Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 27/06/2007, 12:08 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default Don't you have to review something about socionics?

Well SG, I am an ISTp and I have Ti>Te. Doesn't this make you want to review something in the theory of socionics?
  #2  
Old 27/06/2007, 04:15 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

I haven't noticed any Ti>Te, want to show it to me?
  #3  
Old 28/06/2007, 12:53 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

I have already told you that I hate applications.Once I know that something works and why and how it works, there's no need to application. The proof is the most important thing. While other students just get the basics of a chapter in science before starting to do exercices, I consider that reading the lesson in the book is crucial. And I just do the proofs exercices. The applications are of secondary importance for me. In math exams proofs' exersices are what help me the most to get points, unlike a lot of other students. Last fall I took a linear algebra course. Applying the process of searching a basis was a torture for me. Last spring I took real analysis and I enjoyed very much doing epsilon-N proofs.
Reading the proofs of the book was a habit for me when I was at high-school. Now I try to prove the propositions myself before reading the proofs from the book. I am very good in remarking logical flaws. Leaving something unproved makes me feel I am intellectually dishonest with myself.

In an exersice on Newton's laws, before applying any law I think a lot about the reference we are considering, the system, why can the laws be applied before doing anything. In the atwood machine exersice I spent some time trying to see why does having an inextensible rope imply that the acceleration is the same along the rope, while others are so pragmatic that they just take it as it is.

In physics in general, I like to look at conceptual examples though we don't get any of them in the exam (just to show you how little do I care about pragmaticity which is Te). And I get a lot of pleasure doing them. For example let's come back to Newton's laws: If a train is accelerating, why is the tension in the coupler separating the first wagon from the second one greater than the tension in the coupler joining the last two wagons? Is such a question Te?

If I were a professor I would give exercices not containing numbers, and I would force students to write more reasonning (step by step which is crucial) and do more proofs.

Back to Atwood machine. I proved first that if two objects are moving at a same velocity (vector here is meant and not only magnitude) at t=0, then if the acceleration of object2 is > than the acceleration of object1 then for t > 0, v2 > v1.(the proof is in the end see ***). Then I have used this result to prove that the distance between object 1 and object 2 for t > 0 is greater than the distance between these two at t = 0. If the acceleration is not the same along the rope then there will exist two points such that the acceleration of point 1 is greater than the acceleration at point 2, then since the rope had initially a 0 vector velocity, by applying the above result for t > 0, the two points will become farer from each others than they were initially, which makes a contradiction with the fact that the rope is inexstensible.

A Te > Ti won't "waste" his time doing what I did. He will consider the proposition as a common sense thing. I know that intuitively speaking, this sounds right, but I donot consider this as right unless I have proven it.

*** since a2 > a1, have d(v2) / dt > d(v1) / dt, then ( d(v2) / dt ) - ( d(v1) / dt ) > 0. Therefore the function ( v2 - v1 )( t ) is increasing, hence for t > 0 v2(t) - v1(t) > v2(0) - V1(0) = 0. Hence v2(t) > v1(t).

I gave here a simple example, but I have a lot in topology and real analysis...etc

**** v2 > v1 => dx2/dt > dx1/dt => dx2/dt - dx1/dt > 0 => x2(t) - x1(t) is increasing => distance at t between 1 and 2 is greater than distance at 0 between 1 and 2.

One more thing, I am very semantic. I swear that in math it is easier for me to remember the proof of a proposition than to remember the proposition itself.

Long endless calculations are a torture for me.
  #4  
Old 28/06/2007, 04:59 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

It could be that since you are in Math field you need to use Ti a lot, which is true for Mathematics anyway. I'm not sure this could be used as a good example, can you find something that is not related to Math to demonstrate Ti>Te. Or is it possible you are an ESTp?
  #5  
Old 02/07/2007, 01:01 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

I will think about examples from outside science. Yes, ESTp is really probable. What do you think of ISFp? He has Ti > Te. Does he use Ti the way I use it? Remember that you have several photos of I, look at them again.

I would like to note that I draw diagrams, schemas, graphs... while writing a proof. I see the proof with my eyes, and than I spend time trying to see how I will translate the visual proof into mathematical expressions (which will make a real proof). Is that related to Te/Ti?
  #6  
Old 02/07/2007, 01:17 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Probably neither.
  #7  
Old 02/07/2007, 01:38 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

For example, when you say all dogs are animals I draw a circle called dog that is included in another circle called animal.
Can that be S?
  #8  
Old 02/07/2007, 02:00 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Why, cos S / is also round? Draw the square, see what you can come up with.
  #9  
Old 02/07/2007, 02:32 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

No... you must be joking. Of course the squares will give the same thing.
  #10  
Old 02/07/2007, 03:22 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

What about triangle?
  #11  
Old 02/07/2007, 03:29 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

What do you use as a geometric figure doesn't matter. What matters is whether you are using them in a correct way or not.
  #12  
Old 02/07/2007, 06:22 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Hmm, I see, I see, so how about an L shape?
  #13  
Old 03/07/2007, 07:44 AM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

I can't figure out what are you trying to tell from this discussion. Look, if we draw a shape that is included in another is each point in the interior a point of the exterior shape. Yes, of course which is what is necessary and enough to say that a set is included in another. Of course this doesn't prove that everything about sets can be viewed coorectly from these diagrams.

There is something that has to be pointed out: I use images as a conjecture only. I never said that they are the proof. Being somebody who is becoming a mathematician I cannot rely entirely on what is visually true. However images can be used to guess. But I am interested in knowing what is your objective from this provocation.

I know that you have tried the symbole of each function, but I cannot see the interest of this discussion.

Oh I forgot to say something. Yesterday (and for the first time), I tested the strength of my feeling. How? I imagined myself hugging a girl and feeling intimacy with her. I could enjoy that in the beginning, but in not more than 10 minutes I got very very tired. What a surprise! I felt that my heart couldn't bear that anymore, honestly I felt exhausted.

It takes me much more time doing and reading proofs to get tired: at least two or three hours. This made me sure that I have a preference for thinking. Another thing that shows that I have a weak feeling is that I am not able to experience emotions while reading a poem.
  #14  
Old 03/07/2007, 09:16 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Of course the shape has nothing to do with it, I was being silly. The drawing-visualising part is more Intuition than anything I'd say. And so is imagining hugging a girl for 10 min. Do it for real, but then you can mistake it with Sensing. You have to get romantically involved with someone to get in touch with your Feeling.
  #15  
Old 03/07/2007, 11:01 AM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

Oh, yeah yeah yeah, I see. You are right. What makes me sometimes think that I would be an F rather than a T is that it happens to me to be willing to hug someone I see in real or on TV. This happens only if the skin of that person pleases me. You made me conscious of that now Sergei. How idiot am I to have thought that this is a feeling-related thing? Romantic involvment? Pretty confusing for me! It is very difficult for me to let myself indulge in some romantic feelings. When I listen to a music that touches feelings (and not exciting the senses which I like a lot) something in me pushes me to resist and remain not influenced. I feel weak if somebody has an effect on my feelings.

Now I see why my mother refuses that I hug though she is an F. My hug is for sensory pleasure while I think that I am giving her some tenderness.

But can I claim that I am a T? Well, I am still not 100% sure of that. Sergei, do you have another exercise to test the strength of my feeling?
  #16  
Old 03/07/2007, 11:10 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

I'll think of something. As for the hug, it is more of an SF thing with S being and F being in my opinion
  #17  
Old 03/07/2007, 11:14 AM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

Well, willing to hug doesn't happen always: once or twice a day. But I don't know. Are you saying I could be an ISFp? I don't know at all how to spend extra-time, I don't have a group to which I am loyal. I do nothing during that time. But note that when I meet someone I hate kissing as a greating.

But then why would refute romanticism completely?
  #18  
Old 03/07/2007, 11:20 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by complicater-complexer View Post
Well, willing to hug doesn't happen always: once or twice a day. But I don't know. Are you saying I could be an ISFp?
I doubt that.
  #19  
Old 03/07/2007, 11:24 AM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

I didn't understand what do you doubt? How frequently do I like to hug or being an ISFp? If the second then are you rather saying ESFj?
  #20  
Old 03/07/2007, 12:45 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

I doubt that you are any kind of SF
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM