A certain type of LII

[Creepy-male]

So most of the time what words or archtypes do you associate with the LII, usually I think "Scientist", "Analyist", "Rational", "Strategic Thinker", "Problem Solver", "Organized and Methodical", etc.... usually this paints a portrait of what these days would make the ideal scientist or business/civic planner. However I was thinking about another take on the LII, another archtype that could fit the LII.

What about the archtype of the military strategist, planner, thinker, plotter, analyist.

This really doesn't exist this day and age, everything is all businessy, but Think Sun Tzu, Think Makievelli, Think Clauswitz, Think Generals and Maps, Think Empires and Plans.... these archtypes and characters used to exist historically....

What personality types are these archtypes?

Is the LII a possible fit for any of these... specifically I've played the games Rome Total War, Medevial II Total War, and Empires Total War and all of them are based on empire building in a certain historical setting and it makes me think that alot of it seems very LII and etype 5/8. Its all about laying plans and executing them.

[electric sheep]

I can be quite machiavellian at times. I consider myself someone who can get shit done. Give me a problem, I can figure out some kind of way to get results, or at least a way to get to the way to the results. Sometimes I can be Machiavellian. I don't have an ounce of 5 or 8 in me though. It's all for the sake of someone else.

[Logos]

The "other" set of archetypes that I usually associate with the LII are the Vizier or Court Minister, someone preferring to stay out of the limelight of central power but still assisting the monarch with sound judgment and counsel.

[JohnDo]

General Colin Powell is a good example of a Ti-LII.

There are probably a lot of Ti-LII generals but Ne-LIIs are certainly more often scientists than soldiers. Depends on subtypes...

If we talk about DCNH subtypes and their military activities:

D-LIIs: ??? (I'm not sure if there are D-LII generals)
C-LIIs: --- (Victor Gulenko won't shoot people)
N-LIIs: many generals like Colin Powell
H-LIIs: many guerilleros like Che Guevara or Osama bin Laden

[Logos]

General Colin Powell is a good example of a Ti-LII.

Colin Powell is probably not an LII. I suspect that he is SLE or LSI, but I would have to look closer.

[krieger]

This really doesn't exist this day and age, everything is all businessy, but Think Sun Tzu, Think Makievelli, Think Clauswitz, Think Generals and Maps, Think Empires and Plans.... these archtypes and characters used to exist historically....

Maximillien Robbespiere is one of the most oft cited examples of INTj among the east european socionists. I'd say he fits right into your list.

Was Machiavelli an INTj? I'd like to think so, but ENTj is another likely possibility.

[Creepy-male]

Was Machiavelli an INTj? I'd like to think so, but ENTj is another likely possibility.

Well possibily, but when I think LII I think about planning alot as a major theme, like abstract thought for the purposes of planning something out strategically to accomplish an objective.

In this sense Machiavelli seems to have some major LII themes in his writting because its all about how to plan to seize power in a way that today seems completely manipulative and wrong, but back then was the way people in power thought.

One of his quotes was "Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared. "

Basically that was kind of like Machiavelli, its all about plotting for power, how to achieve it, how to maintain it etc.

As you can see the predominate themes of that quote is very um 5/8 -- its all about fearing the ill will of those competing for power against you but its in a more cerebral thought out methodical way.

Anyways its likely Machiavelli was LIE, but because Ti does appear strongly in the subconcious its likely LII's will find the writtings interesting in a way Machiavelli may not have intended....

I think a stronger candidate for LII is Sun Tzu, he is all about taking things from "First Principles" in a more way.

For whatever reason I have an intuition that possibilty clauswitz is more LII, because the prussian military was alot more um the whole german Ti and IxxJ thing (LSI soldiers and LII generals) - in fact napoleon exploited the way the prussian military worked in one battle, but anyways, Machiavelli on the other hand was around in the italian military tradition which is more in tune with the roman LIE thing... if that makes any sense... its just a guess though.

[tcaudilllg]

General Colin Powell is a good example of a Ti-LII.

There are probably a lot of Ti-LII generals but Ne-LIIs are certainly more often scientists than soldiers. Depends on subtypes...

If we talk about DCNH subtypes and their military activities:

D-LIIs: ??? (I'm not sure if there are D-LII generals)
C-LIIs: --- (Victor Gulenko won't shoot people)
N-LIIs: many generals like Colin Powell
H-LIIs: many guerilleros like Che Guevara or Osama bin Laden

bin Laden is IEI.

Powell is LII-SLE.

Gulenko is LII-LSI.

I can't disagree with the notion that Guevara is LSI.

[Krig the Viking]

Colin Powell is probably not an LII. I suspect that he is SLE or LSI, but I would have to look closer.

I agree, I just watched Powell's interview on Charlie Rose, and LSI seems most likely to me. Probably the Rational subtype (specifically, N-LSI).

Also, Bin Laden and Guevara are most likely IEI, but we've had that discussion before, and there's no need to get into it here.

[Edit: I'm not sure if Machiavelli was LIE, or Dominant LII. I would have to do more research.]

[Creepy-male]

bin Laden is IEI.

Powell is LII-SLE.

Gulenko is LII-LSI.

I can't disagree with the notion that Guevara is LSI.

Hey tcaudillg -- do you have a link to whatever the subtype theory is where you take two types with a dash between them like LII-SLE

[Logos]

If you are trying to uncover LII Monarchs and Rulers, I would suggest Alfred the Great, who I believe is a fairly strong candidate for an LII. His reforms and interests prior to and after becoming the King of the Anglo-Saxons is particularly revealing as to his type.

[Creepy-male]

If you are trying to uncover LII Monarchs and Rulers, I would suggest Alfred the Great, who I believe is a fairly strong candidate for an LII. His reforms and interests prior to and after becoming the King of the Anglo-Saxons is particularly revealing as to his type.

Thats an obscure peice of history, I remember watching "Barbarian Invasion" week on the history channel, if I hadn't watched the one about Anglo-Saxons I probably would have no idea who or what you're talking about.

However If I remember correctly isn't he the one who was a bit of thinker also and helped establish education or something to the saxons?

[electric sheep]

Machiavelli was a 3w2--the most pragmatic type.

He wrote The Prince as a guide for princes, he wasn't very power hungry himself, he just kept getting fucked over.

[Creepy-male]

Machiavelli was a 3w2--the most pragmatic type.

He wrote The Prince as a guide for princes, he wasn't very power hungry himself, he just kept getting fucked over.

its not about all of that, really you should look at the major themes of Machiavelli/The Prince and compare it to the major themes of the Enneagram Types....

I don't find 3w2 to make sense, because the themes of 3's and 2's are all about shame and looking for approval by being a productive worthy person and being lovable. 3/2's are charming model citizens who are productive and really want to prove their place in the world. 3's are confronting approval seeking and 2's are embracing power seeking, nothing in the themes of The Prince are about confronting people for their approval or embracing others to gain power.... Machiavelli's approach was more pragmatic like you said it was do what made sense to perserve order and power not what wins you approval and love.... he even says in a quote "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both" -- thats completely diametric to the wishes of 3's and 2's, 3w2's want to be loved and feel worthy because they are productive model citizen's.

I mean the theme of a certain type of "Prince" works well for a 3w2, but not the kind of Prince Machiavelli presents in The Prince, and definitally not what the reality of being a Prince in medevial italy was like... but in all fairness I haven't read The Prince I've only read about it and know alot of quotes from it and I've heard people use the terms "Oh thats very MAchiavellian" or I've heard people quote the central idea of Machiavelli's philosophy of ends justify the means.

BTW where did you get the idea that 3w2's are the most pragmatic, because I honestly think thats whats throwing you off, maybe your getting to much out of that idea without understanding what it really means, and perhaps you may even have to reconsider you own type, alternatively you may know something I have missed.

[electric sheep]

its not about all of that, really you should look at the major themes of Machiavelli/The Prince and compare it to the major themes of the Enneagram Types....

I don't find 3w2 to make sense, because the themes of 3's and 2's are all about shame and looking for approval by being a productive worthy person and being lovable. 3/2's are charming model citizens who are productive and really want to prove their place in the world. 3's are confronting approval seeking and 2's are embracing power seeking, nothing in the themes of The Prince are about confronting people for their approval or embracing others to gain power.... Machiavelli's approach was more pragmatic like you said it was do what made sense to perserve order and power not what wins you approval and love.... he even says in a quote "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both" -- thats completely diametric to the wishes of 3's and 2's, 3w2's want to be loved and feel worthy because they are productive model citizen's.

ok, first I'm talking about 3w2 not 2/3. You talk about 3s wanting to be a model citizen, but why not a model prince? Is being a prince not within the scope of a 3? Certainly it is. Even moreso is being the "model prince".

I mean the theme of a certain type of "Prince" works well for a 3w2, but not the kind of Prince Machiavelli presents in The Prince, and definitally not what the reality of being a Prince in medevial italy was like... but in all fairness I haven't read The Prince I've only read about it and know alot of quotes from it and I've heard people use the terms "Oh thats very MAchiavellian" or I've heard people quote the central idea of Machiavelli's philosophy of ends justify the means.

If I had the book with me, I'd quote it. But Machiavelli's philosophy is not exactly "the ends justify the means" though, it's much more image focused. In short, it's that dubious methods can be used to achieve a worthy goal, and as long as you keep people focused on the outcome they wont mind. It's not really "justifying" the means, it's just saying the people wont object to the horrible things you must do to maintain power as long as the outcome is good for them.

BTW where did you get the idea that 3w2's are the most pragmatic, because I honestly think thats whats throwing you off, maybe your getting to much out of that idea without understanding what it really means, and perhaps you may even have to reconsider you own type, alternatively you may know something I have missed.

well... the focus on being pragmatic and flexible is in every 3 profile.

3 - Enneagram Type Three: The Achiever
The Success-Oriented, Pragmatic Type: Adaptable, Excelling, Driven, and Image-Conscious

Every 3 profile talks about how highly adaptable and/or pragmatic 3s are. They are similar things because a 3 does what they must to succeed. Rules are too much of a hindrance sometimes. Also, 3s are in the center of the competency group, meaning they try to benefit from rules (like a 1) while not being burdened by them (like a 5).

Ones operate inside the rules, following them so well that no one would dare question their integrity. By contrast, Fives tend to operate outside of the rules. Threes want to play it both ways, having the benefit of the rules and structures while not having the restrictions.

Threes get into conflicts by being overly pragmatic: by ignoring conventions and rules. The things they do can seem downright dishonest... even "Machiavellian" sometimes. Being pragmatic means to be practical--not ideological. It also means you are free to do what you want if it brings the outcome you desire. Being a good prince doesn't mean being doing the right thing all the time, because as he said:

"Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil." (you can't please everyone, even though you may try)

"Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times." (you must be flexible and pragmatic to succeed)

"The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present." (there's no compelling reason to be honest all the time)

keep in mind this is in contrast to historical writings of the time like "Utopia" that promote a sort of ideal way a monarch is supposed to behave. He is being realistic here, much in the way 3s are supposed to be--unlike those pesky 1s and 5s that are all about theories and ideologies... a 1 probably wrote Utopia.

When he says it's better to be feared than loved, if you can't be both: that's all image related. That's how it would appear that he is moving against--seeking power, but really he is looking for his place in Italian politics. He wants to be a good prince/politician. Everything he suggests in the Prince is necessary (in his view) to be a good prince, in the same way success is defined for every 3 by his/her culture. Being a good prince requires a good image, as he says:

It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles. (must have a good image)

Don't focus too much on the 2 side of being loved. That's a far cry from the competency focus of 3.

[Creepy-male]

... blah blah blah

You haven't sold me, I am still skeptical, but in all fairness that stuff about the competency group I am unfamiliar with so I'll review it to give you the benefit of the doubt before I post my real reply.

edit: Alright I've read up on harmonic groups and this does change things a bit, maybe Machiavelli was a 3... but on him I am no expert and not willing to become one over night, so I will simply just back down on whatever type Machiavelli is, because regardless of his type, I still see his writing whether intentionally or unintentional to be reflective of 5/8 themes.

8's disintegrate to 5 because at 5 8's plot and think and scheme for power and 5's integrate to 8 because at 8 5's are confident and execute their ideas pent up inside their heads... so naturally the intersection of 5 and 8 is concerned with planning and execution as the central context with alot of the themes of 5's and 8's inherented within this context. Machiavelli consequentially can be interpretted to have this theme in his writing.

[Logos]

Thats an obscure peice of history, I remember watching "Barbarian Invasion" week on the history channel, if I hadn't watched the one about Anglo-Saxons I probably would have no idea who or what you're talking about.

However If I remember correctly isn't he the one who was a bit of thinker also and helped establish education or something to the saxons?

He is not that obscure. Alfred the Great reformed the law codes, established standing military forts, designed ships (though supposedly not of great seafaring quality), supported education, and even spent his time writing and translating works.

In regards to Machiavelli it is important to bear this in mind: there is debate as to how serious Machiavelli was when writing The Prince. I have heard a number of interpretations suggesting that it is a work of satire. Machiavelli was a republican who was previously in a position of power before the Medici Prince assumed power and exiled the republicans. So it is questionable how "practical" his advice in the Prince actually is.

[Creepy-male]

He is not that obscure. Alfred the Great reformed the law codes, established standing military forts, designed ships (though supposedly not of great seafaring quality), supported education, and even spent his time writing and translating works.

In regards to Machiavelli it is important to bear this in mind: there is debate as to how serious Machiavelli was when writing The Prince. I have heard a number of interpretations suggesting that it is a work of satire. Machiavelli was a republican who was previously in a position of power before the Medici Prince assumed power and exiled the republicans. So it is questionable how "practical" his advice in the Prince actually is.

Well he is not obscure if your english, which btw are you english? But even in college he is not someone that in America is studied outside of extremely specific classes from my experience, further he doesn't have any national prestige to American History.

Machiavelli, admitely I don't know his history, like I said I am just familiar with the core ideas surrounding the work, I haven't had the time to sit back and read esoteric historical works and analyze them. I am a science major and most of the time I have a book in front of my face it unfortunately isn't by choice but by the demands of the classes I am taking and its usually very technical/instructory in nature. Unfortunately it seems like what you spend your time reading is grounds for inspiration concerning the way you write.

[krieger]

In regards to Machiavelli it is important to bear this in mind: there is debate as to how serious Machiavelli was when writing The Prince. I have heard a number of interpretations suggesting that it is a work of satire. Machiavelli was a republican who was previously in a position of power before the Medici Prince assumed power and exiled the republicans. So it is questionable how "practical" his advice in the Prince actually is.

Might indicate Merry > Serious, then. I could see myself writing something like that "for the heck of it", or out of some Nietzschean urge to puncture through established dogmatism by aiming way above society's pain tresholds.

[electric sheep]

8's disintegrate to 5 because at 5 8's plot and think and scheme for power and 5's integrate to 8 because at 8 5's are confident and execute their ideas pent up inside their heads... so naturally the intersection of 5 and 8 is concerned with planning and execution as the central context with alot of the themes of 5's and 8's inherented within this context. Machiavelli consequentially can be interpretted to have this theme in his writing.

yes, because no other type is concerned with planning or execution... of anything.

Now the people who Machiavelli's advice applies to could easily be 5s or 8s. It's all how you use it. 3s, more than any other type, know how to make something look good, like if you want to look like a benevolent ruler, here's what you do. If an 8 wants to use his advice for world domination, that's up to the 8. If a 1 wants to use it to reform the church, then that's up to the 1.

[JohnDo]

If you look at Germany:
Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel and Opposition Leader Frank Walter Steinmeier are both Ti-LII.

If you look at Russia:
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is Ni-LII in my opinion.

bin Laden is IEI.
I can't disagree with the notion that Guevara is LSI.

As good as your general knowledge of socionics may be - that sounds ridiculous. Che Guevara is definitely not LSI. LSIs are traditionalists, certainly no revolutionaries. Bin Laden looks a bit like an IEI but I'm quite sure he is LII-IEI in your dual type system.

To be honest, I think that me, you, Osama bin Laden and Che Guevara are all the same type: LII-IEI. Aren't you a kind of revolutionary with your "progressive socionics", too?

[Absurd]

If there is a progressive socionics, what is this froum's socionics called ?

[Creepy-male]

yes, because no other type is concerned with planning or execution... of anything.

Alright.....

Well you see I wasn't saying that 5/8's are the only people that ever plan and execute.... I was saying the central theme of 5/8 is planning and execution. Thats not the central theme of other types.

While 3's will do alot of planning, its not a central theme, 3's don't hatch plots, 3's plan but all out of a pragamatic industry, their central theme is being industrious, because their core desire is to feel worthy/productive and the way they do that is to be industrious.

In particular a 3 doesn't really have the passion for planning, their attitude is more based around action/working/industry. 3's want to fly into action and have that feeling of being productive, they don't want to feel like they are wasting too much time conceiving plans unless its a practical and neccisary. 5/8 though is all about planning the way a 3 is about industry. The 5/8 feels paranoid of their incompetence and of other peoples ill will, to them the idea is that if they can conceive a solid plan they will be able to be prepared and not flat footed against other peoples actions. Planning to them is a way to get through live its a psychological remedy to their fear of another person catching them off guard, its not just about practical industry its the central theme.