I have to say at the start that people have different personalities, and consequently the kind of interaction that gives them satisfaction is a parameter that varies largely from person to person. I would like to divide people into two classes (neither exclusive nor exhaustive) - one who is extremely sure of what he wants to do, how he plans to do it, and what his opinions are on several issues. Such a person may be charachterised by an environment invariant measure - his thoughts and actions are seldom a function of where he is, or who he is keeping company with. Let us for the sake of simplicity call him a closed set. There is another class of persons, who are amenable (very highly) to draw inspiration from their surroundings. These surroundings mostly inlcude their sphere of interaction, available avenues for recreation and learning, etc. The latter person is in my opinion, one that I identify with closer. I should clarify at the outset, that this persona is NOT one who follows the herd, and has no mind of his own. This has more to do with the psychological metric known as Agreeableness (one of the Big 5 personality traits).
I find that my interests and curiosity are easily triggered by (interests/knowledge) of people i interact with. It is not up to you and I to categorize such behaviour under those broad clasifiers of good OR bad, but it may have its own merits and demerits on varying occassions. This ablity to inspire that a person has, has a very strong correlation with the interests and aptitude of the beneficiary of such inspiration. So, i value my peers very highly, especially those i like to interact with and consequently draw inspiriation , ideas from. Also, it is my humble belief that this interactive exchange of knowledge, ideas and more broadly perspective of opinion that we share - is mutual, and i feel very glad whenever i possess within me, the capacity to shed light on some topic, or obliviate my own ignorance on another.
A toast to all my friends, and a toast to the collective knowledge that we have helped each other attain and enrich.
cheers
(written a week ago i think, was too lazy to post )
Joy
11 months ago
5 comments:
I'm impressed...you finally decided to key down your thoughts. I see this is about the peer review discussion we had the other day. Interesting thoughts.
My only objection--since a good critic is supposed to raise an objection and I'm certainly better than that--is to the classification of one man as a closed set. I think you meant, ''the element of a closed set''..
thanks !
well yes, mistakes like those happen when u dont read what you write ... and i am morally against editing a post once it has been commented on
PS: can you please remind me of the details of that discussion, it seems to have escaped me like i thought only quantum mechanics(I, not II) and microelectronics (II, not I) could ?
huh! is my first reaction, this is too complicated to understand at the first read....but when u go throught it fully, has some nice points to it.
I find that I perhaps pride myself on being in the econd group of persons, and to tell the truth, except a obvious few, I don't really think I have any peers who fall in the first group
suggestion: put in paragraphs please
Suggestion seconded.
"Closed set" serves the purpose but if you'll allow me, I'd like to suggest a framework that will provide you with constructs for dealing and deciphering your observations (quite astute, btw)
Your familiarity with the Big Five Personality traits suggests you may have already been introduced to this framework but what kind of blog stalker would I be if I didn't at least try to further your knowledge.
K, enough BS; check out Carl Jung's theory. He provides a psychometric tool with which you can better understand the self and everything human. Its current day application is the MBTI tool.
Start here: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
Google the results once you get them.
Warning: This may take away considerable time from exams, click at your own peril!
Post a Comment