User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    Member luismas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    Yes, yes, yes. I can empathize so much it hurts. Your presentation of the logic is smooth(precise) and you have convinced me, there is no other answer but to call it "naturally" "introverted intuitive thinking."

    I try to avoid the chronological criteria in my arrangments, but for most vague cause and effects (such as ones in history) or with strong subjectivity(art), i have no choice but to use chronology. I prefer category/systemization based on key properties. I also enjoy creating diagrams, which is definitely rooted in the same mental protocol.
    What «presentation of the logic» exactly?

    What kind of diagrams are we talking about?

  2. #12
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luismas View Post
    What «presentation of the logic» exactly?
    i'm not as articulate, but I am referring o the way you structured your sentences. Each idea is fittingly related to the next and to the ones prior to it. I find it easily readable because of that. I also treat every statement as a logical statement, which they are, so... that is my context.

    What kind of diagrams are we talking about?
    All types. Flow, decisions, hierarchal, venn diagrams, relational, heck i use cartesian plane too... I have my own style of diagraming, so it is difficult for me to accurately label it in a way you could get. That is the subjective component of it. The logic is objective imo though.

  3. #13
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luismas View Post
    Could you explain the testosterone link?
    Perhaps a dozen studies I've seen over the years have found correlations. Not all are positive such as these ones:

    http://www.livescience.com/7290-fing...rformance.html

    http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03...-iq/24379.html

    http://guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...e&type=article

    Testosterone is related to a lot of seemingly contradictory things including illogical outbursts of aggression.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  4. #14
    Member luismas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    i'm not as articulate, but I am referring o the way you structured your sentences. Each idea is fittingly related to the next and to the ones prior to it. I find it easily readable because of that. I also treat every statement as a logical statement, which they are, so... that is my context.

    Yes, I may as well put everything everything in logical symbols and argument forms, I admit it is about the only style I can really write in.

    All types. Flow, decisions, hierarchal, venn diagrams, relational, heck i use cartesian plane too... I have my own style of diagraming, so it is difficult for me to accurately label it in a way you could get. That is the subjective component of it. The logic is objective imo though.
    I can relate to this too, as I prefer to explain logical relations by way of graphs instead of putting it in words...

    Do you attribute all this to Ti? Why not Te?

  5. #15
    Member luismas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Perhaps a dozen studies I've seen over the years have found correlations. Not all are positive such as these ones:

    http://www.livescience.com/7290-fing...rformance.html

    http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03...-iq/24379.html

    http://guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...e&type=article

    Testosterone is related to a lot of seemingly contradictory things including illogical outbursts of aggression.
    Could we then speculate that an «extremely male brain», which is linked to testosterone exposure in the womb and some «autistic traits» later on correlates well with the jungian Introverted Thinking type? What's your opinion on this?

  6. #16
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luismas View Post
    Could we then speculate that an «extremely male brain», which is linked to testosterone exposure in the womb and some «autistic traits» later on correlates well with the jungian Introverted Thinking type? What's your opinion on this?
    I think it is better to correlate testosterone with the things it correlates with not to things for which a correlation has yet to be substantiated. If I had to guess, I would say perhaps, with tn, es, St, and St characteristics overlapping. It is also very much correlated with aggression, fast (but often incorrect) descision making, high sex drive, etc. These characteristics are modified by brain development and other neurotransmitter levels of course and environmental stimuli
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  7. #17
    Member luismas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I think it is better to correlate testosterone with the things it correlates with not to things for which a correlation has yet to be substantiated. If I had to guess, I would say perhaps, with tn, es, St, and St characteristics overlapping. It is also very much correlated with aggression, fast (but often incorrect) descision making, high sex drive, etc. These characteristics are modified by brain development and other neurotransmitter levels of course and environmental stimuli
    I agree.

    Any one other insight on the kind of cognitive tendency that I have explained and jungian psychological types?

  8. #18
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luismas View Post
    Just to have it clarified, what would be the main differences between 'experimental' and 'analytical' reasoning? Could you give off some examples?
    Thompson says in the text that the difference is between 'experiential' and 'analytical' reasoning. The former adjective was a word I didnt know so far in english, but I think it means empirical. Here's a chart that explains the connections:



    Tho it is in german, I think you can understand the main words. It says that you get from a theory through deduction to an empirical proof. Deductive reasoning is a math alike way to reach a conclusion. Its what they use on IQ tests a lot. For example:

    1. All cats are grey.
    2. My buddy Bruce is a cat.
    3. Bruce is grey. (conclusion of 1 and 2)

    Its basically like variable substitution and is the basis of all scientific advance. Theories are postulated and then a 'reality is deduced'. Thats for example why Te's are a big fan of statistics and Ti's are not. Te's think because they have a large enough set of theorethical data, as in a statistic, they'ld have a real reflection of reality. Ti people would disagree on that cause they want to look at the empirical truth first.

    Another thing is IQ tests: Te people are often bigger fans of them than Ti people. Te people think that to give a set of theorethical questions would be a good measurement for empirical intelligence. Ti people disagree with that and say that there is a lot of empirical intelligence which is hard to measure in theory. In this the theory of hermeneutics becomes meaning. Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation and understanding. If you for example remember your english classes in school and when you had to write an interpretation of a text XY. You wondered sometimes why you got a bad grade tho your interpretation seemed good and rational to you. The thing then was that the teachers had a 'model interpretation' and just looked how close you got to it. If you werent near close your interpretation was bad, leaving no room for own thoughts. Thats the techings of hermeneutics, they try to analyze how and why people understand the same things differently.

    Now back to the graph: what does induction mean ? Induction is the theorethical concept that says that you can derive a theory from an empirical truth. For example Newton or Einstein. They both postulated theories that were complete new inventions, which had nothing to do with the current scientific model of that time. Most scientific advances have developed from other scientific advances that went beforehand, so an advance most often is the work of a lot of people and not of only a single person. But in Newtons and Einsteins case that was different. They just had an idea of a theory that wasnt heard before. Like a godly intervention and thats an induction.

    Extroverted Intuition can mean to connect the existing dots. Introverted Intuition can mean to invent new dots, to make existing dots being connectable. Therefore Ni people often discuss the concept of induction, cause they feel blessed with it.

    Here are two different ways to interpretate that. Some people say induction is bogus and cant exist. What appeared as induction in history was just a very pronounced form of deduction, in which from a set of theorethical concepts another empirical truth was derived. In the example of Einstein those people say that when Einstein had lived in lets say the stoneage, he wouldnt have postulated the relativistic theory. This makes a lot of sense and you can agree with those people. To just say that sometimes a truth about reality just pops 'magically' induced by God into your head is bogus.

    But, and thats the other way of interpretation, why the concept of induction is still intresting is when you look at it at a not so philosophical Point of View. And this brings me back to your initial question: when I remember my school times, math never made sense for me. I could have learnt the set of rules I was presented wi9th in math and then I could have applied it in exams but somehow my mind refused to understand that. When I remember my school times, it were always Te people who excelled at school. They had the faculty to learn a lot of theory and then apply it deductively to an empirical reality. But I needed a different style of learning:

    I majored in german and english literature studies in school and nearly failed school because of math. I usually had a E or worse and just because I was very assertive and did a lot verbally I managed to get me a D on the final exam. After that I did a social year, which is normal in Germany for boys and then went to University to study german and english literature. After two semesters tho I changed my major to mechanical engineering. And nowadays I have a Master degree in mechanical engineering and people consult me for math problems, cause I am pretty good at math and have a lot of fun with it. Aint that totally irrational ?

    Here's what I did: when school ended I had about two years before I decided to study engineering. In that time I picked up on an old hobby of mine which was electronics. I did a lot of practical projects then which required a lot of mathematical understanding. Somehow, tho I was always feeling unsure when doing math, I did all that math and it came naturally to me. Partly because I was knowing what it was good for (real application not only theory) and partly because I needed it. So it was the empirical study that brought me to theory.

    Its hard to say now that this would be for all Ti people be the same. I cannot tell if all Ti people need to blow up things first to understand them. But Thompson says that Ti people rather understand theory empirically, while Te people rather deal with theory and then deduce empirics from theory. The latter concept will always be alien to Ti people and they will call it bogus. Ti people, according to Thompson, have the imagination that you can only understand reality by looking at it. While Te people could create a reality from theory. In both characterisations you can see which function has the assertive nature and which not and you can see which function needs to be judgemental and which not. From the picture above: The theory is the general case (allgemein = general) and empirics is the particular case (speziell = particular).

    This a very theorethical blanket we are moving on here, so I am stating I dunno if thats all the sole truth. But it makes a lot sense to me and from my empirical interactions with Te and Ti people, I can prove a lot for myself from that. It works pretty well for me in reality. I just cant postulate a general theory from it.

    Hope you got a bit what I am talking about.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  9. #19
    Member luismas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    Thompson says in the text that the difference is between 'experiential' and 'analytical' reasoning. The former adjective was a word I didnt know so far in english, but I think it means empirical. Here's a chart that explains the connections:


    This a very therethical blanket we are moving on here, so I am stating I dunno if thats all the sole truth. But it makes a lot sense to me and from my empirical interactions with Te and Ti people, I can prove a lot for myself from that. It works pretty well for me in reality. I just cant postulate a general theory from it.

    Hope you got a bit what I am talking about.
    Thank you very much, I shall reflect upon this.

    Just for the record:

    Theory- Ni
    Deduction- Te
    Empirism - Ne
    Induction - Ti

    Sounds right?

    Also, INTPs seem to me to be more preoccupied with internally connoting from their outer perceptions...whereas INTJs are more into denoting their inner connotation to the outer world.

  10. #20
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luismas View Post
    I can relate to this too, as I prefer to explain logical relations by way of graphs instead of putting it in words...

    Do you attribute all this to Ti? Why not Te?
    The word "order" means differently for Ti and Te. Ti(NeSi) sees "natural" order whereas Te sees established order. Same with diagraming. The diagrams I make are plucked straight out of my "sense" of "natural order."

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    Extroverted Intuition can mean to connect the existing dots. Introverted Intuition can mean to invent new dots, to make existing dots being connectable.
    This is great. I've read this but it didn't mean anything to me before, but it makes sense now. In my context, a "dot" represents a "category" in my logical framework. A "category" is an "idea." An "idea" is a created perception("box") of something. "Dots", "Category", "Idea", "Box", "Perception", you see the relationship, no?

    The "connecting the dots" in Ni terms means something else entirely. An integration of all dots to form an idea, as oppose to simply just relating one dot to another.

    Theories are postulated and then a 'reality is deduced'. Thats for example why Te's are a big fan of statistics and Ti's are not. Te's think because they have a large enough set of theorethical data, as in a statistic, they'ld have a real reflection of reality. Ti people would disagree on that cause they want to look at the empirical truth first.
    There is a problem here. I am certain to be Ti but I enjoy statistics. I enjoy looking at trends and correlations, especially correlations. I like data, and i like playing around with data.

    But, and thats the other way of interpretation, why the concept of induction is still intresting is when you look at it at a not so philosophical Point of View. And this brings me back to your initial question: when I remember my school times, math never made sense for me. I could have learnt the set of rules I was presented wi9th in math and then I could have applied it in exams but somehow my mind refused to understand that. When I remember my school times, it were always Te people who excelled at school. They had the faculty to learn a lot of theory and then apply it deductively to an empirical reality. But I needed a different style of learning:

    I majored in german and english literature studies in school and nearly failed school because of math. I usually had a E or worse and just because I was very assertive and did a lot verbally I managed to get me a D on the final exam. After that I did a social year, which is normal in Germany for boys and then went to University to study german and english literature. After two semesters tho I changed my major to mechanical engineering. And nowadays I have a Master degree in mechanical engineering and people consult me for math problems, cause I am pretty good at math and have a lot of fun with it. Aint that totally irrational ?

    Here's what I did: when school ended I had about two years before I decided to study engineering. In that time I picked up on an old hobby of mine which was electronics. I did a lot of practical projects then which required a lot of mathematical understanding. Somehow, tho I was always feeling unsure when doing math, I did all that math and it came naturally to me. Partly because I was knowing what it was good for (real application not only theory) and partly because I needed it. So it was the empirical study that brought me to theory.
    Same experiences here. Now, I am unlearning and relearning math . Learning math, as a kid, in my backwards 3rd world education is learning procedures. Definitely not my strong point.

    Its hard to say now that this would be for all Ti people be the same. I cannot tell if all Ti people need to blow up things first to understand them. But Thompson says that Ti people rather understand theory empirically, while Te people rather deal with theory and then deduce empirics from theory. The latter concept will always be alien to Ti people and they will call it bogus. Ti people, according to Thompson, have the imagination that you can only understand reality by looking at it. While Te people could create a reality from theory. In both characterisations you can see which function has the assertive nature and which not and you can see which function needs to be judgemental and which not. From the picture above: The theory is the general case (allgemein = general) and empirics is the particular case (speziell = particular).
    This makes sense. "Blowing up things" may not be it but its close. For me, It's about understanding the source of math, and the order within it, ignoring what gets the answer and focusing more on how things "just make sense."

    This a very theorethical blanket we are moving on here, so I am stating I dunno if thats all the sole truth. But it makes a lot sense to me and from my empirical interactions with Te and Ti people, I can prove a lot for myself from that. It works pretty well for me in reality. I just cant postulate a general theory from it.

    Hope you got a bit what I am talking about.
    Did you get all that from Thompson? If so, man, I thought I was finished with him/her. Sound ideas regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by luismas View Post
    Thank you very much, I shall reflect upon this.

    Just for the record:

    Theory- Ni
    Deduction- Te
    Empirism - Ne
    Induction - Ti

    Sounds right?
    hm.. This is very difficult. the words mean something else for me.

    From reality to theory(instead of empiricism) - Ti

    argh, i can't make sense of this right now...

Similar Threads

  1. Birth Order and J vs P
    By FFF in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 08-30-2014, 07:56 PM
  2. Can one be an athiest and an INFP?
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-25-2009, 10:17 PM
  3. NJ order and NP chaos in fiction and reality
    By nightwatcher in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-04-2008, 06:08 PM
  4. [NT] Pattern formation and the INT
    By Veneti in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-11-2007, 12:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO