Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
The Introverted Sensation Function (Si) and Misconceptions

*****************.com

Despite being one of the most commonly preferred functions by members of society, theIntroverted Sensation is probably one of the most misunderstood functions among Typology forum communities, along with Extraverted Sensation (Se). This article is intended to pick out the misconceptions of the Introverted Sensation (Si) function, explain how it really works, and compare/contrast its working to that of the Introverted Intuition (Ni) function as both functions operate in seemingly similar ways, which often times lead individuals to confuse their cognitive preference for one or the other.

One of the major misconceptions of the Introverted Sensation function is that many people often confuse it as sort of a “memory” function. “An Si user is someone who uses strong powerful memory,” is the common belief of the community, but this is not necessarily the case. While the Si function does operate in a similiar manner to memory, it’s not the same kind of memory people often associate. It’s a “sensational” memory, meaning that it is memory that is notrational or identifiable. It is a memory one “feels” out as opposed to the standard definition of memory in that we can easily recollect and explain them.

Another misconception is the association of Introverted Sensation with personal or past experience. While internal sensation banking does, in a sense, involve personal experience, it is not the primary workings of the Si function. Personal experience entails that one has memory of the past with vivid recollection. For example, we can recall our childhood, our first kiss, our first date, our first car, etc. Every type is capable of this personal experience. The Si function may emphasize this experience more, but it is not the core or exclusive component of the Si function.

Carl Jung has explained himself in his book, Analytical Psychology, that the concept or working nature of Memory is a whole another playing field and not directly or even related to cognitive functions. It is separate from the Psychic, but nonetheless connected to the Psyche. I will not go into the concept of Memory right now as that is a topic for another discussion.

The workings of the Introverted Sensation function is, as a matter of fact, relatively much simpler than what most people think of it. As Jung’s definition goes, the Si function is nothing more than sensational impressions we intake to be stored as a template. An Si user does not need to know what these sensation impressions are or what values they hold as these traits are not of the concern of the Si function, but rather the T and F functions. The Si user only needs to intake that impression and make a indifferentiable “blueprint” of it within the self. That is all that Si means.


The Introverted Sensation in Action

The Introverted Sensation function can be explained more clearly with a scenario, such as making a particular sandwich. This sandwich is composed of mustard, mayo, lettuce, tomato, swiss, and ham.

Let’s say we have an Si user who is standing in the kitchen with the recipe and ingredients for this sandwich at a table. This will be the first time the Si user will ever make a sandwich or even seen a sandwich and thus his mind’s slate is clean. The Si user will read through the recipe and attempt to follow the instructions one by one to construct this sandwhich.

First, it tells him to use mustard and mayo on one side of each bread slices. Then it tells him to place lettuce, tomato, swiss, and finally ham in that exact order on top of one slice of bread with the condiment side facing upward. Lastly, it tells him to top it off with the second bread slice with the condiment side facing downward. He finishes.

Now he is to make a second sandwich without the help of the recipe. The Si user’s memory ispoor, unfortunately, so he can’t remember the recipe from heart, HOWEVER, he can “feel” out the sensation as he makes it. The Si user will have a sensation that tells him, wasn’t it the bread slice first that needs to be covered with mustard and mayo? He does not need to even say this. His gut feeling will tell him that probably is the first correct approach. His gut feeling will also tell him it was probably lettuce and tomato next in that order. Now he is almost finished but he is stuck. He can’t remember the next step. He tries to put ham on, but wait!

A sudden shock in his system.

This doesn’t feel right,” the Si user says. He decides to try another item and places the swiss on top instead. Suddenly, his body tells him “This feels right,” and finally proceeds to place the ham on the sandwich. So far, it all feels “correct”. The Si user then continues to finish the sandwich with the final bread slice.

So the Si-user I used in this example has terrible memory. He cannot remember the recipe step by step, what items go in what order, how to start, or how to finish, at least in a differentiated manner. His body, however, remembers the sensation because he did it before. The first time he makes a sandwich was his development of an internalized sensation blueprint and so the next time he makes a sandwich, he has this internal sensation to utilize as a guide.


Introverted Intuition (Ni) Comparison/Contrast


Ni users, however, do not operate in this manner. Each time an Ni-user makes a sandwich, it isALWAYS a clean slate, at least until the information is finally well processed into the Psyche’s memory. As an Ni-user, I’ve often been told, “Oh come on, you did this 100 times, can’t you remember?” and I would respond, “I’m sorry, I can’t!” I can’t feel out the steps based on previous experiences. What an Ni user can do, however, is rely on “possibility hunches” to get things done. Ni does this by intuiting based on previously learned "principles and patterns" rather than the sensational experiences that Si learns.

An Ni user does not need to use Si to get the same job done. Both functions operate in different ways, but regardless, are capable of achieving the exact same result and thus, the similarity of results between Ni and Si sprouts the confusion among many.

So for an Ni user, every time he make a sandwich, he has to rely on intuition to get the sandwich constructed, despite the lack of prior experience. He can “feel” that the bread could “possibly”have mustard and mayo on first. The Ni can visualize this and see just what the end result of the sandwich could be if he places mayo and mustard on each slice of bread. If his gut feeling believes it is correct, he will do this. His gut feeling will also visualize what item should go next. The ham? Swiss? Lettuce? Tomato? Often times, the Ni function will change its gut feeling each time the Ni-user makes a new sandwich. Because of this method, however, each time the Ni user makes a sandwich it can be different, whereas the Si user is more capable of repeating the same exact steps over and over.


Ni vs Si

If the Si function does not have a basis or an internal template, the user may panic or become lost. For the Si user, having a properly detailed set of instructions provides a sense of safety or anchor. Once the Si user goes through the instructions once, he/she develops a template and thus feels more secured in performing that task. Ni users, on the other hand, do not have this fear and are capable of “feeling out or intuiting" the proper methods. This makes the Ni user moreadaptable than the Si user, but this does not make the Ni user more capable than an Si user.

Once the Si user has perform a task or activity enough times, his methods and action become more realistic or more reliable than that of the Ni user. Si users, in a sense, can be less prone to mistakes or even less prone to repeating mistakes, whereas the Ni user will constantly try to intuit his methods each time he performs it and thus subjects himself more likely to errors. For the Ni user, however, the usage of TeFi or FeTi will allow the Ni user to minimize this error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
thank you! this clears up a lot! i thought i was Si but now i realize that imma Ni. sucks though Si is consistent, we're ninnies who try a new way everytime and end up wt diff results.

In my case i tend to understand the logic behind the action

ex. the mustard and mayo go on the bread because that's how it usually is because they're condiments/sauces and on bread they'll have an even, complete coverage. could you tell me what functions might influence this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,721 Posts
I think one of the big issues on PerC concerning Si is that a lot of the topics on PerC don't really center around these types of steps and actions that are described in this article. As an Si user, I may be more able to take on a new task, learn how to do it, and be able to repeat it again and again in more precise detail. But it's not something that really comes up on PerC. No one seems to want to hear about a task being repeated again and again...this seems kind of boring. It's almost like "So that's what you do...so what?"

It's something that I think Si users are good at, but something that isn't noticed very often.

Usually PerC conversations tend to focus more on social situations, so I think it's hard to get a grasp of how Si has an impact on these situations.



I do think, however, that this article does helps to illustrate why Si users prefer consistency. We're at our best when we are able to repeat something that is the same as before....we probably do this better than other types. I just don't know if this means much to most other types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Brilliant article. Ni and Si are extremely different from the physiological up to the philosophical outlooks espoused in the nature of the functions. We need more articles like this to prevent really needless type confusion (it amazes me how many people don't know if they're Ni types or Si types - to me, it's incredibly obvious on this article's premises that I am no Si type in a million years - that has always been my ultimate weak and unreliable spot in life, thinking back on my life studying and such).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,535 Posts
Ni users, however, do not operate in this manner. Each time an Ni-user makes a sandwich, it isALWAYS a clean slate, at least until the information is finally well processed into the Psyche’s memory. As an Ni-user, I’ve often been told, “Oh come on, you did this 100 times, can’t you remember?” and I would respond, “I’m sorry, I can’t!”
So true, I can have the same problem in life over and over and I might even notice that it's the same problem, but I won't remember what I did last time until an Si user asks me/tells me what I did. (However, if someone else keeps having the same problem, I notice immediately... weird?)
 

·
Registered
NiTe 549
Joined
·
5,321 Posts
I think one of the big issues on PerC concerning Si is that a lot of the topics on PerC don't really center around these types of steps and actions that are described in this article. As an Si user, I may be more able to take on a new task, learn how to do it, and be able to repeat it again and again in more precise detail. But it's not something that really comes up on PerC. No one seems to want to hear about a task being repeated again and again...this seems kind of boring. It's almost like "So that's what you do...so what?"
There's definitely something to be said for methodicality, capability of reproducing the same result. It can be invaluable in many practices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,843 Posts
This article explains exactly how my INFJ mother has NEVER been able to make the same thing twice. Honestly, after eating her food for about 30+ years, I can safely say that nothing she's ever made tasted the same as the last time she made it. We've actually had funny little fights on the dinner table about why she just can't [or won't] make food the same way. She has this annoying habit of experimenting with ingredients and not telling. So biting into whatever she's cooked is always a surprise -- sometimes good, sometimes it's like "Mooom .. what did you put in it this time ?? " :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
This article explains exactly how my INFJ mother has NEVER been able to make the same thing twice. Honestly, after eating her food for about 30+ years, I can safely say that nothing she's ever made tasted the same as the last time she made it. We've actually had funny little fights on the dinner table about why she just can't [or won't] make food the same way. She has this annoying habit of experimenting with ingredients and not telling. So biting into whatever she's cooked is always a surprise -- sometimes good, sometimes it's like "Mooom .. what did you put in it this time ?? " :p
And why I cringe when someone asks me for a recipe of something I've cooked lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,843 Posts
And why I cringe when someone asks me for a recipe of something I've cooked lol
I actually discussed some of the things in this article with my mom and sister [without letting them know I was coming at this from a personality psyche perspective of course] - and both of them started talking about how they experiment with food each time because "adding a dash of something new makes it a new experience". Both did deny however, that they have problems remembering to do things a certain way - but I'm not buying that simply because my mom's a 3 and for her image is very important. As for my sis -- I'm not really sure if she does have problems remembering or not.

Interestingly enough my ESFJ brother in law started complaining about how his wife's cooking is "non-traditional", "In my house a certain dish was cooked a certain way and that's the only right way of doing it, you don't know how to cook and you need to learn" -- which turned into an argument about how he needs to learn to "savour new tastes" and be open to "experimentation because not everything has to be a certain way for it to be right or wrong" -- with my mom going so far as saying "But what's the fun in life if everything was done the exact same way over and over again - I'd die of boredom" ...

And they both did say that "cooking is a chance for us to express our creativity".

It was really interesting to see the interpersonal dynamic between an ESFJ, his INFJ mother in law and INFJ wife play out in the end. Poor guy ended up shaking his head at what could only be described as feeling a bit enraged at the absolute "absurdity" at the way my mother and sister do things.

And I just sat there smiling cuz I got a chance to play devil's advocate once again xD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,721 Posts
Brilliant article. Ni and Si are extremely different from the physiological up to the philosophical outlooks espoused in the nature of the functions. We need more articles like this to prevent really needless type confusion (it amazes me how many people don't know if they're Ni types or Si types - to me, it's incredibly obvious on this article's premises that I am no Si type in a million years - that has always been my ultimate weak and unreliable spot in life, thinking back on my life studying and such).
So true, I can have the same problem in life over and over and I might even notice that it's the same problem, but I won't remember what I did last time until an Si user asks me/tells me what I did. (However, if someone else keeps having the same problem, I notice immediately... weird?)
There's definitely something to be said for methodicality, capability of reproducing the same result. It can be invaluable in many practices.

I think this part of the article is particularly helpful and interesting:






Ni vs Si

If the Si function does not have a basis or an internal template, the user may panic or become lost. For the Si user, having a properly detailed set of instructions provides a sense of safety or anchor. Once the Si user goes through the instructions once, he/she develops a template and thus feels more secured in performing that task. Ni users, on the other hand, do not have this fear and are capable of “feeling out or intuiting" the proper methods. This makes the Ni user moreadaptable than the Si user, but this does not make the Ni user more capable than an Si user.

Once the Si user has perform a task or activity enough times, his methods and action become more realistic or more reliable than that of the Ni user. Si users, in a sense, can be less prone to mistakes or even less prone to repeating mistakes, whereas the Ni user will constantly try to intuit his methods each time he performs it and thus subjects himself more likely to errors. For the Ni user, however, the usage of TeFi or FeTi will allow the Ni user to minimize this error.

I think it really shows why being an Si user makes new situations and tasks so frustrating and intimidating. Any time we learn something new, we tend to suck at it...it's uncomfortable, and we have a hard time figuring things out on our own. We're so much better when we have clear instructions. Then, we can learn to perfect the procedure and the art/science of what we're doing through practice.


There's so much frustration involved in this when Si users and Ni users start mixing.

Part of this comes up when the Si user is trying to teach the Ni user something. For the Si user "Practice makes perfect". The more the Si user does it, the better they get at it. So if the Ni user isn't getting it, the Si user will insist that the Ni user just needs more practice.

This happens all of the time in teaching with SJs. I'm a math teacher, and all of the time math teachers give their students a lot of practice problems. This is because for SJs, this kind of practice is how they perfect the procedure of getting results.

The problem is that Ni users probably don't learn it that way. They might get tons and tons of practice, but it still may not click with them.

But it's doubly frustrating because the Si user doesn't know how to use the intuition that the Ni user does...so they don't know how to help the Ni user to understand the situation through intuition.

So a lot of friction pops up. It takes a whole lot of understanding in order for the teaching of the skills to work.


But it can happen in the other direction too. If the Ni user can't give clear instructions to the Si user (because the Ni user may not need them, because they pick up so many things intuitively), the Si user will be lost and confused. If they don't have those clear instructions, there's no way for them to get the practice that they need because they don't have a "perfect" set of instructions to build their foundation on.

This can make Si users come across as mindless, worker-bee grunts that can only repeat procedural tasks that don't require independent thinking. Obviously this is a large exaggeration, but with such weak intuition, the Si user will naturally have a more difficult time figuring out a problem on their own.




I think that's why articles like these are so helpful. They show the areas where the two types have different strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure plenty of times both types of users have seen the other one to be dumb...just because they're weaker in the area where the other is just naturally strong. I think understanding each other's strengths can help them to see that in the right situation, their strengths can be used together to achieve very powerful results.


But this type of understanding helps out a whole lot with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,843 Posts
@teddy564339 --- you've highlighted a key issue with regards to intuitives in the classroom.

I pretty much always had my own unique ways of coming up with the right solutions to math problems - and I was dotted marks for not showing the working in the exact same way as I was taught.

E.G. Here's how I used to approach my problems:

What's 619/6?

My solution:

Hmm ... How close can I get to 619 using 6 --- 6x50 = 300 therefore 300 X 2 = 600 :. 6X100=600. But I have 19 left. 6x3 = 18, then that means 6x(100+3)=618 :. I have 1 left over. Ok Done.

I would just write my answer using this approach.

Guess what :p I lost marks for not doing the way I was supposed to. And my response was --- BUT I GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER !!! :dry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,721 Posts
@teddy564339 --- you've highlighted a key issue with regards to intuitives in the classroom.

I pretty much always had my own unique ways of coming up with the right solutions to math problems - and I was dotted marks for not showing the working in the exact same way as I was taught.

E.G. Here's how I used to approach my problems:

What's 619/6?

My solution:

Hmm ... How close can I get to 619 using 6 --- 6x50 = 300 therefore 300 X 2 = 600 :. 6X100=600. But I have 19 left. 6x3 = 18, then that means 6x(100+3)=618 :. I have 1 left over. Ok Done.

I would just write my answer using this approach.

Guess what :p I lost marks for not doing the way I was supposed to. And my response was --- BUT I GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER !!! :dry:

There are actually tons and tons of different issues going on with this particular situation. It's a perfect example of how complicated teaching actually is. I'll try to highlight a few of them.



The first obvious issue is that it's quite possible that your teacher didn't truly understand the math that he/she was teaching. This is very common in elementary school (at least in the United States), where elementary teachers are asked to do a ridiculous amount of things. They are required to teach a wide variety of subjects in addition to being able to psychologically and emotionally understand young children. They have to keep young children's attention for hours on end, making it understandable and interesting to them, all while managing social situations and making the children feel safe. They do this without getting sufficient training or proper time to plan out activities (all while trying to balance out other aspects of their lives beyond their jobs). I'm amazed by what elementary school teachers do.


However, as a result, they probably don't really understand a lot of the actual content they teach...particularly in math. For an SJ teacher in particular, they may only understand the one way of reaching an answer to a math problem, and may not have the time, energy, or ability to investigate other ways.

While this is just an excuse, it would help explain why a teacher might be resistant to look at a different way of solving a problem. This is particularly an issue when it comes to managing a classroom sometimes. I tend to be very open to students showing me different ways of solving problems. However, I also tend to have a firm understanding of the mathematics. An elementary school teacher may have no idea how to assess whether or not a new method works. They may also not be able to say whether or not a student's different method will work 100% of the time (sometimes I have students who try to come up with a shortcut or different way to solve a problem, and together we find out it only works in some situations).

(It's also amazing how some students expect you as a teacher to know everything and not make mistakes. I'm still in awe every time I admit I make a mistake or don't know an answer to a question and some student says "but you're the teacher! You're supposed to know!" Most of my students respect the fact that I'm human, but others can't seem to able to handle the idea of a teacher not being an ultimate authority).

Again, this doesn't mean that the teacher shouldn't have been more flexible and investigated a different way to solve a problem. But I'm also saying that there's often a lot more going on in these situations that a student doesn't always see...every teacher I've talked to, regardless of their type, has seen how difficult it is to teach a wide variety of students all at once.


But there are other issues as well. I do often make students show their work, even if their methods are different than mine. I usually don't mind if they skip steps, but even for an intuitive student, I believe it is important to be able to communicate their thought process. They may be able to jump ahead to different parts of a solution, but I honestly believe it is possible for them to examine their thought process to explain how they arrived at a solution (which is what you just did in your example).

The other thing in math is that getting the "right answer" is not always the goal of the problem. Many proof situations actually involve cases where the answer is already available. The goal and objective is not to reach the final result, but to investigate the process used to get the result to see why it works. This is useful, because then one can see when it works and when it does not. It involves making connections between basic math properties and concepts to procedures. It helps one to see when certain procedures and concepts are applicable and when they are not.


To illustrate my point, your teacher's objective may have not been simply for all of the students to be able to reach the result of 103 Remainder 1. In some situations, this may be the desired result. In those cases, I would agree that a student reaching the result in their own way (as long as it was viable using mathematical concepts and consistently worked) would be just fine and no points should be deducted.

However, if the objective was to teach a procedure (in this case, what Americans call "long division") then a student getting the result in their own way would not satisfy the objective.

You may be wondering why the objective would be to teach a particular procedure in the first place. What if I were to ask you to divide:

3x^3 + 5x^2 - 2x + 8 / x + 2 ?


or any other polynomial division problem that I could come up with? How about:

4x^5 - 3x^3 + 7x^2 - 5x + 8 / 2x - 3 ?


In these situations, I can divide the polynomials using "long division" (or what we call "synthetic division" in some cases) using a very similar procedure that is taught in elementary school math. I do not know if your method for dividing integers would work in this situation, or if you would be able to figure out your own way of dividing the polynomials using a similar one. If together we would not be able to do so, we would have to fall back on the procedure of long division.

And...if a student has never learned the process of long division, it is usually twice as difficult for them to learn to divide polynomials. It saves a great deal of time and energy if a student has already become familiar with the process that is supposed to be shown in elementary school.


This is why math is a unique subject in school...it is very sequential in terms of its complexity. This is true for many subjects, but in math, the details seem to be far more important. The only other area in which I think this is true is reading/writing/vocabulary. math ties together a wide variety of facts, concepts and procedures in a detailed fashion unlike many other subjects (which often do the same thing, but in more of a broad conceptual way of understanding them).



So I don't disagree with your point that your teacher may have been close-minded to your own way of reaching a result, possibly due to their own discomfort. I also think that it is best for a teacher to be open to different ways different students solve problems. However, I also think that students don't always see everything that a teacher does, because a teacher often sees a wide variety of students all at once and also works to prepare a student for what they will see in the future of their particular area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
@teddy564339
I remember that we did have discussions on Si vs Ni in two threads or so. XD
This thread seems to be tackling those discussions.

I forgot what I said, though I think I probably said something to suggest my memory was downright horrendous if it didn't have any conceptual reference, like things are just falling out of place everywhere. I think it's quite funny that my ISTJ mother keeps saying that my ISTP sister and I are both even more senile than she thinks she is.


The problem is that Ni users probably don't learn it that way. They might get tons and tons of practice, but it still may not click with them.
Yeah. I recently stunned my insurance agent when I told her that I forgot how to sign, despite how I sign things on a weekly basis. As a result, one of my application forms was rejected because my signature didn't match my bank signature. (And now, I feel like I have to forge my own signature.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,843 Posts
@teddy564339 --- Yeah -- I sucked at polynomials initially, but I got the hang of them when I finally decided to sit down and practice. Math was one of those hot/cold subjects for me where if a particular chapter caught my interest [like probabilities], I would ace it - but if it didn't, I would try to get by with a passing grade. No more, no less.

Now that I think about it, I do want to raise a point that students with inferior and tertiary Si -- and with Fi to match are probably going to have the toughest time in maths for this very reason:

This is why math is a unique subject in school...it is very sequential in terms of its complexity. This is true for many subjects, but in math, the details seem to be far more important. The only other area in which I think this is true is reading/writing/vocabulary. math ties together a wide variety of facts, concepts and procedures in a detailed fashion unlike many other subjects (which often do the same thing, but in more of a broad conceptual way of understanding them).
Just looking at the overall Si nature of maths, I'm getting shudders. I have an inferiority complex [pun not really intended] around my inability to follow details [until and unless they're spelled out to me in an explicit, written form], and the above are the reasons why. Sometimes, I have to re-read a post 3-4 times in order to make sure I really did catch everything, and didn't just let my intuition run away with me.

A lot of people actually assume that maths is Ti-oriented, but in the way you've expressed it [and now that I've seen it expressed in these words], I can see exactly why maths is both Si-Ti [ironically, a combination that exists for ENTPs and ISFJ's. I can see why ISFJ's would probably be the best teachers for ENTP's.

I have always had an admiration for my ISFJ sister in law [and at first I thought it was just her Fe], even though I do thing she's a tad boring at times. But since I've realized my true type, I'm beginning to see why. I see all the things in her that are missing in me. Her attention to details. Being able to follow procedure - humility, tradition, gentleness.

I am always pretty good once I have the tools memorized [i.e. the formulae]. Once I have a formula committed to memory, there wasn't any level of complexity that I couldn't tackle ------- but I still found myself bored to death when doing it :p Committing the procedure to memory was the hardest part ------ and however, I do want to point out that even though an Ne-dom can eventually learn to be perfect by memory, maths isn't exactly like learning to ride a bike. Many of the more complex patterns and procedures fade over time. I did reasonably well in all my advanced math courses [70%+], but now I did not even remember how to do the problem you wrote till I googled the procedure online and it came rushing back! It was like an immediate *zoink! Oh yaaaah!! Now I remember! This shit was easy!" :p But just looking at the equation was like ...... "dafuq is dis shite!" :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,721 Posts
@teddy564339
I remember that we did have discussions on Si vs Ni in two threads or so. XD
This thread seems to be tackling those discussions.
Oh no...not you again. :tongue: If this keeps up, we'll get back into another back and forth uber long PM discussion that goes on for six months. :tongue: :happy:

NonConsensus said:
I forgot what I said, though I think I probably said something to suggest my memory was downright horrendous if it didn't have any conceptual reference, like things are just falling out of place everywhere. I think it's quite funny that my ISTJ mother keeps saying that my ISTP sister and I are both even more senile than she thinks she is.



Yeah. I recently stunned my insurance agent when I told her that I forgot how to sign, despite how I sign things on a weekly basis. As a result, one of my application forms was rejected because my signature didn't match my bank signature. (And now, I feel like I have to forge my own signature.)
That's very interesting. I had never heard of that, but it fits in perfectly with the Ni/Si descriptions.


@teddy564339 --- Yeah -- I sucked at polynomials initially, but I got the hang of them when I finally decided to sit down and practice. Math was one of those hot/cold subjects for me where if a particular chapter caught my interest [like probabilities], I would ace it - but if it didn't, I would try to get by with a passing grade. No more, no less.
Ah, probability. Certainly an area of math that I think Ns have a much easier time than Ss. I don't know how to teach probability in a procedural fashion, so usually a lot of my students that I think use Si end up hating it and finding it extremely confusing. Probability is extremely conceptual, so I think Ns pick up on it a lot more easily.

Many probability problems also don't really involve showing work. :tongue: There are ways to explain the concepts and how a result is achieved, however.


Jawz said:
Now that I think about it, I do want to raise a point that students with inferior and tertiary Si -- and with Fi to match are probably going to have the toughest time in maths for this very reason:



Just looking at the overall Si nature of maths, I'm getting shudders. I have an inferiority complex [pun not really intended] around my inability to follow details [until and unless they're spelled out to me in an explicit, written form], and the above are the reasons why. Sometimes, I have to re-read a post 3-4 times in order to make sure I really did catch everything, and didn't just let my intuition run away with me.

A lot of people actually assume that maths is Ti-oriented, but in the way you've expressed it [and now that I've seen it expressed in these words], I can see exactly why maths is both Si-Ti [ironically, a combination that exists for ENTPs and ISFJ's. I can see why ISFJ's would probably be the best teachers for ENTP's.
Hmm...I don't know if this is true....your impression here may be the result of my skewed interpretation of math. I understand a lot of it, but I'm by no means a brilliant mathematician. I think NTs are usually the ones that are the most brilliant at math. A few INTPs have described how Ti helps them.

But I also know an extremely brilliant math teacher who I really believe is an INTJ. I don't quite understand how he is able to remember all kinds of math information considering he would use Ni....but I think the thing is that he has such a deep understanding of the concepts, and he has a very clear understanding of how they all tie together...that his intuition keeps him from actually needing to "memorize' things in the same brute force fashion that I do....I think he just is able to solve problems extremly quickly because he has such an in depth knowledge of the concepts.


And I have to re-read posts too. :tongue: I know I make it hard by rambling on with such long posts, but I can't help it. :wink: I do think the Fe in ISFJs does help gives us a desire to understand different students and try to teach them in ways that help them. But our Si does make this very difficult sometimes. I have so much trouble juggling different ideas at once and I'm horribly uncreative...I'm best when other teachers give me ideas and things to try.


Jawz said:
I have always had an admiration for my ISFJ sister in law [and at first I thought it was just her Fe], even though I do thing she's a tad boring at times. But since I've realized my true type, I'm beginning to see why. I see all the things in her that are missing in me. Her attention to details. Being able to follow procedure - humility, tradition, gentleness.
Yeah, ISFJs and ENTPs are vastly different, but we can recognize the strengths in one another. ENTPs have all kinds of things I struggle with too....imagination, quick-thinking, global awareness, social confidence to say what they want without having to worry about people caring or not liking them...just a lot of things that are my natural weaknesses. But learning about them has helped me get along with them a whole lot.

Jawz said:
I am always pretty good once I have the tools memorized [i.e. the formulae]. Once I have a formula committed to memory, there wasn't any level of complexity that I couldn't tackle ------- but I still found myself bored to death when doing it :p Committing the procedure to memory was the hardest part ------ and however, I do want to point out that even though an Ne-dom can eventually learn to be perfect by memory, maths isn't exactly like learning to ride a bike. Many of the more complex patterns and procedures fade over time. I did reasonably well in all my advanced math courses [70%+], but now I did not even remember how to do the problem you wrote till I googled the procedure online and it came rushing back! It was like an immediate *zoink! Oh yaaaah!! Now I remember! This shit was easy!" :p But just looking at the equation was like ...... "dafuq is dis shite!" :p
I actually think a lot of people are like this...I had forgotten all kinds of high school math and had to "re-learn" it as I was teaching it the first time. It's part of the problem with our education system...we force everyone to "learn" way too much stuff.


However, I have always enjoyed math whether I could see the practical application of it or not. I do think what you're describing about getting down the concept does tie in with what I mentioned earlier about NTs being the best mathematicians, though.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top