Neil deGrasse Tyson

[nobody]

I've been following a lot of cosmology and physics youtubers lately and Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of my favorite because he seems to keep things general enough, without oversimplifying too much (like a lot of celebrity scientists that talk to the public), or trying to push a narrative or pet theory (like a lot of prominent physicists), or just being antagonizing (Sean Carroll and Eric Weinstein come to mind). I've also seen some stuff from Sabine Hossenfelder and don't know where she fits in this. She seems like more of a reactionary channel, maybe in a league of her own perhaps.

In terms of function usage, I'd argue that Neil might be thought of as an ENFJ because he is very personable and very good at talking with people. I sometimes wonder if brain structures are in fact involved in type, then ENFJs might actually have enhanced linguistic and emotional sensitivities, which might go well with Fe. He's often seen as ENTP however, though personally I think that would make sense as more of a persona of his actual type.

But curious what anyone else has thought. Though if you have a negative view, that's fine, but it would be great if it is also constructive.

 

[dr froyd]

for someone who is willing to show up on TV to explain general relativity to katie perry, i suppose he's not bad as far as pop-science guys go. Certainly better than that michio kaku guy who is running around talking absolute gibberish

no one will ever beat carl sagan though

 

[kuoka]

He's fine. Seems like a clear Fe user to me. Fe dominant makes sense.

He is fun and witty, but not very intellectual. He always gives a surface level description of things and doesn't go much deeper.

I think he's done a very good job at science communication and making it accessible over the years with his Star Talk show and other initiatives.

 

[Hadoblado]

I kind of disagree with kuoka here regarding "not very intellectual". He's a science communicator, his job is to get people interested. He's one early influence on what he hopes is a journey through scientific curiosity. It's like proclaiming someone can't be intellectual because they teach kindergarten. Their role is not their personality.

To me NDT represents a difficulty for personality enthusiasts in that he's likely top 1% in both thinking and feeling competencies/inclinations (physicists and media communicators generally being an elite sample for their respective competency). This is where dichotomies get tangled, even when you consider them gradients.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Pop science is good, but what happened as kind of side effect I think is lots of people nowdays confuse pop science with actual science.
Which is hilarious, but also concerning whether pop science is actually making people stupid or educating them.

I think the original idea was to throw out some cool concepts into the public domain and make science seem more like a adventure full of possibilities, rather than grueling work. That way there would be more people willing to open up a textbook and learn actual science.
What seems to have happened is a lot of people took pop science for real science and now you have people talking about science concepts without fundamentally understanding them.

That is how we got Deepak Chopra talking about quantum fields.

 

[kuoka]

I kind of disagree with kuoka here regarding "not very intellectual". He's a science communicator, his job is to get people interested. He's one early influence on what he hopes is a journey through scientific curiosity. It's like proclaiming someone can't be intellectual because they teach kindergarten. Their role is not their personality.

Totally agree with what you are saying. He's doing a great job and his goal is to talk to the children and amateurs. He even has a children's letters section in his show where he answers questions from kids.

When people become more curious, thanks in part to people like NDT, they will move on to studying the sciences themselves and become their own experts and he is offering a great starting point.

To me NDT represents a difficulty for personality enthusiasts in that he's likely top 1% in both thinking and feeling competencies/inclinations (physicists and media communicators generally being an elite sample for their respective competency). This is where dichotomies get tangled, even when you consider them gradients.

True. He is a thinker and a nerdy one at that. He analyzes sci-fi movies and hypotheticals with great detail, then coins witty phrases or criticisms based on his deeper thinking.


I stand by the idea that his way of social interaction and influence is very Fe-like, but I reserve judgment on his dominant function.

 

[dr froyd]

Pop science is good, but what happened as kind of side effect I think is lots of people nowdays confuse pop science with actual science.

another unfortunate aspect of pop-science people is that the public tends to treat them as experts on anything "science", including things outside their field of expertise

i don't think degrass tyson is the the worst among those because he tends to focus on physics, but i've seen him opine on things like evolution and natural selection, and it was quite obvious he wasn't very well-read on the topic - but nevertheless orated these things like he was channeling profound truths, in his usual theatrical style

 

[ZenRaiden]

experts on anything "science"

This is true, I used to do that too. Only later realized that people are really really limited in what they can know.
This is true in real life.
Lot of smart people believe they know better because they have a degree of some sort.

 

[fluffy]

I think Neil is ESTJ

That may seem odd but his Te is super strong.

What makes him different is his high intelligence level you don't expect from ESTJ but it is possible because scientists require learning lots of rules.

Fe people would be more fluid in people relationships as to listen to them and want to know there stories. Neil tells people the way it is.

 

[Old Things]

I think, for the most part, he does the equivalent of reading from a script. Doesn't mean he is not bright, but as a scientist, he seems to be more of a generalist than a specialist, and high-caliber scientists are almost always specialists.

And look at me cutting him down. I should be ashamed of myself because he clearly knows way more about science than I do. Still, I don't know how much of his material is just memorizing facts vs actually doing science.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think Neil is ESTJ

That may seem odd but his Te is super strong.

What makes him different is his high intelligence level you don't expect from ESTJ but it is possible because scientists require learning lots of rules.

Fe people would be more fluid in people relationships as to listen to them and want to know there stories. Neil tells people the way it is.

I actually tend to agree. When I think of Fe I see Oprah, when I think of Neil I think ST.
He seems grounded, but also agreeable to a degree. Socially he seems to be very conventional.
His sense of humor throws me off and makes me think ENTP on the other hand, but ENTPs tend to be Intuitive roid monkeys.

 

[nobody]

no one will ever beat carl sagan though

I agree. He seemed to have a scientific wisdom that other communicators don't want to step in. He's very unique. He was also amazingly delicate in how he talked to people.



_________________________________________________________________________________________

Pop science is good, but what happened as kind of side effect I think is lots of people nowdays confuse pop science with actual science.

another unfortunate aspect of pop-science people is that the public tends to treat them as experts on anything "science", including things outside their field of expertise

i don't think degrass tyson is the the worst among those because he tends to focus on physics, but i've seen him opine on things like evolution and natural selection, and it was quite obvious he wasn't very well-read on the topic - but nevertheless orated these things like he was channeling profound truths, in his usual theatrical style

experts on anything "science"

This is true, I used to do that too. Only later realized that people are really really limited in what they can know.
This is true in real life.
Lot of smart people believe they know better because they have a degree of some sort.

It's very true. His Startalk show is theatric in nature. Chuck is comic relief. Neil said he hired him because he's a comedian, but also because Chuck had experience in talk radio. And Neil does opine about almost anything science related, but I think it's to add to the theatrics. I think overall I've been finding it more positive than negative.

He at least doesn't seem to try and overstep his knowledge too much like a lot of other science communicators. Hearing science communicators talk about many-worlds or particles being in all places at once or black holes as actual singularities as proven science gets kind of frustrating when a lot of scientists have different viewpoints and arguments against that. Then people start repeating these beliefs because a nobel prize winner thinks it's true. Roger Penrose is another one that I even tend to agree with on most things, but he believes human consciousness is quantum, despite the fact that neurons are much much larger than atoms (like everything else).


_________________________________________________________________________________________

To me NDT represents a difficulty for personality enthusiasts in that he's likely top 1% in both thinking and feeling competencies/inclinations (physicists and media communicators generally being an elite sample for their respective competency). This is where dichotomies get tangled, even when you consider them gradients.

I think Neil is ESTJ

That may seem odd but his Te is super strong.

What makes him different is his high intelligence level you don't expect from ESTJ but it is possible because scientists require learning lots of rules.

Fe people would be more fluid in people relationships as to listen to them and want to know there stories. Neil tells people the way it is.

I actually tend to agree. When I think of Fe I see Oprah, when I think of Neil I think ST.
He seems grounded, but also agreeable to a degree. Socially he seems to be very conventional.
His sense of humor throws me off and makes me think ENTP on the other hand, but ENTPs tend to be Intuitive roid monkeys.

That makes sense. He's also typically thought of as ENTP. I agree with Zen though, which is why I didn't think Ne, but it depends how you see things anyway of course.