# Was Einstein really an INTP? Newton INTJ? Feynman ENTP?



## darknight0522

Most websites classify Einstein as INTP, Newton as INTJ ,Feynman as ENTP....How do people know the MBTI type of someone who had died long ago? biography/their writings might shed some light...but considering the fact that lots of people can not figure out even their own MBTI ...how can someone figure out the personality type from someone else's biography?..
Einstein is surely a prized possession for INTPs and they wouldnt want his INTPness to be disproved/questioned (also Einstein wouldnt want the kids to fight over him) ....still I think most website tend to "unfairly"(unfair against SP,SJ,NFs) put all the scientists/mathematicians in NT category...(I somewhat agree with the classification of Feynman as N still that doesnt prove he is ENTP...his and Landau's writings do have some kind of intuitive touch)..

Does anyone know how the famous people are classified?What kind of evidences are used for classification?
-or they are just trying to justify their stereotyping of the NTs as a highly intelligent/intellectual community? 
-or they just want to keep the NTs happy and are afraid to mess with NTs 


Would Einstein/Newton/Feynman want to be classified as NT?

Edit:Its funny how some websites go as far back as Socrates/Aristotle...


----------



## SPtheGhost

lol prized possession 

...we dont know , we can only make a estimation based on what we think we know about how he approached problem solving ...no one can say definitely


----------



## darknight0522

SPtheGhost said:


> lol prized possession
> 
> ...we dont know , we can only make a estimation based on what we think we know about how he approached problem solving ...no one can say definitely


A NF mathematician/from physical sciences would approach a problem just as a NT,since there are no people involved(unless NFs have feelings for electrons also)...How can we decide someones MBTI from his/her thesis on Superconductors/Topology/Field Theory...I am sure scientific/mathematical societies dont allow them to write love stories in their journals...biographies are the only option...furthermore how can you categorize some person within INTP/INTJ/ENTP based on their approach to the problems in scientific journals ...

Why am I leaving out the ENTJs all the time, is there any ENTJ scientists/mathematician? I am not sure if Bill Gates is considered a scientist...


----------



## Scarecrow793

one of my big complaints with the whole system is this; scientists can be extremely emotional people. I would argue especially that theorists and 'pure' scientists- ones who do it for the sake of knowledge itself, rather than 'practical' developments are driven more by the emotion of curiosity than anything. I only identify with ENTP because the type description lines up with me more than ENFP does. I also think it can be silly that chemical engineers and architects, people who deal with very concrete things, are considered 'intuitive' or 'ideational;, when priests and businessmen, people who deal with abstract concepts like God and money, tend to fall more into 'sensing' feeling and thinking respectively. But Jung was probably smarter than me, so I'll hush.


----------



## L'Empereur

darknight0522 said:


> Why am I leaving out the ENTJs all the time, is there any ENTJ scientists/mathematician?


Aristotle, Sigmund Freud, and Carl Sagan supposedly.


----------



## Harley

I don't know too much about the personal lives of Einstein or Feynman, but based on what I've read about Newton I think it's safe to say he was definitely a T type. The guy was a total prick when he wasn't busy being a polymath and had no qualms about being arrogant, rude, demanding and rubbing people the wrong way. With that being said though, I have always found it a odd and a bit funny the way MBTI sites and webpages go about typing famous individuals. I find that the ideas or personas associated with these individuals are being typed rather than the individuals themselves. Though I do think there is a correlation between the ideas an individual produces and the mindset one has to adopt to produce those ideas, they do not have to be concrete. Sure Ni+Te and Ti+Ne are great processes to learn about the world, but so are Si+Te and Ti+Se and other combinations. They may come to great breakthroughs through different methods, but the potential to uncover great ideas is still there.


----------



## darknight0522

Harley said:


> I don't know too much about the personal lives of Einstein or Feynman, but based on what I've read about Newton I think it's safe to say he was definitely a T type. The guy was a total prick when he wasn't busy being a polymath and had no qualms about being arrogant, rude, demanding and rubbing people the wrong way.


...Are you pointing out that INTJ are arrogant pricks:tongue:..
poor Leibnitz..had he known about MBTI then...more so the INTJs..



> I have always found it a odd and a bit funny the way MBTI sites and webpages go about typing famous individuals.I find that the ideas or personas associated with these individuals are being typed rather than the individuals themselves.


Now that I think more about it , it looks like the dead guys were chosen deliberately...it would be harder to disprove their classification...
An alternate scenario lets say: Einstein as ISFP,Newton as ISFJ,Feynman as ESFP
would be a big threat to the validity of their ideal MBTI models...


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow

They are guesses based on what we do know about these people. Could they be wrong? Sure. Different sites don't even agree on their types. For instance Jung himself is sometimes labeled INTP, sometimes INFJ.


----------



## StrixAluco

I tend to consider that typing famous people or fictional character is mostly something to be done for fun, debate and a better understanding of the system rather than a serious matter and I am pretty sure that no one can really get the type of someone else (even us can be wrong about ourselves), especially someone they never talked to.

Plus, I do not see the point in priding ourselves in being of the same type as [x], most of us are average people who happen to function in a certain way and not the people who happened to become famous and are of this same type. I understand to some extent that it makes some people feel better about themselves but it really is just amusing speculations and has no real link with ourselves.


----------



## absentminded

I can't really comment on Feynman or Newton, but Einstein was definitely an INTP.

I'm just going to go letter-by-letter.

Introverted: he preferred a few close friends and carefully maintained those friendships. Pushed people away frequently to focus on his work. Told the rest of the world to go hang themselves often.

Intuitive: preferred theory and ideas to data and experimentation. All of his major theories (atomic theory of gases, light quanta, special and general relativity, etc.) were the products of trying to create an over-arching theory. Often got lost in his head for hours and days working on a single problem. One of his kids wrote that he would often fail to hear a baby whimpering or a knock at the door. 

Thinker: didn't deal well with emotion and preferred to hide them away. He pretended not to care for either of his children when his wife took them and left. He dealt with things in extremely logical fashion and often would waited to speak out until he could decide how he felt.

Perceiver: he was incredibly spontaneous and disliked regimen and planning. He actually preferred working at the patent office to traditional academia because the salary was better and the hierarchy wasn't as stringent. His favorite saying was "Long live imputence".

Now, if someone could cover Feynman, that would be awesome.


----------



## Istbkleta

darknight0522 said:


> A NF mathematician/from physical sciences would approach a problem just as a NT,since there are no people involved(unless NFs have feelings for electrons also)...



I disagree. 

I think the dom function (Ne in this case) will shine through no matter what. There are two Ne-dom types: mine and ENFP. Once you see the Ne, it might be possible to see if they are using Ti or Te and hence there will be a difference.

Also, different NTs will approach it in completely different ways so ... 

A paper I write will probably be completely different from an INTJ or ENTJ paper.

EDIT: @darknight0522 I meant the concrete function-attitudes, not the preferences.


----------



## darknight0522

Istbkleta said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I think the dom function (Ne in this case) will shine through no matter what. There are two Ne-dom types: mine and ENFP. Once you see the Ne, it might be possible to see if they are using Ti or Te and hence there will be a difference.
> 
> Also, different NTs will approach it in completely different ways so ...
> 
> A paper I write will probably be completely different from an INTJ or ENTJ paper.


In social sciences, I can easily see how the approach of a NF scientist might differ from NT...because of the differences of motivation of F and T..

but in an abstract field say mathematics or physics, I have no idea how the approach of a F dominant/auxiliary person would be different from a T dominant/auxiliary one....since human factor is removed

so I was thinking T/F differences would cease to exit in mathematics but Ni/Ne differences may remain...but I am not sure...

ENTP/ENFP mathematical papers would look the same ...so would INFP/INTP ...

Only biography/philosophical writings by these mathematicians/physicists would reflect their MBTI not scientific papers...


----------



## cityofcircuits

Is there any way any of these greats' could be S types? Are there any great S types in the field of Math and Science? If so, who? I don't see anyone mentioning this as a possibility. Just curious.


----------



## Abraxas

I'm curious as to why everyone is trying to type Einstein and Feynman.











































Einstein was obviously an INTJ.


----------



## darknight0522

StrixAluco said:


> Plus, I do not see the point in priding ourselves in being of the same type as [x], most of us are average people who happen to function in a certain way and not the people who happened to become famous and are of this same type. I understand to some extent that it makes some people feel better about themselves but it really is just amusing speculations and has no real link with ourselves.


Classification of these famous people together with this
Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org
might be a way for certain groups to feel special if they are a small percentage of the population...these estimates are based on small samples of the population and are not reliable at all, certainly not for the entire population of US.... Many have used these data again and again in their posts..I hope they were not serious...



Abraxas said:


> Einstein was obviously an INTJ.


Why is it obvious?


----------



## Abraxas

darknight0522 said:


> Why is it obvious?


Because of all those spaces I put in my post.


----------



## darknight0522

Abraxas said:


> Because of all those spaces I put in my post.


Good one...you might be right ...his Atom Bomb letter does point to his Mastermind side...


----------



## Abraxas

darknight0522 said:


> Good one...you might be right ...his idea behind the Atom Bomb does point to his Mastermind side...


Actually, I'm just biased. The spaces were meant to indicate how much.


----------



## Negativity Bias

There are numerous videos of Feynman speaking and debating with people so it's really easy to figure out his function usage. He is incredibly ENTP


----------



## 1yesman9

It's kinda annoying how people criticize the process that people use to type these people and write the typings off without actually looking into the process. The repetitive "you don't really know them" argument, as if that's not obvious.

Read one of celebrity type's detailed descriptions on how they made their choice, and you'll see that the process is a logical one, most probably valid. And there are NF scientists identified, they generally synthesize their theories differently, or towards a different goal. 

If you know anything about how the judgment processes manifest themselves, it's pretty easy to tell from analysis which one someone preferences, you know, being that their entire decision making scope is influenced by it.


----------

