Quantifying information (and doing calculations)

[XoX]

What functions/types tend to prefer quantified information? I'm especially talking about concrete numbers. Something which can be quantified to the point of them being numbers you can compare and calculate with.

In one episode of "The Apprentice" one of the apprentices criticized Donald Trump for only "thinking in numbers" where he himself did see it as intellectually very restricting. I think the other guy was N-type but I'm not sure which one (perhaps ENTp, perhaps not). Donald Trump's type is something like ESTp (or ISFj, ENTj who knows).

I'm trying to figure out whether quantifying information (or avoiding it) is more related to e.g. S>N preference, T>F preference or perhaps to some specific functions or function combinations. You could think that e.g. Te likes to quantify but is this completely true? Could Ti be more into quantifying than Te in the end being somehow more "exact". SeTi being perhaps most into that? (or TeSi?).

And which functions are most related to doing calculations? E.g. which functions are most used when calculating: 23,25*((34,5+23,6)/3,45-24,6)/4633,2=?. Does it change if you use "letters" i.e. variables instead of pure numbers?

[machintruc]

And which functions are most related to doing calculations? E.g. which functions are most used when calculating: 23,25*((34,5+23,6)/3,45-24,6)/4633,2=?. Does it change if you use "letters" i.e. variables instead of pure numbers?

this kind of mathematics are -related imo. maybe variables are a thing.

[XoX]

And which functions are most related to doing calculations? E.g. which functions are most used when calculating: 23,25*((34,5+23,6)/3,45-24,6)/4633,2=?. Does it change if you use "letters" i.e. variables instead of pure numbers?

this kind of mathematics are -related imo. maybe variables are a thing.

Do you see any S/N correlations?

[machintruc]

And which functions are most related to doing calculations? E.g. which functions are most used when calculating: 23,25*((34,5+23,6)/3,45-24,6)/4633,2=?. Does it change if you use "letters" i.e. variables instead of pure numbers?

this kind of mathematics are -related imo. maybe variables are a thing.

Do you see any S/N correlations?

it's dealing with abstract things, thus this is more N-related.

[XoX]

And which functions are most related to doing calculations? E.g. which functions are most used when calculating: 23,25*((34,5+23,6)/3,45-24,6)/4633,2=?. Does it change if you use "letters" i.e. variables instead of pure numbers?

this kind of mathematics are -related imo. maybe variables are a thing.

Do you see any S/N correlations?

it's dealing with abstract things, thus this is more N-related.

You see numbers here being abstractions too yes? As in calculating with pure numbers is more N-related too? Or mostly just calculating with variables which more clearly are abstractions.

[FDG]

And which functions are most related to doing calculations? E.g. which functions are most used when calculating: 23,25*((34,5+23,6)/3,45-24,6)/4633,2=?. Does it change if you use "letters" i.e. variables instead of pure numbers?

this kind of mathematics are -related imo. maybe variables are a thing.

Do you see any S/N correlations?

it's dealing with abstract things, thus this is more N-related.

Abstract is both T and N.

Speed and precision of computing numbers = not type related. Generally depends on the attention thresold of a given subject. If the subject is prone to easy overstimulation, then it's more likely to commit errors.

Speed and precision of computing variables = my observations say T-function related. Intuition seems to play absolutely no part in it. Variables are well-defined, and intuition is not-well-defined. Intuition helps if there is a "block" that must be jumped via untrodden mathematical paths; thinking is what builds the steps, always.

[XoX]

Speed and precision of computing numbers = not type related.

Are you absolutely sure? Why would "generic abstractions" like variables be function related but "fixed abstractions" like numbers not be?

Anyways outside of using numbers for calculations what functions are most related to understanding the meaning of numbers. E.g. if someone says "1 billion people", "1 million dollars", "10000 miles" then some people naturally grasp how big amounts are those and how much e.g. "1 million dollars" is bigger than "10000 dollars". That kind of comparisons are a form of calculations too actually but mostly subconscious calculations (intuition?). For some people numbers are just "numbers" where some people can naturally understand how numbers are abstract representations of something concrete. Perhaps these people who "naturally understand" numbers are faster at calculating with numbers too and have certain functional preference (e.g. some N function might be related to that or perhaps a T function).

[FDG]

Speed and precision of computing numbers = not type related.

Are you absolutely sure? Why would "generic abstractions" like variables be function related but "fixed abstractions" like numbers not be?

Oh no, I'm not absolutely sure. That's what I have seen since now. I'm never *sure* of something that needs a very big sample to be computed.

I used to think there were relations, but lately I've found extreme exceptions, and so I don't know any more what to do - it has been put in the "Limbo of information that is uncategorizable".

So I cannot offer an explanation.

Anyways outside of using numbers for calculations what functions are most related to understanding the meaning of numbers. E.g. if someone says "1 billion people", "1 million dollars", "10000 miles" then some people naturally grasp how big amounts are those and how much e.g. "1 million dollars" is bigger than "10000 dollars". That kind of comparisons are a form of calculations too actually but mostly subconscious calculations (intuition?). For some people numbers are just "numbers" where some people can naturally understand how numbers are abstract representations of something concrete. Perhaps these people who "naturally understand" numbers are faster at calculating with numbers too and have certain functional preference (e.g. some N function might be related to that or perhaps a T function).

Ah, I understand what you mean here. This might be related to N, since it's not-well-defined, but I don't know which precise relation does it have. I see Ti PoLR people that are generally a bit scared of numbers, especially ENFps. Usually, they are scared for no reason since every time I try to teach an ENFp maths, they understand it quite easily.

[krieger]

My personal belief is that it is the perceptive functions that govern the execution of intellectual tasks. When it is something new that you're doing, i.e. something that you have not done before, intuition is king. Conversely, repeating tasks that you know the details of is the realm of sensation.

[FDG]

My personal belief is that it is the perceptive functions that govern the execution of intellectual tasks.

I disagree. Perceptive functions as Si and Se are not intellectual functions by defintion, but functions that deal with internal and external processes. You might be confused here because your perceptive function, being Ne, governs the execution of intellectual tasks.

When it is something new that you're doing, i.e. something that you have not done before, intuition is king. Conversely, repeating tasks that you know the details of is the realm of sensation.

Notice though that thinking is lacking from the equation here. Perhaps you meant thinking in the first place?

[Kim]

edit

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think N types would be better at processing data than S types - might be good at creating new data, which is hardly helpful when you have masses of data to begin with, and seek to simplify it, and types are better at dealing with data in its environmental context (e.g. a sequence of data changing over time) - but if it's just sheets of data, it's prolly out of context .

types are prolly best at processing masses of data to make it relevant to the situation, whereas types are best at putting it in it's right place.

Numbers (e.g. 1,2,3) are abstract, but some people visualise numbers as 1 orange, 2 oranges, 3 oranges etc. - I think S types are less likely to make mistakes with the value of numbers (you know what N types are like) but N types are more likely to get a general feel for the numbers - so it prolly depends if you want accuracy, or swift results.

[krieger]

I disagree. Perceptive functions as Si and Se are not intellectual functions by defintion, but functions that deal with internal and external processes. You might be confused here because your perceptive function, being Ne, governs the execution of intellectual tasks.

There is no distinction between intellectual tasks and non-intellectual ones. If you know how to do it -- i.e. there is nothing left to learn in terms of what actions you can perform to get to a certain goal and you know all the steps -- then what's left is to optimize the details of how you perform each step. That process relies on sensation, regardless of wether you use thinking or feeling to evaluate the results.

Then again, if by intellectual tasks you mean a task that requires learning, then you are probably right. It's a deceiving distinction though. Si types can be surprisingly good at things like math, crossword-puzzles, etc. As long as they can use a methodical repetition process to get where they need to be, they do very well.

Maybe you should look at smilingeyes' Smilexian socionics' thread again sometime. Massive usage of 'intellectual' Si in there. Also, consider how Sherlock Holmes, the genius detective, is indisputedly typed as an ESTj.

[FDG]

I disagree. Perceptive functions as Si and Se are not intellectual functions by defintion, but functions that deal with internal and external processes. You might be confused here because your perceptive function, being Ne, governs the execution of intellectual tasks.

There is no distinction between intellectual tasks and non-intellectual ones. If you know how to do it -- i.e. there is nothing left to learn in terms of what actions you can perform to get to a certain goal and you know all the steps -- then what's left is to optimize the details of how you perform each step. That process relies on sensation, regardless of wether you use thinking or feeling to evaluate the results.

Then again, if by intellectual tasks you mean a task that requires learning, then you are probably right. It's a deceiving distinction though. Si types can be surprisingly good at things like math, crossword-puzzles, etc. As long as they can use a methodical repetition process to get where they need to be, they do very well.

Maybe you should look at smilingeyes' Smilexian socionics' thread again sometime. Massive usage of 'intellectual' Si in there. Also, consider how Sherlock Holmes, the genius detective, is indisputedly typed as an ESTj.

There you go, I know ISTps that are the best people around at puzzles, but I tend to attriube it to their Te. Sherlock Homles was obviously a Te dominant, aswell.

In any case, there is a logical contradiction in your middle sentence - either you are learning somthing new, or you use a process of methodical repetition. The frist time something is learned, it cannot be "by repetition" by defintion. Even the frist time you learn an algorithm, there is always a nonrepetitive source.

[Ms. Kensington]

types are prolly best at processing masses of data to make it relevant to the situation, whereas types are best at putting it in it's right place.

what does the bolded mean?

[tcaudilllg]

I disagree. Perceptive functions as Si and Se are not intellectual functions by defintion, but functions that deal with internal and external processes. You might be confused here because your perceptive function, being Ne, governs the execution of intellectual tasks.

There is no distinction between intellectual tasks and non-intellectual ones. If you know how to do it -- i.e. there is nothing left to learn in terms of what actions you can perform to get to a certain goal and you know all the steps -- then what's left is to optimize the details of how you perform each step. That process relies on sensation, regardless of wether you use thinking or feeling to evaluate the results.

Then again, if by intellectual tasks you mean a task that requires learning, then you are probably right. It's a deceiving distinction though. Si types can be surprisingly good at things like math, crossword-puzzles, etc. As long as they can use a methodical repetition process to get where they need to be, they do very well.

Maybe you should look at smilingeyes' Smilexian socionics' thread again sometime. Massive usage of 'intellectual' Si in there. Also, consider how Sherlock Holmes, the genius detective, is indisputedly typed as an ESTj.

There you go, I know ISTps that are the best people around at puzzles, but I tend to attriube it to their Te. Sherlock Homles was obviously a Te dominant, aswell.

In any case, there is a logical contradiction in your middle sentence - either you are learning somthing new, or you use a process of methodical repetition. The frist time something is learned, it cannot be "by repetition" by defintion. Even the frist time you learn an algorithm, there is always a nonrepetitive source.

Lay off a little....

[Exodus]

maybe variables are a thing.

Yeah. I am always driven to make constants variable, to generalize interesting proofs - sometimes to a ridiculous extent.

[mikemex]

To answer your question in short, the function responsible for thinking in numbers (exact quantities) is Ti. My dad is INTj and he often uses a phrase "pensar en chingos y montones" (bunch-thinking), critizing Fi logics for not being exact.

However, that Fi is not exacting is only a half truth. Thing is, Fi types can produce exact results as well, they just can't do it directly like Ti types do. What Fi does is to adjust the size of the "bunch" and iterate, until the precision is acceptable enough.

[science as magic]

this is stupid. his criticism of trump had nothing to do with his affinity for mathematical reasoning nor does it imply that he himself lacked such capability! this is what is wrong with socionics. just because a word can be used in two different situations doesn't mean that the meaning carries over!

[Logos]

types are prolly best at processing masses of data to make it relevant to the situation, whereas types are best at putting it in it's right place.

what does the bolded mean?

In the context of its logical structure.