User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 22

  1. #11
    Just a statistic rhinosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Condescension aside, I'm really interested to hear why S's might be well-suited for scientific thought. I know a significant amount of ISTJs that are either pursuing scientific careers or have already become successful scientists, and they seem to have a knack for it. Maybe it's the Te? Or Maybe Si helps with generating a database of stored details and information?
    Going on the stereotype, an ISTJ would have the discipline to actually do what needed to be done. Whereas my lazy ISTP ass would just get this feeling that something needed to be done, and then I'd open up Wikipedia and read about Photoelastic Modulators until 6 pm. It's not all fluffy ideas and mysterious vector fields making atoms bounce around. It's opening up the fume hood and cranking out a distillation. It's about taking that sample across campus to the DLS before it goes bad. That is where the SJ shines. The SPs, OTOH, are more of the "Ooh shiny I wonder what happens when I charge it to 2000V" kind of scientists.

  2. #12
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinosaur View Post
    It's about taking that sample across campus to the DLS before it goes bad. That is where the SJ shines. The SPs, OTOH, are more of the "Ooh shiny I wonder what happens when I charge it to 2000V" kind of scientists.
    So basically the ISTJ scientists are the ones making sure to press the right buttons and pull the correct levers in the cockpit while you SPs tell them to fly faster than the speed limit and jump out of the plane with experimental parachute prototypes. Sounds like bitch work on the SJ's side to me...

  3. #13
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Sense is essentially more emperical than iNtuition, which is important to science.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #14
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    ^^I like that simple explanation. As an NP, I definitely don't have much capacity for observing and extracting fine details that result from certain experiments...

  5. #15
    That chalkboard guy Matthew_Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    xxxx
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    ^^I like that simple explanation. As an NP, I definitely don't have much capacity for observing and extracting fine details that result from certain experiments...
    Science is a mechanism for understanding the natural world. It's something to build a worldview off of. If science is going to be the basis for something so fundamental, it's critical that research is conducted with intense accuracy. Every little detail can be evidence of a larger image or concept.

    That, and skipping a detail can make confirmation bias much easier.

    Sure, this post was more of a rant, but these are my thoughts as an NP.


    PS: I believe Newton was a quintessential INTJ.
    If a deaf INFP falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

  6. #16
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    ^^I guess that's really where S types come in handy then. Le sigh...

    Oh, and I suppose I'd agree with Newton as INTJ. I think a lot of people type him as that. We NTPs can't take all the credit.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinosaur View Post
    There is a lot of room within science for any of the types.
    I would add even that to be healthy and vibrant science needs inputs from all types and their perspectives.

    Science is what scientists do while working their field. It is hard to characterize it in any other way.

    Now, the "scientific method" as understood presently is creation and testing of universal statements (hypotheses) through checking specific cases.

    But the nature of scientific activity is a lot more broad. Cataloging, for instance, is part of science. Finding patterns is part of science. Collecting and preserving data is part of science (in modern times it can mean exabytes of data). Careful qualitative observation is part of science. Fashioning ever more accurate instruments and experiments is part of science. Data analysis is part of science.

    I could go on...but to limit science and scientists as being only the ones who form and test hypotheses is....well, rather limiting. Sometimes the products of science are partial hypotheses, and some times the products are only parts of what will eventually be a test. Credit should not go to just those who reach the "finished" scientific product (hypothesis or test).

    To me the question in the title is like asking whether the time is more red or blue. No offense.

    Now, as far as who we consider to be groundbreaking scientists is still somewhat subjective. The ones mentioned were all physicists/engineers, and most of them were theoretically minded...Tesla and Da Vinci to were the most practically minded of the bunch...and even they were theoretical in their approaches as far as engineering goes.

    FWIW, I think Da Vinci and Newton were INTJs. The rest I agree as NTPs.

    If we go by a more quantitative measure of influential scientists,...the scientists whose work is referred to most often, we may find a lot more variety in type.

    Dean Keith Simonton did some investigation into "scientific creativity"...one of his books that is on my reading list, but that I haven't gotten to yet is:
    Scientific Genius - Cambridge University Press

    I did, however, read his later book:
    Amazon.com: Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist (9780521543699): Dean Keith Simonton: Books

    In that book it seems like the defining things of creative scientists are simply more papers published. In his theory, the most productive scientists have large knowledge bases from which to combine ideas, and a work schedule that has them working on many things of varying importance, varying relevance to their field, interactions with more people in and out of their field, ...

    Creativity in science is all about the chance combinations of ideas that produce something productive...and the most important things for accomplishing those chance combinations is to simply have more things to combine and combining more things...so knowledge base seems paramount...as does a schedule that allows one to pursue as many such combinations as possible.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #18
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    ^^That's a lot of good stuff there. Thanks.

    As far as you pointing out the lack of cohesion in my title, I think that you may have misinterpretted it. The post was supposed to be more about which function pairing is more suited for science, Ne/Ti or Ni/Te, ie, people with which pairing will feel more fulfilled in scientific careers and be able to use their skills and intellect in the most fulfilling way via scientific careers.

    I was asking for a comparison of Ne/Ti and Ni/Te in regards to how science can offer fulfillment to those two different types; the title was not supposed to beg the question "which function pairing would make a better scientist?". However, my OP did admittedly leave some room for that question to be answered in the thread, but I was still looking for insight as to how different functions can be applied to careers in research, which functions offer which subsets of skills necessary to be a good scientist, and how scientific thought is manifested within the different types. The thread may have turned into "which type is the best scientist?", but I was never really asking that. Being a prospective scientist myself, I understand that scientific thought can be approached by many different realms, so leaving it to just one type would be rather dogmatic and leave little room for innovation and progress.

  9. #19
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    xNTJ's tend to do science in a lab. xNTP's tend to do science at their desk (possibly using a computer as well). ENTx's might even do science in their garage or backyard. So it kind of depends on what your goal with it is. If you think about science in the more traditional way in a lab, then I think it is most suited to INTJ's.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  10. #20
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Theoretical science = INTP

    Applied science = INTJ

    The bitch work = ISTJ

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] Do high IQ xNTx individuals use a dominant mix of Ne Ni Te Ti in no specific order?
    By EnnisPreit in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 07-07-2017, 03:34 PM
  2. [JCF] Am I Fe/Ti or Fi/Te? :P
    By westrom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2015, 01:48 AM
  3. Which function more likely to land you in the Psych Ward: Ne or Ni?
    By mysavior in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 12:56 PM
  4. The pairings aren't pairings--Te/Fi, Fe/Ti, Se/Ni, Si/Ne--they're identities
    By Kalach in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 09:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO