Developing Our Best Function

[Black Pat]

I would like some advice on developing my introverted thinking for two reasons:

1. I suspect that I never fully developed this trait: I was never very good at chemistry, physics, math, or computers; although I picked up foreign languages, political philosophy and history well. Honestly, I think I developed "extraverted intuition" fairly early on in life and was just able to intuit the things I needed to know to the extent I needed to know them, thereby arresting development of my best trait.

2. There is a lot of ink spilled on developing your "inferior functions", which of course is well worth the effort, but let's be honest with ourselves: introverted thinking is how we're going to "make it" in the world, and the extent we can develop this trait is the extent we can "make it", likely. Talking about our feelings is more "icing on the cake", as it were. To that end, I think it would be well within all of our interests to find out exactly how to improve this skill (if you are interested in improving it). Not that you should stop trying to improve your inferior functions, though.

So, how would you develop that trait? Logic games? Timed tests? Starting a new hobby that requires lot's of logic (like metaphysics or something?)

What are your thoughts?

 

[Cogwulf]

I think the best way to develop introverted thinking is to spend lots of time thinking, just find a problem to think about and think about it for an hour.
I don't think logic games and written tests and similar things are suited to INTPs, I think open-ended problems compliment our functions much better.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

There was a book that talked about each function and how to do things to help develop it. Unfortunately I got a feeling that the exercises for the Ti wouldn't be helpful for people who already have it as a primary attribute.

Ti (the engineer) is our best function, but we should keep in mind that it works in conjuncture with our Ne (the imagineer!) and our Si (the note taker).

 

[flow]

I think you need to document your INTPness a little, how often do you engage in internal monologues? Don't just look at your abilities in certain subjects, that has very little to do with Ti. Einstein hated math, you think he didn't have a well developed Ti?! And I actually dislike all of the classes you listed myself, and I wouldn't say I'm particularly great at any of them except math.. and that's math previous to Calc and all that jazz. How often do you get 'lost in thought'? I'm sure if you 'think' about it, you'll realize your Ti is actually quite developed, compared to non INTPians.

 

[Black Pat]

Thanks for the responses.

@ Cogwulf: "I think the best way to develop introverted thinking is to spend lots of time thinking, just find a problem to think about and think about it for an hour."

So, theoretically, my deficiency would be the extent I couldn't focus on the same thing for an hour, right? You know how these things go; you start with one problem and then it flows into something else and something else (too much "N"?), and then you come to your senses and don't remember how you started out, and are thus not consciously able to track your results.

In other words: if INTPs are able to "get in the zone" about one particular problem and work it through until solved, and then "know it", then maybe my trouble isn't so much Ti, but lack of ability to focus on one problem for a sustained length of time, rather than hopping on the connectors through several problems without ever being able to construct a framework or be aware of the framework.

Also; what would be an example of the type of problem you'd think about?

"I don't think logic games and written tests and similar things are suited to INTPs, I think open-ended problems compliment our functions much better."

Yep, you're right.

@Reverse Transcriptase: "There was a book that talked about each function and how to do things to help develop it."

What was the book called? I won't use it to develop Ti, but I guess I could use it for the other functions.

@flow: "How often do you get 'lost in thought'?"

I'm almost always either "lost in thought" or gleaning some piece of information; they more or less constantly interfere with one another. I'm interested in having some way to be "self-aware" about being lost in thought to make it more efficient. In other words, sure, my default position is "lost in thought" but I have no way to catalogue or measure this "global thinking framework" we're supposedly all able to come up with as INTPs (hence my suspicion that I'm either short or talentless on Ti).

"I'm sure if you 'think' about it, you'll realize your Ti is actually quite developed, compared to non INTPians."

Agreed, but again; I keep reading that INTPs are "global thinkers" that see one "connected entity", and I guess that while I think a lot about the big picture, as it were, of a problem, I don't often connect everything or anything into one "connected entity"; in fact, I think some things have connections, and some things don't, and some things have connections that aren't really helpful. And this makes me wonder if I'm just unable to establish some sort of "framework", which again would be because of lack of Ti.

In other words: I agree that I probably do a lot of Ti compared to non-introverted thinkers, but my lack of consciousness of it leads me not to understand my own "framework" to see it's inefficiencies, which makes me go from one connecting idea to another one without awareness as to how I'm cataloging the ideas.

Also: this thing: kind of creeps me out. Looks like he's denting his own skull.

 

[Ermine]

I would like some advice on developing my introverted thinking for two reasons:

1. I suspect that I never fully developed this trait: I was never very good at chemistry, physics, math, or computers; although I picked up foreign languages, political philosophy and history well. Honestly, I think I developed "extraverted intuition" fairly early on in life and was just able to intuit the things I needed to know to the extent I needed to know them, thereby arresting development of my best trait.

2. There is a lot of ink spilled on developing your "inferior functions", which of course is well worth the effort, but let's be honest with ourselves: introverted thinking is how we're going to "make it" in the world, and the extent we can develop this trait is the extent we can "make it", likely. Talking about our feelings is more "icing on the cake", as it were. To that end, I think it would be well within all of our interests to find out exactly how to improve this skill (if you are interested in improving it). Not that you should stop trying to improve your inferior functions, though.

So, how would you develop that trait? Logic games? Timed tests? Starting a new hobby that requires lot's of logic (like metaphysics or something?)

What are your thoughts?

I'm kind of the same way. I catch on pretty quickly with mathematical subjects like physics, chemistry, and computers, but it isn't my absolute favorite. I don't think Ti is about having a mathematical brain. It's simply thinking about stuff all the time. The "stuff" you think about is up to you. I think about anything and everything from philosophical issues to what I could have done better today to how I could smooth over a rocky stage in a relationship. All that's guaranteed is that I'll think about something.

With that in mind, I just need to keep myself busy, not necessarily with a logic game. It could be with an art project, a book, crocheting, reading this forum, whatever just so long as it's beneficial and worth my time.

I've also found that a lot of my Ti is subconscious. It's not something I'm preoccupied with as much as it is just the way I do and process things.

 

[beastie]

Do you ever come up with a solution to something without thinking about it? This happens to me all the time when theres a problem I cant solve and then the answer "pops" up. Sometimes what pops up is another question...
On the rare occasion Im not thinking, my brain "forces" me to think.
Im currently in a job where I am expected to rote memorise without a framework and Im going crazy. My freeflow of thought is stilted and Im trying to do it the "other way". Im testing the way I think and trying things the other way but it just doesnt seem to work for any length of time. My other thought is maybe I just dont want it to - sort of like getting a bird to walk everywhere when it has wings.
I need to see the benefit of thinking the "other way" unfortunately I cant see how it would benefit me (other than keeping my current job and salary) but instead of this I could change to a job Im happier in that is more suited to the way I think.
A bird will walk when it has to....
I feel like a egg laying chicken whos had its wings clipped so it wont fly off. Chickens dont increase their egg laying output for their owners - they lay cause thats what they do.
Anyway, Im waffling. Good luck in your search - keep us posted

 

[Android]

Do you ever come up with a solution to something without thinking about it? This happens to me all the time when theres a problem I cant solve and then the answer "pops" up.

This is actually a subject for research I've got on a list of things to get to.. unconscious problem solving. It happens to me all the time.. especially in regards to my writing. My friends are very used to me suddenly dropping the conversation and searching for a pen and paper to write something down that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

[beastie]

@Android
I find it facinating how I can know the answers to things without knowing why. Im always asked for an explanation but can never give one.
The only non "mystical" explanation I can give for this ability is I unconsciously pick up on possible/probable, mathematical/scientific logic and come up with the most likely outcome based on other "similar" outcomes. Probably not the best explanation but Id like to hear your theories.

 

[Jaico]

I've found that creating systems/rules (like for a game) really help to develop (what I presume to be) Ti. I like to lie on my back and think about the rules to a game that I've thought of, and then play it out in my head; depending on what happens, I revise the rules in some way. These rules have gone through innumerable revisions, but even if I don't end up playing it in real life with other people, just creating the rules/game is enjoyable by itself.

I also like playing minesweeper - not the best way to develop Ti, but certainly a possible way. There's definitely a good amount of thinking required in minesweeper (but sometimes luck - I hate having to guess)...

 

[beastie]

I play minesweeper when Im stressed coz I dont have to think. Im on autopilot when I do it.

 

[Auburn]

@ beastie - Somehow that sounds more like Ni... =0

@ Black Pat - I'm unsure if this applies across the board, but I speak for myself and say that I do have a structure of logic - which is constantly being refined and polished. It's like a complex system/framework of axioms and principles by which all things and all events can be categorized and given at least a general explanation - then further explained/refined with more analysis.

I can parallel it with Google Earth, and how you can zoom out to see the "big picture" while also zooming in to see the finer details. However instead of it being made of millions of pictures, it's made of thousands of connections and explanations to different aspects of life.

Zooming out as far as possible brings me to the topics of existence itself, philosophy, reality, and purpose. Zooming in a bit further takes me to the laws that govern this universe - space, time, gravity, and such [and the atomic level is also in this category]. A bit further takes me to Earth and topics such as evolution, pangea, history, political affairs, etc. Still further down is humanity itself and psychology, personalities, and cognitive dynamics. Then just a tiny bit further, or perhaps in the same level but different category, is human emotion and it's influence on our actions.


In each category, I've spend considerable time analyzing and re-analyzing what my stance is on that topic, and as much as I dislike putting my foot down, I've come to form my own conclusion/explanation to that topic. Now whenever I'm faced with new information or a new situation, I open up the category that it relates to and weigh the new information against my previous understanding and either explain the new info via my previous knowledge, or adjust my previous knowledge to fit the new information.

If you don't already have a structure like this, you need only to come to your own conclusions about all matters of this existence, and place them all in a collective "whole" which is your full understanding of existence - and acts as your framework for arranging your thoughts. This, at least, is how I think I use my Ti the most.

lol, I feel as though I'm just stating the obvious... ^^;
Sorry if this is just a waste of time. > <

 

[beastie]

@Auburn
Which bit? Dont know much bout the Ni/Ne thing

 

[Auburn]

I find it facinating how I can know the answers to things without knowing why. Im always asked for an explanation but can never give one.

Being able to gracefully articulate the steps of deduction which lead to any one conclusion is imperative to making any sort of claim - and for the support of said claim. Without it, the claim holds little weight in itself. I try to make a point of not making statements I cannot back up with reasonable data - and (I think, not sure) most INTPs are this way.

Mm, what you said sounds more like Ni - though to be honest, I don't know too much about Ni. But I digress... ^^;

 

[beastie]

I am able to give explanations for lots of things. Its only in the instance of when answers "pop" into my head Im unable to give an explanation.

Without sounding like Im attempting to be petty can I ask re this...

quote:
Being able to gracefully articulate the steps of deduction which lead to any one conclusion is imperative to making any sort of claim - and for the support of said claim. Without it, the claim holds little weight in itself. I try to make a point of not making statements I cannot back up with reasonable data - and (I think, not sure) most INTPs are this way.

Mm, what you said sounds more like Ni - though to be honest, I don't know too much about Ni. But I digress... ^^;
unquote

... arent you making a statement you cannnot back up with "reasonable data" by stating you dont know much about Ni?

 

[Latro]

Ti is more intuitive than you might expect. A lot of what I don't associate with "thinking" is considered to be thinking according to MBTI.

 

[Auburn]

... arent you making a statement you cannnot back up with "reasonable data" by stating you dont know much about Ni?

yea ^^; lol
hence "I digress..."
I mean, I understand it to an extent - enough to where I can distinguish it from Ti, or at least suspect that there is a distinction (which is the case here). However, I don't know it well enough to claim that it is indeed Ni and not Ti - which is why I only mentioned "that sounds to me like Ni" <-- which in itself is completely true because it does sound like it to me according to the level of understanding I have of it.

But I suppose I should support my suspicion:

Our introverted Intuiting (Ni) brings us insights into the unknowable. We cannot explain how we know them, yet these insights are as clear to us as "the nose on our face." Source

Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” Source

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across wrong in any way.
And Black Pat, I apologize for hijacking the thread < <. *gives the thread back*.

 

[beastie]

Thanks for your clarification . I was questioning my INTPness and Im confused enough already hehe

 

[Zero]

It's best to balance your functions.

My Ti is over developed. That's partly because I was born that way and not because I developed it (or at least displayed traits of it by time I was two). I find reasoning behind everything, search for it. It's like a truth search and only for the real, objective truth. It sometimes interiors with my other functions (and can make me somewhat oblivious at times). I couldn't even understand people until I learned Jung's types. I type everyone I meet. It's how I deal with people.

I do like to read quite a bit. I'm anal about information being correct. I'm also very literal. To me, right now, there is nothing more important than clarity and truth. A few years ago I was in a class where we recorded our greatest values. I use to value uniqueness more and I suppose I still love the trivial things, but these days it's a lesser value to "absolute".

I didn't really develop my Ti, I just realized that truth and clarity are the important values that should be focused on.

(I'm trying to develop my Si and my Fe. I did that by making sense of out humour and realizing it was logical not to worry or be overly critical.)

 

[Aiss]

I'm not sure if it has to do with Ti, but I feel I develop my abilities mostly by learning new things - not getting to know facts but understanding other ways of doing things. If I see at least two solutions to the same problem, I'm usually capable of coming up with others and it improves my ability of solving unrelated problems too. Once I realized it I made it a rule to look at everything in at least two different ways, and usually more (of course rules are meant to be broken, but I'm trying). It isn't hard for me, but it wasn't a natural tendency either.

I used to think my intuition was far behind my thinking, but if coming up with answers after some time without thinking about it is intuition, then I suppose I have it after all. I rather thought about intuition as almost always making right guesses and therefore solving problems much faster - I've observed it in some of my more talented friends, especially when it comes to mathematics/physics.

 

[Black Pat]

Once again, thanks for the replies.

@Ermine: "With that in mind, I just need to keep myself busy, not necessarily with a logic game. It could be with an art project, a book, crocheting, reading this forum, whatever just so long as it's beneficial and worth my time.

I've also found that a lot of my Ti is subconscious. It's not something I'm preoccupied with as much as it is just the way I do and process things."

This is how I would describe the way I do things, too. I look at my Introduction to Type, vol. 6 (Briggs), though, and it says: "if they (the INTP) have not developed their Thinking, they may go from insight to insight never analyzing them with a critical eye or integrating them into a whole." (p.23). This means that it is both possible to be deficient at our main process, and more importantly, possible to improve on a function we do "subconsciously". Which means this process can be made "conscious" to where one could see it's inefficiencies; where one is "going from insight to insight (project to project? Hobby to hobby?)" instead of integrating something into a whole. For those "trouble shooting" INTPs who use their INT situationally (this sounds like both of us), conscious work on Ti might make us go less from insight to insight and give us more "zoned in" thinking.

@beastie and Android: "Do you ever come up with a solution to something without thinking about it?."

Rarely, although once your Ne gets well-developed, you start instantly to go through the Ti part because you're sure your Ne will get the decision right. This has the appearance of coming up with a solution without even thinking about it, if not the reality.

@Jaico: "I've found that creating systems/rules (like for a game) really help to develop (what I presume to be) Ti. I like to lie on my back and think about the rules to a game that I've thought of, and then play it out in my head; depending on what happens, I revise the rules in some way. These rules have gone through innumerable revisions, but even if I don't end up playing it in real life with other people, just creating the rules/game is enjoyable by itself."

This is fascinating. I would love a specific example of this if you have time. Do you take a pre-existing game and mentally change some of the rules? I suppose creating any system would do it, though, right?

@Auburn: (I won't quote the whole thing).

This is what I had in mind, but on second thought; perhaps the internal organization has more to do with introverted sensing (which is our third trait) than thinking; which is a whole different and terribly important topic. I hadn't thought of it, but the "thinking" is how you're "weighing the new information" and the organizational framework, the "boxes" you open when you get a new piece of information, is probably a result of Si. Am I wrong?

Nonetheless: this would work. All I need is more diverse interests and the inclination to make even tentative conclusions about things. As it stands, I am more or less your on-the-fly, situational, "trouble-shooter" INTP, with a few "big picture" hobby exceptions. As I said, I was never any good at physics or chemistry, so you can imagine how much thought I've given to the world's origins. Perhaps this could be solved by changing my reading diet.

@Zero: "It's best to balance your functions."

I've heard this before, but I'm not exactly sure it is always true. I'm not against making an effort with the other functions: it would be helpful to have some internal understanding of our feelings about things when that is appropriate, but when there is Thinking to be done, I'm interested in consciously and conscientiously being able to do so and not let it be just a possibly inefficient, "subconscious" thing that I slip in to. In other words, when thinking is appropriate I'm interested in doing it well.

@Aiss: "I'm not sure if it has to do with Ti, but I feel I develop my abilities mostly by learning new things - not getting to know facts but understanding other ways of doing things. If I see at least two solutions to the same problem, I'm usually capable of coming up with others and it improves my ability of solving unrelated problems too."

Do you mean "other equally valid solutions" or "same solution, different way of getting there"? As you say, this almost sounds like more developing extraverted intuition than introverted thinking. I would almost think piling on "facts" and then having to sort through all of them for relevancy would be a good way to build up Ti; except you'd have to answer relevancy to what first, and then we're back to being "situational INTPs without framework".

 

[Aiss]

@Aiss: "I'm not sure if it has to do with Ti, but I feel I develop my abilities mostly by learning new things - not getting to know facts but understanding other ways of doing things. If I see at least two solutions to the same problem, I'm usually capable of coming up with others and it improves my ability of solving unrelated problems too."

Do you mean "other equally valid solutions" or "same solution, different way of getting there"? As you say, this almost sounds like more developing extraverted intuition than introverted thinking. I would almost think piling on "facts" and then having to sort through all of them for relevancy would be a good way to build up Ti; except you'd have to answer relevancy to what first, and then we're back to being "situational INTPs without framework".

I mean both - when talking about a math problem only the second (different way) is possible, while with programming problems (algorithms, but even more so designing complex systems) it would be the first, although some solutions might be better than others.

I've looked for definitions of Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, and from what I found it seems that:

analyzing data, understanding systems, problem solving - Introverted Thinking
seeing different possibilities, multiple ways of doing things - Extraverted Intuition
gathering, comparing and searching data - Introverted Sensing
responding to the wants of others - Extraverted Feeling

So you're probably right I was in fact training Ne. Piling on facts and sorting through them seems more like Si though. If I understood this correctly, Ti is "only" logical thinking, which may be used to arrive to a conclusion or to prove the one stumbled upon by Ne. In fact, these would correspond directly to critical (Ti) and lateral (Ne) thinking, using de Bono's terms. Then the ways of exercising Ti would be reasoning, constructing proofs and, probably, logical games you've mentioned earlier. And the powerful capability for problem-solving INTPs supposedly have would be a combination of working with lots of data (Si), generating ideas (Ne) and self-checking (Ti).

Which makes me wonder... do INTPs generally have good memory? I know I've got one, but is it in any way related to the personality type? I'm told intelligence is not, but it seems to me most of the "talented" people (in non-artistic way) are NTs, not a meager 10%.

 

[cuterebra]

Do you ever come up with a solution to something without thinking about it? This happens to me all the time when theres a problem I cant solve and then the answer "pops" up. Sometimes what pops up is another question...

I do, frequently. But even if I don't know exactly why at the time it pops into my head, I can usually retrace my mental steps (which had to be logical, even if I wasn't aware of it at the time) and figure it out.

It's all about pattern recognition, I think. Anybody ever read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco? One of the characters in the book discusses the feeling that "everything is connected" and essentially says that this is a fallacy. I disagree. I see repeating patterns everywhere--I suppose this is how I exercise my Ti.

 

[Death]

@BlackPat:Which means this process can be made "conscious" to where one could see it's inefficiencies; where one is "going from insight to insight (project to project? Hobby to hobby?)" instead of integrating something into a whole.For those "trouble shooting" INTPs who use their INT situationally (this sounds like both of us), conscious work on Ti might make us go less from insight to insight and give us more "zoned in" thinking.

I don't get this part,because sometime I have too many project (in my head at least)and at any given time might not doing any of those project.

 

[Aiss]

I do, frequently. But even if I don't know exactly why at the time it pops into my head, I can usually retrace my mental steps (which had to be logical, even if I wasn't aware of it at the time) and figure it out.

It's all about pattern recognition, I think. Anybody ever read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco? One of the characters in the book discusses the feeling that "everything is connected" and essentially says that this is a fallacy. I disagree. I see repeating patterns everywhere--I suppose this is how I exercise my Ti.

And fractals. Don't forget fractals. Surely it isn't just me?

Do you mean retracing steps as in remembering having traced them, or interpolating between premises and conclusion? You said they "had to be logical", but is it not possible that it's just Ne playing with ideas, which are later verified using Ti? If you do recall having followed a logical path, is it more or less likely to have flaws in reasoning than when you do it consciously? I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand the Ne/Ti thing, and one mind is a bit limited example to form conclusions based on it.

 

[cuterebra]

And fractals. Don't forget fractals. Surely it isn't just me?

Do you mean retracing steps as in remembering having traced them, or interpolating between premises and conclusion? You said they "had to be logical", but is it not possible that it's just Ne playing with ideas, which are later verified using Ti? If you do recall having followed a logical path, is it more or less likely to have flaws in reasoning than when you do it consciously? I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand the Ne/Ti thing, and one mind is a bit limited example to form conclusions based on it.

Good question--the more I think about it, the more it seems I'm going round in a circle...

You are correct; it's quite possible that Ne is what supplies the answer and Ti the confirmation. I'd guess this is the case at least in some instances--possibly even a majority of the time. The two feel so intertwined to me that I'm not sure I always recognize the difference. I'll have to pay closer attention in the future.

That's the problem with thinking about one's own mind--hard to eliminate bias.

And yes--fractals. Of course.

 

[Black Pat]

@Aiss: "Piling on facts and sorting through them seems more like Si though."

Right. I confused the "raw material" with what's being done with it in an N-based fit of connection-hopping. While adding more "raw material" gives you more chances to exercise Ti, it shouldn't be mistaken for the actual work of "only logical thinking".

"Then the ways of exercising Ti would be reasoning, constructing proofs and, probably, logical games you've mentioned earlier."

That's basically what I'm thinking. What does it look like in reality, though? Are there books that show you how to do logical, non-math based "proofs"? A book about "strict logic"? It has to be out there, and if we're right, a book like that will isolate Ti from the rest of our functions.

"If I understood this correctly, Ti is "only" logical thinking, which may be used to arrive to a conclusion or to prove the one stumbled upon by Ne."

It seems like our big challenge is to isolate Ti from Ne to find out where we've been leaning too heavily on Ne for decision-making.

"Which makes me wonder... do INTPs generally have good memory? I know I've got one, but is it in any way related to the personality type?"

Um. I'll take any Sensor over any of us in remembering a specific concrete detail. Like what someone was wearing, or a specific driving direction, or, say, where a certain shop is located on a street. A Sensor will know that and you won't because you were too busy in abstractions to notice someone matched their earrings with their shoes. INTPs have a memory for things that are important to INTPs (and routinely overestimate their capabilities).

"I'm told intelligence is not, but it seems to me most of the "talented" people (in non-artistic way) are NTs, not a meager 10%."

Forgive me if this sounds rude; I think quite highly of your other writing, so this was so disappointing. Also, I'm a little disgusted of hearing this line of thought on INTPforum generally, especially because INTPs are supposed to be "objective" about their place in the world. So I might as well say this now anyway:

The idea that NTs are "more talented" is every bit as inaccurate as it is churlish and immature. And I'm not saying that because it is impolite to call someone who is less capable "less capable"; I'm saying that because it's true. What's also true, in my experience, is that INTPs tend to mistake intellectual competence for something more important than it is. They define their personality as "talent", then go on to claim "talent", when in fact being an intellectual dilettante, while an amusing hobby, is adding very little of value to the world and is just "buffoonery with books". Can we be objective and admit that? I love such buffoonery, mind you, but let's at least call it by it's name.

Again: I don't mean to be rude to you personally, Aiss, but I'm a little tired of the that goes on here regarding the Sensors and Feelers, many of whom make up the more "talented" portion of respected industries (like lawyers, for instance. There are as many if not more "talented" Sensors and Feelers in the law as NTs. In patent law, for instance, you will find a disproportionate number of Sensors. Does that mean patent attorneys are "untalented" or "unintelligent"?). For a type of people who allegedly prize accuracy, the notion that NTs are more "talented" just won't pass muster; not because it's impolitic to think so, but because it childishly overestimates it's value in the larger "social tapestry", as it were.

Forgive me if that sounds rude - it is difficult to distinguish good-natured criticism from aggressive attacks on the Internet (which is why I'm increasingly belligerent about using technology!)

@Death: "I don't get this part,because sometime I have too many project (in my head at least)and at any given time might not doing any of those project."

This is what I was saying about "being led along by our Ne" earlier in the thread. When we go from task-to-task, it's because our Ne is making connection after connection without bothering to integrate anything "into a whole". With more work on Ti, theoretically, we'll be able to make our thinking more efficient by being conscious of it and plugging it's inefficiencies. This means we'll be able to remain "in a zone" until a whole problem is thought through, or at least be conscious about what we've worked through when we've moved on to the next problem. This could be way off-base, though.

 

[snowqueen]

This is what I was saying about "being led along by our Ne" earlier in the thread. When we go from task-to-task, it's because our Ne is making connection after connection without bothering to integrate anything "into a whole". With more work on Ti, theoretically, we'll be able to make our thinking more efficient by being conscious of it and plugging it's inefficiencies. This means we'll be able to remain "in a zone" until a whole problem is thought through, or at least be conscious about what we've worked through when we've moved on to the next problem. This could be way off-base, though.

I agree that sticking with a problem is a good way of developing Ti - or certainly sticking with a set of problems. We have a tendency to want to pursue the new, as you point out - but if you have to complete a project it forces the Ti to work harder. I have found that work has helped me to focus because there is an external demand to complete projects and this has ended up being enormously rewarding in terms of developing confidence in my Ti. Doing research has been particularly interesting - qualitative data analysis is like a dream come true for an INTP! Well, it is for me anyway

I also found Tomb Raider remarkably helpful.

I have been a bit concerned recently that my Ti has become rather out of balance though and that it is affecting parts of my life negatively - particularly in dealing with romantic situations where logic tends not to apply terribly well!

 

[zmcintyre]

I do spend a lot of time reading and use it to direct my thinking, my mind drifts a lot when I read into my own scenarios and arguments, so I stop reading and write for sometime, then start reading again. I also do lot's of internet reading and research.

I think that's how i've developed mine to some extent.

i think i might understand about the intuition thing, knowing just enough to figure it our when you need to, i feel like i that happens on tests a lot, i feel like i BS the whole test or essay and get a decent grade.

if your curious, philosophy major.


oh and snowqueen http://www.gapminder.org/ stats graphed and stuff

 

[snowqueen]

thanks zmc (and welcome btw - please do an intro soon)

I don't do stats at all! Can't cope with numbers. But if I did, that site would be fab! I do interpretive analysis on qualitative data rather than statistical (which is really another form of quantitative research even though it's using qualitative data).

I do research like phenomenological or grounded theory.

 

[zmcintyre]

cool i did!

 

[Black Pat]

@Snowqueen: "I have found that work has helped me to focus because there is an external demand to complete projects and this has ended up being enormously rewarding in terms of developing confidence in my Ti."

I believe it; deadlines set by someone else always brings it out of us. I am interested, however, in improving Ti for it's own sake (how INTP, right?!) rather than being motivated by job pressure (which obviously is effective), or at least having an independent way to find our focus (also; how INTP!). An independent way would "tide over" INTPs in tough job situations or INTPs who just want to improve their skills. Plus, it would "arm" younger INTPs, who, while they are alienated at the moment, could use this chance to polish their best trait and shine in the future* instead of wasting time hating themselves for a trait that eventually has a lot of value.

"I have been a bit concerned recently that my Ti has become rather out of balance though and that it is affecting parts of my life negatively - particularly in dealing with romantic situations where logic tends not to apply terribly well!"

This is partially the type of awareness of Ti's inefficiencies and excesses that I mean; if you could see yourself lurching into Ti where it isn't appropriate, or at least know how your Ti begins to disregard "illogical data", then we'd be able to more efficiently apply Thinking where Thinking is applicable, and more effectively abandon it when it is useless (like romance!) But we would know it instead of subconciously slipping into it....Which would make it more complete one way or the other...

@zmcintyre: "I do spend a lot of time reading and use it to direct my thinking, my mind drifts a lot when I read into my own scenarios and arguments, so I stop reading and write for sometime, then start reading again."

Earlier in the thread, the focus was on how to stop bouncing from point to point and instead start "thinking deeply" on this or that subject where appropriate. Using reading to "spark" something is developing your Ne. Which is fine (and pleasurable!), but introverted thinking is the thing that needs to be isolated.

"if your curious, philosophy major."

What were your "logic" books? What were the books that taught you how to think?


* I'm looking at you especially, Seducer of the Homeless.

 

[Aiss]

@Aiss: "Piling on facts and sorting through them seems more like Si though."

Right. I confused the "raw material" with what's being done with it in an N-based fit of connection-hopping. While adding more "raw material" gives you more chances to exercise Ti, it shouldn't be mistaken for the actual work of "only logical thinking".

"Then the ways of exercising Ti would be reasoning, constructing proofs and, probably, logical games you've mentioned earlier."

That's basically what I'm thinking. What does it look like in reality, though? Are there books that show you how to do logical, non-math based "proofs"? A book about "strict logic"? It has to be out there, and if we're right, a book like that will isolate Ti from the rest of our functions.

"If I understood this correctly, Ti is "only" logical thinking, which may be used to arrive to a conclusion or to prove the one stumbled upon by Ne."

It seems like our big challenge is to isolate Ti from Ne to find out where we've been leaning too heavily on Ne for decision-making.

"Which makes me wonder... do INTPs generally have good memory? I know I've got one, but is it in any way related to the personality type?"

Um. I'll take any Sensor over any of us in remembering a specific concrete detail. Like what someone was wearing, or a specific driving direction, or, say, where a certain shop is located on a street. A Sensor will know that and you won't because you were too busy in abstractions to notice someone matched their earrings with their shoes. INTPs have a memory for things that are important to INTPs (and routinely overestimate their capabilities).

"I'm told intelligence is not, but it seems to me most of the "talented" people (in non-artistic way) are NTs, not a meager 10%."

Forgive me if this sounds rude; I think quite highly of your other writing, so this was so disappointing. Also, I'm a little disgusted of hearing this line of thought on INTPforum generally, especially because INTPs are supposed to be "objective" about their place in the world. So I might as well say this now anyway:

The idea that NTs are "more talented" is every bit as inaccurate as it is churlish and immature. And I'm not saying that because it is impolite to call someone who is less capable "less capable"; I'm saying that because it's true. What's also true, in my experience, is that INTPs tend to mistake intellectual competence for something more important than it is. They define their personality as "talent", then go on to claim "talent", when in fact being an intellectual dilettante, while an amusing hobby, is adding very little of value to the world and is just "buffoonery with books". Can we be objective and admit that? I love such buffoonery, mind you, but let's at least call it by it's name.

Again: I don't mean to be rude to you personally, Aiss, but I'm a little tired of the that goes on here regarding the Sensors and Feelers, many of whom make up the more "talented" portion of respected industries (like lawyers, for instance. There are as many if not more "talented" Sensors and Feelers in the law as NTs. In patent law, for instance, you will find a disproportionate number of Sensors. Does that mean patent attorneys are "untalented" or "unintelligent"?). For a type of people who allegedly prize accuracy, the notion that NTs are more "talented" just won't pass muster; not because it's impolitic to think so, but because it childishly overestimates it's value in the larger "social tapestry", as it were.

Forgive me if that sounds rude - it is difficult to distinguish good-natured criticism from aggressive attacks on the Internet (which is why I'm increasingly belligerent about using technology!)

Quit apologizing, I'm not offended. And I don't think honesty counts as rudeness. I agree what I've written sounds arrogant, but I didn't mean it as such.

I've actually written quite a lengthy response to it, but just lost most of it (accidentally closed FF tab, unfortunately it doesn't restore the post, only the quote, upon reopening). Maybe that's for the better as I'd have otherwise posted something like a rant about how I know many intelligent SF, and anyway intelligent doesn't equal better and I didn't mean to imply it does, etc. I'll try to explain it shortly this time.

I never stated most of the intelligent people are NTs, nor that other types aren't intelligent. It's interesting that you mention lawyers as a counterexample, because I was mostly considering math (and similar areas) and law students. It's obvious I'm somehow biased by being attracted to similar types, but mostly I seek company of people who are more intelligent than myself, because it's stimulating, and keeps me from becoming too lazy and arrogant. Based on my observations there are more NTs among them than in general populations - I'd estimate it at 25-50%. Maybe closer to 25%, if we consider that I probably get along better with NTs, but definitely more than 10%.

What I was trying to do previously was understand the working of functions, and how we're using them in thought process. On the side, I've wondered if development level of Ti/Te supported by Si/Se/Ni/Ne influences that what we perceive as intelligence. That's a hypothesis of sorts.

Notice that the function preferences in types are relative, that is, an INTP will have a better Ti than Ne, while ENTP will favor Ne over Ti (I believe the order of the two main functions would be defining a type in this case). However, a particular ENTP might have more developed functions than a particular INTP, which may include a better developed Ti, much better Ne and possibly better Si. Would it make this person more intelligent? We cannot be sure, but I think it's likely.

If we define "gifted" as "having highly developed functions", and assume the distribution of it (whatever distribution function it actually is) isn't affected by types, we'll get a higher percentage of Ts with well-developed Ti/Te than Fs, although in numbers they may still be a minority. When we compare it with the observed higher percentage of NTs among "intelligent people" (notice the difference between gifted and intelligent) than in general population, we'll see the expected correlation. It's still no proof, obviously, but it seems likely that NTs have more chance of being considered "intelligent" in IQ-like sense even when they're actually overall less gifted, while other types would generally be better in other areas. Exact numbers would obviously depend on what we'll consider "intelligent", but overall the difference wouldn't be big - certainly not enough to make assumptions about a person based on their type, or about intelligent person being a certain type.

I wasn't, in short, trying to imply NTs were better, merely that their functions (and therefore thought process) gave them advantage in the sort of thinking we consider "intelligent". Whether we like it or not the word "intelligence" is defined as "ability to learn and understand", or similarly. I think it's better approach to accept that intelligence isn't as important in life as it is made to be, rather than redefine the word so that everyone is equally intelligent.

Since writing my previous post I read more about functions, especially definitions of and discussions about Ne/Ni, in my attempt to understand how I think (it's an interesting question whether it's possible to analyze our thinking with the use of our thinking, but I think it's worth trying). In the end I've come a full circle from not understanding the difference between Ne/Ni, to thinking them the opposites, to believe them to be different applications of the same. Right now I have a vague idea how my thought process might possibly look, but it'll take a lot of explaining at this point and I need to think it over again to put this rough sketch of a model into words (I could definitely use more Te...).