Are alpha Ne types more resourceful than Delta Ne?

[Delilah]

When it comes to theoretical ideas, I've wondered if alpha Ne ego types are more resourceful. I can find alternative solutions to somewhat tangible problems very quickly. Very good at brainstorming too. Find it easy to see an alternative route to a goal etc.

Yet I find in a theoretical field - such as academics - alpha Ne seems more rigorous. Are they more resourceful in this particular field? I don't find all their ideas great, to be fair, yet the presentation of the idea that Alpha Ne ego person comes up with seems...i dunno more presentable? Does this tie in with Ti valuing in alpha Ne ego types?

[Rebelondeck]

Your question should perhaps be: Are Ti-types better in theoretical subjects than Fi-types? They aren't but because they tend to quantify everything and put information in concrete terms, they usually can better present their interpretations to others. Fi-types tend to keep everything in relative terms and don't solidify concepts as much, which can seem rather abstract to those not on the same wavelength or orientation. Fi-types seem to have a more difficult time finding the precise words to express their ideas; however, this certainly doesn't imply that Ti-types are better at understanding - indeed, the opposite is often true.

a.k.a. I/O

[Sanguine Miasma]

This really depends what we are looking for. Lots of EII's are completely halted when it comes to logic of actions. It is like they need step to complete tasks. They really like manuals for that reason. I can easily run circles EII's when it comes to getting stated and getting it done. I practically never use manuals unless I really have to.

I tend to go for minimal path. As for something being big and shiny – it is better to forget it at first. It is usually easier imagined than done. When I carry things into physical world it takes some time when implementation starts to happen smoothly.


According to people I'm really different how I solve problems. They call my thinking extremely complex and are sometimes shocked by it. It could be that I utilize imagination all the time so things become rarely automatized which is also a very big minus in terms of carrying through routine work.


So in an essence I'm a non standard problem solver.

[Overthinker]

I find that I am pretty good at thinking about different possible interpretations/explanations of written texts, since that pretty much forms the basis of my cognitive process: testing and reformulating theoretical principles in order to fit into my own systematic understanding of the world. For example, it often happens in my studies that I find myself trying to wrap my head around passages from books or professors’ explanations that are missing logical steps/poorly presented/sometimes just plain contradictory, trying to “fix” them. And I’m very good at solving this type of thing, coming up with my own “systematization” of what is explained. I am also pretty good at brainstorming solutions for theoretical problems (i.e., an exam exercise), sometimes even on the spot.

The “method” is not without its flaws, however. Sometimes I end up following unnecessarily complex trains of thought that take a very long time to resolve, not realizing that a much simpler solution of a certain problem was in plain sight, and occasionally I fall victim to circular reasoning. My particular style of thought is also not very well suited for solving practical, everyday problems, making me commit huge blunders trying to do the simplest things. I fit in some ways the stereotype of the “absent-minded genius” but without, I’m afraid, the “genius” part.

So while I think I’m not completely dumb, I wouldn’t call myself especially “resourceful”, especially in comparison with others. What I’m good at is forming my own systems of thought and applying them flexibly to solve problems, but without these pre-formed “structures” I might be clueless. Which is secretly part of the reason why I obsessively ask questions about the world - it’s an effort to escape the sensation of being clueless.

I think NT descriptions sometimes might be a little too complimentary. I wish I was the slick scientific genius that is sometimes portrayed.

[Number 9 large]

Your question should perhaps be: Are Ti-types better in theoretical subjects than Fi-types? They aren't but because they tend to quantify everything and put information in concrete terms, they usually can better present their interpretations to others. Fi-types tend to keep everything in relative terms and don't solidify concepts as much, which can seem rather abstract to those not on the same wavelength or orientation. Fi-types seem to have a more difficult time finding the precise words to express their ideas; however, this certainly doesn't imply that Ti-types are better at understanding - indeed, the opposite is often true.

a.k.a. I/O

They are

[Sol]

heretical nonsense

[Danali]

Delta Ne types are way more resourceful.They have Te.

[myresearch]

It depends on what resourceful means. According to my definitions, delta Ne is more resourceful, alpha Ne is more reformist. Delta Ne knows alternative routes and models that is proven to work. They are great at finding analogies, my EII and IEE friends always explain things in terms of analogies. I also do the same but not often as they do. I also think they are doing it in a more fascinating way. It comes more natural to them. LSEs also like to explain things in terms of analogies although their analogies are more simplistic and easier to grasp compared to delta NFs. Just a side note, I think deltas can easily be recognized because of their analogies and fascination for them. They can easily see what kind of methods could work for a certain problem.

Alpha Ne understands why certain routes and models worked before. They don't focus on analogies as much as deltas. They focus on how a problem is solved rather than coding the result as a method or a solution. They can easily use numerous problem solving methods for a certain problem, they can easily create their own problem solving method for a certain issue.

[sbbds]

You’re also just comparing ethical types with logical types, for starters.

If we divide them by F/T rather than by the Ne egos though; I think delta STs are more resourceful concretely while alpha NTs appear to take more risks intellectually. I feel like the ethical types in these quadras are equally resourceful and creative but in different realms, although of course NF is going to look more creative and absurd. Overall it’s comparing apples to oranges. “Resource” implies ST, which is present in delta but not alpha.

[timber]

NT's are more resourceful when it comes to material things just because they are stronger Dimensional logicals in any capacity.

How it plays out in reality is that delta NFs as they mature store up a data base of workablity and since they are in that realm anyway they seemingly are stronger, or at least more in this structure.