The Analytical Mind

[Gaze]

This is for anyone interested in analytical thinking or the analytical mind . . .

I realized over the years that one of my strengths is analysis or analytical thinking (but am not an expert of course). In other words, like many, in my undergrad years, I probably worked unnecessarily hard to excel in areas which just never really clicked. And when I started to perform analytical tasks more consciously, almost everything just seemed to click. Material seemed to make more sense to me vs. material based on disconnected facts or figures. It probably explains my need to get everything just right, to understand things clearly and not take anything for granted anymore. I think this is why I'm so drawn to theory and criticism. My brain feels as if it's being fed when I perform analysis.

One of the things which I think is really interesting about the analytical mind is the ability to take apart an argument, and provide a valid logical critique without having detailed information about the subject. I am no expert on analytical thinking but I'm very interested in the subject.

Like many here, i'm interested in the workings of the analytical mind, the reasoning associated with analytical thinking, the large number of subject areas or fields (many of them rarely explored) which need and use analytical thinking, related skills, myths and misconceptions about the analytical mind or thinking, it's relation to cognition, psychology, science, etc.

Here's an interesting article to begin:

Analytical Tracking: An Introduction
Kevin Langdon
Polymath Systems​

http://www.polymath-systems.com/phenomen/at/atintro.html

 

[IndigoSensor]

I am quite similar to this, and I will venture to guess you are also analytical with things that themselves aren't hard analytical topics, such as math and physics.

I tend to try to make analytical sense and thinking out of things that largely have not much analytical nature to it what so ever. I think the reason we do this is because it seems to be the fastest, most efficent way of connecting everything, and condensing information into the best way that can possibly be done.

 

[randomsomeone]

Most of the analytical thinkers I know consistently overlook critical information as they assess a problem. They have aligned all the facts...they just don't have all the facts. The results can be amusing, catastrophic, and/or expensive. If my analytical friends know this, and broaden their field-of-vision a bit, things go much, much better.

I can be analytical, but I am also an artist (and an INFJ) so I tend to include things often overlooked by my more linear buddies. I choose to be amused by the whole thing rather than irritated inasmuch as I am surrounded by these ding dongs.

 

[Gaze]

I am quite similar to this, and I will venture to guess you are also analytical with things that themselves aren't hard analytical topics, such as math and physics.

I tend to try to make analytical sense and thinking out of things that largely have not much analytical nature to it what so ever. I think the reason we do this is because it seems to be the fastest, most efficent way of connecting everything, and condensing information into the best way that can possibly be done.

Yeah, although I've no formal training in Physics (except high school - never too physics in college), I became interested in theoretical physics in the last few years, but I really couldn't make sense of it even if I wanted to. I was a little intrigued by Schrodinger's Cat, multiverse theory. Funny enough though, I struggled with chemistry in school. And I didn't do well with physics either. I think because the focus is technical knowledge of the subject, aspects which required more memorization than discussion of correlation or causation, I didn't really connect with it. But when I studied rhetoric in grad school, it started to make sense since.

 

[Daeledin]

To me science is a big puzzle you try to put all together when you're first learning about it. That is why it is very detrimental to the success of science students to have a teacher that is engaging when they take their first steps into it. When someone is first coming into a field of science whether its chemistry, physics, or biology they have everything to learn all at once. Nothing for certain has been established yet. Facts present themselves in a hopefully linear manner but it isn't always the case, and it can't always be done that way. There is an interconnectedness to everything in science by its very nature; no matter where you start you're lost for a little while.

You can't put the puzzle together unless you lay the pieces on the table.

It's been one year since I took my general chemistry courses my freshman year. I got easy A's in them but it didn't stop there. I can promise you by teaching my lab and by cracking open the old textbook from time to time I understand the concepts so much better now. Why? Well time is a factor, but most importantly I've moved on to more advanced topics like organic chemistry and physics. By comparison the difficulty is easier but that isn't the point. The major difference is now I've developed a much stronger intuition regarding science than I had a year ago. What used to mean rote memorization for a test is now just a simple intuitive deduction for me.

A stream of phenomena passes through one's psyche at all times; one can either track what is there or become lost in it.

This^

I know I have a hard time being able to prevent myself from becoming lost in thought only to surface again with a few bits and pieces of tangled ideas. I can't go through thinking about something start to finish and track key ideas all the way to the end.

Sad you can't teach it. It's something that you have to be able to do on your own. Yet at the same time I really don't want to end up talking like this article when I'm 30. Cold language like this just turns me off to reading anymore of it.

 

[Norton]

I'm tempted to say, "Is there any other way?" But, I know there is, because I'm surrounded by people I respect who tell me so. They're all INFJ's (and other "N's"), so I believe them. But, limited by my INTP limitations, I just don't get it.