Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
I'm not sure I agree that the subject matter was necessarily Te/Ni. Smith was writing in a complete void of 'economic literature' since he, in many regards, established the field. So he was writing as a moral philosopher, because political economy did not exist as a discipline until he took it up. I think his particular approach demonstrates Te, rather than reflecting the Te nature of the subject. For example, I don't think Marx took a Te approach, and he was arguably also a Classical economist, and the neoclassical approach is certainly not Te driven (I would argue that it is Ti + Ne).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're calling it a gamma NT field, and I'm saying that he made the field, so if you're seeing it as gamma NT, that should be a stronger indicator that he too is gamma NT.
Yeah, fair point. On a side note, I'd be interested to hear why you think neoclassical economics is Ti+Ne (not that I have an opinion of my own)

In any case, the 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' is available in its entirety online: http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms/tms-index.htm I personally don't see it as being all that alien or different to 'Wealth of Nations'. I think his philosophical approach was consistent through most of his writing.
That's what my lecturer says, but I was curious about whether his socionics type shows up as clearly in that subject matter. Guess I should take the time to read it for myself