MBTI type that gathers information just for one-upmanship?

[Swivelinglight]

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:

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)

 

[Cellmold]

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.

 

[ygolo]

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".

 

[Swivelinglight]

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.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

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).

 

[ygolo]

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.

 

[Swivelinglight]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]

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

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.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]

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.

 

[Ginkgo]

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?

 

[Swivelinglight]

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.

 

[Lexicon]

I've enountered people of every type who are prone to this sort of pseudointellectual piss contest nonsense. Ofc, every type's idea of what information is relevant to squirrel away is going to widely vary, based on factors such as subjective values, interests, cognitive processing, perceptions, & preconceptions.
[et cetera]

I just gloss over it, let'm do their thing if that's what they require to feel secure in some way. Unless it interfered with actually accomplishing something, though- but that's a rule I tend to apply universally in life, anyhow.

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?

I think that varies from person to person. Those less socially retarded overall will be able to discern when it's appropriate to attempt to insert their impressive wisdom into a conversation. Some don't care if it's obvious and it more or less becomes another sort of display of bravado.

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.

They may understand it, but I often find people like this don't have as firm a grasp on the information as they attempt to illustrate--- However, they still can pull off 'sounding smart' - which is the bluff they're hoping to use, in some situations.

Take for instance, someone generally interested in the same topic as the information hoarder- that individual strikes up a conversation about the mutual interest, sharing what general data they've learned about it-- only to be suffocated by the torrent of topic-related jargon spewing forth from the hoarder.

It's a no-contest scenario (oftentimes the other individual simply wants to share/compare notes- the notion of a contest at all doesn't cross their mind), & it's an immediate sort of 'one-upmanship' -- the sort of tactic used by someone who isn't interested in debate with others who may/not be as familiar [or more] with the material--- this type of person seeks an instant 'win,' placing the hoarder on a comparably high pedestal that won't likely be questioned by the parties present, thus boosting their frightened ego, & creating a cardboard shield of bs impressiveness.


I secretly enjoy listening to conversations of this nature that I might overhear among groups of strangers in a bar or diner. We sure do some silly stuff to feel 'safe.' [I've certainly got my own binds, so I suppose I'm not exempt, either]

 

[Nocapszy]

lexicon wins this round.

 

[Ginkgo]

lexicon wins this round.

Does that mean you lost?

 

[Lexicon]

lexicon wins this round.

 

[Swivelinglight]

Off-topic:

I'd like to thank this thread for my new user title.

 

[Ginkgo]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvBGNXi1gXs&feature=relmfu"]THE COLLECTOR[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ygolo]

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.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

People are wrong a lot.

When a packer is wrong, its usually not a big deal for his framework of knowledge (there is no framework), though it may effect his ego. The "knowledge" he packed in his mind has failed to serve its social purpose.

When a mapper is wrong, this can be a big deal for her framework of knowledge (depending on how deeply embedded it is). Correcting a deeply embedded bit of knowledge usually means a process of re-mapping and re-learning and correcting errors in the mapping process itself.

Both reactions to being wrong can come off as pretentious.

When a packer is correct, it is a show of "prowess" in packing ability.

When a mapper is correct, although a validation of mapping ability, it is more a validation of the map itself.

Again, both reactions to being correct can come as being pretentious.

I realize this stuff sounds strange, and that I have not backed up my opinions with evidence (since, other those who read the Programmer's Stone or derivatives, "mapping" vs. "packing" is a strange distinction, few people use these categories, there is little research regarding this. However, there has been plenty of research that shows those that understand what is being taught retain information longer than those that memorize what is being taught.) This sort of thinking was implicitly incorporated into my thinking years before I started using these particular words for it, and even longer before I started valuing psychological research as much as I do now.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I know this is a derail, and I guess the mods can (or threadstarter can request) break this off for another thread, but this connection between ‘packing’ (rote, memorization and regurgitation) and ‘mapping’ (critical thinking?)- and packers being the ones who do it for one-up-manship and mappers learning for its own sake- doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve known plenty of people I would definitely consider rote, memorization type learners who don’t feel the least bit compelled to ‘win’ arguments for the sake of winning; and vice versa, I’ve known know-it-all ‘mappers’ who were unbearable. I'd be surprised if there's really a correlation.

 

[Rasofy]

That's a combo of big ego + self esteem derived from being regarded as an intelligent person by other people. A bit En 3 oriented, if you ask me, but not necessarily.
5s may have a lower need for external approval, but they still have a bigger amount of self esteem invested on feeling intelligent - and being regarded as intelligent by other people is certainly a factor.
8s just want people to submit, and being regarded as knowledgeable sometimes helps.

 

[Swivelinglight]

As for my answer on the type that I believe is most pretentious based off anecdotal evidence, I'd have to agree with many in here and say my own type, ENTP.


I'm not sure if it's more or less worst for me to hear it than others, because I know so well what they're doing (after employing the tactics in my past).

I think it may not be as bad for people who don't engage with ENTP's much because it may come across as endearing rather than annoying in small doses.