• 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.

Possible Sensor philosophers

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
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.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
By the way, I want to formally state that this thread is in support of demonstrating and sustaining "Sensor" over N hypotheses rather than F/T or P/J distinctions --- I just want to show it's very possible many philosophical minds were senors, since Fs and J/Ps don't have that bias against them (as much)

Also, I thought Berkeley might be ISTJ, but I couldnt' think of enough arguments in support of this. Anyone is welcome to suggest other S-dom philosophers.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Do you think there is a positive correlation between empiricist epistemology and S preference?
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
see, this is the question i would've prefered not to see first...

Yes, there might be a correlation, but if there is it could very well be incidental (or not depending on how you infer ability to rebel from N/S). I think Hume was INTP.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
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, 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.
Marx is not a philosopher.
A philosopher is not an utilitarian.

Marx is a pamphletist.
So is Lenin.

The road to hell is paved with good intention.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
see, this is the question i would've prefered not to see first...

I can delete it.

What question would you prefer to see first?

Yes, there might be a correlation, but if there is it could very well be incidental (or not depending on how you infer ability to rebel from N/S). I think Hume was INTP.

Agreed. Although I find it easy to assume that S's preference for working with empirical data would make empiricism more attractive to them for any number of reasons.

I 'spose Hume could be INTP. From what I know of him, he was very thorough and very consistent.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
Marx is not a philosopher.
A philosopher is not an utilitarian.

Marx is a pamphletist.
So is Lenin.

The road to hell is paved with good intention.

Perhaps, but marx is only taught by philosophy professors these days! Not even economists like talking about him and they HAVE TO just for historical reasons....

however, none of this refutes his S nature. But we always love you stopping by!

I can delete it.

What question would you prefer to see first?


no no... I just wanted to get the ball rolling on considering or even re-considering some philosophers as Sensor. Asking broad-based questions on whether a sensor would more likely accept empericism is about a general audience and their preference (so yes, this by definition of "Sensor" would be likely to happen)... but again, this is about particular philosophers, and not groups or "camps" of philosophy.

If you meant just the big 3 empiricsts (locke/berkeley/hume) by your question then nm, cuz that can easily be covered in 1 thread. Populations are for statisticians.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Oh, OK.

I'm actually quite interested in why you think Berkeley and Locke were S's, but not Hume.

You wouldn't happen to know what the consensus is on Aristotle's type? I might argue that he's an S, but if that's already widely thought then there wouldn't be much point.

(I'm hung up on the possible S --> empiricist link)
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Marx is not a philosopher.
A philosopher is not an utilitarian.

Marx is a pamphletist.
So is Lenin.

The road to hell is paved with good intention.
Ha, yes.
I 'spose Hume could be INTP. From what I know of him, he was very thorough and very consistent.
Almost certainly.
By the way, I want to formally state that this thread is in support of demonstrating and sustaining "Sensor" over N hypotheses rather than F/T or P/J distinctions --- I just want to show it's very possible many philosophical minds were senors, since Fs and J/Ps don't have that bias against them (as much)
This is a weird thread. What is your point exactly? That Ss can think abstractly? That some philosophers are mistyped because of iNtuitive bias?

MBTI tests for preferences. And pursuing a career in philosophy indicates a marked preference for abstract thought. Are you disputing that? Why does it even matter?
And how do you substantiate this claim?
I argue that an improper consideration of typology could lead students of philosophers towards illogical inferences about their works.
 

ragashree

Reason vs Being
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,770
MBTI Type
Mine
Enneagram
1w9
I'll just quote my posts from the thread you mentioned in your OP as they seem relevant to this discussion. They are also the only posts in that thread to date to make something amounting to a detailed argument in favour of specific philosophers having a preference for sensing over intution. I may develop this further when I'm properly awake if anyone's interested, but I'll just say for now that we should probably not underestimate the influence of Epicurus despite the paucity of surviving work. He has for a start been credited as a primary influence on Locke via his rediscovery by Pierre Gassendi.

Epicurus:

Reserved in personality, and secluded in lifestyle, advocated this above intervention in world affairs (I, also suggests P over J)

Strongly empirical and believed nothing that was not based on direct observation of phenomena and logical inferences drawn from them, eschewing abstract speculation (thus the father of the modern scientific method); focused moral philosohpy on avoidance and maximisation of sensations of pain and pleasure respectively; "rational" seeker of pleasure based on these premises (S)

Highly logical in his inferences, sought to develop unifed and consistent theoretical systems for all his ideas and relate them back to his core sensation-based principles (Ti)

Relatively "passive", self-based moral philosophy for which he recieved criticism at various times, based on avoidance of harm and maximisation of pleasure to oneself and others; essentially "live and let live", "avoid drawing attention to oneself", "enjoy what is to be enjoyed" (P)

ISTP



Hobbes:

Definitely TJ, probably I from what we know of his personality, however an Ni primary seems a little unlikely given his strongly mechanistic philosophy, marked disdain for abstract reasoning, and apologism for authoritarian government and maintenance of what equated to the political status quo.

ISTJ fits very well for me.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
I think Hume was INTP.

I do not know which type was Hume, but according to his contemporaries, he certainly wasn't an introverted person!
He is rather remembered as a buoyant fellow, extremely talkative, passionate about life, and that tremendously enjoyed good food, good jokes and good company: the more festive, the better! :cheers:

That's not how most of the INTPs I know look like, especially here...
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
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)

This thread brings up an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it has merit or not. Turning the argument around: if an INTP had the athletic talents of Micheal Jordan, would he become a basketball player, or would he choose a career more academic in nature simply because he's INTP?
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Nobody does or thinks anything because they are INTP. They are called INTP because they do or think certain things.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Your argument is as follows.

One who engages in the study of economics or social conventions (e.g, how people should live or how they'd find their ends meet) is an S.

Marx was concerned with such matters therefore he is an S.

Here is another rendition of your argument.

Anyone who is concerned with the study of the empirical world is an S.

Locke was an empiricist, therefore he was an S.

Why would somebody make such an argument? On a superficial level it seems to be the case that social conventions and economics are practical in their nature, more so than theoretical. Hence, they would appeal to an S mindset. It also seems to be the case that empiricism as an epistemology is more concerned with what could be observed around us, more so than with what can be theorized about. Therefore it also appeals to an S mindset more than the Intuitive.

The problem with such an argument is that Marx was not concerned with merely the practical aspects of economics and social affairs, he was concerned in theorizing about them. Locke was not merely concerned with observing the world with his five senses, he was more interested in ideas that surround the observable world. None of the above mindsets are indicative of a Sensing preferrence.

Suppose, there was a philosopher who was chiefly concerned with the social or economical affairs who was not much interested in theorizing about them. Would this prove that he was an S? Certainly not, but this would indeed suggest that he may have a Sensing preferrence.

Why does this not prove that such a person is in fact a sensor? Because sensing is an unconscious disposition towards engaging one of our five senses or more as opposed to engaging our imagination. What we will have observed in the case cited in the paragraph above is merely an instance of somebody engaging the faculty of Sensation. This does not show that such a person has a solidified unconscious disposition to use Sensation more than Intuition.

To find out if such a person has a solidified unconscious disposition to use Sensation more than Intuition it is necessary to conduct a thorough inquiry into his or her habits of mind. Studying their works alone does not enable us to accomplish this. That is the case because when an individual publishes his ideas, he is not in the position to behave in a way that he is prompted to by his natural dispositions. For example, a philosopher who is a Sensor would have a natural disposition to merely observe his environment without applying his imagination to his observations. Obviously, this habit of mind is undesirable in scholarly works and he would be forced to supress it. He would be unlikely to supress it entirely, hence his temperament would manifest in subtle, unclear ways.

Hence, to get confirmation that he is a sensor we would need to examine other instances of his life which allow for us to observe him when he is allowed to behave freely in accordance to his natural dispositions. Thus, if we wish to find Sensing philosophers, studying their writings is not enough, we must study their biography in order to find instances of their lives where their tendency to engage the Sensing faculty is less supressed.

Karl Marx's type was an INTP.

Reasons: At a point when he had the liberty to live in a way that he could choose to, he operated in a manner akin to that of a Bohemian intellectual, similar to the kind of a lifestyle an INTP would choose if he had an opportunity to. He slept at random times, was unaware of the spies in his house. (So Paul Strathern reports). (This is indicative of a lack of Extroverted Judgment of the INTP, most particularly Extroverted Thinking. This is the well known element of aloofness of this type which tends to be much less distinctly expressed in other types.) He maintained almost no contact with others, excluding Engels and those who have lived in his house. Clearly had a low social need. (This is indicative of the INTP's neglect of the Feeling faculties and the Extroverted faculties. No other type tends to neglect them more than the INTP.)

His ideas, although ostensibly relevant to the practical concerns of the people, as he wrote about poverty and political dilemmas that underpin social problems, were highly theoretical. Unlike an intellectual with practical concerns, he was not interested in directly influencing the environment of his time. He was merely interested in theorizing about it. He has not even dreamed of his works having a direct and immediate impact on his current society, as they were obviously much too complex to be easily understood and implemented. In fact, his works had not influenced society at all until 70 years after his death. This is indicative of the INTP's tendency to theorize without a clear cut goal to implement ideas.

Karl Marx's works were also systematic in nature. He argued that what he has accomplished is similar to what Charles Darwin has accomplished in biology, in fact he even wished to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin for this reason. What Marx thought he has accomplished is a systematic overview of economical and political issues. Or simply has discovered the laws of economical and political occurences. This echoes the work of George Boole, a manifest INTP, who has published the Laws of Thought less than 20 years before the publication of Das Kapital.

The dominant faculty of the INTP is Introverted Thinking. This inclines them to gravitate towards highly systematic or logical thought. Other INTPs such as Descartes, Darwin (controversially, he may have been an INTJ), Boole, and Spinoza were most famous for their method.

Thus, here we have observed instances of Karl Marx having opportunities to live the way he wanted to, or to be true to his natural dispositions, and he has revealed a mindset most akin to that of an INTP. If he was an ESTP, there would have been no reason at all for him to live the life of a Bohemian intellectual, or to make no effort to acquire acquaintances. Moreover, if as an ESTP he wished to write about economics or political affairs, he would have no reason at all to engage in highly systematic and theoretical thought that INTPs tend to favor. Unlike Marx, he would not have engaged in seemingly endless chains of reasoning to prove his point in an attempt to discover some 'abstract laws of economics and politics'. Instead, he would be writing to the common people in a simple and a down to earth manner, as the intellectual disposition of the ESTP is such. Certainly the ESTP can behave in a manner akin to that of an INTP, or he could rely on Introverted Thinking and Intuition first and foremost, yet he simply would have no reason to do so unless he was forced. Marx was not forced. He wrote in such a manner on his own volition.



-------------------------------------------------------------------

John Locke was an INTJ. He also had an opportunity to write and behave in a way that was most natural to him. He was a systematic thinker, yet not nearly to the extent that the aforementioned INTPs were. He seemed to be more concerned with insight or acquisition of new ideas than with structuring his thought in a consistent and a rigorous manner.

Locke also lacked the element of general aloofness and lack of structure in his affairs with the external world. He did not live a life of a Bohemian intellectual. He was very impatient with those who seemed to be wasting time, even if it was their own. For example, at one point he has observed a group of men sitting next to him playing cards and engaging in non-sensical chatter. He sat down next to them and began writing down everything he could hear. Later it became evidence that his behavior was purposefully caustic.

In the introduction to his most famous work, you will find many essays that he regarded as the 'Epistles to the reader'. Which shows that unlike the aforementioned INTPs he was not merely concerned with working out his ideas with clarity and rigor, but he also made it a point to communicate with the reader in a way the reader could appreciate. This is evidence of externally focused judgment which appears to be missing in the natural dispositions of the INTPs.

His work on Political Philosophy, the the two Treatises of the Government were written in a much more accessible manner than Marx's Das Kapital. Primarily because they were relevant to the practical concerns of his time. Unlike Marx, Locke did not merely theorize about Politics, he made it a point to ensure that his ideas are relevant to the current state of affairs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

David Hume was an ENTP. He wilfully maintained many acquaintances throughout his life. Unlike an INTP, he was very image conscious and his approach to his work evinced this. Hume was an exquisite stylist and aspired to make his writing as appealing to the reader as possible.


“It is well known that in his later life Hume time after time suppressed his most radical ideas in order to be better appreciated by the public, and it is characteristic that in his autobiography he describes the “ruling passion” of his life not as Spinoza would have done, as the urge of philosophical cognition, but love of literary fame. And this literary ambition was not of the nature which was content with immortality usually accorded to great thinkers by late posterity; but, practical and concrete as he was, he craved first and foremost the admiration of his contemporaries…And therefore he was consistently led to regard the judgment of the public as his supreme court, his only guide in his literary work.”

I am not prepared to assert that the quotation above is true, though it suggests what is true, or that he was naturally image conscious and this has reflected in his prose. Intellectual history has not documented a single history of an individual whose biography clearly evinces that such an individual was an INTP, yet is also naturally image conscious as Hume was.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an eminent thinker with a dominant prevalent Sensing faculty. This manifests in his introspective thought, most notable in his autobiography the Reveries of a Solitary Walker. It is clearly noted that when he describes his inner world, his first thoughts are aimed not at abstractions but at his immediate physical environment and the particular sensations he experiences as a result. One may argue that Roussaue was a sensor because he believed that a savage life is noble and we must become more attuned with our instincts, however this view is illegitimate. It is illegitimate because a philosopher who is intuitive may have arrived at such a view for extra-typological reasons. Or simply because he thought that such a view is true. In that case the expression of his views would not be indicative of his natural dispositions or his temperament, as in that case he did not have the liberty to behave in a manner that was most natural to him. If he had such a liberty he would have followed his hunches which led him to believe that imagination is superior to sensation. However, if such a philosopher is intellectual honest, he would not espouse such views simply because his hunches lead him to believe that they are true. This leads me to reiterate my aforementioned criticism of how you have typed Marx and Locke. It is a mistake to believe that one's philosophical views are indicative of their temperament. Locke may have well been an empiricist because he thought that this position was true, and not because it is an expression of his typological mindset.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"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."

What could be said about this? It is true that students of typology tend to think that most, if not all philosophers are Intuitors. Such thinking, almost indubitably, is a result of their conviction that philosophical work requires for us to exercise our Intuitive faculties more than our Sensing faculties. Whilst this is true, it does not follow that all philosophers are Intuitors. Some Intuitors are capable of excelling at Sensing oriented activities such as sports, as today we can document many instances of athletes who are Intuitive by temperament. Similarly, philosophers of a Sensing temperament likely exist and have existed in the past. Being a certain type merely means that one's natural dispositions towards one kind of cognitive activity are stronger than one's dispositions towards another kind of cognitive activity. Nothing is stopping one from cultivating the cognitive faculties that one is not naturally attuned with. He may even cultivate them to such a degree that his skills with such faculties will be superior to the skills of the individual who is more naturally attuned with them.

I do not doubt that students of typology have a bias with regard to typing philosophers, yet the thread you have cited does not serve as an example. What you have pointed out is that people tend to think that most philosophers are Intuitive. In order to point out that they think so for illegitimate reasons, or as a result of their bias, you must cite an instance where they claim that a philosopher who obviously was a Sensing type as an Intuitive one. You have not done your homework.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
This thread brings up an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it has merit or not. Turning the argument around: if an INTP had the athletic talents of Micheal Jordan, would he become a basketball player, or would he choose a career more academic in nature simply because he's INTP?

It should be carefully noted that the question of what profession one pursues requires extra-typological research. The assertion that one is an INTP merely evinces that one's unconscious dispositions are in closer affinity with dispassionate judgment and abstract perception than with the cognitive tendency to emote and to engage one of our five senses or more. This does not entail that such an individual shall excell at activities that are associated with such cognitive processes, or activities of logical analysis and imagination.

Doing so requires a set of certain skills which one can only acquire through practice. The fact that one is an INTP does not show that the person in question has had such practice and therefore has the aforementioned skills. If one is an INTP and also has the body of Michael Jordan, all that we know about such a person is that he has both, the potential to cultivate the skills of complex problem solving as well as athletic ones. If he believes that he is gifted at one and not at the other, he is likely to pursue the profession that he believes he is gifted in.Yet, in order for him to discover that he is gifted with one or with the other, it is necessary for him to have certain experiences which allow for such a person to acquire knowledge of that kind. Moreover, it could also be argued that he may pursue an activity that he is less gifted in for practical reasons. For instance an impoverished INTP may pursue a career as an athlete whilst believing that he may be more talented at scholarly endeavors. Alll of this shows that a the nature of one's psychological dispositions (the study that is concerned with an examination of some of such dispositions is known as typology) in combination with one's physical dispositions does not predict what decisions one shall make. Knowledge that will have such predictive power must be such that is acquired by psychology and sociology.


The question that you seem to have in mind is the following; would a person who is competent at solving complex problems who is also athletically gifted would choose an intellectually stimulating career or one devoted to sports? That is a matter for psychologists and sociologists to investigate. Certain questions of applied typology may arise on such grounds, such as for instance, how would an INTP under a certain set of circumstances behave with regard to the problem of career choice that you have in mind? This question is relevant to typology as it keeps one's unconscious dispositions of thought in perspective, however, it is more psychological and sociological than typological. That is so because the choices one would make with regard to one's career would be more influenced by such a person's external circumstances and non-typological factors of his psychology. The external circumstances are as follows; what career options are available to him, and the non-typological factors of his psychology are mostly about his personal experiences and how they have impacted him.

One elects a certain career because of the psychological and sociological circumstances, not because of his intrinsic disposition or because of one's temperament. To maintain otherwise would be nearly as absurd as to say that one has become a scientist not because of the specific circumstances environing him, but simply because he was talented at science. The obvious challenge to that remark is that if such a person never had the opportunity to engage in the study of science he simply would not have become a scientist, irrespectively of his talents.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
In real life one does not elect anything.
Least of all a career.
Read Shakespeare.
Leave your chamber.
See the streets.
 
Top