I was getting at.

    I was merely referencing something that goes on a great deal in real life anyhow and was wondering if there might be any correlation within the system of MBTI.

    MBTI and a knowledge of it is hardly the context I was going for. I wasn't talking about knowing more about people's types and then using that information against them either.

    Im talking about a natural drive within an individual to gain knowledge and information primarily for the purpose of making sure they dont slip up in the arena of socially or even intellectually perceived intelligence.

    I apologize. I read too fast and misread. Not to make excuses but part of the reason is I saw the TC and made an assumption.

    Still it sounds like I was partially on topic. At least in the above portion not the bottom, I quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swivelinglight View Post


    I think it's possible for this scenario to occur. Types (people) using knowledge to gain the upper hand on the other types (people).
    As for the rest TLDR. (edit. I've read it naio)
    Last edited by Zeno; 07-28-2012 at 05:31 PM.

  2. #22
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swivelinglight View Post
    I apologize. I read too fast and misread. Not to make excuses but part of the reason is I saw the TC and made an assumption.

    As for the rest TLDR.
    That's fine, the rest isn't THAT important really.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  3. #23

    Default

    There are a lot of reasons to want to learn things, and to be prepared. For me, there is inherent pleasure in finding things out and making realizations.

    I don't find the motivation to "one-up" someone very powerful. I actually demotivate myself when I think that someone might feel "one-upped" just because he has less information about something than me. What is the point, really? We all know different things. If someone knows things that I don't, this is an opportunity to learn more.

    I don't have a good understanding of "social capital" (other than an abstract definition of it). But I have noticed that the people who care most about not looking stupid are generally the ones who do so most often. I think this comes from an inherent disrespect of intellect. For them, curiosity, learning, knowledge, etc., are only a means to some petty social ends.

    Someone who is naive and asks a lot of questions will be "smarter" in a short time than someone aiming to "not look stupid".

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I think this comes from an inherent disrespect of intellect. For them, curiosity, learning, knowledge, etc., are only a means to some petty social ends.

    Someone who is naive and asks a lot of questions will be "smarter" in a short time than someone aiming to "not look stupid".
    I was thinking about this the other day to be quite honest.

    I wondered if this same scenario was the case. However, a new idea popped up in my head and I concluded that even if a person may seem closed minded to others, I still feel that would not limit their intellectual intake. I used to agree completely with your perspective on this Ygolo. However, having an open mind, I feel, can put a lot of junk in your brain. Instead the benefits of having a partially closed mind leaves the junk out and does not limit you from learning. Rather than relying on social interactions (asking questions) one can take professional courses or learn from good sources on the internet. Completely cutting out the need for learning from social interaction (except for social interaction concepts and techniques).

    Ofc in this scenario of a partially closed mind I am also thinking of the idea that this person would ask questions towards others during professional settings. IE, asking professors questions as it's in the persons best interest.

    Although I'd agree that if the social company of the individual is clearly more knowledgeable on the subject it would be stupid to act smarter or arrogant (for means of social security) as the opportunity cost may be possible marginal knowledge gained in the event.


    I'd really like to know your opinion on this, however.

  5. #25
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Competition and one-upmanship in a debate is often natural, but some people take it too far, they care not about the actual principle's at hand nor about opening up a dialogue of idea exchange, but instead they do it purely so that in their own minds they can satisfy a need for self approval of being better than others in the arena of argumentation. In essence the winning becomes more important than the core reason for the argument or it's purpose as a tool of expanding perception and convincing someone of a point.

    In my book THAT is when a person has truely lost. If you become like that, then you are nothing more than a terrier champing at the bit, possibly winning arguments, but usually only on the merits of that individuals own deluded standards and never putting such abilities to any use other than to rile up others for the sake of it.

    Phrased this way, I agree about ENTPs doing this more often than others. They can be like word jockeys who seem to perceive communication as some kind of competitive sport, and often it’s like they don’t even realize they’re doing it. Only I wouldn’t say they 'deliberately attain knowledge' (as stated in the op), it’s more like they’re just really good at twisting things around at lightning speed to ‘win’ arguments (except, as pointed out above, it isn’t really ‘winning’ so much as wearing the other person out and establishing themselves as someone not worth exchanging dialogue with in the first place).
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swivelinglight View Post
    I was thinking about this the other day to be quite honest.

    I wondered if this same scenario was the case. However, a new idea popped up in my head and I concluded that even if a person may seem closed minded to others, I still feel that would not limit their intellectual intake. I used to agree completely with your perspective on this Ygolo. However, having an open mind, I feel, can put a lot of junk in your brain. Instead the benefits of having a partially closed mind leaves the junk out and does not limit you from learning. Rather than relying on social interactions (asking questions) one can take professional courses or learn from good sources on the internet. Completely cutting out the need for learning from social interaction (except for social interaction concepts and techniques).

    Ofc in this scenario of a partially closed mind I am also thinking of the idea that this person would ask questions towards others during professional settings. IE, asking professors questions as it's in the persons best interest.

    Although I'd agree that if the social company of the individual is clearly more knowledgeable on the subject it would be stupid to act smarter or arrogant (for means of social security) as the opportunity cost may be possible marginal knowledge gained in the event.


    I'd really like to know your opinion on this, however.
    Asking questions, to me, is the central thinking skill.

    Asking the questions out loud is just one method to attempt to find answers.

    If you take a course or read an internet article without questions in mind, I believe all you are doing is attempting to "pack" information into your mind. Whereas asking questions and attempting to find answers is a way to "map" your own knowledge to the knowledge of others and there by expand your map.

    These are two very different ways to look at knowledge. There are some efficient "packing" techniques, but most of these rely on what I call "artificial mapping" (mnemonic devices, method of loci, ... )

    Those who are "mappers" genuinely enjoy learning things, and "looking stupid" is a small price to pay.

    Those who are "packers" like to boast and show off their "capacity" (whether it is short term memory or long term). Ironically, when they look at the "capacities" of mappers, they can be taken aback.

    Note: I believe the first time I came across the words "mapper" and "packer" was in a really old version of the Programmer's Stone. But I had noticed this same pattern before myself. Some people say that mappers are iNtuitives, and that packers are Sensors. I believe this is B.S. I have come across more iNtuitive packers than Sensor packers. "Packing" as a form of "learning", I believe, comes about due to not leaving enough time to learn. Ironically, it takes longer to pack knowledge into your mind than to map knowledge into it.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    690

    Default

    @ygolo

    Oh wow.

    I'm glad you gave labels two to existing thoughts of learning that I was somewhat aware of but not had put into words.

    I take it you're a mapper.

    It makes complete sense though. The difference is engaging with the stimuli in contrast to just observing it. IE watching videos on flight simulation vs engaging in a flight simulator. (Ofc a oversimplified example and I imagine one could do both packing and mapping in both scenarios.)

    I am curious though. It seems that you have correlated packers to the boasters of knowledge (know it alls) and mappers as to inquisitive minds who do not care for such things. However, I genuinely wonder if it's possible for packers and mappers to fit in both separate categories. In my mind so far it seems likely.

    p.s. If you have any resources that you recommend on the subject of packers and mappers please do so.


    edit: after rereading I caught this mistake
    Quote Originally Posted by Swivelinglight View Post

    I'm glad you gave labels two to existing thoughts of learning
    However, it's so amusing I think I'm going to keep it there.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swivelinglight View Post
    @ygolo

    Oh wow.

    I'm glad you gave labels two to existing thoughts of learning that I was somewhat aware of but not had put into words.

    I take it you're a mapper.

    It makes complete sense though. The difference is engaging with the stimuli in contrast to just observing it. IE watching videos on flight simulation vs engaging in a flight simulator. (Ofc a oversimplified example and I imagine one could do both packing and mapping in both scenarios.)

    I am curious though. It seems that you have correlated packers to the boasters of knowledge (know it alls) and mappers as to inquisitive minds who do not care for such things. However, I genuinely wonder if it's possible for packers and mappers to fit in both separate categories. In my mind so far it seems likely.

    p.s. If you have any resources that you recommend on the subject of packers and mappers please do so.


    edit: after rereading I caught this mistake

    However, it's so amusing I think I'm going to keep it there.
    I should have been more careful. Although people may favor one way when dealing with particular situations, everyone uses both mapping and packing learning strategies. Mapping is an attempt to understand. Packing is an attempt to memorize. Both ways help you remember.

    When you need to remember someone's name, phone number, or birth date, a packing strategy may be appropriate. Unless you have some deep understanding of how these things work, this information is pretty much arbitrary.

    This is the fundamental difference. It seems, we have little choice regarding information that seems arbitrary or nonsensical than to "pack" it in your mind. With information that makes sense, mapping out how the new information you come across makes sense, is very effective. For instance, when you learn the periodic trends after you know that oppositely charged bodies attract and that the more charge bodies have, the more they attract, it is really easy to remember that atomic radii decrease as you go across the period (it is a simple consequence of what you already know).

    However, people have come up with "artificial mapping" strategies to aid packing. Mnemonic devices, and the tricks that people use in the Memory Olympics and such. These strategies don't map knowledge to new knowledge but rather, nonsense to other things (which may seem like nonsense). It is still relatively effective because the nonsense becomes familiar to those who use it. This involves things like: "SOHCAHTOA", "ROY G. BIV", and "My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas."

    But this is the reason I say that those who learn to "not look stupid" or to "impress people" will tend to favor packing over mapping.

    Mapping is a personal and idiosyncratic process. It grows from what you know outwards towards what you want to know. It builds-up. It works from thing we understand to things we want to understand. Once you learn something this way, it is difficult to "forget" it. The new knowledge becomes incorporated and built upon.

    Packing is just a means to some other ends. Once those ends are achieved, there is no longer any reason to hold on the means.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #29
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    This may sound like an odd question, but can an MBTI type be tied back to deliberately attaining knowledge for the usage in arguments and so that no one can consider that person unintelligent or of less capability?

    So they can always be on top? Or can this merely be considered a human trait?
    Isn't that what academics are for?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    But this is the reason I say that those who learn to "not look stupid" or to "impress people" will tend to favor packing over mapping.

    This makes me wonder though.

    If packers are packing knowledge for (assuming) the use to show off or be pretentious, how could they possibly understand when to "show off" this information?

    Surely to engage with others and mention or refer to bits of knowledge they don't understand would not work out. They'd use the terms incorrectly or at the wrong times or be flat out wrong in the topic they're conversing in.

Similar Threads

  1. Pick One Song For All MBTI Types
    By Nørrsken in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-03-2016, 12:02 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 06:16 PM
  3. List, in order, the MBTI type that resonates most with you
    By AphroditeGoneAwry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-26-2010, 11:36 AM
  4. Superlatives for MBTI types
    By alcea rosea in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 02-09-2008, 05:32 PM
  5. Collective Nouns for MBTI Types
    By JivinJeffJones in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 01:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO