[cpbell0033944]

Let me begin by saying that this was nothing less than a superb reply. You have even gone so far as to exceed my own efforts to expound on certain points. This pleases me to no end.

I picked up breaking quotes down to respond in immediate context way back on usenet. Sorry if it bugs you but while clearly not an issue for you, in entering into any level of depth in a discussion, I have found that too many other people would get confused when a response was all packed together. It resulted in more time and energy being spent in realigning people's misunderstandings, then being able to focus on expanding on a topic.

I am less so "saying" in opinion than I am speculating. This whole thing began because she piqued my interest as a "curiosity".

Well I am among those here who prefers not to delve beyond a certain amount of personal disclosure. I will say I have a varied background which includes both humanities and science. My sciences were more research oriented than practical as medical sciences are. By no means am I going to claim expertise where none exist though. At this stage of my life, I am far departed from many of the subjects I once pursued. While I will back up my facts within reason, I mostly elect to stick with observations, opinion, and speculation.

My example was actually based in part on Albert Einstein who no  one is likely to question as being possessed of a "higher intellect", yet is known to have done poorly in school. (It has been suggested that Einstein was "learning disabled", but even if true, I am of the belief that his grades were a reflection of both the learning disabilities and of his cerebral nature.)

Again, as I stated above, you explained yourself superbly.  😀

I see it as more a difference of cerebral emphasis. So maybe the cerebrally geared  directions of philosophy and research science contrasted against your practically geared medical sciences. But I have little background in medicine, so I may be out on a limb with my classifying it as being "practically geared".

*blink*

*nod*

Yeah, ummm, I don't actually have anything I feel that I can respond to here. They are your personal experiences, and you are the best judge.

Sooo…. thanks for sharing?  ;D ::)

phenoms

Thanks for the compliment, phenoms! 8)  I too like breaking-down a lengthy post, but was concerned that I might misplace "quote" markers and end-up in a muddle. ;D

I should perhaps explain that my background is in biology, and that my current course is in biomedical research, so I'm not a medical student, but rather a biologist who has moved slightly off-target.  I'm interested that you have a science background and can only say that I'm intrigued about your experiences in the light of this. 
I too have read theories on Einstein, and my view is that he may have had an autistic spectrum/Asperger's personality, as he was known to be akward in company yet had the ability to take his mind into realms inaccessible to the rest of us.

[phenoms]

Thanks for the compliment, phenoms! 8)

You are welcome. It was deserved. And this has allowed me to ponder this curious project by hotforwords.

I'm interested that you have a science background and can only say that I'm intrigued about your experiences in the light of this.

"Science background" while not technically incorrect strikes me as an overstatement (English can be nuanced). I at one time aimed for a science doctorate (I will leave you to wonder in what) but my life had some unplanned detours. Originally I intended to return to my originally planned course when circumstances allowed, but I have since had a change in priorities and no longer see that as a direction to be pursued.

My background is that I have held a lifelong interest, and studied as an undergraduate. Intellectually I am capable of discussing many topics conceptually. But I lack adequate training. To provide an example, it is like being able to grasp many of the concepts of quantum physics without being able to do the math the way a physicist does. It becomes more a philosophic endeavor than a scientific one at that point.

I am always actively studying and researching things. When I state facts, I am careful to back them up with research, be it past research, or looking it up first before making a factual statement in a post. I am literate enough, intelligent enough, and versed enough to unintentionally mislead people into believing that I possess a background, or credentials that I do not. I am careful to correct them when such false impressions arise. I am perfectly content to stand upon my own lorals.

I too have read theories on Einstein, and my view is that he may have had an autistic spectrum/Asperger's personality, as he was known to be akward in company yet had the ability to take his mind into realms inaccessible to the rest of us.

Einstein was friends with psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. Jung had theories of personality and Archetypes which he talked about in his book "Psychological Types". There exists a present day "offspring" of Jung's work known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI for short. While I have definite misgivings towards the MBTI which I will not get into here, it is well suited to potentially explaining what you are suggesting as Asperger's (which I consider an extreme classification in regard to Einstein). Among enthusiasts and experts in MBTI, Einstein is widely held to be of the "INTP" type (as is Jung). While I also have misgivings in suggesting type for historical figures who have never taken the MBTI and never had the opportunity to "self report" their "best fit type". (See Interactive Feedback of Your MBTI® Results and the bottom paragraph of MBTI® Instrument Comparison with Other Psychological Tests), for Einstein, I believe it to be an accurate identification of type.

Among the INTP community, the most widely held opinion of which INTP description is the best is the one by Paul James. It can be read on the INTP web site. Be forewarned, it is looooong (14 pages when printed). Also, disregard various commentary such as that pertaining to music. This is the link…

http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

There is a separate thread also in the Free For All section about the Myers-Briggs started by boinaka. I should point out that in that thread I identified myself as INTP. I talk a bit further on the subject there.

phenoms

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[cpbell0033944]

You are welcome. It was deserved. And this has allowed me to ponder this curious project by hotforwords.

"Science background" while not technically incorrect strikes me as an overstatement (English can be nuanced). I at one time aimed for a science doctorate (I will leave you to wonder in what) but my life had some unplanned detours. Originally I intended to return to my originally planned course when circumstances allowed, but I have since had a change in priorities and no longer see that as a direction to be pursued.

My background is that I have held a lifelong interest, and studied as an undergraduate. Intellectually I am capable of discussing many topics conceptually. But I lack adequate training. To provide an example, it is like being able to grasp many of the concepts of quantum physics without being able to do the math the way a physicist does. It becomes more a philosophic endeavor than a scientific one at that point.

Well, if you were an undergrad in a science subject, then, to me anyway, you have a science background 😉  I also wonder whether you are being a little modest in your assertion that you lack adequate training.

I am always actively studying and researching things. When I state facts, I am careful to back them up with research, be it past research, or looking it up first before making a factual statement in a post. I am literate enough, intelligent enough, and versed enough to unintentionally mislead people into believing that I possess a background, or credentials that I do not. I am careful to correct them when such false impressions arise. I am perfectly content to stand upon my own lorals.

I've long thought that people who try to improve themselves by researching something or teaching themselves in a field in which they have little prior knowledge are those who have genuine understanding and are keen to learn a subject for its own sake and on its own merits.

Einstein was friends with psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. Jung had theories of personality and Archetypes which he talked about in his book "Psychological Types". There exists a present day "offspring" of Jung's work known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI for short. While I have definite misgivings towards the MBTI which I will not get into here, it is well suited to potentially explaining what you are suggesting as Asperger's (which I consider an extreme classification in regard to Einstein). Among enthusiasts and experts in MBTI, Einstein is widely held to be of the "INTP" type (as is Jung). While I also have misgivings in suggesting type for historical figures who have never taken the MBTI and never had the opportunity to "self report" their "best fit type". (See Interactive Feedback of Your MBTI® Results and the bottom paragraph of MBTI® Instrument Comparison with Other Psychological Tests), for Einstein, I believe it to be an accurate identification of type.

Among the INTP community, the most widely held opinion of which INTP description is the best is the one by Paul James. It can be read on the INTP web site. Be forewarned, it is looooong (14 pages when printed). Also, disregard various commentary such as that pertaining to music. This is the link…

http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

There is a separate thread also in the Free For All section about the Myers-Briggs started by boinaka. I should point out that in that thread I identified myself as INTP. I talk a bit further on the subject there.

phenoms

I must admit, that's a subject in which I have minimal knowledge.  On looking-back at the Myers-Briggs thread, I see that I was categorised by my answers as "ESTJ" – sadly, I don't know what exactly that suggests about me.  I've actually rather seen myself as being a little bit anally retentive and not perhaps as socially adept as others, but whether that correlates, I don't know.

[phenoms]

There you go breaking up quotes again!  😛

Well, if you were an undergrad in a science subject, then, to me anyway, you have a science background 😉  I also wonder whether you are being a little modest in your assertion that you lack adequate training.

Nothing wrong with modesty. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Overstatements are well suited when attempting to illustrate a point, but make claims of grandeur and you're bound to find yourself backpedaling eventually. I would just as soon avoid such annoyances… you don't want to annoy me…. you wouldn't like me when I get annoyed.  8)

I must admit, that's a subject in which I have minimal knowledge.  On looking-back at the Myers-Briggs thread, I see that I was categorised by my answers as "ESTJ" – sadly, I don't know what exactly that suggests about me.  I've actually rather seen myself as being a little bit anally retentive and not perhaps as socially adept as others, but whether that correlates, I don't know.

Well firstly, did you find yourself identifying with the description that you read for ESTJ? If you have doubt as to how well it fit you then the answer is that it did not. MBTI is not about boxing anyone in, you take from it that which you find illuminating.

These "tests" are not fool proof. There is plenty of room for error. The MBTI is intended to be administered in person by someone properly qualified. Part of their role is to provide the sort of insight and guidance through the process that can only be offered by a flesh and blood human. Electronic versions are simply not as reliable.

"Don't know what correlates" in a description intended to help illuminate aspects of yourself? Well if you are not the best suited judge to know what correlates, I am afraid that I do not know who is.

phenoms

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[cpbell0033944]

Well firstly, did you find yourself identifying with the description that you read for ESTJ? If you have doubt as to how well it fit you then the answer is that it did not. MBTI is not about boxing anyone in, you take from it that which you find illuminating.

These "tests" are not fool proof. There is plenty of room for error. The MBTI is intended to be administered in person by someone properly qualified. Part of their role is to provide the sort of insight and guidance through the process that can only be offered by a flesh and blood human. Electronic versions are simply not as reliable.

"Don't know what correlates" in a description intended to help illuminate aspects of yourself? Well if you are not the best suited judge to know what correlates, I am afraid that I do not know who is.

phenoms

Problem is, I can't remember the description! ::) ;D :-[

[Author]

Posts