This is a discussion on Ultimate visual typing series within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; The INTJ...
lol they typed Feynman as entj
While I think this method may have something to it, I wonder if its not picking up on temporary inclinations.
for example, with a professor like Feynman, he will have many canned explanations he's used before in lectures and interviews. When he's reciting, he's not in his 'native Ne-Ti' mode. ..but rather talking thought an accepted system....so I can see how this can look Te-Ni.
While ENTPs can talk at length about what they are interested in they don't orbit the same intuitive nugget so intently. In the magnet video he gets very badly stuck in his 'thing that is very hard to explain' explanation.
A high Ni fumble is to perceive something from different angles thus expanding your understanding of it, then, in trying to explain and think simultaneously, you end up not vocalizing the various angles properly and it sounds like you are going round in circles.
The magnet video is exactly like this, his brain was cooking but he was boring. ENxPs seem to have much better vocal packaging of ideas.
Wow. The leanback , check. What causes that?
l don't really think these people are monotone though. My INTJ was.
That is my point. As a college professor you're called on to present the same talk, lecture, material over and over. If it is something that you understand well, there is nothing much left for intuition to squeeze out of it. So you default into canned responses and demonstrations that work well.
I re-watched the video. In truth, he sounds rather tired and slightly annoyed. But I disagree with your analysis:
Badly stuck? He's not stuck at all and he's not going in circles.
He's teaching the interviewer that his question is pointless because it comes from a narrow, limited, perspective.
This is actually an incredibly valuable, very widely lateral insight into physics.
The interviewer finds magnets strange, but the fact that he can't pass his hand through a wall un-strange.
Feynman explains in fact they're actually the same forces at work, and that his question is therefore almost silly.
And more to the point, he's saying that any non-mathematical analogy is not a satisfactory explanation, because it is simply substituting one set of imprecise words for another. It doesn't get one any closer to the truth.
This is a very NP perspective, in my opinion.