1
   

Why isn't everyone a Jim? (Slight insider)

 
 
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 12:07 am
I'm going to use Jim and Joe as made up words, which describe certain aspects of a person. I realize that I sort of took the original "Jim and Joe" out of context, whereas 'objectivity and subjectivity' used to be the difference between Joe and Jim.

My definition of Jim= Philosophical. Thinking outside of the box. I would think that most of us who think everything through, and are slightly intellectual, are classified as "Jim". Definition of Joe= A large percentage of the people that I see around me. Joe's are everywhere. From scientists, to math teachers, to dance instructors, and to so many other things. Even athletes. They remember and apply equations without fail most of the time.

Here's an example of how the two work together.

________
Jim was curious as to why things worked the way they did. He knew, for the most part, how they worked, but not why. He started messing with numbers, and began figuring out so many things. He figured out through various examples, that odd+odd=even, and that even+even=even. He then figured out that odd+even=odd. He figured out so many equations, because of how deeply he thought these numbers went. Then Joe came along, and memorized them quite quickly. Joe set these equations to so many different scenarios, and started using methods and formulas to teach them.

Basically, Jim moved numbers forward through deep thought, and Joe applied numbers to stuff. However, I don't think that Joes were born as Joes, and Jims were born as Jims.

I think that everyone was born as a Jim. Every four year old is curious as to how the world works, which is why they ask so many questions. Then they find something easy to apply, and they becomes Joes. They enter the box, and think inside of it as well. Through all I've achieved, however, I've stayed as a Jim.

The Jims have created so many ideas and formulas, and Joes use them better then Jims do. This is only what I think. What do you think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,047 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 01:01 am
@Quinn phil,
Psychologically, when we find a way to solve a kind of problem we stick with it until it quits working.

For example, they'll give people a task involving jugs of various sizes that have to be filled with a certain amount of water. The first 8 in the set are solved by filling jug A, pouring it into jug C, pouring C out, pouring more of A into C, then pouring C into B. Or something like that. Then the last few can be solved in that way, or much more easily (like by pouring A into B). But people don't see the easy solution and keep solving it in the same convoluted way.

We do this naturally, because it's a good way of doing things (usually). Same with most heuristics. When you want to know something, and you google it, you are "being a Joe" but it works well for you doesn't it?

What you really need is the ability to recognize when Jim is needed, and a set of strategies for more creative or lateral thinking.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 04:20 am
@Quinn phil,
In Finnegans Wake, Joyce presents us with the rivalry of two brother. One plays by the current rules. The other wants to write new rules. The first one is more of a daddy's boy. The second one loves his mum. But they also symbolize the father split in half. One of the father's names is Here Comes Everybody.

So maybe Jim and Joe are the two arms of Jack, and everyone is Jack but some have a dominant arm, and maybe this arm is dominant because it was their favorite in the first place. Or maybe Jim thinks the best way to be like his father Jack is to take his place as law-giver, while Joe wants to win his favor by putting Dad's laws to good use.
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Jebediah;112021 wrote:
Psychologically, when we find a way to solve a kind of problem we stick with it until it quits working.

For example, they'll give people a task involving jugs of various sizes that have to be filled with a certain amount of water. The first 8 in the set are solved by filling jug A, pouring it into jug C, pouring C out, pouring more of A into C, then pouring C into B. Or something like that. Then the last few can be solved in that way, or much more easily (like by pouring A into B). But people don't see the easy solution and keep solving it in the same convoluted way.

We do this naturally, because it's a good way of doing things (usually). Same with most heuristics. When you want to know something, and you google it, you are "being a Joe" but it works well for you doesn't it?

What you really need is the ability to recognize when Jim is needed, and a set of strategies for more creative or lateral thinking.


Yeah, the world is run much more efficiently in "Joe style". But if the world were more "Jimmy", do you think we would be more progressed as a society?

Reconstructo;112041 wrote:
In Finnegans Wake, Joyce presents us with the rivalry of two brother. One plays by the current rules. The other wants to write new rules. The first one is more of a daddy's boy. The second one loves his mum. But they also symbolize the father split in half. One of the father's names is Here Comes Everybody.

So maybe Jim and Joe are the two arms of Jack, and everyone is Jack but some have a dominant arm, and maybe this arm is dominant because it was their favorite in the first place. Or maybe Jim thinks the best way to be like his father Jack is to take his place as law-giver, while Joe wants to win his favor by putting Dad's laws to good use.


I only slightly understood this. lol
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:41 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;112245 wrote:

I only slightly understood this. lol

Jim and Joe both want to look in the mirror and feel good about themselves. Maybe they are tempted to point out the other one's limitations. Their father Jack has the qualities of both of them. They both want their father's respect. What Jim loves about his father is that he creates meaning. What Joe loves is the meaning his father already created. Joe is happy enough with the toys he already owns. Jim's idea of play is to make new toys.

Jack is flattered more by Joe, and feels a little threatened by Jim, for Jim is always pointing out mistakes. When Jack goes to the bar he tells Frank, his best friend, that Jim is his favorite son, because Jim is the type that makes Joe possible in the first place.
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 07:00 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112249 wrote:
Jim and Joe both want to look in the mirror and feel good about themselves. Maybe they are tempted to point out the other one's limitations. Their father Jack has the qualities of both of them. They both want their father's respect. What Jim loves about his father is that he creates meaning. What Joe loves is the meaning his father already created. Joe is happy enough with the toys he already owns. Jim's idea of play is to make new toys.

Jack is flattered more by Joe, and feels a little threatened by Jim, for Jim is always pointing out mistakes. When Jack goes to the bar he tells Frank, his best friend, that Jim is his favorite son, because Jim is the type that makes Joe possible in the first place.


Now i get it. Your stories always take me a while, but they're always good.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 11:30 pm
@Quinn phil,
When Jim was young he head a lot about Van Gogh and Beethoven and Shakespeare and they all seemed to be famous not only for being good at what they did but also for doing it in a new way. Jim already tended to look at things his own way but this really pushed him along, gave him confidence. It seemed like the world respected those who could give it something new. Jim decided he was going to be stubborn and intentionally try to find new ways to look at and do things.

His brother Joe told him that his chances were slim. Joe put his faith in making his teachers happy, and his parents happy, and his bosses happy, and his customers happy, and everyone happy happy happy. Jim for some reason was not impressed with this. Joe didn't like that. If Jim came up with an idea, Joe looked only for details to criticize, never at the value of the idea. Joe envied Jim's courage. Jim sometimes envied Joe's money, because Joe was always working whereas Jim preferred to think.
0 Replies
 
bmcreider
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 12:06 pm
@Quinn phil,
I would like to think of myself, in this story, as a Jim. Joes outnumber Jims, in the real world, due to society, culture, education, and the market - all combined.

Schools, especially the compulsory sort, want you to do what they say, when they say. Then they judge how well you did, but you have to do it in a certain way. Most "jobs" are the same way, you take orders, you do what the boss tells you. The government wants the same, they want predictability, it helps keep the peace.

If everyone was a Jim, more than a few people would not listen to their boss for good conscience or intelligence. Most kids would fail at school, because rote memorization and recitation that makes up compulsory education that rots kid's minds would be looked at in its true light. Etc...etc...

Joes are manageable, predictable, and disciplined according to society's standards.

Jims are Gandhi, MLK, etc...dissidents who stir up trouble.
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 02:04 pm
@bmcreider,
bmcreider;114655 wrote:
I would like to think of myself, in this story, as a Jim. Joes outnumber Jims, in the real world, due to society, culture, education, and the market - all combined.

Schools, especially the compulsory sort, want you to do what they say, when they say. Then they judge how well you did, but you have to do it in a certain way. Most "jobs" are the same way, you take orders, you do what the boss tells you. The government wants the same, they want predictability, it helps keep the peace.

If everyone was a Jim, more than a few people would not listen to their boss for good conscience or intelligence. Most kids would fail at school, because rote memorization and recitation that makes up compulsory education that rots kid's minds would be looked at in its true light. Etc...etc...

Joes are manageable, predictable, and disciplined according to society's standards.

Jims are Gandhi, MLK, etc...dissidents who stir up trouble.


This is exactly what I think. It's sad though. Look at how many of us are on the forum. 1000's right? And let's just say there are probably about a million more Jims out there. There aren't millions of Ghandi's. There aren't millions of MLK's. Some of us Jims are gonna be forced to fit in with the Joe's society, like mental slaves. Like being forced to take the blue pill in the matrix, but knowing what's on the side of the red pill.

Reconstructo;112298 wrote:
When Jim was young he head a lot about Van Gogh and Beethoven and Shakespeare and they all seemed to be famous not only for being good at what they did but also for doing it in a new way. Jim already tended to look at things his own way but this really pushed him along, gave him confidence. It seemed like the world respected those who could give it something new. Jim decided he was going to be stubborn and intentionally try to find new ways to look at and do things.

His brother Joe told him that his chances were slim. Joe put his faith in making his teachers happy, and his parents happy, and his bosses happy, and his customers happy, and everyone happy happy happy. Jim for some reason was not impressed with this. Joe didn't like that. If Jim came up with an idea, Joe looked only for details to criticize, never at the value of the idea. Joe envied Jim's courage. Jim sometimes envied Joe's money, because Joe was always working whereas Jim preferred to think.


Lol, this is exactly how my cousin and I are. It's a bit unfair, or so my emotions tell me. He has a job, 3.5 GPA (Like I do, but... He's not that smart anyways. He's a good cheater...) Star running back on the football team, and a big successor in the family. He comes to me for help, like I'm a therapist. I resolve his relationship problems, exedra exedra, and he spots me every once in a while, with chick hook-ups and money. He follows every guilt trip and pressure that society presses on him. He loves it. Everything works fine for him inside of the box, so why worry about what's on the outside? My cousin envies me, but society envies him. It's so unfair!
bmcreider
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 02:59 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;114669 wrote:
This is exactly what I think. It's sad though. Look at how many of us are on the forum. 1000's right? And let's just say there are probably about a million more Jims out there. There aren't millions of Ghandi's. There aren't millions of MLK's. Some of us Jims are gonna be forced to fit in with the Joe's society, like mental slaves. Like being forced to take the blue pill in the matrix, but knowing what's on the side of the red pill.

Lol, this is exactly how my cousin and I are. It's a bit unfair, or so my emotions tell me. He has a job, 3.5 GPA (Like I do, but... He's not that smart anyways. He's a good cheater...) Star running back on the football team, and a big successor in the family. He comes to me for help, like I'm a therapist. I resolve his relationship problems, exedra exedra, and he spots me every once in a while, with chick hook-ups and money. He follows every guilt trip and pressure that society presses on him. He loves it. Everything works fine for him inside of the box, so why worry about what's on the outside? My cousin envies me, but society envies him. It's so unfair!


I also think about both of your paragraphs often. As a Jim, how does one reconcile with choosing between hypocritical security, safety, and social approval of fitting in with the "Joes" versus living honestly as a "Jim" and therefore never knowing the financial security or ease of living as a "Joe."

I also have a friend similar to your cousin. If you look at nature vs nurture he had many things in his developmental childhood that pushed him towards being a "Joe" and I had many things pushing me to being a "Jim". He is a first generation American in his family, as his parents immigrated. Stereotypically speaking immigrants usually work harder at school, work, and general social order more-so than "white" people who've lived here. Being raised with that mindset and with his parents native culture, religion, etc he was, in a way, alienated from the normal childhood for a typical white American - IE he never dated, as dating is arranged in his culture, so he is romantically inexperienced. He never thought about his religion objectively until recently, etc...He now admits school and work is a distraction from real life, as real life to him is depressing.

So, at life, the Jims seem to want to figure it out and live it meaningfully, and do. At society, the Joes seem to want to play by the rules, and do, and are "rewarded" for it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why isn't everyone a Jim? (Slight insider)
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 06:19:46