Albert Einstein

[Brilliand]

Well it's said somewhere that strong Ps are likely irrationals, and strong Js are likely rationals. (this is obviously just a loosely webbed correlation, but more accurate nonetheless) I'm certainly not a strong J, and I can see for instance an INT(70%-P) fitting into ILI, more likely than many other lesser P INTPs.

On another note, on my old MBTI forums, INTPs were regarded as the most rational NT. So there is another loosely webbed correlation, because rational can mean a few things. There are biases based on the atmosphere of the forum relating close into socionics quadra values, so the type of INTPs are different from another type of INTPs on another forum.

I'm not really sure where this discussion is right now, but I just read the last few posts.

This is changed somewhat by the likelihood that Einstein was Keirsey-typed by analysis rather than testing, which should make the dichotomy gradients less significant.

The last few posts are on-topic, while basically ignoring the preceding discussion (which was mostly about ILI vs. ILE).

[Waddlesworth]

What is the point of arguing about something you can't prove?

I mean, no one has proven ANYONE is a specific type, and you are all arguing over someone who died over half a century ago?

[Logos]

What is the point of arguing about something you can't prove?

I mean, no one has proven ANYONE is a specific type, and you are all arguing over someone who died over half a century ago?

Can you prove any typing?

[717495]

What is the point of arguing about something you can't prove?

Stop being so smallminded.

[Brilliand]

What is the point of arguing about something you can't prove?

I mean, no one has proven ANYONE is a specific type, and you are all arguing over someone who died over half a century ago?

It's interesting.

I hate the word "prove." It's bandied about constantly, and yet I almost never hear of a mathematical-quality proof. "Enough evidence that anyone who disagrees with you sounds stupid" is not proof! If we have anything to say about reality, we can only discuss it reasonably... not prove, never prove.

Hmm... come to think of it, I generally allow the word "prove" for purposes of advancing understanding of the universe - when the "proof" exists, and is quality enough that discarding it means discarding the very framework of science. Perhaps this is a valued-function reaction (>?). Well, yes - in terms of Emphemeros functions, it's separation of observation from conclusion, which is basically all of the Alpha Quadra functions. "If you can't prove it, you can't observe it" is un-Alpha, as well as "if you can't observe it, you can't prove it."

[jason_m]

Or perhaps LII...

Keirsey "Architect" (INTP ≈ INTj)

I thought the same thing about that INTP description. It sounds quite similar to THA's Wikisocion LII description for Ti as a leading function. Also, there is a study in which socionists correlated Keirsey descriptions with socionics types, and I think that description that was strongly correlated with LII.

Jason

[Logos]

Even so, there are a number of people on the website who still appear to be mistyped. It would be interesting exercise to examine and retype the type examples they use for each type on the Keirsey website.

[jason_m]

It's obvious in the description that Keirsey's Architect is Socionics LII without any 3rd-party reassurance.

I don't like your use of the word "obvious." What is obvious to one person is "obviously" not always obvious to another. :wink:

Jason

[Brilliand]

At a first glance, Einstein is imo the Mastermind and Ayn Rand - the Inventor.

Except, Einstein's achievement was to craft a theory - when did he ever do the Mastermind work of contingency planning?

[ArchonAlarion]

Einstein is socionics Ti ENTp and Keirsey INTP as commonly accepted.

I am Ti ENTp and Keirsey INTP fwiw also.

Imo, Keirsey's...

INTJ ~ INTj,
INTP ~ Ti ENTp, INTj, maybe some 5 INTp would find some small amount of similarity
ENTP ~ ENTp, ESTp,
ENTj ~ ENTj, ESTj

[Waddlesworth]

It's interesting.

I hate the word "prove." It's bandied about constantly, and yet I almost never hear of a mathematical-quality proof. "Enough evidence that anyone who disagrees with you sounds stupid" is not proof! If we have anything to say about reality, we can only discuss it reasonably... not prove, never prove.

Hmm... come to think of it, I generally allow the word "prove" for purposes of advancing understanding of the universe - when the "proof" exists, and is quality enough that discarding it means discarding the very framework of science. Perhaps this is a valued-function reaction (>?). Well, yes - in terms of Emphemeros functions, it's separation of observation from conclusion, which is basically all of the Alpha Quadra functions. "If you can't prove it, you can't observe it" is un-Alpha, as well as "if you can't observe it, you can't prove it."

Main Entry: prove
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: establish facts; put to a test

Synonyms:
add up, affirm, analyze, ascertain, assay, attest, authenticate, back, bear out, certify, check, confirm, convince, corroborate, declare, demonstrate, determine, document, end up, evidence, evince, examine, experiment, explain, find, fix, have a case, justify, make evident, manifest, pan out, result, settle, show, show clearly, show once and for all, substantiate, sustain, test, testify, trial, try, turn out, uphold, validate, verify, warrant, witness

[Brilliand]

Main Entry: prove
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: establish facts; put to a test

Synonyms:
add up, affirm, analyze, ascertain, assay, attest, authenticate, back, bear out, certify, check, confirm, convince, corroborate, declare, demonstrate, determine, document, end up, evidence, evince, examine, experiment, explain, find, fix, have a case, justify, make evident, manifest, pan out, result, settle, show, show clearly, show once and for all, substantiate, sustain, test, testify, trial, try, turn out, uphold, validate, verify, warrant, witness

I'm willing to disagree with common usage in this case. When a thing is proven, that means that it must be believed. Therefore, any proof must be totally foolproof, and not subject to any possibly of mitigating evidence or overlooked details; anything less than this is not worthy of being believed without exception. Uses of the word that don't meet this highest standard of accuracy abuse the absolute implications of the word "prove."

As an example: The phrase "He proved it, then we found out later that it wasn't true" is a contradiction in terms.

[Waddlesworth]

I'm willing to disagree with common usage in this case. When a thing is proven, that means that it must be believed. Therefore, any proof must be totally foolproof, and not subject to any possibly of mitigating evidence or overlooked details; anything less than this is not worthy of being believed without exception. Uses of the word that don't meet this highest standard of accuracy abuse the absolute implications of the word "prove."

As an example: The phrase "He proved it, then we found out later that it wasn't true" is a contradiction in terms.

How about you spend this afternoon finding a way to prove* type? Just a suggestion.

*add up, affirm, analyze, ascertain, assay, attest, authenticate, back, bear out, certify, check, confirm, convince, corroborate, declare, demonstrate, determine, document, end up, evidence, evince, examine, experiment, explain, find, fix, have a case, justify, make evident, manifest, pan out, result, settle, show, show clearly, show once and for all, substantiate, sustain, test, testify, trial, try, turn out, uphold, validate, verify, warrant, witness

[Brilliand]

How about you spend this afternoon finding a way to prove* type?

I suspect that a slightly altered version of Socionics can be derived with mathematical precision from modern physics, but that ain't the work of an afternoon.

[Waddlesworth]

I suspect that a slightly altered version of Socionics can be derived with mathematical precision from modern physics, but that ain't the work of an afternoon.

At least it is a start!

[CheGuevara]

Einstein is socionics Ti ENTp and Keirsey INTP as commonly accepted.

I am Ti ENTp and Keirsey INTP fwiw also.

Imo, Keirsey's...

INTJ ~ INTj,
INTP ~ Ti ENTp, INTj, maybe some 5 INTp would find some small amount of similarity
ENTP ~ ENTp, ESTp,
ENTj ~ ENTj, ESTj

No, I don't think so. The main problem is that Keirsey doesn't use subtypes. If you look at the Socionics-Subtypes everything becomes very clear and obvious (Subtypes):

INTJ ~ Ne-INTj
INTP ~ Te-INTp
ENTP ~ Ne-ENTp
ENTJ ~ Te-ENTj

So an INTP is no ENTp. An INTP is a Te-INTp.

And one more thing:
Have you ever heard of the ILE_bias? Augusta was ILE so she thought Einstein, Bohr, Newton etc. were also ILE.

There are some problems:
1.) Einstein was a socialist while ILEs are rather liberal.
2.) Einstein was not interested in his own appearance while ILEs normally are.
3.) Einstein doesn't look like an ILE, he looks like an LII.

Conclusion: Einstein = Ne-INTj (Researcher).

[Jarno]

No, I don't think so. The main problem is that Keirsey doesn't use subtypes. If you look at the Socionics-Subtypes everything becomes very clear and obvious (Subtypes):

INTJ ~ Ne-INTj
INTP ~ Te-INTp
ENTP ~ Ne-ENTp
ENTJ ~ Te-ENTj

So an INTP is no ENTp. An INTP is a Te-INTp.

And one more thing:
Have you ever heard of the ILE_bias? Augusta was ILE so she thought Einstein, Bohr, Newton etc. were also ILE.

There are some problems:
1.) Einstein was a socialist while ILEs are rather liberal.
2.) Einstein was not interested in his own appearance while ILEs normally are.
3.) Einstein doesn't look like an ILE, he looks like an LII.

Conclusion: Einstein = Ne-INTj (Researcher).

your explanation about the missing subtypes is perfect!

Though einstein does look like a ILE...

[CheGuevara]

Though einstein does look like a ILE...

I know why you think so. You read the description on Socionics.com. This picture in the ENTp-description looks like Einstein!!

This is a VERY good example of the ILE_bias described on Wikisocion.org!! Augusta was ENTp so she THOUGHT Einstein, Newton and so on MUST be ENTp, too. Keirsey is INTP so he THOUGHT Einstein MUST be INTP, too. You see the problem? It's absolutely ridiculous

If Augusta had been INFj she had typed Einstein INFj. If Keirsey had been ENTJ he had typed Einstein ENTJ. You see what I mean?

How many ENTps/ILEs do you know personally? I know a lot of them and they ALL have angled faces while INTjs have rather round faces. I can't describe it better because I'm from Germany and my English sux - but I know I'm right about Einstein

[Jarno]

I know why you think so. You read the description on Socionics.com. This picture in the ENTp-description looks like Einstein!!

This is a VERY good example of the ILE_bias described on Wikisocion.org!! Augusta was ENTp so she THOUGHT Einstein, Newton and so on MUST be ENTp, too. Keirsey is INTP so he THOUGHT Einstein MUST be INTP, too. You see the problem? It's absolutely ridiculous

If Augusta had been INFj she had typed Einstein INFj. If Keirsey had been ENTJ he had typed Einstein ENTJ. You see what I mean?

How many ENTps/ILEs do you know personally? I know a lot of them and they ALL have angled faces while INTjs have rather round faces. I can't describe it better because I'm from Germany and my English sux - but I know I'm right about Einstein

no, I think you have a confirmation bias that everything has to be caused by confirmation bias.

I think 90% of the socionics community thinks einstein is ILE. And not 90% of the community is ILE...

Einstein is just tricky because he seemed introverted.

[Gilly]

ILE.

</discussion>

[Gilly]

On a complete side note, I thought Exxp's expended energy as a matter of course, but Exxj's took it to the next level.

I'd say it's the other way around.

[ArchonAlarion]

No, I don't think so. The main problem is that Keirsey doesn't use subtypes. If you look at the Socionics-Subtypes everything becomes very clear and obvious (Subtypes):

INTJ ~ Ne-INTj
INTP ~ Te-INTp
ENTP ~ Ne-ENTp
ENTJ ~ Te-ENTj

So an INTP is no ENTp. An INTP is a Te-INTp.

And one more thing:
Have you ever heard of the ILE_bias? Augusta was ILE so she thought Einstein, Bohr, Newton etc. were also ILE.

There are some problems:
1.) Einstein was a socialist while ILEs are rather liberal.
2.) Einstein was not interested in his own appearance while ILEs normally are.
3.) Einstein doesn't look like an ILE, he looks like an LII.

Conclusion: Einstein = Ne-INTj (Researcher).

fuckin nope!

Architects need not be thought of as only interested in drawing blueprints for buildings or roads or bridges. They are the master designers of all kinds of theoretical systems, including school curricula, corporate strategies, and new technologies. For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained - and re-designed. External reality in itself is unimportant, little more than raw material to be organized into structural models. What is important for Architects is that they grasp fundamental principles and natural laws, and that their designs are elegant, that is, efficient and coherent.

Architects are rare - maybe one percent of the population - and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made. It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker's error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage. Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.

Ruthless pragmatists about ideas, and insatiably curious, Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Architects are interested only in what make sense, and thus only statements that are consistent and coherent carry any weight with them.

Architects often seem difficult to know. They are inclined to be shy except with close friends, and their reserve is difficult to penetrate. Able to concentrate better than any other type, they prefer to work quietly at their computers or drafting tables, and often alone. Architects also become obsessed with analysis, and this can seem to shut others out. Once caught up in a thought process, Architects close off and persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity. Architects prize intelligence, and with their grand desire to grasp the structure of the universe, they can seem arrogant and may show impatience with others who have less ability, or who are less driven.

Albert Einstein as the iconic Rational is an Architect



You fucking lose, sir. Good day!

[mu4]

There are some problems:
1.) Einstein was a socialist while ILEs are rather liberal.
2.) Einstein was not interested in his own appearance while ILEs normally are.
3.) Einstein doesn't look like an ILE, he looks like an LII.

1. Einstein believed in a cause-effect deterministic version of the universe, also a static universe. These are more ILE traits then LII or ILI traits.
2. I think Einstein was very interested in his appearance, his hair is very recognizable.

Yes. I said Albert Einstein. Why, you might ask; I mean he was not exactly known for his sartorial elegance. And that’s exactly why I put him on this list. He is the smart man’s anti-dandy. At least that is how he chose to have the world view him.

While his signature absentminded professor look became synonymous with brilliance unconcerned with the banalities of style, many close to Einstein tell of a man quite aware of his look’s impact. While no one would claim him to be overly interested in fashion, Einstein was very conscious with his public persona; using the rumpled suit and out-of-control hair to his own ends.

Einstein was quite deliberate with his dress, in part because it worked to his advantage. It was in fact a disarming tool, a shield that deflected expectations. It was also who he was as a person. Albert Einstein was in a sense the Bill Gates of his day; brilliant but sartorially challenged – or challenging, depends on your view.

In so many ways Einstein was his own man, and I think that is what always impressed me the most. Rising from patent clerk to heights of international acclaim, he never really changed who he was. Sure, for white tie ceremonies he would don white tie, but he never tried to be someone else. The hair still popped out at odd angles and the dress clothes had a slightly rumpled something about them. He was always just Albert; brilliant yes, but just Albert.

That is what I always admired about Albert Einstein; not just the mind bending intellect but the totally individual personality of which he was never ashamed. If he was cold, he put on a cardigan. End of story.

Just because you look a bit shabby doesn't mean you didn't mean it! He certainly didn't look like any of the many forgettable faces you will see in your time.

[Not A Communist Shill]

2. I think Einstein was very interested in his appearance, his hair is very recognizable.

It looks like he just basically comb it all back! Very easy to maintain!

[mu4]

It looks like he just basically comb it all back! Very easy to maintain!

I'm not sure he combed it at all.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I heard that he had a wardrobe with the exact same outfit several times so he didn't have to pay too much attention to how he dressed.

[mu4]

I heard that he had a wardrobe with the exact same outfit several times so he didn't have to pay too much attention to how he dressed.

So do I and so does my ESE friend, but this is because of the desire to present a continuous and unaltered image as well as saving time in making decisions about dress.

Of course my ESE friend spends inordinate amount of time dressing regardless.

Take Steve Jobs or Simon Cowell, they has a fairly regular form of dress but I don't think in anyways they don't care how they look. They might verbalized "I don't really care how I look." But this really means, "I don't really care how others think I should look." They look the way they are, and that's that.

I certainly won't put on a suit for most people and I won't put on anything I wouldn't normally wear for anyone. The choice to wear the same exact thing for every day and situation is a very conscious and deliberate style decision.

[Blaze]

Have you seen an ESE lately? Very explosive.

tell me about it. i have a 12 year old ESE at home it's drama city. poor kid!

[Nexus]

Ne-ENTp?

[Absurd]

No wonder he looks tired. All the typing he must endure.

[Jarno]

ENTP-Ti is the general consensus

[Nexus]

I wonder if being ENTx / creative subtype is a requirement for revolutionizing physics

[Jarno]

I wonder if being ENTx / creative subtype is a requirement for revolutionizing physics

I guess it helps...

[jason_m]

Looking at his pictures and reading his writing, I thought ILI. After looking at this video, I think ILE. (There was even a hint of Fe in his expression at one point...)

Jason

[Kritik]

on most russian sites/forums he is typed as ILI

[Nexus]

on most russian sites/forums he is typed as ILI

Te-INTp maybe? If he is then he must love his extinguished functions more than his ego

[07490]

[munenori2]

[Jarno]

on most russian sites/forums he is typed as ILI

that surprises me.

[Blue Moon]

on most russian sites/forums he is typed as ILI