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

(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.