# Thread: Math and Ne

1. ## Math and Ne

I was just reading "Lectures on Jung's Typology" by Franz and Hillman. I came across this quote: "(Extraverted) intuition needs to look at things from afar or vaguely in order to function, so as to get a certain hunch from the unconscious, to half shut the eyes and not look at facts too closely. If one looks at things too precisely, the focus is on facts, and then the hunch cannot come through."

That is exactly how I do absolutely anything with math... When I get something, it just 'clicks,' and when it clicks, I am sort of only 'half-seeing' the concept. The logic then is based on notions of symmetry, similarity, and abstraction. Too much focus on the details also causes distress and I lose sight of the overall picture... Creative applications of mathematics are also a big plus for me.

It's then a little bit of a struggle with detail-oriented types, who focus too much on precise calculations and who find the notion of 'hunch' too vague, but who probably really struggle with seeing how all of these logical 'pieces' fit together.

There are a number of types who can be over-focused this way: LSE, SLI, LSI, sometimes even LIIs!

My brother is an ESI in analytics. Everything with math is just attention to detail for him. All we seem to be able to agree with is what to eat, what to watch, what sporting event to go to. There is absolutely nothing with math that we see eye-to-eye about... He is probably my biggest struggle with it. In other words, he does not have Ne at all!

Anyway, any thoughts or insights on the subject would be useful.

2. No clue how you do it, but I just do it by wrote memorization of proofs and formulae, often of my own design. I haven't done many proofs in a while, but I've done a bunch of math for various things recently. Oh, I have a good example, I recently did a sort of imformal proof on why rolling a die repeatedly tends to bring results similar to the calculated results even though it's random. I came up with two methods of showing it, one wasn't a proof, but yeah. So if you have 1000 coin flips, and you want to see why the odds are higher to get a distribution closer to 50:50, then you could just drop the other side, and compare the odds of getting 500 heads to getting 1000 heads. Getting 500 heads is a lot more likely than 1000 heads. There is your answer. It's a quick and easy proof, one that isn't formulated right, but whatever. The other way was to calculate the odds of getting 50:50 +- a small percent divergence from fifty, and see what chance you'd get to get there. That's not a proof though, so it doesn't count. That's how I do math. The first one came from the second one, where I figured that you have to consider both heads and tails, because it's plus or minus, although now I might see that is incorrect. Hrrm, seems my idiot is showing. I'll get back to you on that. Ah well, wouldn't be the first time I flopped on math. Doesn't really matter.

3. No clue how you do it, but I just do it by wrote memorization of proofs and formulae, often of my own design. I haven't done many proofs in a while, but I've done a bunch of math for various things recently. Oh, I have a good example, I recently did a sort of imformal proof on why rolling a die repeatedly tends to bring results similar to the calculated results even though it's random. I came up with two methods of showing it, one wasn't a proof, but yeah. So if you have 1000 coin flips, and you want to see why the odds are higher to get a distribution closer to 50:50, then you could just drop the other side, and compare the odds of getting 500 heads to getting 1000 heads. Getting 500 heads is a lot more likely than 1000 heads. Getting 500 heads is more likely than getting 501 heads There is your answer. It's a quick and easy proof, one that isn't formulated right, but whatever. The other way was to calculate the odds of getting 50:50 +- a small percent divergence from fifty, and see what chance you'd get to get there. That's not a proof though, so it doesn't count. That's how I do math. The first one came from the second one, where I figured that you have to consider both heads and tails, because it's plus or minus, although now I might see that is incorrect. Hrrm, seems my idiot is showing. I'll get back to you on that. Ah well, wouldn't be the first time I flopped on math. Doesn't really matter.

4. Ne in math has to do with taking a broad view of things, and considering all the possible ways something could be equally.

Symmetry is where Ti and Ne meet: the various possibilities (such as angles from which to view a figure) are structurally identical.

It also plays a big role in geometric intuition, in my experience Ne leading types are natural geometric thinkers. Algebra and logic are more "pure Ti".

5. Algebra? Oh boy. I'm not even going there. What about geometric algebra?

a(n) = ar^(n-1) <<< A geometric sequence written as well as I can given the lack of subscript and superscript.

Shouldn't Alpha NT be good at that then?

6. Originally Posted by Alomoes
Algebra? Oh boy. I'm not even going there. What about geometric algebra?

a(n) = ar^(n-1) <<< A geometric sequence written as well as I can given the lack of subscript and superscript.

Shouldn't Alpha NT be good at that then?
That's hilarious, the stuff in red, it's amazing how people choose to run off with a conjecture in the absence of evidence any actual facts to validate. The tautology presuming being good at maths is "Ti" and that understanding abstract ideas is "Ne" is quite a joke.

But then again this is "socionics", it means ever slightly so different things to different people - thus making convergence or validation toxic.

7. N-perception is largely top-down whereas S tends to be bottom-up; I agree with what you seem to imply: that N-types tend to be more interested in what math represents while S-types seem more focused on the mechanics and preciseness of math. N represents a relative or relational perspective which is better exercised at a distance (metaphorically speaking) so that the 'whole' can be better viewed. The quoted statement should also apply to Ni although Ni-types look from and compare to a base whereas Ne-types tend to free-wheel and follow where the data takes them. I don't agree that the wording "get a certain hunch from the unconscious" applies to Ne; this seems more of an Ni thing.......

a.k.a. I/O

8. Originally Posted by Soupman
That's hilarious, the stuff in red, it's amazing how people choose to run off with a conjecture in the absence of evidence any actual facts to validate. The tautology presuming being good at maths is "Ti" and that understanding abstract ideas is "Ne" is quite a joke.

But then again this is "socionics", it means ever slightly so different things to different people - thus making convergence or validation toxic.
If its a joke to you i wonder why youre even here

9. Originally Posted by Alomoes
Algebra? Oh boy. I'm not even going there. What about geometric algebra?

a(n) = ar^(n-1) <<< A geometric sequence written as well as I can given the lack of subscript and superscript.

Shouldn't Alpha NT be good at that then?
Generally Alpha NT should be thr best at that yes of all types or better yet have the most potential to be the best at it

10. Originally Posted by Number 9 large
If its a joke to you i wonder why youre even here
The answer to your query was already in the statement you quoted, if you don't understand what I've coloured in red, I'm sorry I'm unable to help you.

Originally Posted by Soupman
That's hilarious, the stuff in red, it's amazing how people choose to run off with a conjecture in the absence of evidence any actual facts to validate. The tautology presuming being good at maths is "Ti" and that understanding abstract ideas is "Ne" is quite a joke.

But then again this is "socionics", it means ever slightly so different things to different people - thus making convergence or validation toxic.
PS

I identify as an Alpha ILI, my values are alpha, but I cannot self-diagnose as either ILE nor LII due to my temperament being Receptive-Adaptive (IP/Ip) as well as experiencing abstract-information dissonance via use of language/expression aligning more with the stated extinguishment and quasi-identity intertype relations.

11. Originally Posted by Soupman
I identify as an Alpha ILI, my values are alpha, but I cannot self-diagnose as either ILE nor LII due to my temperament being Receptive-Adaptive (IP/Ip) as well as experiencing abstract-information dissonance via use of language/expression aligning more with the stated extinguishment and quasi-identity intertype relations.
your values are alpha but u valaue Ni Se Te Fi? lol

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•