Why I am not Good at Mathematical Proofs

[jason_m]

While I can be quite good at rigorous types of thinking, I am actually much better at open-ended types of problems. This to some simply means philosophy, but that is not true. I can be very good at scientific fields - as long as they are open-ended. That includes, but is not limited to, engineering, computer science, applied mathematics, economics, etc. Some would also assume that I am bad at logic, but that is not true. I can be quite good, so long as the problems are open-ended. For instance, strategy games call for logic, but they are open-ended. Therefore, I can destroy people at these games. Mathematical proofs simply cannot be done in an open-ended way. Hence why I am not good. Period. WRT logical reasoning in general, I am actually quite good. That is all.

[Sol]

When opinions relate to logical region (as an asnwer "what is an object"), the better abbility to base them logically means higher chance those opinions are correct.
Related to types, this means better understanding of logical side of the reality by T types and better usage by them of mathematical and other logical explanations.

Other 3 functions describe the reality from other sides and help to describe and understand it too. For example, F describes emotional perception of right and wrong, what is secondary linked with logical aspects of useful or harmful.

[jason_m]

When opinions relate to logical region (as an asnwer "what is an object"), the better abbility to base them logically means higher chance those opinions are correct.
Related to types, this means better understanding of logical side of the reality by T types and better usage by them of mathematical and other logical explanations.

Other 3 functions describe the reality from other sides and help to describe and understand it too. For example, F describes emotional perception of right and wrong, what is secondary linked with logical aspects of useful or harmful.

I assume one can usually reason only in an open-ended way or a 'closed-ended' way but not both. This applies whether one is a logical or ethical type. In other words, there are logical types who cannot reason in an open-ended way at all, there are intuitive types (with thinking) who cannot think in a closed-ended way, and there are ethical types who value one or the other - or maybe neither. I therefore don't see what Model A says as the basis of whether one is logical or not. Therefore, with closed-ended reasoning being 'logical' and open-ended reasoning being 'illogical,' it seems to me there is some misnomer in the system with some intuitive/irrational types being incorrectly named 'logical' and some ethical types being named 'illogical,' but that is just my opinion...

[Nobody]

Socionics seems to try really hard to label stuff, and for general ideas it's not bad. Logical types simply use more logic as an ego focus, whether it's appropriate or not, right or not, well-reasoned or not, well thought-out or not, or intelligent or not. It doesn't matter because it's about the focus, not the quality of the output. And we all have different intelligence levels, talents, and differences in our brains that make us good or bad at certain things.

But, and this is just an observation, when you say 'open-ended' versus 'close-ended' logic, I immediately think Te vs Ti because the former is constantly changing to match the situation and the latter is more a structure, like the frame of a house and is a lot harder to change. But not being good at mathematical proofs doesn't really mean anything because Ti is just about structure. That can include how you train your thoughts/memory or make associations or define and organize things or even any systems you design. Designing circuits for example, is Te and Ti because you need to know how certain parts function (Te), but also how to put them together to make different things (Ti).