But then even NTs learn that this approach is not truly valued. Teachers thought I was a genius when, in primary school, I could tell the result of long expressions without doing any written caculations. In high school, however, they thought I was cheating
But to me that was just insulting. Maybe I was just idiotically stubborn, but I saw no reason why a teacher would think I was cheating if he-she did not catch me during the act. Well, anyway, now that I'm in college I started doing everything more step-by-step in the advanced classes since it was much harder not to miss important details with mental elaboration.
Your math teachers could have been NTs in grade school and STs in highschool, both STs and NTs can excel in Math.
You are suggesting there are only two types of people:
Those who would stand 10 inches away from a painting, and never move.
Those who would stand 10 feet away from a painting, and never move.
In reality, this rarely happens.
Our brains can work like a camera, using a particular lense which zooms in and out at will, depending on the desired perspective.
This is why there are combination thinkers, who can easily alternate between distances when looking at a painting.
You're punching something that is not there, really. The point of the analogy was to edify the distinction between two types of thinking orientations, not to claim that these are the only two types nor to claim that some mixture is impossible. In fact, if you were paying attention, you'd notice that I specified that most people use a mix of rational deduction and empirical observation, and I also state that other interaction variables are important in shaping thought-orientation. The point of my post was merely to illuminate features that are particular to NT and ST thinking. Again, this is not to say that an NT can't zoom in or an ST can't zoom out, only that if one has identified with one preference over the other then this psychological predisposition will shape their thinking-orientation in a particular way. To that end, I've highlighted a few of the ways. But if you you're interested in making a contribution and adding value to the thread by showing how you perceive the differences between NT and ST thinking, no one is stopping you.
Originally Posted by Grayscale
the flaw I see in this logic is that looking at something holistically will necessarily allow someone the knowledge to be make more effective decisions regarding it, it does not...
Well I'm not just talking about someone I'm talking about persons with a distinct NT preference. It follows that it won't necessarily always lead to more efficient results since I'm not referring to everyone, just NTs. I can cite myself as an example insofar as I am much more productive/effective when I understand the bigger picture of what's going on. Moreover, I think many NTs would concur with this statement as well, though there are always exceptions to the rule. But in general, in my estimation this holds true for NTs.
I have this friend who is an ISTJ. I think we're pretty similar in most respects. We both teach English in this small town in Japan as assistant language teachers. Anyway, the job requires a lot of going to class and standing around while the teacher lectures. There's also a lot of sitting at your desk in the teacher's lounge, too. The thing is, I enjoy that boring time. I told my friend that I use it to space out and daydream about the latest book I read or about a dream I had last night or something. My ISTJ friend said that he doesn't do that at all. He just stands there in the here and now and gets really bored.
My friend is also more duty-bound than I am. For example, he doesn't want to help, but he does anyway. Me, on the other hand...I don't want to help, so I don't. Am I more selfish? Maybe.
Duty bound plays a role in all personality types. I don't really have it which makes me seem more selfish although I have chosen to look at it otherwise. What is really bad is when it is say, SJ with duty-bound, it almost makes one feel guilty when they aren't... (which ironically, the example was just that)
I like the math example. My brother is an ST and I'm an NT. We both always did well in math, but teachers would dock me points for not showing my work in a "logical" order. I was told everything needed to be written out step by step to show my work. I said I tended to work all over the page, but still ended up with the correct answer (usually without a loss of steps or losing the logical flow.) Really, I just liked to move around the page to keep the work for getting too boring. I think at one point to appease I just numbered the different sections of my work. It might have seemed non-traditional, but I at least explained that I was never going to work something out step by step.
As for big picture versus details, I've seen that as well. I like a big picture look at where something is going and ask for it since I can then shape what I do to reach that goal. When I don't have all of what I need I just develop my own picture and start working. When talking to my brother I always ask him for the overall big picture of his work, I get the individual engineering problems he has been working on... in horrifying detail. Granted this might not apply in all cases, but I have seen it in action.
Again, this is not to say that an NT can't zoom in or an ST can't zoom out, only that if one has identified with one preference over the other then this psychological predisposition will shape their thinking-orientation in a particular way.
I'm pleased to see you make that comment.
It paves the way for understanding that not all people must identify with a particular preference.
I've always had a twitch around those who think in absolutes.
Those are the people who are mystified when they have a collision,
driving on a "one-way" street.