• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

David Keirsey.

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Im curious what others opinions of his theory are?

Personally I think he is right on some things, but extremely wrong on others and worst of all his theory comes across as little more than the typing of persona's as induced by social environments and needs.

I think it is satisfying for those who just want to dip into personality theories as if they are an astrology of the mind, but I often worry that the way in which his types and the 4 temperaments are written, that it does little more than confuse people and help them decend into stereotyped opinions.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
persona(latin for a mask of an actor) is not personality(winnocotts theory of false self is close to persona) and persona is induced by social environment and needs, its one of the most used jungian terms in the field of psychology.

http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/p said:
Persona
The “I,” usually ideal aspects of ourselves, that we present to the outside world.


"The persona is . . . a functional complex that comes into existence for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience."[Ibid., par. 801.]

"The persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is."["Concerning Rebirth," CW 9i, par. 221.]

Originally the word persona meant a mask worn by actors to indicate the role they played. On this level, it is both a protective covering and an asset in mixing with other people. Civilized society depends on interactions between people through the persona.

"There are indeed people who lack a developed persona . . . blundering from one social solecism to the next, perfectly harmless and innocent, soulful bores or appealing children, or, if they are women, spectral Cassandras dreaded for their tactlessness, eternally misunderstood, never knowing what they are about, always taking forgiveness for granted, blind to the world, hopeless dreamers. From them we can see how a neglected persona works."["Anima and Animus," CW 7, par. 318.]

Before the persona has been differentiated from the ego, the persona is experienced as individuality. In fact, as a social identity on the one hand and an ideal image on the other, there is little individual about it.

"It is, as its name implies, only a mask of the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.
When we analyse the persona we strip off the mask, and discover that what seemed to be individual is at bottom collective; in other words, that the persona was only a mask of the collective psyche. Fundamentally the persona is nothing real: it is a compromise between individual and society as to what a man should appear to be. He takes a name, earns a title, exercises a function, he is this or that. In a certain sense all this is real, yet in relation to the essential individuality of the person concerned it is only a secondary reality, a compromise formation, in making which others often have a greater share than he." ["The Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche," ibid., pars. 245f.]

A psychological understanding of the persona as a function of relationship to the outside world makes it possible to assume and drop one at will. But by rewarding a particular persona, the outside world invites identification with it. Money, respect and power come to those who can perform single-mindedly and well in a social role. From being a useful convenience, therefore, the persona may become a trap and a source of neurosis.

"A man cannot get rid of himself in favour of an artificial personality without punishment. Even the attempt to do so brings on, in all ordinary cases, unconscious reactions in the form of bad moods, affects, phobias, obsessive ideas, backsliding vices, etc. The social “strong man” is in his private life often a mere child where his own states of feeling are concerned."["Anima and Animus," ibid., par. 307.]

"The demands of propriety and good manners are an added inducement to assume a becoming mask. What goes on behind the mask is then called “private life.” This painfully familiar division of consciousness into two figures, often preposterously different, is an incisive psychological operation that is bound to have repercussions on the unconscious."[Ibid., par. 305.]

Among the consequences of identifying with a persona are: we lose sight of who we are without a protective covering; our reactions are predetermined by collective expectations (we do and think and feel what our persona “should” do, think and feel); those close to us complain of our emotional distance; and we cannot imagine life without it.

To the extent that ego-consciousness is identified with the persona, the neglected inner life (personified in the shadow and anima or animus) is activated in compensation. The consequences, experienced in symptoms characteristic of neurosis, can stimulate the process of individuation.

"There is, after all, something individual in the peculiar choice and delineation of the persona, and . . . despite the exclusive identity of the ego-consciousness with the persona the unconscious self, one’s real individuality, is always present and makes itself felt indirectly if not directly. Although the ego-consciousness is at first identical with the persona-that compromise role in which we parade before the community-yet the unconscious self can never be repressed to the point of extinction. Its influence is chiefly manifest in the special nature of the contrasting and compensating contents of the unconscious. The purely personal attitude of the conscious mind evokes reactions on the part of the unconscious, and these, together with personal repressions, contain the seeds of individual development."["The Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche," ibid., par. 247.]
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
But that's the problem, in his original book he passes off persona's and their behaviour as if they are indicative of personality.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
But that's the problem, in his original book he passes off persona's and their behaviour as if they are indicative of personality.

ah you meant that, you didnt mention that he saw persona as part of typology at op. assuming that you mean that now, as typology isnt seen as whole personality by jungians, persona, complexes, anima etc are part of personality, even tho they arent part of psychological types/typology, thats why jung referred types as psychological types, not personality types, like MBTI/whatevers do
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
You have to look at it as a separate system. My persona is Performer, I can even see evidence of this as a child, and I've posted a couple of videos of myself on the Keirsey forum and that's what they said, too. I actually like PTypes Exuberant personality best, though, which is roughly correlated to a Keirsey ISFP...it sounds EXACTLY like me. PTypes is slightly different though. On Best Fit I relate a little bit to both ESFP and ISFP. It's because it's all "persona" though, not functions.

My ISTJ has something of an ISFJ persona (he's always doing things like housework and taking care of dogs and he's very in touch with his Fi, as well as being highly aesthetic) but it's very clear he has no sense of Fe. He says things like "I hate people but pretend to be nice so they'll go away" and things like that. No sense of Fe, much more of a need to control the external environment with objective logic than to organize people and collective morality. Very cold and reserved about his feelings, hard time being expressive, more Fi, like he's protecting a gooey center ...and yeah. He also relates to the description of an ISTJ child. For example, he never believed in a god, because he thought it was preposterously illogical.

So I can have an ESFP persona but be a functional ISFP, and he can have an ISFJ persona and be a functional ISTJ. Interestingly, though, we still relate to the temperament we're supposed to be in.

When I read about the NF temperament, I was almost *offended.* I was like, nope, not me - but I realized I liked the Artisan temperament more, and it made sense to me, despite Keirsey's stereotypes about SPs having less verbal intelligence.

I went into detail here as to what I have a problem with about Keirsey.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I love David Keirsey's almighty title for INTPs, the Architect, the ultimate designer of the fabric of existence, who understands how all the parts in the blueprint are interconnected, pretty much what God is. That makes my MBTI type GOD!
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I love David Keirsey's almighty title for INTPs, the Architect, the ultimate designer of the fabric of existence, who understands how all the parts in the blueprint are interconnected, pretty much what God is. That makes my MBTI type GOD!

Actually if you go over to the Keirsey site his son will say you're a freak if you think you're an NT and simultaneously believe in a god.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
 

Oeufa

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
694
MBTI Type
INTP
Keirsey's theory is a little simplistic, and he seems to be a bit critical of Sensors, especially Guardians (SJs). He states how there's no good or bad personality type, but his sections on the SJs have a lot more negatives than the others which I found more balanced.

Plus, he really only has 4 types, not 16. He doesn't make huge distinctions between the 4 types of each category.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Keirsey's theory is a little simplistic, and he seems to be a bit critical of Sensors, especially Guardians (SJs). He states how there's no good or bad personality type, but his sections on the SJs have a lot more negatives than the others which I found more balanced.

I didn't find his description of SPs any more negative than the others. SJs ARE melancholic and being critical is a negative trait of Si, like an SJ in a bad mood is probably going to be critical, controlling, nit-picky...even in function theory...while an SP or Se type may be too impulsive, taking action without thinking...and I actually relate to that. Me at my worst, I engage in fights with people that I shouldn't, for example. I can have bad impulses sometimes because I'm too in the moment and get excited about whatever is happening.

It can be in your perception as well, the ISTJ I mentioned above actually *likes* the Guardian matrix. And I thought the NF Idealist description made all NFs sound like a bunch of non-confrontational social workers who are never satisfied with who their romantic partner actually is.

Still, I agree that he obviously had some personal bias toward Ns, I won't disagree with you there, and his sexual description of the SJs is absolutely absurd. Remember, though, he mentioned that NTs (he's an NT himself) clash most with SJs.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
SJs ARE melancholic and being critical is a negative trait of Si, like an SJ in a bad mood is probably going to be critical, controlling, nit-picky....

Huh? Where is this stated? This is why im somewhat against both MBTI and Keirsey it is because of these theories that such ideas are held.

Ive never heard of being critical as being a negative trait of Si as a function before, if anything it would be Te and Fe that do this, as I said before, by going off Jung's descriptions.

Si is just perception, how can it possibly make an evaluation? This is for the realm of judging functions. Of course you did save it a little by saying SJ, but then again that's a keirsey influence....
 

Oeufa

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
694
MBTI Type
INTP
Still, I agree that he obviously had some personal bias toward Ns, I won't disagree with you there, and his sexual description of the SJs is absolutely absurd. Remember, though, he mentioned that NTs (he's an NT himself) clash most with SJs.

I dunno, I just always got the impression from his book that he thought all intuitives were basically the most awesome people ever (if misunderstood), whereas sensors were dull and generally less intelligent. Which is bullshit :laugh: I think he overplayed the conflict between NTs and SJs too; it's like he believes all Guardians are boring arseholes with a vendetta to quash the free-spirit of the vice-free Rational Wonderboy :wack:. Maybe I'm reading a bit much into it though :laugh:

I think he's lost some of his edginess between Please Understand Me and PUM II though.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Huh? Where is this stated? This is why im somewhat against both MBTI and Keirsey it is because of these theories that such ideas are held.

Ive never heard of being critical as being a negative trait of Si as a function before, if anything it would be Te and Fe that do this, as I said before, by going off Jung's descriptions.

Si is just perception, how can it possibly make an evaluation? This is for the realm of judging functions. Of course you did save it a little by saying SJ, but then again that's a keirsey influence....

then maybe you don't know your Jungian theory as well as you think you do. Jung says that Si makes the too high lower and the too low higher in accordance with their own internal perception. Coupled with Je, which all SJs have, this making things "just right" to their own mind can certainly come out as controlling about their own personal nit-pick.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Actually if you go over to the Keirsey site his son will say you're a freak if you think you're an NT and simultaneously believe in a god.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

This statement is false. I can claim to be any type I want to be. Now does it actually make me that type? Of course not, but it is fun to pretend so. I do not take this typology stuff too seriously anyway.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Huh? Where is this stated? This is why im somewhat against both MBTI and Keirsey it is because of these theories that such ideas are held.

Ive never heard of being critical as being a negative trait of Si as a function before, if anything it would be Te and Fe that do this, as I said before, by going off Jung's descriptions.

Si is just perception, how can it possibly make an evaluation? This is for the realm of judging functions. Of course you did save it a little by saying SJ, but then again that's a keirsey influence....

A lot of times the theories created tell you a lot more about the creator of the theory then about the subject they're expounding upon.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
then maybe you don't know your Jungian theory as well as you think you do. Jung says that Si makes the too high lower and the too low higher in accordance with their own internal perception. Coupled with Je, which all SJs have, this making things "just right" to their own mind can certainly come out as controlling about their own personal nit-pick.

No I did read that part and I knew someone would intepretate it as such, but actually he mentions that this makes them a menace to their environment, (if anything being rebellious), what he refers to is the too low or too high of the individuals personality, in that the person subordinates themselves to their own perceptions not others. It isnt anything to do with enforcing it on others as he states with Te where the user will subject all to the formula. At most the Si dom might enforce his own sanctions on the object so as to escape it's influence, but this is no different from what Jung writes of any introvert and is merely a way of keeping the person's individual nature, it has nothing to do with adhering to social or cultural systems of doing things.

Also dont forget this passage afterwards:
"In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others.
The nature of his own self inflicted subordination based around his highly personalised sense impressions means he is actually being subjected by others, there is nothing there about adopting others methods for the enforcing of tradition. Thus the type then lashes out at others:

Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubborness.

But this is still nothing to do with traditionalism. It takes a leap of logic somewhat removed from what Jung is actually saying to reach that conclusion.

Now you could make the case that using the MBTI system of Si coupled with an extroverted judging function results in something like the Keirsey SJ temperament, but that has not been what im arguing and such a concoction is the result of more than one function and therefore has nothing to do with Si as it stands alone, which is my point.

Yes Jung mentions the auxiliary, but he mentions that any other functions will always be subordinate to the dominant which contradicts the MBTI idea of Si being influenced by the judging function, it would actually be the other way around, Si would be the pro-active and Te or Fe would be re-active. So any formulaic tendencies of Fe or Te would be subject to personalised sense impressions of an almost delusional nature, how could that ever result in traditionalism?
 
G

garbage

Guest
A lot of times the theories created tell you a lot more about the creator of the theory then about the subject they're expounding upon.
Total agreement here. It's often said that Ausra, creator of Socionics, placed a shitton of emphasis on duality because of her own relationship issues.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION] I said nothing false. Keirsey Jr asserted that he does not believe nts to ever be religious. Therefore Keirsey was certainly not describing your type as god. Furthermore he'd say you weren't nt most likely. So drop the silliness. If you want to be a religious nt, better stick with Jung.

[MENTION=15392]AffirmitiveAnxiety[/MENTION] Si does not live in a vacuum. In SJs its in tandem with Je. Making what I said still accurate.

Unless you're a purist who believes Si is supported by undifferentiated Feeling or Thinking, in which case you need to stop using the term SJ entirely.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=15392]AffirmitiveAnxiety[/MENTION] also I said nothing about traditions so Im not sure what that part of your post was directed toward. Si is oriented toward the personal sensory past, though.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=6877]Marmie Dearest[/MENTION] Me masquerading as God has nothing to do with whether or not I actually believe in him. Again you are taking the typology too seriously. Albert Einstein for example was diagnosed by Keirsey as an NT, and Albert Einstein was quotes as saying, "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Einstein also said, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." He was not religious in the traditional sense but nonetheless he also had beliefs about God, for example when Einstein wrote the following essay (it is very long):

Religion and Science (1930)Originally written for the New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930). A version with altered wording appeared in Ideas and Opinions (1954)

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain.
it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints.Everything that men do or think concerns the satisfaction of the needs they feel or the escape from pain. This must be kept in mind when we seek to understand spiritual or intellectual movements and the way in which they develop. For feelings and longings are the motive forces of all human striving and productivity—however nobly these latter may display themselves to us.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us.
The longing for guidance, for love and succor, provides the stimulus for the growth of a social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, decides, rewards and punishes. This is the God who, according to man's widening horizon, loves and provides for the life of the race, or of mankind, or who even loves life itself. He is the comforter in unhappiness and in unsatisfied longing, the protector of the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral idea of God.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even of life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
It is easy to follow in the sacred writings of the Jewish people the development of the religion of fear into the moral religion, which is carried further in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially those of the Orient, are principally moral religions. An important advance in the life of a people is the transformation of the religion of fear into the moral religion. But one must avoid the prejudice that regards the religions of primitive peoples as pure fear religions and those of the civilized races as pure moral religions. All are mixed forms, though the moral element predominates in the higher levels of social life.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of the idea of God. Only exceptionally gifted individuals or especially noble communities rise essentially above this level; in these there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints. Viewed from this angle, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are near to one another.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

It is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.How can this cosmic religious experience be communicated from man to man, if it cannot lead to a definite conception of God or to a theology? It seems to me that the most important function of art and of science is to arouse and keep alive this feeling in those who are receptive.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
For any one who is pervaded with the sense of causal law in all that happens, who accepts in real earnest the assumption of causality, the idea of Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. Neither the religion of fear nor the social-moral religion can have any hold on him. A God who rewards and punishes is for him unthinkable, because man acts in accordance with an inner and outer necessity, and would, in the eyes of God, be as little responsible as an inanimate object is for the movements which it makes. Science, in consequence, has been accused of undermining morals—but wrongly. The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man's plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
Variant: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere" has been cited as a statement that precedes the last three sentences here, but in fact this is a separate quote from a 1947 letter Einstein wrote to Murray W. Gross, included in the Einstein and Religion (1999) section below (and in the letter the word used is "anthropomorphic," not "anthropological").
It is, therefore, quite natural that the churches have always fought against science and have persecuted its supporters. But, on the other hand, I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research. No one who does not appreciate the terrific exertions, and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer creations in scientific thought cannot come into being, can judge the strength of the feeling out of which alone such work, turned away as it is from immediate practical life, can grow. What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens in long years of lonely work! Any one who only knows scientific research in its practical applications may easily come to a wrong interpretation of the state of mind of the men who, surrounded by skeptical contemporaries, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered over all countries in all centuries. Only those who have dedicated their lives to similar ends can have a living conception of the inspiration which gave these men the power to remain loyal to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is the cosmic religious sense which grants this power. A contemporary has rightly said that the only deeply religious people of our largely materialistic age are the earnest men of research.
Wording in Ideas and Opinions: It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Crazy troll is crazy. Bro I never said I agreed with Keirsey. Im just trying to help you get your theories straight. There are different systems. Period.
 
Top