Delta Scientists
I'm wondering if there are any well known scientists that are likely to be in the delta quadra. I can think of a few that would fit in the other quadras, but this one seems to be drawing question marks. Certainly there is one or two that might fit. Any ENFps out there working on a race of genetically altered super-armadillos with which to enslave humanity with?
There are deltas with science degrees, but it's difficult to name widely known scientist, especialy in technical region. I'd search among humanitarians.
Carl Rogers may to be from delta, his psychology is based on Fi and Ne.
i actually think Deltas have the most typically scientific attitude in the sense of being hardcore empricists (Si + Te) and being relatively unpresumptive and intellectually honest in formulating and asserting hypotheses (Ne + Fi). Ti types have too much of a tendency to "fall in love" with their hypotheses to the point of blocking out signals that threaten these views and are more concerned with "awesome" possibilities (Fe) than with realistic ones.
the problem with their approach is that it's too slow and most of the world is not as concerned with this intellectual purity as they are, thus moving past them at a higher speed and leaving them to practice their art in a closed, like minded circle only.
in conservative areas such as medicine, they gain a major foothold, though.
Science is in getting/creating of new knowledge - it's about ideas mostly. This relates to N. So most science contribution of delta should be in humanitarian region.
Leonardo divinci is an early scientist and LSE
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
If science is strictly about discovering things systematically then not so much. On the other hand they do very well in using methods available. Applying learned algorithms and solving real world problems that require scientific knowledge. I would guess being technician and some form of machinery related engineering is more their cup of tea. I have done my master's under delta ST supervision in chemistry. That specific lab heavy path I chose wasn't the right one... They really, really liked numbers.And I was searching hidden correlation data. I wasn't that much interested in specific results.
OTOH it was great to have delta and alpha Ss around me in a lab. Those guys saved my absentminded ass.
In field of science, absolutely. Theoreticians with great deal of systematization... not so much.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
