A good deal of what is being said does seem to be stuff I can relate to. I have a strong tendency to pursue a task to a fairly high degree of proficiency and then move on to another primary interest without ever quite pushing the previous skill to the greatest achievable heights. I think that there is a strong diminishing returns factor; to a large extent what I enjoy most is observing my own progress in an area, and as reward signals decrease I tend to lose interest.
This has often been problematic as my motivation is almost entirely tied up with my interest in a task. I can relate to your comment in particular; I don't get the highest grades (though I do get pretty good ones), but I am always reading papers in multiple areas and pursuing multiple academic side interests.
I am more of an autodidact than anything, as I learn quite a bit more on my own that I do in my courses; though I find that often getting a more formal basis lets me pursue knowledge on my own more efficiently. I tend to find forums in which to debate new concepts in order to make faster progress; being corrected and trying to defend a point are often good motivators for learning more about a subject.
As far as perfectionism goes, I guess I don't really like to be corrected, but I always turn the minor embarrassment into energy for pursuing knowledge on the topic. I also tend to get frustrated when progress is slow if I've set a certain goal; I experience psychic discomfort/constant anxiety if I cannot pursue my goal, and this has occasionally gotten in the way of other activities such as attending classes.
I tend to find forums in which to debate new concepts in order to make faster progress; being corrected and trying to defend a point are often good motivators for learning more about a subject.
Ah yes, definitely!! I've found that true too. But unfortunately, it doesn't quite work for graduate-level work simply because by then, you get a better command in the literature than just about anyone on any random forum (even if you hang out on the forums with people much smarter than average), and academic societies aren't that great at encouraging debates. :(
Yes, I've run into that issue as well. People with specialized knowledge just aren't common enough to continuously pursue the online debating route, so I've found that I can usually only do this for subjects I am beginning to learn rather than ones that I have been learning for quite a while.
The perfect is the enemy of themselves.
"Albert Ellis has suggested three core beliefs or philosophies that humans tend to disturb themselves through:[16]
"I absolutely MUST, under practically all conditions and at all times, perform well (or outstandingly well) and win the approval (or complete love) of significant others. If I fail in these important—and sacred—respects, that is awful and I am a bad, incompetent, unworthy person, who will probably always fail and deserves to suffer." "Other people with whom I relate or associate, absolutely MUST, under practically all conditions and at all times, treat me nicely, considerately and fairly. Otherwise, it is terrible and they are rotten, bad, unworthy people who will always treat me badly and do not deserve a good life and should be severely punished for acting so abominably to me." "The conditions under which I live absolutely MUST, at practically all times, be favorable, safe, hassle-free, and quickly and easily enjoyable, and if they are not that way it’s awful and horrible and I can’t bear it. I can’t ever enjoy myself at all. My life is impossible and hardly worth living." Holding this belief when faced with adversity tends to contribute to feelings of anxiety, panic, depression, despair, and worthlessness. Holding this belief when faced with adversity tends to contribute to feelings of anger, rage, fury, and vindictiveness. Holding this belief when faced with adversity tends to contribute to frustration and discomfort, intolerance, self-pity, anger, depression, and to behaviors such as procrastination, avoidance, and inaction."
I played a game called Dragon Age where there was there is a religion called the Qun. ''An important concept in the Qun is the idea of "Asit tal-eb"—"It is to be": the idea that everything and everyone in the world has a nature, and all these things come together to form a proper order—such as the locust devouring crops. It is every individual's choice whether or not they act according to their nature and the nature of the world, or oppose the proper order, and as such fight against themselves and the world. The individual is not truly "individual", but part of the whole. Their own nature contributes to the larger nature of the world, and so their struggle against self-balance disrupts the balance of the whole, thus hurting themselves. Because of this, society is not considered artificial, but part of nature. ''
http://www.reddit.com/r/INTP/comments/i27i1/does_anyone_agree_that_this_is_the_biggest/
What are your thoughts on this thread?