[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Ti vs. Te and Math

[Burning Paradigm]

I had a shower thought recently with respect to Ti and Te as it relates to solving math problems (in this case, I'm referring to simple arithmetic problems, but this might apply to more complex forms of math as well).

Ti: My impression was Ti, being more a function of internal logic, would be more inclined to taking mental shortcuts and not necessarily write out their steps. Consequently, it would seem a little less linear to an external observer, and a Ti user would skip some steps as seemingly intuitive when describing how they solved the problem. This tends to be my issue with solving math problems; I'm hesitant to write out my steps because I just prefer taking mental shortcuts until I hit multiple impasses in solving the problem lol.

Te: Te, on the other hand, is focused more on logically organizing their external logic. Thus, I think strong Te users would be more inclined to write out and break down their steps more; even if they take mental shortcuts, their approach might appear a little more linear. I'm thinking of an ISTJ friend of mine who used to work as a math tutor in high school, and his explanations broke down every single step and the logic behind it.

It's just speculative, but let me know what you guys think? How do you approach math problems? Obviously, the T functions manifest differently for each type, but would you say there's a loose connection between one's approach to solving math problems and the presence of Ti vs. Te?

 

[Virtual ghost]

The thing is that I don't really believe in math for the sake of math. In my opinion the wrongest thing that is being done with math is that they tend not to teach you in school where all of this is applied. What often makes the whole thing look kinda pointless and most people will not even try to genuinely understand. To me math is just a way to get to the results and solving the actual world problems. My advanced mathematical skills were decent back in college.


I am heavy on Te.

 

[Cupcakemonster]

I'd agree. I remember as a kid in 5th grade all my answers being correct on one of our math papers, but I didn't write out all of the steps or at least didn't write it in the exact way she taught it to us, so she marked off points still. We had kind of a back & forth about it, because as long as my answers were right why does it matter if I skipped over some steps or reached my answer in a slightly different way that still works? I even remember that I explained to her how I figured it out in my head, too. I'm like, does that way not still work? She thought about it & said it did, & then still said I had to write down the steps like she teaches. imo this is stifling analytical thought, & I did still "show some work" just not in 1, 2, 3, 4 type steps.

 

[notmyapples]

How well someone understands and performs in subjects like math is equally dependent on the inherent skill of individual as it is the teacher and the curriculum but in general, I would say Ti is very naturally attuned to mathematics. Every Ti dominant I've met either had a natural enjoyment in the process of solving complicated math equations or, if not, was still adept at doing so with little mental effort compared to types who don't strongly value Ti. I suspect this is due to the process of Ti itself, where knowledge in the subject is pursued not simply to present a 'correct' result to the external object, but rather for the sake of understanding the nuances of the problem itself and pursuing deep knowledge about the functionality.

However when it comes to schooling and external systems, Te users perform better simply because, well, they value doing so. Te will have an easier time delivering a quick, accurate result when it comes to subjects like math but the interest in the subject is limited only to the exact formula's ability to produce a result. So if we were to imagine what type of child in a math class would grade the highest, one would first think of an ESTJ who utilize their dominant Te to easily grasp the mathematical framework that their teachers wants them to follow, then replicate that. Whereas an ISTP's Ti is arguably more attuned to understand the complexity of frameworks, the interaction between a math teacher and an STP temperament style is more likely to mirror the kind explained above.

 

[SD45T-2]

I don't math good.

 

[Riva]

When solving math equations - where I come from - we were given marks for the correct steps indicated. So, even if you get the final answer wrong - which could happen in an exam due to having to hurry up -. So yeah steps are quite important and for the market that's an indication that you know your 'stuff' more so than giving the answer - which might be a fluke.

With regards to functions - I would say that a Ti user would be more interested in the 'steps' taken than a Te user would; not just when it comes to math by every logical decision they make.

 

[Totenkindly]

I actually have a Mathematics minor from my college years. Throughout schooling (esp K-12), I would write out steps but only because I was typically required to do so. It just seemed like a chore. But it also depends on the value one places on explanation, for particular individuals it might not be purely about type but also interest. (I mean, I work in writing, in terms of explaining how things work to people. So if you want people to understand, depending on your audience, you sometimes need to "show your work" versus just presenting the idea.)

I dunno, there are times and places for various approaches and the value we place in them comes partly in what we individually value, not just our generalized representation within a group.

I remember finding proofs and set theory interesting but I haven't needed to do it for years.

 

[Eric B]

With math; I had to learn at my own pace, and area of interest, or it would be hard for me to follow. I was interested in polygons, as you get a sense of how numbers work with the different N values, and could by generalization get an idea of how higher dimensions work, but when it came to doign formulas and equations (which are all sbout set rules, and for what? basically); I was totally out of it

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My approach to math concepts involved my creating my own sort of mental model that explained "why" things worked that way. I had to come up for a reason that explained why that was so.

 

[Janelle]

When solving math equations - where I come from - we were given marks for the correct steps indicated. So, even if you get the final answer wrong - which could happen in an exam due to having to hurry up -. So yeah steps are quite important and for the market that's an indication that you know your 'stuff' more so than giving the answer - which might be a fluke.

With regards to functions - I would say that a Ti user would be more interested in the 'steps' taken than a Te user would; not just when it comes to math by every logical decision they make.

Hi, Riva. I personally think that the use of Ti / Te are based on their position, whether it is aux, dom, tert or inf. We all use all of the functions , but it varies on the function sets that are accompanying them.

Saying that Ti users would be more interested in the steps is a bit superficial. Main Ti users might have missed to write down some of their steps in math paperwork because they process it internally, specially if the following function is Ne, they’re more abstract and might missed to write down all of the steps. They might only write down only the most important steps. Because as we know, Ti is a subjective logic, they aren’t always comfortable to show their ‘private logic’ thought process.
It’s different from Te users that is very objective. They are comfortable in showing the logic and thought process that they believe towards the others. Te can be very analytical too as they often break things down into small parts. They are good at segmenting and categorizing, that sometimes it makes them appear like Ti users.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

Math was a massive disappointment to me because it's mostly about writing a lot and fast, not about being smart.

 

[Janelle]

Math was a massive disappointment to me because it's mostly about writing a lot and fast, not about being smart.

I guess the ’teachers’ that are passing the math subject is the culprit behind this disappointment. The mathematician themselves aren’t strict about the super-detailed steps and speed in writing them out.

 

[Pionart]

I think pure maths is NTP dominated and statistics is INTJ dominated.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

I guess the ’teachers’ that are passing the math subject is the culprit behind this disappointment. The mathematician themselves aren’t strict about the super-detailed steps and speed in writing them out.

Not really, I have disgraphia so I generally have problems keeping up with writing and find writing tiring and painful.

 

[Meltar85]

I do well in the kind of math that applies to the real world: add, subtract, fractions, percentage, etc. The theoretical stuff is cool but I have no use for it so I've never bothered to learn it. I find it tedious.