The whole idea of "man I don't wanna deal with it if it's not physically tangible and right in front of me" is really much more of an Se concept (used by SPs) than Si (used by SJs), but MBTI oversimplifies and fails to account for this difference. SJs actually tend to do very well in academia because it rewards their consistent preparation and attention to detail.
I both agree and disagree with you here.
I agree with you that SP versus SJ is a huge difference. SJs are consistent and attend to details. And, this gives them some options that SPs don't have. For example, most lawyers are Ns. But I have a dear ISTJ friend who is an attorney. Her strengths as an attorney are her consistency and detail orientation. At the same time, she's not good at innovative interpretation of the law. Nor is she good at intuiting witnesses' responses. In fact, her boss always has another attorney (an ENTJ) handle witness interviews. This would limit her career if she wanted to be a partner in a big law firm. These attributes are very highly valued in the legal profession. There are just too many Ns that can beat her on these measures without even trying.
Here's where I disagree with you: As an almost professor, let me say that while consistency and attention to detail are almost always positive attributes, this is absolutely NOT what academia rewards. The rising star professors are those who come up with brilliant ideas and have the ability to dazzle others with their intellect. If they are late to class, don't return papers on time, or fail to develop a lesson plan (LOL! Professors are never even taught to have lesson plans), this has almost ZERO effect on how they are hired, evaluated, and promoted. (Interesting to note that K-12 teachers are rewarded on such measures. And research shows that most K-12 teachers are Ss while most professors are Ns.)
What prestigious conferences they are invited to because their colleagues are impressed with their brilliant insight and innovative thinking. Which grants they can secure because they are going to change the way a discipline looks at a given problem. And, every once in a while, how well they are liked by students. These things are what makes or breaks a professor. The Chair of the Philosophy Department couldn't give a flying flip if their newest Associate Professor attends to their students' names and keeps consistent office hours. To be a successful liberal arts professor in a tenure track position, you MUST be fluent in the concepts of your discipline. Concepts are in an N's wheelhouse.
both Ti and Fi are frequently interested in philosophy and these are the dominant functions of ISTP and ISFP. ISTP may be a Sensor, but he's a Thinker first.
My significant other is an ISTP so I know this type very well. This is a great example of why an ISTP is highly unlikely to be a happy philosophy professor.
My ISTP boyfriend may have dominant Ti. However, he makes decisions on the information he takes in. So the kind of information he processes is dictated by whether he's an S or an N. And according to David Kiersey, for people who focus their information gathering on tangible realities, the second most important difference is the emphasis on structure vs. process (J-P).
Back again to my SO. He is so smart and stimulates my intellect all the time. However, he picked up a Thomas Merton book to read last week and told me that he's having a very hard time getting through it. "Why?" I asked. My SO responds "Well, he just rambles on about all these ideas. It's very hard to follow."
And yet, if I asked him who played TJ Hooker's second partner in the TJ Hooker Xmas special that was only aired once and now can only be seen either in Betamax or on YouTube, he'd give me an accurate response on this specific, non-conceptual detail in three seconds flat. And damn it, he'd be right about 120% of the time.
(This blows me away. I can't even remember what I ate for breakfast today.)
