Talk:Bohr, Niels

I'm wondering whether anyone has done any real research on Bohr. I ask because in the Russian benchmark list he shows up as an ILE. (Admin 06:53, 6 July 2007 (CDT))

Pardon my skepticism, but I wonder if those Russians really did any real research on him besides the "ILE bias". I haven't studied his life in detail; I have a broadbrush knowledge of of his role in the development of quantum theory and of his famous debates with Einstein on the uncertainty principle. The impression I get is that that dispute was essentially a Te vs Ti dispute, with Bohr (like Rutherford before him) satisfied with "incomplete" explanations that fulfilled the available evidence, while Einstein seemed to need a sense of universal consistency as illustrated by his comment "God doesn't play dice with the universe" and Bohr replying, "stop telling God what to do". My own views on Bohr's type as ILI stem from comparing him, both as a person and as a scientist, to Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger, who are to my mind much more obviously ILE. I can't, however, make as detailed a case for him as ILI and not ILE as I can, for instance, on Mandela, Kennedy, Reagan, etc. If someone has made a good case for him as ILE, I may well accept it; but I fear it may be as solid as Lytov's cases of LSI for Mao or Pol Pot. So, in the meantime, my own gut feeling is that he was ILI rather than ILE. Expat 07:07, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

There is a very detailed and well-researched article on Bohr and Einstein by Marianna Lytova that presents some good arguments, but not completely convincing to me. (Admin 07:47, 6 July 2007 (CDT))

Great, can you link it to me? Expat 07:52, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

http://psihologia.net/socionics/bor.doc (Admin 08:04, 6 July 2007 (CDT))

thanks, but from what I can see she does not really make a good case for Bohr as ILE as such, she says a lot about their being "logical" and "not sensors", I haven't seen anything that clearly proves ILE over ILI, as in quadra values, perhaps I missed it. Expat 08:42, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Her article is a bit too theoretical for my liking (i.e. focused more on drawing conclusions rather than presenting information), and I can't form an image of Bohr as a person based on it. (Admin 08:53, 6 July 2007 (CDT))

My idea of an article on a historical person's type is my own writings on Mandela and Reagan, for instance, as you have read, or by using things like that Hitchens-Maher video; or using a broadbrush perspective on someone's life to catch the longer-term motivations of the person. That article by Lytova, as you also suggest, seem to start from the assumption that they were both ILE and then collect a lot of anecdotal evidence that at best illustrates the type, but as the anecdotes are more or less scattered it's difficult to see how typical they were. To put it another way: what is the evidence there against ILI? The article suggests someone with a lot of ideas, but that's not anti-ILI. Expat 09:08, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, the author is probably taking a approach to typing and is concerned with assigning everything a name. The impression I did get from the article was that Bohr was an active person who involved the people around him in his intellectual pursuits. Not that that goes against ILI, but it seems more typical of ILEs. (Admin 09:21, 6 July 2007 (CDT))

He became a sort of informal chairman, or leader, of the informal quantum theory community forming then; I think he basically happened to be in the right place and right time rather than actively search for that "position", but ok, that's a good argument against ILI and I think I will put it in the article, after having some time to double-check it. Expat 09:31, 6 July 2007 (CDT)