# NT's who reached their full potential



## Kestrel (Jun 22, 2011)

JoniF said:


> I think Newton's contributions to the scientific field pretty much peg him as an NT.


I guess that means that anyone who's ever contributed to the world of art must either be an SP or an NF. Nonsense. I happen to know an SJ PhD who worked very closely with a recent Chemistry Nobel Prize winner.


----------



## Juan M (Mar 11, 2011)

Ozymandias said:


> I'm not denying that it's important to have balanced cognitive functions! Not at all. I made an observation based on what you said and I don't expect anyone to make assumptions about my stance on the matter.


Im not saying that youre "denying that it's important to have balanced cognitive function"s, im just making an observation, dont misinterpret.

Sry about my english btw, not a native user.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Kestrel said:


> I guess that means that anyone who's ever contributed to the world of art must either be an SP or an NF. Nonsense. I happen to know an SJ PhD who worked very closely with a recent Chemistry Nobel Prize winner.


No, I think _NEWTON'S_ contributions peg _HIM_ as an NT.

_Obviously_... there have been contributions to science by non-NTs, and NTs have contributed to art. How absurd to even assume that there haven't been contributions by every type.

Remember that MBTI is about _preferences and stereotypes_. It isn't useful to say, for example, "All the types are scientists." They certainly _are_ all scientists, but for the _purpose of distinguishing one type from another_ stereotypes are necessary. Thus, NTs get the scientist stereotype, and NFs get to be artists, etc etc, because the scientist stereotype _clearly_ fits NTs the best.

Also, MBTI didn't even exist back when Newton discovered gravity. Who knows what type he was, seriously. He was probably an NT, but really, _who knows_.


----------



## Kestrel (Jun 22, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> No, I think _NEWTON'S_ contributions peg _HIM_ as an NT.
> 
> _Obviously_... there have been contributions to science by non-NTs, and NTs have contributed to art. How absurd to even assume that there haven't been contributions by every type.
> 
> ...


He was an extremely spiritual and religious man, believing that God had granted him a sacred duty on earth. His interest in theology and in studying scriptures far surpassed his interest in science (and he wrote more papers on those subjects), despite the fact that science is what he was better known for. His sense of mysticism, coupled with his life-long search for hidden meaning, mark him in my books as an INFx. Either he was a Ni-dom feeler, or he was an introverted perceiver. Either way, NF.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Kestrel said:


> He was an extremely spiritual and religious man, believing that God had granted him a sacred duty on earth. His interest in theology and in studying scriptures far surpassed his interest in science (and he wrote more papers on those subjects), despite the fact that science is what he was better known for. His sense of mysticism, coupled with his life-long search for hidden meaning, mark him in my books as an INFx. Either he was a Ni-dom feeler, or he was an introverted perceiver. Either way, NF.


That's an interesting take on it.

I could see it, but again, we'll never know. It's in the past, before MBTI existed unfortunately. I like your interpretation though. Very cool.

I think the reason they probably use him as an example of an NT is just for the sake of demonstration though. MBTI is sooooo stereotyping. It's actually kind of superficial like that, you think? It bothers me. And it's probably why I'm so frustrated with my type. I have a lot in common with the INTJ functions, but barely anything in common with the lifestyle.

The reverse for INTP. I have a lot in common with the INTP lifestyle, but very little in common with the functions. I wish there was a happy medium. An INT... something. Lol.


----------

