Neil deGrasse Tyson

[KDude]

Popular scientist. Shows up on a lot of documentaries.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiOwqDmacJo].[/youtube]


I think he's an example of an ESTJ in an intellectual field. Not NT. Just curious if he seems like something else to others.

 

[Robopop]

Popular scientist. Shows up on a lot of documentaries.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiOwqDmacJo].[/youtube]


I think he's an example of an ESTJ in an intellectual field. Not NT. Just curious if he seems like something else to others.

He seems more like a ENTP, trying to spread his enthusiasm to others(Ne) about his internal understanding of the theoretical laws that binds the universe(Ti), thoughts seem like a web of free association, playful demeanor, ect. why do you think he is Te dominant?

 

[Mal12345]

Popular scientist. Shows up on a lot of documentaries.

I think he's an example of an ESTJ in an intellectual field. Not NT. Just curious if he seems like something else to others.

Very nice video. And it's always nice to see an ENFJ who is so passionate about scientific matters. This guy isn't just answering a few questions, he is teaching you his answers via his passion for the subject.

https://www.personalitymax.com/personality-types/enfj-mentor

Edit [MENTION=9672]Robopop[/MENTION], compare/contrast Neil's style of presentation with that of ENTP Richard Feynman.

 

[Coriolis]

He seems more like a ENTP, trying to spread his enthusiasm to others(Ne) about his internal understanding of the theoretical laws that binds the universe(Ti), thoughts seem like a web of free association, playful demeanor, ect. why do you think he is Te dominant?

ENTP is my first guess as well, though I could see ENFP more than ENFJ. He just seems to have more Ne than Ni.

 

[Mal12345]

ENTP is my first guess as well, though I could see ENFP more than ENFJ. He just seems to have more Ne than Ni.

JCF does not determine the P versus the J. This is done (in the absence of testing) through observing for judging and perceptive traits. And while we truly don't know Neil on a personal level we can say something about his communication style.

His communication style is J direct, it has J purposefulness, and it has J focus and forthrightness.

Another important bit of evidence lacking is his life-motive. If his purpose in life is to make a difference in people's lives, then that is ENFJ. But if his purpose is to run a major institution like an administrator, then that is ESTJ. Astronomy, on the other hand, is often very attractive to visionary N types.

 

[KDude]

Cool replies. We can all agree on extrovert at least. I didn't think he was Ti because he often jests at theory or playing around with his own models or rationale (Not that he jests in a bad way.. I can't really find a vid now, but he's definitely more focused on the area of astrophysics that revolves more around objective data/objective processes and research. I don't know his whole career, but he seems like he'd rather talk about all of this and dispense this knowledge. Not talk about theories. Michio Kaku or Feynman were different). Yet, I still think he's heavy on the Ne (edit: I'm less sure about this actually).

Other than that, I don't have much of a reason to say ETJ. It just comes down to my own perceptions. He reminds me of some I know.

 

[Mal12345]

Cool replies. We can all agree on extrovert at least. I didn't think he was Ti because he often jests at theory or playing around with his own rationale (Not that he jests in a bad way.. I can't really find a vid now, but he's definitely more focused on the area of astrophysics that revolves more around objective data/objective processes and research. I don't know his whole career, but he seems like he'd rather talk about all of this and dispense this knowledge. Not talk about theories. Michio Kaku or Feynman were different). Yet, I still think he's heavy on the Ne.

The assumption has always been to construct MBTI type from JCF. But what if you worked it backward? Reverse engineering.

We know that JCF leaves out the crucial distinction between J and P, leaving this decision as an assumption based on other factors such that, for example, NeTi automatically warrants a P. But what if it turns out that the personality in question is a J and not a P after all? Then your previous statements are thrown into question.

I think he's a J, and I really don't have enough information to change my mind about ENFJ. "I can't really find a vid now, but he's definitely more focused on the area of astrophysics that revolves more around objective data/objective processes and research." There are tons of vids out there on this guy, so obviously the one you're looking for doesn't exist because he is not like that. The ones I looked at didn't tell me enough about him so I have to go by visual clues. But as far as your statement there goes, you are completely wrong. Neil is completely focused on the value of science to society, even in the spiritual sense. And on the other hand, he is focused on the disvalue of anti-science. For example, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLDKLQYrg8

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMED5boxySs
"We are all connected: to each other, biologically; to the earth, chemically; and to the rest of the earth, atomically. That's kind of cool. That makes me smile." "We're in the universe, and the universe is in us."

and this:
"2006 Neil deGrasse Tyson closes the three day lecture series with an excellent final "sermon" on cosmic perspective and the impact of science."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc
"And then I sort of feel bad for the photon. And I said 'maybe it wanted to continue?' But I got in its way."
Neil humanizes photons coming into his telescope. How Ti is that? Not very.

There you go. I don't mind doing your research for you at all, as it only brings more evidence to support my view.

 

[KDude]

There are tons of vids out there on this guy, so obviously the one you're looking for doesn't exist because he is not like that. The ones I looked at didn't tell me enough about him so I have to go by visual clues. But as far as your statement there goes, you are completely wrong.

Don't be an ass. It's one thing to disagree, but don't call me a liar. I was just watching the vid I was talking about the other day. It exists. It was in an episode of the Universe. Unfortunately, it contains hundreds of episodes and I can't find it. When he entered the field, he couldn't help but run into theories. He gladly welcomed the (relatively) recent influx of actual data. I'm not negating anything about him being spiritual or anything. I was just saying that he isn't a heavy theoretical physicist, like Feynman or other ntps like Kaku. I'm in agreement with you as far as being a teacher and doing a service to the "public" goes.

 

[Mal12345]

Don't be an ass. It's one thing to disagree, but don't call me a liar.

You have just prompted me to ignore everything else you say. And while you don't have to watch the next video by any means, I offer it to those who are open-minded on typology and have not zeroed in on the very first thing they think up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=H_RWT3w_qPU
"Neil is awesome, signing books while walking just so that he can make that extra person happy. We need more people like Dr. Tyson in this world." (Top commenter)

 

[KDude]

You have just prompted me to ignore everything else you say. And while you don't have to watch the next video by any means, I offer it to those who are open-minded on typology and have not zeroed in on the very first thing they think up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=H_RWT3w_qPU
"Neil is awesome, signing books while walking just so that he can make that extra person happy. We need more people like Dr. Tyson in this world." (Top commenter)

Go ahead and ignore me.

I'm here actually agreeing with much of what you say, and you're somehow propping me up to be your opponent. Do what you want, but as far I'm concerned, it seems pretty unnecessary.

 

[Mal12345]

Go ahead and ignore me.

OK!

<Plonk>

 

[KDude]

OK!

<Plonk>

Unfortunately, this means you can't post in my Neil deGrasse Tyson thread. I made it. You can't ignore me now

We both agree he's EJ. If you want to be a "glass half empty" type and focus on what we disagree on, fine. I just don't see why you have to be so fussy as to put people on ignore lists. I've noticed you make that threat elsewhere with others. Why? It's a forum. People disagree. Just don't call me a liar. Consider for a second that people have better things to do than lie in threads about tv scientists. That said, the video I was referring to was somewhere in the end of "The Universe" season 1, on discovery channel. It wasn't something I could Google.

 

[Coriolis]

JCF does not determine the P versus the J. This is done (in the absence of testing) through observing for judging and perceptive traits. And while we truly don't know Neil on a personal level we can say something about his communication style.

His communication style is J direct, it has J purposefulness, and it has J focus and forthrightness.

Another important bit of evidence lacking is his life-motive. If his purpose in life is to make a difference in people's lives, then that is ENFJ. But if his purpose is to run a major institution like an administrator, then that is ESTJ. Astronomy, on the other hand, is often very attractive to visionary N types.

What is JCF???

I agree - much info is lacking, which makes it hard typing people we don't know well personally. I get some insights by analogy, but usually just get an overall feel from the big picture. In this case, I see a similar kind of forthrightness and sense of purpose in both an ENFP friend and an ENTP colleague, but I know them both much better. My type radar is not great, though, so I don't attach a high confidence level to my speculations.

 

[KDude]

What is JCF???

Jungian Cognitive Functions (as opposed to the more cohesive systems like MBTI, Socionics, etc).

 

[Mal12345]

What is JCF???

Just those obscure Jungian Cognitive Functions everybody likes to throw around. Fe, Ti, etc. They've been using that JCF abbreviation around here for some time.

I agree - much info is lacking, which makes it hard typing people we don't know well personally. I get some insights by analogy, but usually just get an overall feel from the big picture. In this case, I see a similar kind of forthrightness and sense of purpose in both an ENFP friend and an ENTP colleague, but I know them both much better. My type radar is not great, though, so I don't attach a high confidence level to my speculations.

Could be. I've been looking at aspects of his personality that I haven't mentioned in order to create a big picture, and not so much comparing him to others whose type calls are only probable. I offered Feynman as an ENTP example above only for others to consider, but that's not how I go about this because that can just pile error upon error. The easiest way is to start with what you know and quickly enough you'll have it down to 3 letters. I think most people find N/S to be hardest to determine.

Neil doesn't seem like he is 100% J to me anyway. It is easy to discern some Perceptive traits poking out from beneath the J exterior. But still, if you start from JCF and work forward to the 4 letter nomenclature, versus starting from one of the 4, such as P/J, and working back to JCF, the results can come out different.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm a huge fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson's.

The only type I see is BAMF.

Here's an hour long interview of Tyson by Colbert. Enjoy!

[YOUTUBE="YXh9RQCvxmg"]Colbert interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson[/YOUTUBE]

He's also the guy pictured in the "we got a badass over here" meme.

Here is the video where they get the pic from.

[YOUTUBE="danYFxGnFxQ"]The fun starts at 1:30[/YOUTUBE]

 

[lunalum]

Very nice video. And it's always nice to see an ENFJ who is so passionate about scientific matters. This guy isn't just answering a few questions, he is teaching you his answers via his passion for the subject.

LOL, what? I see enthusiasm, and what kind of ENTP or ENFP doesn't teach with enthusiasm?

His communication style is J direct, it has J purposefulness, and it has J focus and forthrightness.

How is his style direct and focused?

I didn't think he was Ti because he often jests at theory or playing around with his own models or rationale.

What do you mean here? That he jests about theories or that he jests about the act of making new models in the first place?

Neil is completely focused on the value of science to society, even in the spiritual sense. And on the other hand, he is focused on the disvalue of anti-science. For example, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLDKLQYrg8

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMED5boxySs
"We are all connected: to each other, biologically; to the earth, chemically; and to the rest of the earth, atomically. That's kind of cool. That makes me smile." "We're in the universe, and the universe is in us."

and this:
"2006 Neil deGrasse Tyson closes the three day lecture series with an excellent final "sermon" on cosmic perspective and the impact of science."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc
"And then I sort of feel bad for the photon. And I said 'maybe it wanted to continue?' But I got in its way."
Neil humanizes photons coming into his telescope. How Ti is that? Not very.

Are you trying to prove that he is ridiculously ENxP? If so you are doing an excellent job

 

[KDude]

What do you mean here? That he jests about theories or that he jests about the act of making new models in the first place?

Just that he expressed satisification at how much actual data is available these days. When he entered the field, he joked how you couldn't walk anywhere without having to hear a new theory about phenomena we knew little about. So I drew the conclusion that he prefers it the other way around. His interest is more like an astronomer's than a theoretical physicist. Anyways, I admit it's little to go by. It's why I wanted to make a thread.

I should also add, and I'm not sure it's being propagated here, but many seem to only see Te as the bitchslap function. Like a means of control, command, and organizing. When I propose Te, I mean it as an information aspect, just like any other function.

 

[Mal12345]

LOL, what? I see enthusiasm, and what kind of ENTP or ENFP doesn't teach with enthusiasm?

That's stereotyped thinking.

 

[lunalum]

That's stereotyped thinking.

Fair enough. It is a little stereotypical, but I was making a point... that enthusiasm is a far cry from un-ENP, even if it isn't quite a requirement Teaching with passion=ENFJ, or whatever you were trying to say with that, is also stereotypical, and not even a very solid stereotype.