Do you have analitycal or critical thinking skills, the mark of Ti ?

[LucyJr]

My understanding of INFJs as far is that in terms of how they think, they are more bent toward strong and abstract perception skills. INFJs are defined in Socionics as "abstraxct thinkers"!

This is the very essence of Ni. It tries to conceptualise and make broad categories of information, based on quick and fast impressions of reality. It is a entirely abstract function, but it lacks logical stringency.

Ni left by its own is not really good. Jung himself criticise this tendency of Introverted Intuitive type to make heavy use of Ni, to rely heavily on this function alone.


I think what INFJs lack is logical thinking, or analitycal/critical thinking.
Usually the types that use this function, are succesfully found working in more various fields, like mathematics, sciences, physicsm, chemistry and programming.
So here are a few questions:

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed?

2. Are you succesful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming?

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns?

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion?

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were you're skills in this area?

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a enginer, or as a scientist?

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as a analytical philosopher ( beware: not abstract philosopher)?

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields?

 

[Radiantshadow]

My understanding of INFJs as far is that in terms of how they think, they are more bent toward strong and abstract perception skills. INFJs are defined in Socionics as "abstraxct thinkers"!

This is the very essence of Ni. It tries to conceptualise and make broad categories of information, based on quick and fast impressions of reality. It is a entirely abstract function, but it lacks logical stringency.

Ni left by its own is not really good. Jung himself criticise this tendency of Introverted Intuitive type to make heavy use of Ni, to rely heavily on this function alone.

True. Ni-dominants can become so attached to their worldviews and intuitive impressions of reality that they become unwilling to abandon them or consider other points of view, which is essential to both healthy functionality and Ni's own efficiency. At its heart, Ni gathers as many points of view as possible, strips them to their essential materials, and reaps universal truths with which to base its user's worldview and decisions; broadly speaking, Ni is constructive. This puts it at odds with Ti, which is generally deconstructive in that it continually assesses and compares data for logical consistency and clarity without becoming attached to any one point of view.

I would, however, like to stress that the cognitive functions reflect mental processes instead of discrete realms of fluency. It's easy, for example, to generalize the Feeling and Intuitive functions as 50 shades of irrational when, in fact, they are simply concerned with the subjective, humanistic side of human behavior. Irrationality develops only in the absence of fact-checking and an unwillingness to learn.

I think what INFJs lack is logical thinking, or analitycal/critical thinking.

Most people are not logically minded and (~70%) are unable to detect basic logical errors and inconsistencies. It's not a specifically type-related event; humans, in general, do not intuitively do logic well.

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed?

It is a well-honed razor. I check the facts and sources for everything other people tell me to see if they are, in fact, correct. As a result, I've spent considerable time building factual databases from across the natural and social sciences from which to build accurate conceptual models of reality. I have also enjoyed most of the world's landmark philosophies and philosophers. Had I more time, I would also study mathematics.

All that said, I've learned the most from the Thinking types I've befriended - an INTJ, two INTPs, and an ENTJ. Instead of picking up specific information and knowledge, they expressed different ways of thinking and viewpoints than what I initially possessed, such that I could use both my Ni and Ti in tandem to harvest new perspectives and methods at the same time as novel information. It is therefore to my friends that I am most grateful and indebted.

2. Are you successful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming?

I've published a couple scientific articles. I don't know if that makes me "successful" at scientific procedure, however.

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns?

Quite. I have concrete plans and strategies for just about everything, as well as contingencies in case those don't work out.

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion?

Yep. Most folks do, though the quality of analysis and thoroughness varies.

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were you're skills in this area?

Interested? Yes. Math is the language of reality. Skilled? No. I could never learn math the way it was taught in school. I wanted conceptual background and applications that my teachers were not prepared to give, for whatever reason. As a result, I spent many years thinking I was mathematically retarded when, in fact, I just needed a different style of instruction.

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a enginer, or as a scientist?

Mhm. I intended to be a cognitive neuroscientist or clinical psychologist.

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as a analytical philosopher ( beware: not abstract philosopher)?

Not professionally. My interest in philosophy is more personal, meant to refine my thought processes and expand my awareness of the theoretical implications tied to various human systems. At some point, I may have also considered teaching philosophy.

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields?

Definitely, though I'm also interested in just about every domain of human curiosity and reflection so it's not really fair to specifically point out philosophy and the sciences. Like everything else, they're useful for shaping my worldview, motivations, and daily decisions.

 

[LucyJr]

True. Ni-dominants can become so attached to their worldviews and intuitive impressions of reality that they become unwilling to abandon them or consider other points of view, which is essential to both healthy functionality and Ni's own efficiency. At its heart, Ni gathers as many points of view as possible, strips them to their essential materials, and reaps universal truths with which to base its user's worldview and decisions; broadly speaking, Ni is constructive. This puts it at odds with Ti, which is generally deconstructive in that it continually assesses and compares data for logical consistency and clarity without becoming attached to any one point of view.

[/FONT]

This is a very interesting explanation of Ni. Do you think the element of time is essential to Ni?

Most people are not logically minded and (~70%) are unable to detect basic logical errors and inconsistencies. It's not a specifically type-related event; humans, in general, do not intuitively do logic well.

Agree.

It is a well-honed razor. I check the facts and sources for everything other people tell me to see if they are, in fact, correct. As a result, I've spent considerable time building factual databases from across the natural and social sciences from which to build accurate conceptual models of reality. I have also enjoyed most of the world's landmark philosophies and philosophers. Had I more time, I would also study mathematics.
All that said, I've learned the most from the Thinking types I've befriended - an INTJ, two INTPs, and an ENTJ. Instead of picking up specific information and knowledge, they expressed different ways of thinking and viewpoints than what I initially possessed, such that I could use both my Ni and Ti in tandem to harvest new perspectives and methods at the same time as novel information. It is therefore to my friends that I am most grateful and indebted.

To befriend a INTJ and a INTP was in my "plan" too. I want to get a INTJ and a INTP to a beer and ask them: "Guys, tell me how you think? How do you aproach things? PLEASE say to me anything, and I will eat the information!"
I don't know any INTP or INTJ personally. I think its a good idea, to learn from them. I look forward to make some thinkers my friends.

I've published a couple scientific articles. I don't know if that makes me "successful" at scientific procedure, however.

Probably not, but the idea is that you eventually could work in this field.

Quite. I have concrete plans and strategies for just about everything, as well as contingencies in case those don't work out.
Yep. Most folks do, though the quality of analysis and thoroughness varies.

If you can realise that the quality of analysis and thoroughness varies, it means your logical capacities are pretty good (whci actually is my selfish self getting hope that I could develop myself logically)

Interested? Yes. Math is the language of reality. Skilled? No. I could never learn math the way it was taught in school. I wanted conceptual background and applications that my teachers were not prepared to give, for whatever reason. As a result, I spent many years thinking I was mathematically retarded when, in fact, I just needed a different style of instruction.

I myself consider still mathematically retarded. I did well in highschool, but not because I really understood the maths, but more because I was learning everything by the book, everything was prepared and repeated, so I could solve it. But it was no spontaneity.

So do you think there is a way in which a person who is 'mathematically retarded' can be teach in a way that he could open the 'mathematical facullties'? What is the method ?

What do you mean by "I wanted conceptual background and applications"? Can you explain?

Mhm. I intended to be a cognitive neuroscientist or clinical psychologist.

Not professionally. My interest in philosophy is more personal, meant to refine my thought processes and expand my awareness of the theoretical implications tied to various human systems. At some point, I may have also considered teaching philosophy.

Definitely, though I'm also interested in just about every domain of human curiosity and reflection so it's not really fair to specifically point out philosophy and the sciences. Like everything else, they're useful for shaping my worldview, motivations, and daily decisions.

Agree.
Thank you for the comprehensive answer. Hope you'll take from your time to answer the other questions I asked you. I really want to develop myself in this aspect too, so I need some advices!

 

[La Sagna]

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed? I'm not well versed in the functions but I think my Ti is fairly well developed. When I have an intuition about something I still have to pass it through a logical set of mental tests to make sure that it actually makes sense.

2. Are you succesful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming? I hated math in high school but I took Symbolic Logic last year in University and got an 'A'. I really surprised myself because it was real stretch for me. I found though that if I can take the time to really sit down and learn something, even symbolic logic, I can do it. It was kind of like puzzles so I made it like a game. It made me realize that if I can do that, I can probably do lots of things I didn't think I could.

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns? I think I am good at that. I analyze things constantly, over and over again.

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion? Yes

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were you're skills in this area? No, but I had a really bad grade 9 math teacher that turned me off the subject. It gave me a dislike of math teachers. She had added up my marks wrong on a test so that she gave me too high of a mark so being the 'too honest for her own good person' that I am I told her and she thanked me and put my mark to the right one. When I got my report card she had deducted marks because I didn't speak enough in class (I was shy but I did my work and spoke up when I went up to her about my mark). She kept me off the honour roll for the first semester of grade 9 (missed it by one point) so I just gave up. It's stupid how little things like that can leave you feeling defeated. If it wasn't for her I might have liked math (maybe).

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a enginer, or as a scientist? Maybe. I'm more interested in people and how they work though.

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as a analytical philosopher ( beware: not abstract philosopher)? I can be analytical but I can't get rid of my abstract thoughts.

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields? Probably not enough.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Here's what I always wonder... If I exercise my Ti too much, will I lose my Ni?

I hope I don't lose my Ni. I'm even willing to quit my job just to preserve this gift I feel I have. Sometimes I use Ti so much I feel like it's bad for me.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I just want to make sure I understand this before I comment on it. When you say Ni, this is an abbreviation for the Knights who say Ni right?

 

[sprinkles]

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed?
It's well developed but I still have to work a bit to use it.

2. Are you succesful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming?
I'm successful through work and perseverance. The general intuitive side of these come very naturally to me but the more rigorous syntactic side in practice takes work.

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns?
I'm good at it. I can design ICs. I'm probably better than some who can do this naturally but are mediocre, but not as good as others who can do this naturally but are experts at it.

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion?
If I want to. Though if my brain is too taxed it is more difficult and I some times want to throw logic away.

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were you're skills in this area?
I wasn't really interested. I just absorbed it. I was usually well ahead of the class in this area, though on some things I would be stuck because I would miss a step and not see it - but with enough effort I can figure out anything I want I think.

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a enginer, or as a scientist?
Yes.

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as a analytical philosopher ( beware: not abstract philosopher)?
Probably not.

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields?
Yes.

Edit:
Or put it this way. I feel that all my relevant functions are bumped. Ti is good? Sure. Doesn't mean it is primary. My more abstract thinking is just that much better in some cases.

It's like if you were to have two kinds of people - runners and swimmers. In reality each kind runs and swims. Just because you have a fast runner, that doesn't make them a runner type, even if they're faster than actual runner types. They might be yet even better at swimming and be a swimmer type.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed?

Not too developed. Probably because i'm young. I've started to benefit from this function very recently, and mostly to keep me from feeling overflooded by the Ni dominance.

2. Are you succesful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming?

Maths mostly, i enjoy it. I could never make a carreer out of it anyway.

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns?


Depends on the situation, but most of the time yes. I can be really good at gathering information, but maybe sometimes i get too subjective.

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion?

I'm good at analyzing, it's probably an ability that i have, but i don't follow a systematic approach.

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were you're skills in this area?

Somewhat, my skills were average. I'm more interested in maths now than i was before.

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a enginer, or as a scientist?

No, not at all.

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as a analytical philosopher ( beware: not abstract philosopher)?

No.

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields?

Science yes, i've recently started to get interested in anatomy, and i'm honestly fascinated by it as a side note...

 

[invisible]

i think my Ti is well developed in the sense that i often notice that others seem to have no critical thinking skills at all, and also that i dont live in a delusional world that is allowed to be the plaything of my Ni or of my prejudices. its important to me to continue to develop as a rational thinker but it probably wont be in any way that would be relevant professionally. the closest thing i have to a natural talent for mathematics is music and i think that the time in my life when my mind was still plastic enough to be trained to "do" mathematics and associated disciplines is over now. i never had a teacher who bothered to inspire me to understand mathematics; the closest i ever came to engaging with anything at all mathematical was taking a distinction in first year university statistics, and that was the fourth time i took the course because i failed every previous time. my career objectives are to do with dealing with completely irrational things, the domains of artistic creation and to a lesser extent criticism, and thats the direction in which ive always tried to develop my mind.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I'm conflicted when it comes to Ti because on the one hand I think I am good at it, but on the other it can become incredibly draining. A few years ago I become obsessed with the inner workings of a computer. I wanted to know how computers used "logic" and spent a considerable amount of time learning Boolean logic gates. I was able to get a better grasp of how a computer physically makes "decisions", but it served no purpose other than to satiate my curiosity. When I get into these bouts it seems some of the more likeable and agreeable aspects of my personality dwindle away. I become almost reclusive and don't want to be bothered while I'm learned something new or trying to figure out a problem. In other words, my loved ones suffer some when I am such a state. It is like some tug and war between my feeling side and my thinking side. The thing is though, my feeling side ends up winning in the end. I often put away my Ti pursuits if people need me and my responsibilities call for it. I usually go through long spells of caring for loved ones and carrying out my responsibilities and then I'll get curious about some topic and start delving into that for a while until I feel that I am needed in the emotional realm and disappear into that for some time.

I've been called analytical and scientific and would do well in those pursuits. I was trained as a scientist during my undergraduate days. I'm pretty mechanically inclined and have repaired my own computers, cars, and have remodeled parts of my house. I've always been good at basic math, but I struggled with calculus in college. I think if I were motivated enough now, I could learn calculus and understand it on a deeper level. Maybe I will someday, but probably not. Once in a while I like to think about how people have come to discover basic mathematical concepts. It's kind of like trying to reinvent the wheel, sort of fun. I enjoy putting together puzzles and solving logic puzzles.

 

[say what]

My issue is that 'critical' and 'logical' thinking can be taught. These are often considered skills that one can develop and nurture through practice...whereas, I don't think you can do that for Ni. I think you can be a strong Ni, but work in hard science field where you use the skills/attributes of Ti- and be very effective at it.
...maybe I'm missing the point...perhaps I'm being too Ni about it!

 

[Trifoilum]

I think what INFJs lack is logical thinking, or analitycal/critical thinking.
Usually the types that use this function, are succesfully found working in more various fields, like mathematics, sciences, physicsm, chemistry and programming.

Caveat; there is definitely a personal bias here;
I think there is a particular and potentially fatal flaw here-- the very common assumption that Ti / Te usually means science. They -are- prominent, but they aren't the only ones.

In some extent, even things like psychology, philosophy, linguistics, social studies -- are studies that can enhance Ti-- studies that can enable and enhance critical thinking and analytical thinking / perspective; and improve rationality and logic.

It doesn't have to be all numbers and equation and binaries-- because logic isn't just deductive.

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed?

In your definition, It's not that bad, but it's definitely not the top of my developmental areas.
I'm more of the more-- dissecting, instead of calculating type.

2. Are you successful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming?

No.

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns?

Good to decent. I usually apply Ti with Fe-- seeing a structure of a situation in terms of 'who does what' and 'why they do that'. And the logical patterns is a lot more complex (usually done in terms of behavioral pattern, prediction, hypothesis)--but I did it with the structure of Ti.

When in non-- emotional or social system (like say, work matters)-- well, yeah, I'm decent. Usually I rely more on Ni than Ti-- writing all the things I need to do, and then trying to simplify it.

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion?

50-50. Usually it's a Ni-Ti combo; I ramble, and then I arrange.

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were your skills in this area?

I'm quite good if I'm forcing myself, but I don't LIKE it.

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a engineer, or as a scientist?

No. The workload would be too much, and the obsession over detail and precision is oh la la.

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as a analytical philosopher ( beware: not abstract philosopher)?

Now this one, quite possibly. Dissecting is Wuv.

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields?

Yes and no. I appreciate the advances done in these fields, and as long as I don't see EQUATIONS, I'm fine. Otherwise, errrraksasklkldaksldklasdkslakl;dkslakdlsal;....

 

[Cornerstone]

I'm pretty bad with it and get quite impatient with taking things step-by-step when I already 'know', just lack evidence.

I hate gathering evidence with a passion. It is such a ballache. It's always for someone else's benefit.

That said, I feel I am quite good at analysis. I can break down grand ideas into constituent parts and see how they fit together but I only enjoy doing this for otherwise irrational subjects.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Thank you for the comprehensive answer. Hope you'll take from your time to answer the other questions I asked you. I really want to develop myself in this aspect too, so I need some advices!

You're welcome! Let me know if you have more questions, I'll try to answer them if I can.

This is a very interesting explanation of Ni. Do you think the element of time is essential to Ni?

I don't think time is necessarily essential to Ni. As a world-shaping process, time can definitely play a part in how the Grand Plan (insert facetiousness at self-righteousness here) pans out because, when primed towards a specific issue, Ni tends to be very insistent on and impatient for change. It will see a pressing environmental problem and want to fix it as quickly as possible by slamming viewpoints together to generate a single, united meta-perspective. If, however, Ni is not currently engaged with a Grand Plan, then time will probably be less important to the person with it. Ni is a Perceiving function, after all, and it does enjoy simply gathering and synthesizing material.

Note, however, that time is often of the essence when one personalizes a problem, regardless of personality type.

So do you think there is a way in which a person who is 'mathematically retarded' can be teach in a way that he could open the 'mathematical facullties'? What is the method?

The answer depends on the person, frankly. Some folks have the abstractive equipment to see and manipulate the patterns of mathematics and some do not. I do not mean to be elitist here, but the scientific literature is pretty clear on this point, despite popular opinion: there are real and enduring differences in both the realms and depth of cognitive understanding between people. With that said, it's crucial to acknowledge that we learn by association and that everyone has realms of association more fluent to them than others (this is essentially the basis of Jung's personality theory). We learn and understand information exponentially better when it is connected to things we already know and are somehow attached to; more mental connections create thicker neural connections that encode information more thoroughly. Thus, learning is as much about tailoring as raw cognitive ability.

What do you mean by "I wanted conceptual background and applications"? Can you explain?

In tandem with the above: I need the significance of material to learn it. Rote instruction does not help me and information presented thus slides through my mind like a passing breeze. Simply describing a formula and the steps needed to complete it does not tell me how and why it works and what it means in reality. If I cannot connect it to other phenomenon, if I cannot apply the laws in math, then I simply can't retain them. In a very literal sense, I have to see how everything works together before I can see the mechanics of individual parts; this kind of backwards mental engineering has caused untold amounts of frustration for both me and my past teachers because it is not a dominant or common method of learning.

 

[Gaze]

My issue is that 'critical' and 'logical' thinking can be taught. These are often considered skills that one can develop and nurture through practice...whereas, I don't think you can do that for Ni. I think you can be a strong Ni, but work in hard science field where you use the skills/attributes of Ti- and be very effective at it.
...maybe I'm missing the point...perhaps I'm being too Ni about it!

agree, i don't think it's some simple black and white fact that some are necessarily more logical than others. Logical and critical thinking are ways of "thinking" and "reasoning" which need to be taught and practiced to use it regularly. The problem is more that we are not often taught to build our analytical, logical, or critical thinking skills at an early age, and so taking math in school becomes a struggle because that type of reasoning was not introduced until we entered a math class in an educational environment.

Supposedly an INFP, but here goes.

1. How good do you think your tertiary function, Ti is developed? It's fairly well developed but having Ni would make it stronger rather than Ne. I see too many possibilities which makes it tough to tune or zone in on one particular meaning or truth.

2. Are you succesful in any kind of knowledge that require logical thinking and precision, like mathematics, physics or computer programming?
- No, was never a science person not even physics but I was always fascinated by quantum theory, etc. It was easier for me to focus on the general idea rather than the details. I am taking Accounting this term and seem to be doing very well, since it's both a sequential and theoretical area.

3. How good are you at assessing a situation in terms of logical steps, clearly seeing the structure and the underlying logical patterns?
- not sure I'm logical but I am somewhat linear or sequential in how I approach planning tasks. I do notice connections between things that seem unrelated. I can point out the logic and reasoning that underlies how cultures or societies work on a social and cultural level, another area which people think is illogical or irrational which is amazingly rich in connections.

4. Can you analyse a problem in a step by step logical fashion?
- yeah, I liked solving algebra problems in school step by step. I like doing multiple problems once I got the gist. However, I was never strong in logical problem solving. I always felt as if people thought you were genius if you got them, or not that smart if you didn't.

5. Were you interested in mathematics in school? How were you're skills in this area?
- Struggled with math, but not analytical thinking. I had to be tutored in math in elementary/middle school level but later when to the top of my class and the end of junior high equivalent. In high school, I opted to take the advanced math (equivalent to US high school AP classes) for the last two years of high school. Barely passed but it helped me get decent grades in math in required undergrad college courses.

6. Do you think you can work efficiently as a engineer, or as a scientist?
- funny enough, i wanted to be a scientist when I was a child but changed my career direction. However, I know I don't have the natural affinities for sciences. However, I like structures and frameworks. I've thought it would have been cool to be an architect because I like the idea of big picture planning.

7. Do you think you can work efficiently as an analytical philosopher (beware: not abstract philosopher)?
-based on my understanding of both, would likely prefer abstract philosophy

8. Do you like or are you attracted in any of those fields?
as i said abstract philosophy and I've always liked psychology, it seems similar to philosophy

 

[LucyJr]

My issue is that 'critical' and 'logical' thinking can be taught. These are often considered skills that one can develop and nurture through practice...whereas, I don't think you can do that for Ni. I think you can be a strong Ni, but work in hard science field where you use the skills/attributes of Ti- and be very effective at it.
...maybe I'm missing the point...perhaps I'm being too Ni about it!

Ni means basically a 'reflective eye or ear'. Its not a big deal. We're doing it better because we are doing it naturally.
The Ni users can 'catch' in a instant the fundamental and the essence of a idea, stored in mind under a abstract concept form. It is good, and its a rare quality, but its INCOMPLETE, and it can lead to FALSE understanding of reality let by its own.
Knowledge its much more vast and sophisticated.

Since I was small (like 5-6 years), I understood in a instant many ideas and concepts that even adults hardly would understand.
I developed many ideas from famous philosphers by my own, whithout reading any of them. But this is on one side.

On the other hand, I was very stupid and still am in terms of logical thinking, maths, physics and so on. That's because I lack a strong Ti! And I'm very ashamed of it I need to develop myself!

 

[say what]

Ni means basically a 'reflective eye or ear'. Its not a big deal. We're doing it better because we are doing it naturally.
The Ni users can 'catch' in a instant the fundamental and the essence of a idea, stored in mind under a abstract concept form. It is good, and its a rare quality, but its INCOMPLETE, and it can lead to FALSE understanding of reality let by its own.
Knowledge its much more vast and sophisticated.

Since I was small (like 5-6 years), I understood in a instant many ideas and concepts that even adults hardly would understand.
I developed many ideas from famous philosphers by my own, whithout reading any of them. But this is on one side.

On the other hand, I was very stupid and still am in terms of logical thinking, maths, physics and so on. That's because I lack a strong Ti! And I'm very ashamed of it I need to develop myself!

I guess what I was trying to say is that critical thinking and logic can be learned and fostered through certain tasks, making it more of a 'skill' that anyone can have (although, Ti are likely more comfortable and easily pick it up)...whereas Ni (or any N) is less likely to be taught...or at least the way we teach and what we know about learning, it seems like it's an innate or inherent skill that one has. When I went to answer your original questions, I got stuck on the answers being a result of Ni or Ti - and more on skills and opportunities. Anyone can learn to go through something with a step-by-step logical model, be a scientist/engineer, or be good at math. Some people are naturally better at these tasks, which is probably linked to their Ti..but I wouldn't say that fostering my Ni would limit these skills...maybe I'm missing something!

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=4108]Radiant Shadow[/MENTION]
I found something extremely interesting written by Pascal. Interesting, huh?

THOUGHTS ON MIND AND ON STYLE -Blaise Pascal

1. The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.-- In the one, the principles are palpable, but removed from ordinary use; so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that direction: but if one turns it thither ever so little, one sees the principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible they should escape notice.
But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.
All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight, for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.
Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

 

[LucyJr]

I guess what I was trying to say is that critical thinking and logic can be learned and fostered through certain tasks, making it more of a 'skill' that anyone can have (although, Ti are likely more comfortable and easily pick it up)...whereas Ni (or any N) is less likely to be taught...or at least the way we teach and what we know about learning, it seems like it's an innate or inherent skill that one has. When I went to answer your original questions, I got stuck on the answers being a result of Ni or Ti - and more on skills and opportunities. Anyone can learn to go through something with a step-by-step logical model, be a scientist/engineer, or be good at math. Some people are naturally better at these tasks, which is probably linked to their Ti..but I wouldn't say that fostering my Ni would limit these skills...maybe I'm missing something!

Pascal taught intuition is more probable to be easily felt and self-developed, while with logical thinking, whay he would call reason, it's a bit more harder, but its not impossible

 

[say what]

Pascal taught intuition is more probable to be easily felt and self-developed, while with logical thinking, whay he would call reason, it's a bit more harder, but its not impossible

Interesting...I feel the exact opposite! haha!