Donald Trump

[Samson]

@Samson, starting with post #145 a lot of arguments in favor of SEE have already been covered by other people. I agree with that typing of him, but in these long threads it seems like it just starts going in circles after awhile.

Indeed, I just addressed this.

[squark]

Speaking of going in circles around something

Whose ass you’re kissing: Samson’s

Appeal to emotionality: You’re just displaying your support to / solidarity with him in this argument with that comment without offering new arguments yourself

I've already argued my points in this thread. Try reading it. I pointed out that this has already been brought up BECAUSE I see it just going in circles, covering the same ground over again and again. Here's where my posts in the thread start: LINK

[Bertrand]

You are conflating something to this without evidence

its obvious you just like to argue because you see in it a working environment: an opportunity to advance your interests or be heard, but the principle is secondary if it exists at all. you will diverge into any topic if it allows you an arena. meanwhile other people are not trying to open up new fronts but simply get some closure. in that sense, conflict is inevitable and people are bound to oppose one another, and the topic is mere window dressing because people are just acting out their program whatever the occassion may be. the problem with the topic of trump is its not a simple college debate club matter, this stuff actually matters to people so while you think its all just a game, its not a game to many people. even if socionics is a trivial thing in your mind, people are bothered by trump and if socionics helps them understand him better and by extension their own world, to create chaos there for what amounts to your own amusement is bound to be opposed by people who don't find it as enjoyable. the problem is you think my foregoing statements are just another tactic to "win" and you can't see how its not about winning at all, and so you will not stop, because that would make you a loser. with that said, I will bow out so as to allow you the final word and in doing so the victory you so crave

[niffer]

"Being softer to be more likable"
...
This is a misrepresentation of what I said. You are straw manning me. It should be obvious that Donald doesn't care about being "likable" in the way you put it.

Regardless, SEE does not use this “softer” approach with others. Demonstrative Fe / creative Fi gives the SEE the characteristic of being naturally moral and dignified without the SEE having to compromise on their aggressive, competitive image.

What you believe is obvious, is not apparently. Not to me, or to everyone else on this site who also typed him SLE.

Furthermore, the Hidden Agenda is not called HIDDEN for no reason.

[niffer]

[golden]

sure, it doesn't but thats an oversimplification. would you say the same thing to someone pointing out ESEs put out a lot of emotion?

I don’t think emotional lability is type-related. I also don’t think emotional lability is the same a lot of emotion.

[Raver]

SEE is right.

He's the ultimate jock. Sounds dumb even if intelligent, great at relations and promotion, throws his weight around, heart of gold. Dualizes with nerdy but highly pragmatic and prudent ILI, not much interest in the IEI because has no use for fairy tale love stories (SLE on the other hand eats this shit up).

He's the archetype of the golden lion, the jock, the dumb blond, the popular kid.

He is Napoleon.

Jock stereotype indicates being an dom the majority of the time (even non doms can be a jock, but let's just broaden it specifically to dom to not get carried away). It does not make the distinguishment between or creative. So yes, it is possible for a jock to be an SEE or an SLE. Therefore, this whole argument that he's a jock = SEE is kind of silly. I used to think Trump was SLE and now I've evolved to the point where I don't care about his type anymore, he can be SLE or SEE, it does not matter to me. People can type him whatever they want, but I just felt the need to point out that this argument of Trump = jock therefore he is SEE is fallacious.

[Samson]

Jock stereotype indicates being an dom the majority of the time (even non doms can be a jock, but let's just broaden it specifically to dom to not get carried away). It does not make the distinguishment between or creative. So yes, it is possible for a jock to be an SEE or an SLE. Therefore, this whole argument that he's a jock = SEE is kind of silly. I used to think Trump was SLE and now I've evolved to the point where I don't care about his type anymore, he can be SLE or SEE, it does not matter to me. People can type him whatever they want, but I just felt the need to point out that this argument of Trump = jock therefore he is SEE is fallacious.

I have expanded on the point of the jock and which "version" (SEE or SLE) applies to him.

Also:
What I said was: "He's the archetype of the golden lion, the jock, the dumb blond, the popular kid."
The "jock" point was brought up in a context that shouldn't be ignored. Cherry picking one point does nothing to weaken my stance.

There has been a conversation on it already. Keep up.

[Samson]

I absolutely LOVE how I brought up the archetype of "the dumb blond" for Donald and no one protested.... yet most type him at Ti Creative / Te Demonstrative?

HAHAHA You can't make this shit up!!

[Raver]

I have expanded on the point of the jock and which "version" (SEE or SLE) applies to him.

Also:
What I said was: "He's the archetype of the golden lion, the jock, the dumb blond, the popular kid."
The "jock" point was brought up in a context that shouldn't be ignored. Cherry picking one point does nothing to weaken my stance.

There has been a conversation on it already. Keep up.

I've read the rest of this thread and it all goes back to this post, it's just a reiteration of he's a jock = SEE mantra. Honestly, I don't care if you think he's SEE, but your whole argument is a house of cards. Go back to the drawing board, construct a better argument for SEE and then perhaps your case for SEE will become more valid (regardless if it is true or not).

I absolutely LOVE how I brought up the archetype of "the dumb blond" for Donald and no one protested.... yet most type him at Ti Creative / Te Demonstrative?

HAHAHA You can't make this shit up!!

This basically proves my point, your argument has no substance. It's literally: "He's a dumb blonde therefore he's SEE". I hope you realize how silly it is and you try to make a better argument. If you want to type him as SEE then by all means go for it, but relying on stereotypes to type someone is not the best way of going about it.

[Samson]

I've read the rest of this thread and it all goes back to this post, it's just a reiteration of he's a jock = SEE mantra. Honestly, I don't care if you think he's SEE, but your whole argument is a house of cards. Go back to the drawing board, construct a better argument for SEE and then perhaps your case for SEE will become more valid (regardless if it is true or not).

Then you are beating a dead horse and your comment added nothing to the conversation. Congratulations, you just wasted everyone's time.

You not understanding my argument is different from you claiming that it's shit. I have explained myself and you have not refuted A SINGLE DAMN THING. You are trolling me at this point.

[niffer]

You are trolling me at this point.

To his credit, you aren’t making it very difficult.

[Samson]

This basically proves my point, your argument has no substance. It's literally: "He's a dumb blonde therefore he's SEE". I hope you realize how silly it is and you try to make a better argument. If you want to type him as SEE then by all means go for it, but relying on stereotypes to type someone is not the best way of going about it.

You might want to check your definition of "literally."

[Samson]

To his credit, you aren’t making it very difficult.

Please. You're so easy. You couldn't even make a dent.

[niffer]

Please. You're so easy. You couldn't even make a dent.

Well bend over deeper then.

[Raver]

Then you are beating a dead horse and your comment added nothing to the conversation. Congratulations, you just wasted everyone's time.

You not understanding my argument is different from you claiming that it's shit. I have explained myself and you have not refuted A SINGLE DAMN THING. You are trolling me at this point.

You've made good arguments for him being dom actually, I'll give you that. Almost everything you've said is basically highlighting his dominant function and little with his creative function and PoLR.

You might want to check your definition of "literally."

Your main basis of your argument is that he's a "jock" when that just indicates dom, so that makes my point accurate.

The ease with which he plays with relations. Read the article I linked, or at least read the quotes I copy/pasted. SLE behaves differently and has a different effect on people. He's a jock, yet he was apparently gentler than many in the treatment of others. The grounds for his appeal to the other sex also show high ethics. Again, SLE has a different effect, their Fe is needed to attract, but is 2D, and this gives a very off-on quality to one's appeal in close contact. SEE is this: "he held himself in a way that everyone thought he'd be very desirable for the opposite sex" Ease with relations.

Donald is an emotional man. Emotional rhetoric is his signature move. Being "likable" by the larger public is the domain of Fe and while Donald has been successful with this in the past (tv shows and more), his likability shows in close relations. Read testimonies of people who have met him. This is the area where his appeal is king, and it is the area of subdued ethical attentiveness.

This is better, you're getting away from the whole jock () argument and instead showing how he is creative and HA instead. I don't agree with you, but at least there's more substance with this approach.

[Samson]

You've made good arguments for him being dom actually, I'll give you that. Almost everything you've said is basically highlighting his dominant function and little with his creative function and PoLR.

Your main basis of your argument is that he's a "jock" when that just indicates dom, so that makes my point accurate.

This is better, you're getting away from the whole jock () argument and instead showing how he is creative and HA instead. I don't agree with you, but at least there's more substance with this approach.

Wow.

[Raver]

Wow.

Seriously? You're just going to result to sarcasm and condescension instead of refuting my points? Low self-awareness on your part my friend, got to work on that. I might as well call you out on it then if you want to go down this road instead of having a constructive debate.

[Samson]

Seriously? You're just going to result to sarcasm and condescension instead of refuting my points? Low self-awareness on your part my friend, got to work on that. I might as well call you out on it if you want to go down this road instead of have a constructive debate.

What points?

[niffer]

Wow.

The Te is like fireworks before your unblinking eyes, I know.

Day and a half old beer. I love how alcohol kills bacteria.

Want some?

[Raver]

What points?

I know, tell me about it, what points have you made other than: "He's a dumb blonde jock"? Pure genius points. I gave you credit though for that one post of substance though, but I guess you didn't acknowledge it and chose the road of condescension instead.

[Samson]

I know, tell me about it, what points have you made other than: "He's a dumb blonde jock". Pure genius points. I gave you credit though for that one post of substance though, but I guess you didn't acknowledge it and chose the road of condescension instead.

Perhaps you ought to reread your first comment to me. You keep on reducing my argument to the lowest fucking dumb point that you can think of and then expect me to respect your posts that don't refute a single damn thing? Fuckin' a.

Get off your stupid high horse. It's... stupid.

[niffer]

On second thought you might not need any alcohol.

[Samson]

Hey @Samson , What crawled up your ass and died?

Yet another troll. How wonderful. Keep it up.

[Raver]

Perhaps you ought to reread your first comment to me. You keep on reducing my argument to the lowest fucking dumb point that you can think of and then expect me to respect your posts that don't refute a single damn thing? Fuckin' a.

Get off your stupid high horse. It's... stupid.

At this point, you've basically devolved to just ad hominen attacks because I called you out on your weak argument and you couldn't handle it. I think you may be psychologically projecting in this case unfortunately. Like I said before, you are perfectly capable of good arguments, you made one in that one post and I even found it quite convincing as someone on the fence. So, if you want to focus on the negative of what I've told you instead of the positive then that is your prerogative, but it won't do you any good.

[niffer]

Hey @Samson , What crawled up your ass and died?

Oh I’m very much alive up in there

[Samson]

At this point, you've basically devolved to just ad hominen attacks because I called you out on your weak argument and you couldn't handle it. I think you may be psychologically projecting in this case unfortunately. Like I said before, you are perfectly capable of good arguments, you made one in that one post and I even found it quite convincing as someone on the fence. So, if you want to focus on the negative of what I've told you instead of the positive then that is your prerogative, but it won't do you any good.

You "called me out" on my supposedly weak argument (an argument which you cherry picked as you missed the overall picture I was painting) while then complimenting me on making a good argument.

So which is it? You go back and forth with telling me how I ought to make my case. I have no interest in this.

[niffer]

You "called me out" on my supposedly weak argument (an argument which you cherry picked as you missed the overall picture I was painting) while then complimenting me on making a good argument.

So which is it? You go back and forth with telling me how I ought to make my case. I have no interest in this.

Never heard of being gracious?

[Raver]

You "called me out" on my supposedly weak argument (an argument which you cherry picked as you missed the overall picture I was painting) while then complimenting me on making a good argument.

So which is it? You go back and forth with telling me how I ought to make my case. I have no interest in this.

Why can't it be both? Your main argument of him being a jock and a dumb blonde was weak, but then I saw you how you mentioned how he had creative and had demonstrative , which was good so I wasn't going to lie to you and tell you that part was bad when it was fine. So to sum it all up: Using stereotypes to type people is not the way you type people (especially if that stereotype is attributed to ) but analyzing someone based on the interpretation of their functions is the way to type people. So long story short, you got off at the wrong foot, but made some good points along the way, while continuing with some of the bad points.

[Samson]

Why can't it be both? Your main argument of him being a jock and a dumb blonde was weak, but then I saw you how you mentioned how he had creative and had demonstrative , which was good so I wasn't going to lie to you and tell you that part was bad when it was fine. So to sum it all up: Using stereotypes to type people is not the way you type people (especially if that stereotype is attributed to ) but analyzing someone based on the interpretation of their functions is the way to type people. So long story short, you got off at the wrong foot, but made some good points along the way, while continuing with some of the bad points.

Archetypal thinking isn't for everyone, that's true. My work is focused on the collective unconscious: archetypes. The talk on his Creative and his Demonstrative can be fun to see how it falls into place for me, but I have little interest in pursuing this. Archetypes, or as your rather shallow interpretation of these says 'stereotypes,' is how type expresses itself. The conscious mind is very much ruled by its unconscious counter part, and visa versa. The notion that archetypes have no use in typology is one I strongly disagree with, because what are types if not the unconscious archetypes that are explained away by arbitrary rules of the conscious mind. My intent was to paint the picture of the archetypal feel of Donald Trump Jr, and where this lead us to. Language is a barrier in this venture, but you don't seem to understand the depth from which these "stereotypes" stem, and I am saddened by this, but not disheartened.

This thread is filled with information on the "Creative, Demonstrative,..." There is no use in me adding any more to it. Yes, I am perfectly capable of doing so, but as this thread so perfectly illustrates, it is an exercise in futility and redundancy.

[Raver]

Archetypal thinking isn't for everyone, that's true. My work is focused on the collective unconscious: archetypes. The talk on his Creative and his Demonstrative can be fun to see how it falls into place for me, but I have little interest in pursuing this. Archetypes, or as your rather shallow interpretation of these says 'stereotypes,' is how type expresses itself. The conscious mind is very much ruled by its unconscious counter part, and visa versa. The notion that archetypes have no use in typology is one I strongly disagree with, because what are types if not the unconscious archetypes that are explained away by arbitrary rules of the conscious mind. My intent was to paint the picture of the archetypal feel of Donald Trump Jr, and where this lead us to. Language is a barrier in this venture, but you don't seem to understand the depth from which these "stereotypes" stem, and I am saddened by this, but not disheartened.

This thread is filled with information on the "Creative, Demonstrative,..." There is no use in me adding any more to it. Yes, I am perfectly capable of doing so, but as this thread so perfectly illustrates, it is an exercise in futility and redundancy.

I have nothing against you using an archetype, it's just that you used the wrong one. The jock stereotype applies to any dom, but you were using it to prove he is SEE when that same exact argument could be used for SLE as well. In fact the jock stereotype probably applies better to SLEs than SEEs if anything, but it could easily apply to both so I see why you used it.

So, you were basically trying to illustrate how he was dom, which added nothing to the debate. If the argument were between SEE vs. IEE or SLE vs. ILE then perhaps your use of the jock stereotype would of been used in the manner it was intended. So like I've said, there is nothing wrong with using archetypes as long as they are used correctly instead of just causing misinterpretation.

[niffer]

My work

Your work?

Floundering around like a moron and reposting Jung quotes on the internet isn’t a job, you know.

[Samson]

I have nothing against you using an archetype, it's just that you used the wrong one. The jock stereotype applies to any dom, but you were using it to prove he is SEE when that same exact argument could be used for SLE as well. In fact the jock stereotype probably applies better to SLEs than SEEs if anything, but it could easily apply to both so I see why you used it.

So, you were basically trying to illustrate how he was dom, which added nothing to the debate. If the argument were between SEE vs. IEE or SLE vs. ILE then perhaps your use of the jock stereotype would of been used in the manner it was intended. So like I've said, there is nothing wrong with using archetypes as long as they are used correctly instead of just causing misinterpretation.

I will repeat myself for the last time: you are ignoring context and are cherry picking the "jock archetype" argument, an argument which I had expanded on and which served to support a larger argument.

Sure enough, I did not use the "wrong one" and you are not capable of making an informed judgment on the matter.

[Samson]

Your work?

Floundering around like a moron and reposting Jung quotes isn’t a job, you know.

Jung quotes?

I know you're just trolling, but go ahead, where exactly are the supposed "Jung quotes?"

[niffer]

Jung quotes?

I know you're just trolling, but go ahead, where exactly are the supposed "Jung quotes?"

You said “your work” involves looking at the collective unconscious, so you are somehow using them...

[Samson]

You said “your work” involves looking at the collective unconscious, so you are somehow using them.

Go ahead, find me the "Jung quotes."

[niffer]

Go ahead, find me the "Jung quotes."

Well I was just mocking you. If you really don’t quote Jung though I’m not sure what you mean when you say your “work is focused on the collective unconscious: archetypes”. That’s probably plagiarism...

[Raver]

I will repeat myself for the last time: you are ignoring context and are cherry picking the "jock archetype" argument, an argument which I had expanded on and which served to support a larger
argument.

Sure enough, I did not use the "wrong one" and you are not capable to make an informed judgment on the matter.

My point is you could of not chosen a worse archetype for your argument that he is an SEE. You chose one that could ambiguously be interpreted as SEE or SLE hence why your whole argument was built on a house of cards.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Esfp+jock

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Estp+jock

Like I said before, it's fine if you want to use an archetype for an argument. However, using the one archetype that can be interpreted as both an SEE or an SLE is not the way of going about it.

[Samson]

Well I was just mocking you. If you really don’t quote Jung though I’m not sure what you mean when you say your “work is focused on the collective unconscious: archetypes”. That’s probably plagiarism...

So you've got nothing and were "just mocking" me. How are you not banned from this forum? Serious question. If users like you are allowed to troll and insult others to the extent that you've shown me so far, then this is a strongly negative reflection of this forum and I doubt I will be very active here. This place clearly does not respect its users.

Anyway, given our interactions, I will not be as willing to indulge you with "my work" in the future.

[Samson]

My point is you could of not chosen a worse archetype for your argument that he is an SEE. You chose one that could ambiguously be interpreted as SEE or SLE hence why your whole argument was built on a house of cards.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Esfp+jock

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Estp+jock

Like I said before, it's fine if you want to use an archetype for an argument. However, using the one archetype that can be interpreted as both an SEE or an SLE is not the way of going about it.

I understand what your point is, I don't agree with it.