What types seem to hate a trial and error learning method? Te polrs? Se Polrs?
What types seem to hate a trial and error learning method? Te polrs? Se Polrs?
Trial and error is largely . I get frustrated easily, even if I prefer that over correct methodology. I'd say -Te PoLR or IEI.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Try again
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
My impression from Gulenko's writing on cognitive styles is that trial and error is most associated with Vortex cognition (ESE, IEI, LIE, and SLI). It seems likely that the types most likely to dislike this style would be those types' Conflictors (ILI, LSE, SEI, and EIE); in other words, the Dialectical-Algorithmic cognitive style.
This is purely a hypothesis, though; while I have seen that Vortex types use trial and error, I have no data on whether Dialectical-Algorithmic types are annoyed by it.
Quaero Veritas.
I like to apply the trial and error approach, which drives most people mad, specially the narrow minded.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
I have basically nothing against this method. I typically use it if I don't (or not exactly) know the proper or established way of doing something. I agree that it can be quite frustrating, especially if you don't come to positive results, but actually, it's a natural way of learning.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
You guys have done a good job of putting dislike of trial-and-error in general types terms. I could see it going either way, as a Te-devaluing thing or as related to the Gulenko cognitive styles.
I don't love trial and error, but sometimes it's the obvious or only way to learn something new or solve a problem. I tend to gather a lot of information before engaging in it, though, so that the possibilities are narrowed down a bit in advance. And if a trial ends in error, I'll do research again, before the next attempt.
What I really, really, REALLY hate is related to trial-and-error in my mind. I hate starting from scratch when I could have implemented or followed a system instead. For instance, four-way stops. It makes me insane to arrive at a four-way-stop and have people ignore the rules of who got there first, who is on the right, etc., and look at each other and decide how they feel about it, and make gestures to indicate someone else should go regardless of the traffic laws.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I'm not sure what type I am, but I certainly dislike trial and error. Don't get me wrong, I will learn that way if I need to do so, but I would much rather know what I'm doing than have to keep trying things that don't work. It gets frustrating and it wastes a lot of energy and time.
I like trial and error when I need to learn something practical i.e. reparing or building a mechanical device, computer programming, a new sport. I diskile intensely trial and error when it's related to major life choices.
Yeah, that's a good point. My understanding of Vortex trial and error is analogical to what's scientifically categorized under the umbrella term "Monte Carlo Analysis": a large number of scenarios is generated and brought to its terminal end, then the optimal value is selected.My impression from Gulenko's writing on cognitive styles is that trial and error is most associated with Vortex cognition (ESE, IEI, LIE, and SLI). It seems likely that the types most likely to dislike this style would be those types' Conflictors (ILI, LSE, SEI, and EIE); in other words, the Dialectical-Algorithmic cognitive style.
This is purely a hypothesis, though; while I have seen that Vortex types use trial and error, I have no data on whether Dialectical-Algorithmic types are annoyed by it.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I value someone reading the manual, if there is one and doing it right the first time, but if I have to do it without a manual, than I will play around with it but not spend too much time on it.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I solve problems this way.
Ok does this work? No. Try again.
Does this work? No. Try again.
How about this? No. Try again.
What about this? No. Try again.
Maybe this? No. Try again.
Tried this? No. Try again.
Hmm, this? Yes! Ding, ding, ding.
Trial and error is the only way i learn
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
Who doesn't do trial and error? Whose THAT awesome?
thank you, lol. i have been confused by this thread.
i mean you might not just always shoot a random solution out of nowhere and hope that it works. hopefully you're in a position to have an educated guess most of the time. but its not like you automotically just know everything to begin with? i don't get it.
Why shouldn't I do something different if what I currently do doesn't deliver? If something CAN be done, then the failure means you did something/s wrong, missed to do something, or whatever, obviously, duh.
I don't really use trial and error. I learn everything I can about a problem, figure out what seems like the most likely solution, and implement it. If it doesn't work, I try to figure out why not, and understand the problem better until I figure out what's wrong. I don't just keep trying things until I find something that works (which is what I think of when I use the phrase "trial and error"). I do my best to minimize the amount of attempts necessary.
I guess you could call my method "theory and experiment".
Quaero Veritas.
when I fail at something I do the same thing over and over again until i turn red and start to cry, then i smash it.
Last edited by bg; 03-07-2011 at 12:55 PM.
Trial and error is how I live my life.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
what i really do: do it the way that it's supposed to be done, then incrementally improve until I can produce a perfect "product", then start condensing the process and incrementally improving it until it's perfect and being done with the most efficency plus a new level of artistry. (the artistry level is where I become happy, proud, and satisfied with my results)
I don't really see it as trial and error. I see it as success>improvement>WOW!
I think some level trial and error is unavoidable as we are not infallible. But certain types go thru different ways of doing it.
What I do is structure the problem space and variables within the problem space, create a working design and prototype, then I debug design and prototype.
Only one step of the process involves any sort of short term trial and error, the last part. Now I can go thru this process multiple times but this would be over multiple years.
I tend to focus on design and prototyping and althrough I do debug and identify problem at a high competency level because I usually have a good grasp of the design.
I like trial and error. Sometimes it drives a brother nuts. Sometimes I exagerate it to drive a brother nuts. It's the easiest way to do things. No complicated thought process and when it works, it obviously works.
Usually I first think of what could happen if I do something wrong, and how likely that is.
If I find trial and error-approach unsound I get the know how first.