[impulse211]

Hello, I'd like to start this off by saying that I am still very new to mbti :P

Anyways.. I have a question here.. what is the behavioral differences (according to mbti) in philosophers and scientists?

I'm sure that both are N's. The philosopher juggles around many abstract ideas, while the scientist deals with the more tangible, more rule-based reality through the explanation and testing of phenomena by means of scientific ideology.

Both clearly utilize many ideas in their daily life.. but there also lies the enormous fundamental difference between their practices.. So how are they difference according to mbti?



Personally, I see both the philosopher and the scientist in myself.. and i am INFP.. perhaps the answer to my question is that there is no difference in terms of mbti.. but surely there is a cause for these two ways of thinking? I mean we see great philosophers also being great scientists.. and great scientists also being great philosophers.. but we more often see only a great philosopher with little accomplishment in the sciences.. or the great scientist with little care for the philosophy.

[fiasco]

There's a pretty big difference between the "N"s (even though I'm still having a bit of trouble finding out how they work in my own mind). Ne is like taking an idea and spreading it out into 5, while Ni is like taking 5 ideas and converging them into one. I think Ne types would be drawn to philosophy, while Ni types might be drawn to the sciences. Ti-Ne (INTP, ENTP) seeks to understand the objective reality of life and the world, and will juggle as many thoughts and abstract possibilities as it can analyze. Fi-Ne (INFP, ENFP) would seek to understand the subjective meaning of existence and life. Ni-Te (INTJ, ENTJ) would seek to implement a new plan, strategy, or system for (or understand an already existing one to continue) improving the future. Ni in general is more drawn to determining, analyzing, and assessing future consequences and implications, and Te can strongly desire efficiency and rather immediate progress. From this I gather that someone who is dominant Ni-Te would probably have less interest in heavily investing themselves in something that they could not see themselves using to further their vision of progress, efficiency, or improvement. Ti-Ne (as well as Fi-Ne), on the other hand, would be content at simply immersing themselves in the pure joy of thought and exploration. This would explain why most people assume NP types would be well-suited for areas such as Philosophy, and why NJ types would find their niche in areas such as Science. I can also picture ISTJ making a nice combination for empirical, highly fact and detail-oriented areas such as Science. Actually, I generally think that Si, Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te are all great processes for science. But these assumptions aren't very strongly backed. They are simply swift, general assumptions.

The reason it has little backing is because hobbies, interests, intellect, and the like are all very personal aspects of a person that typology cannot (and was it ever intended to?) reach or cover. We can make general assumptions based on how a process orients itself, but in the end, they remain no more than general assumptions.

[Saboteur]

Was it ever intended to?

I agree.

The MBTI isn't meant to answer everything.