"...one area I tend to go overboard in is detail and perseverance. Don’t ask me what time it is without wanting to know how the watch is built."
I'll tell you who it's from after a few people guess...
Jon Niednagel
"...one area I tend to go overboard in is detail and perseverance. Don’t ask me what time it is without wanting to know how the watch is built."
I'll tell you who it's from after a few people guess...
hidden agenda?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Forget about the watch, I'll tell you all about the watchmaker instead! And while we're at it, we'll dig into evolution-theory and crap called Intelligent Design or Creationism and ask the ultimate question that will stump them all: if the watch presupposes a watchmaker, then who the hell were his parents? Like Aristotle said on the Unmoved Mover: you can't go on forever and ever, it has to stop somewhere! This universe does not require a god, IT IS GOD! I have spoken...
Does this answer your question? :wink:
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
...
No, it's actually quite disturbing considering who the quote was from...Originally Posted by consentingadult
Okay, now I wonder if you and I have the same person in mind, but lets not give away the plot...No, it's actually quite disturbing considering who the quote was from...
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I don't know, but people have said that to me before. Not commonly, but I have heard, "If I ask you what time it is, you don't need to tell me how the watch was built."
Now that I think about it though... it was always in a work situation where I was telling some one why I needed something and they were in a hurry and apparently didn't need a reason.
@vague: I saw that
Well, I found it intersting that no one's got it so far... though I know the thread hasn't been open that long. It's interesting to get other opinions, but I think I'll just show you where I got it from now anyway...
It's an ISTJ.
That Jon Niednagel guy, the one who started all that "Brain Type" stuff, said it. Here's exactly where I got it from;
http://www.braintypes.com/questionsandanswers1.htmHOW I DEVELOPED BRAIN TYPING
In the mid 1970s, I developed a keen interest in why people do what they do. To be quite honest, I was especially frustrated at the behavior of many—world leaders, politicians, criminals (who sometimes aren’t that far removed from politicians), enemies, friends, family members, well-known athletes—you name them, virtually every category of people one can think of were hard for me deal with at times. How about you, have any of these kinds of people brought you frustration and perplexity?
I believed that if I could better understand people, especially why they do what they do, then I’d be much better equipped do communicate with and persuade them. I also figured it would help me to see why they couldn’t or wouldn’t change. Little did I realize what I was about to encounter.
I began my pilgrimage by reading psychology/typology books and collecting psychological/typological profiles or tests. I collected countless approaches to understanding people. (As an aside, for those who don’t know me, one area I tend to go overboard in is detail and perseverance. Don’t ask me what time it is without wanting to know how the watch is built.) So when I say I studied numerous approaches to better understanding people, I really did.
Unfortunately, virtually every personality or psychological profile I evaluated disappointed me. They seemed so trite and unscientific, as well as impractical. That was until I started looking more carefully at Carl Jung’s ideas on psychological type. Though I discovered some problems with this renowned Swiss psychiatrist’s ideas and those who promoted them, I could clearly see that he was on to something substantial. Not only was he a man of erudition, but also through a lifetime of studying people, he had discovered some noticeable and measurable “personality” traits among all people. He didn’t know if they were inborn or not, but that they were obvious (to him) and in many instances, predictable.
So, what do you think about it being related to ISTJs?
............
I think it's really strange.is said to be able to easily differentiate between superflous and necessary info. Both ESFp and ENFp profiles clearly state that this is a common problem associated to
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Re: What do you think this is related to?
I looked it up…the saying "how the watch was built" that is. It seems to be referred to in a variety of ways…."...one area I tend to go overboard in is detail and perseverance. Don’t ask me what time it is without wanting to know how the watch is built."
I'll tell you who it's from after a few people guess...
1) Wanting to know how the watch was built is considered one of the ways of "procrastinating" from getting things done.
2) Using the phrase like "You don't need to know how the watch was built to know the time" is used in an attempt to push people towards uncritically accepting someone's words.
3) Using the phrase like "She always wants to know how the watch was built" is used as a insult-type phrase against people who desire to know the inner workings of things/ideas.
4) It's used as a way to imply one's "intellectual-ness".
5) It's used as a way to imply forms of someone else's irrationality.
6) It's used as a way to imply forms of one's own rationality. (Theoretically, it could include someone else's rationality….but that tends to take the form of immense pride…I couldn't actually find an example via google search in which someone used this quote to refer to someone ELSE's rationality….nor as pride of someone else.)
7) Extraverted Reds DON"T want to know how the watch was built.
8) The BrainTypes.com guy implies wanting to tell how the watch was built.
Note: I lost interest in the quote beyond this.
If watch is used as a metaphor…say X..., then it could imply Ne, Te, Ti, Ni. Both Ne and Ni are interested in understanding the internal structure/process. Which internal qualities would depend on whether the person is referring to the static structure of X and how it relates (NeTi or NeFi with Te hidden agenda, possibly TiNe….I don't really see FiNe, though if they do, that would add an interesting twist on the concept of hidden agenda vs complimenting functions) or referring to the dynamic processes of X (Ni).
If instead "watch" is taken literally, then I can't see most NFs being all that interested in a watch. Though, a sun dial….yeah, I can seem them being interested in it and how it works. Which leads me to, well if the NF has never seen a watch before, then they'd be interested in wondering how it works, and telling others. Which then leads me to thinking about SeFi wanting to know how things work and being more than willing to tell others in extensive detail. Oh, and SiFe…Yes, I can see them doing that as well.
So, all in all, my guess is:
1) You got the quote from the BrainTypes.com guy.
2) Regarding which function it might be related to: Insufficient data, because we don't know what information they are actually interested in, nor how they obtained/processed that information.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
dammit, i just saw that you posted where it was from.....grrrr, damned impatient people
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
How'd you guess who it was from, then?dammit, i just saw that you posted where it was from.....grrrr, damned impatient people
@FDG: I think you missed the point. As you can see from ann's list, there are many interpretations of what that quote could mean, it's not really about extra information.
How'd you guess who it was from, then?dammit, i just saw that you posted where it was from.....grrrr, damned impatient people
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
[quote="Rocky"]Yeah, I took it literally
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
