Math and Socionics Type

[Exodus]

I'm surprised you haven't had an LII professor. If my typing of them are correct. There's a lot of them I've encountered. But I guess I understand how an LII will be very bored with all the unnecessary bureaucracy happening in academia.

And yes, I didn't explicitly state it, but the environment I've experienced is pretty much Alpha. Probably why I haven't seen many who seem Gamma.

On an unrelated note, I didn't fit in there and felt like I was such a duck in a group of swans. I'm too weird for those people. But I still get into contact and are friends with some of the people there even 4 years after which is not so bad. And the longing to go back and make things right is still here. Exposing myself in that kind of group affected me deeply for some unknown reason. I always consider it as my life's mirage. I really need Jung to help me realize what happened to my psyche lol.

There were a few other professors that I didn't mention.

One was SLI or LSI - very dry lecturing style.

I guess my set theory professor may have been LII - or EII/SEI? (this guy), or one graduate student that was teaching a class for some reason. The second ILE may also have been LII. I forget who my Algebra I teacher was, but as far as I can tell I only had a few LII professors max. Quite a variety of types actually.

[Nobody]

I don't know, but I like Math. I like how it can model the world and you can study it to see how it makes sense and see where formulations come from and why and better yet, it's all logically connected. And you can use it to create simulations and AI and that's pretty awesome.

I don't like how some people confuse and use Math however. There is a common theme among academics to mistake mathematics for explanation. Math is just a language for modeling or ordering things in a logical or algorithmic manner. It doesn't intuitively explain the context/dynamics for what it models. It just encapsulates it. Maybe this is the difference between static and dynamic Renin Dichotomies. And I don't like University because of this. I think I'm LII; I kind of have an aversion to university. I could actually go to a school and get a masters and have it all paid for by the government, including housing, but every time I look into it, I remember all the things like this that I hated about Uni, how it's all about the grades and math and very little about trying to understand everything on a deeper level and not even practical enough to get a job in the workforce. It's only really useful if you already work in some capacity with the degree you are getting; then you can get that better job, but corporate ladders are kind of lame and soul-crushing, so where's the real motivation? I even remember thinking about how the textbooks were vague and unclear and hard to read and it turns out they are designed that way so you need a teacher to explain things and the textbooks change every year and the universities use the new textbooks, so that is also a bit of a scam. Actually the whole university system is a bit scammy. Most of this stuff you could learn on your own now and just take some classes and tests to prove you learned enough to work in a field (but of course they don't allow this). But then GPA is just used to differentiate between people and that's kind of lame too. meh,

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't know, but I like Math. I like how it can model the world and you can study it to see how it makes sense and see where formulations come from and why and better yet, it's all logically connected. And you can use it to create simulations and AI and that's pretty awesome.

I don't like how some people confuse and use Math however. There is a common theme among academics to mistake mathematics for explanation. Math is just a language for modeling or ordering things in a logical or algorithmic manner. It doesn't intuitively explain the context/dynamics for what it models. It just encapsulates it. Maybe this is the difference between static and dynamic Renin Dichotomies. And I don't like University because of this. I think I'm LII; I kind of have an aversion to university. I could actually go to a school and get a masters and have it all paid for by the government, including housing, but every time I look into it, I remember all the things like this that I hated about Uni, how it's all about the grades and math and very little about trying to understand everything on a deeper level and not even practical enough to get a job in the workforce. It's only really useful if you already work in some capacity with the degree you are getting; then you can get that better job, but corporate ladders are kind of lame and soul-crushing, so where's the real motivation? I even remember thinking about how the textbooks were vague and unclear and hard to read and it turns out they are designed that way so you need a teacher to explain things and the textbooks change every year and the universities use the new textbooks, so that is also a bit of a scam. Actually the whole university system is a bit scammy. Most of this stuff you could learn on your own now and just take some classes and tests to prove you learned enough to work in a field (but of course they don't allow this). But then GPA is just used to differentiate between people and that's kind of lame too. meh,

Heh Gulenko's cognitive styles describe academic text booky material as causal deterministic. That said it tends look bit too clear to me. One LII commented my writing: your writing style reminds me of academic papers.

[Nobody]

Heh Gulenko's cognitive styles describe academic text booky material as causal deterministic. That said it tends look bit too clear to me. One LII commented my writing: your writing style reminds me of academic papers.

Yeah, I guess I always had the habit of looking too far into what I'm learning and then getting really confused and feeling like I'm just memorizing stuff to get by, but not really learning. I suppose if I just take it for what it is, it would be easy. But I don't think my mind is satisfied with that.

I actually had an engineering class where the professor said not to try and understand the material because even he couldn't (and he was PHD with tenure); suffice to say that everyone failed that class, but he had to grade on a curve so a majority passed anyway. I stopped going halfway out of lack of interest and retook the class another time, but it didn't seem to help much. In reflection after university, I've been really interested in quantum physics and how it related to electrical engineering and now it all makes a very intuitive sense. I wish I had the wisdom to spend time working and studying things on my own and maybe going to university later; it would have been a breeze.
Now I realize there is a huge disconnect in academia where they focus on teaching formulaic understanding (causal deterministic?) over trying to represent a whole picture of things to students, which I just "need" for some reason or I don't know what decisions to take because my mind can't truly rest; sometimes I think academics are afraid to present theories or conceptualizations that might not be completely right because society and academia seems to like punishing people for being wrong. So we just get the pure formulas and if someone is really good at reading between the formulas/lines, then they are "genius" and if they do some science breakthroughs maybe some of their intuition becomes accepted theory. It's like society wants people to be just smart enough and just stupid enough, but nothing more or less. It's really...uninspiring? I think the human race could be soooo much better than we are, but I suppose it can't really happen, if society doesn't actually value that.
Or maybe I'm wrong about everything. But it doesn't seem so.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yeah, I guess I always had the habit of looking too far into what I'm learning and then getting really confused and feeling like I'm just memorizing stuff to get by, but not really learning. I suppose if I just take it for what it is, it would be easy. But I don't think my mind is satisfied with that.

I actually had an engineering class where the professor said not to try and understand the material because even he couldn't (and he was PHD with tenure); suffice to say that everyone failed that class, but he had to grade on a curve so a majority passed anyway. I stopped going halfway out of lack of interest and retook the class another time, but it didn't seem to help much. In reflection after university, I've been really interested in quantum physics and how it related to electrical engineering and now it all makes a very intuitive sense. I wish I had the wisdom to spend time working and studying things on my own and maybe going to university later; it would have been a breeze.
Now I realize there is a huge disconnect in academia where they focus on teaching formulaic understanding (causal deterministic?) over trying to represent a whole picture of things to students, which I just "need" for some reason or I don't know what decisions to take because my mind can't truly rest; sometimes I think academics are afraid to present theories or conceptualizations that might not be completely right because society and academia seems to like punishing people for being wrong. So we just get the pure formulas and if someone is really good at reading between the formulas/lines, then they are "genius" and if they do some science breakthroughs maybe some of their intuition becomes accepted theory. It's like society wants people to be just smart enough and just stupid enough, but nothing more or less. It's really...uninspiring? I think the human race could be soooo much better than we are, but I suppose it can't really happen, if society doesn't actually value that.
Or maybe I'm wrong about everything. But it doesn't seem so.

Holographical thinking might be very useful in structural chemistry and stuff. Never appreciated those cubes so much although I lacked aversion.