Types of Intelligence you are strongest in

[Aylen]

you know when I read strengthsfinder's 34 themes to decide which are my top five, I was sure you have connectedness as your number one more than my number one (maybe I should delete intrapersonal from my list )

 

Things happen for a reason. You are sure of it. You are sure of it because in your soul you know that we are all connected. Yes, we are individuals, responsible for our own judgments and in possession of our own free will, but nonetheless we are part of something larger. Some may call it the collective unconscious. Others may label it spirit or life force. But whatever your word of choice, you gain confidence from knowing that we are not isolated from one another or from the earth and the life on it. This feeling of Connectedness implies certain responsibilities. If we are all part of a larger picture, then we must not harm others because we will be harming ourselves. We must not exploit because we will be exploiting ourselves. Your awareness of these responsibilities creates your value system. You are considerate, caring, and accepting. Certain of the unity of humankind, you are a bridge builder for people of different cultures. Sensitive to the invisible hand, you can give others comfort that there is a purpose beyond our humdrum lives. The exact articles of your faith will depend on your upbringing and your culture, but your faith is strong. It sustains you and your close friends in the face of life's mysteries.

Oh did you do the test? I have done strengthfinder before but when I answered the questions I did it from the perspective of looking for a career and how I would be in a professional environment. Not much use for someone who feels that they swim in the sea of the collective unconscious, sometimes. My top was:

Rank	Talent	Strength Potential	Main Objective	Description	Score	Video explanation
1	Information Excavator	Information Input	To dig and validate information.	Individuals with the Information Excavator talent are good are digging into information and collecting things. This talent can help to collect and review things and information in order to find errors.	93	Click Me
2	Understand Others	Empathize	Be Empathic to people's emotions to help solve them.	Individuals with the Understand Others talent can have a unique ability to sense the emotions of others. This talent can help them to identify and conciliate people's emotions.	91	Click Me
3	Visionary	Futurist	Envision a better Future.	Individuals with the Visionary talent are inspired by the future and its endless possibilities. This talent can help to inspire people to create new projects and initiatives.	87	Click Me
4	Unifier	Connect	Connect and unite people & things.	Individuals with the Unifier talent can believe that there are few coincidences in life; every event has a profound meaning. This talent can help them to show there is a 'bigger' reason for every event in life and bring spirituality.	87	Click Me
5	Solutions Finder	Ideate	Ideate new ways to solve problems.	Individuals with the Solutions Finder talent love concepts and ideas. This talent can help them to see underlying concepts that unite disparate ideas.	84	Click Me
6	Recognition	Significant	Get Recognition and be in front of others.	Individuals with the Recognition talent can seek to have influence and to be important. This talent can generate the necessary drive to try to make a difference in the world.	82	Click Me
7	Believing	Believe	Believe and doing the 'right thing'.	Individuals with the Believing talent can have a solid set of core values by which they choose to live. This talent can enhance ethical standards and integrity, and when presented with alternative paths will tend to choose the 'right one'.	82	Click Me
8	Student	Learn	Learn to do things to reduce time to performance	Individuals with the Student talent are energized by the process of learning and continuously improve their expertise. This talent can help to bring new or better knowledge to an activity or project.	80	Click Me
9	Planner	Strategize	Strategize; plan and identify relevant obstacles (to avoid them).	Individuals with the Planner talent can be able to see a clear direction through the complexity of a situation. This talent can bring efficient ways around obstacles in order to reach a goal.	80	Click Me
10	Prudent	Deliberate	Deliberate carefully to find a safe solution.	Individuals with the Prudent talent can take serious care when making decisions and will look to anticipate potential obstacles. This talent can bring a detailed step-by-step plan taking into account every possible scenario.	78	Click Me
11	Analyst	Analyze	Analyze to find root causes.	Individuals with the Analyst talent can be very good at understanding cause and effect. This talent can help explain how things work and how they are related.	78	Click Me
12	Group Relations	Relate	Relate in order to integrate groups.	Individuals with the Group Relations talent like to have deep bonds and close relationships with others. This talent can have the ability to build stronger relationships between people.	76	Click Me
13	Personalizer	Individualize	Individualize people to understand their differences.	Individuals with the Personalizer talent can have an innate sense to identify people's differences. This talent can be used to find the uniqueness of individuals to create successful teams.	76	Click Me
14	Thinker	Intellect	Intellect and thinking to filter information.	Individuals with the Thinker talent can have deepness in their thoughts and are introspective. This talent can help to simplify complex information, concepts or ideas.	76	Click Me

Not sure if it would be different if I took it today though.

I think I still tend to take my natural way of being for granted. I used to assume that everyone saw the world like me and just didn't talk about it. I was a child then. Now I know they don't so I keep a lot to myself. I time what I share and with who. It is easier with some than others.

[Faith]

Link?

Its in the first part of the page with descriptions provided for OP. It only appears on the web version.

LINK

[Olimpia]

Its in the first part of the page with descriptions provided for OP. It only appears on the web version.

LINK

Okay thanks, I was using Safari and it doesn't appear on there. Works with Firefox.

This is what I got.



This is not too bad, though the Kinesthetic and Musical intelligences are probably one tad too high.

[Aylen]

I did the quiz here https://mypersonality.info/test-mi/



It cut off the last one.

Bodily/Kinesthetic
20%

[The Reality Denialist]

My personality:
Mathematical>verbal>visual>intra>kinesthetic>inter >naturalistic>musical

[Simo]

Oh did you do the test?

4 times to see how accurate it is

I have done strengthfinder before but when I answered the questions I did it from the perspective of looking for a career and how I would be in a professional environment. Not much use for someone who feels that they swim in the sea of the collective unconscious, sometimes. My top was:

that's why connectedness wasn't number one, next time don't do it from the perspective of looking for a career < I think standout is better for a career as it describes 9 roles you can play in work rather than strengthsfinder's themes which describes how do you naturally think/feel/do

Not sure if it would be different if I took it today though.

I tried it 4 times & they were very similar (the order changed a little but nothing moved from top to bottom or the other way except for one or two themes) < there were few months gap between each try

P.S. @sorrows sorry for going off topic

[Persephone]

Interpersonal
Musical
Linguistic

Intrapersonal
Spatial
Naturalist
Math
Kinesthetic

...interesting...

[Orthotomus]

Here are my scores from LiteracyNet:
Musical: 3.71
Logical: 3.29
Intrapersonal: 3.14 (yay, π)
Linguistic: 3
Naturalist: 2.29
Visual/Spatial: 2.14
Kinesthetic: 1.86
Interpersonal: 1.86

And those are from MyPersonality:


I'm not sure if they are really accurate, but it seems likely that logical, musical, linguistic and possibly intrapersonal are my strongest points.

[maniac]

Strong:
Existential
Musical
Intrapersonal
Visual/spatial

Weak:
Verbal/linguistic
Interpersonal
Mathematical

[Muddy]

[Olimpia]

[Myst]

Very good at: Logical/Mathematical and mainly the Spatial half of Visual/Spatial

Good in parts/into some bits of it/average in other parts: Bodily/Kinesthetic > Musical > Verbal/Linguistic

Average probably: Intrapersonal (but periodically very interested in it)

Not interested in: Naturalistic, some of Visual half of Visual/Spatial

Suck at: Interpersonal


EDIT: did the literacynet test:

Spatial 4.86
Logic/Math 4.43
Body movement/Kinesthetic 4.00
Musical 3.29
Self/Intrapersonal 3.29
Language/Linguistic 3.14
Social/Interpersonal 2.71
Nature/Naturalist 2.00

And the mypersonality test:

Logical/Mathematical 90%
Bodily/Kinesthetic 80%
Visual/Spatial 65%
Musical 60%
Intrapersonal 60%
Verbal/Linguistic 40%
Interpersonal 35%
Naturalist 30%

[Pallas]

As I said earlier, my experience and observations don't confirm those findings, that's why I doubt their findings.

Just look back at the most intelligent people in human history (e.g Einstein, Stephen Hawking,...)
Now how many of them looked like models? Exactly.

I might very well just have a Te PoLR moment here, but just because some scientists claim something doesn't mean it must be true.
Studies can be biased, just like researchers can be biased.

Having said that, there might be a correlation between Interpersonal and/or Kinesthetic intelligence and good-looks.
Besides that, I cannot see it.

I don't think Stephen Hawking is as smart as people think he is to be honest. Also, Einstein looked pretty OK when he was young (not a model, but still pretty OK). Being ugly is largely a side-effect of getting older as far as I'm concerned.

Young Einstein:



For that matter, young Hawking:



He looks like a bit of a dork with those huge glasses and that bowl cut or whatever that hairstyle is, but his face looks perfectly symmetrical without the disease having fully set in here.

...This is really just reminding me of my complaint about why smart people are usually portrayed as old and ugly as possible when generally they seem to look pretty average (not necessarily good, but not someone you would notice on the street as "Boy, s/he is ug-ly!" either) and some look sort of good (but not generally like models) when they're young.

Young Isaac Newton (this one is semi-common but still not nearly as common as Old Fat Grumpy Newton):



Young da Vinci (note to all guys trying to grow a beard to look attractive somehow: it just makes you look a lot older even if you're obviously not otherwise):



Young Marie Curie (women generally seem to get slightly more slack here, especially when made the subject of hyper-Romantic fictionalizations of their lives based on the fact that they died of love burnt themselves to death on a radium funeral-pyre recklessly killed themselves through radiation poisoning):



Young Lisa Randall, who has not really aged at all (and thus cannot be portrayed as completely old and decrepit) and seems to stun anyone who looks her up after only knowing she wrote some pop-sci string theory book and making assumptions about the appearance of geniuses:



Young Feynman, managing to stay relatively calm and still:



Was Ernest Hemingway Hot?



Young Goethe, looking like the most presumptuous person he knows (just the fact that he says this makes it true):





While it might have a little to do with wanting to portray people after they've accomplished as much as they can, I think it really comes from Rembrandt's self-portraits (although I think there's something else to them as well):

Young Rembrandt:



Old Rembrandt:




...Also, keep in mind that depictions of Jesus are basically just some weird man-child of da Vinci and Albrecht Dürer rather than anything even vaguely like Jesus would have to have looked.

[Olimpia]

Visual and Spatial are two terms that are supposed to describe the same thing, but I think they are two different sides.

I'd coin Visual intelligence as the kind of intelligence that is based on either imagination and/or aesthetics.
Whereas Spatial intelligence is the kind of intelligence that is based on a practical understanding of how objects are "made up" in their dimensions, how they are situated in places, etc.

Visual intelligence in that context would be related to imagination or "an aesthetic eye" for things. For instance, any kind of visual artist would be better at this kind of intelligence, as well as fiction writers. (It seems like this kind of intelligence is more or based.)

Spatial intelligence would be related to being able to have a good sense of direction, being able to read maps well, being able to assess the dimensionality of objects well, etc. (That's why it reminds me of STs probably. A lot of it seems to be related to good and .)

The best (realistic) painters were probably highly skilled in both visual and spatial intelligence. A painter who lacks the ability to render objects realistically, and who primarily focuses on abstract art or pleasant colours is probably higher in Visual intelligence but also lower in Spatial intelligence.

I'd say my Visual intelligence is rather good; mine is primarily based on my imagination.
However, my Spatial intelligence is quite bad. That would explain why I score poorly in Spatial intelligence in those tests that ignore the imaginative or aesthetic aspects, and better in those that include them.

My weakness in Spatial intelligence would also explain how I can be both good at physical things like dancing or similar for as long as there is no particularly Spatial aspect involved, like it is the case with any sport that involves a ball. This kind of hand-eye-coordination is very much a mix of Kinesthetic with Spatial intelligence. A lot of sports involve some amount of Spatial intelligence, so naturally I won't score too high in Kinesthetic intelligence (with good reason). I am starting to wonder whether Kinesthetic intelligence does imply a good Spatial intelligence level, or whether there are two different sides to Kinesthetic intelligence as it is the case with Visual/Spatial.

[Olimpia]

I am also wondering how people pair up when it comes to those different types of intelligence.

As of now, it seems to me like most people either pair up with someone who complements their weaker intelligence(s), or whose intelligence(s) set-up is quite similar or almost identical. And with some people, it is a mix; their partner is better/complementary at one thing, but just as bad as them at another, etc.

[Olimpia]

Look and assess the hottest people in human history, too.

Brad Pitt, Megan Fox? Neither of them is remarkably intelligent.

If intelligence and beauty truly correlated in a close-knit way, the more intelligent someone was the hotter they were, and vice versa.
In that respect, Brad Pitt would have to be the smartest guy in this day and age. And that is obviously not the case. Surely beauty fades with age, but my argument still stands: Brad Pitt was one of the most attractive men who've ever lived. But he's not been one of the smartest.

[darya]

Dunno the precise order, but good at interpersonal, existential, intrapersonal and linguistics
Musical ok
Bad at naturalistic (what even is that? sounds like nature and chemistry/physics/biology, so no), visual/spatial, mathematical/logical and bodily/kinesthetic.

[Myst]

Visual and Spatial are two terms that are supposed to describe the same thing, but I think they are two different sides.

I'd coin Visual intelligence as the kind of intelligence that is based on either imagination and/or aesthetics.
Whereas Spatial intelligence is the kind of intelligence that is based on a practical understanding of how objects are "made up" in their dimensions, how they are situated in places, etc.

Agreed... I'm good at spatial intelligence and rely on it a lot, I'm also good at some visual stuff when it comes to actually doing things (e.g. drawing) but I don't daydream or imagine stuff much. Why should realistic rendering of objects come with imagination?

If we have to relate these things to IEs, I would say my visual intelligence is mainly Se and a bit of Si. My spatial intelligence is mainly Ti and some Se. I don't focus on the Te side of it much if it even has a Te side... how do you see it as Te related? I'm really curious about that.

As for kinesthetic stuff, it's not really spatial to me.

I am also wondering how people pair up when it comes to those different types of intelligence.

As of now, it seems to me like most people either pair up with someone who complements their weaker intelligence(s), or whose intelligence(s) set-up is quite similar or almost identical. And with some people, it is a mix; their partner is better/complementary at one thing, but just as bad as them at another, etc.

I'd prefer someone with good intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, maybe linguistic as well. Dunno. I don't care at all whether they are good at math, at spatial or kinesthetic stuff. Very indifferent about the musical/naturalist skills. Almost negatively, that is, if someone is good at those two mainly and nothing else and especially if their interests just center around these two then I probably don't want them as a partner. Can still be ok as a friend if they have some other interests too. This is because while I very much like some music related stuff, I'm really not interested in sharing much about it and the naturalist stuff just leaves me totally disinterested.

Edit: I see the 9th intelligence now... the existential one is also something I'd like in a partner I'm not better than average at it.

Look and assess the hottest people in human history, too.

Brad Pitt, Megan Fox? Neither of them is remarkably intelligent.

If intelligence and beauty truly correlated in a close-knit way, the more intelligent someone was the hotter they were, and vice versa.
In that respect, Brad Pitt would have to be the smartest guy in this day and age. And that is obviously not the case. Surely beauty fades with age, but my argument still stands: Brad Pitt was one of the most attractive men who've ever lived. But he's not been one of the smartest.

Really Brad Pitt? Never been attracted to his looks. I know he's good-looking objectively but just no.

[darya]

Look and assess the hottest people

I've read this "look at asses of the hottest people" three times in a row lol. I need another coffee.

[Pallas]

Look and assess the hottest people in human history, too.

Brad Pitt, Megan Fox? Neither of them is remarkably intelligent.

If intelligence and beauty truly correlated in a close-knit way, the more intelligent someone was the hotter they were, and vice versa.
In that respect, Brad Pitt would have to be the smartest guy in this day and age. And that is obviously not the case. Surely beauty fades with age, but my argument still stands: Brad Pitt was one of the most attractive men who've ever lived. But he's not been one of the smartest.

...I think beauty and intelligence just don't correlate at all and that's why most smart people look average, and most hot people have average intelligence. But you notice more when someone is really hot and smart or really ugly and smart, or really hot and dumb or really ugly and dumb, and just don't notice the average people as much. Since people are prone to envy each other, if someone shows a positive trait in one area, they must look to minimize positive traits and maximize negative traits in other areas to make themselves feel better. So you get "hot people are stupid" and "smart people are ugly" from people who aren't particularly hot and/or smart, and "smart people are hot" from people who fancy themselves both geniuses and models. And I think that influences the representations people pick to focus on in the first place (Einstein with swag vs. Einstein looking old and crazed).

[darya]

Agreed... I'm good at spatial intelligence and rely on it a lot, I'm also good at some visual stuff when it comes to actually doing things (e.g. drawing) but I don't daydream or imagine stuff much. Why should realistic rendering of objects come with imagination?

Oh visual means having a good imagination and an eye for aesthetics? then i'm very good at this. I thought it's being good at noticing/seeing real objects in your vicinity, as it was put together with spatial (i'm very bad at for example orientation, reading maps, putting real objects together - reading instructions for how to put an vacuum cleaner together : ), geometrical shapes etc).

[Olimpia]

...I think beauty and intelligence just don't correlate at all and that's why most smart people look average, and most hot people have average intelligence. But you notice more when someone is really hot and smart or really ugly and smart, or really hot and dumb or really ugly and dumb, and just don't notice the average people as much. Since people are prone to envy each other, if someone shows a positive trait in one area, they must look to minimize positive traits and maximize negative traits in other areas to make themselves feel better. So you get "hot people are stupid" and "smart people are ugly" from people who aren't particularly hot and/or smart, and "smart people are hot" from people who fancy themselves both geniuses and models. And I think that influences the representations people pick to focus on in the first place (Einstein with swag vs. Einstein looking old and crazed).

Yes, I agree with that entirely.

And then again, there's also personal bias. Some people will evaluate someone as being "hotter" just because they are smarter, or someone as more intelligent just because they are prettier; and those impressions can be entirely subjective.

[Myst]

Oh visual means having a good imagination and an eye for aesthetics? then i'm very good at this. I thought it's being good at noticing/seeing real objects in your vicinity, as it was put together with spatial (i'm very bad at for example orientation, reading maps, putting real objects together - reading instructions for how to put an vacuum cleaner together : ), geometrical shapes etc).

Imagination and daydreaming is apparently part of it here, yes: http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?t...sual.2FSpatial

[Pallas]

Visual and Spatial are two terms that are supposed to describe the same thing, but I think they are two different sides.

I'd coin Visual intelligence as the kind of intelligence that is based on either imagination and/or aesthetics.
Whereas Spatial intelligence is the kind of intelligence that is based on a practical understanding of how objects are "made up" in their dimensions, how they are situated in places, etc.

Visual intelligence in that context would be related to imagination or "an aesthetic eye" for things. For instance, any kind of visual artist would be better at this kind of intelligence, as well as fiction writers. (It seems like this kind of intelligence is more or based.)

Spatial intelligence would be related to being able to have a good sense of direction, being able to read maps well, being able to assess the dimensionality of objects well, etc. (That's why it reminds me of STs probably. A lot of it seems to be related to good and .)

The best (realistic) painters were probably highly skilled in both visual and spatial intelligence. A painter who lacks the ability to render objects realistically, and who primarily focuses on abstract art or pleasant colours is probably higher in Visual intelligence but also lower in Spatial intelligence.

I'd say my Visual intelligence is rather good; mine is primarily based on my imagination.
However, my Spatial intelligence is quite bad. That would explain why I score poorly in Spatial intelligence in those tests that ignore the imaginative or aesthetic aspects, and better in those that include them.

My weakness in Spatial intelligence would also explain how I can be both good at physical things like dancing or similar for as long as there is no particularly Spatial aspect involved, like it is the case with any sport that involves a ball. This kind of hand-eye-coordination is very much a mix of Kinesthetic with Spatial intelligence. A lot of sports involve some amount of Spatial intelligence, so naturally I won't score too high in Kinesthetic intelligence (with good reason). I am starting to wonder whether Kinesthetic intelligence does imply a good Spatial intelligence level, or whether there are two different sides to Kinesthetic intelligence as it is the case with Visual/Spatial.

...You just changed "Kinesthetic" to "Spatial"... You can be imaginative or aesthetic in other ways, like music, poetry, fiction, acting... those doesn't generally take a lot of kinesthetics, unless you including fingering instruments and whatever. When you get to that level you're pretty much just separating skill from talent. Also, "kinesthetic" is derived from "aesthetic".

This is also why "Multiple Intelligences" sucks. Intelligence is intelligence. I don't know why it's considered so much more valuable than other talents or skills. Who wants to see Einstein dance at the ballet? (OK, that might be entertaining, but that's it.) "Existential intelligence" also got cut due to being sort of inherently value-laden. It's fair to say some values are better than others, but everyone always picks their own as the best, so people cut that to use Multiple Intelligences for feel-goodness without having to worry about changing their whole worldview.

You also kind of did that in your post yourself. I think realistic paintings are more aesthetically pleasing than Impressionism because Impressionism just seems waaay too muted and "pleasant" like New Age music to me (post-Impressionism like Van Gogh is different even if people who aren't picky put it with Impressionism proper). Anyways, how would Dalí get his imagination across if it was all just blurred forms rather than photorealistic representations of mindscrew? Typology should leave human imagination alone since it can never really encompass it.

[darya]

Yes, I agree with that entirely.

And then again, there's also personal bias. Some people will evaluate someone as being "hotter" just because they are smarter, or someone as more intelligent just because they are prettier; and those impressions can be entirely subjective.

I don't see any correlation there either.

[The Reality Denialist]

It is far easier to mentally construct objects than by hand.

For latter I need to design it carefully. Anyways I'm not dumb there. I can work my way through backwards – reverse engineering (roughly equates with being scientist). I think I could make something out of nothing. The process might seem messy and result bit harsh.

[Number 9 large]

From what I remember of school maths; it was all about rearranging stuff, and looking at things from different perspectives, which should be NE, so I wouldn't be surprised if NE is more useful for basic maths, than any other function

That explains why I must've hated it so much lol.
Because I'm also pretty sure Ti is one of the best functions for math, alongside Ne maybe. It has also never been that I couldn't do it, just that it takes me 3 times more effort to get the same result compared to the other courses, because I am naturally disinterested in it.

I've always wondered if it was because I hated it, therefore don't do my homework etc and get bad grades or that I suck at it, therefore get bad grades, therefore hate it.
Chicken and the egg. Socionics would say that it is the first, which is good for my ego

[Olimpia]

Hm... a lot of mathematicians seem to be ILI-Te, like John Nash.

A lot of INTx people have higher Logical intelligence.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Don't know what type of intelligence I have. Certainly not interpersonal or intrapersonal.
All I know is that I'm not as smart as I always wanted to be. This is deeply frustrating but I think it's a realization everyone has at some point in his life. Although diligence beats talent our days are counted and some skillets and fields of knowledge will be forever inaccessible.

[neproblems]

That explains why I must've hated it so much lol.
Because I'm also pretty sure Ti is one of the best functions for math, alongside Ne maybe. It has also never been that I couldn't do it, just that it takes me 3 times more effort to get the same result compared to the other courses, because I am naturally disinterested in it.

I've always wondered if it was because I hated it, therefore don't do my homework etc and get bad grades or that I suck at it, therefore get bad grades, therefore hate it.
Chicken and the egg. Socionics would say that it is the first, which is good for my ego

If it is NE, then it being your ignoring function would work out nicely!

Though, it could be other functions too...

I only did it up to age 16 (the age that people use to leave school in my country) so I don't know about the higher stuff...

What I have found though, is that anyone that I have ever tried to help with basic maths can actually do it...

It does seem to be more of an effort/interest thing more than anything.


TI is described differently by different people, but I see it more of a 'correct/incorrect' function

Which i don't necessarily see useful to approaching an equation, but more useful for checking that the equation has been perfomed correctly.. Though maybe it could be used when approaching an equation; "have i seen an equation like this before, yes/no"? and then using memory to do the process, rather than looking at the equation from a 'fresh' perspective and then looking at it from different angles 'NE'


I would see TI as very useful for Verbal reasoning, whereby a large passage of writing is looked at, and then questions based on the passage are to be answered as correct or incorrect. I am so much slower at this stuff compared to math/ other stuff that I'm classed as dyslexic

It would fit what I have seen on forums, whereby TI doms/egos in particular, are always correcting/helping people by breaking large posts down, and correcting them peice by peice

TI should also be useful for organising things into thier correct place... and many other things I am sure...

[Pallas]

Pure math: Ti
Applied math: Ne

[Number 9 large]

Hm... a lot of mathematicians seem to be ILI-Te, like John Nash.

A lot of INTx people have higher Logical intelligence.

I do have above average logical intelligence. It's just that when it comes to applying it to numbers and symbols that I get lost, whereas in everyday life and when reading texts I can easily spot discrepancies between statements and easily point out flawed logic. I wonder if that makes it verbal intelligence then?
But what if I think logically with words instead of numbers? Is it not logical anymore then?

A lot of my thinking is more visual/imaginative and with words than concrete with symbols/numbers.

Numbers are just annoying to me, it's like a language that I don't speak well. I'd rather use words instead of numbers.
Mathematics is always trying to reduce reality to some form of numbers/equation, which irritates me. To me it feels like it sucks the fun and mystery out of reality, lol. Also maths is very precise and pinpointy. I'm about generalizing and thinking in grand schemes. I like to think big, rather than small.
The reasoning behind the maths usually interests me. But when I start having to do equations and shit is where you lose my interest.
E.g. the law of gravity. I know what it does basically. (Some kind of magnetic field that is present in all objects, probably has some kind of formula of mass relating to attraction of objects to eachother)

That's all I feel I need to know. Then they start asking questions like if robert is 80kg, and the earth is round, calculate blablabla and I just don't care anymore.
Feels like a useless chore.
Feels like it's knowledge already obtained.
I already know the reasoning behind the calculations that I have to do. Then why do I still have to do these annoying time consuming calculations?
Why can't I just get graded for my knowledge in explaining the law of gravity in words, instead of having to prove 10 times (calculating 10 equations) that I know how to calculate it? I hate calculating, knowing the reasoning behind a phenomenon is enough for me, how it is calculated? I don't care.
Does this mean that Ti is my ignoring function? Or ne is my demonstrative? Or vice versa? I don't know. What I do know is that it takes me a tremendous amount of effort to do something that I find utterly pointless, usually procrastinating and often never doing it at all. That's why my grades at maths have always been so low, even though in real life I'm always cold and calculating, and often question the status quo because I always spot discrepancies between rules, laws and statements. (I mean look at the cash me ousside thread). I like playing the devil's advocate, because I know I'm right when I spot logical discrepancy, and what I am really searching for is someone to truly prove me wrong and say; no, the law is right because this and this and this, but usually nobody can do it.
It's just when something is not logically sound, it irritates me and I feel the need to address it, at all times.

[Olimpia]

I do have above average logical intelligence. It's just that when it comes to applying it to numbers and symbols I get lost. Whereas in everyday life and when reading texts I can easily spot discrepancies between statements and flawed logic in other people.

Sounds like ISTx.

[Number 9 large]

Sounds like ISTx.

I edited my post (before I saw your reply), could you please read into it and reevaluate?

[The Reality Denialist]

Hm... a lot of mathematicians seem to be ILI-Te, like John Nash.

A lot of INTx people have higher Logical intelligence.

LII ILI. LIIs are usually into something applied (applied mathematics is still very theoretical) field. ILIs maybe in analysis. Sure I have seen SLEs and LSIs. ILEs typically lack too much in completion.

[Tallmo]

Hm... a lot of mathematicians seem to be ILI-Te, like John Nash.

A lot of INTx people have higher Logical intelligence.

LIE is also common among matematicians.

[The Reality Denialist]

I do have above average logical intelligence. It's just that when it comes to applying it to numbers and symbols that I get lost, whereas in everyday life and when reading texts I can easily spot discrepancies between statements and easily point out flawed logic. I wonder if that makes it verbal intelligence then?
But what if I think logically with words instead of numbers? Is it not logical anymore then?

A lot of my thinking is more visual/imaginative and with words than concrete with symbols/numbers.

Numbers are just annoying to me, it's like a language that I don't speak well. I'd rather use words instead of numbers.
Mathematics is always trying to reduce reality to some form of numbers/equation, which irritates me. To me it feels like it sucks the fun and mystery out of reality, lol. Also maths is very precise and pinpointy. I'm about generalizing and thinking in grand schemes. I like to think big, rather than small.
The reasoning behind the maths usually interests me. But when I start having to do equations and shit is where you lose my interest.
E.g. the law of gravity. I know what it does basically. (Some kind of magnetic field that is present in all objects, probably has some kind of formula of mass relating to attraction of objects to eachother)

That's all I feel I need to know. Then they start asking questions like if robert is 80kg, and the earth is round, calculate blablabla and I just don't care anymore.
Feels like a useless chore.
Feels like it's knowledge already obtained.
I already know the reasoning behind the calculations that I have to do. Then why do I still have to do these annoying time consuming calculations?
Why can't I just get graded for my knowledge in explaining the law of gravity in words, instead of having to prove 10 times (calculating 10 equations) that I know how to calculate it? I hate calculating, knowing the reasoning behind a phenomenon is enough for me, how it is calculated? I don't care.

Real physics is more about v=ds/dt (speed is function that tells location is differentiated in relation of time which is so much snappier in equation form). It rarely deals with numbers until you need to simulate or something. In latter part of my physics studies calculator = paperweight in exams. Hard core symbol manipulation and approximation techniques.

[Muddy]

Just some loose thoughts on how I think these intelligences correlate to functions:

Naturalist- Si mostly with perhaps some Ti/Te/Ne
Body/Kinesthetic- Se/Si
Intrapersonal- Ni mostly
Interpersonal- Fe mostly
Logic/Math- Ti obviously
Verbal- Fe/Te
Spatial- Te mostly, maybe some Se
Musical- Fe/Si/Ni mostly

[Myst]

I do have above average logical intelligence. It's just that when it comes to applying it to numbers and symbols I get lost. Whereas in everyday life and when reading texts I can easily spot discrepancies between statements and flawed logic in other people.

Sounds like ISTx.

Er what? I'm very much fine with numbers and I'm ISTx. That to me seems like Te PoLR for @Number 9 large. I hope he enjoys the debating about his typing.

I do have above average logical intelligence. It's just that when it comes to applying it to numbers and symbols that I get lost, whereas in everyday life and when reading texts I can easily spot discrepancies between statements and easily point out flawed logic. I wonder if that makes it verbal intelligence then?
But what if I think logically with words instead of numbers? Is it not logical anymore then?

A lot of my thinking is more visual/imaginative and with words than concrete with symbols/numbers.

Numbers are just annoying to me, it's like a language that I don't speak well. I'd rather use words instead of numbers.
Mathematics is always trying to reduce reality to some form of numbers/equation, which irritates me. To me it feels like it sucks the fun and mystery out of reality, lol. Also maths is very precise and pinpointy. I'm about generalizing and thinking in grand schemes. I like to think big, rather than small.
The reasoning behind the maths usually interests me. But when I start having to do equations and shit is where you lose my interest.
E.g. the law of gravity. I know what it does basically. (Some kind of magnetic field that is present in all objects, probably has some kind of formula of mass relating to attraction of objects to eachother)

That's all I feel I need to know. Then they start asking questions like if robert is 80kg, and the earth is round, calculate blablabla and I just don't care anymore.
Feels like a useless chore.
Feels like it's knowledge already obtained.
I already know the reasoning behind the calculations that I have to do. Then why do I still have to do these annoying time consuming calculations?
Why can't I just get graded for my knowledge in explaining the law of gravity in words, instead of having to prove 10 times (calculating 10 equations) that I know how to calculate it? I hate calculating, knowing the reasoning behind a phenomenon is enough for me, how it is calculated? I don't care.
Does this mean that Ti is my ignoring function? Or ne is my demonstrative? Or vice versa? I don't know. What I do know is that it takes me a tremendous amount of effort to do something that I find utterly pointless, usually procrastinating and often never doing it at all. That's why my grades at maths have always been so low, even though in real life I'm always cold and calculating, and often question the status quo because I always spot discrepancies between rules, laws and statements. (I mean look at the cash me ousside thread). I like playing the devil's advocate, because I know I'm right when I spot logical discrepancy, and what I am really searching for is someone to truly prove me wrong and say; no, the law is right because this and this and this, but usually nobody can do it.
It's just when something is not logically sound, it irritates me and I feel the need to address it, at all times.

Te PoLR of IEI at its finest with Ti not strong enough to support the Te aspect of concrete calculations.

Btw this part is you talking about Ti but with not strong Ti or Ti not in ego, with Intuition definitely in ego: "Also maths is very precise and pinpointy. I'm about generalizing and thinking in grand schemes. I like to think big, rather than small."

[Myst]

Just some loose thoughts on how I think these intelligences correlate to functions:

Naturalist- Si mostly with perhaps some Ti/Te/Ne
Body/Kinesthetic- Se/Si
Intrapersonal- Ni mostly
Interpersonal- Fe mostly
Logic/Math- Ti obviously
Verbal- Fe/Te
Spatial- Te mostly, maybe some Se
Musical- Fe/Si/Ni mostly

Why do you see Spatial as Te?

I think Ne is strongly connected with Verbal compared to Se at least. Ti also somewhat.

I would think Naturalist can be Se.

The Math part can be N a bit (Ni/Ne) beyond just Ti.