As Foxy Sarah once pointed out before her departure, many people on this board make illogical inferences as to the abilities of senors: being a sensor does not mean one is incapable of intuition. Preference does not necessarily predict prevalence.This thread is a prime example of the inherent bias on this message board population and their biased perceptions toward the past and consequently themselves. An education-rich childhood can easily bring the intuitive world (as well as develop "thinking" processes) that would otherwise go unfostered in many young. As such, I think there is a SEVERE bias in the assesments of types in the philosophy and scientific realms. Normally this would be ok, but I argue that an improper consideration of typology could lead students of philosophers towards illogical inferences about their works.
As such, I wish to present two key philosophers, their type, and I will focus on how their works and life reflect their overall type (and not some bias towards sensors in general)
John Locke - (ISTP) - Actually, I'm gonna fill this one out later, because I forgot all the points I wanted to bring to the table about his ISTP nature.... but anyone familiar with his works should be able to argue in defense or criticism of his S status.
Karl Marx - (ESTP) - If you look at Synarch's thread (here, you can easily see a bias towards ESTPs, how they operate and what are capable of..... These biases must be cleared from the reader's mind as best as possible before this consideration to be fairly weighed...
Like most ESTPs, Marx was a piss-poor student. He didn't hit the books that much and would oftentimes have no motivation or reasoning to study. He started off as a law student, by the way, the nature of which involves a LOT of book study, not something an ESTP could put up with for very long. However, he was not devoid of abstract thinking. ESTPs are very much capable of discussing any concept they have studied. When he found Kant, he almost shit his pants, because he was fascinated by Kant's system of law and thought it was a crucial part of THE solution.
Marx's intellect (or Te as you like to think it) was focused externally - Why the fuck are all these people without food? why are there fat cats down the street not DOING anything about it? When he brooded over this long enough, and had produced several volumes explaining this (which do not read very well, in English anyway) - he set out to do what the "armchair" thinkers, that he heavily criticized, never do: Trying to FIX the world through action rather than passive theorizing.
Once Marx saw the solution, he didn't stop and never backed down for the rest of his life. If any of you know ESTPs, this should ring home about their stubborness. Marx was convinced of what the problems were and no one could tell him otherwise. He lived out the rest of his life as a journalist/promoter for his idealism that he forged with Engels: Communism.
Primary argument: Marx was "Thinker" enough to be INTP as he is typically assumed, but an INTP would never bother with "doing" as zealously as Marx did: an ESTP could likely muster and put up with that many people for his cause.