# Comprehension



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Do you think of the process as "A leads to B, B leads to C" or do you tend to think "A was this, B was that and C is this"?


I'm not really sure. It is just something I "see" rather than deduce formulaically.



> Do you think following instructions is a good thing or would you prefer just to achieve the goal regardless of how you got there?


Depends on what you are trying to achieve. I don't follow instructions that don't make sense to me. I suppose, in general, I would choose the latter.



> Can you see why some people take solace in keeping them separate though?


I don't know how to answer this question. Is the emphasis on "solace" or "keeping them separate"?



> Why do you agree?


I relate to the description of the attic theory. I tend to discard irrelevancies.




> Philosophy lends itself very well to intellectual masturbation, especially when you start to read Kant and other similar authors. I found that to improve my critical thinking skills buying books on critical thinking helped quite a bit. After all, the data tells the story does it not?


Unfortunately, I cannot learn from a book, which was in part the reason why I brought up this topic to begin with (reading comprehension).

I do enjoy some of the ideas and perspectives that comes out of philosophy. I think some of it is stupid though. Like Descartes' logic about how one can never truly trust the senses. The logic may be infallible, but it is still dumb. I almost walked out of class when they talked about Zeno's paradoxes. He essentially went on to say that, logically speaking, moving from point A to B was impossible because in order to get to B, you'd have to cross the mid-point or the mid-point between that(which goes on and on into an asymptote). This kind of logic problem that seems to defy experience led me to thinking about my journey into physics. I wondered if theoretical physicists have locked themselves into weird math problems, like the philosophical logic problems, when they came up with string theory, black holes, and other things.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> When I first came to this forum, I was typed as ESTP. After some discussion it was between ISTP and ENTJ. Arkigos felt that I was definitely a T-dom. I read the ISTP profile and couldn't disagree with it (though it's hard to disagree with many profiles) and rolled with it. I decided against ENTJ because my sister is one and she is much more of a go-getter than I am. In MBTI terms I am far more of a P than a J. I'm also not opposed to being a sensor, unlike other N types seem. Truth, in this case, is more important to me than ego.
> 
> Here is the thread if anyone is interested:
> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/136437-curious.html
> ...


But what about you fits functionally? This sentence for example: 



> In MBTI terms I am far more of a P than a J.


Is a recurring sentence I only see Te types express because you are focusing on external logical categories over internal. And yes of course, honest typing is paramount and if I was a sensor I would have no issues being one either because it's the truth of the matter, but that doesn't point towards being intuitive. Having a dislike towards a label doesn't indicate type preferences at all. I actually very often see people claiming to be X type when they are so clearly not e.g. feelers who think they are thinkers because they dislike the idea of being feelers. 

And in MBTI jargon I'd be a P type too, INTP being the most likely though I don't fit functionally, hence I don't type as one.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But what about you fits functionally? This sentence for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not really sure. I can see myself in everything. I don't have a general self-concept to compare to.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I thought of an analogy to sort of explain my reading comprehension problems.

Let's equate a text with a phone number.

5557235412 has not meaning to me.

555-723-5412 has a meaningful pattern to it.

Because I recognize the underlying pattern, the content itself becomes meaningful. When I read text, it is a straight series of meaningless digits because I do not recognize the underlying pattern to it. When spoken naturally, tone provides this pattern. When read aloud mindlessly, the tone becomes somewhat flat and meaningless.

Does this make any sense?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I thought of an analogy to sort of explain my reading comprehension problems.
> 
> Let's equate a text with a phone number.
> 
> ...


Try reading it out loud/recording while you read and listen to it?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Try reading it out loud/recording while you read and listen to it?


Now that I think on it a little bit, isn't this how children normally learn to read? They start by reading it aloud and as they develop, they transition to reading in their mind? I wonder if I practice reading out loud, it will help to give me those "tone patterns" to read in my head with. Hmmm...


----------

