Just read a bit of his The world as I see it. He is clearly an ILE. Obviously Ti valueing and obviously an intuitive-leading type.
Just read a bit of his The world as I see it. He is clearly an ILE. Obviously Ti valueing and obviously an intuitive-leading type.
He was a victim. He even declined from treatment and chose to die.
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
Sounds it could be right.Originally Posted by CR400AF
I read in the Tavistock lectures Jung saying that he knew Einstein personally, and they had many times met at his home discussing psychology and physics.
Here is a video of Einstein making jokes.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
That's like a standard response from dynamic type. His associative glue is more apparent than his analytic side.
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
I thought he could be ILE based on the clip, but I don't know. Just wanted to give more typing material. What do you think?
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
He seemed Se PoLR and certainly not Ni ignoring, so I guess LII (LII-Ne).
Furthermore his brain structure implies extreme Ip-ness (as in Ni/Si co-operation - good sensory integration).
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
In case you didn't know, this is particularly how a LIE operates.
I didnt find a complete English version so the following are machine translated. But there should be English versions since I am on my phone now I haven't search yet.
In "Principles of research -- Inaugural address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences":
Machine translation:Start from intuition to get the essential principles and then use logic rules to do deductions. It's Ne->Ti instead of Ti->Ne.The theorist's method involves the use of the general premise as the basis, the so-called "principle", from which conclusions can be inferred. Therefore, his activities are divided into two parts: first, he must discover the principle; Second, he wants to draw conclusions from these principles.
...
However, the first of these tasks, that is, to establish the principle and use it as the basis of deduction, has a completely different nature. There is no way to learn and apply systematically in order to achieve the goal. Researchers must be aware of the general characteristics that can be expressed by precise formulas in the complex empirical facts, so as to explore the general principles of nature.
This seems to be how Ne and Ti cooperate to find new relations: get the essence of things via Ne, then underlying relationships are more obvious, and they get verified by Ti logic.Once this expression is successfully formed, conclusions appear one after another. They often reveal unexpected relationships, far beyond the real scope of drawing these principles. However, if these principles used as the starting point of deduction are not obtained, individual empirical facts are useless to theorists;
Yes, LII should be considered. LII is the type that thinks about complex things and solves "impossible" problems. Like Jung (LII) who solves many of the classical metaphysical problems (like the existence of God, meaning of life etc.) by reducing them to (depth)psychology.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Ni-Harmonizing LII-Ne (LEVF); harmonizing DCNH and Ne-sub makes him look like ILI. He's the alpha counterpart of Miyazaki who I'd type EII-Ne Ni-Harmonizing. Both don't look very Ij but they are.
My mom is EII-Ne and she always says "one should use one's teeth to gnaw bones and chew on hard things, because that's the purpose of teeth!". She already had to replace all her 4 lower incisors because she broke them. I don't think you realize how dogmatic Si HA can be.
This quote from https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/sites/def...al_Physics.pdf is aobviously irrational.We have now assigned to reason and experience their place within the system of theoretical physics. Reason gives the structure to the system; the data of experience and their mutual relations are to correspond exactly to consequences in the theory. On the possibility alone of such a correspondence rests the value and the justification of the whole system, and especially of its fundamental concepts and basic laws. But for this, these latter would simply be free inventions of the human mind which admit of no a priori justification either through the nature of the human mind or in any other way at a
The "free invention" seems intuition and in detail Ne since about the essence of objects. The "reason" he refers is Ti.
ILE has demonstrative Te so he also check it with experiments.
He should be Ti valuing since his thought experiments are mostly checking logical consistencies.
Einstein claims that he starts from "free invention" and then logical deductions. He suggest that the.first step of research is to get the.principles and then the second step is logical deduction. This is more of the ILE style.
Well, this speculation of yours can be shown false by the fact how he got the inspiration. Like Newton and an apple Einstein integrated his sense observations to a theory. Just read about him directly.
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
Also he claimsin The world as I see it. This seems extraverted.Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind,
of preoccupation with the objective, the eternally unattainable in the field of art
and scientific research, life would have seemed to me empty
He talks a lot about politics butThis is not conclusive but I think it,s valid to explain it with Fi-PoLR. His.Ti is quite developped so he uses Ti to discuss Fi topics but since Fi is his PoLR he has a sense of detachment.I gang my own gait
and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my
immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties I have never
lost an obstinate sense of detachment, of the need for solitude--a feeling
which increases with the years.
Einstein had significantly larger parietal lobe than normal humans.The parietal lobe is one of the four major lobes of the cerebral cortex in the brain of mammals. The parietal lobe is positioned above the temporal lobe and behind the frontal lobe and central sulcus.
The parietal lobe integrates sensory information among various modalities, including spatial sense and navigation (proprioception), the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch in the somatosensory cortex which is just posterior to the central sulcus in the postcentral gyrus,[2] and the dorsal stream of the visual system. The major sensory inputs from the skin (touch, temperature, and pain receptors), relay through the thalamus to the parietal lobe.
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
Fi-Polr doesn't "use Ti to discuss Fi". They shun Fi and will never talk about "feeling a need for soliture". I think it's easy to see that his weakest function isn't Fi but Se and that he's an introvert.
I have the same type as Einstein's. Arguing about his type is basically arguing about my own. It's interesting to see people discuss it.
Some people have this ILE idea about me in the world out there, but ILI and LII make sense too
Sometimes you don't have motivation because you lack purpose.
Sometimes you don't have purpose, because you lack self-knowledge
Sometimes you don't have self-knowledge because you lack love
Sometimes you don't have love because you lack self-love
Sometimes you don't have self-love because you lack guess what? Ask Gulenko!!
This is something an introverted could say. Introverts have the orientation towards the extraverted world. It's what makes them complete (suggestive / inferior function). I don't think this quote contradicts LII. Extraverts take it for granted and wouldn't necessarily have any need to explicitly say it.
I don't know his type, but I am considering LII.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
ILI is not likely since his thought experiment seems to be Ti-valuing: https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ght-experiment
Overall I acknowledge that I'm not a physics major but from his speeches on researching methods and his thought experiments, its observable that he is Ti-valuing and irrational. Te-demonstrative , extraversion, and Fi PoLR are also somewhayt reasonably observed.
Yes thats not conclusive. But he claims that.research start with free invention at first then logical reasoning. This sounds.very irrational. This is almost saying thay the first step has no reasons. I think it hints for an irrational type. Jung is the opposite: Jung collects a lot of materials and analyse them logically.
He was probably creative. He lacked particular organizational skills and seemed to be quite open to new things. He was not reclusive either. Hence this probably makes him look like an ILE. Especially this theoretical perspective taking although he showed clear rigidity of it in his personal life. "You do this" ILI Se suggestive that seems bit strange but quite characteristic of them. (While ILE's are not submissive where they function there is probably this private side where they are bit submissive - for the sake of comfort or something).
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
I'm surprised, I came here to say ILI and thought I would be outnumbered.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
From my experience ILE talks a lot about Fi. While I use my ego to resolve Se.
But these talks are mostly on the superego level (society requires us). For instance my Se limits my TiNe to be realistic but I suffer from not being able to mobilize myself and I sometimes discuss about this.
But "free invention" could just as well mean advanced Ti (especailly since Ti is detached from the object). Jung himself said that one should have no theoretical presuppositions when meeting a patient. "Every patient is a new theory" or something like that.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
@CR400AF sorry I didn't meant to like your post
Him starting his process with intuition could also be an indication of irrational subtype of a rational type. He still uses his logic to prune, analyse and supervise his thought experiments(N is servant to Ti, involutory flow goes S->T>N), instead of using logic and reasoning to justify any flight of fancy and intuition(Ti is servant to Ne, evolutory flow goes F -> N ->T).
About ILE & Fi: they do talk about Fi, but they don't use it or replace it with Ti. When they do talk about Fi, it's either to say "Fi serves no purpose, it's useless" or they stay at the surface with Fe, using 1D Fi templates to understand Fe goals. Example: "they all laughed at my joke(observable Fe fact), and that's how I knew had made new friends and I was popular"(attempt at Fi inference + description of Fe goal).
Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 09-18-2021 at 06:01 PM.
I haven't consider this possibility yet. From my perspective Ti is rational and it should have some reasons to describe. But it's possible that he is just find it difficult to describe here so he use the word "free invention".
However I still think ILE is more possible. Although I don't agree with Gulenko in general I think the researching process described by Einstein seems to be more similar to a right-spinned type. Starting with the understanding of some essence and then perform logical deductions. While LII uses logical analysis to arrive at essential understandings.
My understanding is that ILEs are Ne-leading types, they understand some essence at first, then Ti is a creative function to create something obeying the essence they understood with their Ne. On the contrary, LIIs are Ti-leading types, they understand things via Ti analysing and then create some essential ideas according to their analysing.
Example: Jung (LII) collects a wide range of materials (dreams, observations, history, relligious etc.) to conduct logical analysis, then arrive at the essential understanding of cognitive functions.
Aushra (ILE) understand the essence of Jung's cognitive functions, then use logical deductions to create a system which obeys this particular essence.
What Einstein said in these speeches is that he gets some understanding at first ("free invention"), and then use logical deductions to derive the whole theory. It seems that he understands the essence he got from free invention to be the truest and logic is only used to deduct something obeying the essential understanding. This is more of the worldview of ILEs. For LIIs, it's contrary, the logical process is the most fundamental cognition and the essential understanding is supposed to obey the Ti analysis.
As for ILE's Fi-PoLR. Many ILEs have an ethical topic to discuss. For instance Karl Marx is another one who like to discuss ethical topics. But Karl Marx is also detached from his family. For ILE, Fi is not useless, they don't value Fi but Fi is an evaluatory super-ego function for them. Super-ego is how society supervises our egos. So their egos will be influenced by Fi evaluations, although this is mostly regarded as the requirements from the society.
For LIIs, Se is the same situation. I don't like totally unrealistic researches. Although I'm bad at Se, my researches mostly have some relationship to the reality. My Ti-Ne ego is somewhat supervised by my Se-PoLR.
Reply With Quote
