• 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.

Logical order and an INT

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
A question for the typologists...

I've been questioning the nature of a predisposition of mine. I tend to be obsessed with putting everything in logical order, systemizing, approaching every activity as if it were a game-of-sorting-out-the-chaos. A few examples:

For example...
Presented with a choice of pieces of art, let's say films or books, I will always favour dividing them equally over the free time I have, deciding to go for them in chronological order or in very defined categories. The thing is that this planning and structuring is always done internally and I always strive to go along those lines, until I happen to find other interesting pieces, only to rearrange the original plan, ad nauseam. This intense categorizing and defining within an endeavour of my interest does not seem to have much practical purpose nor anything going for it in the name of efficiency, even if I do see them as my own plans. It's just a very strong tendency to arrange them according to some very subjective logical criteria, so much so that my stubborness in not crossing them may be the cause of much un-pragmatism.

I am surely an Introverted Intuitive Thinker. Now, at first glance, the aforementioned tendencies appear to be proper of a Judging type beset by obsessive compulsive behaviour. Or it could be the influence of the strong Judging types during my lifetime...that I can entertain, but it does not seem very likely, because this is a very deep-set tendency...It could be fitting of a Dominant Thinker...Te cannot be, as I am not extraverted enough...so it could be introverted Thinking, which is content with analysing systematically and solving problems internally, or so it is said.

Thus, I've set the table. What do you make of it? I'd like to read your logical explanations.
 

Eugene Watson VIII

Senor Membrae
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
824
MBTI Type
xxxP
Enneagram
?
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This intense categorizing and defining within an endeavour of my interest does not seem to have much practical purpose nor anything going for it in the name of efficiency, even if I do see them as my own plans. It's just a very strong tendency to arrange them according to some very subjective logical criteria, so much so that my stubborness in not crossing them may be the cause of much un-pragmatism.

Pretty much sums up Ti. The subjective criteria is introverted thinking since it's subjective and that it has no practical purpose like you say. I think there are a few threads on OCD and thinking on here and Personality Cafe too

are you also a type 5?
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
Pretty much sums up Ti. The subjective criteria is introverted thinking since it's subjective and that it has no practical purpose like you say. I think there are a few threads on OCD and thinking on here and Personality Cafe too

are you also a type 5?

Thank you, I'll check them out.

Yes, 5w4.

Anyone else?
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Judging only from your post above, I'ld give you a Te preferency. I'ld never come to think to watch movies in some sort of chronological order or put up an arrangement at all. Of course if they were episodes that would be different but besides that it doesnt matter to me if things are chaotic. Yet thats rather an indicator for Ne.

What I mean with you being Te is that people tend to automatically label very logical and systematic thinkers, which are not assertive, to be Ti people. Yet Ti means introverted Thinking, why tho then does that automatically need to be logical ? I mean the categorical imperative was invented by Kant and since then logic evolved into some sort of religion for us today. So adapting to that would be, per Jung type definition, be a Te thing, wouldnt it ? While a Ti thing would be to come up with some sort of own logic, which if not checked against reality, can go pretty vertigo.

I think the sole difference between F and T is not moral and logic its subjectivity and objectivity. So to say a F person is more egoistic per nature, tho this is a very blunt assesment. F people furthermore have a deeper respect for the, lets call it "egoism" of other people and therefore pay more respect to that. T people of all put little respect to the individual and are more concerned with the process than with the state. They have no statues which bind them.

This's my personal theory, it may be a bit strange but I have the gut feeling that there is more to it than just attributing to every Ti dominant you meet a very pronounced capacity for logical thinking. On this page my theory gets back up: http://www.personalitynation.com/jungian-cognitive-functions/532-lenore-thomsons-interpretation-introverted-thinking-ti.html

She says at some point:
p. 287: "As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear [contra Extraverted Thinking]. It's body-based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically."

And thats pretty much the point. Basically you can label every intp who thinks its pretty much Ti if things follow a linear reasonable conceptual approach, a Te. The problem is since most of them have no self-confidence you pretty much quickly end up with them going for the least assertive type per definition.

You yourself would know best if you are after this new input still a Ti; but one things for sure tho, Ti aint about "making lists".
 

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
A question for the typologists...

I've been questioning the nature of a predisposition of mine. I tend to be obsessed with putting everything in logical order, systemizing, approaching every activity as if it were a game-of-sorting-out-the-chaos. A few examples:

For example...
Presented with a choice of pieces of art, let's say films or books, I will always favour dividing them equally over the free time I have, deciding to go for them in chronological order or in very defined categories.

Just curious what you mean by dividing them equally in this context? Also which types of categories are you using?
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
Just curious what you mean by dividing them equally in this context? Also which types of categories are you using?

Dividing : for instance, each day, allow self only (...) minutes to such activity or just 1 movie per day ...or finish (...) activity by the weekend, so that a new, very different activity can be started on Monday... and I will (try to) stick to this directive, even if it does clash with many external obligations or constraints ... I could just cross them, the end result is usually better when I become more unstructured so as to avoid that kind of compromise.

Categories...from very conventional ones (first volume of a work- second volume - third ...) to rather unconventional ones (go through all the movies featuring animals in sequence, or fuse episodes that take place in the same continent...).
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
And thats pretty much the point. Basically you can label every intp who thinks its pretty much Ti if things follow a linear reasonable conceptual approach, a Te. The problem is since most of them have no self-confidence you pretty much quickly end up with them going for the least assertive type per definition.

You yourself would know best if you are after this new input still a Ti; but one things for sure tho, Ti aint about "making lists".

Just to have it clarified, what would be the main differences between 'experimental' and 'analytical' reasoning? Could you give off some examples?
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
At the positive end of the spectrum it could be related to testosterone in utero or high pfc development. At the negative end of the spectrum, perhaps control behaviors or some such. It may be related to none of the above as well.
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
At the positive end of the spectrum it could be related to testosterone in utero or high pfc development. At the negative end of the spectrum, perhaps control behaviors or some such. It may be related to none of the above as well.

Could you explain the testosterone link?
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
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?
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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-finger-length-predicts-sat-performance.html

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/14/testosterone-hormone-linked-to-higher-iq/24379.html

http://guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/...stosterone-womb?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

Testosterone is related to a lot of seemingly contradictory things including illogical outbursts of aggression.
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
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?
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
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-finger-length-predicts-sat-performance.html

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/14/testosterone-hormone-linked-to-higher-iq/24379.html

http://guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/...stosterone-womb?cat=lifeandstyle&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?
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
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?
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
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:

800px-Induktion-Deduktion.svg.png


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. :)
 

luismas

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
84
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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."

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.

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...
 
Top