Questions for YOU

[docile]

intp but possibly infp here

I have some questions to get you all thinking about important things (as they pertain to me)!

Do you think about thinking and how others do it? Does it interfere with your life?

What personality type are you dating/married to?

GO GO GO!!

 

[KazeCraven]

I think about thinking in the sense of studying the psychology of thinking (i.e. how we problem solve). It does not "interfere" with my life, it is a crucial component of my life. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, as I only use other people's thought when it seems vastly different from mine, and then I would call it thinking about perspectives or philosophies rather than how they think.

Also, my guess is that your thread title won't attract many individuals. I just like posting in threads with few posts in them.

 

[PapyrusAirplanes]

Do you think about thinking and how others do it? Does it interfere with your life?

Do you mean analyzing and MBTI-ing everyone? Yes. Always.
I try to figure out how a person thinks before I talk to him/her. That way I'll be less likely to offend, bore, awkward-ize, etc.

Sometimes it interferes with my life. My family and I talk about MBTI constantly, so sometimes we seem strange to people who don't know about Type. My Typing friends and I have a boatload of fun, though.

What personality type are you dating/married to?

In the past I've been involved with an ENTP, an ESTP, and an INFP. I've decided not to date for a few years, but if that were not the case, my ISFJ friend and I would be together.

 

[Latro]

My current obsession in terms of thinking about thinking is linguistic. I've been studying Lojban for a number of months and am comfortable enough to carry on a conversation, although my vocabulary is still relatively limited. Studying this has made me consider a lot about what language does to our thought processes. I'm very highly auditory and linguistic (almost all of my thoughts are in words; in writing this post there is no "translation" from abstraction to words, there are simply words) so I think it affects me more strongly than others, but I do think that it affects others as well.

The short version is that I think Sapir-Whorf is absolutely true and that perhaps something even stronger than Sapir-Whorf is true.

For an example of some very narrow-minded pondering in this regard:

Spoiler

Consider the sentence (this is a slightly modified version of an actual sentence from a recent conversation):
Alice is being mean to me, Bob and Carol!
This sentence, as written in text, is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as:
Alice is being mean to {me, Bob and Carol}!
or as:
Alice is being mean to me, {Bob and Carol}!
The former being a list of objects of "be mean to", the latter having one object of "be mean to" and then two vocatives. It seems at first that this is a core ambiguity of English, but it is actually not: it is an ambiguity brought about by the language's lack of audiovisual isomorphism. Why? Imagine saying the first sentence and the second sentence. When saying the first sentence, the tone does not change significantly between the three last nouns; on the other hand, in the second sentence, there is a falling tone after "me" up to the pause and then a rising tone. In speech we thus resolve this easily; in writing we lack the tools to resolve it.

Why isn't English audiovisually isomorphic? Is it because it was formed in a way that wasn't originally written, and then we hacked together a system that allowed us to write it?

Note that I do know that the second form can be unambiguously written as:
Bob and Carol, Alice is being mean to me!
The first cannot be unambiguously written, however, I claim.