Stephen Hawking: Feeler???
.
He's smart as hell, that much is true. He cares about theoretical concepts, understood. But when I see the kind of words he uses, he actually come across a feeler to me.
Thoughts?
I primarily ask because I can't shake this one time I saw him say something and I could tell he was very emotional when he said it. He said:
“Today we commit to the next great leap in the cosmos, because we are human and our nature is to fly.”
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
Intp
-
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
NYET
OK, this much is true, thanks poop.Originally Posted by Starfall
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
Emotional doesn't mean ethical. Logical types do actually feel stuff and cry and shit. Jesus.
I retract the proposition.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
Humanity... who needs it? Really. It is so limiting to think about humans as focal point of everything. Just look at the history how anthropocentric stuff/theory goes to oblivion one by one.
It is so obvious it makes it just pathetic.
**Fi valuers are going to set up inquisition for me**
Yes, he is logical type from the wrong side of the fence when it comes valuing.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
You are right about two last ones but I'm not so sure about the first. OTOH emotional vs feeling I know that I have some kind of the other one but not so sure where the definition is. I think I have very little personal feelings but I can express **insert a feces synonym here like excrement**. Fi vs Fe valuing.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Prolly the smartest thing in this thread tbh... *sigh*Humanity... who needs it? Really. It is so limiting to think about humans as focal point of everything. Just look at the history how anthropocentric stuff/theory goes to oblivion one by one.
It is so obvious it makes it just pathetic.
**Fi valuers are going to set up inquisition for me**
Yes, he is logical type from the wrong side of the fence when it comes valuing.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
Maybe you, but that isnt true for most logical individuals.
The correct position on this AFAIK is that neither the extreme of "F has nothing to do with emotion (because value judgment, duh!)" nor the position of "X is emotional => F type" seems to work. The way Jung would've explained this I think is that emotions belong in the unconscious to complexes, in their rawest form (e.g. vicious hatred/possessed by idea of revenge). These ideas are not individual but relatively collective in nature, and thus aren't characteristics of a differentiated type. When feelings are considered by the feeling function, they would be converted into a sanctioned attitude of the ego, losing thus the collective character.
I would definitely guess Hawking's a T type, whether by standard MBTI definitions or by more Jungian (and/or offshoot socionics/etc) definitions.
Anyone else have anything to contribute? (This is turning out to be a thread with a few pleasant surprises.)
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
His life is a classic example of a ILE physicist. @Avalonia's portrait of him gives a very good account of this (far better than anything I could contribute).
He is of course a peculiar example, because not only is he an exceptional individual, if he is a Socionist extrovert, he is an individual known for being a mind trapped in an inert body, with a voice that is not even his own (although of course, it is a voice that is more readily associated with him than his original voice was ever likely to be.)
The Theory of Everything is of course the most recent (major) movie of his life, but the 2004 BBC made-for-tv movie "Hawking" starring Benedict Cumberbatch is very good in its own right. I think
The symbol of the WSS on the NASDAQ.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
