# Einstein extroverted irrational



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Is Einstein an extroverted irrational or introverted rational? Apparently it seems that most Socionists see him as "extroverted" in the more Jungian term adopted into the theory. I know in Keirsey's MBTI he definitely fits their version of introversion which is more socially oriented.

Between the poplar research types ENTp ENTj INTp INTj what do you think he may be?


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

ENTp - Socionics Extraversion is not so much about socialising as it is about energy... Einstein was a very active member of the scientific community, attending numerous conferences and heading up scientific schools of thought, even if he did most of his work alone.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> ENTp - Socionics Extraversion is not so much about socialising as it is about energy... Einstein was a very active member of the scientific community, attending numerous conferences and heading up scientific schools of thought, even if he did most of his work alone.


The term "energy" there seems more like a Russian abstraction of describing Jungian introversion and extroversion, a dumbed down terminology. And so are IM caring the spirit of JFC, but that is another story. All I'm looking for are the arguements as to why people thought he was like that. I don't buy the argument that being interested in scientific conferences is an example of extroversion. I'm introvert and I enjoy seeking novel ideas from others since I learnt that it helps me to improve my own ideas, the way you describe Einstein like that is interchangeable with myself. Everyone is both extroverted and introverted but not in equal amounts.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> The term "energy" there seems more like a Russian abstraction of describing Jungian introversion and extroversion, a dumbed down terminology. And so are IM caring the spirit of JFC, but that is another story. All I'm looking for are the arguements as to why people thought he was like that. I don't buy the argument that being interested in scientific conferences is an example of extroversion. I'm introvert and I enjoy seeking novel ideas from others since I learnt that it helps me to improve my own ideas, the way you describe Einstein like that is interchangeable with myself. Everyone is both extroverted and introverted but not in equal amounts.


It's not about interchanging ideas.. it's about being a consistently active member of the scientific community. In his prime he even looked upon as a leader of that community. Not only this, but he was also active in the musical and political spheres, he was even asked to be the first President of Israel at one point.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> It's not about interchanging ideas.. it's about being a consistently active member of the scientific community. In his prime he even looked upon as a leader of that community. Not only this, but he was also active in the musical and political spheres, he was even asked to be the first President of Israel at one point.


I know, I'm personally ambiverted and I've grown so with time, being introverted is being influenced by the subjective inner energy foremost. At the same type is doesn't mean an inability to appreciate extroverted energy, Some bits of socionics, like Reinin's dichotomies as an easy example, try to force complexity of human interaction into a useless blind binary dichotomy and that create logical incompatibilities. I strongly lean to ILI in Socionics but I see some of their descriptions about "Fi" being serious as bollocks and inaccurate (I guess I'll serve it for a rant).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't think it would have been easy for Einstein to be more extraverted and socially oriented, considering that his intelligence far surpassed that of most of his peers. It's an issue that many very bright individuals face: lack in socialization and impairment in social skills due to their superior intelligence and difficulty in finding someone who can relate to them on the same level.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I've obviously never met the guy, and I've only read a little bit about him personally, but he's always seemed more like an LII than an ILE to me (there is some bias here, given that I am LII). This is not to imply that ILE's can't be as brilliant as he, but his method of approaching problems seemed to me more Ti backed with Ne than the reverse. His passion for logical consistency (see his unwillingness to accept quantum theory because it contradicted macroscopic laws of physics), his capacity for "thought experiments", and comments like "God does not roll dice" indicate pretty strong Ti to me. His intuition enabled him to fill the gaps in understanding, but I think the main powerhouse of his brilliance was introverted logic.

I again can't speak much about his personal life, but from what I've heard I would be more likely to type him as an introvert, just based on the way he dealt with personal relationships (read: not very personally. He was kind of distant with his first wife when he found out she wasn't _just_ interested on what kind of crazy s*** would go on if you could ride a beam of light, if I remember correctly). Granted, such distinctions are often not very useful, because an LII can still be an active voice in the scientific community, just as my ILE brother can hole himself up in his room playing video games and watching anime all day. I think it's better to examine how their information elements interact.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

In Gulenko's Forms of Thinking Einstein is typed as ILE due to his causal-determinist (very theoretical and precise) style of thinking:



> Dialectical thinking best corresponds to the quantum-probabilistic worldview of modern physics. According to this paradigm, there are no immutable laws, only tendencies and probabilities. Quantum Mechanics is built on the counterintuitive principle of particle-wave duality, according to which microcosmic objects behave as particles and as waves. Two of the 20th century's greatest physicists disputed over this view—Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. The former defended causal-determinism as the nature of the universe, the latter advocated a probabilistic ontology. In the aftermath, Bohr won. Though apart from its historical context, the dispute makes little sense, given that these cognitive forms are dual to one other. Jung's principle of 'synchronicity' also lies within the Dialectical paradigm.





> Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature. Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives "because", "therefore", "consequently" (causal conjunctions). The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to deterministic mechanisms. Using the example of Aristotle, who first pointed out four ways to explain phenomena, the reason for the existence of a sculpture is the sculptor who fashioned it directly.
> 
> In the scientific sphere so thinks ILE, in the managerial-administrative sphere is methodical LSI, in the social sphere SEE calculates chains of material interests, in the humanitarian sphere subject to the same categorical imperative is EII.


----------



## Eloi (Feb 8, 2009)

As far as I've read about Einstein's life, he was very social. He was an outcast in his early years mostly because he was picked and bullied by his fellows because he was Jewish and his interests were certainly unusual. Nevertheless, by age 15 when he moved to Italy he was a very communicative and likable boy. Also you've the Olympic Academy, his initiative in talking and enjoying with many acquaintances his hobbies as music, philosophy, Jewish culture, and others; and as mentioned he had a very active role in the scientific community (at least until quantum physics took the spotlight), peace movements, supported the creation of Israel, etc.

One can see very easily his friendships ,even if many, were always based on a mutual interest. He was an absent (terrible?) father and husband. Himself saw his weakness but he never seemed to have worked on it enough or manage to pull himself out of it. There's writings that he abhor marriage and wasn't the most faithful husband ever. He had a tough relation with his only healthy son and his in-law-daughter of his second marriage tell she was nothing to him and vice-versa. Nevertheless he was very close to his sister, as long as she could play the piano and discuss literature with him :wink:. Merge it all, I think it points to at least Super-ego Fi.

In socionics, I don't think ILI is a valid option, he didn't have any of IP temperament, I can't see Fi-HA, a dislike to life in future ("I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."; "A happy man is too satisfied with the present to dwell too much on the future."). There's certainly Te but it's less important than Ti. I'd argue that he Se was on Super-ego as he recall his final exams and studies on college as not brilliantly achievements because he recognized very soon that to be a excellent student it would require a self-discipline to go to lectures, take notes, do assignments that he didn't have, neither would accept anyone imposing it on him (and took it as killing his curiosity; as matter of fact after his final exams he didn't work productively on his interests for a whole year...).

Between ILE and LII, I'd go with ILE because he strikes me as EP temperament and his form of thinking. I don't understand forms of thinking well enough so maybe I'm wrong but Einstein state his love for math thanks to Euclids Elements where he was given the smallest simple axiom and build everything brick by brick from there, very casual-determinist thinking. An LII I think would prefer to begin with a rigorous definition, create tons of examples and non-examples (from multiple perspectives; very Ne-creative) testing the definition boundaries until they find exactly what something is.


----------

