Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol  And now you seem to be saying that checking the accuracy of any belief is something that doesn't resonate with you.
Oh, well... |
Someone saying that "something doesn't resonate with them" may be more telling than it seems.
To shed some light on this situation for those interested:
All my various patterning tells me that Bristol is an accuracy seeker. Some may call him a skeptic, but no, that may not be quite accurate, although accuracy-seeking does lead to what may seem to be skepticism (it threw me at first, too).
I had a discussion longer than any of you care to know about with a hoard of skeptics and people who wanted to kill my ideas a while ago.
At the end of the discussion, I walked away with an understanding of what accuracy-seekers are looking for in all of their critical analysis: simplicity. Elegance. They want things to be more simple. Even if things are complex and it's better to work with things like that, they want things to be more simple because it's easier to work with. And that "easier to work with" is the key that gives it away.
Suffice to say this is all textbook talent stuff, and if you give me someone like Bristol, I bet you'll find talents that relate to being drawn to simplicity.
On the other hand, people like me break when they see simplicity. I say, "ok, it's simple, but is it comprehensive?" While accuracy-seekers may see complexity within simplicity, I see simplicity within complexity.
It's all extremely relative, and the best thing to do when dealing with people of vastly different talents it to acknowledge that you literally speak another conceptual language and see the world differently and go do what is productive. You will never come to a consensus, and if you do, it will be an uneasy one. It's kind of sad that people can't agree on some things, but it's also amazing to know that we are such specialists, and there is so much we can do with such intense specialisation. Unfortunately our world kind of standardises everything (we need more Individualisers!), but it's getting better slowly (which does nothing for my Activator talent
).
When I make 40 Twitter posts and people can view my Twitter post archives, I'll be able to say "for more strengths and talents info, see my Twitter profile." It may sound like I'm speaking another language when I speak of things such as "Activator" and "Individualisation", and honestly, that's what I'm doing. My hope is that I can only confuse everyone as much as people's lack of specificness and comprehensiveness confuses me.
(Oh and in case it wasn't obvious, there's some humour somewhere in there among all those words. Maybe I need more emoticons)