[INTJ] MBTI and Ivy leagues - Page 3

MBTI and Ivy leagues

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 28 of 28
Thank Tree22Thanks

This is a discussion on MBTI and Ivy leagues within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by Ephemerald Perhaps I'd agree had I not found my ideal career through many transitions already. A lack ...

  1. #21
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Ephemerald View Post
    Perhaps I'd agree had I not found my ideal career through many transitions already. A lack of materialistic endeavor contributes heavily. I can live on less than $600 a month and be very happy. Prestige means nothing to me within the greater facet and relativity of the world. So you're a politician, lawyer, scientist, commander, professor--it means nothing to me. I carry no respect for a piece of paper, or the years you've spent earning it--and I speak as one who's earned many pieces of papers, but who cares not to graduate. Designations upon diplomas mean nothing. I value one upon what they present to me as their character. Teach me something that wasn't taught by some shithead with tenure and I shall respect you.

    I will concede one point: If he is happy, good for him. He should be happy. Best wishes.
    I really admire this kind of mental state ;-)
    But I felt the need to give my input for the INTJs who are still choosing their university. For an INTJ who is more ambitious, and who isn't sure about what to do later and who may want to pursue more business relate career (eq: going to MBA, doing banking etc. ) Prestige does open doors and network does help, always. It's not about what feels wrong or right for a INTJ but about what 90% of people think and taking advantage of this. It comes down to what you want out of life. And as I said I admire your way of thinking.

    As for Thay: with globalization, don't you think things are going to change? Even the other European countries are more similar to the US. In France it's worse. If you didn't go to a high ranked "Grande Ecole" people will never give you any opportunity whereas in the US individual qualities like leadership etc. are more valued.

  2. #22
    Unknown Personality


    Quote Originally Posted by daeneirys View Post
    As for Thay: with globalization, don't you think things are going to change? Even the other European countries are more similar to the US. In France it's worse. If you didn't go to a high ranked "Grande Ecole" people will never give you any opportunity whereas in the US individual qualities like leadership etc. are more valued.
    There's that, and I agree that there's a difference between Scandinavia and Central Europe. (And there's a decent, and possibly growing, number of Scandinavians who'd disagree with me on the merits/nature of education.)

    However this kind of competition is IMHO fundamentally self-defeating in the long run. To explain why would require a lengthy post which I lack the time and energy for at the moment; I'm generally disinclined to influence others so I don't feel terribly interested in explaining, either. I may return later to this thread and explain anyway, just to organise my own thoughts on the topic

    The backbone of my argument would build on how competition emerged as a key factor in driving evolution forward, and how this is generally successful as long as it is physical in nature; however once competition becomes mostly cognitive, it turns against itself in a significant number of ways, most of which relate to motivation and resource efficiency. Throw in parachuting cats and you can build a decent case for the (traditional) Scandinavian model.

    Later, perhaps.
    Last edited by Thay; 12-14-2014 at 12:53 AM.

  3. #23
    ENFP - The Inspirers

    @Thay

    That you metioned competition being self defeating in the long run reminds me of this:
    Stigmergy

    Posted on December 24, 2012 by Heather Marsh
    Kind people have stigmergically translated this article into German, French, andSpanish.
    Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions. The principle is that the trace left in the environment by an action stimulates the performance of a next action, by the same or a different agent. In that way, subsequent actions tend to reinforce and build on each other, leading to the spontaneous emergence of coherent, apparently systematic activity. Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. – Wikipedia
    Most systems are now run by competitive organizations. Competition creates redundancy, is slow and wastes resources on idea protection, advertisement, and more. Competition also requires secrecy which blocks progress and auditing and causes lost opportunities and ideas. Patents and copyrights further limit speed and the potential for mass input of ideas. Collaboration between the people with the greatest expertise does not happen unless they are hired by the same project.
    The alternative to competition has traditionally been cooperation. This is most effective only in groups of two to eight people. For groups larger than 25, cooperation is agonizingly slow, an exercise in personality management which quickly degenerates into endless discussion and soothing of ruffled feathers, is extremely vulnerable to agent provocateurs, and in large scale groups very seldom accomplishes anything of value. Cooperation traditionally operates on the democratic principle that all voices are equal, so it does not allow for leaders, or users with greater expertise, energy or understanding to have greater influence than those on the periphery. Cooperation wastes a great deal of time and resources in both discussing and discussing the discussions. In an action based system, this discussion is rarely required as the opinion of those not doing the work is probably of little value unless it is solicited advice from a trusted knowledgeable party.
    Cooperation and consensus based systems are usually dominated by extroverted personalities who make decisions to control the work of others and are justly resented by those doing the actual work. Most workers do not enjoy a hierarchical system as shown in the chart below, as they lose autonomy, mastery and creative control over their own work; the feeling at the bottom is no different whether there is a horizontal or a hierarchical structure making the decisions. Cooperative systems frequently use consensus or votes to make decisions for the entire group; these methods may not produce the best results as many people may not understand the work if they are not actually doing it, and they may demand things they would never be willing to do themselves. Consensus based systems are also prone to the ‘hive mind’ appropriation of credit for individual ideas and labour which causes further resentment.
    Hierarchical System

    Consensus Hierarchy

    In the Stigmergy chart below, all workers have full autonomy to create as they wish; the power of the user group is in the ability to accept or reject the work. Since there is no officially designated person to perform a task the users are free to create alternatives if they do not like what they are offered. Workers are free to create regardless of acceptance or rejection; in the chart below some work may be accepted by the largest group, some alternatives for a different user group, some only by a small group, and sometimes the worker will be alone with their vision. In all cases the worker is still free to create as they wish. History has shown no drastically innovative ideas that received instant mainstream acceptance and history also shows that radically new ideas are most often the result of solitary vision; to leave control of work to group consensus only is to cripple innovation.
    Stigmergy

    In a competitive environment, a new idea is jealously guarded, legally protected and shrouded in secrecy. Great effort is expended in finding supporters for the idea while also ensuring that the idea remains covered by legal protections such as non-disclosure agreements. The idea remains inextricably bound to the creator until it is legally transferred to another owner and all contributors work for the owner, not the idea. Contributors must then be rewarded by the owner which further limits the potential for development and wastes more resources in legal agreements, lawsuits, etc. Contributors have no interest in whether the project succeeds or fails and no motivation to contribute more than they are rewarded for.
    If the idea is instead developed cooperatively, it must first be pitched by the originator, who will attempt to persuade a group to adopt the idea. The group must be in agreement with the idea itself and with every stage of its development. The majority of energy and resources are spent on communication, persuasion, and personality management, and the working environment is fraught with arguments and power struggles. Because the project is driven by a group, albeit a cooperative one, the group is still competitive with other similar outside projects, and still wastes resources and energy on secrecy, competitive evangelizing, etc. Both competitive and cooperative projects will die if the group that runs the project leaves and both will attract or repel contributors based on the personalities of the existing group. Both are hierarchical systems where individuals need to seek permission to contribute. Both focus on the authority of personalities to approve a decision instead of focusing on the idea or action itself.
    Stigmergy is neither competitive nor traditionally collaborative.
    With stigmergy, an initial idea is freely given, and the project is driven by the idea, not by a personality or group of personalities. No individual needs permission (competitive) or consensus (cooperative) to propose an idea or initiate a project. There is no need to discuss or vote on the idea, if an idea is exciting or necessary it will attract interest. The interest attracted will be from people actively involved in the system and willing to put effort into carrying the project further, not empty votes from people with little interest or involvement. Since the project is supported or rejected based on contributed effort, not empty votes, input from people with more commitment to the idea will have greater weight. Stigmergy also puts individuals in control over their own work, they do not need group permission to tell them what system to work on or what part to contribute.
    The person with the initial idea may or may not carry the task further. Evangelizing the idea is voluntary, by a group that is excited by the idea; they may or may not be the ones to carry it out. It is unnecessary to seek start up funding and supporters; if an idea is good it will receive the support required. (In practice, that is not true yet, as few people have the free time to put into volunteer projects because most are tied to compulsory work under the existing financial system. Additionally, we still live in a personality driven system where only powerful personalities are heard.) Secrecy and competition is unnecessary because once an idea is given, it and all new development belongs to anyone who chooses to work on it. Anyone can submit work for approval, the idea cannot die or be put on hold by personalities; acceptance or rejection is for the work contributed, not the person contributing it. All ideas are accepted or rejected based on the needs of the system.
    Responsibility and rights for the system rest with the entire user group, not just the creators. There is no need for people to leave the system based on personality conflicts as there is no need for communication outside of task completion and there are usually plenty of jobs with complete autonomy. As no one owns the system, there is no need for a competing group to be started to change ownership to a different group.
    Stigmergy provides little scope for agent provocateurs as only the needs of the system are considered. Anyone working against the system’s functionality is much easier to see and prevent than someone blocking progress with endless discussion and creation of personality conflicts. Because the system is owned by all, there is also no one leader to target.



    Thay thanked this post.

  4. #24
    ENFP - The Inspirers

    @Thay

    That you metioned competition being self defeating in the long run reminds me of this:
    Stigmergy

    Posted on December 24, 2012 by Heather Marsh on Georgie BC (A blog)
    Kind people have stigmergically translated this article into German, French, andSpanish.
    Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions. The principle is that the trace left in the environment by an action stimulates the performance of a next action, by the same or a different agent. In that way, subsequent actions tend to reinforce and build on each other, leading to the spontaneous emergence of coherent, apparently systematic activity. Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. – Wikipedia
    Most systems are now run by competitive organizations. Competition creates redundancy, is slow and wastes resources on idea protection, advertisement, and more. Competition also requires secrecy which blocks progress and auditing and causes lost opportunities and ideas. Patents and copyrights further limit speed and the potential for mass input of ideas. Collaboration between the people with the greatest expertise does not happen unless they are hired by the same project.
    The alternative to competition has traditionally been cooperation. This is most effective only in groups of two to eight people. For groups larger than 25, cooperation is agonizingly slow, an exercise in personality management which quickly degenerates into endless discussion and soothing of ruffled feathers, is extremely vulnerable to agent provocateurs, and in large scale groups very seldom accomplishes anything of value. Cooperation traditionally operates on the democratic principle that all voices are equal, so it does not allow for leaders, or users with greater expertise, energy or understanding to have greater influence than those on the periphery. Cooperation wastes a great deal of time and resources in both discussing and discussing the discussions. In an action based system, this discussion is rarely required as the opinion of those not doing the work is probably of little value unless it is solicited advice from a trusted knowledgeable party.
    Cooperation and consensus based systems are usually dominated by extroverted personalities who make decisions to control the work of others and are justly resented by those doing the actual work. Most workers do not enjoy a hierarchical system as shown in the chart below, as they lose autonomy, mastery and creative control over their own work; the feeling at the bottom is no different whether there is a horizontal or a hierarchical structure making the decisions. Cooperative systems frequently use consensus or votes to make decisions for the entire group; these methods may not produce the best results as many people may not understand the work if they are not actually doing it, and they may demand things they would never be willing to do themselves. Consensus based systems are also prone to the ‘hive mind’ appropriation of credit for individual ideas and labour which causes further resentment.
    Hierarchical System

    Consensus Hierarchy

    In the Stigmergy chart below, all workers have full autonomy to create as they wish; the power of the user group is in the ability to accept or reject the work. Since there is no officially designated person to perform a task the users are free to create alternatives if they do not like what they are offered. Workers are free to create regardless of acceptance or rejection; in the chart below some work may be accepted by the largest group, some alternatives for a different user group, some only by a small group, and sometimes the worker will be alone with their vision. In all cases the worker is still free to create as they wish. History has shown no drastically innovative ideas that received instant mainstream acceptance and history also shows that radically new ideas are most often the result of solitary vision; to leave control of work to group consensus only is to cripple innovation.
    Stigmergy

    In a competitive environment, a new idea is jealously guarded, legally protected and shrouded in secrecy. Great effort is expended in finding supporters for the idea while also ensuring that the idea remains covered by legal protections such as non-disclosure agreements. The idea remains inextricably bound to the creator until it is legally transferred to another owner and all contributors work for the owner, not the idea. Contributors must then be rewarded by the owner which further limits the potential for development and wastes more resources in legal agreements, lawsuits, etc. Contributors have no interest in whether the project succeeds or fails and no motivation to contribute more than they are rewarded for.
    If the idea is instead developed cooperatively, it must first be pitched by the originator, who will attempt to persuade a group to adopt the idea. The group must be in agreement with the idea itself and with every stage of its development. The majority of energy and resources are spent on communication, persuasion, and personality management, and the working environment is fraught with arguments and power struggles. Because the project is driven by a group, albeit a cooperative one, the group is still competitive with other similar outside projects, and still wastes resources and energy on secrecy, competitive evangelizing, etc. Both competitive and cooperative projects will die if the group that runs the project leaves and both will attract or repel contributors based on the personalities of the existing group. Both are hierarchical systems where individuals need to seek permission to contribute. Both focus on the authority of personalities to approve a decision instead of focusing on the idea or action itself.
    Stigmergy is neither competitive nor traditionally collaborative.
    With stigmergy, an initial idea is freely given, and the project is driven by the idea, not by a personality or group of personalities. No individual needs permission (competitive) or consensus (cooperative) to propose an idea or initiate a project. There is no need to discuss or vote on the idea, if an idea is exciting or necessary it will attract interest. The interest attracted will be from people actively involved in the system and willing to put effort into carrying the project further, not empty votes from people with little interest or involvement. Since the project is supported or rejected based on contributed effort, not empty votes, input from people with more commitment to the idea will have greater weight. Stigmergy also puts individuals in control over their own work, they do not need group permission to tell them what system to work on or what part to contribute.
    The person with the initial idea may or may not carry the task further. Evangelizing the idea is voluntary, by a group that is excited by the idea; they may or may not be the ones to carry it out. It is unnecessary to seek start up funding and supporters; if an idea is good it will receive the support required. (In practice, that is not true yet, as few people have the free time to put into volunteer projects because most are tied to compulsory work under the existing financial system. Additionally, we still live in a personality driven system where only powerful personalities are heard.) Secrecy and competition is unnecessary because once an idea is given, it and all new development belongs to anyone who chooses to work on it. Anyone can submit work for approval, the idea cannot die or be put on hold by personalities; acceptance or rejection is for the work contributed, not the person contributing it. All ideas are accepted or rejected based on the needs of the system.
    Responsibility and rights for the system rest with the entire user group, not just the creators. There is no need for people to leave the system based on personality conflicts as there is no need for communication outside of task completion and there are usually plenty of jobs with complete autonomy. As no one owns the system, there is no need for a competing group to be started to change ownership to a different group.
    Stigmergy provides little scope for agent provocateurs as only the needs of the system are considered. Anyone working against the system’s functionality is much easier to see and prevent than someone blocking progress with endless discussion and creation of personality conflicts. Because the system is owned by all, there is also no one leader to target.

  5. #25
    Unknown Personality


    Thanks, @iemanja. How very ENFPish of you to post a long, off-topic article not just once, but twice I don't mind in the least, I love tangents as long as I learn something new. (Ne is strong with this one... )

    I hadn't heard of stigmergy as a concept, thanks for sharing the article. My thoughts follow some of those lines, but I haven't gotten as far as proposing an alternative - merely criticising what is, that is, competition, cooperation and various combinations of the two. I'll see if I can be arsed to elaborate at some point. I believe there is a point in the evolution of humanity where competitiveness becomes counterproductive, making us as a species less likely to survive; what may be good for a small number of individuals and small groups within society becomes detrimental for the species, and global society, as a whole.

    I'm not sure stigmergy would work as an alternative. My gut feeling says no, but I'd have to contemplate it. One has to always be mindful of the cognitive and behavioural characteristics of the common homo (non) sapiens - which generally leave much to be desired

  6. #26
    INTJ - The Scientists

    I don't need nor want the level of prestige that comes with being an Ivy League. I also find the entire history behind it silly, dealing so heavily with athleticism (something I'll never be interested in) and social elitism. No offense to those who chose to go to them -- it probably meshed well with you -- but it never really appealed to me. The only thing that I thirst for that Ivy League schools have is the gorgeous architecture of the buildings. I'll forever be envious of that.

    Otherwise I'm perfectly happy at my University, which is also old, rich, and research heavy.

  7. #27

    I applied to Harvard, just for shits mostly though, didn't expect to get in. I also applied to Brown and got in, but didn't go there.

  8. #28
    ENFP - The Inspirers

    @Thay Ooops....so THAT'S why I got a message saying "you can't post twice in 30 seconds". Honestly though I swear I only pressed the post button once! XD XD

    Yes, I realised there weren't enough tangents happening in this thread :D See, even beneath your post everyone just catapults right back to the main topic! But yes, the concept of stigmergy is pretty obscure (an INFJ family member dug it up; trust them to dig this stuff up, right?).

    I agree, stigmergy has several pitfalls. It requires a highly motivated group, or else the whole system would collapse into complete disarray. The problem is that people naturally want to do whatever it is their social constructs shove them into doing by default. It takes less effort to conform after all.

    Well, whether stigmergy works or not, it's great to see an alternative to the traditional system of competition (and of collaboration).

    ###

    ~Back to you dearest INTJs, do carry on without minding this discussion too much :)~
    Thay thanked this post.


     
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI-DATABANK : MBTI and Enneagramm typing site
    By segovois in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-31-2014, 09:20 AM
  2. MBTI Approach to Leadership - Practical for applying MBTI to the workplace
    By Black Rabbit in forum Education & Career Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 10:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:45 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0