Understanding invisible threads that change how actions are judged.

[Carebear]

If my bulldozer can't peel potatoes, I have no use for it.

I admit it would be awesome if it could. The swiss army knife of bulldozers. I'd definitely want one of those. With a wine opener, nail file and toothpick too, ofc. And easily carried in a small pocket.

 

[Totenkindly]

I admit it would be awesome if it could. The swiss army knife of bulldozers. I'd definitely want one of those. With a wine opener, nail file and toothpick too, ofc. And easily carried in a small pocket.

Alternately, you could have a very BIG pocket... but then you'd also have to be wearing a very big coat.


.
.
.
.
.
.
"You're not my mother! You're a SNORT!"

 

[Xander]

I can't believe I missed this thread for so long! It rules!!

Athenian,

You seem stuck. You cannot progress unless you know which is the best route to progress by in your own terms and yet you cannot find which answer is the best without actually doing it. Sure there are models and mockups (I base half my decisions based on such theories of the model being an accurate enough representation of real life but I'm one of em screwey INTPs so I'm safe ).

What would you say to someone who's standing at the edge of the sea and seeming all nervous about trying to swim and yet is watching all the swimmers thinking "I'd like to try that"? Would you try to get them to try it? Would you tell them uselessly (from this Ts perspective) "It's nice" (a totally subjective comment)? Would you attempt to replicate the experience as a model and then present them with a virtual experience for them to base further judgements upon?

At some point you've got to just get in there and have a go. This is true with everything, though crossing that threshold won't always be as easy.

As for this whole judgement without rules, have you ever read a book? Something like Lord of the Rings or some such fantasy novel. Was it good?

Now you could try and find singular instances of the book being good but most people would tell you that they thought the book was good or not in their opinion as a wholistic judgement on the book. You see it's not just that they used the word 'edge' four hundred and fifty three times in twenty five pages but the whole thing, the world it's set in, the characters, the plot, even the mood that they were in when they read it and what age they are. Hell first time I read the lord of the rings I thought it was fantastic. I re-read it recently and thought "what a boring book!! I can't believe I liked it.." I still thought it was average but no where near as exemplary as I did when I was twelve (or whenever it was).

Are you familiar with the concept that every action and thing in this whole universe is connected to all the others? If you throw a pebble into a pool does not the water ripple out to the edges? If you put in the news paper that Wildcat was actually Elvis then would people not ask? If one thing can impact on a wide scale then context becomes important when you are analysing the aftermath and judging it. Shooting someone in cold blood is worse than shooting them in self defence. One you should find you can get away with where as the other is commonly more difficult to defend against in a court of law.

(Hopefully not drawn too many circles there or repeated anyone's analogies.. I've been reading for so long I can hardly recall what was my idea and what I've read!!)

 

[RDF]

Yes, I know. The Ni way. And yes, I see that I can connect the patterns in a whole series of clear and detailed pictures as well, but when the leadership has marked the points with numbers and following the numbers gives me a picture of a bunny, I'm content and think: Oh, so that's what they're aiming for. Huh! Good to know. I might personally think a bunny was a stupid thing to aim for and create something else myself for fun, but I won't be surprised or think "where did that come from?" when the leaders insist on it being a bunny. The lines of the bunny are only invisible if you refuse to draw it.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Problem is, Ni doesn't care about the lines themselves: it cares about the lines being in accordance with the background pattern. So saying "just draw the lines in already, and you'll see the bunny" won't make it budge, because sure it can see the bunny, but you have to twist the background pattern to get to the bunny so the bunny is not a valid option to begin with.

That's where we need Te or Fe to come in and tell Ni "just draw the stupid bunny in for peace's sake or for consistency's sake or whatever!"

And yes, it's pathetic sometimes.

Great posts on the Ne/Ni difference!

I have a busy week or two ahead and need to stay away from the message board and focus on real-world developments; so I'm just going to sum up according to my own lights and others folks can amend or comment as they please.

As an Fi Dominant personality type myself, pretty much the same thing described above happens to me with Fi/Fe.

Often enough I'm at least aware of the conventional Fe "fix" for handling a given situation. But either I don't trust the Fe fix, or I don't trust my own ability to operate in Fe mode, or the Fe fix simply contradicts my Fi self-definition. So I try to address the situation with my preferred Fi function.

But if my Fi methods are clearly inadequate or inappropriate for the situation, then it may be time for a "reality check." It should be a given that my Fi isn't automatically the best way to address every situation; my Fi may simply be the wrong tool, or my Fi may be working with outdated values and information because it hasn't been keeping up with changes occurring in my life (new job, new relationship, new responsibilities, etc.)

At any particular time it's a judgment call whether to use my preferred Dominant Fi or to work with/develop another function. But under the "reality check" principle, real-world results should always be at least one of the key considerations. And there are plenty of common rule-of-thumb tools for resolving conflicts over which function to use, such as Occam's razor, the Golden Rule, or even the Serenity Prayer. It's all pretty common sense; the problem is that people forget common sense in their desire to remain in their comfort zone and stick with their preferred Dominant function.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that one's Dominant needs to be watched, updated, and in some cases reined in. For example: The judging functions (T and F) can get frozen in time and may still reflect oversimplistic and even unrealistic values learned as far back as childhood. Meantime, the constant churning of the perceiving functions (N and S) can become so energy-intensive that N- and S-Dominants have no time or attention left over for the real world and actively work to keep the real world at bay. So here are another couple good rules of thumb: Personal growth almost always entails leaving one's comfort zone. No pain, no gain. And a little pain now saves us from a lot of pain later.

 

[Mempy]

But if my Fi methods are clearly inadequate or inappropriate for the situation, then it may be time for a "reality check." It should be a given that my Fi isn't automatically the best way to address every situation; my Fi may simply be the wrong tool, or my Fi may be working with outdated values and information because it hasn't been keeping up with changes occurring in my life (new job, new relationship, new responsibilities, etc.)

On the topic of values, rules and principles (in effect, all judging functions: Te, Fi, Fe, Ti):

For myself, I’ve adopted the mindset of using and doing what works for me. And you’re right, one function does not meet all my needs, achieve all my ends, or make me dynamic and adaptive. Different situations call for different behavior, and if you’re always trying to behave according to one set of values and principles, you’re going to find yourself running into conflict on pretty much a daily, if not hourly, basis.

My Fi certainly has some values, but I’ve found I need to shed them like a skin in certain situations, not because I’m weak and can’t hold onto them, but because I know it helps me to stand outside myself and consider what would actually be the most adaptive and useful approach to a given situation. I always try to consider what would actually work for me, rather than what is simply congruent with my values and principles. Fi-dom types tend to fall back on their values in every circumstance, treating them like the compass by which to navigate the mysterious and confusing world of decision-making; it’s a common theme among them that congruence is the key to a healthy and happy life. But I know that the values and principles I've learned will not work best for me in every situation, and that congruence for congruence’s sake usually leads me to form debilitating habits and mindsets; it closes of possibilities and closes off adaptation. It’s like holding yourself to a rule for the sake of holding yourself to a rule. NO rule governing human behavior is applicable to all situations, and often there are much better options available and much better tools for getting the job done. (It's similar to what Athenian seemed to be doing in the thread about whether Dana should be banned or not; she was stubbornly insisting that the rules should apply in every situation, but Jennifer kindly pointed out that rules are not meant to enforce themselves, but rather they are meant to protect and aid people, which means they're somewhat flexible.)

It’s not just values that cause stress. It’s also principles, which work under a similar theme of congruence. If I wanted to operate on the principle of efficiency (Te) all the time, I’d bring myself a lot of psychological pain, just as much as if I wanted to operate according to a particularly value, say, kindness, all the time. With efficiency as a guiding principle for behavior, I might run the risk of constantly feeling inefficient and underproductive; I might stress myself to accomplish the most I possibly could in a day, thus wearing myself out.

One of my best INTJ friends does this; it’s one of the most consistent themes of her life, and it’s one of her greatest areas of concern and stress. Her journal is filled with powerful laments regarding how unproductive she feels; it’s common to see her write self-deprecating and bitter poetry about it. I’m guessing that’s a result of her depending too much on Te as a principle. Also, her tertiary (“third-rung”) Fi probably stubbornly reinforces the principle arbitrarily, saying, “Come on now, keep being productive! You’re on the right track, I know it! Keep it up!”

But again, adhering to a rule in all situations for the sake of adhering to a rule is maladaptive. We all try to form these guiding lights for ourselves, but the simple truth of the matter is that almost no rule whatsoever, no matter how awesome it sounds, and no matter how well it works for you in some situations, will work for you in all situations. Honesty, for example, is something so many people are proud to adhere to, but you’d be lying to yourself (har har) if you thought it always yielded you the best results possible and made your life easier in every circumstance.

So I treat things like this: either they work in a given situation, or they don't. If they don't, I know not to use them in similar situations, but rather to try something new next time and see how well that works instead, until I find something that yields me the results I want. I've given up trying to force my values and principles on every situation. I've given up trying to see situations as being governed by values and principles. What matters to me is what works for me, and congruence is only useful to me inasmuch as it is, well, useful; that is, congruence is something I adhere to in situations where congruence yields the results I want. For example, if I'm a teacher, I'm probably going to try to adhere to certain rules just so my students always know what I expect of them. In that case, consistency is probably useful, both to me and the people around me. But congruence isn't always useful. For example, if I consider rules simply as tools to protect and aid people (i.e., if I consider people as the purpose of rules, thus more important than the rules themselves), I'm probably going to listen to the story of a student who missed the final exam rather than failing him/her outright. I have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of my actions: if I make an exception for this student, that means I'm not 100% congruent, but I also want to be compassionate, and I want to serve my students rather than simply dictate to them.

My Fi is inherently opposed to this: What?! The same principle doesn't work in every situation? The simple answer is: Nope.

 

[Athenian200]

You seem stuck. You cannot progress unless you know which is the best route to progress by in your own terms and yet you cannot find which answer is the best without actually doing it. Sure there are models and mockups (I base half my decisions based on such theories of the model being an accurate enough representation of real life but I'm one of em screwey INTPs so I'm safe ).

What would you say to someone who's standing at the edge of the sea and seeming all nervous about trying to swim and yet is watching all the swimmers thinking "I'd like to try that"? Would you try to get them to try it? Would you tell them uselessly (from this Ts perspective) "It's nice" (a totally subjective comment)? Would you attempt to replicate the experience as a model and then present them with a virtual experience for them to base further judgements upon?

I don't really appreciate the idea of waiting around to learn things by experience. Experience can wear you down into accepting things that aren't really positive, useful, or true. I do actually create models in my mind that I use, and they often closely mirror reality... as long as I get enough information in them, that is. The mistake always comes when I leave something out.

For instance, when I made those negative comments about those people that time. I assumed that the goal of the reputation system was to give an opportunity to neutrally assess how well posts contributed to the site without the normal concerns of how your actual opinion might affect the poster's perception of you, and I commented based on that assumption. My picture was of an anonymous suggestion box for each member.

The problem was, though, that I didn't consider that the Admins might have a different use for the system in mind, and that they could use my information in any way they wished, regardless of how I expected them to use it. I learned that people are only constrained by what they think they can get away with, and what they value. So the moral is, never give anyone anything they can against you, unless you're fairly certain they value something that would prevent them from doing so. "You have the right to remain silent, any thing you say can and will be used against you" is very good/important advice. In that case, they didn't care what my inferences about the system led me to do, or how their changes would affect me because of that.

But thinking back now, I'm wondering if it might not have been a better approach to quietly (via PM) ask that those specific comments be deleted beforehand without making a scene... If I'm not mistaken about their character, they probably would have been a lot more sympathetic if I had done that. I've also learned since then that it's possible to click on the scales again, and edit your comment away after you've given it. Come to think of it, if I hadn't been so mad at JJJ for creating that thread attacking my comment about him and how I made it, I probably wouldn't have said anything like what I did outwardly. Something about Fi expressions makes me want to blow up at and counter-react with outward passions in the opposite direction, and with the opposite sentiment, just out of spite and irritation with the structure of those values.

At some point you've got to just get in there and have a go. This is true with everything, though crossing that threshold won't always be as easy.

As for this whole judgement without rules, have you ever read a book? Something like Lord of the Rings or some such fantasy novel. Was it good?

Now you could try and find singular instances of the book being good but most people would tell you that they thought the book was good or not in their opinion as a wholistic judgement on the book. You see it's not just that they used the word 'edge' four hundred and fifty three times in twenty five pages but the whole thing, the world it's set in, the characters, the plot, even the mood that they were in when they read it and what age they are. Hell first time I read the lord of the rings I thought it was fantastic. I re-read it recently and thought "what a boring book!! I can't believe I liked it.." I still thought it was average but no where near as exemplary as I did when I was twelve (or whenever it was).

Are you familiar with the concept that every action and thing in this whole universe is connected to all the others? If you throw a pebble into a pool does not the water ripple out to the edges? If you put in the news paper that Wildcat was actually Elvis then would people not ask? If one thing can impact on a wide scale then context becomes important when you are analysing the aftermath and judging it. Shooting someone in cold blood is worse than shooting them in self defence. One you should find you can get away with where as the other is commonly more difficult to defend against in a court of law.

I don't like the idea (which seems popular with many people) that I have to throw everything away on a risk without having any idea what will happen. I think I should at least try to learn as much as I can about something before I experience it, even if I obviously can't learn everything. It seems like a better approach to me, because it gives me ideas about how to deal with the situations that might arise. For instance, if before going to a wooded area, I learned about snakes and what to do if I were bitten by a venomous snake, I would fare better in that situation than if I had never learned what to do about such an occurrence. Does that make sense?

 

[disregard]

I don't like the idea (which seems popular with many people) that I have to throw everything away on a risk without having any idea what will happen. I think I should at least try to learn as much as I can about something before I experience it, even if I obviously can't learn everything. It seems like a better approach to me, because it gives me ideas about how to deal with the situations that might arise. For instance, if before going to a wooded area, I learned about snakes and what to do if I were bitten by a venomous snake, I would fare better in that situation than if I had never learned what to do about such an occurrence. Does that make sense?

Most situations aren't as simple as "If you get bitten by a venomous snake, you need to suck the venom out and eat sixteen blueberries within the next half-hour," so your know-it-all-with-no-experience approach won't serve you very well for the most part.

 

[skip]

I don't really appreciate the idea of waiting around to learn things by experience.

Yet some understanding of life only comes with experience. That's one reason age is not just a number.

 

[Athenian200]

Most situations aren't as simple as "If you get bitten by a venomous snake, you need to suck the venom out and eat sixteen blueberries within the next half-hour," so your know-it-all-with-no-experience approach won't serve you very well for the most part.

It isn't quite fair to say that I've only dealt with simple situations by learning as much as I could about them beforehand. I was using a simple example to illustrate. I didn't say that I could read a book about sports and then become a star athlete without experience or something. But sometimes knowing about what to expect in a situation allows you realize you can apply other experiences you've had to the new situation, by realizing the ways in which it is similar.

I'm only saying that whether you have experience or not, you're still better off trying to find out as much about what could happen in a situation as you can before you enter it. Better a know-it-all with no experience than someone with no knowledge and no experience, right?

And in some situations, experience can actually bias and hurt your understanding rather than help you. What about the experiences of the pre-Civil war era leading to discrimination because that's how things had been before? Their experience didn't lead them in the right direction, did it? Or what about someone who has spent their life taking risks and always came out on top, assuming that the dangers weren't real because nothing ever happened to them, even though they should have understood that the possibility was there? I'm just saying, it's not perfect either.

So what I try to do is have knowledge first, then get experience. But then I may well go back periodically and examine what I think I've learned from my experience, in order to make sure I'm not blindly following what I've learned through experience. In other words, I try not to rely too strongly on any one system of dealing with life.

Yet some understanding of life only comes with experience. That's one reason age is not just a number.

Skill comes with experience, definitely. But understanding is done by examination. You can experience something as much as you like and never understand it until you examine it. That's why it's possible to explain how it is something can be as it is, with enough definition and explanation, but it is never possible to simply explain skill in such a way as to impart it to someone.

 

[Seanan]

I'm only saying that whether you have experience or not, you're still better off trying to find out as much about what could happen in a situation as you can before you enter it.

I think you're right to a point. Watching a few shows where all multi-millionaire entrepeneurs were interview, the one thing they all had in common was that they ask and use in other ways experts in the field. They all said the knowledge of others was critical to their success. A good idea in all areas of life... ask someone more experienced. But, of course, don't let that thinking become compulsive and inhibiting just to live.

 

[skip]

But understanding is done by examination

Some things are only understood by experiencing them.

 

[Carebear]

I'm only saying that whether you have experience or not, you're still better off trying to find out as much about what could happen in a situation as you can before you enter it. Better a know-it-all with no experience than someone with no knowledge and no experience, right?

Wouldn't the opposites be know-it-alls with no experience and someone with no knowledge and plenty of experience? Nobody has championed getting neither experience nor knowledge.

As for the rest, I think you're misrepresenting what other people are saying. It's not a matter of dropping the preparation. It's a matter of to what extent you rely on one and the other. A minor tweak, not a fundamental change. If I asked someone to come with me for a walk in the woods tomorrow, I'd appreciate it if they read up on some of the typical challenges, but if they refused to come because they needed at least a week or more to prepare to find out as much as humanly possible about the potential hazards of a walk in the woods, I'd probably try to persuade them to focus a bit more on experience and a bit less on knowledge. Too great a focus on getting it ALL right before jumping in tends to leave people stuck in a rut, and if they do finally jump in they'll often still be "blinder" than the people who just learned the basics and got the rest from experience. Experience is not the only thing that leaves you biased.

But hey, as long as it works for you, don't sweat it. You've probably already found the perfect mix for you. Just remember if you ever do find yourself stuck in a rut that the solution probably doesn't lie in going more theoretical, but rather in experiencing more and engaging your aux.

 

[Xander]

Athenian,

I think Carebear has probably given adequate detail, never let it be said though that I gave up on an opportunity to post

The whole idea is based around business strategy, well not literally but it's a good comparison and hopefully should work for you.

Are you familiar with opportunity costs? It's basically the idea that if you didn't get to the betting station in time because you hesitated and the horse you were going for won then whatever you would have won is considered a cost. That is what your thinking time cost you.

Now whilst no person in their right mind would advocate "just do it" as a be all and end all solution to thinking (ie don't think about it, jump and find out en route) it does have it's advantages. Say, for example, you are shopping around for a new house. You see one you think you really like but you want to think about it (that IS sensible [just clarifying]). However you then take two weeks to mull it over in your head before putting your name to anything. When you do finally phone the estate agent you find that the house has been sold already. Now you have not only cost yourself that house but also lost all the time you were agonising over the decision as well. Now it could be that the house was sold five seconds after you left (that's why life is known by so many rude names) but equally it could be sold one week on and in which case your inability to say yes before you know absolutely has cost you the house and the time.

Now, like I said, this isn't a case of "stop thinking" but it is a case of balancing how much you think about something with how much you get done.

It's the famous INTP problem of having a brilliant concept but lacking the motivation to get it done or (sometimes equally as usual) having a brilliant concept but no time left to do it.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Red Dwarf but they did a brilliant parody of this problem. Rimmer had three weeks (I'm not sure of the exact time periods but it works none the less) to revise for an exam. He produced a wonderful full colour timetable for his revision detailing every minute of the three weeks. This took him two weeks to accomplish. He then had one week and the timetable was incorrect now. So he hastily drew up a new timetable for the remaining week. This took him seven days... so he crammed for the whole last night prior to the exam and flunked because he fell asleep during the exam.

For every action there is a cost. Choose your costs wisely. Perhaps planning ahead will produce the results you desire but sometimes the planning will cost you something that you do not wish to pay. If you can know this in advance then alls well and good but life doesn't work that way.

Like a diet, thinking and acting is the same... everything in moderation.

 

[Athenian200]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Red Dwarf but they did a brilliant parody of this problem. Rimmer had three weeks (I'm not sure of the exact time periods but it works none the less) to revise for an exam. He produced a wonderful full colour timetable for his revision detailing every minute of the three weeks. This took him two weeks to accomplish. He then had one week and the timetable was incorrect now. So he hastily drew up a new timetable for the remaining week. This took him seven days... so he crammed for the whole last night prior to the exam and flunked because he fell asleep during the exam.

For every action there is a cost. Choose your costs wisely. Perhaps planning ahead will produce the results you desire but sometimes the planning will cost you something that you do not wish to pay. If you can know this in advance then alls well and good but life doesn't work that way.

Like a diet, thinking and acting is the same... everything in moderation.

Okay, that's a good point. In fact, I had written in a post to Carebear that I lost and didn't feel like retyping that I wouldn't have spent a week researching something like wilderness hazards for a walk in the woods. But I might spend about two days researching it, if I had no concept of what woods were like. Significantly less since I do have such a concept. Although I might refuse simply because I don't feel like getting bitten by insects and wearing myself out by walking too far, it would have nothing to do with lack of knowledge. However, if I were thinking about moving to another country, I would probably try to take a month or to learn the culture/language, possibly even spend some time there as a trial if possible before committing, unless of course there was some imminent danger and I needed to decide quickly. So I don't spend a lot of time thinking if I don't have it, but not having time to think usually results in me making a snap choice that results in the least possible amount of danger, discomfort, or change (in order of priority) for the moment, without considering what might be good for me (or others) in the long run.

I also made the point that the reason I try to gain knowledge before experience is that to gain experience, you have to put yourself in the situation and risk the very things you're trying to minimize the risk of. But you can gain knowledge before gaining experience, and that can make things better. The more possible situations you are aware of, the better the chance you have of recognizing and dealing with them when they arise. So ideally, you want to have knowledge and experience, but you're still better off with knowledge and no experience, than proceeding with neither.

I actually try to start with some knowledge, then get experience. After getting some of that, I compare my knowledge to my experience and try to connect the two and rely on the parts of both that seem best. In other words, I don't automatically consider my experiences to be more reliable than my knowledge for all similar situations, even after I've had them. Of course, I don't really rely on my knowledge only, either, and try to see how my experiences add detail to, and possibly point out changes in knowledge since I first learned it.

The reason I think that experience is skill and knowledge is understanding is this... I don't think you really understand the things that you learn through experience, because you can't explain them to someone else and have them comprehend it. That means you've improved at dealing with that situation in an unconscious way you can't articulate, which is more like skill than understanding. Experience can provide knowledge, but knowledge can be gained in other ways than experiences. Skill cannot be gained in any other way.

I'm actually less indecisive in this way than many people. I don't really write my essays in drafts, and simply revise the initial attempt a few times instead. I'm also likely to have absorbed much of the information that's available rather quickly (because I've been paying attention and absorbing it already), and act based on it. My problem comes in when I'm expected to consider vague connections in my everyday decisions, because they're too inconsistent and unclear.

Does that make sense?

 

[Xander]

Sorry to do this to one of your posts but I feel that if I address things in specific but in a different order then hopefully the path I draw will better illustrate my points.

Note: I don't think your approach is wrong as in discard it, I do however think it is a little hardline and may cause problems. Like stiff suspension it does corner well but take it on anything but a perfect road and you soon know about it.

The reason I think that experience is skill and knowledge is understanding is this... I don't think you really understand the things that you learn through experience, because you can't explain them to someone else and have them comprehend it. That means you've improved at dealing with that situation in an unconscious way you can't articulate, which is more like skill than understanding. Experience can provide knowledge, but knowledge can be gained in other ways than experiences. Skill cannot be gained in any other way.

Right, first off I think you are partially getting caught up in definitions of terms here... The idea of experience being the teacher, as opposed to knowledge is that you can read about say martial arts. You can sit there in your room and practice the moves. However until you engage in combat, you still do not know how to fight.

If knowledge is a tool then experience is the knowing how to apply those tools. Personally I don't think you are too far off with your pursuit of tools but it also does seem that you are trying to master how to seal wood properly (so you can make a boat) before you've even picked up any tools to form the wood in the first place. Or, to make a better analogy, your learning about programming a database but your obsessing about active x controls so you can make it look professional before you've actually started designing the tables, queries and forms. Now you may say that if you learn about the end of the process then that gives you insight into the start of the process and yes this is true but having done that approach on a database I can say with some confidence that actually following the process gives much more insight and that the sooner you start doing something, the sooner all that knowledge starts to make sense.

Perhaps the best analogy of knowledge versus experience would be the sister forum. You can go and read up on what an INTP should be but it will not encompass all that INTPs are. For that you'd have to go and find out for yourself and give that knowledge of the type a context by directly experiencing that type.

Okay, that's a good point. In fact, I had written in a post to Carebear that I lost and didn't feel like retyping that I wouldn't have spent a week researching something like wilderness hazards for a walk in the woods. But I might spend about two days researching it, if I had no concept of what woods were like. Significantly less since I do have such a concept. Although I might refuse simply because I don't feel like getting bitten by insects and wearing myself out by walking too far, it would have nothing to do with lack of knowledge. However, if I were thinking about moving to another country, I would probably try to take a month or to learn the culture/language, possibly even spend some time there as a trial if possible before committing, unless of course there was some imminent danger and I needed to decide quickly. So I don't spend a lot of time thinking if I don't have it, but not having time to think usually results in me making a snap choice that results in the least possible amount of danger, discomfort, or change (in order of priority) for the moment, without considering what might be good for me (or others) in the long run.

Without your knowledge of the woods though all you have is dry information about what dwells there and what other people think about it as a whole. If you go there and walk through that wood you'll find out things like how the wood makes you feel, what was in the wood on that day, what it smells like to you...

This makes a large difference to your knowledge of woods and understanding of them.

Think of it as similar to experiencing bereavement. Until you do how do you know if you understand what another person is going through?

I also made the point that the reason I try to gain knowledge before experience is that to gain experience, you have to put yourself in the situation and risk the very things you're trying to minimize the risk of. But you can gain knowledge before gaining experience, and that can make things better. The more possible situations you are aware of, the better the chance you have of recognizing and dealing with them when they arise. So ideally, you want to have knowledge and experience, but you're still better off with knowledge and no experience, than proceeding with neither.

Two saying I like to keep close to hand (mentally speaking)
"That which does not kill me only serves to make me stronger"
"Chance favours the prepared mind"
In other words yes it does pay to prepare but no it's not necessary to plan for all eventualities. Sometimes living through a disaster teaches. Some of the people who I've talked to have had horrible experiences in life, things I wish I could take away from them on the one hand and also things I consider them blessed with because it's usually these very people who are the most enlightened, the most brave and the best balanced.

Think of a child who has always obeyed the rules. Sure they may have a history of behaving well but do they understand consequence? I'd reckon they have knowledge of consequence but do they understand what it means?

I actually try to start with some knowledge, then get experience. After getting some of that, I compare my knowledge to my experience and try to connect the two and rely on the parts of both that seem best. In other words, I don't automatically consider my experiences to be more reliable than my knowledge for all similar situations, even after I've had them. Of course, I don't really rely on my knowledge only, either, and try to see how my experiences add detail to, and possibly point out changes in knowledge since I first learned it.

This is why I'm not telling you you're wrong. That's similar to my own approach. I theorise before I actualise and hope that some preparation will make the experience run smoother. I've found out through hard lessons that sometimes reading dry manuals and text doesn't actually prepare you. Having someone who has done what you are about to do often helps more than six textbooks about the subject.

That's not to say that the textbooks are worth less, just they mean so much more when tempered with the experience of someone who's been there and done that.

I'm actually less indecisive in this way than many people. I don't really write my essays in drafts, and simply revise the initial attempt a few times instead. I'm also likely to have absorbed much of the information that's available rather quickly (because I've been paying attention and absorbing it already), and act based on it. My problem comes in when I'm expected to consider vague connections in my everyday decisions, because they're too inconsistent and unclear.

Ahh... intuition not a strong suit of yours?

Think of it like card counting. Unless you are really capable all you are doing is calculating the percentage chance of a certain card coming up. You probably won't know for sure if you calculated right until the cards are turned face up but you have a percentage chance of being right. You are reading a pattern and making judgements on the pattern you see.

Perhaps you are obsessed with knowing, being right, having the answer? I know I'm obsessed with balance so perhaps that's your foible? Each to their own after all.

Does that make sense?

I rarely think I have a problem interpreting your words. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Athenian200]

Right, first off I think you are partially getting caught up in definitions of terms here... The idea of experience being the teacher, as opposed to knowledge is that you can read about say martial arts. You can sit there in your room and practice the moves. However until you engage in combat, you still do not know how to fight.

Well, yes. I said that earlier when I pointed out that no amount of textbooks can make you a star athlete. But that's because it's skill, which is something you can't grant another person through reason, meaning it's not truly knowledge. But enough about definitions.

If knowledge is a tool then experience is the knowing how to apply those tools. Personally I don't think you are too far off with your pursuit of tools but it also does seem that you are trying to master how to seal wood properly (so you can make a boat) before you've even picked up any tools to form the wood in the first place. Or, to make a better analogy, your learning about programming a database but your obsessing about active x controls so you can make it look professional before you've actually started designing the tables, queries and forms. Now you may say that if you learn about the end of the process then that gives you insight into the start of the process and yes this is true but having done that approach on a database I can say with some confidence that actually following the process gives much more insight and that the sooner you start doing something, the sooner all that knowledge starts to make sense.

I've never done anything like that, in fact I always start with the first steps. Interestingly, the reason I don't want to learn things through experience is because I think learning things through experience would take too long compared to understanding them, because I could suffer all the possible consequences, and possibly still learn nothing except what not to do, and/or have only had bad luck. Basically, I just want to get through something with as little contemplation of what else it might be connected to as possible, so I can just apply rules and ideas to things uniformly without thinking about it, and just get on with my life rather than stuggle through one situation at a time, because that would distract me from my goals. Part of my point was actually that if I had to consider individual situations rather than blanketly applying rules, I would waste too much time contemplating possibilities, to point out how ridiculous it is to be expected to infer information that isn't obvious.

Perhaps the best analogy of knowledge versus experience would be the sister forum. You can go and read up on what an INTP should be but it will not encompass all that INTPs are. For that you'd have to go and find out for yourself and give that knowledge of the type a context by directly experiencing that type.

I've associated with several INTP's online and they're so different that I'm beginning to think that the test doesn't measure anything meaningful. Jennifer's an INTP, for instance. And while she's far from ignorant, of course, let's just say she's no Aristotle. If you want to know what I thought INTP's were supposed to be like, just look at BlueWing or Rene Descartes, and imagine someone a little more extreme than them. That's probably why I like BlueWing... he's closest to my inital expectation of what an INTP should be like (and you know how much I like to get what I expect, right?) Although I probably should have been more understanding intially, since I realize I'm not exactly an archtypical INFJ myself.

They apparently aren't quite the living embodiment of a pure analytical process in action that I had hoped to meet one day (out of occasional curiousity as to whether I really had any notion of how reality was, or it was just a figment of our collective imaginations), although I have learned to appreciate their human qualities (and unexpectedly personal behaviors in some instances) as well, I was shocked to find such qualities in NT's.

Without your knowledge of the woods though all you have is dry information about what dwells there and what other people think about it as a whole. If you go there and walk through that wood you'll find out things like how the wood makes you feel, what was in the wood on that day, what it smells like to you...

True, but that information could be helpful if you had no concept, and it would only help incorporate and comprehend your experiences.

This is why I'm not telling you you're wrong. That's similar to my own approach. I theorise before I actualise and hope that some preparation will make the experience run smoother. I've found out through hard lessons that sometimes reading dry manuals and text doesn't actually prepare you. Having someone who has done what you are about to do often helps more than six textbooks about the subject.

Well, part of my preparation would indeed be to seek out teachers who have been in the situation before. I wouldn't trust printed material alone. But anything they can explain to me is something they understand consciously, not something unconscious like skill/experience. Experience might have triggered their reasoning by giving it something to make sense of, but if they understood it well enough to explain it, then it wasn't really experience but understanding of what was experienced that they obtained.

Think of it like card counting. Unless you are really capable all you are doing is calculating the percentage chance of a certain card coming up. You probably won't know for sure if you calculated right until the cards are turned face up but you have a percentage chance of being right. You are reading a pattern and making judgements on the pattern you see.

Perhaps you are obsessed with knowing, being right, having the answer? I know I'm obsessed with balance so perhaps that's your foible? Each to their own after all.

Well, yes. I'm not really good at judging patterns without having something specific to relate them to. In fact, I could experience the same situation a thousand times over and learn nothing unless I know what's going on. Sometimes I need to study something in order to comprehend and make use of it, even after having experienced it. Is that rather sad?

 

[Xander]

<see above>

Aha! I think I'm getting your perspective finally... Experience is subconscious, like a trained reaction, where as education is discovering things consciously.

To elaborate, from your point of view if you had an epiphany about what you had read about a particular task whilst performing that task, is that an experience or knowledge?

As for the INTPs... Descartes was an idiot. BlueWing's okay though..

Are you sure about the INFJ bit btw? Your description of what you want and why you go a t things the way you do is much more ES in my mind than IN. I do have a counter theory of a stressed IN but that would require significant long term pressure and I wouldn't expect you to defend that approach with such conviction.

Anyhow assuming that your type is indeed as stated then I'd recommend you try whiskey You seem stressed enough to kill a cat. The only time I get in the mindset to go straight through and not pay attention to all the connections.

I mean I could be completely wrong and you're just using your intuition in a way that I'm not seeing but my brain says that either your stressed or you're a sensor, quite a hardline one at that.

Having thought about it (sorry there's a long break there in real time) I think I'm not understanding the full context of your thinking. I'll try and explain the models I've got built in my head..

A. You don't like complexity. Things have to be simple and direct. Causality needs to line up neatly so you can see that A leads to B and so on.

B. You learn about something, learning it's context and connections, assembling a complex model of it with probabilities built in. You then apply this model to an action but want the action to run smoothly and without surprises.

Model A, to me, implies more of a sensor approach whilst model B is more likely to be an intuitive introvert who's not at all comfortable in leaving the realms of their head to accomplish something and hence becomes stressed in it's execution and so goes linear in thinking whilst performing the task. Model A is more like ESxJ whilst model B is more akin to what I know as INxP. I guess both models could be semi true and hence INxJ but I'm not sure.

Ah... I have a model C.

INTJs, so I've been told, collect all the information available (usually confirmed information as far as I can gather) then make a decision and execute it according to that plan. The probabilities are reduced down to almost certainties and the plan is executed as though the model is perfect in conception. If INFJ is similar to that then I can see what you mean... it's in the execution that you don't wish to find problems or complexity. You like to get that all sorted before you start. If that is true then perhaps you are inhibiting your growth a little by not allowing yourself to free form? Like an INTP who refuses to acknowledge their emotions, intending to remain "pure", you could be making a rod for your back there.

Anyhow this is just theory.. I think I'm losing track of what the original point was... it's a nice journey though

 

[Carebear]

Theory C would tie in nicely with what FL was saying about using the aux to "defend" the pri instead of feeding it. If theory C is anywhere near right, it explains why Ath seems INTJ at times. It doesn't really matter if the aux is Te or Fe if they're "stunted" and Ni gets to call all the shots. What we'd see on an internet forum would mostly be the internal Ni structure, which would look very similar for a INTJ with limited use of Te and a INFJ with limited use of Fe.

 

[Xander]

Theory C would tie in nicely with what FL was saying about using the aux to "defend" the pri instead of feeding it. If theory C is anywhere near right, it explains why Ath seems INTJ at times. It doesn't really matter if the aux is Te or Fe if they're "stunted" and Ni gets to call all the shots. What we'd see on an internet forum would mostly be the internal Ni structure, which would look very similar for a INTJ with limited use of Te and a INFJ with limited use of Fe.

You're seeing the N?

I'm kinda guessing it's there by the absences of evidence of an S and some vague suggestions...

It is kind of difficult though to tell INFJ from INTJ at this point. I guess it's cause you rarely, if ever, get to see the inner workings.

 

[Athenian200]

Aha! I think I'm getting your perspective finally... Experience is subconscious, like a trained reaction, where as education is discovering things consciously.

To elaborate, from your point of view if you had an epiphany about what you had read about a particular task whilst performing that task, is that an experience or knowledge?

Knowledge.

As for the INTPs... Descartes was an idiot. BlueWing's okay though..

I guess you're not a fan of "I think, therefore I am?" That actually made a lot of things fall into place for me, but I can understand why it might seem meaningless to some people.

Are you sure about the INFJ bit btw? Your description of what you want and why you go a t things the way you do is much more ES in my mind than IN. I do have a counter theory of a stressed IN but that would require significant long term pressure and I wouldn't expect you to defend that approach with such conviction.

But then how would you explain my test results, my posting on a forum like this one, and being interested in things like philosophy?

Anyhow assuming that your type is indeed as stated then I'd recommend you try whiskey You seem stressed enough to kill a cat. The only time I get in the mindset to go straight through and not pay attention to all the connections.

If you pay attention to connections frequently, don't you end up spending a lot of time hesitating and second-guessing what you think you know? How could you get anything done if you did that?

A. You don't like complexity. Things have to be simple and direct. Causality needs to line up neatly so you can see that A leads to B and so on.

I'm fine with complexity, but not ambiguity. I'm willing to pay attention long enough to memorize something elaborate in structure, and apply it, but I get too confused to act if I'm expected to infer and react to information that isn't obvious just because other people do, and I don't happen to see the inference right away (although occasionally I do see it). Especially since people are wrong about half the time in such inferences, but they like to pressure you to interpret it their way (this is especially bad if they have authority, which thankfully has been rare).

B. You learn about something, learning it's context and connections, assembling a complex model of it with probabilities built in. You then apply this model to an action but want the action to run smoothly and without surprises.

I don't really use probability, I just try to learn what I need to be prepared for, and then prepare by knowing how to deal with those situations if they come up. I don't plan exactly what I'm going to do at a particular time, I just try to figure out how to do everything I'll need to do in a specific situation I'm going into, and make sure I get all of it done.

INTJs, so I've been told, collect all the information available (usually confirmed information as far as I can gather) then make a decision and execute i according to that plan. The probabilities are reduced down to almost certainties and the plan is executed as though the model is perfect in conception. If INFJ is similar to that then I can see what you mean... it's in the execution that you don't wish to find problems or complexity. You like to get that all sorted before you start. If that is true then perhaps you are inhibiting your growth a little by not allowing yourself to free form? Like an INTP who refuses to acknowledge their emotions, intending to remain "pure", you could be making a rod for your back there.

Well, if problems or complexity arise, everything gets messed up, I don't get anything done, and I look bad to everyone else who expected me to get it done.

Theory C would tie in nicely with what FL was saying about using the aux to "defend" the pri instead of feeding it. If theory C is anywhere near right, it explains why Ath seems INTJ at times. It doesn't really matter if the aux is Te or Fe if they're "stunted" and Ni gets to call all the shots. What we'd see on an internet forum would mostly be the internal Ni structure, which would look very similar for a INTJ with limited use of Te and a INFJ with limited use of Fe.

I'm so sick of that theory. I'm not going to violate myself by constantly forcing contradictory information that doesn't make sense and that I can't possibly apply into my way of dealing with things, and accepting it as good just because it's there. I'm tired of being told that's the right/only way to move forward, and that I have no choice if I want to so. I really disagree, and feel that whoever wrote that didn't understand how I work at all, or they never would have suggested that. I'm sick of INFP's trying to force their truths on me, and then getting irritated and ignoring me when I balk at it, as if I were the one who was at fault.