# Thread: A Few Observations on Fundamental Differences between Types

1. Originally Posted by Venom
I couldn't dream up a math problem for you.. I think that's hurting me explanation here. Let me try again.

X^2 - 25 = 0

<> chemistry/cookbook style learning... The Ti challenged would memorize that when we see a problem like this, we root the number and put it into (x + _ ) ( x - __) bubbles. Very visual style... But no real mathuition or logic is helping us really "learn math"
<> mathuition style ...root that number... Cancel the middle.. :poof: ... answer!
<> logic based...
X^2 - 25 = 0
it must follow that if we add 25 to both sides, that we haven't changed the fundamental problem. It's analytically equivalent
x^2 = 25
It must follow that if we root both sides, that we haven't changed the fundamental problem. It's by definition still an equivalent problem
x = 5 and -5 there is no other possibility! No mathuition!

Have I butchered and shoehorned this example to fit my opinion? Absolutely. What do you expect from an F? I really just wanted to communicate a potential way of seeing how some people get throu math, but never really learn it even with a normal IQ. Poor mathuition and no logic is a problem when cook book math stops being acceptable!
You got the wrong answer. I agree that -5^2 = 25; however, the square root of 25 is 5 and not (5,-5). It's not solved like you're trying to find the x-intercepts on a graph. I found your Fe solution to be more logical. It just happens to be the correct method for solving x, because factorization leads to the unfortunate contradiction of square roots of natural numbers always leading to a positive value.

But anyway, I do feel sorry for anybody who has to "get throu" math.

2. Originally Posted by mal12345
You got the wrong answer. I agree that -5^2 = 25; however, the square root of 25 is 5 and not (5,-5). It's not solved like you're trying to find the x-intercepts on a graph. I found your Fe solution to be more logical. It just happens to be the correct method for solving x, because factorization leads to the unfortunate contradiction of square roots of natural numbers always leading to a positive value.

But anyway, I do feel sorry for anybody who has to "get throu" math.
I hope you understood that solving my on the Spot made up problem really wasnt the point ... Did the idea of "actually learning math" vs "getting through math, idiot style" make sense?

Ps: I was and still am one of the aformentioned

3. Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry
I was good at math in school. I prefer algebra, and dislike geometry (this might just be more a female, non-spatial brain characteristic), with calculus being a close second to that, as in not liking. I liked following formulas, and the rules involved in that, still do. Also love chemistry equations, which are similar.

It was harder for me to abstractly understand the math principles behind the math problems. But some of this, I think, was just the way math is taught in school, with kids not really having time or space to think about the concepts behind the math problem. Might not have been due to my more inferior T. I don't think ability to understand and do well at math has as much to do with N/S as it does with T/F. I know lots of S's good at math, if they have T in their top two preferences.

EDIT: I suck at programming. I elected to take statistics, which I really like, over some basic programming class requirement in college. And I think the best programmers are those that are Ti dom.
Studies have shown that, during K-12, females were generally better at some form of language (say, in this case, English.) Males, on the other hand, were better apt at doing math.

I believe most kids were taught mostly deductive reasoning during K-12, it wasn't until Calculus-ish was when I started hearing about inductive reasoning.

I've been able to do math, from Pre-Algebra to Calculus, I just find it excruciating boring. Programming? I can do...just... do enough of it and I might just feel like punching the monitor.

4. Originally Posted by Rail Tracer
Studies have shown that, during K-12, females were generally better at some form of language (say, in this case, English.) Males, on the other hand, were better apt at doing math.
I was better at math for sure. I didn't like writing/English until I was an adult.

I believe most kids were taught mostly deductive reasoning during K-12, it wasn't until Calculus-ish was when I started hearing about inductive reasoning.
Makes sense. I like to use induction when Ni leads. I prefer deductive reasoning when using Ti, as I imagine I use with most math.

I've been able to do math, from Pre-Algebra to Calculus, I just find it excruciating boring. Programming? I can do...just... do enough of it and I might just feel like punching the monitor.
I hear ya.

5. Originally Posted by Glycerine
@entropie: is that addressed to me or just in general?
just in general, dont relate everything onto yourself you evil Fe

Fe is actually a very strong function of my own, tho I feel pretty insecure when running only on Fe, no matter how secure I already am in a thing.

6. Haha, I was just curious because it came right after my post.

7. Originally Posted by mal12345

But then, at the same extreme of the Intuitive, there is on the contrary no interest in the immediate present surroundings, and that's also a problem. This person is very disorganized and disoriented in the real world.
I disagree. The perceptive element of intuition deals with the present surroundings, but mostly in the extraverted flavor of intuition.

8. I'm an 'extreme intuitive' and I have no problem dressing myself or walking without falling down. Guess I must be a sensor after all!

9. Originally Posted by Venom
I hope you understood that solving my on the Spot made up problem really wasnt the point ... Did the idea of "actually learning math" vs "getting through math, idiot style" make sense?

Ps: I was and still am one of the aformentioned
I understand getting through math, but not via your example. It's as if you're trying to make a difficult problem easier, but the problem itself is easier than you make it. Your approach was best, after all (even though you stole the answer from the Ti solution).
I guess you were trying to take a shortcut to get the result?