Thanks for the replies, all very interesting.
I agree that either type can do it. ANY type can do almost any job, of course. I'm talking about likelihood merely because it came up in the context of this person - who I still can't type worth a damn (leaning INFP though, so there are others in hard science out there... )
In my field (physics), the main type by far is ISTJ/ESTJ, followed by ISTP, INTJ, ENTJ, and INTP.
As a Ti-user, I find there is a huge place for it in my work, along with Ne... I use them together to build systems to explain data. The 'P' if it may be considered on it's own, is quite useful in letting me jump out of the box and make connections that others won't because they're tied down to the current paradigms too much. Of course it also makes it hard for me to draw lines in writing up a result.
I think it could depend on the person's personal development as well. For instance, male INFP (similarly situated in some ways as a female INTP) are going to be pushed early and often to develop other functions. Perhaps this gives them the kind of early balance which allows for them to use lesser-preferred functions ?
Scott N Denver - if you don't mind my asking, if you got out of science, what do you think you would do? Would it necessarily be more people-oriented?
My science education is in physics. For the record, 4 yr BS degree, MS, all required coursework for PhD, spent 5 years at grad school and 6.5 yrs in grad school. Primarily attended 2 grad schools [and quasi-attended a 3rd], worked in 2 govt research labs, have friends at and interviewed at 3rd govt lab.
My graduating class from college was 6 people in physics, 5 of us went on to grad school. 80% going to grad school is avg for that program at that school. All people I specifically recall form my year are: 1 INFP [me], 1 ?ESTP?, and the rest INTJ's [at least 3]. It is my assessment that most of my classmates, who may have been 1 yr ahead or 1 yr behind me, were INTJ. The exceedingly vast majority of my peers at both grad schools were, in my assessment, INTJ's. When I looked at the undergrads, most in my assessment, were also INTJ. Second most common: INTP. Excluding technicians, I have only had 2 S coworkers that I know, both ISTP. I've seen a small smattering of ENT's in physics as well. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'd peg the number of "physics peers" I've had that were INTJ's as 75%. I know of only 3 NF's in all this time: INFP, ENFP, and INFJ. Only the INFJ actually went all the way to PhD.
I've read MBTI about science and engineering students. Engineers actually have a much better balance between N's and S's. Civil is much more full of S's, I think ChemE is more evenly split, and EE and the more theoretical disciplines being more N-dominated. If you only accept people who had physics degrees, I know of only 2 S individuals ever that I've dealt with, ever.
At one of my places we took a MBTI test, and got 2 S's [one without a physics degree], 1 INFP, INTP, several INTJ's, and two people who were IJ but unable to distinguish between F and T. Talking to my old advisor, most of the students at that tech school who took the MBTI came back INT
This piqued my interest. I agree with your post in large part about INTJ's dominating the science fields and being the most cut out for it, but I'd also like to understand why you think Ti has no place in science. What about Ti makes it not suitable to science? And also, if it's not suitable to science, what fields do you think it is more suitable for?
I have my own personal answer for these questions already, but I'm interested to hear your opinion, since you have experience in the field.
I think Ti *should* have a place in science. And if you get a INTP prof with a PhD you'll definitely see the Ti. I think of math as the prototypical example of Ti, and yes there is a lot of math in physics. However, IME, most physics peeps are NTJ's, and hence Te users. For almost all physics people I've met, math is nothing more than a crank one turns to calculate something. It seems to me like people have an idea, assert it, and then test something involving it. There idea and its assertion don't follow Ti. The best I've come up with is Ni and then Te execution, or just Te. Te excels at organizing. "what is efficient?" "how can we organize this system?" seem like prototypical examples of applying Te. Theoretical completeness is NOT a common concern of Te.
Again, I think Ti ha s aplace in science, it definitely should ahve a place in science, but most physics peep are Te users, with Ni, and they teach and explain that way. If you try and go Ti on them, IME they get all pissy and annoyed like you are belaboring unimportant points, or wasting their types, or getting stuck in unimportant trivialities. This attitude is particularly expressed when it comes to attitudes towards math and teaching math. Quick and dirty [and poorly-defiined I would add seems to be the SOP of how physics teaches math, if you ask me. I wish it wasn't this way. It really sucks. I remember rereading textbooks 7-8 time or more, and never having it click, and then picking up a math text on the same subject, reading it once, and then understanding all of it almost effortlessly.
I don't agree with the idea of intjs' "dominating" the science fields. As in, found more in science than any other type. But I can see a very strong lean towards the intj mindset characterising modern science.
I am doing an advance science degree, and in one of my subjects (basically a learning to be a scientist class) we had to take a keirsey test.
And i'll quote myself here
I think you might find certain types in certain sciences though. You might find more xnxx in applied science, and more xsxx in base research. You might find more xnfx in psychology, cosmology, environmental science etc. But 'more' in terms of located in a particular science field as opposed to others. Not 'more' as in, more of that type than any other, are found in that field.
I've stated my experience with #'s/% of INTJ's above. Also, you should flip what was said, would be for basic research, and S for applied research.
Other fields may be different. I've seen more ENTJ women in chemistry for example. I';d expecta much better TF balance in biology. But physics, IME, is INT as snot. Especially once you hit grad school, then its INTJ as snot. Throw in an obligatory ENTJ or INTP or two for good measure.