Isaac Newton

[Dioklecian]

Some websites have him typed as INTP. I think he might be INTJ.

Any other opinions?


quotes: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quo...6.Isaac_Newton

[Phaedrus]

You still refuse to support your suggested typings with arguments. Maybe you could post a list of all the famous persons you have typed, so that we can see if there is any pattern in how you type people. It is very difficult to take your typings seriously, and there is a strong likelihood that you type some of them incorrectly. If you post a list we it would be easier to determine whether you are right or wrong.

[Dioklecian]

You still refuse to support your suggested typings with arguments. Maybe you could post a list of all the famous persons you have typed, so that we can see if there is any pattern in how you type people. It is very difficult to take your typings seriously, and there is a strong likelihood that you type some of them incorrectly. If you post a list we it would be easier to determine whether you are right or wrong.

Thats' a brilliant suggestion. I was thinking of doing that myself at some point. I will try to put it together soon.

For sure I have typed many people incorrectly, no doubt about it. I like your suggestion that we might observe patterns of errors in a list. You could well be INTP after all

[Phaedrus]

You could well be INTP after all

I know. Maybe you can too, but your type is ... elusive ...

[aestrivex]

You could well be INTP after all

.......

[Dioklecian]

You could well be INTP after all

I know. Maybe you can too, but your type is ... elusive ...

I don't see why my type is elusive. Its' seems pretty clear cut INTP I think.

[aestrivex]

You could well be INTP after all

I know. Maybe you can too, but your type is ... elusive ...

I don't why my type is elusive. Its' seems pretty clear cut INTP I think.

........

[science as magic]

@Phaedrus: i find it ironic that you dislike that dioklecian isn't very forthcoming with information while actively inhibiting it yourself by your skepticism

[Dioklecian]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

[Phaedrus]

@Phaedrus: i find it ironic that you dislike that dioklecian isn't very forthcoming with information while actively inhibiting it yourself by your skepticism

That is simply not correct. Dioklecian has been asked to support his arguments many times by many different persons, and he is still not very forthcoming. That is irritating, but the only consequence is that it is, as I said, very difficult to consider what he says seriously. If his typings were "normal" and made sense to everyone, maybe he wouldn't have to give any arguments, but they are not. Many of his typings seem rather unlikely, if not to say ridiculous. That's why we have to scrutinize them. If he's right, many others will have to change their views, that's for sure.

[aestrivex]

you don't think dio doesn't support his typings? how very strange a concept.


dio clearly takes painstaking effort to illustrate his views on others' types. why, just earlier today, he mentioned the following:

I considered that as well, however she seems a Fe person rather than Fi. She seems to express her emotions.

and the following:

[Dioklecian]

@Phaedrus: i find it ironic that you dislike that dioklecian isn't very forthcoming with information while actively inhibiting it yourself by your skepticism

That is simply not correct. Dioklecian has been asked to support his arguments many times by many different persons, and he is still not very forthcoming. That is irritating, but the only consequence is that it is, as I said, very difficult to consider what he says seriously. If his typings were "normal" and made sense to everyone, maybe he wouldn't have to give any arguments, but they are not. Many of his typings seem rather unlikely, if not to say ridiculous. That's why we have to scrutinize them. If he's right, many others will have to change their views, that's for sure.

What is that we if I may ask? Big Brother?

When I write here I assume that people have read all the other material available.

All that I need to know are the type descriptions, and then I, like everyone else, reach a conclusion as to which description fits a given person.

Those who have read my posts for a long time, like Pedro and many many others, don't see a problem with my statements.

If you notice Phaedro, when you first arrived in this forum and you were still looking for your type, I took the time and suggested with several paragraphs what your type might be (about Piersings' character). I can't do that for every celebrity that we type on line. If you notice every time that I am on line at the forum I type 30 or forty individuals. If I write pages and pages for each of them, I would needs weeks of writing. The lack of time is at the core of my sparse writings on each individual persons' type. However if you read a number of my posts it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp where my opinions come from. Usually it is the same paterns that I spot again and again in different individuals.

[Phaedrus]

If you notice Phaedro, when you first arrived in this forum and you were still looking for your type, I took the time and suggested with several paragraphs what your type might be (about Piersings' character). I can't do that for every celebrity that we type on line. If you notice every time that I am on line at the forum I type 30 or forty individuals. If I write pages and pages for each of them, I would needs weeks of writing. The lack of time is at the core of my sparse writings on each individual persons' type. However if you read a number of my posts it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp where my opinions come from. Usually it is the same paterns that I spot again and again in different individuals.

When I first arrived at this forum I was not looking for my type. The arguments in the discussions on SG's forum were quite sufficient to prove with near certainty that I am an INTp. What bothered me was the fact that there seemed to be contradictions in the theory of Socionics based the very strong opinions of many people on this forum. But the more I have looked into it, the more ovious it has become that almost everything in the theory of Socioics makes sense. Russian socionists usually know what they are talking about, and if I disregard the subjective opinions of some forum members and base my understanding of Socionics on the offical, published material, I can be no other type than INTp.

And since you base you understanding of the types on type descriptions I suggest that you read misutiis translation of Filatova's INTp description in the Gamma forum. It describes very accurately how I am in real life.

[Gilly]

If you notice Phaedro, when you first arrived in this forum and you were still looking for your type, I took the time and suggested with several paragraphs what your type might be (about Piersings' character). I can't do that for every celebrity that we type on line. If you notice every time that I am on line at the forum I type 30 or forty individuals. If I write pages and pages for each of them, I would needs weeks of writing. The lack of time is at the core of my sparse writings on each individual persons' type. However if you read a number of my posts it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp where my opinions come from. Usually it is the same paterns that I spot again and again in different individuals.

When I first arrived at this forum I was not looking for my type. The arguments in the discussions on SG's forum were quite sufficient to prove with near certainty that I am an INTp. What bothered me was the fact that there seemed to be contradictions in the theory of Socionics based the very strong opinions of many people on this forum. But the more I have looked into it, the more ovious it has become that almost everything in the theory of Socioics makes sense. Russian socionists usually know what they are talking about, and if I disregard the subjective opinions of some forum members and base my understanding of Socionics on the offical, published material, I can be no other type than INTp.

And since you base you understanding of the types on type descriptions I suggest that you read misutiis translation of Filatova's INTp description in the Gamma forum. It describes very accurately how I am in real life.

I was alerted of Phaedrus's presence by Tanehem, and felt compelled to come back and give myself an ego boost by making him look like an ass.

And all I have to say can be said in three bullets:

-SG does not, by ANY standard, conform to mainstream Socionics. You are a fool if you buy anything that guy says. His version of Socionics is less based on classic Socionics than what is primarily practiced here. Just ask Rick, a REAL Socionist.

-Your extreme focus on the contradictions in Socionics, and how one version or the other must be correct because of the inconsistancies you claim to find, instead of focusing on the different aspects of the theory that may or may not be valid, and devising a cumulative system of what does work (this would be more like producing Te, whereas you clearly utilize accepting Ti)

-You are, and most likely always will be, a stubborn, arrogant fool with a rediculously closed mind, averse to anything that does not conform to your pre-existing opinions and irrational beliefs. Ask anyone.

That is all.

[Jarno]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

an INTP (mbti) is the same as an INTP (socionics)

please refer to the common misconceptions sticky topic
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10212

[Gilly]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

an INTP (mbti) is the same as an INTP (socionics)

please refer to the common misconceptions sticky topic
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10212

No correlation whatsoever. They are two entirely independant theories. If you don't think they are, then you are not practicing Socionics. Read more closely next time.

[Phaedrus]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

an INTP (mbti) is the same as an INTP (socionics)

please refer to the common misconceptions sticky topic
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10212

No correlation whatsoever. They are two entirely independant theories. If you don't think they are, then you are not practicing Socionics. Read more closely next time.

Jarno is perfectly right of course. But there will always be idiots who can't see the truth and refuse to consider the evidence.

[FDG]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

an INTP (mbti) is the same as an INTP (socionics)

please refer to the common misconceptions sticky topic
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10212

No correlation whatsoever. They are two entirely independant theories. If you don't think they are, then you are not practicing Socionics. Read more closely next time.

Jarno is perfectly right of course. But there will always be idiots who can't see the truth and refuse to consider the evidence.

Shove that truth in your fucking ass, and keep living in your fantasy world till you die

[Phaedrus]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

an INTP (mbti) is the same as an INTP (socionics)

please refer to the common misconceptions sticky topic
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10212

No correlation whatsoever. They are two entirely independant theories. If you don't think they are, then you are not practicing Socionics. Read more closely next time.

Jarno is perfectly right of course. But there will always be idiots who can't see the truth and refuse to consider the evidence.

Shove that truth in your fucking ass, and keep living in your fantasy world till you die

You are quite amusing, FDG, do you know that? (Someone must be pulling his strings, someone must be writing his posts ... Can you make him jump too? Or is that too difficult for the little marionette?)

[FDG]

I would like to point out that originally due to a typo I said in my firt post that I think that Newton might be INTP. That's from mBTI.

In fact, I think that he is socionics INTJ (Ti-Ne that is).

an INTP (mbti) is the same as an INTP (socionics)

please refer to the common misconceptions sticky topic
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10212

No correlation whatsoever. They are two entirely independant theories. If you don't think they are, then you are not practicing Socionics. Read more closely next time.

Jarno is perfectly right of course. But there will always be idiots who can't see the truth and refuse to consider the evidence.

Shove that truth in your fucking ass, and keep living in your fantasy world till you die

You are quite amusing, FDG, do you know that? (Someone must be pulling his strings, someone must be writing his posts ... Can you make him jump too? Or is that too difficult for the little marionette?)

Again, it is very clear that you try hard to be funny but it's something you can't do IRL by yourself because you have a stick up your fucking ass and so you come across as the most awkardly serious cretin of the world.

[Gilly]

Again, it is very clear that you try hard to be funny but it's something you can't do IRL by yourself because you have a stick up your fucking ass and so you come across as the most awkardly serious cretin of the world.

Amen, brotha.

I forgot how hopeless this correcting Phaedrus cause was. I think I'll go back to my cave and be ignorant about seeing the light that reveals the OBVIOUS connection between two systems that both claim to be entirely unrelated to one another.

If you want a REAL mainstream Socionics perspective, and not Ganinonics' cult-like interpretations of VI and functions, try socioniko.net (which also mentions the obvious discrepencies and dissimilarities between MBTI and Socionics).

[Phaedrus]

If you want a REAL mainstream Socionics perspective, and not Ganinonics' cult-like interpretations of VI and functions, try socioniko.net (which also mentions the obvious discrepencies and dissimilarities between MBTI and Socionics).

Yes, Dmitri's site is a really good one if you want to see that the corresponding types in both models are the same groups of people empirically. He doesn't make the same mistakes as many others when he compares them. Studying everything that is said about the types on socioniko.net will probably be sufficient evidence for people to realize the truth of that.

[Gilly]

You are an idiot and are demonstrating your positivism. Lack of correlation between MBTI INTP and Socionics INTj does not imply the opposite, which is, given your cited resources (Ganin aside, obviously ), all that you are basing this conclusion on.

[Phaedrus]

You are an idiot and are demonstrating your positivism. Lack of correlation between MBTI INTP and Socionics INTj does not imply the opposite, which is, given your cited resources (Ganin aside, obviously ), all that you are basing this conclusion on.

No, that is not correct. That the types correlate in the ABCD=ABCd way can most clearly be seen if you compare the type descriptions in the two models. In Filatova's and Stratiyevskaya's descriptions it is extremely obvious that the INTp is the same type as the INTP in MBTT and Keirsey.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

*cough*

I think Newton was a Socionics INTp...it's hard to explain, but I've heard quite a lot about him over the years - he seems more INTp than INTj. His 'explorations' often included mystical elements, alchemy etc. - he also inspired the art of William Blake, who was almost certainly dominant (I'm not sure he thought too much of Newton - but it seems to me they had similar ways of thinking...(I might post more later).

[Animal]

This week, the PBS program NOVA aired a really interesting episode on Newton that shed a lot of light on his personality. It was called Newton's Dark Secrets and it was really fascinating. I had no idea Newton wrote more about Alchemy and Theology than he did Physics and Calculus.

There was another thread on his type about a year ago starring Dioklecian and Phaedrus, which ended up in inanities and failed to shed any light on his type.

But, anyway, here's the companion website to the program. It's got a lot of interesting stuff: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/

And here is a gallery of portraits, many of which he commissioned of himself when he became warden of the Royal Mint: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ay/Newton.html

And here's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

[Brilliand]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=8573

INTj. There was a consensus - someone decided that, and no one else made any sense.

I like him being INTj. So INTj he stays.

[Logos]

ILI.

[machintruc]

may be LIE as well.

[buckland]

Sir Isaac Newton was a cold, austere and difficult man. The slightest criticism of his work drove him into a furious rage, and his life was blighted by vicious feuds with other eminent mathematicians. A hypochondriac, obsessive, neurotic homosexual, he had no friends to speak of.

From BBC website, so not sure about accuracy. Probaby has been talked about, but INTp?

[krieger]

I don't consider INTp unlikely at all, but you have to admit those traits look odd in an INTp in regard to this characteristic of INTps that surfaces in quite a few of the type's profiles:

2."A priest's calmness and restraint". He almost never expresses emotions and protects from them his family and friends. He sincerely believes that passions, too strong, will lead one to his doom. Honoré de Balzac has constantly demonstrated throughout his literary works how passion spreads like a devastating cancer that eats away the souls of men until it finally suppresses all else. This holds totally true in the case of his dual (Caesar, The Politician), a hyperactive person that easily gets carried away.

[Logos]

Sir Isaac Newton was a cold, austere and difficult man. The slightest criticism of his work drove him into a furious rage, and his life was blighted by vicious feuds with other eminent mathematicians. A hypochondriac, obsessive, neurotic homosexual, he had no friends to speak of.

From BBC website, so not sure about accuracy. Probaby has been talked about, but INTp?

While I agree with the typing, the bold is certainly not historically attested.

[buckland]

I don't consider INTp unlikely at all, but you have to admit those traits look odd in an INTp in regard to this characteristic of INTps that surfaces in quite a few of the type's profiles:

I see that, but am I correct in thinking that this only applies whenever the ILI is around those they care about, or maybe are indifferent to? Whenever provoked, which is what seems to come through in that little excerpt, then I can see the "furious rage" coming through. There are multiple examples of that in this forum alone.

[Jarno]

yes some ILI-ni types like conflicts, indeed some examples have been present at the forum.

It is also written in the ILI-ni subtype description of medved. Something about, inner wounds and conflict seeking.

I have only some rough idea on the typing of isaac newton, though by coincidence I've just opened a thread about ILI's and math, since I personally rarely see this combination.

[vesstheastralsilky]

ILE ENTP-Ti

aka THE INNOVATOR from my archetypes list.

Same type as Goldblum.

[Marep]

ILI-Te

[hatchback176]

I think there is a case to be made for using the Motivational Gifts survey 1st then linking Information Element pathways to their thought process. Motivational Gifts anticipated the connectivity profiles of Functional Neuroanatomy better than any other Personality theory.

https://iblp.org/questions/what-spiritual-gift-teaching

When we discover facts like Mathematically-gifted brains showing more symmetrical activation profiles , or 6 standard deviation differences in IQ on standardized Psychometric testing there is still no way to say oh this person is clearly 2 types in 1.

[Still Alive]

ILI

[WinnieW]

He performed experiments intentionally hurting himself physically, just to prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis, e.g. sticking needles in his own eyeball to prove diffraction of light in the human eye.
Does this sound Si valuing? I seriously doubt that.

[The Reality Denialist]

He performed experiments intentionally hurting himself physically, just to prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis, e.g. sticking needles in his own eyeball to prove diffraction of light in the human eye.
Does this sound Si valuing? I seriously doubt that.

Yep. However Ti and Si valuing could hurt him/herself in the name of scientific principles by opposition of public opinion. That means ready to take a stand to say non conformist stuff.