Maryam Mizarkhani, first woman to win the Fields Medal

[MensSuperMateriam]

Pics:

dibujo20140813-maryam-mirzakhani-stanford-university-nature-com-580x408.jpgMaryam-Mirzakhani.jpgmirzakhani.jpg53eb8ba653af5.jpg


Bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Mirzakhani


Although representatives of many types could be found in many fields, sciences included, there is an statistical concentration of NTs in them, the more abstract one, the higher ratio of members of this club. Maths, as a the most theoretical case [but is it a Science, or is it in Art, in certain way?], is specially appealing to INTxs. Thoughts can flourish and interaction with the world is minimized.

A Fields Medal winner would most likely be NT->INTx->INTj. The last choice, INTj over INTp, is based in what I think personal preferences would be and not necessarily a natural superiority in Maths. That is, due to Ti valuing versus Te valuing, it should be more appealing to INTjs. Te-INTps would prefer more Te-focused disciplines (less axioms, more testing), and Ni-INTps would choose a field where uncertainty is maximum, that is, Philosophy. Statistically speaking, of couse.

Looking at the pictures, this is one of those [not too frequent] cases where V.I. strongly points to one type. Stiff, rigid posture (j), gaze unfocused in a Ne way (head partially turned away, very characteristic of creative Ne; eyes semiclosed instead more widely opened, static over dynamic), avoiding camera (introversion), subdued position (forward head) compatible with both introversion and weak Se. Almost complete absence of all emotional expression (logical), not only the positive ones but also negatives (sadness, anger, etc) therefore no Fi-HA (nor Fe-HA).

So INTj it is. More specifically, Ti-INTj I would say.