Math and Socionics Type

[eiemo]

What functions are correlated with being good at math?

I have heard debates over whether math is a Ti or a Te thing. I think that it is generally a Ti thing because it involves structural rules and it is very precise.

I am not great at math. I am good at all other subjects, but I get this feeling of anxiety around math. It is just so precise, and I tend to make silly mistakes.

[Adam Strange]

Math seems Ti to me, too. I took a lot of math in school, but it was far from my favorite subject.

[The Reality Denialist]

It is like a weird trip to some sort of matrix that connects you to something that works which allows breaking conventional rules and coming up new ones which can be even better and then you may try to hook it back to the real world. You like it or not and for different reasons.

[megedy]

Depends on what it's being used for maybe? Practical applications in day to day life seem like they could be more Te, especially if it's an area where "good enough" covers it & you don't need to be precise, but mostly what's taught in schools does seem very Ti.

Like I guess an example would be I like budgeting my personal finances and it's okay if it's not super exact, as long as I'm within a margin. Whereas...ugh my college statistics class still haunts me.

[eiemo]

Depends on what it's being used for maybe? Practical applications in day to day life seem like they could be more Te, especially if it's an area where "good enough" covers it & you don't need to be precise, but mostly what's taught in schools does seem very Ti.

Like I guess an example would be I like budgeting my personal finances and it's okay if it's not super exact, as long as I'm within a margin. Whereas...ugh my college statistics class still haunts me.

I am pretty good at chemistry, physics, and statistics problems. However, I dislike other areas of math.

[Exodus]

Mostly Ti, some intuition, though having those elements doesn't mean you'll necessarily be good at it. I see a lot of LIIs, ILEs, ILIs, IEIs in math typically. LSIs and SLIs sometimes too. I've known LIIs that are just ok or even bad at it, it's not a 1-1 thing.

[Aramas]

I hate math. I have never been good at it in my opinion, but if I focused and tried at it, I was sometimes better at it than a lot of people as I got into my twenties. When I was growing up, though, I was not good at it at all and kinda resented having to do it. At that age I wasn't any better than anyone else, and was often worse.

It's probably an NT thing.

[xerx]

What's the difference between an introverted and an extroverted mathematician? The introverted mathematician looks at his shoes when talking to you; the extroverted mathematician looks at your shoes when talking to you.

[xerx]

What's the difference between an introverted and an extroverted mathematician? The introverted mathematician looks at his shoes when talking to you; the extroverted mathematician looks at your shoes when talking to you.

Speaking from experience, computer science isn't much better. It's full of weird, anti-social loners who lean libertarian.

EDIT: I mean that I've worked with some real hardcore libertarians—people who believe in replacing all government bureaucracy with blockchain "smart contracts".

[Tallmo]

My friend's father is a professor of mathematics. He gained international recognition. Even now when he is retired he conginues his research. He is LIE-C.

[The Reality Denialist]

Speaking from experience, computer science isn't much better. It's full of weird, anti-social loners who lean libertarian.

EDIT: I mean that I've worked with some real hardcore libertarians—people who believe in replacing all government bureaucracy with blockchain "smart contracts".

Hmmm... yeah. Mathematcians are weird. ILI who gets nervous breakdown and nearly yells when someone makes a logic mistake, LII whose sense of being right is matter of life and death - lots of throat cutting logic ensues. Anyway, academic math is bit "meh".

[necrosebud]

I was okay at it in school, but lacked any interest.

Never bothered with Math after starting college except for stats ofc. But main math classes such as calculus - I just had zero interest in.

[Sol]

T, more Ti
N, more Ne

Jung type can be said among predispositions to good results in some regions, what arises a quantity of some types there.

[eiemo]

Some xLIs are really good at math. They just seem to grasp the concepts very naturally and they are decent at teaching math.

[The Reality Denialist]

I know this is a joke, but a lot of introverted mathematicians aren't really that shy in my experience. At worst most of them come off as too proud of themselves because they think they are smarter than the average.

I'd also say that there is no much shyness in that field.

Many people who just want to do some minor in math are not big fans of mathematicians' confrontational nature. There are exceptions. Extroverted ones may even look more aloof than introverted due to nature of the field [ since extroverted engagement of the activity is not very useful].

In terms of IME's logic is external.

[Exodus]

Okay so I can chime in on this. I don't believe that a type is naturally good at math, but your type pushes you to certain fields of interest which in turn leads you to become better at it over time. This attraction-repulsion applies even with people too, and if you are incompatible with the people who populate those circles and the more of those people in that social circle, the stronger the repulsion. If a subject of study relies on heavy Ti usage for example, Ti egos will naturally gravitate toward it while those with weaker Ti repel it. In your case, you don't value Ti and you are weak at it, so your mental attitude towards it leans towards repulsion than attraction. The higher and the more abstract the math you pursue, the lower the chances of you enjoying it because it requires higher intuition.

In my experience, most of the people in our uni's math department before were from alpha quadra (yes including Alpha SFs, I've seen a lot of ESEs), with some LSIs and EIEs, SLEs thrown in. Some people who are of a different type left to pursue other related fields, commenting on the fact that math is a great subject but it's too detached from reality and proofs are too boring to focus on. They moved to other related subjects like physics, stat, engineering. These people are Beta or Gamma (I just noted the strong Se since I didn't know everyone of them that much, and their Se is so easy to spot because the majority were Alpha, and I am pretty familiar with how xSEs are and their 4D Se). Others also left to pursue unrelated subjects as well, but those people never paid attention to the subject in the first place. Like most of them always wanted to pursue something else, they were only there to get some units then transfer. Other types stayed too, but they stayed not for the beauty of math (whatever that means) but for another purpose (actuarial jobs pay well).

One interesting thing I noticed, some Alpha people would hate pursuing the degree. But they would stay! Because they love the people there. Just like I said in another post, I have been close with an LSI, and she stayed even she wasn't enjoying the classes. Again, it's because of the people. She got convinced that college will pass anyway and the sad days will be over, besides she's enjoying fun and games with our group there.

Most respected people there were LIIs. They are silent types who would be approached if another person has a problem in the problem set. Many professors are of this type too. If I'm wrong thinking LII is their type, I am fairly certain that these people are of the same type. To be honest I don't think I saw an ILE there. Maybe one and he's one of the greats too. But I'm still doubting his type.

Okay now about the group. There is a popular math organization that you can join. I joined so I know a lot about them. It's all fun and games - they always play card games and board games. If they play sports it's mostly just Frisbee or table tennis. They go outside in groups all the time, very noisy and they would always laugh at puns and nonsensical jokes. You are easily welcome as long you are chill and love joking around. They never talk about practical applications of their work and goals in life. When you ask them about their plans after college, they mostly focus on actuarial/banking because "our alumni would be there" or because they will be together with friends. They are more inclined to focus on group relations than one-on-one - "the more the merrier". Like if you invited someone for lunch, it's natural and kinda expected for you guys to invite everyone who might also want join in because it's boring and too exclusive if it's only just the two of you. People would feel like you are hiding from them. It's also very, very normal to have this long conversation about random theories with lots of jokes thrown around. They are also very close with all of the professors and talk to them like equals.
The funny thing is, I joined their finance group. The first meeting is about loss of money. Apparently, they had a long running business relationship with the department. The department provides the books and items to sell, and since the group is popular they would be the one to sell it. The problem is, both parties' relationship was built mostly on trust and no one paid attention to the financial transaction! So the records are a mess, and there is no way to track who owed who (supplies ran out for example, so some random member would talk to someone in the department which is also a friend to ask for it, then they probably would be too engrossed in the conversation that they forgot to record the transaction). They live with the theory but most of them don't care about the application of it. (So another thing to consider, it's important to ask what kind of math you are referring to - abstract or practical?)

Now of course we had to announce the issue. Guess how everyone reacted. They just laughed about the mishap and comforted each other with jokes. No one tried to make the issue more heavy than it was and ask for more information. People immediately contributed to the pot to replace the money and the issue was instantly forgotten.

There's this required subject in our department that people make a buzz about. They say once you take it you'll know if you actually want to get a math degree or not. It's the subject about proving and mathematical reasoning. It's all Ti. There's a significant amount of people who would just drop the class or finish it but leave the department after.

Our uni's math degree is more theoretical than practical though you can take some practical subjects as your elective. From a very small sample size (20-25), among Ti egos, Ne-valuing people would take philosophy of math or linguistics as electives. Se-valuing will take statistics, probability or something else. Pure math is alpha NT haven. From my limited interaction with physics majors: I'm good friends with an EII who left because according to her the mental stress of solving math problems aren't worth it and pursued creative writing instead. A few people I knew seemed to be ILE walking stereotype.
I'm also friends with IEI from engineering (chemical? idk) who left to pursue creative writing. Again, it's because the mental stress is too heavy for them. Most of the people I know in engineering who succeeded are Te egos.

One important thing, there is a difference between being actually good and having a potential to be good at something. The latter is very much type-related in my opinion, but the former can be affected by a lot of factors not related to type. A few examples: I have been close with an SLE who was an engineering student. While he is terrible in classes and you wouldn't normally consider him good at math, I saw big potential in him in mathematics. During our convos during class (yes we weren't listening in class) he would always ask me why a certain fact or theorem was realized, say things like, "You know I have always wondered what this X math concept is in relation to Y topic", and look at the basis of the formula even when cramming. But he was too caught up in parties and having nihilistic thoughts about life that time. Another person I know, probably LII, was depressed and got into an accident, but during his better days (which weren't many, unfortunately), he was able to understand theorems and apply them in problems with ease.

Lastly, most of the math you and I know can be easily learned by the average man. The math I was referring to in my above anecdotes includes the ability to handle abstract concepts, figure out new problems without help, and the ability to follow and build own logical implications to prove something. But sometimes you can easily be good at math in a general sense without even having those abilities. You can build up the skill and be decent enough in math through pattern recognition or by memorizing formula and previous problems you have been taught.

Your experience with the community seems similar to mine. The community spirit/integral type is definitely Alpha or at least Fe/Ti, with a lot of activities and conversation about random things. Math club was big, so was hanging out in the common areas, and staying up all night doing problem sets together (because they are so hard this is expected and not considered cheating).

I met a variety of different types, I might as well get this down before I forget completely (it's been 10 years):

Students

LII (me): interested in math as a framework for physics/philosophy and understanding reality on a deeper level. had plans to do a PhD but eventually became disillusioned with academia and unwilling to make the commitment.
LII (REU): quiet guy, maybe average ability/experience but a careful thinker
LII (conference): girl, moderately social and meticulous
LII? maybe IEI? (conference): we were very similar and got along well
SEI? LSE? some Si ego: nice guy, more into applied stuff?
ILE: a friend of mine, interested in math as a puzzle-solving exercise. went on to a PhD in pure math but eventually went into industry
ILE (maybe IEE) (conference): friendly guy, very outgoing, said I "look like a logician". did not pursue a PhD, became a lawyer.
ILE or LII: very enthusiastic upperclassman, always hung out with another likely Alpha (ILE? he wrote an article about his experience here)
ESE/EIE: similar to the first ILE except more aggressive, both liked playing competitive games a lot. Also did a PhD, not sure where he ended up after that. Impatient and had zero inclination for any kind of deeper thought about math or philosophy. As far as I know he had no interests beyond math and games.
IEI (conference): very odd and amusing guy, would conspicuously take out a textbook and work on it outside, and make strange comments about the nature of reality and society, things like that
ESI (or EII?): seemed really insecure about his math abilities, was a nice guy and friend of friends but I didn't really get to know him, we didn't have much in common.
ESI?/IEI? something ethical Se-valuing: told me that LateX was already good enough and didn't need to be improved despite being around for 20 years apparently went on to do CS
LIE: seen as a nerdy outcast, didn't really participate in the "fun" social aspects of the community too much. took pure math but (double) majored in actuarial math?
LIE or EIE: similar social pattern to the (first) LIE, very neurotic
LIE (maybe ILE?) (f): again similar, yet more talkative, double majored in physics
a couple very introverted girls: may have been ILI or something, didn't really get to know them but both were actually in high school to begin with
likely ILI: probably the most socially awkward of anyone in the class, didn't really talk at all
ILI (maybe IEI): deliberately antagonistic, would start arguments just to annoy people basically. Funny enough one time he did this to me and started ranting about epicycles or something and then a TA (LIE?) stepped in and pointed out that they were just doing Fourier analysis
EII (TA): similar attitude to me regarding using math for philosophy etc., colder outward appearance; very dedicated to work. his friend group (upperclassmen) seemed somewhat "edgier" and more exclusive.
SLI (possible LSE): really liked the beauty of abstract math but had difficulty doing it himself (his words) - he was very lazy about schoolwork, ended up getting bad grades, but later took some physics courses, proved himself and got into grad school into quantum computing. Much more comfortable in the applied sphere it seems.
LSE (REU): one of the more outgoing people I met, however it seemed like he started a relationship with one of the girls (ESI??) and I didn't talk to him much after that. He was fascinated by the idea of ordinal recursion as an "infinite process."
LSE? (REU): kinda nerdy, seemed talented, I remember she said she didn't like to watch movies because she couldn't sit still for that long just doing nothing

Professors

LSI: probably the best professor I had - very clear explanations, however he did insist on doing things the hard way sometimes inexplicably. Very punishing problem sets. Would make one joke per class to entertain people.
IEE: very unclear explanations by contrast, the students ended up criticizing him a lot. however had an intuitive grasp, preferred geometric visualization of things.
ILE: I later audited another of his courses - good balance of rigor and intuition, a bit of a performer.
ILE?: also a good lecturer, is active on MathOverflow despite being somewhat older
LIE: sort of a loudmouth jerk, there were rumors that he took speed to work more
LSI?: only took his class briefly, sharp guy though. made some interesting comments about how math can never be 100% rigorous.
ILE: kind of a "big fish in a small pond", a bit more dramatic than most ILEs, I also considered EIE
ESI? IEI?: we did not get along, let's put it that way.

Overall I find that all the NTs and introverted Betas are the most natural fits for pure math - most of the other types seem a bit like fish out of water, but some of them make it work.

Famous mathematicians:

Evariste Galois: EIE
Andrew Wiles: LII (has some good interviews on how he thinks about math)
Terence Tao: SLI (maybe LSE)
Ada Lovelace: ILE
Cedric Villani: Beta NF
Rene Descartes: LII
Grigori Perelman: ILI
Alexander Grothendieck: IEI
John Baez: ILE
Isaac Newton: ILI
Paul Erdos: IEE or ILE
Ted Kaczynski: LSI

[Still Alive]

I'm good at calculating stuff but I never had any real interest in math. it's too sterile for me.

Evariste Galois: EIE
Andrew Wiles: LII (has some good interviews on how he thinks about math)
Terence Tao: SLI (maybe LSE)
Ada Lovelace: ILE
Cedric Villani: Beta NF
Rene Descartes: LII
Grigori Perelman: ILI
Alexander Grothendieck: IEI
John Baez: ILE
Isaac Newton: ILI
Paul Erdos: IEE or ILE
Ted Kaczynski: LSI

I agree with a lot of your typings but I don't think that Tao has vulnerable Fe, and Ada was an IEI.

[Exodus]

I agree with a lot of your typings but I don't think that Tao has vulnerable Fe, and Ada was an IEI.

IEI - hmm why?

I've met LIIs who said math was boring or not conceptual enough.

ILEs' attitude ranges from problem solving to being into the philosophy of it to not liking it at all. Einstein famously did not care about rigor or elegance until he developed GR using mathematical constraints.

[YXPR]

I cried once during a math class.

[The Reality Denialist]

I cried once during a math class.

Nothing brings so infinitely many tears in my eyes than dividing by 0.

[Alomoes]

It's whatever I'm not. I'm not precise, therefore it's not me. However, I can still do it pretty well. 1+1 is 2. 8x + 9y = 3; 3/8 + x = 9/8y; 9/8y -3/8 = x; y = 8/9(x - 3/8); 8/9x - 3/9 = y;

That's about all I can think of really, but I can go further on into more advanced stuff, it just happens slowly. That took me like 3 minutes. I used a calculator, I'm not Von Neuman capable of counting all this stuff in his head the stupid way faster than I can do it in my head the quick and easy way. True story, Von Neumann was tasked with doing something ridiculously painful but there was a trick. He did it, and the guy who asked him asked him if he knew the trick. Nope. He did it all in his head, and spit out the answer in about a second.

"When George Dantzig brought von Neumann an unsolved problem in linear programming "as I would to an ordinary mortal", on which there had been no published literature, he was astonished when von Neumann said "Oh, that!", before offhandedly giving a lecture of over an hour, explaining how to solve the problem using the hitherto unconceived theory of duality."

Linear programming isn't hard, but it can be time consuming if you have no idea what to do. Very useful though, and as such, I studied it for a tad bit once I found it. It's basically a modified form of the by + ax = c problem.

You now have ax + by < c. So 3x + 4y < 24; How do I maximize profit?

3*4 = 9, 4*3 = 12; so that's a solution. You get a triangle graph of solutions.

You can add in more limits, like now we have 5x + 6f = 200

So now we know x can be 4, so 20 + 180 = 200

So now we find out price.

5x + 7y + 8f, which in this case is 1481 with your goal being to maximise or minimize that number. I'll choose the minimum.

3x + 4y = 24

5x + 6f = 200

5x + 7y + 8f = Profit.

In this case, you'd be a fool for buying even 1 of x. y and f are far more greater value. Solution is 6y, 40f.

Also dividing by zero has so many solutions. Simply write it as 1/0. It can be it's own number.

Linear programming is about as far as I get, I have yet to take a calculus class. I do programming programming though. That stuff is easy, but time consuming. Imagine being in detention and writing something on the wall, except this time, you don't understand why, but the teacher is yelling at you cause you spelled it wrong, even though you spelled it right, but she won't tell you where you made a mistake. Then you realize that you can save time by using a different word you don't know how to spell. All this, and it's a game that people have mastered, written books on, and solved. However, I don't have any of the ones that aren't free and on the internet.

[Aramas]

Okay so I can chime in on this. I don't believe that a type is naturally good at math, but your type pushes you to certain fields of interest which in turn leads you to become better at it over time. This attraction-repulsion applies even with people too, and if you are incompatible with the people who populate those circles and the more of those people in that social circle, the stronger the repulsion. If a subject of study relies on heavy Ti usage for example, Ti egos will naturally gravitate toward it while those with weaker Ti repel it. In your case, you don't value Ti and you are weak at it, so your mental attitude towards it leans towards repulsion than attraction. The higher and the more abstract the math you pursue, the lower the chances of you enjoying it because it requires higher intuition.

In my experience, most of the people in our uni's math department before were from alpha quadra (yes including Alpha SFs, I've seen a lot of ESEs), with some LSIs and EIEs, SLEs thrown in. Some people who are of a different type left to pursue other related fields, commenting on the fact that math is a great subject but it's too detached from reality and proofs are too boring to focus on. They moved to other related subjects like physics, stat, engineering. These people are Beta or Gamma (I just noted the strong Se since I didn't know everyone of them that much, and their Se is so easy to spot because the majority were Alpha, and I am pretty familiar with how xSEs are and their 4D Se). Others also left to pursue unrelated subjects as well, but those people never paid attention to the subject in the first place. Like most of them always wanted to pursue something else, they were only there to get some units then transfer. Other types stayed too, but they stayed not for the beauty of math (whatever that means) but for another purpose (actuarial jobs pay well).

One interesting thing I noticed, some Alpha people would hate pursuing the degree. But they would stay! Because they love the people there. Just like I said in another post, I have been close with an LSI, and she stayed even she wasn't enjoying the classes. Again, it's because of the people. She got convinced that college will pass anyway and the sad days will be over, besides she's enjoying fun and games with our group there.

Most respected people there were LIIs. They are silent types who would be approached if another person has a problem in the problem set. Many professors are of this type too. If I'm wrong thinking LII is their type, I am fairly certain that these people are of the same type. To be honest I don't think I saw an ILE there. Maybe one and he's one of the greats too. But I'm still doubting his type.

Okay now about the group. There is a popular math organization that you can join. I joined so I know a lot about them. It's all fun and games - they always play card games and board games. If they play sports it's mostly just Frisbee or table tennis. They go outside in groups all the time, very noisy and they would always laugh at puns and nonsensical jokes. You are easily welcome as long you are chill and love joking around. They never talk about practical applications of their work and goals in life. When you ask them about their plans after college, they mostly focus on actuarial/banking because "our alumni would be there" or because they will be together with friends. They are more inclined to focus on group relations than one-on-one - "the more the merrier". Like if you invited someone for lunch, it's natural and kinda expected for you guys to invite everyone who might also want join in because it's boring and too exclusive if it's only just the two of you. People would feel like you are hiding from them. It's also very, very normal to have this long conversation about random theories with lots of jokes thrown around. They are also very close with all of the professors and talk to them like equals.
The funny thing is, I joined their finance group. The first meeting is about loss of money. Apparently, they had a long running business relationship with the department. The department provides the books and items to sell, and since the group is popular they would be the one to sell it. The problem is, both parties' relationship was built mostly on trust and no one paid attention to the financial transaction! So the records are a mess, and there is no way to track who owed who (supplies ran out for example, so some random member would talk to someone in the department which is also a friend to ask for it, then they probably would be too engrossed in the conversation that they forgot to record the transaction). They live with the theory but most of them don't care about the application of it. (So another thing to consider, it's important to ask what kind of math you are referring to - abstract or practical?)

Now of course we had to announce the issue. Guess how everyone reacted. They just laughed about the mishap and comforted each other with jokes. No one tried to make the issue more heavy than it was and ask for more information. People immediately contributed to the pot to replace the money and the issue was instantly forgotten.

There's this required subject in our department that people make a buzz about. They say once you take it you'll know if you actually want to get a math degree or not. It's the subject about proving and mathematical reasoning. It's all Ti. There's a significant amount of people who would just drop the class or finish it but leave the department after.

Our uni's math degree is more theoretical than practical though you can take some practical subjects as your elective. From a very small sample size (20-25), among Ti egos, Ne-valuing people would take philosophy of math or linguistics as electives. Se-valuing will take statistics, probability or something else. Pure math is alpha NT haven. From my limited interaction with physics majors: I'm good friends with an EII who left because according to her the mental stress of solving math problems aren't worth it and pursued creative writing instead. A few people I knew seemed to be ILE walking stereotype.
I'm also friends with IEI from engineering (chemical? idk) who left to pursue creative writing. Again, it's because the mental stress is too heavy for them. Most of the people I know in engineering who succeeded are Te egos.

One important thing, there is a difference between being actually good and having a potential to be good at something. The latter is very much type-related in my opinion, but the former can be affected by a lot of factors not related to type. A few examples: I have been close with an SLE who was an engineering student. While he is terrible in classes and you wouldn't normally consider him good at math, I saw big potential in him in mathematics. During our convos during class (yes we weren't listening in class) he would always ask me why a certain fact or theorem was realized, say things like, "You know I have always wondered what this X math concept is in relation to Y topic", and look at the basis of the formula even when cramming. But he was too caught up in parties and having nihilistic thoughts about life that time. Another person I know, probably LII, was depressed and got into an accident, but during his better days (which weren't many, unfortunately), he was able to understand theorems and apply them in problems with ease.

Lastly, most of the math you and I know can be easily learned by the average man. The math I was referring to in my above anecdotes includes the ability to handle abstract concepts, figure out new problems without help, and the ability to follow and build own logical implications to prove something. But sometimes you can easily be good at math in a general sense without even having those abilities. You can build up the skill and be decent enough in math through pattern recognition or by memorizing formula and previous problems you have been taught.

Probably one of my biggest fears is that I've gone the wrong way my whole life and my potential lies on some other path I'll never discover. This post kinda speaks hard to that fear lol so I appreciate your input here.

[The Reality Denialist]

Extroverted NT's are probably more into hands on diversity. .. spending time in a dusty dark lab while laughing maniacally during a thunderstorm, really. Paper and pen... lol.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I guess technically speaking math subjects with lots of set rules is Ti & math subjects with more variable rulesets is Te. Or even Ne.

It is Ti, Te & Ne the most.

It is probably the least like Fe, unless maybe you have that weird disease that lets u see 'numbers as colors'.

It's not very Se at all either in a raw way - I mean like the stereotypical 'weak but smart math nerd vs dumb but brute jock.' On a one on one fight the dumb jock beats up the nerd until the nerd gets the better job and gets him back with AoE spells of Beta Male Society superiority.

*sigh* I kinda miss Coeruleum...

It's also Fi if you have this weird personal love for math and wish either to create a Te business exploiting other people for money because you narcissistically enjoy math, or suck up to a higher dimensional Te person that can do this for you whilst you become his trophy wife. (what Te/Fi valuers always do)

"lol how could anybody love math it's not emotional & can't love you back"

Well to be fair, people love things like that all the time. Like their personal computers. Or Donald Trump.

[The Reality Denialist]

It's also Fi if you have this weird personal love for math and wish either to create a Te business exploiting other people for money because you narcissistically enjoy math, or suck up to a higher dimensional Te person that can do this for you whilst you become his trophy wife. (what Te/Fi valuers always do)

Eh, math has to be unbiased. So Fi? You can not think 1 should be 2.

But sometimes ethical elements do find the logic fascinating. It is true for Fe and Fi. At extreme poles it takes the most fascist views. Sometimes it can take a weird blend 'Alice in wonderland' is a great example of that.

[Danali]

both? Ti because of the logical structure needed to understand the concept of maths. Te to remember and execute the formulas. Overall it's safe to say Ts are better at maths than Fs.

[Aramas]

Well that's really tough. What's the context of this if you don't mind? Are you pursuing mathematics?

Anyways, I've experienced getting things wrong. Pursuing math and staying in it for a long time is my first mistake. Then I switched, which was my second mistake. I switched again, and I'll say that third time's the charm. I realized later on that that tiring trial-and-error process was necessary because it made me realize what I was looking for. So I always make sure now that when my intuition tells me it won't work out, I leave immediately. I look elsewhere and search for other options. I was scared doing that because of people's judgment but now I just accept it as a necessary part of life. I may look wishy-washy and unsure of life, but well, most of the time you wouldn't really realize things the first time.

What made me reply the way I did was your statement about the difference between being good at something and having the potential to be did at something. The general idea of your post to state the relationship between Socionics club and different types and mathematics. No, I'm not doing math lol. That's about as specific as I care to get.

[Aramas]

Ah, that. Well, you might not even be able escape what you should pursue. I've read/watched a lot of people saying that their passion/calling/whatever that is was like a matter of life and death. You'll experience some setbacks if you have some life problems (e.g. depression) but you will still feel the itch to do whatever it is you should be doing. This is most likely related to type. The only problem is that some people can be too slow at realizing their own potential because they're too scared to take the leap, specially when their environment is not favorable for them (e.g. they are raised by people with mostly incompatible types, maybe)

So basically what you're saying is that the itch will always be there and it's just a matter of listening to yourself instead of other people. Right?

I have an issue maintaining interest in active hobbies and stuff like that. I find myself watching TV these days more than anything else. Modern TV of course so I can just go to what I want instead.

[eiemo]

I'm surprised you haven't had an LII professor. If my typing of them are correct. There's a lot of them I've encountered. But I guess I understand how an LII will be very bored with all the unnecessary bureaucracy happening in academia.

And yes, I didn't explicitly state it, but the environment I've experienced is pretty much Alpha. Probably why I haven't seen many who seem Gamma.

On an unrelated note, I didn't fit in there and felt like I was such a duck in a group of swans. I'm too weird for those people. But I still get into contact and are friends with some of the people there even 4 years after which is not so bad. And the longing to go back and make things right is still here. Exposing myself in that kind of group affected me deeply for some unknown reason. I always consider it as my life's mirage. I really need Jung to help me realize what happened to my psyche lol.

I had an LSI math teacher. That teacher is an LSI instead of an LII because that person had a disciplinarian streak, is quite unambiguous, and the focus was on the simplicity of it. This teacher was rather formal and procedural.

[Exodus]

I'm surprised you haven't had an LII professor. If my typing of them are correct. There's a lot of them I've encountered. But I guess I understand how an LII will be very bored with all the unnecessary bureaucracy happening in academia.

And yes, I didn't explicitly state it, but the environment I've experienced is pretty much Alpha. Probably why I haven't seen many who seem Gamma.

On an unrelated note, I didn't fit in there and felt like I was such a duck in a group of swans. I'm too weird for those people. But I still get into contact and are friends with some of the people there even 4 years after which is not so bad. And the longing to go back and make things right is still here. Exposing myself in that kind of group affected me deeply for some unknown reason. I always consider it as my life's mirage. I really need Jung to help me realize what happened to my psyche lol.

There were a few other professors that I didn't mention.

One was SLI or LSI - very dry lecturing style.

I guess my set theory professor may have been LII - or EII/SEI? (this guy), or one graduate student that was teaching a class for some reason. The second ILE may also have been LII. I forget who my Algebra I teacher was, but as far as I can tell I only had a few LII professors max. Quite a variety of types actually.

[Nobody]

I don't know, but I like Math. I like how it can model the world and you can study it to see how it makes sense and see where formulations come from and why and better yet, it's all logically connected. And you can use it to create simulations and AI and that's pretty awesome.

I don't like how some people confuse and use Math however. There is a common theme among academics to mistake mathematics for explanation. Math is just a language for modeling or ordering things in a logical or algorithmic manner. It doesn't intuitively explain the context/dynamics for what it models. It just encapsulates it. Maybe this is the difference between static and dynamic Renin Dichotomies. And I don't like University because of this. I think I'm LII; I kind of have an aversion to university. I could actually go to a school and get a masters and have it all paid for by the government, including housing, but every time I look into it, I remember all the things like this that I hated about Uni, how it's all about the grades and math and very little about trying to understand everything on a deeper level and not even practical enough to get a job in the workforce. It's only really useful if you already work in some capacity with the degree you are getting; then you can get that better job, but corporate ladders are kind of lame and soul-crushing, so where's the real motivation? I even remember thinking about how the textbooks were vague and unclear and hard to read and it turns out they are designed that way so you need a teacher to explain things and the textbooks change every year and the universities use the new textbooks, so that is also a bit of a scam. Actually the whole university system is a bit scammy. Most of this stuff you could learn on your own now and just take some classes and tests to prove you learned enough to work in a field (but of course they don't allow this). But then GPA is just used to differentiate between people and that's kind of lame too. meh,

[Saberstorm]

I am just now getting into math. I like it just like "nobody" said.

[SGF]

I always loved the problem solving part of math, especially geometry. Hated remembering formulas, so I preferred to understand why a specific formula has to be applied as a shortcut and why the formula made sense instead.. so even if I forgot something I could always do it the longer way instead. My teachers often got annoyed by the fact that I skipped certain steps I found easy to calculate, so while the results were correct, they fund the jumps in logic to be frustrating to follow and grade, which is why one teacher made me learn to write down every move.. e_e which I found annoying.

I went to a high-school which specialized in math and physics, we learned a lot of very advanced math that I found no use for later on in life. I absolutely hated literature tho.. dreaded it in fact. Read x boring book and give subjective analysis e_e but then it had to be the teacher's subjective analysis regurgitated.. which I was forced to memorize e_e cus it was boring af and by next morning I forgot half of it. Always got terrible grade in literature, made me hate reading tbh.

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't know, but I like Math. I like how it can model the world and you can study it to see how it makes sense and see where formulations come from and why and better yet, it's all logically connected. And you can use it to create simulations and AI and that's pretty awesome.

I don't like how some people confuse and use Math however. There is a common theme among academics to mistake mathematics for explanation. Math is just a language for modeling or ordering things in a logical or algorithmic manner. It doesn't intuitively explain the context/dynamics for what it models. It just encapsulates it. Maybe this is the difference between static and dynamic Renin Dichotomies. And I don't like University because of this. I think I'm LII; I kind of have an aversion to university. I could actually go to a school and get a masters and have it all paid for by the government, including housing, but every time I look into it, I remember all the things like this that I hated about Uni, how it's all about the grades and math and very little about trying to understand everything on a deeper level and not even practical enough to get a job in the workforce. It's only really useful if you already work in some capacity with the degree you are getting; then you can get that better job, but corporate ladders are kind of lame and soul-crushing, so where's the real motivation? I even remember thinking about how the textbooks were vague and unclear and hard to read and it turns out they are designed that way so you need a teacher to explain things and the textbooks change every year and the universities use the new textbooks, so that is also a bit of a scam. Actually the whole university system is a bit scammy. Most of this stuff you could learn on your own now and just take some classes and tests to prove you learned enough to work in a field (but of course they don't allow this). But then GPA is just used to differentiate between people and that's kind of lame too. meh,

Heh Gulenko's cognitive styles describe academic text booky material as causal deterministic. That said it tends look bit too clear to me. One LII commented my writing: your writing style reminds me of academic papers.

[Aramas]

Yes.


I don't have a consistent hobby too. When I want to do something for fun, I just do it. If I get bored with it, I stop doing it. After a while I come back to them one by one anyway. I notice some people are consistent with their hobbies and they thrive when they have a routine. But for some people it's just not realistic because their mood changes a lot or they have a variety of things they want to try. I think for the latter doing things on the fly and pursuing an activity based on mood is better. If you push yourself to a routine, there will be a disconnect between your actions and your mood which makes you sad/anxious. And you will most likely end up not doing anything, e.g. you want to try pottery, but no you can't do that because you should be practicing how to draw every Sunday. That's your routine now. Well good luck because the whole routine just makes doing it extra depressing. Better eat junk and watch TV to ease discomfort.

I think it's scary to do the latter though, because of our idea that we should be achieving some random goal and it would feel like you're drifting in life. But I notice in myself that I would normally try and read up on random unrelated things. Sometimes there will be no output at all from these things. But after a while I would have a eureka moment as I would be able to find the relation of these things to one another. That is when it will all make sense. Everything will be done after sometime, and then it's like I'll be entering another phase in life again (It's like the meaning of The World card in tarot if you're familiar with it.). It takes a lot more time compared to just focusing on one thing but I'd rather die than focus on one thing in life.

So I guess for others, it's their natural inclination to maintain a hobby because it's their job to master what is already existing. But for others, they unconsciously seek different types of activities because what they're good at is synthesizing information.

It's also akin to:

vs


Those are my thoughts and experiences on it, but you might want to find out yourself what works for you.

Who knows, maybe my interest in True Blood will be useful someday.

I've been rewatching the series and I just found out that they're doing a reboot so that's kind of a funny coincidence.

[Nobody]

Heh Gulenko's cognitive styles describe academic text booky material as causal deterministic. That said it tends look bit too clear to me. One LII commented my writing: your writing style reminds me of academic papers.

Yeah, I guess I always had the habit of looking too far into what I'm learning and then getting really confused and feeling like I'm just memorizing stuff to get by, but not really learning. I suppose if I just take it for what it is, it would be easy. But I don't think my mind is satisfied with that.

I actually had an engineering class where the professor said not to try and understand the material because even he couldn't (and he was PHD with tenure); suffice to say that everyone failed that class, but he had to grade on a curve so a majority passed anyway. I stopped going halfway out of lack of interest and retook the class another time, but it didn't seem to help much. In reflection after university, I've been really interested in quantum physics and how it related to electrical engineering and now it all makes a very intuitive sense. I wish I had the wisdom to spend time working and studying things on my own and maybe going to university later; it would have been a breeze.
Now I realize there is a huge disconnect in academia where they focus on teaching formulaic understanding (causal deterministic?) over trying to represent a whole picture of things to students, which I just "need" for some reason or I don't know what decisions to take because my mind can't truly rest; sometimes I think academics are afraid to present theories or conceptualizations that might not be completely right because society and academia seems to like punishing people for being wrong. So we just get the pure formulas and if someone is really good at reading between the formulas/lines, then they are "genius" and if they do some science breakthroughs maybe some of their intuition becomes accepted theory. It's like society wants people to be just smart enough and just stupid enough, but nothing more or less. It's really...uninspiring? I think the human race could be soooo much better than we are, but I suppose it can't really happen, if society doesn't actually value that.
Or maybe I'm wrong about everything. But it doesn't seem so.

[nanashi]

I cried once during a math class.

even ppl who love math might cry in math, just fyi. Like an actor might cry during a theater production, etc


Cry. To quote Will Smith, "Ain't no shame in it." Crying people recover more quickly from stressful scenarios than people who don't cry. So, it just makes sense to cry.

[nanashi]

I wonder what each type might love about math.


For me, I've enjoyed what I experience as a truth in it.


There is a sense of beauty and timelessness in it.

I grew up with bohemian artists, and a lot of things like poetry left me dissatisfied. They were nebulous and highly specialized for one scenario and maybe even one subset of people, and not straightforward, which I struggled with. I gained patience and would ask for what they meant when writing it or what the point was. And some would relay one while others wanted it to be a 'choose your own adventure,' explorative thought piece, which is fine but not what I craved as a kid. I wanted non-fiction.


And I'm really interested in math's applicability/helpfulness/usefulness as a tool/resource. And I like this quality of reliability and structure. You can build using it.

tangent epilogue: I've since become appreciative of fiction. There's a lot of research on how it develops humans.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yeah, I guess I always had the habit of looking too far into what I'm learning and then getting really confused and feeling like I'm just memorizing stuff to get by, but not really learning. I suppose if I just take it for what it is, it would be easy. But I don't think my mind is satisfied with that.

I actually had an engineering class where the professor said not to try and understand the material because even he couldn't (and he was PHD with tenure); suffice to say that everyone failed that class, but he had to grade on a curve so a majority passed anyway. I stopped going halfway out of lack of interest and retook the class another time, but it didn't seem to help much. In reflection after university, I've been really interested in quantum physics and how it related to electrical engineering and now it all makes a very intuitive sense. I wish I had the wisdom to spend time working and studying things on my own and maybe going to university later; it would have been a breeze.
Now I realize there is a huge disconnect in academia where they focus on teaching formulaic understanding (causal deterministic?) over trying to represent a whole picture of things to students, which I just "need" for some reason or I don't know what decisions to take because my mind can't truly rest; sometimes I think academics are afraid to present theories or conceptualizations that might not be completely right because society and academia seems to like punishing people for being wrong. So we just get the pure formulas and if someone is really good at reading between the formulas/lines, then they are "genius" and if they do some science breakthroughs maybe some of their intuition becomes accepted theory. It's like society wants people to be just smart enough and just stupid enough, but nothing more or less. It's really...uninspiring? I think the human race could be soooo much better than we are, but I suppose it can't really happen, if society doesn't actually value that.
Or maybe I'm wrong about everything. But it doesn't seem so.

Holographical thinking might be very useful in structural chemistry and stuff. Never appreciated those cubes so much although I lacked aversion.

[Northstar]

I agree that math is probably most interesting for Ti and NT types. I never liked math much, I could do well enough to get my MSc. degree in engineering but I never really enjoyed it. It was just too abstract, too removed from the real world and requiring too much memorization and boring pen and paper practice exercises. Any kind of applied math was more interesting, as was geometry. Calculus was the worst I think. Understanding the principles wasn't too hard and instead of practicing how to solve problems I could usually guess in the exam what kind of formula was required for a specific kind of problem and more or less guess my way through. I was content with barely passing grades if it meant that I didn't have to sit and solve math problems, it was just too boring. The ones who actually were excited by math were usually Alpha NTs.