• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Differences between NT thinking and ST thinking

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Take a math class, and look at how people show their work. If the work is incoherent and and scattered but always comes to the right answer than the person is an NT. If the work is formal and uses the same steps to solve each problem then that person is an ST. Other functions can play a part in this. But this experiment works atleast 90% of time.

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 :huh:

no real way of them knowing whether you're just cheating, memorizing answers to certain procedures, etc.

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.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
abstract/NT: crack the code, then extract a general principle for how the code was cracked, so that methods can be created to crack future codes.

concrete/ST: use methods and experience to crack codes and circumvent problems using common sense? use specific occurrences rather than abstract principles to solve problems?

Generally speaking, I agree with this assessment. Though I think your description of NT/abstract thinkers is spot on, while the questions of ST/concrete thinkers requires some thought. Let me see if I can formulate it quickly.

In order to establish how different people think, it is necessary to establish how knowledge is obtained. There are two prevalent theories of epistemology: rationalism (based largely on rational calculation and logical syllogisms) and empirism (based primarily on empirical observation, experimentation, knowledge gained through the senses, and so forth). Most people use a mixture of both, but some may have a distinct preference for one or the other. It seems to me that the NT is more disposed to rational thinking while the ST is more disposed to empirical thinking.

In effect, the NT may come across as an arm chair philosopher who speculates, connecting bits and scraps of knowledge that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle according to their principles. In such a highly abstruse web of subtile reasonings and links between principles, one mistake is the necessary parent of another, and can lead to conclusions that are absurd and/or inconsistent with common sense at times. On the other hand, the ST is typically more grounded in the concrete world. In this view, the mind from birth is like a blank canvus, and experiences are painted on it. As one gains experience a picture is created. The picture is knowlege. How the colors of the picture are inter-related will help shape the person's worldview. In short, when the ST confronts a problem their main tool is common sense, empirical observations, and history.

For the ST, history and common sense can provide them with an empirical map that they can utilize when solving problems and making decisions. Of course intuition, history, syllogisms, and so on are important for the NT in rationalizing why things are the way they are. Moreover, for the NT a more holisitic approach is critical for a solid understanding, whereas for the ST, they need not understand the whole in order to begin working on a problem or to make a decision. The difference in thinking preference is epitomized in certain working environments where a boss deligates highly specific tasks without explaining the whole of what's going on. STs will just start working like little beavers, while the NT will demand to know what the broader implications are so that they can be more efficient.

In a nutshell, the difference between an NT and ST is comparable to two people looking at a Monet painting from different distances. The ST, standing very close, misses the bigger picture, while the NT steps back and sees the entire picture for what it is. The ST will understand the details well from being so close but miss the bigger picture, while the NT will understand the bigger picture but might overlook minute details. The NT is more disposed to the global, the ST to the local.

Of course, we are analyzing ST and NT while holding other variables constant. I, for instance, am an NTJ. The Jness in itself acts as an empirically grounding force to my NTness. In short, for a more holistic understanding it is critical to not just understand NT-ST differences, but also how they interact with other variables.
 

Little Linguist

Striving for balance
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
6,880
MBTI Type
xNFP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^ Damn, I love this guy. He makes this really clear. Good job! :)
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
The difference in thinking preference is epitomized in certain working environments where a boss deligates highly specific tasks without explaining the whole of what's going on. STs will just start working like little beavers, while the NT will demand to know what the broader implications are so that they can be more efficient.

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... it provides a wider angle of perspective, taking in no additional information, but the whole of less specific or granular information. whether this is preferable, again, depends on how hollistic or specific the inteted interaction with the subject is. the granular approach is less prone to missteps due to a lack of insight, an intuitive approach is less prone to missteps due to a lack of oversight... theoretically, if lost in a forest, a sensor could make their way easier but struggle with direction, an intuitive would know where they need to go but struggle with actually getting there, which is why it's clear a balance of both is necessary.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
In a nutshell, the difference between an NT and ST is comparable to two people looking at a Monet painting from different distances. The ST, standing very close, misses the bigger picture, while the NT steps back and sees the entire picture for what it is. The ST will understand the details well from being so close but miss the bigger picture, while the NT will understand the bigger picture but might overlook minute details. The NT is more disposed to the global, the ST to the local.

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.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
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 :huh:



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.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.

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.
 

Jwill

New member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
85
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

brilliantwomble

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
48
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
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.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
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.
 
Top