I'll use this post for examples
Umm, I start from details tbh. This thing just works for me like reading an instruction manual with details of the system yeah. My plan isn't all that detailed though beyond that. I have some very specific points where I am sure of what I will do to avoid having to make complex contingency plans or worry about any of that lol. I don't really like to change my plan rapidly if it's truly put in place, these points in it, no, I try to avoid having to change all of it, or I wouldn't have bothered to put those specific points into the plan.Originally Posted by Ilamatecuhtli
Beyond those I'm not detailed at all, I'll do the details when the task is in front of me, also details are needed to know what the stuff is all about i.e. in the example, how the teacher's expectations and rules are. If you didn't mean the details on those, and you just meant the details that are needed for the task in front of you, yeah I do wait with those details until later too, so maybe we are similar otherwise after all, but idk what is meant by connections here, I don't really like to try and conjure up connections before details. In fact I can't do that at all, dislike speculation.
And, yah, going back to the example, I figure what I need to be doing, I'll do it, no further thought given to it. A subject at uni when I went to uni back then, it's not a big enough topic to me to really scrutinise it so closely beyond that. If the plan changed bc the teacher decided on something else I'd be a bit irritated then go with whatever new expectations (assuming it didn't create further problems, esp unfairness towards me)
I never doubt my judgment itself lol maybe that sounds arrogant lol... I'm just forgiving with myself and others (according to my standards) though. And what I'm willing to doubt is the data I got, I can try and get more data if I realise it's needed. I can sometimes doubt the established facts if they don't add up, but I prefer to establish the facts in a way that I won't have to doubt them later.2.Since I know about socionics, I'll keep typing my friends and acquaintances. Let's say, I think someone is EIE. I will extensively observe him and compare his behaviour to descriptions. When something doesn't fit, it is disstressing, I start doubt my judgment or socionics. I may test that person to see what he will do. For EIE is proposing something grey I suppose. If does not flare with anger, I was rather wrong. I must type him better. I must know. HE MUST MAKE SENSE. I will not rest before I have a theory that makes sens.
With Socionics, I did doubt it, heh, well, yeah, I systematically worked through its model to see where it checks out in real life or against other parts of the model. ... Well it didn't hold up all that well eventually, the parts that did, I kept and put them in a different system eventually and I had to rework even those parts eventually. The EIE example you gave would easily fail yeah
Like... say for an example, when you explain stuff with dimensionality of functions. The idea has valid parts such as yeah, when learning some skills, for some people the learned skill doesn't transfer well to other areas. Now this can have several reasons for it. Socionics says it's when you have to use a low dimensionality function to process. And yeah that part is valid in that it's true that your brain has weaker parts in its neural organisation, bottlenecks, whatnot, e.g. a smaller corpus callosum for the typical male. The problem with Socionics is that it assumes there is a specific function like "Ti" that has low dimensionality while in reality it can be brain structures that barely correspond with that idea of "Ti" "IE" as Socionics sources try to define it. It DOES have a loose relation with the "Ti" definitions but the relation is too loose to use it as a neat causal explanation. Deductive logic cannot be run on that kind of loose connection. So, the problem with Socionics in the original example here is that there can be several reasons for the learned skill failing to transfer, several ways the brain structure and/or other things matter.
Anyway going back to your example - after mine I just fleshed out - yeah I had lots of irritation when Socionics didn't want to check out with enough consistency sure lol. And I relate that I also don't rest until the stuff makes sense but I just kind of am gradual, I work on it every day, bit by bit pretty often, I'll get there eventually. Testing the person, that never entered my mind, that to me would've introduced too much ambiguity. Not that Socionics isn't full of it by defaultyou can force it to be operationalised i.e. formulate its ideas clearly unambiguously but then ofc it won't check out well.
And the EIE example, why the "EIE" would not get angry... say she/he decided it's not appropriate in that situation or that that emotional display won't help them achieve whatever goal they have in mind, whatever etc etc. Socioncis cannot predict things on this granular level
Also. When you try to check whether someone who's supposed to be someone who should be very good for you, will get openly angry if they are told something gray... Stop right there. Do you really need the person to get openly angry or did just some stupid Socionics idea dictate this? Best to tune into the former, instead of following Socionics.... use common sense to tune into it.
I don't relate to the testing or the extreme pessimism, however I relate to the rest, I can be cynical like that, and know what to expect from someone after I built the picture of the specific bits about them. I'm not sure about "what they are at their core".... depends on what you meant. If you mean categorising the people in refined enough ways, maybe I relate. If you mean some vague essence, nah. I don't do that.Actually I always used to test people. Like, my biggest lie is "you may be honest with me". But will I still trust them after that truth? I'll gather little pieces of infromations to create a picture of a whole person to know, what to expect (probably not much good). I always have sort of model of people around me, what they are at their core, basing on things say/way they said/what thei did and then I may predict their actions in future. I was always the one send to teachers to negotiate things. I can not influence them emotionaly but I could see where thing are going during conversations basing on their previous words and actions. Always knew how much I can accomplish with them at the current moment.
I have considered before whether I want people to be fully honest with me, or in general do I want ALL information about them. I was like yeah I do because then I know how to protect myself from shit. If someone turns out to be not trustable enough. Later I reconsidered whether I'd want to know all small details that would be emotionally upsetting unnecessarily if they are otherwise of no consequence to things (trust will stay, because it's not that kind of issue). Idk atm. This is a new consideration/re-consideration. It ties into the question of how much shit I'm willing to accept about people - and yeah people do have a lot of shit going on about them in general lol
I optimise too the steps and order of things to be done, and I do have those set points in my plan where I know I have to wait after I got Y done/Y happened, to make another decision for X, but I don't know if I have plans about plans, this was very meta3. I can have plans for even week or two, what I will eat, 5 meals a day. Well, for a couple of days at least. It is constructed to optimalize going for shopping, food waste and a possibility to take meals with myself to work/school. Because there is a plan of going out. And other plans must fit that plan. My ex used to say I have plans within plans and sometimes even plans about plans, like I can plan that I will be able to plan X after Y happens because now I do not posses all the informations that are necessary to make that plan. I can even have more than one version of The Plan, but I really do not like that. I prefer plans with points on road that are certain. I always start with what is certain. Variables must fit to framework of certainty.. And yeah I don't want to have more than one version of the plan (what you call The Plan I guess). I do prefer those certain points, I see now you described that too like I did above.
You'd fit Damasio's theory on emotion/rationality with your indecisiveness, I read this can be a problem for "very rational people" especially if having to choose between two good options. I sometimes actually try to go by emotional whims actually on that one, if it's some matter where I'm well familiar with it all. So that going with the emotional whim doesn't introduce any major undesired consequences. Small ones I don't always bother to consider. I also try to do as much elimination of options or variables logically as possible before having to decide.4. I have a strange way of shopping. Hm, coats. There is always one winter coat, one autumn, one for rain, one leather. There is no way I could go for second winter coat having one, though I could easliy afford. It would make problems which to wear. I do not like... plurality. There must be an exact number of things with an exact destiny of use. I'm super annoyed when my SLI mother buys me something because it was "nice and new and may be useful maybe". It doesn't fit feng shui of my household for god sake. I do not want that useless thing. I didn't plan having that, take it away. It may even be an inspiration to take a bin and throw away all useless things that somehow survived in a drowers. There is no place for them in my perfect structure of material possesions. I hate when series of books I have do not consist of one edition.
I do have more than one winter coat. So I look at the winter coats for the specific very cold winter day and I know this one will not fit, say, the shoes I already picked based on some other thing, and as for the other two winter coats I got for that kind of cold day, I don't feel like wearing one of them so the choice is the third winter coat, which I do feel like wearing enough, luckily. I guess I am pretty practiced with picking from a large selection of clothes lol. I do it pretty quickly and even enjoy deciding. Having to assign an exact destiny for each of them...... uh no. That'd be too nitpicky to me. Feng shui lool! I don't believe in that sort of stuff
As for series of books vs them being from more than one edition eh as long as it doesnt look too bad, I'm ok. If it's a very important book series then I'd probably care enough about that sortof thing, otherwise no. I do have books ... and I order them by theme first, within themes there are subthemes, then I sort the remaining order as much as possible by their looks so they look good too on the shelves. Sometimes the aesthetics gets prioritised over perfect order, I really feel out fine balances for my preferences there
Reply With Quote