# how intj and intp does mathematics?



## tetrahedronX780 (Dec 13, 2021)

is mathematics is for intp ti dom or intj ni dom?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

What this "is for" relationship supposed to express?
If it is "most efficiently explored by", then this question is fucking stupid doesn't make sense and has no answer.


----------



## tetrahedronX780 (Dec 13, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> What this "is for" relationship supposed to express?
> If it is "most efficiently explored by", then this question is fucking stupid doesn't make sense and has no answer.


I said Math doesn't seem to be for ni dom and more like
Ti dom because mathematics is very ti to me.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

tetrahedronX780 said:


> I said Math doesn't seem to be for ni dom and more like
> Ti dom because mathematics is very ti to me.


Generally,
INTJs seem to be concerned with "knowing" and correcting those who "don't know". (Exegesis) - Ni-Te
INTPs seem to like discovering ideas and knowledge. (Thesis) - Ti-Ne

The "working out" part of maths seems to be the Ti part. Especially mathematical induction.
Otherwise coming up with a mathematical thesis.

Te parts could be knowing what the theorems are. Explaining maths in general.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

tetrahedronX780 said:


> I said Math doesn't seem to be for ni dom and more like
> Ti dom because mathematics is very ti to me.


It is Ti to you because you have no single clue what it is, going by the ridiculousness of your questions.



Joe Black said:


> Generally,
> INTJs seem to be concerned with "knowing" and correcting those who "don't know". (Exegesis) - Ni-Te
> INTPs seem to like discovering ideas and knowledge. (Thesis) - Ti-Ne
> 
> ...


Another one for whom Ti is "working out" and Te is "memorization"/being dumb encyclopedia. Fascinating. You must be a Te user by your definition.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Don't forget that S is when you count things like coins. We don't even know what a theorem is, doesn't sound real to me.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Allostasis said:


> Another one for whom Ti is "working out" and Te is "memorization"/being dumb encyclopedia. Fascinating. You must be a Te user by your definition.


Well Si would include memorization and details.

But I'm not here to give an exhaustive explanation.

And yes I am a Te user. I used all 8 functions as any normal human would to live a normal life. But I know you mean it mean someone who Te is their dominant, auxillary, tertiary or even inferior. So Te isn't one that I use as readilly or naturally.

A dumb enclyclopedia is not quite it... more like an intelligent error correcting machine that has knickers and its knickers twist a bit whenever it detects error - the greater the error, the greater the twist.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Allostasis said:


> It is Ti to you because you have no single clue what it is, going by the ridiculousness of your questions.


I'm guessing OP is trying to ask what cognitive functions are used in mathematics, and therefore which personality type would have an advantage in mathematics?

In mathemetics, making guesses and seeing connections (with Ni) is less useful unless dealing with patterns perhaps? - why OP said "Maths isn't for Ni doms". Not that Ni doms can't excel in maths. I am Ni dom and was Dux (Valedictorian for Americans - top of the class) in maths & in general in highschool. But after highschool, I had no interest in pursuing maths.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Joe Black said:


> Or perhaps pointing out that people's understanding of cognitive functions doesn't specifically align with Carl Jung's book "Personality Types" (i.e non exegetical) to which you may have sought to fully comprehend, others may have been happy with "the gist of it" from the internet.


Not to single you out because I am petty, Joe, but I have noticed that you could perhaps surprise yourself by reading what Jung said (in particular about introverted sensation).


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> Not to single you out because I am petty, Joe, but I have noticed that you could perhaos surprise yourself by reading what Jung said (in particular about introverted sensation).


Thanks for the tip! I do actually have Carl Jung's book which I'm going through. Havent finished it completely though.

I've read about Si being about memory, traditions, experiences. But also my Ti is questioning Carl (not because I think he's wrong) but because I observe my wife Si dom and trying to make sense for myself how Si works for her. Because she always forgets where she leaves her phone! But great at bookkeeping etc. And yes, she can't handle using a different OS, nor is she excited to learn or explore different software, platforms, or even use another mouse. Whereas I use 3 different OS's and excited to explore different technologies. And I doubt my memories on things. Neurologically (from another book) we can't quite remember real world details if we don't focus on them. So being in my head a lot would entail not remembering real world things. So I'm comparing the theories and research from different places and trying to make sense how they fit together, hence also why I'm not a Jung purist necessarily.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Joe Black said:


> I've read about Si being about memory, traditions, experiences. But also my Ti is questioning Carl (not because I think he's wrong) but because I observe my wife Si dom and trying to make sense for myself how Si works for her. Because she always forgets where she leaves her phone! But great at bookkeeping etc


Nahh Carl basically just thinks we are a bunch of weirdos sadly.


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

I think to be good at math and computer science, you'd need to be strong in all four functions, Ni/Ne and Ti/Te. Ti/Ne is very good at finding logical inconsistency, which is important to make proofs airtight. Ni/Te is very good at things that are more fuzzy, that is usually called "the bigger picture". Mathematician and programmer need to jump back and forth between the details and the bigger picture.

I don't like the word "respect/disrespect", but that seems to be the case for Ni/Te users to disrespect Ti/Ne, and Ne/Ti users to disrespect Te/Ni. Perhaps it's because most of us are uncomfortable with our shadow functions in some way. When you look down at a function, you're limiting your own possibility to master it.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

SouDesuNyan said:


> Ni/Te is very good at things that are more fuzzy, that is usually called "the bigger picture".


I'm not sure if Ni/Te is bigger picture or just Ni? But I think Ni is fundamentally about perceiving connections, which leads to patterns, rules, understanding, which leads to the bigger picture, so as to produce results based on rules and planning. The opposite function Se is more about "what is" and adapting - the data itself. And both are necessary because sometimes the connection isn't true, or the pattern isn't enduring, and an Se reality check is required. And figure out the rules are good so that we're not constantly adapting in chaos or "trial & error" solving everything. So in some cases, Ni is helpful in coming to a solution quicker. And Se & Ti is helpful at verifying and testing.

I like the bigger picture, especially when serving my clients because I can find a better solution, or figure out what they didn't realise they needed. And they're generally grateful that I can do that.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> Don't forget that S is when you count things like coins. We don't even know what a theorem is, doesn't sound real to me.


Yeah, how can you guys even comprehend the concept of a number. Thank god you have us, intuitives. 



Joe Black said:


> Well Si would include memorization and details.
> 
> But I'm not here to give an exhaustive explanation.
> 
> ...





Joe Black said:


> I'm guessing OP is trying to ask what cognitive functions are used in mathematics, and therefore which personality type would have an advantage in mathematics?
> 
> In mathemetics, making guesses and seeing connections (with Ni) is less useful unless dealing with patterns perhaps? - why OP said "Maths isn't for Ni doms". Not that Ni doms can't excel in maths. I am Ni dom and was Dux (Valedictorian for Americans - top of the class) in maths & in general in highschool. But after highschool, I had no interest in pursuing maths.


It's like you are asking me to criticize you harder. Not sure what else did you expect by posting this.
All of this is complete nonsense to me.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Allostasis said:


> It's like you are asking me to criticize you harder.


Yes, please inform me. Perhaps my idea of how cognitive functions work is incorrect & incomplete. What do you think are the cognitive functions necessary for mathematics and why? And what do those functions do?


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

Joe Black said:


> I'm not sure if Ni/Te is bigger picture or just Ni? But I think Ni is fundamentally about perceiving connections, which leads to patterns, rules, understanding, which leads to the bigger picture, so as to produce results based on rules and planning. The opposite function Se is more about "what is" and adapting - the data itself. And both are necessary because sometimes the connection isn't true, or the pattern isn't enduring, and an Se reality check is required. And figure out the rules are good so that we're not constantly adapting in chaos or "trial & error" solving everything. So in some cases, Ni is helpful in coming to a solution quicker. And Se & Ti is helpful at verifying and testing.
> 
> I like the bigger picture, especially when serving my clients because I can find a better solution, or figure out what they didn't realise they needed. And they're generally grateful that I can do that.


In math and programming, building the bigger picture is both Ni and Te. The term that computer scientist uses is "abstraction", or information hiding. Abstraction is necessary to manage a lot of data. In a way, it is very "optimistic" thinking, because chances are, the interactions between the little details would cause conflicts (these are called "exceptions" in programming). But for now, it's the best high-level view we have. It's debatable how much of "high-level abstraction" in math and programming is Ni, and how much is Te. My guess is that it's significantly more Ni than Te, maybe 80/20? I do think that the perception functions are more important to see things clearly in something as "pure" as math and programming.

Ti-Ne works with the details, but there's a saying that goes like "if you master one thing, you master everything". That's because many patterns we find in the "micro" environment can be applied in the "macro" environment. The building blocks of everything are simple, but the possibilities explode exponentially, just like how everything in software is just 0s and 1s.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Actually, I've been thinking more deeply about whether the 8 cognitive function model is even the best for explaining brain function in maths.

I've learned from Cognitive theories in learning about things like schemas (knowledge structures in the brain) and this phenomenon called "automation" which stores the usual working memory process as long term memory which frees up the working memory. .e.g. driving for the first time you're using a lot more brain power to learn how to drive, but as you become experienced, it becomes so easy that you can even listen to music, audiobooks, talk to people while you drive.

So for maths, when you are doing a problem like 8x7 or any arithmatic, you're not actually calculating 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8, but just calling upon your memory to retrieve the answer. Which I'm not even sure is Si because it's abstract information that you rote learned. Calling upon formulas and stuff uses your memory, but not sensory memory. Apart from Se, and just seeing the problem on the page. So just using your eyes. I'm Se inferior but I'm blind. (There is the concept of attentional blindness but that's a whole other topic on attenton - You can read about it in Peak Mind by Dr Amishi Jha)

The rest of mathematics you're basically memorising abstract information, and learning the rules of the game (so to speak). It's actually kind of funny bringing personality into this as if you'll activate the specific cognitive functions like you're hacking your brain. Even the neurological functions of problem solving (which I haven't looked into much) seems to improve with greater stored, trained/automated memories, which happens when neurons are being constantly "fired & wired" together (concept of Neuroplasticity), thus allowing the brain to make more fluent connections between them.

Certain personalitiy types and environmental factors would cause the brain to restructure itself to optimised in a certain way (perhaps also incidentally) to "fire & wired" their neurons that pertain to the problems at hand. Since the internet, videos, social media, and the digital age, human brain scans have shown an increase in white matter in the general population (particularly of the younger generation), and white matter is particularly helpful in fast reactive brain activity. Grey matter seems to be helpful in emotional processing. (crudely put).

So if you are an INTJ or INTP who's never interested in numbers and maths, you will do much more poorly in maths than the INFP, INFJ, ESFP, etc who just has a fascination for maths or practices a lot. I've met INTJs who are quite horrendous at maths and some who are quite good. I don't think congitive functions gives you an edge, not that you can call upon them by hacking your brain like a programmer with root access.

If you invest your time in whatever you're super interested in, you'll eventually get pretty good at it.

The book Grit by Angela Duckworth is an anthopologist and looks at the psychology of hard work. practice, being in the flow, or what makes greatness. Talent or hard work? etc.
Peak by Anders Ericsson wrote about the science of expertise. Which Angela Duckworth referencese a bit. Both great books to read in relation to the psychology of become a skilled expert at something. - Needless to say, they don't refer to the 8 cognitive functions at all.
There are only moments where I thought personality theory might explain something like one's tendencies to do X or Y but it was rare.

My opinion & theory on talent (for normal un-gifted people) is that you may have accidentally used your brain a certain way, and that give you an edge that you can't explain. 
e.g. the kid at the back of the class who's super bored and the lessons and doodles on his book all the time, gets good at drawing and art, and becomes some great comic book artist later in life. Upon entering art college, he might seem to have natural talent compared to those kids who didn't practice drawing for fun much.


----------



## Quantus (Mar 18, 2021)

Joe Black said:


> Actually, I've been thinking more deeply about whether the 8 cognitive function model is even the best for explaining brain function in maths.
> 
> I've learned from Cognitive theories in learning about things like schemas (knowledge structures in the brain) and this phenomenon called "automation" which stores the usual working memory process as long term memory which frees up the working memory. .e.g. driving for the first time you're using a lot more brain power to learn how to drive, but as you become experienced, it becomes so easy that you can even listen to music, audiobooks, talk to people while you drive.
> 
> ...


I felt there was something wrong with your post... and indeed, 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8=\=7*8

If you want to explain math, then at least do your math properly.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Allostasis said:


> Yeah, how can you guys even comprehend the concept of a number. Thank god you have us, intuitives.


You guys can keep anything to do with probabilities though (beyond the basic pick a card from the deck stuff), I don't care about that witchcraft.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Quantus said:


> I felt there was something wrong with your post... and indeed, 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8=\=7*8
> 
> If you want to explain math, then at least do your math properly.


You are right Charizard! I fudged up the numberz. 🤣


----------

