Importance of Accuracy

[Sugarpop]

I like accuracy. I approach everything with radical doubt and a scientific mindset. This makes me rather particular about grammar and definitions. Whenever I'm in a discussion, I will instantly see any ambiguity in its language and the vagueness in its definitions.

Others don't seem to recognize the importance I put on precision and my need to clarify any definitions central to the topic in question. Should the desire to discuss the problematic concept of 'selfishness' as a part of answering the question 'Are all humans selfish?' be met with laughter and a here-is-Sugarpop-again-with-his-anal-retentive sort of attitude?

Do you feel the same way about accuracy? How do others respond?

 

[FacetiousPersona]

I value accuracy and wish for it to be high, but I have to sacrifice accuracy for the benefit of the big picture frequently.

 

[EditorOne]

I am (oddly enough, in my opinion) in the same position as facetious. My world of work (journalism) used to set an obsessively compulsive premium on detail accuracy, to the point where something might be proofread by five people before going into print and there would be hour-long debates about comma placement and sentence structure and whether it is flier or flyer. Now, however, if we did that with an online breaking news item or text message alert about an accident tying up traffic on the interstate, our clients would be caught in the jam while we proofread it five times. So they get that news as fast as fingers can fly over keyboards and, yes, sometimes there are typing errors. Its value is in its immediacy, not in its spelling accuracy. (getting the right milepost where the accident took place still counts. :-) )

So in my case you get one of those post-modern "it depends" answers on this. If we're doing a a story asserting mortgage fraud, you bet that gets triplechecked for facts and phrasing. An ephemeral text message blast about traffic, not so much.

 

[sagewolf]

The standard response I get to such questions (I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand that, can you rephrase it) is either a look that implies the person thinks I'm an idiot for not following their train of thought perfectly or a look that implies that I've implied that they're idiots for saying something that makes no sense. What's more, more often than not, the revised answer doesn't make any more sense than the first one.

Like Sugarpop, I like to have everything clarified and laid out before I start, just so I know I'm on the same page as everyone else. But I've almost never bothered to actually make it happen. I rely on my intuition and the context of the conversation to define what I think they mean, and I'm normally right. If there is nothing else for which I am grateful I have an extraverted intuiting function, figuring out what people are saying is it.

 

[Sugarpop]

My sense of detail and correctness is mostly limited to the language. Don't ask me what I'm wearing today and expect me to answer without checking.

I am, however, sensistive to when the premises of a discussion are vague. When the concepts people refer to are vague or problematic, I realize that the discussion is meaningless (How can we discuss whether people are selfish unless we all agree what 'selfish' is, and the concept itself is meaningful?)

People don't seem to share my metaperspective.

 

[EditorOne]

My sense of detail and correctness is mostly limited to the language. Don't ask me what I'm wearing today and expect me to answer without checking.

I am, however, sensistive to when the premises of a discussion are vague. When the concepts people refer to are vague or problematic, I realize that the discussion is meaningless (How can we discuss whether people are selfish unless we all agree what 'selfish' is, and the concept itself is meaningful?)

People don't seem to share my metaperspective.

Dealing with folks who don't share our metaperspective is pretty much how we're distinct from much of the rest of the world, isnt' it?

The most troubling example of what you're talking that I know of is the extremely sloppiness in all quarters regarding the terms "liberal" and "conservative." So far as I can tell the original meanings are dust and each word is a substitute for pejoratives in the mouths of its opponents. You can't communicate under those conditions and might as well get right down to it and start throwing punches.

 

[Anling]

I am (oddly enough, in my opinion) in the same position as facetious. My world of work (journalism) used to set an obsessively compulsive premium on detail accuracy, to the point where something might be proofread by five people before going into print and there would be hour-long debates about comma placement and sentence structure and whether it is flier or flyer. Now, however, if we did that with an online breaking news item or text message alert about an accident tying up traffic on the interstate, our clients would be caught in the jam while we proofread it five times. So they get that news as fast as fingers can fly over keyboards and, yes, sometimes there are typing errors. Its value is in its immediacy, not in its spelling accuracy. (getting the right milepost where the accident took place still counts. :-) )

So in my case you get one of those post-modern "it depends" answers on this. If we're doing a a story asserting mortgage fraud, you bet that gets triplechecked for facts and phrasing. An ephemeral text message blast about traffic, not so much.

I wish our local paper were so fastidious as to do even one proofread before they print. I'm probably being over critical, but it is ridiculous what mistakes make it through sometimes. If it were only typos it wouldn't be so bad, but every now and then I have to wonder if they even thought about what they were saying as they typed it's so muddled.

 

[cheese]

Yes to grammatical and spelling accuracy. Defining the key terms and spotting assumptions, ambiguities etc in discussions are also hugely important to me, and hugely irritating to everyone else. I used to feel like an old stodge for being so pedantic but I understand it now. "INTP!" I say in response to every venomous look I get (this is a lie).

Accuracy over detail is important to me, but what matters more is how the overall argument hangs together. If I see anyone else poring over miniscule detail (like EditorOne's stuff) I usually feel like screaming in terror, but often fall into the same trap if left to myself. I like to set the argument out clearly, test the links between premises and conclusion, and then check the accuracy of the premises.

At least, I think so. I'm not very sure about which matters more to me. But yes, it matters. Sometimes I'm lazy though. I can also be quite slow, with other NTs. With other types it's usually quite simple.

 

[Sugarpop]

Still, a lot of my errors in math assignments are caused by my tendency to solve them as quickly as possible, doing most of the operations in my head without bothering to write everything down.

 

[Lestaticon]

You've all made great points about accuracy. Lack of accuracy, and therefore lack of meaning, is something we (INTP) are very sensitive to. Just like EditorOne's example on two misused terms, you can watch entire groups of people essentially (in my opinion) waste their lives and time fighting a fight that (again, from my perspective) does not really exist. The things they fight about are not really the heart of the matter or have no real meaning because they are essentially not accurate.
That's always been a problem. People, in general, have to assign labels to everything. In that process oversimplification occurs. Ideas are limited and shuffled into being black or white. I think INTP types are very comfortable with the fact that the world and universe is in fact gray. We get the odd looks and sense from others of being stubborn because we hate or are uncomfortable limiting our perspectives.

Idealy speaking.

 

[cheese]

^ YES.

Especially
entire groups of people essentially (in my opinion) waste their lives and time fighting a fight that (again, from my perspective) does not really exist.

But when I knock their heads together they get all pissy.

 

[chocolate]

Hi Sugarpop,

I am just like you. I get into trouble for being too precise, but I find it really hard to talk about something when, well, I don't know what I'm talking about! In addition, I've been educated my whole adult life in a discipline where I've been trained to not take anything for granted, which probably adds fuel to the fire.

I find in most general discussions it gets to a point where we have to define further what we are talking about or it goes nowhere (in my opinion). But then a lot of people don't want to take it to that level so I'm not left with an intellectually satisfying discussion. I have that need to analyze everything to as far a point as possible, or else I feel vague and uncomfortable (this is what I found difficult about physics and why I switched to math in university, because the physics did not stand up to that level of scrutiny).

The other night some guy called from the government. He was taking a survey, but of course, he was not allowed to interpret anything for me, only to ask and record my answers. I found I could not answer many of the questions because I needed more clarification (I am not one to have opinions about things I have not very deeply considered or know exactly what I'm talking about) which he couldn't give me, or I couldn't answer them because none of the choices was satisfactory.

So it makes me a bit dysfunctional, but I don't really know how to correct that.

Chocky.

 

[Lestaticon]

Indeed, chocolate. The worst thing is being given a quiz/test and not agreeing with the questions. I hate to try to answer a question which could technically be answered in many different ways, or, is invalid due to not having enough data given. I'm sure there are some who don't think of those details and can just answer the question without even blinking. Sometimes makes me feel like the answer must be simplified or falsified and forced through a straw when the answer should come as a giant wave.

 

[FF]

When my mom gets angry, she talks with this thick, angry, Persian accent. And she pronounces a few words incorrectly. So when she's yelling at me for something that I did wrong, I always feel the need to correct her pronunciation errors.

And then she gets more mad at me and hits me.

 

[chocolate]

Sometimes makes me feel like the answer must be simplified or falsified and forced through a straw when the answer should come as a giant wave.

For some reason that totally makes sense to me! Nice imagery!

 

[Perseus]

I like accuracy. I approach everything with radical doubt and a scientific mindset. This makes me rather particular about grammar and definitions. Whenever I'm in a discussion, I will instantly see any ambiguity in its language and the vagueness in its definitions.

Others don't seem to recognize the importance I put on precision and my need to clarify any definitions central to the topic in question. Should the desire to discuss the problematic concept of 'selfishness' as a part of answering the question 'Are all humans selfish?' be met with laughter and a here-is-Sugarpop-again-with-his-anal-retentive sort of attitude?

Do you feel the same way about accuracy? How do others respond?

I feel the same. I get accused of being pedantic, obstructive, disruptive, a troublemaker, and much worse, especially if the Wolfmen (ENTJ) are in charge, and if the Big Cats (ESFP) rule I am just called lazy, and is the Horsemen (ESFJ) are in control they are apt to be insulting in the first thing their crazy minds can think up!

The Guards (SJ) are just called out to do their dirty work. The Mouse (ISFJ) is the poison pen and the Rat (ESXJ) is the agent of more sophisticated deception.

This is because of my high perception of 11/12 rather than high thinking. The Judging-Perception dispute is the biggest one in the work place. I get accused of having too much time on my hands to think of things wrong!