Personality Cafe banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It is my opinion that N types have a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific principles than the S types while S types are better at math than we are. I'm not sure if this has got something to do with one type's focus on the big idea and the other's obsession with details but it's still a curious observation. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
Basically, "S" types are also "N" types (although a bit further down the function count).
Ti-Ne gives a slightly different focus from Ti-Se which in turn differs from for example Ni-Te or Si-Te.
The thing you might see a difference in, would possibly be that J types might be more likely to see the point in adhering to rules and therefore be quicker to pick up on a rule set like for example that of mathematics, while P types might be more likely to run on some kind of a gut feeling for longer, but at some point you need to pick up the other way of thinking too, to be truly successful.
 

·
Over 300 Confirmed Kills
Joined
·
10,665 Posts
l kinda sorta agree but resent the way you have grouped different concepts that would contradict each other in this arena as "math".

l think N types come out on top with the most theoretical math which is basically the most difficult.

Math that focuses more on calculations and sequence seems like sensor territory.

And obviously l am making generalizations that have room for exceptions here because l DGAF about either kind (and would probably suck more at theoretical math).

Gawd l am going to start shit now e_e but l would agree that Ns are "usually" more adept in connecting dots and theorizing which is what the most conceptual math is about. S's kick our ass in Algebra from an early age IME.

This basically illustrates the tendency to generate random ideas versus following a procedure or set of rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Basically, "S" types are also "N" types (although a bit further down the function count).
Ti-Ne gives a slightly different focus from Ti-Se which in turn differs from for example Ni-Te or Si-Te.
The thing you might see a difference in, would possibly be that J types might be more likely to see the point in adhering to rules and therefore be quicker to pick up on a rule set like for example that of mathematics, while P types might be more likely to run on some kind of a gut feeling for longer, but at some point you need to pick up the other way of thinking too, to be truly successful.

cog functions to the rescue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Wow, really?

Science exists just because we, lowly "S" can't understand the grand schemes of the universe and must have it proved so we can "get it"?

I mean, screw explanations for why phenomena works! Since the dawn of civilization, Intuitives always knew that lighting was nothing but a charge of electrons cutting through the sky, but it actually took us dumb sensors a couple of hundred years until we 'proved' electrons and we finally understood.

(I may sound kind of butthurt, but these kind of threads shouldn't really exist. I am probably sure that the OP wasn't meaning any harm as he started this thread, but this kind of misinformation is what helps typism to develop.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
l would agree that Ns are "usually" more adept in connecting dots and theorizing which is what the most conceptual math is about. S's kick our ass in Algebra from an early age IME.
Again, this is more of a Ti-Te difference (P vs J) than an accurate depiction of the difference between S and N in a high function order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Wow, really?

Science exists just because we, lowly "S" can't understand the grand schemes of the universe and must have it proved so we can "get it"?

I mean, screw explanations for why phenomena works! Since the dawn of civilization, Intuitives always knew that lighting was nothing but a charge of electrons cutting through the sky, but it actually took us dumb sensors a couple of hundred years until we 'proved' electrons and we finally understood.

(I may sound kind of butthurt, but these kind of threads shouldn't really exist. I am probably sure that the OP wasn't meaning any harm as he started this thread, but this kind of misinformation is what helps typism to develop.)
Ha ha! Thread titles are only to catch your attention. Take it easy! No offence meant. :wink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herp

·
Over 300 Confirmed Kills
Joined
·
10,665 Posts
Again, this is more of a Ti-Te difference (P vs J) than an accurate depiction of the difference between S and N in a high function order.
Yeah, l honestly don't like to make this argument to much because with certain types the functions relate to each other in a way that blurs the S/N lines. l guess when l say things like that, l'm thinking of which two types would be the extreme manifestations of a sensor and intuitive.

ln this case l might think an INTP is the most adept in anything theoretical while an ESTJ with Te is a type that would rather take action on their surroundings.

But it is generally not possible to make such simple s/n divides and that 's why l tried not to start shit lol -_-
 
  • Like
Reactions: zynthaxx

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,750 Posts
Yeah, all N types are off theorizing fantastic ideas, getting all of the credit (and all of the ladiez), whilst us S types are doing all the lab donkey work :dry:

The problem with your post is that it's based entirely on applying generalized stereotypes to the profession of science; not all N-types are deep thinkers, just as not all S-types are experience-driven adrenaline heads.

All the 'big picture' and 'detail orientated' tags illustrate is thought patterns - what you go ahead and do with those is influenced by a gazillion other factors, most of which are impossible to quantify.
 

·
Host
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ ♂
Joined
·
18,663 Posts
It is my opinion that N types have a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific principles than the S types while S types are better at math than we are. I'm not sure if this has got something to do with one type's focus on the big idea and the other's obsession with details but it's still a curious observation. What do you think?
I think it is dangerous to make generalizations such as this. People can surprise you sometimes. It is not a good idea to write anything in stone when it comes to types. People are generally more than just a few letters and functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
It is my opinion that N types have a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific principles than the S types while S types are better at math than we are. I'm not sure if this has got something to do with one type's focus on the big idea and the other's obsession with details but it's still a curious observation. What do you think?
I think you're relying too much on stereotypes.

However, maybe I'm missing the point of this thread due to my "obsession with details."
 

·
Heretic
ESI 5w4 9w8 2w1
Joined
·
10,704 Posts
It is my opinion that N types have a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific principles than the S types while S types are better at math than we are. I'm not sure if this has got something to do with one type's focus on the big idea and the other's obsession with details but it's still a curious observation. What do you think?
Oh yes!
And how does this fit into anything???
Oh wait, it is just a mindless opinion.
Keep on walking nothing to see here.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
I mean, screw explanations for why phenomena works! Since the dawn of civilization, Intuitives always knew that lighting was nothing but a charge of electrons cutting through the sky, but it actually took us dumb sensors a couple of hundred years until we 'proved' electrons and we finally understood.
Or, alternatively, none of us knew about electrons but intuition didn't care either way about pure existence of anything anyway, and it took sensing to seek out the existence of such?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
My point taken completely out of context. I wish this thread gets closed before the world begins to look at me like I'm an evil silver-age racist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I wouldn't say that "S" are better than "N" in math. If two absolutely equal people are before us, one is an "S" type, and the other one is an "N" one (especially INTX), and they have exactly equal amount of background knowledge in math and they face a problem which is solvable according to their knowledge, but requires to derive some new idea, N will be the first to solve it.

Example. 2 children do not know that (-n)^2m is positive, (n and m are integers). And they only know very basic stuff like addition, subtraction, division and multiplication and positive and negative numbers (they know that -2*2 = -4, and -2*-2 = 4). And they are asked:
which is larger: (-5)^13 or (-2)^8
The "S" child would probably start counting the (-5)^13 which is a super-huge number, while the "N" child would also try that, but then realize that the sign changes depending on the "even-odd"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
It is my opinion that N types have a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific principles than the S types while S types are better at math than we are. I'm not sure if this has got something to do with one type's focus on the big idea and the other's obsession with details but it's still a curious observation. What do you think?
I hate AND suck at math, but I love science. I'm kind of a closet physics nerd.
Actually, lately I've been thinking I might want to teach high school science.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top