User:Admin/Einstein
From Wikisocion
< Back to Rick's Writings at Wikisocion
This type substantiation contains facts and excerpts from the book Einstein: The Life and Times, by Ronald W. Clark (1971).
Einstein's father is described as a cheerful, happy-go-lucky person who enjoyed outings, recreation, and good Bavarian food. He was "easygoing and unruffleable, a large optimistic man with a thick moustache." Albert later described his father as "exceedingly friendly, mild, and wise." He was repeatedly not very successful in business, a "victim of his own perpetual good nature and high hopes." From descriptions, I think Albert's father was a sensing and ethical type, most likely SEI or ESE. SEE could also be construed, but such adjectives as "happy-go-lucky" and "mild" are not typically chosen to characterize Ego types.
Einstein learned to speak remarkably late (reaching fluency after the age of nine!). I don't believe this is type-related, but has to do with the so-called "Asperger's syndrome" or mild autism which is ascribed to him. On this quality: "The tranquility with which he applied himself to his labors and entirely ignored the warblings of flatterers was to Tycho almost superhuman. There was something incomprehensible in its absence of emotion, like a breath from a distant region of ice... He had no heart and therefore had nothing to fear from the world. He was not capable of emotion or love. And for that reason he was naturally also secure against the aberrations of feelings" (pp. 139-140). While this characterization is clearly exaggerated, it reflects something of Einstein's emotional makeup. He was clearly "not in touch" with his emotional side, and would exhibit unexpected emotional reactions, even though he confided once that "there was no one in the world whose death would worry him" (p. 192). Then his mother died, and Einstein wept like other men. After his friend pulled out of a bad illness, Einstein wrote: "From now on, I will be thankful every hour of my life that we are left together" (p. 193). I have this profound lack of awareness of one's true feelings most typical of types with ethics as a vulnerable function (i.e. ILE, SLE, ILI, SLI).
Einstein's humor has a typically intuitive quality, focusing on absurdities and unexpected statements. Here is a typical example: "I sometimes ask myself how did it come that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity. The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought of as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded, as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up" (p. 10). Here — whether joke or not — he is basically attributing his discovery to retardation. Such a paradoxical statement is typical of leading types (especially intellectuals).
Einstein's experience at the Luitpold Gymnasium formed his characteristic rejection of authority. "Its discipline created in him a deep suspicion of authority in general and of educational authority in particular. This feeling lasted all his life, without qualification." This suggests a type-based attitude that simply needed a "trigger" to become manifest. Einstein states, "the teachers in the elementary school appeared to me like sergeants and in the Gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants." Forty years later in a speech at a university in New York he said, "the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with methods of fear, force, and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the healthy feelings, the integrity, and self-confidence of the pupils. All that it produces is a servile helot." I think what Einstein is rebelling against is what I would call "bad " — applied to a sphere where it has little place. Arguably, any intelligent person of any type could have the same sentiments about overly disciplined education, but the fact that Einstein's was so oft-repeated and vehement suggests a type-related response to "bad ." This is consistent with as a leading or creative function. By his school experience in Germany, Einstein was pushed into his "stance of opposition he was to retain all his life" (p. 13). In contrast, Einstein describes his later studies in Switzerland as "remaining for me the most pleasing example of such an institution," where teacher and taught were joined in "responsible and happy work such as cannot be achieved by regimentation, however subtle" (p. 25).
I will ignore accounts of Einstein's budding mathematics and physics prowess, his intelligence, genius, his supreme concentration on matters of intellectual interest, his clear thought, etc. because these are certainly related more to his IQ than to his type. However, within the context of his intellectualism, I think we can detect functional preferences that betray his type.
As recounted by a young medical student, "At that time he was still a child, only thirteen years old, yet Kant's works, incomprehensible to ordinary mortals, seemed to be clear to him. Kant became Albert's favorite philosopher after he had read through his Critique of Pure Reason and the works of other philosophers." Kant was an LII with a very -based exposition of thought, and Einstein's acceptance of Kant suggests a type that is naturally receptive to , especially considering that "he also read Darwin (...) There is no evidence that he was particularly moved" (p. 16). Darwin was probably an ILI, with a clearly method of exposition. In personal contrast to Einstein, I found Darwin immensely impressive and have not been particularly moved by Kant. My type is IEE (friendly to rather than ).
On the topic of the " vs. " dichotomy in science, Einstein later wrote, "living matter and clarity are opposites — they run away from one another." In other words, the complex workings of living matter do not lend themselves to simple logical formulations. I believe this is a direct reference to and points of view, and Einstein clearly preferred the latter: "The same feeling, that 'biological procedures cannot be expressed in mathematical formulas,' gave him a lifelong skepticism of medicine... and it certainly tended to concentrate all his interests on nonbiological subjects" (p. 16). Another interested vs. anecdote: "Einstein thus believed that theories into which facts were later seen to fit were more likely to stand the test of time than theories constructed entirely from experimental evidence" (p. 63). In socionic terms, boldly advances, and catches up. Einstein's paper introducing the theory of relativity "contained not a single footnote or reference.... and as acknowledgment only a casual reference to Michelangelo Besso, thrown in almost as an afterthought" (p. 85). This is reminiscent of Aushra Augusta's works on socionics and is arguably type related, though obviously dependent on the nature of the field being addressed. Had Einstein written on biology, obviously, he would have had to cite numerous facts and sources. Like Augusta, Einstein had as material for his theory countless hours spent in physics laboratories observing actual phenomena (Augusta had studied couples and people in general), and yet neither of them cited any specific examples or "case studies" in their works.
Einstein had a powerful experience when his mind was liberated from literal religious belief. These could have been my own words from nearly a decade ago: "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be true... The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking couple with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards the convictions which were alive in any specific social environment — an attitude which has never again left me, even though later on, because of a better insight into the causal connections, it lost some of its original poignancy" (p. 17). I have no socionic interpretation for this experience, but the wording to me seems most in line with an type.
As for Einstein's frequent and well-known references to God, they by no means reflect a belief in an actual divine being. He used the word "God" to denote cosmic order. In practice Einstein was essentially an agnostic, having no intellectual baggage from any religion: "Although Einstein had never officially renounced his faith, and was therefore technically a Jew, it was well known in Zurich that for all practical purposes he was an 'unbeliever'" (p 135). Of course, this is not type-related, but I thought I'd mention it.
On Einstein's personality: "The kindly, gentle Einstein who is remembered today, the friend of all mankind (except the Prussians), a saint insulated from the rest of the world, is largely a figure of his later years; it is a figure very different from the precocious, half-cocksure, almost insolent Swabian of youth and early manhood" (p. 20). A fellow pupil from Einstein's years in Switzerland wrote: "Sure of himself, his gray felt hat pushed back on his thick, black hair, he strode energentically up and down in a rapid, I might almost say crazy, tempo of a restless spirit which carries a whole world in itself... Nothing escaped the sharp gaze of his bright brown eyes" (p. 26). The book says, "the essential attitude remained, an intellectual disinclination to give a damn for anybody"... a "prickly arrogance." "He was... a young man of the world, well filled with his own opinions, careless of expressing them without reserve, regarding the passing scene with a sometimes slightly contemptuous smile. Had it not been for his deep underlying sense of the mystery of things, a humility that at this age he was apt to conceal, he would have been the model iconoclast" (p. 26). A Swiss professor, after admitting Einstein's cleverness, told him, "But you have one fault: one can't tell you anything" (p. 39). Later in life, Einstein was frequently described as "very lively and gay" (p. 185). I think these descriptions favor a ILE typing for Einstein over ILI or LII.
Einstein's attitude towards different European countries is quite interesting. After visiting northern Italy and going to Switzerland to complete his studies, he developed a veritable allergy to Germany, with its strict and disciplined way of life (LSI ethnos). This emotional rejection of Germany would last all his life. He felt much freer in the liberal atmosphere of northern Italy, which he described in glowing terms. He also grew so near to Switzerland that he gave up his German citizenship and became a Swiss citizen while still in his teens. He liked "the Swiss with their mixture of serious responsibility and easygoing democracy, their refusal to be drawn into the power game already dividing Europe, their devotion to a neutrality which was personal as well as political" (p. 26). Einstein clearly felt better in societies with a minimum of overarching institutionalism or centralized power and with a great deal of tolerance for individual differences. This suggests a type that is "unfriendly" to + .
This brings up a point that may help differentiate between ILE and ILI as possible types for Einstein. Obviously, authoritarianism and coercion are not very conducive to freethinking, whatever the type. However, the general attitude of leading types is that they simply need to be left to themselves to develop as they see fit, with no disciplining or strictness necessary. If authority is levelled against them, they almost inevitably rebel and harp on various forms of "bad " for the rest of their lives. Leading types, in contrast, frequently express the attitude that they need to be drawn into events and opened up to the world by some external force, in order for them to achieve their potential. For them, achievement is often bred by necessity. Their achievements, while no less remarkable, aren't saturated with the individualistic, "I did it all by myself, even when no one wanted me to do it" attitude of so many leading types. For instance, Darwin (ILI, by my typing) raced to finish The Origin of Species because his intellectual competitors were nipping at his heels. types, in contrast, generally try to reach far ahead to develop opportunities even when there is no pressing reason to do so.
Einstein not only rejected authority, but questioned intellectual conventions, existing theories and explanations. This suggests smartness more than type, but the fact that Einstein's ignoring of conventions extended to his appearance, mannerisms, and social interaction strongly suggests irrationality. Even a highly intellectual rational type will ultimately accept and promote certain standards and will plan structure and traditions into his life. Einstein, however, seemed to wholly embrace naturalness and spontaneity of activity — a + theme.
Einstein enjoyed the company of women from an early age, but was no Don Juan. What kind of women was he attracted to? "According to Vera Weizmann, wife of the Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann, Einstein's second wife did not mind him flirting with her since 'intellectual women did not attract him; out of pity he was attracted to women who did physical work" (p. 31). This simply suggests that Einstein was an intellectual intuitive who was drawn to more physical women.
Somewhat telling is Einstein's preference for the natural sciences over mathematics: he "saw that mathematics was split up into numerous specialties, each of which could easily absorb the short life-time granted to us" (p. 33). Einstein wanted to occupy himself with something general and fundamental that involved no overspecialization or excessive mastery of a narrow field. While not exclusively a type-related sentiment, this is a common attitude of extraverts and leading types.
At the age of 23, Einstein "assembled" (by chance, bit by bit) a small group of young thinkers and students of philosophy, mathematics, and physics who gathered to discuss these topics and all sorts of new ideas. They would often take long walks and even camp together to add variety and movement to their discussions. One participant writes: "what enthusiasm we had, what fire, what a passion for the things that really mattered! We also made a number of excursions together — walking, sometimes climbing to the top of the Gurten Kulm on Saturday to see the sunrise. The scent of the pines, warmed by the sun during the day, used literally to intoxicate me" (p. 54). Such informal discussion groups that mix recreation with intellectual discourse proved critical for the development of such ILE thinkers as Aushra Augusta and Ayn Rand. This quality remained with Einstein: "in 1907 Laub therefore traveled to Berne and was drawn, like everyone else who met Einstein on a professional basis, into an obsessional discussion that soon rose and swamped everything else... Their intellectual collaboration produced three joint works... As the well-trained mathematician, Laub naturally took over the complicated mathematical tasks, while Einstein concentrated on their physical implications" (p. 110) (could this describe LII-ILE intellectual collaboration?). Also: Einstein "developed rich correspondence with any scientist who had similar interests" (p. 113). This sounds like a tendency to easily develop far-reaching contacts with people who share key interests.
As a new professor and department chair in Zurich, "in the autumn of 1912 he began holding weekly afternoon colloquia at which new work was discussed... Students at the university, and their professors, found ways and means of joining in, and the meetings were usually crowded, Einstein affably discussing the latest developments with anyone who could contrive to be present. He remained unchanged. The meetings over, he would do as he had done years previously, carrying on the discussion outside the building with those who accompanied him to his faorite cafe. He found it difficult to relinquish his grasp on the problem in hand. Years afterwards his students recalled him standing in a snowstorm under a lamp at the foot of the Zurichberg, handing his umbrella to a companion and jotting down formulas for ten minutes as the snowflakes fell on his notebook" (p. 152). This compelling need to exchange ideas with friends and strangers alike in an unstructured format speaks very strongly against ILI, somewhat against LII, and very strongly for ILE.
Einstein's first marriage to Mileva Maric proved highly incompatible. The couple "respected one another as long as they did not have to live together." Einstein once wrote that he "would have become mentally and physically exhausted if he had not been able to keep his wife at a distance, out of sight and out of hearing" (p. 56). She is described as a "dreamy, ponderous nature (...) Her contempoaries found Mileva a gloomy, laconic, and distrustful character. Whoever got to know her better began to appreciate her Slav open-mindedness and the simple modesty with which she often followed the liveliest debates from the background" (p. 57). Furthermore, she was not a dedicated housekeeper, and Einstein's bachelor dream of being able to lay the burden's of domestic life upon his wife's shoulders were not realized. Clearly, Einstein did not accurately assess his wife's personality and their interpersonal compatibility, despite having known Mileva for years (!). From the description of Mileva and the few photographs available, ILI might be construed.
In the early part of his academic career Einstein moved around a lot, moving from Zurich to Prague, back to Zurich, and then on to Berlin. While some of this was due to material necessity, Einstein liked being near the places where, as he put it in a letter, "the future was being brewed." He seemed to express no resignation about the moves, but rather excitement about the new opportunities. For instance: "While the congress was in progress, Einstein was involved in a typically Einsteinian imbroglio. It arose from his readiness to leave the chair in Prague to which he had been appointed only some eight months previously" (p. 145). This again suggests a leading type, for whom the allure of new impressions, contacts, and opportunities outweighs the convenience of staying put.
As a lecturer, Einstein was popular due to his lack of convention, irreverent humor, precision and clarity, infectuous enthusiasm for his subject, and his expectation that listeners to interrupt him if they failed to understand a point. He also cultivated casual friendships with his students, unusual for the time. He would take them to the cafe or to his home to discuss "the riddle of the universe over coffee" (pp. 132-133). This familiarity, or absence of formality, is very typical of ILEs, and much less so of LIIs and ILIs. It stems from the need to connect with the ideas of other people (their ) in a two-way direction and from the related need to vary mental activity with movement, sensory stimulation, and a change of environments.
In contrast to most ILIs and typical of ILEs, Einstein's home was an open one: "He asked me to come and stay with him if I came to Prague..." (p. 145; recollection of Lindemann, advisor of Winston Churchill). Or, "stay at my house so that we can make good use of the time" (p. 151; letter to fellow scientist Ehrenfest about his impending visit). When Ehrenfest came to visit, "two days of continual scientific dispute... must have broken down any barriers there might have been between them. By Sunday they were playing Brahms violin and piano sonatas together" (p. 151). A strong friendship ensued, with Einstein frequently visiting their family to talk physics and play music. Einstein also developed a friendship — perhaps not as warm — with Madame Curie (p. 153), who is usually typed as LII by Russian socionists. Interestingly, Curie, in contrast to Einstein, "felt herself at every moment to be a servant of society" (p. 124). ILEs are not prone to attitudes of self-sacrifice as are LIIs.
By age 31, Einstein had finally found his proper niche, effectively combining both academic recognition and intellectual stimulation with typically forms of relaxation: "peace for relaxation with his violin, a nearby lake to sail on, the opportunity for an occasional not-too-strenuous stroll in pleasant scenery" (p. 133). Arguably, these pastimes might be refreshing to intellectual workers of any type, but the fact that they were such a constant part of Einstein's routine to me suggests that they reflected a primary psychological need, such as those of the suggestive function.
Biographers focus on two "Achilles heels" of Einstein: "a too trusting belief in the goodness of people and a desperately held and innocent belief that the grand investigations of science not only should but could be insulated from the worlds of politics and power" (p. 140). The first sounds like a naive belief, the second — a naive belief. These arguably inaccurate beliefs sound like they come from the Super-Ego functions. Whereas ILIs typically have a more realistic outlook in the sense that they find ways to integrate the realities of powerplay into their worldview, types inadvertently reject matters as important considerations.
A while after separating from Mileva, Einstein fell into typical related excesses, which resulted in a lifelong stomach illness. As described by his doctor friend: "As his mind knows no limits, so his body follows no set rules... He sleeps until he is wakened; he stays awake until he is told to go to bed; he will go hungry until he is given something to eat; and then he eats until he is stopped" (p. 191). Arguably, this description might occasionally apply to some leading individuals.
This illness brought Einstein under the motherly care of his second cousin Elsa, who demonstrated typically characteristics: "a pleasant widow... she lacked the curiosity which had at times made Mileva so mentally importunate... careful, conscientious, undemanding... in many ways the ideal wife for the absent-minded genius" (p. 193). The two married in 1919 after his divorce with Mileva was finalized. Einstein was now under the "care and protecting intervention of this kindly figure — placid and housewifely, of no intellectual pretensions but with a practiced mothering ability which made her the ideal organizer of genius" (p. 196). Visitors to the house would say of her: "he has a good wife, who is very hospitable, and offers a fine table." Elsa "felt, and rightly so, that to a large extent the world owed him to her, who watched over him as one might over a child." Einstein, in turn, was "happy to be shepherded by her through the mundane necessities of everyday life, grateful for the protecting shield which she was to interpose between himself and the overcurious world, yet determined to go his own way in the things that mattered" (pp. 196-197). I think what is being described is the motherly care of a type, probably SEI, over an type. In Einstein we see both someone who must be shielded from the world and someone who is intensely devoted to intellectual discourse and interchange of ideas, who commanded his audiences. While this may be typical of many "absent-minded professors," the details seem to point to ILE rather than ILI.
While there is much more that could be said about his type from the second half of his life, the details are not much different.
[edit] Afterward
Einstein's contemporary scientists and their possible types, as well as their relation to Einstein:
Planck: LII (mirror): colleague and friend
Joffe: SEI (duality): friend
Curie: LII (mirror): friend
Bohr: ILI (extinguishment): intellectual rival
Rutherford: LIE (quasi-identity):
Oppenheimer: LII
Bertrand Russell: IEE (kindred): sort of a friend in later years
Sigmund Freud: EIE (request): the two knew of each other and corresponded a bit
Note: I think it makes great sense to interpret the rift between the relativity camp and the quantum mechanics camp as a + physical school of thought versus a + one. Einstein simply could not find quantum theory an instinctively satisfying explanation of phenomena. He insisted on absolute causal laws for phenomena as opposed to statistical chance (as I understand the issue). He could acknowledge the "initial successes" of quantum theory, but could not reconcile himself to way "laws" were formulated. It was, I believe, more of a philosophical difference than a refusal to accept the new science. He viewed quantum mechanics' assertations as temporary; "the theories which invoked indeterminacy were forced to do so only because of man's ignorance" (p. 348).
I think this is a great illustration of the interplay and conflict between + and + in the development of science. In biology, for instance, Darwin's + elucidation of evolutionary processes eventually gave rise to modern Neodarwinism, a more + philosophical entity concerned with abstractions and implications. In each case, I think specific people with closely matching socionic types are behind the shifts.
UPDATE 9/7/2009: I now think Darwin was SLI.
