Hotelambush Questionnaire (Karatos)

[Myst]

Ah, there's Ms. Curious again.

And again Remind me, what's up with you regarding type now?

It seemed appropriate. I'm developing a new frame of reference in terms of how I see myself. Self concepts have more fragility than people usually recognize. I understand where Jim's coming from to an extent, but I think it's kind of tangential here. Generally, I'm entering a new phase of life.

Right, your frames of references and angles...

Good. I prefer going through life straightjacket-free.

Too much emotion results in a straightjacket?

I'm riffing off of Jung's description of Ti. His conceptualization technically differs from Socionics to an extent, but you can see how the developers of Socionics borrowed most of the defining features from Jung. According to Jung, Ti tends to be reductionistic because it prioritizes subjective factors over objective factors. So, you get a subjective idea or a system that primarily interfaces with facts to affirm itself, rather than the other way around.

But, if you're curious, I prefer basing as many of my decisions on facts as I can.

I think that if you don't understand the complexities of a system in depth, you run the risk of paralysis through analysis. Overthinking. So, whether your system is simple or complex, you should get a handle on the underlying principles.

Right. My issue is just this, if you just have those general principles, how do you know how to apply them in in a specific way in a specific situation unless you have identified the other parts of the system? Without that, you would have to make logical jumps and do it in a very speculative and arbitrary way, until you somehow arrive to a solution. Or you would have to just work with the facts in a very trial and error way while keeping only the general direction in mind (based on your general principles) until a solution is hit upon.

If you can describe what you actually do, any of these two approaches or something else, I'd be interested in hearing about this. I do remember you said you generate possible options that just come up for you and then work through them verifying them. Is that part of this somehow?

I think that if you don't understand the complexities of a system in depth, you run the risk of paralysis through analysis. Overthinking.

You mean, without the general principles, it'd be too detail-oriented analysis for your taste? Seeing trees but not the forest?

I'm more like, I arrive to the forest from the trees. So I see both, actually but some people don't seem to realize how this works.

I mean that organizations have to accept risk in order to get from point A. to point B. For example, if you run a cloud storage business, you have to invest in assets that run the risk of premature failure. You could pour all your money into a server room that becomes swallowed up by an earthquake the next day. This rule applies to other organizations as well. If you work for a non profit organization that does a lot of boots-on-the-ground outreach to random people, you run the risk of sending a team member out who randomly gets stabbed to death.

Life, in general, doesn't happen without risk involved.

Well alright, there's just a difference between a negligibly small chance for something bad and a higher, less negligible chance for something bad (to me that's what risk is). But yeah, life doesn't happen without some chances for bad outcomes.

I couldn't tell you, lol. My memory probably isn't as good as yours. One memory that comes to mind is of when I was very little and my family took me to church. They told me that god was omnipotent. So, I thought that if god was omnipotent, then he could read my mind. So, if prayer was meant as a channel of communication, I didn't see the need for it. I didn't pray like a lot of the people around me did, I just thought. By the time I was 11 or 12, I started to think even more critically about what they were trying to teach me. For example, I thought there were numerous different belief systems that promise many of the same things that my family's denomination did, so the chances that theirs was the one seemed pretty slim, assuming there was one at all. As a side note, I read on the sociotypes page that LIIs lean toward relativism more than other types.

Lol you were pretty logical early on, yeah, pretty objective and impartial. I was brought up religious too and I only quit it at the age of 18. Until then I just tried to follow it, I wasn't doing any critical examination of the beliefs yet, even though I was not able to simply accept the teachings either. I had a perception of how "this doesn't make sense so far but I need to make sense of it". I was just going with the tradition of the family and identifying by it and trying to orient by it a lot. I suppose it was my Fe seeking. But I was just struggling with actually feeling the beliefs. So, I could identify with trying to follow the religion but I couldn't actually orient by it if that makes sense. I couldn't put it all together in my head in a way to be able to do that. Until one day I finally figured out what was wrong with all of it anyway. Felt great with that finally. (Not to offend any religious people here.)

[Desert Financial]

And again Remind me, what's up with you regarding type now?

To be honest, I'm leaning ILE again.

Right. My issue is just this, if you just have those general principles, how do you know how to apply them in in a specific way in a specific situation unless you have identified the other parts of the system?

It's often difficult to reliably act on such principles without understanding other facets of a system because you never know exactly what the result will be. In such cases, it becomes a game of chance in which trial and error is involved. Eventually, you start to understand the whole system with greater precision and you're able to determine if the initial principle should be discarded. Part of the fun lies in the element of chance. Ideally, your principle applies universally.

If you can describe what you actually do, any of these two approaches or something else, I'd be interested in hearing about this. I do remember you said you generate possible options that just come up for you and then work through them verifying them. Is that part of this somehow?

Well, as a very basic example, I have a "formula" for how I write papers. I have several principles involved in the formula, including sentence structure, flow, grammar, verbiage, etc. I've developed this system over many years of writing on my own and in academics. But, recently, I took a class that demanded a new format. So, to make good grades in the class, I gradually tweaked the old formula until I made As. My success required feedback from the professor.

As another example, in order to solve a problem, I'll start out with a hypothesis that represents a kind of "principle", if you will. Then, I'll go ahead and compare it with factual feedback and see if it checks out. Or, I'll check it against a series of alternative explanations to arrive at several, more complex explanations that would hold up under specific premises.

You mean, without the general principles, it'd be too detail-oriented analysis for your taste? Seeing trees but not the forest?

Probably. It takes time for me to get into the weeds. I mean, I think details are important because understanding the nuts and bolts of a project will give you good results. But my mind more naturally tries to generalize information.

(bump)