Personality Cafe banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Mathematics: Te vs. Ti

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 669 Posts

Tellus

· Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 · (Edited)
There are four aspects of mathematics that are processed by Te and Ti. (Ne deals with new patterns and connections)

1) The multiplication table is like a language or facts: Te

2) 3x=6, and general rules for equations => Therefore x=2 (logical deduction): Te

3) Notice that the left side of an equation equals the right side, 2x = x + x (incl. estimations): Ti

4) Visualize any mathematical objects: Ti

Do you agree with me?
 
#2 ·
Understanding of maths is a complex thing - it requires spatial, logical and linguistic reasoning in a fairly continuous proportion. Those you have isolated are small instances of very elementary things. I don't think they say much about IEs or even about mathematical reasoning in general.

We are talking about large processes here, and I feel like little examples such as these are more misleading than anything else ("wow, I know multiplication tables, I must be using Te!"). I don't think that's how it works?

Although, maybe you could make the argument that multiplication tables are a Te object, because it is this useful mnemonic tool - in another sense, they are the product of a type of reasoning that values practicality and efficiency. However, everyone uses them and anyone could come up with them. Just like maths in general is probably a Ti structure, but does every little instance of learning maths have to involve Ti? Out of all the spatial, linguistic, logical processing?

Functions are archetypes, an attempt to organize information into rough categories. We often think of them as almost real, mental processes, but it's not very useful to try and plug this "model" even into the smallest random thing.
 
#4 ·
I slightly disagree, but I get the point. It would seem to me that Te would take on a theorem/principle/equation as a whole as it is and just plug and play given information, but Ti would be concerned with defining the variables. Every mathematical processes use both Te and Ti. Te will acknowledge the variables, but Ti will want to solve for the variables. Once a variable has been solved, Te plugs in and plays the variable for an more complete picture.
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
GnothiSeauton said:
Understanding of maths is a complex thing - it requires spatial, logical and linguistic reasoning in a fairly continuous proportion. Those you have isolated are small instances of very elementary things. I don't think they say much about IEs or even about mathematical reasoning in general.

We are talking about large processes here, and I feel like little examples such as these are more misleading than anything else ("wow, I know multiplication tables, I must be using Te!"). I don't think that's how it works?

Although, maybe you could make the argument that multiplication tables are a Te object, because it is this useful mnemonic tool - in another sense, they are the product of a type of reasoning that values practicality and efficiency. However, everyone uses them and anyone could come up with them. Just like maths in general is probably a Ti structure, but does every little instance of learning maths have to involve Ti? Out of all the spatial, linguistic, logical processing?

Functions are archetypes, an attempt to organize information into rough categories. We often think of them as almost real, mental processes, but it's not very useful to try and plug this "model" even into the smallest random thing.
Click to expand...
First of all, Te (as an IM element/function) is not correctly defined by the information aspect Te (or P) in Socionics (see my other threads). So we are not just talking about practicality and efficiency. Nardi's/Berens' (and Jung's) descriptions are much better, but they are still lacking in some respects.

Secondly, how do you view the (non-Jungian) cognitive processes? Do you think they are subsumed by the Jungian functions or not? I am convinced they are, so every logical cognitive process that do not belong to Te, belongs to Ti. Btw, a Jungian function is a set of cognitive processes.

Thirdly, my reasoning is also based on concrete facts about brain functions. For example, we know that the frontal lobe/left brain deals with language and that the rear brain is visual. So some aspects of mathematics cannot be Ti, and others cannot be Te.
 
#8 ·
IMO.

Ti correlates with proofs and abstract math.
Te correlates with engineering and practical solutions.

I think Ti is ultimately "superior" for math because math is an abstract concept and a Ti user will find it easier to do Te math than vice-versa.

I think INTPs would be some of the best programmers and INTJs some of the best engineers.
 
Discussion starter · #9 ·
Captain Mclain said:
I think Te do the facts, like taking in the information, try to classify it and use the correct classified equation.
I think Ti will first internalize the problem, try to visualize it and then narrow down a equation to solve it.
Click to expand...
'4x4=16' and '4+4=8'. If you think about these expressions as facts (or a language) then you are using Te. If you try to evaluate '1685x4983' (or 4x4 as a child... it is impossible as an adult since you already know the answer) then it is Ti. What does Te evaluate? The fastest way from A to B (etc), so trying to use the most efficient/effective equation is Te.

The information aspect Te (P) is flawed, but it is not completely useless. Compare 'external dynamics of objects' with 'external statics of fields'.

Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

Ne classifies new objects/facts (Dario Nardi's F4 brain region). It is not a logical process, i.e. no evaluation based on temperature, weight, energy (i.e. efficiency) etc.
 
Discussion starter · #10 ·
UraniaIsis said:
I slightly disagree, but I get the point. It would seem to me that Te would take on a theorem/principle/equation as a whole as it is and just plug and play given information, but Ti would be concerned with defining the variables. Every mathematical processes use both Te and Ti. Te will acknowledge the variables, but Ti will want to solve for the variables. Once a variable has been solved, Te plugs in and plays the variable for an more complete picture.
Click to expand...
Okay, so Ti is about logical deduction according to you, right? Btw, this is SSS's and mainstream Socionics' viewpoint.

3x=6. When you solve this equation, is it all about Ti (according to you)?
 
#11 ·
Tellus said:
Okay, so Ti is about logical deduction according to you, right? Btw, this is SSS's and mainstream Socionics' viewpoint.

3x=6. When you solve this equation, is it all about Ti (according to you)?
Click to expand...
Only to solve for x, then yes. Ok, I thought you were only implying the MBTI applications of the Tx functions. This is what I get for not paying attention and losing track of which forums I'm in before answering. I've only begun to dip my toes into the Socionics system. I haven't heard of SSS, what is it? Afterwards, I won't pester your thread with my nonsense any further.
:frustrating:
 
#12 ·
I think Te and Ti can approach the same math problem in different ways, but both still arrive at the solution. Just a guess though.
 
#14 ·
Tellus said:
Yes, but how is that relevant to this thread?
Click to expand...
Principle is about that larger outcome rather than the single instance. If y=mx+b we are more concerned with the outcome or general meaning of that rather than any specific instance. Leave the variables, variables and that's all that needs to be understood in a Ti sense. Transformations as well.
I think Te may be more interested in discovering a constant.
 
#16 ·
...

Why are people treating MBTI Te and Ti in socionics? In socionics, maths is ALL Ti because it's about the logical relationships between objects, rules and axioms. Te is algorithmic; it only cares for the most efficient result as opposed to how you got there.
 
#17 ·
Well, my view of this is:

As long as you're dealing with mundane sub A tasks in maths, it's mostly about Te and its application. Know the formula, usethe formula properly, avoid traps. It's fairly easy. But also quite boring for a lot of people due how "simple" and "drab" Te can be.

A grade tasks and Uni grade theoretical maths is however Ti. You've to understand a LOT, apply things that are NOT really visible, model the task succesfully so you transform it into something eligible, notice symmetries etc. It does use some Te, but it is mostly Ti here. This leads to a lot of mental confusion for non-Ti's(and especially for non T's), but it is apparently more interesting than "copy paste this here" from High School.
 
Discussion starter · #18 ·
Toroidal said:
IMO.

Ti correlates with proofs and abstract math.
Te correlates with engineering and practical solutions.

I think Ti is ultimately "superior" for math because math is an abstract concept and a Ti user will find it easier to do Te math than vice-versa.

I think INTPs would be some of the best programmers and INTJs some of the best engineers.
Click to expand...
I disagree... We know that LII (INTj/INTP) is best suited for engineering, and ILI (INTp/INTJ) is best suited for programming and science. Ti is about systems and Te is about algorithms/logical deductions. In order to understand why some types are more interested in technology than others, we need accepting/producing and +/- as well. For example, LIEs and LSEs study mechanical engineering but ILIs don't.
 
Discussion starter · #20 ·
Entropic said:
...

Why are people treating MBTI Te and Ti in socionics? In socionics, maths is ALL Ti because it's about the logical relationships between objects, rules and axioms. Te is algorithmic; it only cares for the most efficient result as opposed to how you got there.
Click to expand...
...and this is one reason why Socionics is flawed. SSS's and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects don't work. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C... this is not about "fields".

N.B. It is impossible to discuss Ti/Te and mathematics in the MBTI forum since we need Model A.
 
1 - 20 of 669 Posts
About this Discussion
668 Replies
63 Participants
Last post:
hugo_stiglitz
Personality Cafe
posts
11M
members
172K
Since
2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
INFP Forum - The Idealists INFJ Forum - The Protectors INTP Forum - The Thinkers INTJ Forum - The Scientists Myers Briggs Forum