My Intent

Post Reply New Topic

What does everyone think? What type of thinker am I? Where do I clash with most people at?


This is what happens to me in my interactions. I tell people I can’t do x because of a, b, c. These are two things I think to expect from people. My expectation is that they acknowledge that I can’t do x because of a, b, c. From there, I expect people to refute what I say by stating that I am misinterpreting something and show me where my logic is wrong. If they refute what I say and it shows me where I am wrong completely and I am able to do task x then there is no further argument from me. This means I have the data I need to do the complete the task at hand. Data includes ability as well like moving my hand correctly or maybe better tools are suggested to me.

If their counter argument to my counter argument refutes my “can’t do” partially this means in my mind I still can’t do the task and it brings up other reasons as to why. Maybe reasons a and b were eliminated but c partially exists but d has cropped up. Next the person thinks through my partial reason c and my full reason d and he refutes c and d. Finally, all reasons have been eliminated as to why I can’t do task x and now I can do task x.

As an example I will bring up my problems with driving. I had to take a driving class as a condition of my sentencing for point reduction on my license. Before I had the reckless driving ticket and was taken to jail I did not think I could drive that well. The major part of why I did not believe I could drive that well and maybe not at all was because I had problems looking in my back window and front window at the same time to check for my blind spot. I made sure when I drove I didn’t switch lanes to much. I did not know how to use my mirrors in the way I was supposed to use them. I thought I was supposed to use them for non-blind spots and had to look back for the blind spot.

Mr. James Brock refuted my logic by telling the class how to switch lanes. I was supposed to drive a bit faster to check for cars in my blind spot and any car that was behind me I had to see the full bumper and headlights before crossing over to another lane. I did not believe I could drive that well because of x. I did not believe I could do x because of a,b,c. From Mr. Brock’s lecture, he refuted a,b,c and by the transitive property refuted x and then refuted my negative attitude towards driving. By his counter-argument he made against why I couldn’t drive well through the elimination of layers of faulty assumptions my attitude changed and my confidence soared from Mr. Brock’s elimination of my faulty logic. Because of him, I have logic that is more sound and I am able to drive better. I will put this into argument form.

d=my ability to drive
if a then x
if b then x
if c then x
if x then d
~a
~b
~c
~x
conclusion: ~d

By him refuting my presuppositions of a,b, and c my argument against why I could not drive or had major problems driving was refuted because of these reasons. When he replaced the premises with e,f,g which led to y and this led to d I was able to drive.
The argument now is I can drive pretty well because
e
f
g
x
conclusion: d

This is what I was trying to say and this is what I have been trying to get people to do. My negative attitude more than likely is based upon erroneous assumptions that I may have about the workplace and about life in general. One of the things I value is getting to what the truth is. If I have erroneous assumptions then the conclusions I draw will more than likely be faulty. I now believe I can drive better because I am closer to having the correct assumptions then I had before. My positive attitude is a reflection and effect of my better ability and competence not the cause of it.

How do most people do it if they don’t do it the way I do? If my thinking is off then how is it off? This is how it occurred when I was coding. I had major problems with programming early on because I had problems understanding what a counter was. For example x=x+1 and x is a variable. I kept solving for x(a variable) which led to the inequality 0=1. I kept thinking that this was an equation when in the programming context it is not an equation. In the math context it is though and I thought in the wrong context. Because of my erroneous assumption, I couldn’t figure how the instructor got his results. It finally dawned on me that what was happening was I had to take what was in x, add 1 to it and put the result back into x. Why didn’t he say this in class though? Why didn’t he tell us it was not an equation o be solved? Anyway, once I eliminated the assumption and changed it my confidence and attitude in my ability to program soared.
When attitude and confidence is focused on exclusively instead of my ability and erroneous premises and assumptions that impair my ability, I do not understand how my attitude is supposed to change. If there is a method I am supposed to use, May I have this method?

Maybe people just don't know when your beliefs about something are erroneous. All they notice is that you believe you cannot do something they think you can do, and conclude that your attitude and confidence are the problem. Also, many people find it easier to deal with feeling issues than thinking issues. Even if they can guess that you are missing information, their first response may be to deal with your attitude and confidence because working on feeling problems is their strength. Or their past experience shows that most people who have the same problem as you have an attitude or confidence problem, and the person trying to help you assumes that you have the same problem.

I think the first thing you should realize is that not everyone takes a step-wise, logically-driven approach to life such as you describe. I think that is why most people do not recognize what you need. Also, because you present as intelligent, others may assume you would be offended by being corrected. Therefore they may avoid giving you the additional information you need.

I wanted to write more, but I have kid stuff I have to deal with, so you got the very condensed version.

When I see x=x+1, I see a loop. A moving repetitive loop where the x keeps changing.

Editing this. I misinterprated you the first time I read it. I get confused when learning a new concept too and have to figure out a lot of stuff that hasn't been explained properly, like they assumed I already knew basic stuff, and then I realize it was easier then I thought

I think this is key. Often times, people don't know how to explain things thoroughly enough because there's the assumption that people "just understand". Two years ago, my son commented about his school support worker. He said, "He just explains things in a way I understand." This was the first and last time he ever said that. I get him (thankfully) and I'm often having to explain things to his school. I can't imagine going through life (as many of you can relate with) feeling like you're not being taught properly..

Hello Marybird, imagine yourself when you first learned programming. When you saw the counter didn't see it as an equation the first time. For me, I did because that is what I was taught to associate that as since 9th grade. The only way I could grasp it was actually running and printing out the code bit by bit. From the results I saw, I was able to backtrack and obtain the pattern.

I understand what you're saying. People see certain things as though they're presuppositions and axiomatic. It is like asking a person how does a person derive a glass of water as a glass of water. Am I correct? It's' like asking how the law of identity is derived am I correct?

What is the approach most people take then? What are the other approaches that are doable?

Why wouldn't they make that as part of their assumptions? Let's say I don't understand x and x is something they are trying to convey.

When I misunderstood someone I make following assumptions
a. They have facts and assumptions that are erroneous. It may be due to missing information.
b. I may be misunderstanding what they are saying like their context.
c. Maybe they do have limitations on what they can and it may be correctable or not.
d. any assumptions I make is based upon what I have experienced,
e. the facts I do know including the facts I know that I don't know.




How do they derive I can or can't do it without checking the data? How do they figure if they have sound data or not? If I can really do something they why don't they show me where my premises are erroneous?





How is this so and why is this so? For me, the converse is true.




Again, I don't understand. Is there a way you can put this in a way I can wrap my head around. How does feelings show me how to mow a lawn correctly or drive correctly? I don't logically follow.



I understand. They are using inductive reasoning. For example, all of the time I have been on the earth the sun has risen. More than likely the sun will rise tomorrow. With inductive reasoning it doesn't mean it actually will. There is a strong case that it may be but it doesn't mean it is absolutely the case. There may be an exception.

I'm not sure what is going on in their heads, but the evidence suggests that it isn't step-wise and logical. I think many people shoot from the hip. Some people do not break things down to the details. They observe the surface structure and proceed as if that is all there is to know. Some people do not think things through to their logical end. They only get to the first one or two steps and then proceed forward, never having considering what might happen four or five steps from where they are. Because they think like this, I imagine it is hard for them to comprehend that you don't.

I really don't know though, because much of what I think is only based on my interpretation of what I see in others. I could be off.

Sometimes people think that what they are trying to teach you is so simple, they can't even imagine the student having false beliefs about it. Sometimes people have been doing something for so long, they forget what it's like to not know it, so they don't understand your confusion. It's like trying to tell someone how to walk if you've been walking for decades. The motions of walking are intuitive, and explaining it to someone else forces you to think about it in a step-by-step, mechanical, very non-intuitive way that you aren't used to anymore, so it could be difficult for you as a teacher to get back into that non-intuitive mindset you need to explain.




People tend to have a set of things they implicitly believe that everyone can do with some amount of work. They don't really know for sure that any given person can do it, but once they've seen lots of people do it, they tend to assume that people in general can do it, and they won't let go of that assumption unless you explicitly tell them that you have some type of disability or something. It's just one of those habits of thought that people use to structure our view of the world. At the other extreme, we'd basically be unable to act if we had to assume that no one could do any of the things we could do. We'd hesitate to talk to people if we assumed no one could hear or talk back, hesitate to invite people out if we assumed they couldn't manage to walk or follow directions unassisted. So, we have to be somewhere in the middle of those two extremes in order for people to function with regard to other people, but sometimes the "middle" still leans toward the side of assuming too much.



Just different personality types. I don't know why or how, I haven't studied it much, but I learned about it by studying the MBTI and Enneagram.




To mow the lawn or drive correctly, you need both the thinking component (the directions how to do it) and the feeling component (confidence and a positive attitude, otherwise you will refuse to do it and never learn, or be so nervous you'll crash/hurt yourself/destroy something).

Pretend you just said, "I can't do this." There is more than one way to interpret that. The first thoughts of a person with a feelings-biased personality may be that you don't have the confidence or the right attitude. A person with that type of personality is very good at solving problems that have to do with feelings, so those are the types of problems they notice or assume first. The first thoughts of a person with a thinking-biased personality may be that you don't have enough information or don't understand the directions.

I want to look at this further, but I have one simple answer regarding pragmatics: instead of saying "Maybe I don't understand" or "Before I do that, I need help with ____________________," you said simply "I can't do that."

"I can't do that" is a phrase NT people use when they are simply being obstinate; they rarely use it when they don't have the ability, information, or tools to do something - they are wired automatically to ask other people for those things. I will go back and re-read to make sure I understand, but I think the correct response is something like:

"Maybe I misunderstood. You want me to do X, but to complete that, I need help with a, b and c. With A, it is because ________________________________ (I never learned how/I don't have the right tool/I am missing information/I don't understand) (then repeat for b or c) Can you help me with that?

I will try it with you. I understand what but I don't understand why. I am not understanding the rationale behind NT speak. I'm missing info as to why they would infer obstinacy instead of refuting my argument of "I can't do x without a, b ,c." Why wouldn't they construct a counter-argument to mine that refutes my premises of why I can't do x because of a,b,c?

I do not grasp their thinking.

I didn't know that. That might help explain why when I say that I can't do something it seems like the nts all seem to want to be contrary to me and insist I can or that I just don't want to. They all seem to think that because they can do it I can too.

This may be one of the times that you do not need to understand the "why," you just need to understand that it "is."

I know that you are not a child, but sometimes with my son it just gets to the point where he has to trust me at my word, even if it doesn't make sense to him. Usually once he gets to that point, he is able to find a way to move forward by just accepting what I say as truth, even if he doesn't understand it.

I understand what you're saying. I'm going to have to treat some of these things as axiomatic or givens am I correct?