Type me!

[SolitaryWalker]

What? Don't language(esp. grammar) and logic both fall strongly under "rational" left-brained activity?

Also, wouldn't you need to specify what type of "math" before making such a generalization? I did terribly in Algebra, but I kicked ass in Logic and Statistics. The usage of "math" seems just as innate as the usage of language; equally unavoidable as well. Now, if you're referring to higher level math, of course that's not innate for most people. Neither is higher level grammar.

The matter of why Linguists see language as innate is incredibly complex. I don't think I could explain this adequately without derailing the thread. The short version is that we all have a mind that structures language in a certain way. Hence, at an early age we all have an ability to learn any language as we have the ability to structure all languages. The basic idea is that children are able to learn a language without being taught because they have innate knowledge of grammar. They just collect various words from their surroundings, yet because grammar is innate, they know how to put the words in the proper order. In other words, a child only needs to be in the presence of those who speak a language in order to learn a language. He does not need to be taught.

Now, if you're referring to higher level math, of course that's not innate for most people. Neither is higher level grammar.

Contemporary linguists almost unanimously maintain that knowledge of grammar is innate. Higher level of grammar may not be, but the fact that some of it is innate allows people to learn the higher level grammar with greater ease than higher level math. Most people are able to carry on discussions about a variety of subjects using higher level grammar without committing many obvious blunders. Yet very few people are able to learn higher level math.

Some people have more talents for learning higher level math than others. Much of the higher level math relies heavily on logic. People who are talented at logic will also be talented at higher level math.

My main idea is this: although children have an innate ability to organize words, or to speak a language by putting words into a proper order, they do not have an innate ability with regard to logical reasoning that parallels this ability. Most people do not learn to use logic well until they are adults and most adults never attain proficiency with this skill. Significant errors of reasoning are common among journalists, businessmen and non-academic writers. Even scholars are known to justifiably accuse one another of committing logical fallacies.



Yes, both grammar and math are left-brained in some loose sense, as they required structured thought. However, the difference is that we have an instinct for grammar, yet we have no such instinct for math or logic. Thus, you do not have to learn the skill of structured thinking to use language in a structured manner because the ability of using a language in this way comes to all humans naturally. Learning to use logic well may help you with this, but you can accomplish this goal just fine without knowing how to use logic well.



The bottom line is that you do not need to have a talent for logic to excel at language, as most novelists and poets are not talented at logic or higher level math.

In recapitulation: If contemporary linguists are correct to claim that much of our knowledge of grammar is innate, then we can conclude that a person does not need to have highly developed logical reasoning skills to provide the proper grammatical structure for his sentences. Thus, if we see a person whose sentences contain impeccable grammatical structure, we should not assume that he is skilled or talented at logical reasoning or any activity that highly emphasizes such reasoning.

 

[Thalassa]

Some people have more talents for learning higher level math than others. Much of the higher level math relies heavily on logic. People who are talented at logic will also be talented at higher level math.

And many, many people lack the talent for higher level languages, literary analysis, and grammar-related issues. So I wouldn't call this part of the "language instinct." The language instinct is the strongest at the age of 2, and people have an amazing capacity to learn languages beyond their own until about the age of 6. This doesn't mean that this "instinct" is what guides people who become professional linguists, language teachers, and writers.

Most 8 year old children understand language well and are able to write with formidable grammar. However, logic and mathematics are difficult subjects for most children and adults even.

Grammar is a difficult subject for many adults. I know quite a few 28 year olds, not to mention 8 year olds, who don't have anything close to "formidable" grammar. Also, if you've ever studied a foreign language grammar is the most difficult part to grasp because languages are so diverse grammatically speaking. The grammar used in English is backwards from French, and six ways sideways from Russian. So again, I'm going to have to disregard your claim of "language instinct" in this case. I know American people who speak a second language (besides English) in the home because of their parents' or grandparents' first language, who struggled terribly to learn how to read and write properly in that second language they had spoken in part and heard their entire lives.

The bottom line is that you do not need to have a talent for logic to excel at language, as most novelists and poets are not talented at logic or higher level math.

In kind, most mathematicians and logicians are not talented at being novelists for that matter.

 

[Charmed Justice]

Yes, both grammar and math are left-brained in some loose sense, as they required structured thought. However, the difference is that we have an instinct for grammar, yet we have no such instinct for math or logic. Thus, you do not have to learn the skill of structured thinking to use language in a structured manner because the ability of using a language in this way comes to all humans naturally. Learning to use logic well may help you with this, but you can accomplish this goal just fine without knowing how to use logic well.

Wow, I beg to differ. Numbers are all around us. They cannot be contained within a "subject" called "math". If we live in the world, we necessarily live in "math" and with "math". It's a part of us that cannot be separated. IMO, "Math" gets complicated for many adults and children by attempts to extract numbers from the real world and harness them into the classroom. The smallest of children understand quantities without being formally taught.

In any case, there are many professionals who believe math to be innate:
Kids Have Innate Math Ability | The Harvard Crimson
The Brain: Humanity's Other Basic Instinct: Math | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine
Innate 'number sense' boosts math skills | The Australian

I don't see there to be any way that we can say that the understanding of "math" points to a person being a "thinking" type, and that people who have strong skills in linguistics are not equally skilled in logical reasoning.

 

[Thalassa]

There is, in fact, an INFP mathematician on this site. I don't think it would be out of the question for a T to be a linguist.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

There is, in fact, an INFP mathematician on this site. I don't think it would be out of the question for a T to be a linguist.

Nobody is saying that if you are not a T, you can't be a mathematician, merely that your most natural attribute does not gear you towards mathematics. Equally, just because you are not an F does not mean that you can't be a good poet. But again, in both cases, the person pursuing the professional occupations in question will have to rely very heavily on faculties that are not the most natural to them.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Wow, I beg to differ. Numbers are all around us. They cannot be contained within a "subject" called "math". If we live in the world, we necessarily live in "math" and with "math". It's a part of us that cannot be separated. IMO, "Math" gets complicated for many adults and children by attempts to extract numbers from the real world and harness them into the classroom. The smallest of children understand quantities without being formally taught.

In any case, there are many professionals who believe math to be innate:
Kids Have Innate Math Ability | The Harvard Crimson
The Brain: Humanity's Other Basic Instinct: Math | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine
Innate 'number sense' boosts math skills | The Australian

I don't see there to be any way that we can say that the understanding of "math" points to a person being a "thinking" type, and that people who have strong skills in linguistics are not equally skilled in logical reasoning.

Your remark is mostly irrelevant to the conversation, but you are onto something. Inevitably, we all see the world through the scope of some mathematical entities. Hence, we see the world as having many attributes (numbers) and we tend to assume that it is possible to to add, divide or multiple entities.

However, these entities are much less innate to us than grammar as linguists suggest. Most people pick up on language much quicker than on math. Children can speak a language on a basic level at the age of 4, yet most can't do basic math until 8 or 9. The highest level of grammar is generally taught to High School students, yet the highest level of math is taught only in post-graduate colleges.

As a general rule, it seems to me that most people have a much easier time learning a language than learning math. Why is language innate? Because we seem to display knowledge of it without being taught. Language is incredibly complex and much more complex than many mathematical concepts. No child could learn Set theory, yet, many five year old kids are able to construct their own sentence with great fluency.

What does math have to do with logic? It uses the method of logical reasoning or deductive reasoning. Many problems solved by abstract algebraists and typologists are similar to those that are solved by Symbolic Logic students. Notably the former are much more complex than the latter.

In the beginning of the 20th century, there were mathematicians and philosophers who espoused the Logicism doctrine, or the thesis that math and logic are the same. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead are the most notable of them all.

Does the Thinking function predispose one to be talented with math? Yes, Thinking is the function that allows us to perceive structure in the world. We all use it, and for the most part innately so. Those of us who are thinking types simply have a tendency to use it more than those of us who do not. It is difficult to imagine engaging in a structured activity in any other way than using logic, unless of course the structure in question is innate just like it is in the case of linguistics.

Do you have to be a Thinker to be good at math or any structured thinking? No, but you have to be good at using the Thinking function. Thinkers have a slight edge in this regard because using the Thinking function requires less effort and is more natural.

Again, why don't you need to rely heavily on Thinking to use language well? Because much of the use of our language is instinctual, it is ingrained in our nature. If you want a concrete example regarding the difference in the degree of innateness regarding math and language, consider this. A child can learn to construct his own sentences just by being around adults who make little effort to teach him to use a language. Yet, if these adults were to try to teach him math, there is nothing that they could do to get him to understand or use math until he is much older.

Grammar is a difficult subject for many adults. I know quite a few 28 year olds, not to mention 8 year olds, who don't have anything close to "formidable" grammar. Also, if you've ever studied a foreign language grammar is the most difficult part to grasp because languages are so diverse grammatically speaking. The grammar used in English is backwards from French, and six ways sideways from Russian. So again, I'm going to have to disregard your claim of "language instinct" in this case. I know American people who speak a second language (besides English) in the home because of their parents' or grandparents' first language, who struggled terribly to learn how to read and write properly in that second language they had spoken in part and heard their entire lives.

The language instinct disappears for people who have not learned a language up until the age of six. We know this because then we notice that they can't learn a language at any point afterward. It is quite likely that the language instinct weakens as we grow older, yet because we have already learned the language at the early age, it becomes instinctual to us, or second nature.

The grammar used in English is backwards from French, and six ways sideways from Russian. So again, I'm going to have to disregard your claim of "language instinct" in this case. I know American people who speak a second language (besides English) in the home because of their parents' or grandparents' first language, who struggled terribly to learn how to read and write properly in that second language they had spoken in part and heard their entire lives.

I don't think this undermines my main point in any way. My thesis was that learning a language was primarily an intuitive activity rather than analytical. The fact that some people struggle to use a language properly is altogether irrelevant. From my perspective, one could easily conclude that the reason somebody struggles with language is because the necessary language intuition of theirs is weak and its not the case that their analytical skills are weak. (The language intuition shouldn't be confused with the language instinct. The language intuition is merely a hunch that guides us along as we use the language after we have learned it as children)

AIn kind, most mathematicians and logicians are not talented at being novelists for that matter.

This is true and it seems to support my thesis that math and language require a different set of attributes. In order to learn to use a language well you need to competently exercise as certain kind of an intuition. In order to do math well, you must excel at analytical and systematic reasoning.

If my thesis is false, then it is the case that you need the same skill set to excel at language and math. In that case novelists and poets would be talented at math and by the same token; mathematicians would excel at writing novels and poetry. This, however, is nowhere close to the state of the case.

 

[Wonkavision]

Here's something I believe to be highly relevant to this discussion.


When I asked Little Linguist about the 16 types and the likelihood of her being each one of those types, she reported the following:

ENTJ-No
ESTJ-No
ISTP-No
INTP-No
ESTP-No
ISFP-No
ESFP-No

ESFJ-Probably Not
ENFJ-Probably Not
INFP-Probably Not
INFJ-Probably Not
ENTP-Probably Not

ISFJ-Could be
INTJ-Could be
ISTJ-Could be
ENFP-Could be


Little Linguist---If any of this is incorrect or has changed since I asked you about it, please let me know.

Certainly, this information should be considered when trying to determine Little Linguist's type.

At the very least, it should help to narrow things down.

 

[Thalassa]

Your remark is mostly irrelevant to the conversation, but you are onto something. Inevitably, we all see the world through the scope of some mathematical entities. Hence, we see the world as having many attributes (numbers) and we tend to assume that it is possible to to add, divide or multiple entities.

However, these entities are much less innate to us than grammar as linguists suggest. Most people pick up on language much quicker than on math. Children can speak a language on a basic level at the age of 4, yet most can't do basic math until 8 or 9. The highest level of grammar is generally taught to High School students, yet the highest level of math is taught only in post-graduate colleges.

Linguistics is not taught until the third or fourth year of college, and then only to majors. The highest level of literary analysis and comparitive literature (between languages) is only taught at post-graduate level.

As a general rule, it seems to me that most people have a much easier time learning a language than learning math. Why is language innate? Because we seem to display knowledge of it without being taught. Language is incredibly complex and much more complex than many mathematical concepts. No child could learn Set theory, yet, many five year old kids are able to construct their own sentence with great fluency.

As a general rule, it seems to me that most people who are good at math are terrible novelists.

Does the Thinking function predispose one to be talented with math? Yes, Thinking is the function that allows us to perceive structure in the world. We all use it, and for the most part innately so. Those of us who are thinking types simply have a tendency to use it more than those of us who do not. It is difficult to imagine engaging in a structured activity in any other way than using logic, unless of course the structure in question is innate just like it is in the case of linguistics.

I do agree that many thinkers seem predisposed to mathematical and scientific thinking.

Again, why don't you need to rely heavily on Thinking to use language well? Because much of the use of our language is instinctual, it is ingrained in our nature. If you want a concrete example regarding the difference in the degree of innateness regarding math and language, consider this. A child can learn to construct his own sentences just by being around adults who make little effort to teach him to use a language. Yet, if these adults were to try to teach him math, there is nothing that they could do to get him to understand or use math until he is much older.

Lots of people fail miserably at literary analysis, though. Still more are bad story tellers, as evidenced by dime-store novels and B movies. To postulate that people who excel at linguistics and writing are riding on instinct is preposterous.

This is true and it seems to support my thesis that math and language require a different set of attributes. In order to learn to use a language well you need to competently exercise as certain kind of an intuition. In order to do math well, you must excel at analytical and systematic reasoning.

I will agree with you here.

If my thesis is false, then it is the case that you need the same skill set to excel at language and math. In that case novelists and poets would be talented at math and by the same token; mathematicians would excel at writing novels and poetry. This, however, is nowhere close to the state of the case.

Your thesis is not entirely false. I agree with this final paragraph, as well. However, I do believe there are some weak points in your assessment of people who do language or writing as a profession, or even as a tertiary level student.

 

[BlueScreen]

Nobody is saying that if you are not a T, you can't be a mathematician, merely that your most natural attribute does not gear you towards mathematics.

As I said before, I'm an F and I was always strongest in maths. I knew binary when I was 7 and how to solve almost any integral by hand before I finished school. So naturally I see this rule as crap.

I did a poll a while ago that might help also: Are ENFPs a logical type?

The fact Marmalade is an ENFP also, means it might be more sensible to see an exception to your F/T rule.

While you're at it, look at the number of ENFPs and ENTPs who are good in journalism. Then look at the number of journalists who go on to be good novelists. I know this isn't conclusive, because it doesn't have to be the ENPs who become the novelists, but it's another thing to think about when making the statement. And you know they are at least good in languages to become journalists.

 

[Laurie]

Stay in your boxes!!!!!!!!! There are rules to be followed here!

 

[Jeffster]

It's not necessarily offensive, just ridiculous, because a mature ENFP would be more accepting of others, not less. Her on-going, huffy judgements of others actually strike me as a bit childish.

Oh please. NFs make judgements of people all the time.

And NFs are Cooperators too, not just SJs. Linguist has clearly demonstrated more abstract than concrete communication.

Abstract Cooperator = NF Idealist.

For the record, Linguist, I haven't found anything you've said "huffy" or childish. You are opening yourself up and sharing from the heart, and it's refreshing. There's something a bit ironic about a person accusing you of being non-accepting while insulting you in the same sentence.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Linguist has clearly demonstrated more abstract than concrete communication.

I don't see that in the OP and in what else I have read. The way she gives actual examples seems very concrete.

I'm also not seeing basic NF temperament qualities expressed from her like idealism and empathy.

I get a judging dominant vibe, an extrovert vibe and a Si vibe. I'd guess ESTJ from what I've read.

 

[Charmed Justice]

I don't see that in the OP and in what else I have read. The way she gives actual examples seems very concrete.

I'm also not seeing basic NF temperament qualities expressed from her like idealism and empathy.

I get a judging dominant vibe, an extrovert vibe and a Si vibe. I'd guess ESTJ from what I've read.

Very concrete language indeed. She likes specific and exact, so as to leave no room for misunderstandings.

 

[Little Linguist]

First, thank you to everyone participating and taking this thread seriously. I think we are well on the way to finding an answer (I hope).

Second, regarding the 'innateness' of language. Although I would tend to agree that language is innate for children, I would say the older you get, the less of an innateness language has, which is strange. Math is the other way around. At first it is less clear, and the farther along you get, the more understandable it is.

As a teacher of language and academic writing, I would say that higher levels of language are definitely not innate. Take the phenomenon of bilingualism, for example, of which I see several examples. People are raised with Russian/German, English/German, Polish/German, among others. One language is always stronger than another. Now you can argue that the language of the 'home country' will be stronger because they live there and 'innately' pick up that language; whereas the other language is learned more 'unnaturally', but that is not always the case, ironically.

Then you have language speakers that learn the language as a second language. Grammar is the most difficult concept; ironically I found it relatively easy. I have learned to appreciate things like diagramming (you remember that folks?). That comprises dissecting sentences to find out whether or not the grammatical structure is appropriate. When I am not certain, I can still dissect sentences that way. I think it's important to note that while other kids had learned this from the 4th grade, I entered in the 7th grade - totally lost, as I had never learned this concept before - and mastered it in a single year. Of course, I'm not saying that necessarily proves I'm a T, but it proves that I have a penchant for logical thinking to do with words.

Let's now turn our eye to math: I was never 'bad' at math, except for fourth grade long division and multiplication, for some odd reason. Anyway, when I said I was BAD at math, I meant getting Bs. Without trying to sound overly arrogant, for me, that was 'bad', as compared with language, where I could sit there with little to no effort and just imbibe it and spit back As. Where would YOU put the effort if you had to choose between a) pouring over your homework every night and learning for 1-2 hours a day or b) doing your homework five minutes before class and still pull off an A. That's right folks. I think it's also interesting to note that I pretty much always understood the concept; however, I floundered on details. A minus sign missing here, a step skipped there. Little things. Not the big things. With the exception of Geometry. I hate spatial 'skills'. There I really struggle and I'm a genuine idiot.

Turning back to type, I was not attempting to be 'huffy' or 'offensive'; in fact, I am quite aware that my thoughts can be acerbic and quite off-putting at times, which is why I have learned to quell them and package them in the 'right' way, i.e. in a way that is not offensive to others. That took many, many years of hard work and practice of coming out of my shell but still not shocking the hell out of people. I still struggle with it. This time, I allowed myself the freedom to state my thoughts blankly because I wanted you to see how I tick without all the constraints of donned-on Fe (as I interpret it).

As far as being an S type, I wouldn't completely discount it. However, I think it is relatively unlikely, as S-characterized traits tend to be one of my weakest ones (along with Fe and Te).

Assuming ^^^ that is correct, we can assume that any S-dominant type is unlikely (not going to speak in absolutes here until we prove the assumption). Fe-dominant and auxiliary is also unlikely, as I struggle a great deal with the concept. I would say feeling dominant types are also probably a no-go with regard to my struggle for F. Ti-dominant is also definitely out. Let's see...what does that leave?

ENTP, ENFP, INTJ, ESTJ, ENTJ....am I missing any others?

Thoughts? I have to go to work now.

 

[Charmed Justice]

I think it's entirely safe to scratch ENFP and ENTP. Just my opinion of course, but XXTJ feels most like the you that you describe, to me.

 

[OrangeAppled]

As far as being an S type, I wouldn't completely discount it. However, I think it is relatively unlikely, as S-characterized traits tend to be one of my weakest ones (along with Fe and Te).

Really? You seem to express a need to control your environment which I'd call Te. That's the biggest thing that comes out in these posts to me.
You also seemed to explain Te and Si with greater ease and clarity than the feeling and intuitive functions.

I also get a sense of an INFP shadow in examples where you're upset and stressed....

 

[Charmed Justice]

LL, how consistent are your sleep/wake cycles and your eating patterns when left to your own devices?

 

[Thalassa]

Oh please. NFs make judgements of people all the time.

And NFs are Cooperators too, not just SJs. Linguist has clearly demonstrated more abstract than concrete communication.

Abstract Cooperator = NF Idealist.

For the record, Linguist, I haven't found anything you've said "huffy" or childish. You are opening yourself up and sharing from the heart, and it's refreshing. There's something a bit ironic about a person accusing you of being non-accepting while insulting you in the same sentence.

Oh she can insult us but we can't return the favor.

 

[Little Linguist]

LL, how consistent are your sleep/wake cycles and your eating patterns when left to your own devices?

Good question. Let me see. When I have to work, I have to wake up early, which I (somehow???) manage and I have to go to bed early, which I almost never manage. When I have free time, on the other hand, I love sleeping in late and waking up late. However, no matter which schedule I am on, I am relatively consistent. It is just irritating that I cannot follow my normal rhythm.

Oh she can insult us but we can't return the favor.

Marmalade,

I think I expressed the fact that I deviated from my normal diplomatic manner to express my true thoughts to provide for an accurate reading. In addition, I expressed regret at having unintentionally caused any hurt feelings. For me, the topic is over, and I'm sorry it is not for you. And if it makes you feel better by 'insulting' me, go ahead and do it.

 

[Little Linguist]

Really? You seem to express a need to control your environment which I'd call Te. That's the biggest thing that comes out in these posts to me.
You also seemed to explain Te and Si with greater ease and clarity than the feeling and intuitive functions.

I also get a sense of an INFP shadow in examples where you're upset and stressed....

As I recall, I thought I described Ni more accurately than Si, though I might have been mistaken, as my memory is not the best.

However, even if I did not describe it correctly, you would still have a point by saying that alone would not discount the possibility that I am Si-dom/aux. So I concede that much.

What gives you the feeling I am a competent Si-user?