Originally Posted by Bertrand
Ti polr makes me cry.
kidding, but . . . this is sad lol.
kidding, but . . . this is sad lol.
It reminds me of the time I was learning calculus and encountered the idea that a point on a curve has a slope associated with it. Obviously, a point has no slope, but the entire edifice of calculus hinged on this idea, so I had to try to grasp it, but could not.
kidding, but . . . this is sad lol.
I thought intensively about it for two weeks and then gave up, and instead just learned the formulas. After a while, it stopped bothering me and I proceeded on to much more math.
I was just reading Ammianus Marcellinus' account of Jovian's campaigns in Persia, and marveled at the way that the question of whether or not to fight a battle seemed not to be based on strategy, but rather on personal initiative moderated by divination. "The foraging guys just killed a lion. That means a king will fall", etc.
It is no easy task to build a consensual reality which is both useful and understandable to most people.
I had a similar problem to this with chemistry, at up to mid school level, I tried to understand how what they were telling me made sense, but I could not. I was falling behind in lessons until I realised that the answer was not to think, but to accept. As the chemistry became more complicated, I started to get better at it.
Anyway it made me wonder if the guys at the large hadron collider had the same problem, data that doesn't work, no way to understand it or use it.
Marie Forleo - ENFP
I think reframing is usually the easiest way to explain something. Reframe it as "the slope of the curve at this point" and it makes more sense, just like for the 1x1 guy, explaining it as being one unit of something should clear it up. It's I think just a matter of knowing what the concept means - he didn't understand what 1x1 actually meant (which is what I found sad about it.)
Sure in otherwords: one thing, of itself, is one thing. Two things, of itselves, is two things. Three things, of themselves, is three things. And so on.
This is what they teach at university in america? Sad.
Good point. I don't understand what 1*1 actually means.
1 * 0 = 0
1 * 1 = 1
Because, does something times 0 = 0? You can't have $10 dollars and multiply it by 0 to make the $10 disappear.
So you have to think of it as, if you got tipped $10 per customer, if you have zero customers, you will have 0 dollars.
So it is really weird and doesn't make sense if you are the type of person who prefers to deal with concrete things, because you can't think of arithmetic in terms of just money, because mostly arithmetic isn't about anything, it's just about numbers themself. So i agree that the concept of these things just don't make sense if you're someone who concerns themself with real things.
Take the dictionary definition of multiplication which makes it even more confusing:
Arithmetic. a mathematical operation, symbolized by a × b, a ⋅ b, a ∗ b, or ab, and signifying, when a and b are positive integers, that a isto be added to itself as many times as there are units in b; theaddition of a number to itself as often as is indicated by anothernumber, as in 2×3 or 5×10.
That would imply that you add 1 onto itself to give 1, which is 2, so really you have to accept numbers like this on a bit of faith, and just learn it to pass exams, finally other stuff will make more sense if you accept certain ways of looking at things. IE - the definition of multiplication works for everything except when one of those positive numbers is not 1, so, yeah, it is really confusing if you think about it. Probably best to go make some money (Te).
Edit: To save any explanations, the best way to think about it is the multiplication represents how many times it's there. IE if it's times 0 it's not there, if it's times 1 it's there only once, times twice it's there only twice
so
2*0 is not there at all (0)
2*1 is there only once (2)
2*2 is there only twice (4)
But I would not say these concepts are easily grasped and I would say a lot of the information and teaching methods are confusing, so I can understand why he'd be like 1*1 .... what????
Last edited by at sirac son of sirac; 12-30-2017 at 08:19 PM.
@Scarper
I hope you're joking?
. . . If not, it's not that hard, it should have been explained sufficiently in elementary school in terms of sets/groups. So, 10 groups with 0 items in them = 0 total items. One group with one item in it = one total item. Two groups with two items in each = 4 total items. Very easy to visualize with concrete items. Draw some circles on a piece of paper to represent groups, and then put items into the groups. Use gummy bears or something. Make the larger number the group number when you're dealing with zeros so it's easier to visualize, and there you go. Should clear things up. . . if you were actually serious.
multiplication is about instances, 0 instances of a thing is 0 of that thing. 1 instance of that thing (set, as squark explanied) is the set. 2 instances is twice the set. etc etc
if I got a bag of apple, zero times, how many apples do I have? zero, its why zero times anything is zero, its saying you have none of whatever it is. if I have 1 bag of apples I have however many apples is in the bag. 2 bags doube the amount in 1 bag, etc etc. I'm pretty sure that's exactly how they explain it in third grade or whatever
the problem was terrence was assuming multiplication always grew the number he didn't understand it wasn't purely an amplifier but a signifier of number of sets, which entails the possibility of them being identical amounts or even lesser (he never got this far, but I wonder how he'd rationalize multiplication by decimals!), meaning one property of multiplication is division itself. he just let his own idiosyncratic personal associations control him. the point of mathematics is not to reveal some cosmic ethical truth but to serve as a tool, which he short circuited the usefulness of by making some kind of moral issue out of it
Vince McMahon: Unhealthy LSE 1w2 sp/so
You can make it disappear as an equation is representing a whole operation, not just the parts (the $10 - term a and the “how many” - term b). When there is a multiplication, both a and b are combined (ab) to mean one complete term. One complete action/concept/event/reality. You could write JUST 0, or you could make it an equation with both ends of the equal sign meaning the same thing. 1 * 0 = 0. Both sides of the equal sign are saying the complete event, one just is more complex than the other.
Yeah bud, its not that hard of a concept to grasp. Funny enough the Greeks never had a 0 concept, it was the Muslims that came up with it. (See? I can Ne too).So you have to think of it as, if you got tipped $10 per customer, if you have zero customers, you will have 0 dollars.
True, its not a purely Logic of actions, nor sensing of objects, way of looking at the world. Nor is it even systems of relations entirely , although systems of relations come closest as equations, algebra and arithmetic deals with relating concepts together at the baseline level of reality. Logic of actions uses arithmetic and mathematics frequently, however, as a utilitarian function. It is very conceptual and thus might be challenging if you are a purley concrete reality thinker. Ime, LSEs grasp math very well in regards to geometry and physics, as this is crucial for typically LSE and SLI occupations such as construction and trade work. For instance electrical work. Even then, some basic understanding of algebra - how to balance equations, is required. Sorry boys and girls, you need to stay in math class or be shut out from these careers.So it is really weird and doesn't make sense if you are the type of person who prefers to deal with concrete things, because you can't think of arithmetic in terms of just money, because mostly arithmetic isn't about anything, it's just about numbers themself.
See my previous comment. Some (a bare level minimum) understanding of math concepts is required, even in real things. For example, I worked at a pesticide company and was required by provincial law to become certified in their application. Much of the knowledge you must learn is math based and therefore did fall under the purview of logic of actions. Example: how many litres of herbicide is required to cover an area of 100 m * 100 m if your applicator head is applying at .5 litres per mintue? How many kg of Trillium + 24d is required for this application if 500 grams of herbicide is needed for 10 litres of water? These are real world appications of arithmetic and algebra concepts. Real concrete good ol’ Te. Although Te in this instance could also mean:So i agree that the concept of these things just don't make sense if you're someone who concerns themself with real things.
“you put one bag of this in that tank until you reach that line and you are good to go.”
”why?”
”because I said so and its the fastest way.”
Not to be annoying but I found that definition pretty clear and concise?Take the dictionary definition of multiplication which makes it even more confusing:
Arithmetic. a mathematical operation, symbolized by a × b, a ⋅ b, a ∗ b, or ab, and signifying, when a and b are positive integers, that a isto be added to itself as many times as there are units in b; theaddition of a number to itself as often as is indicated by anothernumber, as in 2×3 or 5×10.
Nowhere in that explanation did they use the word “add”, so that implication is not there? This symbol—->*, x, ab, means something very different from add, as you know.That would imply that you add 1 onto itself to give 1, which is 2, so really you have to accept numbers like this on a bit of faith
Yeah, sometimes you have to do that, sure. All concepts can be fully understood if you put enough time, thought, and energy into them, but who has time for that? It can be frustrating, disheartening, and ultimately leading to failure in class when you cant intuitively, totally grasp a concept and yet you keep moving forward in grades without having that total understanding and therefore trust in the math concepts. You almost feel stupid “why should I do that if it doesnt make sense?!” Yet it only doesn’t make sense because you have not yet applied enough discipline and focus and most importantly practise. It all really comes down to practise, taking the hours of time needed studying to grasp math.and just learn it to pass exams
Wrong, it works always for all real numbers. You just haven’t understood it, yet., finally other stuff will make more sense if you accept certain ways of looking at things. IE - the definition of multiplication works for everything except when one of those positive numbers is not 1,
Having such a terrible, shitty homelife during adolescence, I never really had the discipline for math. And as I moved up in grades I was missing some of the concepts, like the rules of fractions, which are crucial and only come with practise. I went back as an adult and retook all those courses all the way up to calculas (which is the highest form of math and the most utilitarian for all of science). Yea, confusing at first, but that just means you have to keep trying and not rely on good looks and charm and intuition alone (hihi IEEs). I’m sure many Te people never go far in Math, yet are crazy successful at life aka: making money.so, yeah, it is really confusing if you think about it. Probably best to go make some money (Te).
Yes, thats what my first post had said. Bravo you went full circle!Edit: To save any explanations, the best way to think about it is the multiplication represents how many times it's there. IE if it's times 0 it's not there, if it's times 1 it's there only once, times twice it's there only twice
so
2*0 is not there at all (0)
2*1 is there only once (2)
2*2 is there only twice (4)
This is a grade 6-7 level concept, so for him to be confused by University is somewhat appalling. I’m sure its a problem in all of education these days though, as I have heard teachers discussing how some of the fundamentals are not understood by many college students. For example, many can’t graph manually without graphing calculators. Having said that, relying on personal charm and entertainment value of your teachers to educate yourself is not a good idea. Math requires focus, a willingness to learn how to think logically and hold mutliple variables in your head at one time as you work through problems. Its not natural for most, and yet is still the highest form of human thought and ability. I am glad I stuck with it no matter what, even though the majority of Te careers only require surface levels of arithmetic and algebra. Learning how to do operations and apply math to real life broadened my understanding and abilities. Anyone can do it if determined enough.But I would not say these concepts are easily grasped and I would say a lot of the information and teaching methods are confusing, so I can understand why he'd be like 1*1 .... what????
Last edited by wacey; 12-31-2017 at 04:19 PM.
Not really because in multiplication one thing times no thing = no thing but 2 dollars by no thing is still 2 dollars, hence why it is very confusing. But thank you for your post, looks like you enjoyed yourself.
>nowhere in that explanation did they use the word “add”
that a isto be added to itself as many times as there are units in b; theaddition of a number to itself as often as is indicated by anothernumber, as in 2×3 or 5×10.
So this would imply that 1*1 is 2 as 1 is added on to 1 one times.
Last edited by at sirac son of sirac; 12-30-2017 at 10:57 PM.
2 dollars by no thing is still 2 dollars? Since how can having zero of something equal that thing? If I have zero of 2 dollars in my hand, then how can I have 2 dollars? Like this is pretty clear.
Oh okay I see, sorry I missed those at first. Well clearly the sentence is saying you only add as many times as you are told to add. If you are supposed to add that thing zero times, then that thing is not added to itself, its just not there at all. If you are told to add that thing once, then you only have one of that thing. It’s not addition because there are further conceptual steps inherent within the multiplication. Multiplication isn’t an addition. Its an addition PLUS telling you how many units of addition are there to begin with.nowhere in that explanation did they use the word “add”
that a isto be added to itself as many times as there are units in b; theaddition of a number to itself as often as is indicated by anothernumber, as in 2×3 or 5×10.
So this would imply that 1*1 is 2 as 1 is added on to 1 one times.
In other words how many times you are supposed to add the number, not two complete numbers themselves. In math the two numbers are interchangeable, because the multiplication sign means something and that something is that the number changes from being just a number into something different.
Mulitplication and division change the number(s) into a kind of event. The two numbers are no longer two objects. One stays a concrete object and the other tells us by how many that object exists.
I have 1 apple and that apple exists 1 time which means at the end of the say I still only have 1 apple.
I have 2 apples and those 2 apples exist once. Which means at the end of the day I still only have 2 apples.
Or...
I have 2 apples and those 2 apples exist twice, which means I actually have 4 apples.
Yet in math it doesn’t really matter how many of the apples is in your hand, or how many times those apple exist, if those two numbers are held together in a complete term. For example, 1 apple exists once, means just the same as one existence of an apple is one apple. I know convoluted, but true.
1 + 1 is not a complete term. It’s two separate terms being added to each other. (1)(1) is a complete term. The two separate numbers are now meaning something different. Now its a one and how many times that one is supposed to be there. Just one of one. Simple.
Last edited by wacey; 12-30-2017 at 11:47 PM.
I never said it was right, I said it is confusing. Ask the average people on the street if 1*0 is 0 or 1*0 is 1 and i'll bet you most of them wouldn't know.
Yeah I know.Oh okay I see, sorry I missed those at first.
Anyway, all this stuff comes round from this and this, the weird discussion you're wanting to have with me - IMO. I get it this place is a huge procrastination drag. I wish you all the best for the new year. Hopefully I won't log on myself tomorrow.
Yup, SLI make perfect duals with IEE. Lol
How does what I said today have anything to do with what I said the other day? I was just talking about the topic of ti polr, the topic of math in university, the topic of how Te uses concepts and the topic of how dumb that person was from Bertrands story and the topic of why that math concept was so simple.
——>”Yeah I know”. Such a SLI response. And people think I’m your dual. Lol. So rude in it’s finality. Im used to it though I work in Te-Si worlds.
Last edited by wacey; 12-31-2017 at 12:12 AM.
In my elementary school it wasn't explained this way. It was just 3x2 = 6 because it does, now memorize it. Although the reason why like you and others stated was self-evident to me and didn't need any further explanation.. . . If not, it's not that hard, it should have been explained sufficiently in elementary school in terms of sets/groups.
I think it was in the text book if you bothered to read the thing (most didn't as it wasn't mandatory at all and none of the information really helped you on the tests anyway), but the teacher never took the time to explain it and I wonder if it fucked other kids up. Our homework came from test sheets they made up and not really anything in the actual book. She just said at the end of the day what pages to read 'If you'd like to' (she made it sound so optional because it was), but it was such an off-handed end of the day comment thing and most people didn't listen to her because they just wanted to go home and watch power rangers. Instead of explaining why about anything, it was just drilled memorization. To be fair, even though it seems to us like such an obvious thing, it could have been explained much better. At least in my school.
Also nobody really brought home the books to read because the only person that did was an unpopular girl who was a straight C student. But the books taught you stuff like you guys just explained... and hardly anybody read them. Because the teachers never made them a priority and anything from the tests just came from their own worksheets, and what they wrote on the chalkboard every day. Even though the books had such useful information... my school system was fucked up in many ways lol.
Taylor Megan (taylormegan26) - INFJ
The Disney Den - ENFP
Hm, yeah probably really depends on the teachers you had. We didn't have math books in elementary school. The teacher just wrote things on the chalkboard and then we did problems. .. well, except for me. In first grade I had to sit in the corner facing the wall every day during math class because I'd say all the answers out loud before the other kids had a chance to solve them. I've always had a hard time keeping my mouth shut I guess lol.
Second grade was better, we could work at our own pace on everything - there were units to complete, and when you finished one you could just move onto the next one. The teacher was there just to answer questions and help anyone who needed it. And 2nd grade is when the concept of multiplication was introduced. First time I had an actual math book was in 6th grade maybe? I'd gone to 6 different schools in 3 different states by then, so I think it was pretty widespread to use the chalkboard and worksheets method at the time instead of textbooks.
Teaching styles focused on memorization only could be a big reason a lot of people struggle with math. I know that in History class I went from loving History to hating it based on teaching style
Last edited by squark; 01-04-2018 at 04:46 PM.
I was skimming this thread before realizing what kind of thread I was on... and I was wondering why I was so fucking angry and wanted to punch these people in the faces.
Then I looked up and was like 'oh they are deltas.'
Socionics is too real sometimes. I don't want to have this reaction, its wrong to want to punch somebody in the face for such irrational reasons - but it's that instinctive urge. don't send me to prison i can control it.
Shellys Beautiful World - ENFP
Helene Jeppesen - INFJ
Jean Bookishthoughts (BookishThoughts) - ESTJ
Jordan Peterson- ENFP?
Clara Henry (tahultsbarn) - ENFP
a bunch of EIIs
(if u have audio and colour u clearly not an EII)
Him - IEE
Her - LSE
Michael Holmes LSE-Te 2w1 so/sx >1w2 EDIT: Good also possibly be LSI-Se as a conceivable alternative.
Michael James Holmes is a Canadian businessman, investor, television host, and philanthropist. Beginning with Holmes on Homes and subsequent shows, he rescues Toronto, Ontario, area homeowners from renovations gone wrong. He continued in his successor TV series, Holmes Inspection. He is also a judge on HGTV's show Handyman Superstar Challenge and its American counterpart All American Handyman with Scott McGillivray
askmikeholmesmonthlyhomemaintenance_d8c0-mike-holmes-home-maintenance_2.jpgmike-holmes-painting-diy-tips-holmes-makes-right-feature.jpgmike-holmes-holmes-buy-it-right.jpg1400964832510.jpegmaxresdefault.jpgMike-Holmes-Plumbing-winter-safety.jpgSlide-11-Mike-Holmes-Boat-488x520.jpg
photos:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=mike+...ih=739#imgrc=_
website: http://makeitright.ca
Last edited by wacey; 01-20-2018 at 03:49 AM. Reason: Possible LSI
Michael Holmes - mb ISTJ
I put a lot of consideration into ISTj. At the end of the day, what you are seeing with him mainly is logic of actions. Plus he has all the extras of LSE, including perfectionism, subordinating his feelings for his duty, ect..
BTW he is like the protypical tradesman manager Canadian male. I just spent the last year going to school with such a person.
P.S. I just knew Sol was going to come in with LSI, probably getting hung up on the jewelry, stiff aristocratic persona and tough benevolent guy appearance, not seeing the underlying logic of actions inherent in his personality.
Sharon Stone - IEE?
I see the correct type in his nonverbal while you are using the surface behavior and its doubtful interpretation.
"extras of LSE, including perfectionism"
no hard link to LSE. LSI can be not lesser
> subordinating his feelings for his duty
any T type, especially base T
those "extras" are more about E-1 than LSE
Sharon Stone - SLE
Right, you turned the sound off, very predictable. And those extras are pretty frequently mentioned in several type descriptions, so its not really a controversy here. Interesting that you are not seeing what logics of actions looks like.
Does everybody on the forum understand the implications of what having Mike Holmes as a Beta LSI means?
Mike is known for being literally the "ethical home construction guy". He made himself famous by being a stand-up individual, forthright; for having conservative family values, help your neighbour values. He is known for his honesty, and his trustworthiness. His character summarizes the values of doing the right thing, about respecting people. His website is literally called "make-it-right" by providing people with honest reviews of products and services they can trust. Key word here
--->integrity.
How does a person reconcile the fact that Mike is such a stand up guy, with the common popular conception that betas are selfish, greedy, uncaring, inconsiderate, evil, dramatic, immoral----> virtually unethical people?
The simple and true answer is you cannot. Because if Mike is LSI / beta, this clearly demonstrates that betas are perfectly capable, and commonly are, good, ethical people that have integrity.
Is that what we are saying here?
Last edited by wacey; 01-19-2018 at 07:11 PM.
I don't think that anyone argued that Betas bear ill-will towards the world, but that beta humanitarians (in the socionics sense) are inclined to distill their views into sound-bytes that fail to capture the nuance of the subject they're talking about in the interest of rallying people together towards a common goal in an inclusive, non-prohibitive way.
Update: Mike Holmes could possibly be LSI-Se and I have altered the original post. Evolution of thought is a process.
as addition to your evolution:
"You mean to say betas are capable of philanthropy?"
as anyone. also E-1 are often idealists
I met not bad people among betas too. they are not soul friends and most traumatic jerks were among betas, but they have decent people like any types. most people are normal, what implies to have a compassion to humanity
For sure.
Alisa Mon - INFJ
seems EII
Si-SLI sx/sp (johnbcrist)
ENFp
Rosa DeLauro - Fi-IEE 7w6
Last edited by silke; 01-26-2018 at 07:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
