How is that possible? I never connect to EIE's life philosophies but I connect to Nietzsche's. Also he didn't have the "showy" behavior typical of EIEs (no offense). And he has typed half of history's dictators and ill minded people as EIE. Why??
Why would Reinin type Fredrich Nietzsche as EIE??
How is that possible? I never connect to EIE's life philosophies but I connect to Nietzsche's. Also he didn't have the "showy" behavior typical of EIEs (no offense). And he has typed half of history's dictators and ill minded people as EIE. Why??
Haha, not entirely sure.Originally Posted by Kye
I suppose he conflated Nietzsche's "pathos", low-key "emotionality" (deriving from 5w4, IMO), as well as his desire for the Übermensch (which is his Se-seeking IMO) with EIE.
Anyway, I believe Nietzsche was ILI-Ni 5w4 So/Sp.
There are some Socionists who believe he is IEI, and I actually used to think so, too. But no, he is Gamma. His Fi HA and w4 make him seem more like an "NF" than he truly is.
Reinin hasn't actually typed Nietzsche as only EIE. Both the translation of his book - his LII typings are listed at the end of profile - and his entry in the SSS famous people types database show that he typed Nietzsche as "Robespierre" or LII. Looks like he had some doubts about his type. Some of the votes from this forum have him at EIE - link.
I think he was definitely in Subjectivist Ti quadra based on his assertion rejection there are no facts aka objectively correct information, which was discussed previously in the various Te-polr posts on this forum - "Friedrich Nietzsche: Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations."
which pretty much contradicts what is written about Te and Objectivist (Te/Fi) types:
Objectivists have a notion of what constitutes "objectively known" facts, rules, laws, regularities held in general (common) experience; in their perception there exist rules and guidelines that are "true in general" and "always correct". They suppose that other people can have their own views and positions, but do not consider that any action can be viewed as correct/incorrect only from a certain point of view (they allow for the existence of "objectively correct" actions). Therefore, from the point of view of an Objectivist, actions can be different—subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective, where there is only one "correct", "most effective" way to do something. - the Wikisocion
Ni and Ti valuing
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
That is a point I missed. But here in the article about Reinin descriptions at the end of EIE description it is written Fridrich Nietzsche. I personally have always had the desire to believe there are certain facts and that is the exact part about Nietzsche that I don't connect to since he says facts do not exist, only interpretations. Thank you for your response.
Apparently he is an LII
Yes but not evidently. Who's to say for sure? I've seen a very compelling argument for IEI as well.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I personally don't think he is IEI at all. Maybe ILI
Devalues Te, Values Ti. Borderline incoherent analogies at times. Heavy usage of metaphor. All Fe > Te.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I agree that I myself almost never use "all" in my sentences. But I do use metaphors. And about the borderline incoherent analogies I think of Ni so I do that also. But I don't understand why he doesn't value Te? I think he values Fi more than Ti so LII is out of question but still can't fully grasp what makes him a Fe creative function.
I mean, I personally don't have an opinion. That was just the argument I can remember for Fe > Te, The not valuing Te thing, I think it shines through in the life he lived, and the way he relayed his message. You would have to be an Ni to parse through Nietzsche's writings if you were a Te. It completely lacks Te and it is his life work. There's no way a Te could ever write that IMO. But Silke did a better job above, with him outright stating that he doesn't believe to be true particular tenets which go hand in hand with Te. That seems only really possible with someone who doesn't value it.
What makes you think Fi > Ti?
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Nietzsche seems to have been a very clear "introvert", although that of course is likely to be highly simplistic. (I currently type him IEI).
there's not much of this in his writing (http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ation_elements)
TeExtraverted Logic: efficiency, method, mechanism, knowledge, work, reason in motion, direction of activity into its most logical course of action, "logic of actions", utilitarianism, expediency, benefit
Te
Te as creative function in SLI (ISTp; Jean Gabin) and ILI (INTp; Balzac)
This person very skillfully uses knowledge and facts, applies them creatively, an ideal lecturer, excels at giving instructions (he can, for example, teach skills needed for auto-maintenance). He can creatively and originally manipulate external objects that require hands-on work, assembly and disassembly. Many people of this type, as children loved construction toys. Fixing complicated household items is their favorite hobby, as this, after all, requires active application of objective logic. If such opportunities are not present, he may even deliberately break or deconstruct something and then proceed to fix it. At times, they may use an object not for the purpose that it was intended (e.g. using a microscope to drive nails). Such people are ideal as specialists for modernizing or upgrading anything, especially in the physical sense, as such a person has a keen eye for trends and laws of the objective world and knows how to isolate them and use them well. Sometimes he will move to a place where objective knowledge is scarce, somewhere far from civilization, where he will have a chance to demonstrate his knowledge and skill. He is well versed in the current laws and order, their advantages and disadvantages, and skillfully maneuvers within them. If he is stuck in traffic, he might plot a very original route using roadsides and sidewalks, and feels like a duck in water in this activity. Capable of holding a multitude of facts of the objective world and putting them to use. A very practical person, able to improve and modernize anything in surrounding territory, as to make it better and higher quality, "a jack of all trades." Such people have a set of rules for themselves, but they are very flexible - some of them can be gleaned over, some of them can be substituted - there is a somewhat manipulative view of these. He might follow one rule in the morning, but in the evening follow a very different rule, simply because the situation has changed. Because of this, it is very difficult to negotiate (do business) with him. If there is a contract, he may at some point cancel it, simply because it is no longer favorable for him. That is, he views rules as something that can be changed at any time upon request of the parties involved. Because of this, it is often difficult to deal with such people in a business capacity, as in the business sphere a contract is a contract, it is not subject to revision every day or week. But here, dealing with him, it must be a contract without penalties in the event of dissolution. It must be established beforehand that it is something impermanent - a temporary solution adopted for some short period of time.
No way did Nietzsche value Te over Fe. He dramatically expressed his philosophy in poetry and colorful stories full of passion and hyperbole. Beta NF is clear.
My mom who I type as Te polr always says these ridiculous things like "The human mind is too small for scientist to be able to understand everything in the universe" whenever I use scientific evidence against her in a debate, which seems to match with what Nietzche said about there not being any facts. This viewpoint irratates me because to me its sounds like a cop out for not being able to understand things.
Because he was probably an EIE-Fe. I don't see him as Te or Ne valuing.
His work is most popular with Beta ST creative function subtypes, so it would make sense for him to be EIE-Fe.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
I'd say beta N, but I think he was an introverted one.
IEI-Fe, strong subtype.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote