Science: Better for Ne/Ti or Ni/Te??

[teslashock]

It seems like a lot of ground-breaking scientists are/were NTPs (Einstein, Feynman, Tesla, Da Vinci, maybe Newton??), but as a prospective scientist, it also seems to me like many of the people by whom I'm surrounded are IxTJs. I've lately been thinking that my abilities in science are incomparable to Ni/Te-based skills, but then again, I also feel like I'm the one who could actually come up with something interesting to do in my field if I would just focus more on the fine details that are necessary for understanding what has already been done.

I'm interested in hearing about how you guys think the functions correlate to particular subsets of skills that are preferrable to making somebody a good scientist (I'll try and define what I mean by good scientist if it turns out that term is too vague, but hopefully people can infer). Is research an ideal field for NTPs, or do we need something that allows for more creativity? Can research allow for the creativite outlet that NTPs so desire? Thoughts? Remarks?

 

[Totenkindly]

In the most basic sense, I think:

Ne+Ti is best for scientific exploration per se, it tends to springboard off everything and see new opportunities for where data is leading. Science is like a large unexplored island and the Ne/Ti person is searching everything and pushing on everything to the max in order to understand it.

Ni+ Te is best for having one's internal personal vision and then pushing forward on it to the bitter end to reach a predetermined goal. Science is more of a tool to accomplish a goal.

NiTe will probably be more methodical in pursuit of developing the insight.
NeTi is exploring in order to DISCOVER the insights and sort of leaps all over at once.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Lots of IxTJs in the lab where I work...

I wouldn't say either Ne or Ni has the advantage in research, but being N dominant sure helps (I know Ne gets stereotyped as beng the innovator, but I wouldn't say the ENTPs have an easier time with thinking up ideas than the INTJs do, and N dominants I know are proficient with both Ni and Ne). Typical research seems to work well for introverts and judgers. It isn't actually very exciting, depending on the kind of research and the resources available. And it can get to be extremely monotonous. I work in biotech research and the majority of the time I'm setting up experiments that go wrong for one reason or another, reading grant proposals, or collecting data. It's fun when trying to think of new ways to go about projects or having the occasional eureka moment though.

 

[Moiety]

It depends on what kind of science. What kind of project. What kind of function within said project.

Exploring breakthrough theories seems more NeTi.

Observations, measurements, research and calculated progress seems more NiTe.

 

[rhinosaur]

There is a lot of room within science for any of the types. I am a graduate student in chemistry. I wouldn't say any one type does better than another, because no matter what your type, you are going to use some skills that come naturally and some skills that don't come naturally.

For example, as an IxTP I enjoy reading the literature and coming up with ideas that I can test down the road. I also enjoy teaching, and actual lab work. However I am not so good at planning -- experiment design is difficult for me, as is predicting where my career is headed. You also have to network a lot, and sell your work, both f2f (the dreaded "elevator sell"), in the form of posters and presentations, and on paper in the form of publications, theses, grant proposals, etc.

Of course it also depends on what level you're talking about. If you're looking to just become a lab tech or lower-level scientist, that's a totally different story.

Intelligence is also a major factor.

 

[entropie]

Ne+Ti is best for pearl diving

 

[Quinlan]

N is poison for science, S all the way.

 

[teslashock]

N is poison for science, S all the way.

Well, without N we'd just have sciece and without S we'd just have cience. It seems to function better in the latter scenario, but I believe it'd be best if we did a few experiments to unearth some more persuading evidence...

Anywho, I love how the one declared S that responded to this thread is the only one of the posters that didn't provide any substantial justification for his/er position. That doesn't really do much for your case there buddy. Where is your analysis/evidence?

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?

 

[Quinlan]

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?

To be serious I think both S and N have something to offer science. I think that Sensors are less inclined to idealogy and are not as holdfast to assumptions and beliefs (in the face of evidence) though.

 

[JustHer]

It really doesn't make a difference.

With research you need both Ne/Ti as well as Ni/Te, and in industry you also need both sets for various parts of a project.

 

[rhinosaur]

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.

 

[teslashock]

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...

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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

 

[teslashock]

^^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...

 

[Matthew_Z]

^^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.

 

[teslashock]

^^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.

 

[ygolo]

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.

 

[teslashock]

^^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.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

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.

 

[ajblaise]

Theoretical science = INTP

Applied science = INTJ

The bitch work = ISTJ