# Thread: Learning style (and functions)

1. ## Learning style (and functions)

Which of these more closely resembles your learning style

a) You like to hear a general (perhaps theoretical) explanation of the learning domain. You dislike specific examples but instead prefer to stick to learning at a more "higher level" and figure out the specific examples yourself if needed. This approach I call "top to bottom but preferring top over bottom"

b) You like to start from a general (perhaps theoretical) explanation of the learning domain but then you wish to procees to specific examples which help you make sense of the theory you just learned. You dislike it if only theory but no specific examples is given. This approach I call "top to bottom but preferring the bottom over top".

c) You like to start from specific examples and work your way towards the more general and more theoretical. Even if you start from the specific you eventually wish to conquer the abstract level. This approach I call "bottom to top but preferring the top over the bottom".

d) You like to start from specific examples and pretty much stick to the "concrete". You do wish to learn to apply your knowledge more widely than just those specific cases but you only want to hear theory where it helps you to figure out new practical applications and the details of the theory do not interest you as such. This approach I call "bottom to top but preferring the bottom over top".

So where do you stand and how do you see this relating to functions? You can alter the desriptions I gave if you think they could be formulated better.

Edit: Personally I'm either b) or d). I haven't decided yet. My target is always to learn the "bottom" i.e. how to apply my knowledge to solve problems. However I'm currently unsure whether my natural approach is to start from top and head towards bottom or start from the bottom and touch the top only when necessary. When I'm feeling lazy or when schedule is tight I guess I stick to d) but when I have time and energy I am more b). I guess b) is my "ideal mode" where d) is the "must...hurry...no...time..." mode.

2. I think b . . . ? I like to know the general idea, but then I need to hear specific examples to "get it".

3. b. I'd like a general explanation. But not without specific examples. Those are important.
Sometimes, it irritates me when someone says something, and can't explain it further or give examples.

4. c), but without your part that says "prefer the top over the bottom".

Anyway, the case is; p=theory from practice; j=practice from theory

5. Originally Posted by FDG
c), but without your part that says "prefer the top over the bottom".

Anyway, the case is; p=theory from practice; j=practice from theory
That would be option d) but rephrased somehow. Anyways your approach seems to be "go from bottom to top but prefer bottom over top".

6. My process goes like this:

1-first I learn specific instances
2-I see the generalities involved
3-I learn the principles, and forget the instances
4-I derive the instances from the principles (which is the best thing to do since it occupies less memory)

7. Originally Posted by FDG
My process goes like this:

1-first I learn specific instances
2-I see the generalities involved
3-I learn the principles, and forget the instances
4-I derive the instances from the principles (which is the best thing to do since it occupies less memory)
This makes sense for an accepting STp.
An NFp would be slightly different in that we'd want the generalities first, and then specific instances.
(maybe even following with your 3-learning the principles and forgetting the instances, and/or deriving alternative principles from the instances)

Anyway, the case is; p=theory from practice; j=practice from theory
notice how the STp and NFp are both p...but do not follow the proposed rule you gave.
instead I think it has to do with whether the accepting is abstracted or involved, and/or explicit or implicit

8. Definitely Option B) for me. Especially with more complex theories, I need some examples to get an idea of how it works, so to speak. Without examples I don't know that I'm interpreting it correctly and therefore don't feel confident that I understand the theory. Once I am confident I understand how the theory relates to the examples, I then feel like I can apply that theory as I see fit, make examples of my own if you like. But the theory itself is always the reference point, it's just that I need the examples to clarify my understanding. Assuming that makes any sense whatsoever.

EDIT: A better way to describe what I was trying to say there - I need the examples to know that I'm "visualising" the theory correctly. Or even to give me a starting block from which to begin visualising the theory. Once I know I've visualised it correctly, I can go on my own from there.

9. B

Originally Posted by FDG
My process goes like this:

1-first I learn specific instances
2-I see the generalities involved
3-I learn the principles, and forget the instances
4-I derive the instances from the principles (which is the best thing to do since it occupies less memory)
Yeah, that sounds very Ti, where ITjs are more likely to speed through the first step (or two).

10. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
B

Originally Posted by FDG
My process goes like this:

1-first I learn specific instances
2-I see the generalities involved
3-I learn the principles, and forget the instances
4-I derive the instances from the principles (which is the best thing to do since it occupies less memory)
Yeah, that sounds very Ti, where ITjs are more likely to speed through the first step (or two).
This is not far from my own style except that I (if I have time) tend to first go through the theory so that I get a blurry big picture understanding. Then I go through your steps and so it is easier for me to learn the principles (as I already have a blurry picture of them). The learning process then makes the blurry principles more concrete and tied to reality.

Edit: To summarize I first read the theory to get an "impression" and then move to concrete examples to turn those "impressions" in to "concrete and applicable principles". However I don't have enough time for both theory and practice I skip the theory.

11. A

I find it much more useful to me, especially when starting from the GENERAL in MATHEMATICS.. I *hate* starting with specific examples and working towards the general... *cough* This is what I'm struggling with in my Gr 11 math class right now!

12. Originally Posted by XoX
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
B

Originally Posted by FDG
My process goes like this:

1-first I learn specific instances
2-I see the generalities involved
3-I learn the principles, and forget the instances
4-I derive the instances from the principles (which is the best thing to do since it occupies less memory)
Yeah, that sounds very Ti, where ITjs are more likely to speed through the first step (or two).
This is not far from my own style except that I (if I have time) tend to first go through the theory so that I get a blurry big picture understanding. Then I go through your steps and so it is easier for me to learn the principles (as I already have a blurry picture of them). The learning process then makes the blurry principles more concrete and tied to reality.

Edit: To summarize I first read the theory to get an "impression" and then move to concrete examples to turn those "impressions" in to "concrete and applicable principles". However I don't have enough time for both theory and practice I skip the theory.
I very strongly relate to this.

13. ## Re: Learning style (and functions)

Originally Posted by XoX
b) You like to start from a general (perhaps theoretical) explanation of the learning domain but then you wish to procees to specific examples which help you make sense of the theory you just learned. You dislike it if only theory but no specific examples is given. This approach I call "top to bottom but preferring the bottom over top".

c) You like to start from specific examples and work your way towards the more general and more theoretical. Even if you start from the specific you eventually wish to conquer the abstract level. This approach I call "bottom to top but preferring the top over the bottom".
These two, with a preference of B over C.

I need some sort of context when learning, and it works both ways. If a discussion is purely theoretical, I need specifics to relate it to the real world. If it's specific, I need to see how it relates to the overall picture (though I am good at forumlating my own broader perspective based on specifics).

I think this is why I have such difficulty with math, because it seems to operate on both of my weaknesses. It's abstract to begin with, and the way it's usually taught does not relate to any overall picture of what it's supposed to mean.

On the other hand, human-oriented subjects like political studies are easy for me, because with a bare minium of exposure to concepts (i.e. ideology), I can fit real-world specifics into the big picture.

14. B

15. Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
Originally Posted by XoX
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
B

Originally Posted by FDG
My process goes like this:

1-first I learn specific instances
2-I see the generalities involved
3-I learn the principles, and forget the instances
4-I derive the instances from the principles (which is the best thing to do since it occupies less memory)
Yeah, that sounds very Ti, where ITjs are more likely to speed through the first step (or two).
This is not far from my own style except that I (if I have time) tend to first go through the theory so that I get a blurry big picture understanding. Then I go through your steps and so it is easier for me to learn the principles (as I already have a blurry picture of them). The learning process then makes the blurry principles more concrete and tied to reality.

Edit: To summarize I first read the theory to get an "impression" and then move to concrete examples to turn those "impressions" in to "concrete and applicable principles". However I don't have enough time for both theory and practice I skip the theory.
I very strongly relate to this.
It seems that nowadays I'm everybody's identical and nobody's dual, lol.

16. Originally Posted by XoX

It seems that nowadays I'm everybody's identical and nobody's dual, lol.
I think ENTp is more likely than ENFp, partially because I think you're more likely Alpha than Delta. But no point going into that more. Maybe if you kind of back off and just look at all the types with an open eye you'll get a better idea of what's going on.

I can't believe your baby was born 2 months ago and you didn't put some kind of announcement in Anything Goes or something. Congrats!!!! <3

#### Posting Permissions

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