Personality Cafe banner

21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,696 Posts
@Fru2 - You can't say that someone has a harder time (obviously harder relative to intuitives) and then simultaneously claim that they do it differently. These two claims are not the same. Which one is it? Do sensors do it differently, or do they have a harder time? What do you believe and what are you actually trying to convey?

@Llyralen


I am learning about Dario first through critiques of his work by others and at this point I don't think his approach is all that (that might change if I do indeed get more interested in him).

I'll watch videos that support and expound upon his ideas (if that's what the above is) after I've done learning what his ideas are and how others have scrutinized them and whether or not I consider them valid or invalid myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,716 Posts
@Fru2 - You can't say that someone has a harder time (obviously harder relative to intuitives) and then simultaneously claim that they do it differently. These two claims are not the same. Which one is it? Do sensors do it differently, or do they have a harder time? What do you believe and what are you actually trying to convey?

@Llyralen


I am learning about Dario first through critiques of his work by others and at this point I don't think his approach is all that (that might change if I do indeed get more interested in him).

I'll watch videos that support and expound upon his ideas (if that's what the above is) after I've done learning what his ideas are and how others have scrutinized them and whether or not I consider them valid or invalid myself.
What I''m trying to convey is that sensors need to see a proven fact in order to continue. And they need to do it every. single. time. Intuitives, on the other hand, have to learn something once in order to apply it to different things that don't seem to have much in common at first glance, but due to being Ne or Ni users, they gained enough experience to know where something leads to. S and N have a different way of doing things. I think that the sensor way is less efficient, because you cant take a leap forward, you first need to have a concrete and clear idea of what it is in order to trust it. In other words, if you still consider me vague then point proven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,696 Posts
What I''m trying to convey is that sensors need to see a proven fact in order to continue.
This is yet another claim. In the context of the current discussion that started with you making a claim that Sensors have a hard time with math adding continued claims that shift goal posts does not prove or forward the initial claim that you made.

And they need to do it every. single. time.
Yet another claim that you feel like you don't even need to back up at this point.

Intuitives, on the other hand, have to learn something once in order to apply it to different things that don't seem to have much in common at first glance, but due to being Ne or Ni users, they gained enough experience to know where something leads to.
Sensors can do this too. In fact, Si operates very much through this way. Actually what you're describing is much more Si than Ni or Ne.

This is not exclusive to iNtuitives.

S and N have a different way of doing things.
That's true.

I think that the sensor way is less efficient, because you cant take a leap forward, you first need to have a concrete and clear idea of what it is in order to trust it. In other words, if you still consider me vague then point proven.
Of course Sensors can take leaps forward. We're all functions. We develop them over our lives. We use them and use only adds stress (like Te is adding stress for you right now in this discussion and it's obvious to me).

I don't find you vague at all. I find that you are making contradictory claims which have nothing to do with Intuition but rather your Tertiary Te problems having to rely on your thinking function in this discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
@All, wow! This is an interesting discussion :D I'm graduated at math but never thought it's S or N thing to study :) Of course I didn't know anything about those contexts 16 years ago when I graduated :) But what I thought about during my studies from the very beginning days was that it requires very abstract way of thinking in order to dig through it. My INFP friend since those times and he's my friend now, was one of the best out there at maths. Very cool abstract and strategical thinking for him but yet... I did graduate and him not.

PS don't ask me for proofing any theories or math issues - it's been 16 years since I dealt with that on theoretical level and as ENFP I've forgotten almost all the facts :D (but still do remember the big picture)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,415 Posts
@Llyralen


I am learning about Dario first through critiques of his work by others and at this point I don't think his approach is all that (that might change if I do indeed get more interested in him).

I'll watch videos that support and expound upon his ideas (if that's what the above is) after I've done learning what his ideas are and how others have scrutinized them and whether or not I consider them valid or invalid myself.
Sounds like a great idea as long as it is his peers who are critiquing his work and not lay-people. Like I hear a lot of people here saying things like “He should add the big 5 to his study, that’s my problem with him” and I’m like “ In science we aren’t even there yet. Right now MBTI and Jung are not established fact at all”. Basically if he is able to document that statistically 95% of people who test as INFP go into flow state on the same test and can show the others without Fi don’t then.... Well then MBTI might get recognized.

Anyway,yeah... @elvis2010 likes him. He he around? On honeymoon?

What do you find people saying so far?
 

·
queen of glitter gnomes
Joined
·
10,480 Posts
Actually, I might have a great example of this. When I was in gradeschool they tried implementing a technique where we each got a bag full of sticks in different lengths and colors. Each of the sticks would represent a number, so after getting to know all the numbers each stick represents it would become easier for people who depend on physicality for learning to do math. Simple right? Well I thought it was. Easy, Nine is the really long purple one and two is the really short yellow one. Well, that technique didn't last very long in our country's curriculum simply because it caused massive confusion for most of the students. This kind of technique requires trans-contextual thinking, since for most sensors a red stick is a red stick, it's not a 5. People started answering in colors instead of numbers.
Oh my gosh! That's so true! Having colorful sticks would be a complete distraction for me. I would spend more time trying to make a rainbow with my sticks than I would on calculation. I am, however, a tactile learner so, if I didn't have the distraction of color, I would probably find the technique useful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,716 Posts
Oh my gosh! That's so true! Having colorful sticks would be a complete distraction for me. I would spend more time trying to make a rainbow with my sticks than I would on calculation. I am, however, a tactile learner so, if I didn't have the distraction of color, I would probably find the technique useful.
lol Making a rainbow, haven't thought of that! Yeah if it was all in one color with actual numbers and markings on it it could've worked, actually. Eventually the kids would find out that summing up the biggest numbers on each stick would be easier that counting individual markings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
Anyway,yeah... @elvis2010 likes him. He he around? On honeymoon?
LOL. Not yet. There isn't much for me to say on this thread (much more on the other). The OP posts like a S not a N. The math video was interesting, and it should be helpful to teachers, and it explain a lot, but I kind of felt like I knew it already. I was a math major and always preferred a sensor approach to math. The N approach they are describing didn't do it with me, and I griped about it, not knowing what it was at the time. But when you go far enough, eventually math gets into this impractical N type world that I had a hard time handling.

I don't agree with a lot of what Fru2 posted. Sensors can mostly certainly do abstract, and Ns do concrete. These are preferences, but all types can and should expand to use as many functions as possible. I don't get the part of Ss not doing math well. Every ESTP I knew excelled at math and loved history. It was the more subjective/feeling classes like art, music, and literature where there were issues with many ESTPs. I was envious of an ENTP friend who could catch all the symbolism and explain things to me. We'd see a movie, and I felt like I got half as much out of it as he did.

PS don't ask me for proofing any theories or math issues - it's been 16 years since I dealt with that on theoretical level and as ENFP I've forgotten almost all the facts :D (but still do remember the big picture)
As an ESTP, I forgot all the math theories and issues except for the concrete skills I still use. LOL.

I am not sure if it is our hypomanic state but when this ESTP has his processor, I can use my sensing power and Ti database to speed along faster than any other type. Still, I think the Ns can see pitfalls and a better path better than I ever could.

One of my math teachers thought Euler was the greatest of all mathematicians. One of his teachers gave Euler's class a problem, to add all the numbers from 1 to 100. Euler thought about it and came up with the answer correctly in 30 seconds. The sensor part of me would employ my fast processor and add all the numbers up one by one and grind it out. Maybe, maybe it would occur to me to add 1 through 9 and come up with 45 and realize there were ten sets of these numbers and that would be 450 then add to it the other numbers 10*10, 20*10 ETC. That would take dozens of steps, and I would probably get the answer right, but it wouldn't have been as fast as what Euler did.

What Euler did was see how many sets there were that could add up to 100. 1 + 99, 2+98 and realized there were 49 of them which is 4900. He then added in the 100 and 50 to come up with the right answer of 5050.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that my processing power, the speed, accuracy, and ability to make mathematical calculations, exceeded Euler's, but even as a child Euler was much smarter than I ever could hope to be by seeing ways to work smarter not faster. I honestly never would have thought of what Euler did so brilliantly as a child, not in a millionaire years, so I suspect he is a N.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
LOL. No honeymoon yet. There isn't much for me to say on this thread (much more on the other). The OP posts like a S not a N. The math video was interesting, and it should be helpful to teachers, and it explained a lot, but I kind of felt like I knew it already. I was a math major and always preferred a sensor approach to math. The N approach they are describing didn't do it with me, and I griped about it, not knowing what it was at the time. But when you go far enough, eventually math gets into this impractical N type world that I had a hard time handling.

I don't agree with a lot of what Fru2 posted. Sensors can mostly certainly do abstract, and Ns do concrete. These are preferences, but all types can and should expand to use as many functions as possible. I don't get the part of Ss not doing math well. Every ESTP I knew excelled at math and loved history. It was the more subjective/feeling classes like art, music, and literature where there were issues with many ESTPs. I was envious of an ENTP friend who could catch all the symbolism in the art world and explain things to me. We'd see a movie, and I felt like I got half as much out of it as he did.

I am not sure if it is our hypomanic state but when this ESTP has his Se processor and Ti database humming, I can mentally speed along faster than any other type. Still, I think the Ns can see pitfalls and a better path better than I ever could.

One of my math teachers thought Euler was the greatest of all mathematicians. One of his teachers gave the young Euler's class a problem, to add all the numbers from 1 to 100. Euler thought about it and came up with the answer correctly in 30 seconds. The sensor part of me would employ my fast processor and add all the numbers up one by one and grind it out. Maybe, maybe it would occur to me to add 1 through 9 and come up with 45 and realize there were ten sets of these numbers and that would be 450 then add to it the other numbers 10*10, 20*10 ETC. That would take dozens of steps, and I would probably get the answer right, but it wouldn't have been as fast as what Euler did.

What Euler did was see how many sets there were that could add up to 100. 1 + 99, 2+98 and realized there were 49 of them which is 4900. He then added in the 100 and 50 to come up with the right answer of 5050.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that my processing power, the speed, accuracy, and ability to make mathematical calculations, exceeded Euler's, but even as a child Euler was much smarter than I ever could hope to be by seeing ways to work smarter not faster. I honestly never would have thought of what Euler did so brilliantly as a child, not in a millionaire years, so I suspect he is a N.[
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,415 Posts
LOL. No honeymoon yet. There isn't much for me to say on this thread (much more on the other). The OP posts like a S not a N. The math video was interesting, and it should be helpful to teachers, and it explained a lot, but I kind of felt like I knew it already. I was a math major and always preferred a sensor approach to math. The N approach they are describing didn't do it with me, and I griped about it, not knowing what it was at the time. But when you go far enough, eventually math gets into this impractical N type world that I had a hard time handling.

I don't agree with a lot of what Fru2 posted. Sensors can mostly certainly do abstract, and Ns do concrete. These are preferences, but all types can and should expand to use as many functions as possible. I don't get the part of Ss not doing math well. Every ESTP I knew excelled at math and loved history. It was the more subjective/feeling classes like art, music, and literature where there were issues with many ESTPs. I was envious of an ENTP friend who could catch all the symbolism in the art world and explain things to me. We'd see a movie, and I felt like I got half as much out of it as he did.

I am not sure if it is our hypomanic state but when this ESTP has his Se processor and Ti database humming, I can mentally speed along faster than any other type. Still, I think the Ns can see pitfalls and a better path better than I ever could.

One of my math teachers thought Euler was the greatest of all mathematicians. One of his teachers gave the young Euler's class a problem, to add all the numbers from 1 to 100. Euler thought about it and came up with the answer correctly in 30 seconds. The sensor part of me would employ my fast processor and add all the numbers up one by one and grind it out. Maybe, maybe it would occur to me to add 1 through 9 and come up with 45 and realize there were ten sets of these numbers and that would be 450 then add to it the other numbers 10*10, 20*10 ETC. That would take dozens of steps, and I would probably get the answer right, but it wouldn't have been as fast as what Euler did.

What Euler did was see how many sets there were that could add up to 100. 1 + 99, 2+98 and realized there were 49 of them which is 4900. He then added in the 100 and 50 to come up with the right answer of 5050.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that my processing power, the speed, accuracy, and ability to make mathematical calculations, exceeded Euler's, but even as a child Euler was much smarter than I ever could hope to be by seeing ways to work smarter not faster. I honestly never would have thought of what Euler did so brilliantly as a child, not in a millionaire years, so I suspect he is a N.[
Yay, Elvis!!! What a fantsticly fun and interesting post! I’m glad you are around! When is the big day, anyway? And I hope you post tons of thoughts on the Dario Nardi thread... I’m going to go peak...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
@elvis2010 Thank you for the post, I appreciate your perspective.
And I yours. I tend to focus more on disagreement than agreement (It's more fun. LOL), but your critique of how Ns and Ss learn and apply math differently is right on. If you had said Ss suck at the higher level math theory, I would have been completely in agreement with you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,716 Posts
And I yours. I tend to focus more on disagreement than agreement (It's more fun. LOL), but your critique of how Ns and Ss learn and apply math differently is right on. If you had said Ss suck at the higher level math theory, I would have been completely in agreement with you.
Glad to hear that. My point wasn't to show how better Ns are from Ss, I wanted to create a dialogue in order to understand the Sensor perspective of things and see if my own theory is accurate. And about your experience with your ENTP friend, you probably caught on to more details from the movie than he did, and probably could feel more in the moment when watching the film. Each type has its advantages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
About Se and Ne. Here is a catch. Preferences on informations and perceiving styles.

Like many have said, it's a matter of preference over S or N since we are both extrovert perceiving dominants.

Me (Enfp) and my aunt (Estp) would watch a movie and focus entirely on the different things, while in the same time overlapping. It's like Venn Diagram actually. There are some parts that overlap and other that predominantly to each of us.

Like: watching Black Swan

Aunt (Se): The visual is great, the visual dynamics are so very twisted! Wait, are those wings?! The movie is really twisted nature of human though, there are many symbolism to decipher.

Me (Ne): The emotions and symbolism are so very dynamic! Gosh... are wings mean she is Ni-dom? So in the end, is the ending really like this? The visual and performance are decent!

See? This comes from actual experience so it's like that. Se process raw sensory first then move to abstract because abstract informations are not the main focus, while Ne processes abstract as they observe sensory but the sensory informations are not the main focus.

So both types can come to the same perception through totally different perceiving process (In this case, the visual and performance, Estp comes to this through the raw informations she took, and me after I process the symbolism and realize the visual dynamics)

And all sensing type can certainly do abstract (Estp and Estj talking about spirituality and religious symbolism) while all intuitives can certainly be concrete and grounded, especially those with higher Te and Se. (look at Entj) It depends totally on situations and background. (Which enneagram helps patch up the flaws) Say, Estp 7w8 would be very much like Entp but still being Se-dom. Intp 9w1 can give of very Infj vibe, for instance.

Sorry if I might go off the road ;)
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top