analytic or synthetic?

[phantom]

Do you consider yourself more analytic or synthetic? Do you do more of one or the other in your intellectual work? Do INTPs (or people in general) tend to be better at one or the other? What does it mean if someone says I'm good at analysis or synthesis? Are some subjects inherently more analytic or more synthetic, or is the analytic/synthetic divide more properly applied within disciplines, or is it totally artificial to separate them at all?

 

[Grayman]

I tend to put the pieces together even if I do take it apart I don't feel complete understanding until it is back together.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I'm not sure what you mean.

A) ?
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Basically synthesizing a whole bunch of old and conflicting ideas into a new and harmonious whole.
To be able to do that, you would have to analyze your "source material" properly.
So, synthesis requires analysis, but not necessarily vice versa.
I mostly enjoy the whole ride.

B) ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction
I'm too lazy to try to put that into my own words at the moment, forgive me.

C) ?
Something else.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Do you consider yourself more analytic or synthetic? Do you do more of one or the other in your intellectual work? Do INTPs (or people in general) tend to be better at one or the other? What does it mean if someone says I'm good at analysis or synthesis? Are some subjects inherently more analytic or more synthetic, or is the analytic/synthetic divide more properly applied within disciplines, or is it totally artificial to separate them at all?

I am far better at analysis (Ti / Si) as, sadly, i tend to do it instinctively but i do prefer synthetising (Ne / Fe), but i am not as good at it...

- Analysis is when you take things / ideas apart, ie abstraction / categorizations - analysis goes back towards the cause... "The WHY ?"
Negative retroaction feedback loop is basically analytic.

- Synthesis is when you put things together ie concretization - synthesis goes towards finality... "The HOW ?"
Positive reteoaction feedback loop is synthetic.

I'm not sure what you mean.

A) ?
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Basically synthesizing a whole bunch of old and conflicting ideas into a new and harmonious whole.
To be able to do that, you would have to analyze your "source material" properly.
So, synthesis requires analysis, but not necessarily vice versa.

The initial thesis is in fact a temporary synthesis made of elements encountered prior. And the final synthesis will in turn become a new thesis and the cycle repeats itself.

Thesis constructs (starts in the Right Brain); analysis deconstructs (moves to the Left Brain); synthesis reconstructs (goes back to the right Brain).

Analysis is the mediator; without analysis, there is no synthesis as the initial thesis will just remain the thesis.

It is my belief that pure intuition (those infamous "Eureka" moments...) is able to perform / transcend both analysis / Time and synthesis / Space instantaneously to obtain a result that can't yet be explained...

 

[phantom]

To clarify, I was not thinking in particular of either the Hegelian meaning of synthesis or the analytic/synthetic proposition distinction in philosophy. I was thinking of their more common sense, as pertaining generally to different modes of discourse or interaction with concepts.

I have always been confused by the statement (as illustrated by Dialectic's box diagram) that analysis = one to many and synthesis = many to one. It makes the processes seem symmetric, while in application they seem very different. Here are some examples...

To give an analysis of a concept is to spell out completely the conditions under which it properly applies. To run an analysis on a data set is to reduce a pile of numbers into a smaller body of salient statistical values. To do elemental analysis on plant tissue, I run the collected tissue through a process that yields numbers representing the tissue's elemental composition, which is applied to the physiological or ecological understanding of different types of plants. Overall, analysis seems to involve clarifying someting by specifying some aspect of its nature in a manner that has greater precision and usefulness.

To synthesize a variety of authors' views is to provide a coneptual context for understanding how their veiws relate to each other and help to clarify an issue of interest. To synthesize a molecule is to go through a process to facilitate its formation from precursors or constituents. It's less clear to me what is similar between these examples of synthesis, but they seem to involve the production of a new framework (for abstracta) or method (for concreta) which is then applied extrinsically to your object(s) of interest.

So analysis seems to involve understanding the internal properties of an item, while synthesis involves the production of external connections. But it doesn't seem to be as simple as reducing vs increasing the number of items or simple destruction/decomposition vs construction. For one thing, you don't necessarily lose your initial item(s) in the process of analyzing or synthesizing. For another, there is no rule that either process must result in more or fewer items than were contained in your initial set of data or objects.

Am I on the right track? Any more thoughts about analytic vs synthetic personalities or disciplines?

 

[Vrecknidj]

From our good friends at Merriam Webster

analyze: to study (something) closely and carefully
analyze: to learn the nature and relationship of the parts of (something) by a close and careful examination

synthesize: to make (something) by combining different things
synthesize: to combine (things) in order to make something new

I think I do both so frequently that I don't really notice myself doing them.

 

[BigApplePi]

Do you consider yourself more analytic or synthetic? Do you do more of one or the other in your intellectual work? Do INTPs (or people in general) tend to be better at one or the other? What does it mean if someone says I'm good at analysis or synthesis? Are some subjects inherently more analytic or more synthetic, or is the analytic/synthetic divide more properly applied within disciplines, or is it totally artificial to separate them at all?

This is a wonderful issue to me, though whether it is simple or complex remains to be seen. I will give my personal answer and later a different twist on a technical answer though others have given some good technical answers already.

I consider myself both analytical and synthetical in that I use both. But I'd say more analytical. To ask for "how much" would be asking for some linear scale and I haven't thought of one. My reason for saying that is as an introvert I am faced with "subjects." So its easier to analyze them than to go out to the outer world and combine the subject with something else. As my interests progress I want to head toward synthesis especially if I've already been through some analysis. Synthesis has more value don't you think?

You ask if subjects are more one way than the other. If you name some more subjects people could reply. I'll name one: the MBTI. Some threads have covered this and I want to do analysis. Analysis keeps clues to composition and rearrangement. But some things I've posted have been protested. That requires synthesis to resolve and requires noticing exactly what the protests are. I tend to fall down there possibly out of failure to see where the other person is coming from to do synthesis.