Physics - An XNTp subject and other stereotypes...

[jason_m]

I have another thought that's somewhat relevant to my previous post on logic and ethics. In socionics, there is sometimes a stereotype about physics, computer science, and philosophy being super abstract, theoretical subjects that draw in a whole slew of 'E5,' 'INTp/ENTp' intellectuals similar to Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. I have real experience in all three fields, and while there are some professors doing really abstract, cutting-edge research in each one, I find undergraduate physics and CS almost like engineering, and philosophy almost like literature or English. I have a degree in CS, and a number of the professors and student body fit the description of of a prototypical engineer - serious, organized, structured, and practically skilled. Basically, right in between INTJ and ISTJ in the MBTI. As I said, this applies to both the student body and the faculty. Now, some would object and say, "Well, the ones who are INTp or ENTp are doing the cutting edge research, and the others who are more like engineers are structural logic - maybe also Ti." I find this wrong. For instance, there were those with the engineering temperament like Dirac, Heisenberg and Schrodinger in physics who worked on the super-theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics, and the one's like Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking in any area of physics are usually few and far between. Also, the engineering temperament isn't just in science - there are a ton of them in accounting, finance, economics, etc. who are organized, structured, and practically skilled. In any event, socionics portrays physics and CS like it they are some super-abstract, Einstein-esque subject, but look at this in phyisics, which is at the college-level (and which involves almost zero math for those who don't like math) and tell me that this is some super-abstract subject, exactly opposite to engineering: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...w-introduction.

Now, with respect to philosophy, I have noticed again that *some* faculty-members are working in cutting-edge areas. There was one professor in my department who was working with a computer science student and using cutting-edge technology to analyze facial symmetry and facial attractiveness. He was 'inventor' personality type IMO and he won an award for his research. There was also a part-time professor who was 'inventor' who lectured on all kinds of sci-fi-esque topics like cryogenics and cloning. He didn't do research, but he was interesting. However, the rest of the faculty were all over the map, and the student-body were almost all E4 'humanist' or 'lyricist' types that you would probably find in an English literature class. Even most of the graduate research was in areas like Foucault or Heidegger and didn't interest me. But here we have it again: philosophy is some kind of 'super-E5' subject that attracts a whole bunch of 'Einstein prototypes,' but look at what it's really like...

Anyway, I'm probably ranting, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter...