This may have died out in the time I was away but when I was last active here, there was a good deal of talk tying certain functions to certain disciplines and functions. I'm not sure how true this is or isn't, but I am most likely a delta and do find physics comes pretty easily and naturally to me compared to most people. However, I am unconvinced it is because of an inherent difference in ability. One thing that came to mind is that, from the statistics we have, it seems deltas are over-represented amongst top physicists and one thought I had was that, as it is deltas writing the textbook, the textbooks are written and the courses are taught in a way deltas are hardwired to understand. I noticed a similar phenomenon with general chemistry and a few branches of mathematics, where it just seems like the material just "clicks" with my brain and I can extrapolate quickly and accurate. Other people seem to have a similar reaction to different things, like music or languages or CT, which to me, do not make intuitive sense. I do wonder, however, how much is in the presentation of information and if it is more a self-perpetuating phenomenon, not "deltas are better at physics" but "deltas are better at learning physics from other deltas". This may make no sense as it is late and I am tired but this is what my insomnia brain came up with today.
Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of interesting distribution underlying types and academic disciplines/interests. I would say, for instance, that Ti-Fe is overrepresented in pure mathematics and philosophy, with about equals parts Ni/Se or Ne/Si. So Betas and Alphas. I also tend to see more Deltas and Gammas in the humanities and some of the more applied sciences.
"Not *how* the world is, is the mystical, but *that* it is." - Wittgenstein
Post by At-Ease Zazeef on Aug 31, 2014 14:42:57 GMT -5
Ti is definitely king in philosopy. Maybe Te>Fi folks experience more of a kinship of thought to it than I do as an Fi>Te (or maybe it is natural to the 5w4 rather than the 5w6 in enneagram, though I only include that thought for the sake of disambiguation; I lack any specific evidence to serve as cause for such a postulation, but it would be remiss to not acknowledge the possibility), but as an Fi>Te, philosophy sort of feels like going around my elbow to get to my arsehole (pardon the vulgarity). Basically, any of the work I feel I could do with philosopy, any of the places I feel like it could take me, my mind has a more natural, more direct and rewarding/affirming way of reaching. Probably the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, I suppose.
Anyway, given my relation to philosophy in regard to my type, I'd go so far as to say that philosophy appeals to Ti-users not simply because Ti better learns from Ti, and Ti got a hold of philosophy somewhere along the line (to use one of your suppositions, A), or because their minds cling to the concepts of the topic more naturally/intuitively (the more general supposition that you mentioned and your thoughts lead away from), but rather because of a third possibility: because Ti exists in the pool of human psychology, because it exists as a potential within human interiority, i.e. the subjective or even unconscious realms, and, asaresult of that potential, philosophy burbled up from that sector and thus surfaced in the objective world. People don't simply "get" or "not get" a discipline based on type, but, rather, such disciplines exist in the first place(!) as a manifestation of a given type's perspective/activity. Once it exists in the world, any type can pick it up and fiddle with it, just as a foot can pick up a hammer.
The world without simply exists. Everything we make of it, we make of it: itcomes from within.