Amargith
Hotel California
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 14,717
- MBTI Type
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 4dw
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Could you fail harder?
It was a simple question.
Could you fail harder?
Could you fail harder?
Question for T users...is it by any chance possible to, if you really cannot keep yourself from glancing over such an error (be it that 'all' thing or the grammar error), as you feel it might have value to the conversation, to in stead of correcting the person, formulate the correction as a question aka 'Is this what you meant?' without displaying that you know better? Coz I think that could save you a lot of frustration, defensiveness and derails on both ends.
You know, if you were one of the guys sitting with me, T-Pain and another friend at the table when I found out I'd won a vacation on a boat, I'd totally not pick you.
btw, several different functions can be responsible for spelling and grammar nitpicking, not just Si. My mom seems to do it out of Si, just to make it match past experience consistently...but I do it out of Ti, because it violates my inner framework of logical relationships by which everything is judged, and my dad probably does it out of Te, because you can't expect to achieve the highest efficiency in your pursuit of goals if you don't have your shit together with proper English (Ni asks, "What would that symbolize about me if I went around using language improperly?...he's an INTJ.)
You'd be surprised.
It was a simple question.
sounds like a Te thing...
this extraverted sensor happen to be an ESTJ?..
In which case we're not talking extraverted sensing at all.
we're talking Te and Si, which sounds more accurate. Se is not known for being a nitpicky function
I don't know about Amarginth, but I know that I could.
(Tries not to fail hard.)
Listen man, the problem is in your interpretation of generalizations.
Sensors tend to interpret a generalization as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of a group.
So if I say, Xs are bigger than Ys, and you find any single particular Y that's bigger than any other particular X, the generalization is false. When interpreted this way, it is--but so are all generalizations, which is why you need to interpret them inductively instead of deductively.
iNtuitives are more naturally attuned to viewing data in terms of the average of all cases over time...so when we say that Xs are bigger than Ys, we don't mean that as a precise description of every single X and every single Y; we really only mean that the average X is bigger than the average Y.
They're all just relative relationships, not concrete data, and that's why Ns like them better than Ss do.
See? That's another one. There are certainly cases of S people who like MBTI more than certain other N people, but on average, MBTI attracts more Ns than Ss. And that's the only kind of information it offers--generalized induction.
Seriously, read the wikipedia page on inductive reasoning. It will explain a lot.
Thoughts?
Yeah that makes sense to me, however where is the proof that "on average" Ts do this? My point is that she doesn't have proof she is just making a sweeping statement that IS over generalizing
If you said all Ts don't show emotion then I might let it slide because on average a lot of them don't but nit-picking and spelling? Come on, surely you can understand why I think thats a bit ridiculous
Yeah that makes sense to me, however where is the proof that "on average" Ts do this? My point is that she doesn't have proof she is just making a sweeping statement that IS over generalizing
If you said all Ts don't show emotion then I might let it slide because on average a lot of them don't but nit-picking and spelling? Come on, surely you can understand why I think thats a bit ridiculous
She doesn't actually mean that a majority of Thinkers behave this way; only that Thinkers behave this way more often relative to Feelers. Again, we're not actually saying how many specific entities with the property Thinking are behaving this way; we're just comparing the relative frequencies of behaviors between arbitrarily designated groups.
case in point
a specific example of what one is talking about.
Now, as a case in point, let's look at nineteenth-century England.
Fireworks can be dangerous. For a case in point, look at what happened to Bob Smith last Fourth of July.
Your Aunt made me do it.
Correcting spelling and grammar seems to be a Ti thing, in my experience.
NTPs do it all the time, and the Se users that you're referring to are probably mostly ESTPs who are doing it more out of Ti than Se.
The theory would probably argue that you as a Te user don't see much point in such nitpicking precision if it's not really improving results in any meaningful way, but oh well. Ti is annoying like that.
I notice spelling and grammatical errors without actively looking for them, but I won't point them out if they are not essential to the subject being discussed. Unless the wording is vague and leads to conflicting interpretations of a statement, I don't really care. I can still understand the idea being communicated.
My sentiments exactly.
Recently, a pattern has become increasingly prevalent of extroverted sensors around me feeling compelled to point out what they perceive to be grammatical errors and to obsess over minute details. As an NT, I find this terribly offputting and unproductive most of the time. For example, the other day we had company over (family) and I was explaining to my aunt that if I pursue a law degree in the UK, in order to make it transferrable to Canada it will have to be reviewed by a committee and based on where I got the degree, my marks, and so forth, they will specify X, Y, Z (usually some exams and a number of hours at a Canadian accredited law school). Now, here I said "Z" like "zee" rather than "zed." Then, she proceeded to completely derail the conversation by going on about it being "zed" for Canadians, which is something I know but don't care to change since zee comes much more naturally to me and I find it more pleasing to the ears, the heck with tradition. Nevertheless, here is a classic case of an NT talking about big ideas and a sensor obsessing over an irrelevant detail to the exclusion of the essence of the matter.
In my experience, these matters are about choices. Let me use myself as a case and point. For those of you that have heard me speak on vent, you know that I can be exceedingly literal (i.e. if you use an "all" where it's only a "some," I'm going to call you on it. I am also going to be very attentive to the assumptions on which your arguments are based). Now, this comes quite naturally and therefore it is a challenge for me to hear an argument out to its fullest completion without interrupting to expose a minute flaw that was perceived with lightning speed. Even if I think it, I won't necessarily publish what I know if I think it's not going to degrade the quality of the discussion. True, it requires strong self-discipline but I believe it is better in the long run. Let someone else be the person who makes their big contribution by exposing a syntax error.
Thoughts?