Easier to correct than create?

[Thurlor]

I've known since my schooling days that the easiest way for me to understand a complicated concept in maths was for me to try and explain it to a third party. Recently I also came to the realization that I find it so much easier to correct or improve something rather than create something from scratch. Specifically I'm thinking of logical arguments, designs, plans, etc.

Is this an INTP thing, a personal thing or a human thing? Does anyone else here experience this?

 

[Pikachu]

It's easier to create than correct.
Only "expert" knows how to correct appropriately.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I've known since my schooling days that the easiest way for me to understand a complicated concept in maths was for me to try and explain it to a third party. Recently I also came to the realization that I find it so much easier to correct or improve something rather than create something from scratch. Specifically I'm thinking of logical arguments, designs, plans, etc.

Is this an INTP thing, a personal thing or a human thing? Does anyone else here experience this?

You can't create something if you don't have ideas, maybe you're not much of a goal oriented or imaginative person.

However I bet what you could be good at is bottom up design, if you "throw a bunch of things together" or start with a simple function, you can use your natural ability to correct & improve in adding additional functions by necessity and adjusting the functions/form along the way. Building a better whatever-it-is.

 

[Pyropyro]

It's really hard to find which is easier since both creation and correction goes hand in hand. I think their ease depends on your personality and skillset.

Let's say a stereotypical INTP may not have the necessary social skills or patience to conduct a survey-based research project but they may correct said project after its conclusion so that future researchers can use a more refined and less resource consuming methodology.

 

[Latte]

I do think it is noticably easier for INTPs to be more inclined to correct/improve than creating. Their process doesn't lend itself to go for the extreme leaps of imagination that the cognitive inclinations of INJs or ENTP strongly encourage.

It does however lend itself to rigour in that there is strong automatic motivation to explore the nooks and crannies of how structurally sound something is. Whether this applies to the efficiency of a process at work, a strategy in a video game or an idea regarding the nature of an aspect or subthing of reality.

This could easily translate into INTPs being very very good collectors, refiners and masters of ideas, but kind of from an outside perspective, at least until or unless the INTP develops a more self-driven tendency for base structure synthesis regarding the external. Something it must to do some degree and will eventually get good at over time as it is exposed to situations that demand it.

I think EyeSeeCold's incremental method of idea synthesis from a knowingly imperfect/crude starting point is a way to allow the INTP to use its primary inclinations to play a central role in the creation of a specific purpose structure (be it the development of an explanatory model or for developing something practical). It seems like a clever method which is reliable and likely to have high quality outcomes.

 

[QuickTwist]

INTJs are masters of order or sequence if you will. INTPs are masters of organization and categories. An ISFP on the other hand is one who can create, mold and shape things. All three, in my opinion, can be good at creation of ideas in a structure that is understandable, they just go about it in different ways. The INTJ will see something and get an idea of how that will work itself out in the future. The INTP will see the system as a whole and will know how all the things are related and the ISFP will draw from emotion that is either seen or felt by himself or others and relate that to the creation as they see fit. Then there are people like Quentin Tarantino for example. This guy uses all three of these traits in the creation of his movies and is considered ENTP. Without a doubt, ENTPs are the creators of new and original ideas and typically know how their creation will be perceived. To simplify, INTJs excel at structure, INTPs excel at interrelation, ISFPs excel at expression and ENTPs may not excel as well at any of those three individual skills as the other types but can execute all three in a coherent way to come up with something original.

 

[Analyzer]

If ISFPs excel at expression what about INFPs?

Otherwise I agree with your analysis. INTPs are the architects who excel at understanding spatial relationships. INTJs are the masterminds who excel at strategy. ENTPs are the visionaries who excel at inventing.

 

[Jennywocky]

I find it easier to shape and design a system for which I already have the parameters and assumptions. This also makes me a better shaper of work where someone else has already made some basic assumptions and narrowed things a bit; what I do is perfect the system rationally, based on those rules.

When I have to start with a blank piece of paper (for a system, or story, or composition, or drawing, or whatever else), there are too many options and I don't know where to begin or what to select, since I know the selection will confine me and always suspect there was a better starting foundation.

So I'd say I'm a better editor/shaper than I am a pure creator, although if I get an instinct about something, then I can get past the blank page and go from there.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

After I have an idea from Ne, I usually establish the most basic things required for something to function and go upwards to the more complex.

Sometimes I create a mind map of interconnected functions that require other processes to hold together.

Correction is a part of creation that selects the more refined answers from the stream.

If there is something already present it can be corrected or expanded depending on the evaluation.

I would say that creation is initially easier, it is easier to initially find a few concepts and for correction to be required a creation must exist so the improvement is dependant on the formation of ideas from Ne or finding new ideas, also Ne. After ideas are present, correction is natural and more interesting.

 

[Base groove]

It is easiest to break something - finding its flaws
Then next comes fixing it - addressing the flaws and correcting

Creating is more difficult than correcting. Creating requires vision.

I believe the Ni types are best suited for creating something new. Ti types are probably best at correcting something that is broken.

 

[Brontosaurie]

creation requires much more confidence.

there's a time for that. but there's a long long time for doubt.

 

[Helvete]

As I'm a musician I write a lot, creating very interesting soundscapes. So I think it's quite natural for me, but I'm also changing and correcting parts constantly too.
I hope this means I'm well balanced

 

[Brontosaurie]

As I'm a musician I write a lot, creating very interesting soundscapes. So I think it's quite natural for me, but I'm also changing and correcting parts constantly too.
I hope this means I'm well balanced

share when you feel like it.

 

[Words]

I'm an Ni dominant and it is much easier for me to create than correct. That said, forget creating, how do you even understand something by correcting? Don't you first need a certain level of understanding? How much is enough prior understanding? As a highly abstract NiFe, it's really hard to deal with the current educational system when all you want to do is create things. It's as if they force you to go through a "proper" route of understanding first and then expect you to create much much later on. And that seems reasonable to me in a way, but I can't help the fact that even with little information, my brain already wants to create new things.

 

[jehosafats]

Being a little contrarian helps if you're looking for creative inspiration. I suspect its because mastering the various nuances of an argument can help you avoid many blind alleys which perceivably made the argument deficient in the first place.

 

[Anktark]

Now that I come to think about it, I may have had 2 or 3 actually original ideas in the past 20 years of my life. Could actually be none. Most of my ideas come from seeing something that could be done differently or more efficiently and might look like a new idea, but really it's just a solution to a problem. Creating new problems is just not my thing. I guess that 'Engineer' title really fits my way of thinking.