Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: 'Scientific Skill' and Personality

  1. #1
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 'Scientific Skill' and Personality

    A big notion I do not like in socionics is that certain personality types are inherently better at certain subjects than others - including the sciences. My big realization today came from understanding why I am not 'perfect' at mathematics. Socionics would tell you that logical types and logical-intuitive types are more rational and therefore belong in scientific pursuits. My discovery by just sitting and doing a bunch of calculations is that I do not have enough visual working memory (i.e., 'visual-spatial scratchpad') to carry on much of these calculations efficiently. My second thought is that much scientific work involves working memory in some form. My third thought is that working memory is applicable to almost any academic pursuit - depending on the kind that you have. Therefore, I am much better at philosophy than math because I have more verbal working memory than 'visuo-spatial scratchpad' nonverbal working memory. That is why I am more proficient at reading and writing than mathematical abilities - because, as I said, these academic skills are dependent on nothing but working memory. Now, test my vocabulary or factual knowledge, and I'm not particularly good. But this doesn't matter, because I find verbal academic tasks to not be dependent on factual knowledge at all. Now, consider the notion that working memory is not just important for academics, but can play a roll in tasks like playing the piano or drawing, which have nothing to do with personality type, and you see that pure skill in a scientific area does not just revolve around personality. Where personality comes into play is how passionate you are about a given subject. If you are drawn to mathematics because you are highly rational and you find the pursuit to highly rational as well, you might spend hours studying it to develop such a skill. That notion is dependent upon one's personality. On the other hand, whether you have enough working memory to draw, play chess, or do higher mathematics or physics is not, and can therefore limit your success in any of these subjects.

    That is my opinion. What do you think?

    Also, I can just hear what people are saying: "Why is he so insecure about the sciences? Why also is he so insecure about Ti?" In 2001, I went for a computer science degree at my local university. I got straight A's. I also went for a math minor, with some difficult coursework - A's again. In fact, everything I touched in those years scholastically turned into an "A." Five years after my computer science degree, I went back to take economics - at the same university - and I got absolutely crushed. With the math minor, I went for a math degree as well and got crushed again. Three (or four) different science programs at the same university, three completely different results, and it has therefore made me question myself like mad. In the first degree I took in the sciences, my grades were very good and very consistent. Then, after socionics, I went back, and the grades were terrible and inconsistent. This was after the computer science degree, after scoring 1350 on the GREs, after getting straight A's in all high school courses, including scientific coursework. After socionics, all of this went out the window because of what went on at my university. It even makes me wonder if it has something to do with socionics, because it is all started after socionics. I mean it. If it is someone from socionics that 'cursed me,' the only thing I can say to them is "Auf Wiedersehen" - a way of saying "good-bye" from what is the inside of a German concentration camp for me.
    Last edited by jason_m; 04-23-2021 at 05:59 AM.

  2. #2
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    10,551
    Mentioned
    1091 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can get to be good at many things if you work hard enough at them.

    On the other hand, you can work really hard at some things (flapping your hands to fly, for example) and you will never be any good at them.

    Then there are the things that are just puzzles.
    I took standard computer language classes in college and did very well in them. Then I tried to learn real-time assembly programming of microcontrollers on my own and failed miserably. Maybe I just took the wrong approach?

  3. #3
    I'm a jolly ESE man with a cake one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Home
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    930
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can also see it like this - once you know what your strengths and weaknesses are, then you can play your cards better.
    If you want to do something I guess go do it regardless of its association to a certain IE or type. But in a way knowing you are a certain type makes you realize that maybe you feel like you have to do something because people expect you to, or because you irrationally think you have to be good at it.

    Socionics and any knowledge can limit you or you can use it to widen your horizon. Socionics just gives you the framework you can observe to either credit or discredit it.
    R

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    SEI bitch
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While I think there's some correlation between type and skills in different areas, I don't think its the end-all be-all. In college I majored in math and economics. I probably struggled more than my classmates (especially after vector calculus lols) because logic isn't my strong point. I'm glad I didn't learn about socionics until after college because otherwise I might have chickened out and studied something easier.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everyone has the exact same logical and "scientific" abilities. The only difference is in the memory capacity and speed, as in "processing power". Some people may be able to perform things very quickly, but there's no difference in their fundamental abilities.

    Then there are things like creativity, which is a matter of "software" and not hardware. A very efficient software can compensate for slower hardware. Some people who are good at things may just have really good software.

    It's extremely dangerous to think that you must not be fundamentally good at something because of X reason, such as type or gender or whatever, because we all actually have the exact same fundamental ability and the exact same fundamental hardware logic. This isn't about being "PC" or "feel-good", but it's just a fact. Everything is a matter of knowing how. Which is ultimately about what kind of knowledge that you have, and what kind of knowledge that you can come up with.

    There's no such thing as a "different level of logic" that only some type or some people with IQ over X can understand, or something like that. Logic is universal, and it can be understood by all. So is a fact, so is whatever that could possibly be understood in this universe. It's only a matter of knowing how to.

  6. #6
    The Ultimate Aeon of Will RaptorWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Charlottesville Virginia
    TIM
    Ash INTP 5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Science from a speculative/cosmological standpoint could appeal to the idiosyncratic dreamers with strong imaginations and the abstract minded systems analysts, but running lab equipment, doing tests and experiments, measuring things, inventions, you can get a lot of folks who do nothing extravagant or wizard like partying on those tubes.

    Science though can enlighten, paint a bigger picture, touch the canvas of wonder and awe to expand our horizons.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrightDemonSheep96 View Post
    ILI, lol? Video seems to depict Ni imagery (Ni<->Si). Yet you seem to have plenty of Ne that spins from Ni vacuum.


    The 24 INTP (<- that is Ni.)

    EagleFangKarate (webstarts.com)


    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...logy-articles)

  7. #7
    Baqer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    ILE-D
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Talanov actually tried to figure out what made a good scientist.

    Ni Ne Si Se Ti Te Fi Fe

    1.34 0.49 -0.22 -1.29 1.20 -0.03 -0.16 -1.33
    0.90 0.03 -0.38 -1.48 1.63 0.37 -0.04 -1.02
    0.44 0.47 0.16 0.19 -0.43 -0.40 -0.12 -0.31

    1.Functional Profile Approximately Ideal for Science
    2.The functional profile of the "standard" LII - of all the "standard" typical profiles, the most closely correlated with the "ideal"
    3.The accentuation of the LII profile required for doing science in comparison with the profile of the standard LII


    Basically he concluded that for something like science, there needs to be accentuations. For a scientist accentuated form LII, you'd need a strengthened intuition and weakened logic, as the most important creation of a scientist.

  8. #8
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,481
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Science can be many things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Then there are the things that are just puzzles.
    I took standard computer language classes in college and did very well in them. Then I tried to learn real-time assembly programming of microcontrollers on my own and failed miserably. Maybe I just took the wrong approach?
    Sound like machine level programming is drastically different from data handling. Well defined unipurpose machine is constrained you'll need lots of tricks and attention to details - sometimes messiness is needed, in pure data you structure and design it. These days there are ways around it as micro controllers have become beefier in terms of performance and it is totally possible to run scripting languages (or high level C/C++ interfacing code) inside them which makes sense if you are just a hobbyist.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,916
    Mentioned
    1185 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    A big notion I do not like in socionics is that certain personality types are inherently better at certain subjects than others
    This follows from what functions dominate in the consciousness and are better developed. People in activity related much to functional strong regions have better initial abbilities, more interests and hence better skills, in average.

    For example, in math TN types should have best results, _in average_. But there are other factors which also influence on skills as general IQ, mb other traits, own efforts (incl. education) and environment situation (incl. help of other people).

    > I do not like

    It's important what is correct, but not what you like. You seem to have F type.
    Probably you "do not like" to understand having not good type predisposition for good results in a region where you want to have them. Achievements in weak region need more efforts, but they are possible.

    As an example, Zhores Alferov (1) - physicist (T region) with F (ENFJ) type.
    Jeff Monson - boxer (mainly S region) with N (ENFJ) type.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  10. #10
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrightDemonSheep96 View Post
    Science can be many things.

    Then there are the things that are just puzzles.
    I took standard computer language classes in college and did very well in them. Then I tried to learn real-time assembly programming of microcontrollers on my own and failed miserably. Maybe I just took the wrong approach?

    Sound like machine level programming is drastically different from data handling. Well defined unipurpose machine is constrained you'll need lots of tricks and attention to details - sometimes messiness is needed, in pure data you structure and design it. These days there are ways around it as micro controllers have become beefier in terms of performance and it is totally possible to run scripting languages (or high level C/C++ interfacing code) inside them which makes sense if you are just a hobbyist.
    I think this is typical of the university computer science curriculum. I find that computer science really trained me in logical analysis and logical thinking, but the work in industry is really more technical and quite different. I think they should employ more industry standard courses in CS, so people have some of the flavour of real world computing. That way, they can see if they are actually skilled at the work. In my case, I found that I liked the logical element, but I was not good at the technical side. A heavy course-load of practical work might have changed my mind, and therefore helped me in planning my career.

  11. #11
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Brain capacity is independent of type; type being the operating system loaded onto the brain. With higher overall capacities, one can even compensate for shortcomings in the operating system itself but with uneven distribution of capacities, it stands to reason that some apps may not be able to function properly while others motor at high speed - and being a subtype has a similar effect. Many people with whom I've worked closely were high capacity types; they could turn their hand to almost anything. But, for example, an IEI was able to easily do electronic design but certainly didn't remain content doing it for very long. There seems to be some correlation between type and contentment in certain careers but I doubt that there's a correlation between type and the career that one would desire or choose - if one actually has the luxury of choosing.

    a.k.a. I/O

  12. #12
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    10,551
    Mentioned
    1091 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Brain capacity is independent of type; type being the operating system loaded onto the brain. With higher overall capacities, one can even compensate for shortcomings in the operating system itself but with uneven distribution of capacities, it stands to reason that some apps may not be able to function properly while others motor at high speed - and being a subtype has a similar effect. Many people with whom I've worked closely were high capacity types; they could turn their hand to almost anything. But, for example, an IEI was able to easily do electronic design but certainly didn't remain content doing it for very long. There seems to be some correlation between type and contentment in certain careers but I doubt that there's a correlation between type and the career that one would desire or choose - if one actually has the luxury of choosing.

    a.k.a. I/O
    I like the analogy of brain capacity and the operating system, but I do think that there is a correlation between sociotypes and the careers that they would ideally choose, even apart from the “brain capacity” question.

  13. #13
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I like the analogy of brain capacity and the operating system, but I do think that there is a correlation between sociotypes and the careers that they would ideally choose, even apart from the “brain capacity” question.
    More people seem to be in specific careers/jobs because of circumstances, influences and education availability more so than type. Most choose careers to make money, or to fulfil certain images or expectations that are not necessarily related to type or aptitude. Aptitude tests pointed me toward being a journalist not an engineer but I didn't know one who had a descent income and I was better at maths than at grammar; luckily, I was a natural in engineering perhaps due to my S-influenced upbringing because all of my colleagues were S-types - but S-types are more plentiful. I would agree that the ones who stand out are usually where their types suit the job but more than two-thirds of staff seem to be mismatched personality-wise to their job. The best at engineering by far on my staff was a technologist by training and pay-grade.

    a.k.a. I/O

  14. #14
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    This follows from what functions dominate in the consciousness and are better developed. People in activity related much to functional strong regions have better initial abbilities, more interests and hence better skills, in average.

    For example, in math TN types should have best results, _in average_. But there are other factors which also influence on skills as general IQ, mb other traits, own efforts (incl. education) and environment situation (incl. help of other people).

    > I do not like

    It's important what is correct, but not what you like. You seem to have F type.
    Probably you "do not like" to understand having not good type predisposition for good results in a region where you want to have them. Achievements in weak region need more efforts, but they are possible.

    As an example, Zhores Alferov (1) - physicist (T region) with F (ENFJ) type.
    Jeff Monson - boxer (mainly S region) with N (ENFJ) type.
    I know what you're saying: feeling types do what they like, while thinking types do what is logical. That same skill appears to be used in the sciences, and that is why logical types make better mathematicians, scientists, etc. Those were also two solid examples of ENFjs. I like what I'm seeing here. Keep at it...
    Last edited by jason_m; 04-25-2021 at 01:48 AM.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Brain capacity is independent of type; type being the operating system loaded onto the brain. With higher overall capacities, one can even compensate for shortcomings in the operating system itself but with uneven distribution of capacities, it stands to reason that some apps may not be able to function properly while others motor at high speed - and being a subtype has a similar effect. Many people with whom I've worked closely were high capacity types; they could turn their hand to almost anything. But, for example, an IEI was able to easily do electronic design but certainly didn't remain content doing it for very long. There seems to be some correlation between type and contentment in certain careers but I doubt that there's a correlation between type and the career that one would desire or choose - if one actually has the luxury of choosing.

    a.k.a. I/O
    But it's possible to emulate any other OS or app within an operating system, so that can't be it. It must mean that there is a universal logic that can emulate any kind of possible logic. If one can imagine what it's like to be another type, or to understand it as we're attempting to do, then it must mean that we're successfully emulating another type inside of our head.

    So there is no difference in logical abilities between a "T" type and an "F" type", or a "smart" person and a "dumb" person. It just means that a smart person can perform things quicker, and may have more memory. But memory can always be offloaded to external memory.

  16. #16
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,303
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Everyone has the exact same logical and "scientific" abilities. The only difference is in the memory capacity and speed, as in "processing power". Some people may be able to perform things very quickly, but there's no difference in their fundamental abilities.

    Then there are things like creativity, which is a matter of "software" and not hardware. A very efficient software can compensate for slower hardware. Some people who are good at things may just have really good software.

    It's extremely dangerous to think that you must not be fundamentally good at something because of X reason, such as type or gender or whatever, because we all actually have the exact same fundamental ability and the exact same fundamental hardware logic. This isn't about being "PC" or "feel-good", but it's just a fact. Everything is a matter of knowing how. Which is ultimately about what kind of knowledge that you have, and what kind of knowledge that you can come up with.

    There's no such thing as a "different level of logic" that only some type or some people with IQ over X can understand, or something like that. Logic is universal, and it can be understood by all. So is a fact, so is whatever that could possibly be understood in this universe. It's only a matter of knowing how to.
    Oh God no. Even animals and plants in the same species have different potentials. This post really sums up what is wrong with the entire "human positivity movement". That is not to say people shouldn't try, but you are saying everyone has the potential "if only x factors".

    Its like talent is a thing, for instance.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Oh God no. Even animals and plants in the same species have different potentials. This post really sums up what is wrong with the entire "human positivity movement". That is not to say people shouldn't try, but you are saying everyone has the potential "if only x factors".

    Its like talent is a thing, for instance.
    We're not talking about animals and plants. It has nothing to do with "human positivity movement" and you're just having a knee-jerk reaction.

  18. #18
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    But it's possible to emulate any other OS or app within an operating system, so that can't be it.....
    So there is no difference in logical abilities between a "T" type and an "F" type", or a "smart" person and a "dumb" person.......
    On a computer, it's possible to emulate another OS but running apps on the emulation takes longer. It would take a significant brain illness or injury for it to switch to another OS configuration but then it wouldn't be an emulation. The brain has limited energy resources which is likely why we need type - to limit the amount of processing. T and F are really different processes but yes, they can achieve the same end; one is just more efficient at running certain apps. I agree that processing and memory access speeds are likely elements of being "smart" but intelligence is perhaps better defined in terms of I/O bandwidth. There are countless sources of deficiencies to make one stupid or appear stupid and not all are related to computing power; there can be numerous dumb apps on a smartphone.

    a.k.a. I/O

  19. #19
    capricieux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    not a “curse” — just some kind of nocebo where u conflated natural aptitude w underexertion. many such cases!

  20. #20
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,303
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    We're not talking about animals and plants. It has nothing to do with "human positivity movement" and you're just having a knee-jerk reaction.
    Not at all I think I'm actually following a better fit to what is real as opposed to your concept that we are all coming to the table with the same hardware and if only the software, upbringing, eduction, what have you, was just the same, we would all have equality of some outcome.

    Insane type thinking. I mean its a nice ideal and should be pursued and applied to give us the best chance, but its not real.

    We are also animals btw. This is one of the true implications of atheism. We are a species of great ape. We are expressions of the same principles seen in plants and animals, that some individuals are different due to a myriad of circumstances, some before conception, and some situational, and they can't be changed and they can't be otherwise. Not even in principle.

    Cue neural plasticity and epigenetic type counter arguments.

    To me the true equality lies in the realm of conscious awareness, where all being equal, the thing is perception itself, no matter what is being perceived.

    But no, absolutely not. You are not going to turn Jimmy wong, 5'8 into 6'7 Micheal Jordan. Or fetal alcohol Joe Bob into Albert Einstein.

    Nothing is created equal. Only created, period. This is the reason God is the ultimate redemption, because there can never be a mathematical equation for the observer, its outside.

  21. #21
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baqer View Post
    Talanov actually tried to figure out what made a good scientist.

    Ni Ne Si Se Ti Te Fi Fe

    1.34 0.49 -0.22 -1.29 1.20 -0.03 -0.16 -1.33
    0.90 0.03 -0.38 -1.48 1.63 0.37 -0.04 -1.02
    0.44 0.47 0.16 0.19 -0.43 -0.40 -0.12 -0.31

    1.Functional Profile Approximately Ideal for Science
    2.The functional profile of the "standard" LII - of all the "standard" typical profiles, the most closely correlated with the "ideal"
    3.The accentuation of the LII profile required for doing science in comparison with the profile of the standard LII


    Basically he concluded that for something like science, there needs to be accentuations. For a scientist accentuated form LII, you'd need a strengthened intuition and weakened logic, as the most important creation of a scientist.
    My numbers would be something like this:

    Ni Ne Si Se Ti Te Fi Fe

    1.34 0.49 -0.22 -1.29 1.20 -0.03 -0.16 -1.33
    1.39 1.48 1.10 -1.63 1.35 -0.40 1.15 1.25
    -0.05 -0.99 -1.32 0.34 -0.15 0.37 -1.31 -2.58

    1.Functional Profile Approximately Ideal for Science.
    2. My functional profile.
    3. The accentuated profile.

    Conclusion: clear Alpha (as my "liking" of those functions is proportional to their strength), clear Ne-ego, clear Se PoLR (as that function is as negative as much as I dislike it), maybe not "LII."

  22. #22
    Baqer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    ILE-D
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    My numbers would be something like this:

    Ni Ne Si Se Ti Te Fi Fe

    1.34 0.49 -0.22 -1.29 1.20 -0.03 -0.16 -1.33
    1.39 1.48 1.10 -1.63 1.35 -0.40 1.15 1.25
    -0.05 -0.99 -1.32 0.34 -0.15 0.37 -1.31 -2.58
    Your numbers seem to be unusually high. Talanov actually does do seemingly super detailed typings over at https://vk.com/club168821911 , so that you can hopefully figure out your actual accentuations, but he's put them on hold until May. He's also got some other stuff there that he doesn't have on his proper website.

  23. #23
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baqer View Post
    Your numbers seem to be unusually high. Talanov actually does do seemingly super detailed typings over at https://vk.com/club168821911 , so that you can hopefully figure out your actual accentuations, but he's put them on hold until May. He's also got some other stuff there that he doesn't have on his proper website.
    I suppose - as I'm not completely familiar with his system, look at them more as ordinal than cardinal numbers for me. I will look into that website.
    Last edited by jason_m; 04-26-2021 at 04:41 AM.

  24. #24
    The Ultimate Aeon of Will RaptorWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Charlottesville Virginia
    TIM
    Ash INTP 5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I suppose - as I'm not completely familiar with his system, look at them more as ordinal than cardinal numbers for me. I will look into that website.
    Inaccessible Cardinal
    Defined as a cardinal which cannot be obtained using arithmetic operations on cardinals.


    A cardinal is also inaccessible, if it is uncountable, it is not a sum of K cardinals which are smaller than K, and a < K = 2a < K. Thus, no amount of power-setting of infinities is capable of constructing a cardinal which is inaccessible.

    ^ Behold the cardinal as a RED/Ash from Pokemon Chosen 1 Lugia from Pokemon 2000 Power of One as 8 being infinite zeros after 2, the ultimate synchronicity. A type 2000 Civilization has extended beyond existence and the void, or even anything in Imagination. It's a heightened computer code that hijacks and crashes the devil's security vault!!*
    Quote Originally Posted by BrightDemonSheep96 View Post
    ILI, lol? Video seems to depict Ni imagery (Ni<->Si). Yet you seem to have plenty of Ne that spins from Ni vacuum.


    The 24 INTP (<- that is Ni.)

    EagleFangKarate (webstarts.com)


    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...logy-articles)

  25. #25

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Not at all I think I'm actually following a better fit to what is real as opposed to your concept that we are all coming to the table with the same hardware and if only the software, upbringing, eduction, what have you, was just the same, we would all have equality of some outcome.
    We are all Turing complete (minus the infinite memory), which means that we are able to compute anything that is ever computable in this universe.

    Imagine that Einstein is giving someone step-by-step, minutely detailed instructions on how to understand his theory. His instructions are so detailed that all you have to do is to connect the simplest of dots between A → B. If for any reason that you have trouble understanding how to connect the dots, then he will break it down even further so that it will become logically simpler. If you start to "forget" the line of thought because the things to memorize have become too large and overwhelming, then he will tell you to refer to a specific note that is archived somewhere. All you have to do is to read that note, and then simply go back to following the instruction.

    That is basically what a programming is, it's about giving instructions to a computer on how to perform a task. It only breaks down if for whatever reason that you are unable to connect the dots betwee A → B.

    We are able to "implicitly" understand each other, because we have more or less the same software. People who are able to easily understand Einstein's theory are simply (correctly) guessing what the hell Einstein is trying to say via his theory. It makes no difference whether you require more or less detailed instructions on how to understand his theory, if in the end you understood it all the same.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •