User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 131

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Jesus Christ.
    He was an INFJ.

    God is an INTJ.

    So, SW whatya sayin about INTPs?

  2. #42
    Senior Member darlets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    Basically I think you fail to realize that you don’t have to be a certain type to figure out certain things. INTPs are not the only type capable of being logical. Newton was an extraordinary genius, with an IQ in the area of 190. Even if he was an INTJ, he would still kick your ass in using Ti.
    I was reading about Newton the other day and was curious are their people alive today that are a smart as he is and they just have to tackle harder problems, or was he just that much smarter than everyone else. How did you come to the figure of 190? That's ummmm, rather high to say the least.

    I'd go with Einstein, purely because alot of what others thought up would have been discovered anyway (Though I'm getting away from the actually question). Two people independantly discovered natural selection Darwin and Wallace, two people discovered a branch of calculas at the same time Newton and someone else (name escapes me).

    I was reading about Einstein the other day and the author made the point 2 of his 3 theories would probably have been discovered anyway in the following 50 years, he didn't feel so confident about the third. It was a massive intuitive leap. Of course this is conjecture.

    Also I think guys like Einstein and Watson/Crick(Human Genome) get slightly ripped off in this question because we are still exploring their discoveries.
    Last edited by darlets; 07-13-2007 at 12:25 AM. Reason: cause I'm a geek
    "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
    Bertrand Russell

    http://rayofsolar.blogspot.com/
    http://zeropointseven.blogspot.com/

  3. #43
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    What I know of Newton makes him more of an INTJ. First of all he died a virgin. Need I say more?

    But if you look at how he reasoned it's more of how an INTJ would do it. When he developed Calculus he tried to keep it secret. He really did it for his own understanding. An INTP would want to go tell everyone about their great idea.

    Also he didn't develop Calculus for it's own sake. From the beginning he was developing a system to expain what he saw in the natural world. Pure mathematics is Ti, but natural science relies more on Te. I know several INTJ's which are excellent at mathematics, but they always seem to have difficulty if they can't understand how the math applies to the real world. Newton's views on math where geared toward his understanding of the natural world. He developed Calculus quickly, but he didn't tell anyone and his notation is bad compared to Leibniz. This suggests his N was dominant over his T. His understanding was amazing, but he couldn't express his ideas as nicely as Leibniz (the INTP).

    Leibniz by contrast was more of a philosopher and was looking for math that would explain his philosophy. This is what you would expect from an INTP. The math is driven by his personal philosophy (Ti). Newton's math was inspired by the natural world (Te). They ended up discovering the same thing, but Leibniz expressed his ideas more clearly (his notation is still used today and Newton's is not), and he was more eager to tell people about what he'd developed. These things are what you would expect with an INTP. The things that survive today from Newton are his understanding of the natural world, but not necessarily the way he expressed his ideas. He's INTJ.

    It is not clear how his understanding was driven by natural sciences. (Empirical logic rather than pure reason).

    Moreover, if we grant that Leibniz had better presentation skills, it doesnt follow that Newton was an INTJ. An alternative explanation could be that Leibniz had a better developed Ne.

    Moreover, if Newton really was an INTJ, it is somewhat puzzling how he had that absent-minded streak/ability to focus like a machine just as Leibniz, Smith and Einstein did.

    I'd like to hear more on how Newton was more fond of natural sciences than raw logic(more of an empiricist than a rationalist) because he seemed like a believer in mathematics more than anything else and that was what many believed he did best...and more arguments for why his Intuition was dominant over his Thinking...seems to me, if that was the case he likely would try to just play with his ideas even if they didnt shed light on the truth..just for the sake of imagination...Newton didnt seem to be into that much..

    When he was younger, he'd study esoteric ideas and conduct experiments for fun and did not pressure himself much to be a good student..

    Unlike Sartre, for instance--an INTJ, he wasnt concerned with practical ideas that could change the world and didnt have much of an affinity for fiction/literature..at least not to the extent that the younger INTJs like Sartre and Nietzsche did..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #44
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darlets View Post
    I was reading about Newton the other day and was curious are their people alive today that are a smart as he is and they just have to tackle harder problems, or was he just that much smarter than everyone else. How did you come to the figure of 190? That's ummmm, rather high to say the least.
    It is just the most common estimate. Only means it was in that area anyhow, probably. Personally I would say there are people alive today that are even smarter than these guys like Newton, Nietzsche, Goethe, Einstein... I think the main thing is that problems are of a less fundamental nature. Newton and Einstein offered radically new ways of thinking, today that is much harder, and thus scientists equally brilliant, will not become equally famous. Their discoveries might be just as brilliant, but they might be too difficult and abstract for the public to simply grasp in any way or of less importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Moreover, if Newton really was an INTJ, it is somewhat puzzling how he had that absent-minded streak/ability to focus like a machine just as Leibniz, Smith and Einstein did.
    The guy had an IQ of something like 190. Somehow I doubt only INTPs can do what you are describing, especially when it comes to extraordinary individuals like Newton. People with an IQ of 190 simply tend to get caught up in their minds. They also tend to become crazy. :P My personal theory is that it is because they simply cannot make their minds relax. They see too many connections to be able to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Unlike Sartre, for instance--an INTJ, he wasnt concerned with practical ideas that could change the world and didnt have much of an affinity for fiction/literature..at least not to the extent that the younger INTJs like Sartre and Nietzsche did..
    I don't really see Sartre as INTJ. The way he lived his life seems very perceiving to me. He seemed to hate schedules. My impressions are just based on a BBC documentary I saw though. I can definetly see how one might find his thoughts more INTJ than INTP.

  5. #45
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It is not clear how his understanding was driven by natural sciences. (Empirical logic rather than pure reason).
    It is if you read his writings on calculus it is. He thought of dy and dx and fluons and fluxions (although dy/dx actually comes from Leibniz). He was imagining changes in the physical environment.

    Moreover, if we grant that Leibniz had better presentation skills, it doesnt follow that Newton was an INTJ. An alternative explanation could be that Leibniz had a better developed Ne.
    Of course Leibniz had a better developed Ne than Newton. Newton is an INTJ (Ni, Te). There is no Ne in that. Leibniz is an INTP (Ti, Ne). There is your Ne.

    Moreover, if Newton really was an INTJ, it is somewhat puzzling how he had that absent-minded streak/ability to focus like a machine just as Leibniz, Smith and Einstein did.
    I think all N's have a tendency for absent-mindedness. My dad (an INTP) used to make fun of my absent-mind (an ENTP), but I'm not as bad as my wife (an INFJ, there is that Ni again by the way). Likewise though I can have incredible focus, but my wife even more so.

    I'd like to hear more on how Newton was more fond of natural sciences than raw logic(more of an empiricist than a rationalist) because he seemed like a believer in mathematics more than anything else and that was what many believed he did best...and more arguments for why his Intuition was dominant over his Thinking...seems to me, if that was the case he likely would try to just play with his ideas even if they didnt shed light on the truth..just for the sake of imagination...Newton didnt seem to be into that much..
    Playing with ideas for the sake of imagination is a P thing. If he didn't do it that is just another reason why he is a J. J's are more goal oriented in their thinking. An INTP or ENTP is more likely to just play around with their ideas for no reason.

    I have a good friend that is an INTJ, and even when he goes off on a tangent, he has a good reason for it (at least in his own head).

    Also mathematics is not necessarily Ti. The type of mathematics that engineers and physicists use is more Te. It's using mathematics in terms of the physical world. Pure mathematics, which is more abstract and might not directly relate to the physical world, is Ti though.

    When he was younger, he'd study esoteric ideas and conduct experiments for fun and did not pressure himself much to be a good student..
    Conducting experiments IS what INTJ's do for fun. My INTJ friend likes to conduct experiements on himself.

    Unlike Sartre, for instance--an INTJ, he wasnt concerned with practical ideas that could change the world and didnt have much of an affinity for fiction/literature..at least not to the extent that the younger INTJs like Sartre and Nietzsche did..
    Well you're kind of comparing apples and oranges, because a philosopher and a physicist might not want to read the same things even if they have the same type. Are you suggesting that INTP philosophers are not interested in fiction/literature? I don't think you can show that to be true. Two philosophers of different type are more likely to have similar interests than two people with the same type and very different careers.

    However Newton was very interested in Descartes' scientific method which is by design an Ni, Te process. (Not to mention a practical idea that did change the world.)

    By the way, did I mention that Newton is an INTJ?
    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

  6. #46
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    -Absent-Mindedness comes not from N but from an intense internal focus. More of a Ti property rather than Intuition.

    -Regardless of that Newton was a physicist and not a philosopher he'd still be interested in the alogical as much as Sartre would be. The alogical ideas that he'd be interested in would be different from Sartre's because of their different interests, but nonetheless Newton's appreciation for alogical over the logical would manifest still.

    -Playing with ideas for the sake of imagination is not a strictly P thing, it is a strictly N thing. It appears to be a P thing only because NPs have their Intuition on the outside, NJs do the same thing internally.

    So far your arguments are anecdotal, very common of a dominant Intuitor. I want to see hard logic, not just connections between ideas.

    P.S

    What is so Ni-Teish about Descartes method?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #47
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    It is just the most common estimate. Only means it was in that area anyhow, probably. Personally I would say there are people alive today that are even smarter than these guys like Newton, Nietzsche, Goethe, Einstein... I think the main thing is that problems are of a less fundamental nature. Newton and Einstein offered radically new ways of thinking, today that is much harder, and thus scientists equally brilliant, will not become equally famous. Their discoveries might be just as brilliant, but they might be too difficult and abstract for the public to simply grasp in any way or of less importance.



    The guy had an IQ of something like 190. Somehow I doubt only INTPs can do what you are describing, especially when it comes to extraordinary individuals like Newton. People with an IQ of 190 simply tend to get caught up in their minds. They also tend to become crazy. :P My personal theory is that it is because they simply cannot make their minds relax. They see too many connections to be able to do so.



    I don't really see Sartre as INTJ. The way he lived his life seems very perceiving to me. He seemed to hate schedules. My impressions are just based on a BBC documentary I saw though. I can definetly see how one might find his thoughts more INTJ than INTP.

    Sartre's hedonism seems Pish to me, but again we could also attribute this to his NTish Utilitarian way of thinking.

    On most pictures I've seen him, he wore a white T-shirt and a black tie and sat up straight.

    More-over he liked to do his writings in Cafes, very INTJish (inferior Se) gravitate towards chaotic environments. INTPs prefer to work in complete quiet and gravitate towards peaceful environments with smiley faces (inferior Fe). I am taking note of the inferior functions because they..more than other functions...influence us from the unconscious..


    An INTJ of genius wouldnt beat me at using Ti but would beat me at activities that I do well with my Ti using Intuition...Newton didnt have to master Ti in order to be that good at math..he could have easily found another way to be this accomplished..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #48
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    So far your arguments are anecdotal, very common of a dominant Intuitor. I want to see hard logic, not just connections between ideas.
    The whole art of typing people who lived long ago is really quite intuitive, and is quite hard to base on hard evidence and logic. You have to follow your gut and take a few leaps of faith. Also, you cannot expect everyone to think in the same fashion as you. And really, isn't the variety in thought it leads to a good thing?

  9. #49
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    The whole art of typing people who lived long ago is really quite intuitive, and is quite hard to base on hard evidence and logic. You have to follow your gut and take a few leaps of faith. Also, you cannot expect everyone to think in the same fashion as you. And really, isn't the variety in thought it leads to a good thing?

    Nothing wrong with Intuition in itself--you just have to apply logic to it. I dont think you have to follow your gut more than you have to rationalize because we have biographical facts about them. If we find the right axioms to start with based on what we know about their lives, we could deduce everything else from hard logic. I guess Intuition would be helpful to make sure that we really do start with the best axioms possible but ..but after that its all logic...

    Though..even when selecting axioms..logic still should be the judge of all our Intuitions..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #50
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Nothing wrong with Intuition in itself--you just have to apply logic to it. I dont think you have to follow your gut more than you have to rationalize because we have biographical facts about them. If we find the right axioms to start with based on what we know about their lives, we could deduce everything else from hard logic. I guess Intuition would be helpful to make sure that we really do start with the best axioms possible but ..but after that its all logic...

    Though..even when selecting axioms..logic still should be the judge of all our Intuitions..
    I disagree, but I suspect it is just based on our thinking patterns being different. What you are saying is probably correct about the way you are thinking, but not mine.

    The second paragraph is interesting. I disagree. One simply cannot use logic to determine the value of axioms. You have to use your gut. The leaps of faith are always about the axioms, never about the logic. Logic may be used to deduce consequences of your axioms though, but then logic is a tool and not a judge.

Similar Threads

  1. Most overused phrases of the last 5 years
    By Elfboy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 261
    Last Post: 09-20-2015, 10:59 PM
  2. Wth? How come I'm not the Advocate's person of the year? srsly
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2013, 07:18 PM
  3. The Guts of the Last Priest
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-22-2011, 08:07 AM
  4. What you've learned about the theory of personalities in the last 6 months?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 01:26 AM
  5. December 31st, 2008 Conjunctions - Last chance of the year...
    By runvardh in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 11:59 AM

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