[ISTJ] ISTJ and thinking process

[Ozz]

Earlier this week, I was given an assignment to explain a technical word in a way that is understandable to other people. Man it was horrible: From what came out on my essay (I didn't do an outline), it seems like all I have in my brain is a bunch of attributes of that technical word mixed together. (Is this Si?) It seems that there was no overriding big picture in my head. When I needed to use my knowledge, it was a simple matter of reasoning, but it was impossible to explain it on paper. I know I have a hard time explaining technical concepts to other people, but this is the first time I am able to read back what I put down.

Anyone else's thinking process is like this? Anyone got any suggestions, clue, comments?

 

[Habba]

Well, in case I would have to explain something to someone, the first thing that comes into my mind is a list of it's attributes. I would single out all it's attributes into an atomic level, and then try to explain each of them in a logical order. That's my Si and Te working hand-to-hand.

But that wouldn't perhaps be the best way for NF people to understand it. I'm not quite into their way of thinking, but one thing I know is that N people understand meta-stuff well. It's hard to explain, but I'll give you an example.

I was talking with a Ni-friend of mine, and he was telling something about this person X. He said that person X had the weirdest "humor reaction" he knew.

That wording he used caught my eye. "Humor reaction". Almost anyone else would have used word "laugh", since that's the default. But he specifically said "humor reaction", and that really tells me that he doesn't hear laughs, but he hears reactions. It's bit hard to explain, but Si and Ni can see things in a lot different ways. I don't know if this really helped anyone to understand non-si thinking process, but it's an attempt anyways.

 

[Ozz]

Indeed, I think other types prefer to have the big picture and be done with it. Looks like I really need to use an outline and work hard to generalize some of the attributes.

 

[FallaciaSonata]

Habba raises an excellent point.... You have to tailor your explanation to the person receiving it. For instance, when explaining certain aspects of a game's rules with Friend A, I only have to lay down the basics and he "picks it up".

However, when it comes to Friend B, I have to spell it out. I have to break it down and go real slow and be simple. I'm not knocking him, all I'm saying is he learns the way I do --- one step at a time.

The real question, to me anyway, is....does your teacher have to check this or do you read it for a group of people? If it's the teacher, I would tailor it.....write what they want to read. But if it's a group, I would go with what's natural. In the case of myself and Habba, that would be the "Si + Te" method. Just break it down into bite-sized pieces and line them up in sequential, logical order.