Clusters of Scientific Thinking Tending Toward Structural Logic (Ti)

1) Sensitivity to Logical Links Between Objects and Events (Links of Co-Membership and Co-Subordination, Hierarchy, Cause and Effect); High Ability for “Dry” Formal Logical Analysis of the Material at Hand

Property: Sensitivity to logical links between objects and events (links of co-membership and co-subordination, hierarchy, cause and effect); high ability for “dry” formal logical analysis of the material at hand

Number of questions: 53

N responses: 229390

Numbers in the type profile - deviations of arithmetic means from the population mean in fractions of a standard deviation.

1. I possess well-organized scientific thinking.
2. I have a good command of the formal-logical laws of thought.
3. I instantly sense any logical inconsistency, even a minor one, any structural “dissonance.”
4. In terms of my abilities, I am a good logician and analyst.
5. I am always attentive to the smallest logical details.
6. I have good analytical thinking and strong logic; I like to generalize facts and have a good understanding of diagrams, classifications, and structures.
7. I have “iron” logic; in my conclusions I never confuse cause and effect.
8. When making decisions, I am almost always soberly guided by calculation and scientific knowledge.
9. It sometimes seems to me that everything around me lacks logic and reason in the sequence of actions, whereas within me there is a concentrated strategic sense of correct logical sequence and perspective.
10. I like all kinds of structural diagrams and enjoy looking at them.
11. I readily organize and analyze what I encounter.
12. I instantly notice minor logical errors made by others.
13. My speech is logically very clear but somewhat dry; it contains many clarifying function words - prepositions, conjunctions, particles, and introductory constructions.
14. I often think something over, weigh it, and evaluate it with cold reason.
15. I would make an excellent analyst, mathematician, programmer, or geologist.
16. My logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and impeccably precise in short links and details.
17. Logic always helps me make my picture of the world clear and structured, so that I can subsequently be guided by general principles and ideas while ignoring minor details.
18. Key words for me are: algorithm, program, dry analysis of facts.
19. My logical chains of reasoning are always error-free and precise.
20. I easily understand technical drawings and spatial diagrams.
21. I was very interested in formal-logical laws.
22. I am sensitive to the slightest nuances of facts or barely noticeable “logical links.”
23. I use facts and the arguments of reason more often than feelings.
24. I would enjoy processing sociological statistics, using mathematical methods to identify interrelationships and trends in people’s preferences.
25. I have clear “legal” thinking.
26. I am characterized by clarity of argumentation and persuasiveness of proofs.
27. I always strive for a comprehensive analytical examination of an object or phenomenon in order to answer the questions: “why?”, “what for?”, “to what end?”.
28. I am objective and blunt in judgments and principled evaluations; structures, classifications, and concepts are my style.
29. In any task I am solving, I use a very large number of criteria for comparison and checking.
30. My ideal job is working as a programmer, or any other job requiring perseverance, logic, and imagination, where systems analysis, construction of diagrams and classifications, and formulation of concepts are used.
31. I can easily convert a number from the binary numeral system to decimal.
32. In my spare time I often solve crossword puzzles or logical puzzles from newspapers and magazines.
33. I like sorting all kinds of “motley” information into categories.
34. I enjoy painstaking scientific research and analytical work involving the analysis of complex phenomena and objects.
35. I am distinguished by thoroughness of proof and detailed elaboration of arguments.
36. I often detect important inconsistencies and problems where others fail to notice or ignore them.
37. I instantly catch logical inconsistencies in other people’s speech by ear.
38. I quickly notice any errors of my own.
39. I quickly perform arithmetic operations mentally on any integers (I believe my brain is fairly well trained for this, and the process itself is habitual and gives me some pleasure).
40. At school I performed better in mathematics than many others.
41. I am distinguished by the persuasiveness of my proofs and the unassailability of my arguments.
42. I like to classify events and objects by comparing them with one another according to some feature.
43. I instantly see a regular structural connection between facts and events that at first glance appear disparate, where others see no connection between them.
44. I can easily and without error divide or multiply simple fractions mentally in a few seconds (for example, try mentally, without paper, dividing 15/16 by 3/4, and then check yourself with a written calculation).
45. I have a well-developed “error detector” - I always notice my errors in any task very quickly and immediately try to correct them.
46. I would be suited to being a detective or investigator - I know how to collect and accumulate the smallest facts and, without rushing, draw general conclusions from them.
47. All sorts of small defects in systems, structures, or classifications often, by themselves and even without my wishing it, “scratch my gaze.”
48. My favorite questions are: Is this arranged correctly? Does this fit into the existing system, or does it fall outside it?
49. In popular magazines I seek out the logical problems published there and solve them with pleasure.
50. I like inventing difficult tasks for myself that require comparing many facts.
51. I always clearly separate cause from effect; I am a master at analyzing cause-and-effect relations and the primary and secondary in a sequence of events.
52. I instantly and usually without error grasp cause-and-effect relations between events.

53. I admit that I sometimes lack logic in my reasoning.

This property is provided by high Structural Logic (Ti) and low Ethics of Relations (Fi). It is also associated with generally elevated rationality.

Reasoned analysis based on Structural Logic (Ti) is necessary for practically all kinds and directions of scientific activity. Moreover, there are also narrow scientific fields in which one can manage with Structural Logic (Ti) alone, almost without using Intuition of Possibilities (Ne) (or, in the extreme case, by borrowing a small number of other people’s ideas and then bringing them to precision perfection). There are few such scientific fields, but they do exist, and in them not only Alpha Scientists but also the Structural Logicians of the second quadra can find realization (LSI and SLE).

For example, the Soviet scientist Yuri Knorozov (probably LSI) worked on deciphering the writing system of the Maya Indians in 1940-50 and achieved impressive successes. Even in physics (of course, not theoretical but experimental), throughout its history there have been at least two Nobel Prize laureates among Beta logicians – Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard. Stark (a quite typical LSI) owed his Nobel Prize to his “watchmaker’s talent” - in a very narrow area of experimental physics, he achieved impressive success in making ultra-miniature and, at the same time, precision measuring instruments with his own hands, which enabled him to discover the so-called “Stark effect.” Lenard also received his Nobel Prize for an analogous talent as a patient manual craftsman in a narrow area of physical experimentation (probably a Beta logician with a substantial additional accentuation toward ILI; in any case, his Ni was very strongly enhanced - however, closeness to ILI and, correspondingly, the valuing of Fi and Te instead of Ti and Fe cannot be entirely excluded for him either). It is noteworthy that both of these Nobel laureates of the early 20th century were consistent enemies of any intuitive explorations in physics (including both the theory of relativity and theoretical investigations in quantum mechanics), which they called “Jewish science.” That is, neither of them possessed an overall scientific mentality that, thanks to Ne, makes it possible to look at things insightfully and broadly.

A considerable number of Beta logicians find applications for themselves in fields of science connected with materials science, geology, and engineering - that is, where the ability to systematize and scrupulously, consistently improve what already exists is much more important than the search for new ideas.

2) Ability to Identify the Main and Cut Off the Secondary (Identifying the Structural Hierarchy of the Elements of the Whole)

Property: Ability to identify the main and cut off the secondary (identifying the structural hierarchy of the elements of the whole)

Number of questions: 6

N responses: 16040

Numbers in the type profile - deviations of arithmetic means from the population mean in fractions of a standard deviation.

1. In the work I do, I am better than most at identifying what is most important while discarding unnecessary, nonessential details.
2. I can clearly explain the essence of any phenomenon in a few phrases.
3. I am good at identifying the main point and cutting off the secondary in the material being analyzed.
4. In practical matters I easily distinguish the main from the secondary and never waste effort on trifles.
5. I am able to focus my attention completely only on the main information and main problems, while ignoring everything of little significance.
6. For me, in an argument or discussion there are always main logical arguments and secondary ones, to which I pay very little attention.

This property is, in essence, a special case of the preceding one, which is associated with broader logical-analytical skills. But the ability to “cut away the superfluous” - indeed, one of the important and necessary Structural Logic skills in science, although it can sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note that Ne does not help this ability, but rather hinders it. In those scientific fields where flexible openness to intuitive ideas is important, where consideration and search through numerous theoretical alternatives are important, excessive strength of this property more often proves harmful than useful.

3) Erudition (A Broad Body of Knowledge and Varied Information in Memory)

Property: Erudition (a broad body of knowledge and varied information in memory)

Number of questions: 8

N responses: 12590

Numbers in the type profile - deviations of arithmetic means from the population mean in fractions of a standard deviation.

1. I like searching for and accumulating all kinds of information.
2. I have encyclopedic knowledge; at times I act as a “walking reference book.”
3. I am a broadly erudite person with a honed, strictly analytical mind.
4. At times I collect and systematize various interesting factual data without any immediate specific purpose, simply for the sake of keeping a reserve and for pleasure.
5. Since my school years I have been more well-read and erudite than others.
6. If, while browsing television channels, I happen upon the intellectual quiz competition “Svoya Igra,” I usually watch the program to the end.
7. I can be called an erudite repository of useful facts - people often turn to my memory and knowledge for reference.
8. I know what the “Reinin traits” are; I have read about them.

Erudition is necessary for all scientists, but one cannot get far in science on erudition alone (without the other five properties considered earlier).