View Poll Results: What is Ayn Rand's type?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • ILE (ENTp)

    0 0%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    0 0%
  • LII (INTj)

    0 0%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    0 0%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    0 0%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    1 33.33%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    0 0%
  • ILI (INTp)

    1 33.33%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    1 33.33%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    0 0%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    0 0%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    0 0%
  • EII (INFj)

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 100

Thread: Ayn Rand

  1. #1
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ayn Rand

    So my ISTj friend is forcing me to read Atlas Shrugged, and I was just wondering what is the general concensus on Ayn Rand's psychological type?

    I'll give my guess later.

    Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

    Cone


    quotes:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au.../ayn_rand.html









    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  2. #2
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESTp would be my VI guess. It's just a VI guess. Don't quote me on this one.

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ayn Rand hates Betas:



    you won't find a more cogent description of a socionical phenomenon in spontaneous speech than this.

    oops, another major the16types fuck-up.

  4. #4
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESTp.

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ayn Rand the self-hating Beta.

    welcome to the16types.info.

  6. #6
    Sir Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Ayn Rand hates Betas:

    you won't find a more cogent description of a socionical phenomenon in spontaneous speech than this.
    And just what is so typical only to Beta about this?
    4w5 sp/sx

    Please, direct all questioning of my self-typing to this thread. Thank you.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm not going to cater to your self-gratifying denialist drives by spelling it out.

  8. #8
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah she's SLE.

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lol I thought labcoat waz just joking around with stereotypes.

  10. #10
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see SLE. She seems so incredibly IJ. I feel constipated just watching her. Okay that was exaggerating. But anyway.

  11. #11
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Updated typing: Se-SLE sp/sx
    Last edited by silke; 05-02-2017 at 01:47 PM.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    is there any chance at all that Ayn Rand was an ISFj. even for all the emphasis she placed on Aristotelean logic (Te), her personal addition to the philosophy was to work out it's moral implications. she is stereotypically rigid like an IJ type both in her behavior and her convictions. she most vocally opposed Alphas (Kant, the "old" intellectuals) and Betas (witch doctors + Atillas, collectivism, Hitler, Stalin). her philosophy seems to match something commonly found among other gammas including those on this forum.

  13. #13
    Sir Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    is there any chance at all that Ayn Rand was an ISFj. even for all the emphasis she placed on Aristotelean logic (Te), her personal addition to the philosophy was to work out it's moral implications. she is stereotypically rigid like an IJ type both in her behavior and her convictions. she most vocally opposed Alphas (Kant, the "old" intellectuals) and Betas (witch doctors + Atillas, collectivism, Hitler, Stalin). her philosophy seems to match something commonly found among other gammas including those on this forum.
    I don't see how disdaining leaders who make decisions that affect millions of people based upon their whims and fancies and using force and coercion to carry those decisions out is specific to Gamma, or how those traits above can be pinned solely on to Beta. Sure, the two characters she described can be stereotypically named Beta NF and Beta ST, but then, what's to say that she isn't disdaining unhealthy members of her own quadra?
    4w5 sp/sx

    Please, direct all questioning of my self-typing to this thread. Thank you.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you'd be surprised. there were a lot of people in her time that apologized for certain parts of those two men's philosophies. there still are. Ayn Rand wasn't among these people. she attacked their worldviews from their core and rejected them categorically.

    what's to say that she isn't disdaining unhealthy members of her own quadra?
    to say everything is possible is a tautology and is not helpful to any discussion. we are faced with the problem of selecting among possibilities the one that is best supported by the available facts.

  15. #15
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everything that matters about her screams ILE out loud. From her appearance to her argumentation, reasoning, theoretical concepts, social role - everything I can think of. Less so are only some superficial details, which actually come from her theoretical constructions, not viscerally type-related (this seems to be a common assumption among the users). This is what ILEs actually do as a hobby, build the models of the inner workings - or rather find the principles behind, even if not consistently - of physical reality, society, and anything they have an interest in. Their conclusions are often very varied in themes, I'd dare to say hardly finding two immediately similar, especially coming from different historical contexts. Strong individualist and adamantly opposed to any kind of intellectual or social parasitism, or collective (herd) thinking. Liked to dispute and discuss ideas all the time; dry logical arguments, does not follow any current of thought.

    Maybe one thing that comes to my mind does not fit the big picture: finishing her works, sounds like a pain in the ass for an ILE... It is a bit unconceivable an ILE to spend so much in going through and polishing such a tedious work - especially fiction! - instead of generating ideas. Not that I dug for everything about her, though, what I know so far is sufficient to make a strong opinion.
    ---

    FTR: I can see where she comes from when she rejected part of Kant, he did not acknowledge factual analytic knowledge as valid. Kant lacked analytic a posteriory as a valid from of judgment. He called what we "just is" as "intuition" (more precisely empirical intuition IIRC) - in my understanding closed to what in Socionics is understood by Se, just to have an idea of what I'm talking about. He believes that anything empirical that "just is" is rather unverifiable, being impossible to demonstrate - and in a way he's right, though this way he rejects that the perception of the object and only the object (no addition made by the predicate) is possible, thing that is the pivotal concept of Rand's Objectivism. (the other three forms are qualified by him as "truth") This inconsistency expands over the analytic-synthetic distinction, because on one hand (initially) he acknowledges that synthetic and a posteriori are exclusively experimental, and the remaining two are rational, on the other hand mixing the two he created two anomalies, based on his definitions: the one he acknowledged is both synthetic and necessary (admitted as weird by him, but still valid), but he rejected the other entirely, therefore rejecting the value of the source empirical basic knowledge used for a priori judgments (what Rand is sure of).

    I think this great inconsistency can be summed up in: acknowledging that synthetic valid judgments can be both necessary and contingent, still rejecting this for analytic judgments - suggesting here and there that they are in all circumstances necessary, because he could find no valid case where they defy this rule, like it happened in the case of synthetic a priori judgments (mathematical-like). Ayn Rand rejects this distinction IMO precisely because of this sedimented definition of the analytic attribute, which became a rule of thumb along Kant's work (again, all this mess merely springing from the fact he could not find such example that he could label other than intuition!). Because of this conviction, Kant basically forbade in advance Rand rand to include her existents - "A is A", identity - in his system, except with the condition of being human conventions or subjective insights.

    Rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction is one solution, however not the wise one, IMO, though not necessarily unreasonable. I'm saying that because if analytic judgments are necessarily purely rational, then because of the contradictions between its definition and the one of existents (predicate adds nothing, though still empirical), for an objectivist they will be false, they would have had a different meaning than if they could possibly be empirical as well. The whole distinction fails in this light, actually. The other solution would have been to redefine the understanding of analytic - and in fact a true redefinition is not even necessary based on the Critique alone IMO, because this extended understanding of the analytic was not even supposed to be so, was not in the definition, but it just stuck with Kant based on lacking real applicability of the other way around (contingency); an ad interim becoming status quo. I think Rand chose the former because of a different understanding - or I may say a misunderstanding - of Kant's necessity, or something else that generated both her choice and this understanding of necessity of hers.

    Consequently, I see her rejection of this distinction actually an intimate and extremely accurate understanding for Kant's reasoning, unlike a number of other thinkers. Only a stern rigor and conceptual fitness could make her understand that incompatibility between her existents and the meaning of analytic/synthetic in its final form established by Kant, IMO. One may argue this could rather point towards SeTi than NeTi (she's too sure of the perception of objects alone), I personally differ for different reasons:
    - having that to her the identification actually happens, the object actually *exists*, similarily to the facts, which surprisingly are acknowledged by Kant. This makes it a logical conclusion instead of an irrational conviction which would necessitate Se;
    - for Se types this whole hasle is meaningless - things are what they are, there's no point in justifying them philosophically, at least not to a such extreme extent;
    - having her impulsive personality and unlike Se types, she is convinced that the human understanding is the source of our misery and blames Kant for what she perceives as misguidance of our spirit - why would a Se type whine about how an old fart cursed us through philosophical means, instead of taking fate in her hands by earthly means? Where is her self-reliance? She is fighting against some mere concepts...
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  16. #16
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whatever traits she may have, it seems like a phenomenon she may have noticed was beneficial for survival, and got carried away by making a whole philosophy to support it. Like an outsider would. Many SLEs might be rational egoists themselves, but that is a story as old as dirt. While she makes it out to be some grand discovery and has to label it. Basically, she talks too much. lol. That may be simplifying it, but I can't put it any other way.

  17. #17
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    So we are all in agreement that Ayn Rand was SLE, excellent.
    I think SLEs would spend more time relating to and commenting on objects themselves, rather than commenting (extensively) about some overarching "objectivist" efficacy behind things. Efficacy to them is more tactical, and secondly, motivated by their own subjective desires. It doesn't detach itself and promote Se as a thing in itself. What they care about is what they achieve through it.

    What she preaches isn't in contradiction to SLEs, but it's just in how she goes about that doesn't seem their style.

  18. #18
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    So we are all in agreement that Ayn Rand was SLE, excellent.
    Aye. Unanimous vote. The motion carries. And now we move on to the next item on the agenda: Carl Jung.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  19. #19
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fun fact: I was born 80 years to-the-day after the birth of Ayn Rand.
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  20. #20
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khola View Post
    Fun fact: I was born 80 years to-the-day after the birth of Ayn Rand.
    That's pretty cool.

  21. #21
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden View Post
    And Khola is IEE, so that means Ayn Rand must be too. That's a nice shortcut, so I don't actually have to observe Rand at all this way.
    Lol, now that's science!
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  22. #22
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Free will is an illusion. It is actually a set of chemical reactions that you perceive as allowing you to make a choice; subjectively, on a conscious level, yes, you are "choosing," but on a concrete level, that is really just the chemicals in your brain shifting, factors being weighed out subjectively via past experience, common sense, instincts, etc.

    You are nothing but chemicals. Fucking accept it you intellectual peasant.
    Currently completing second-year Psychology with distinction average. Currently completing a unit on Cognitive Psychology. Fucking lolled man. Ily Gillyweed
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  23. #23
    neverthesame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In prison
    TIM
    LII, 5w4
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Obvious INTj.

  24. #24
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khola View Post
    Currently completing second-year Psychology with distinction average. Currently completing a unit on Cognitive Psychology. Fucking lolled man. Ily Gillyweed
    I can breath underwater and rape intellect at the same time
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  25. #25
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neverthesame View Post
    Obvious INTj.
    Thanks.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  26. #26
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hmmm, I was thinking of her as ESI. I definitely feel like the willpower screams Se. This idea that you have to LIVE your life, DO, BE, get out there! And for some odd reason, I feel like her focus on money points to gamma. Not to stereotype or anything. lol
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  27. #27
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Capital markets values of because it's based on work and values

    SLI

  28. #28
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Everything that matters about her screams ILE out loud. From her appearance to her argumentation, reasoning, theoretical concepts, social role - everything I can think of. Less so are only some superficial details, which actually come from her theoretical constructions, not viscerally type-related (this seems to be a common assumption among the users). This is what ILEs actually do as a hobby, build the models of the inner workings - or rather find the principles behind, even if not consistently - of physical reality, society, and anything they have an interest in. Their conclusions are often very varied in themes, I'd dare to say hardly finding two immediately similar, especially coming from different historical contexts. Strong individualist and adamantly opposed to any kind of intellectual or social parasitism, or collective (herd) thinking. Liked to dispute and discuss ideas all the time; dry logical arguments, does not follow any current of thought.

    Maybe one thing that comes to my mind does not fit the big picture: finishing her works, sounds like a pain in the ass for an ILE... It is a bit unconceivable an ILE to spend so much in going through and polishing such a tedious work - especially fiction! - instead of generating ideas. Not that I dug for everything about her, though, what I know so far is sufficient to make a strong opinion.
    ---

    FTR: I can see where she comes from when she rejected part of Kant, he did not acknowledge factual analytic knowledge as valid. Kant lacked analytic a posteriory as a valid from of judgment. He called what we "just is" as "intuition" (more precisely empirical intuition IIRC) - in my understanding closed to what in Socionics is understood by Se, just to have an idea of what I'm talking about. He believes that anything empirical that "just is" is rather unverifiable, being impossible to demonstrate - and in a way he's right, though this way he rejects that the perception of the object and only the object (no addition made by the predicate) is possible, thing that is the pivotal concept of Rand's Objectivism. (the other three forms are qualified by him as "truth") This inconsistency expands over the analytic-synthetic distinction, because on one hand (initially) he acknowledges that synthetic and a posteriori are exclusively experimental, and the remaining two are rational, on the other hand mixing the two he created two anomalies, based on his definitions: the one he acknowledged is both synthetic and necessary (admitted as weird by him, but still valid), but he rejected the other entirely, therefore rejecting the value of the source empirical basic knowledge used for a priori judgments (what Rand is sure of).

    I think this great inconsistency can be summed up in: acknowledging that synthetic valid judgments can be both necessary and contingent, still rejecting this for analytic judgments - suggesting here and there that they are in all circumstances necessary, because he could find no valid case where they defy this rule, like it happened in the case of synthetic a priori judgments (mathematical-like). Ayn Rand rejects this distinction IMO precisely because of this sedimented definition of the analytic attribute, which became a rule of thumb along Kant's work (again, all this mess merely springing from the fact he could not find such example that he could label other than intuition!). Because of this conviction, Kant basically forbade in advance Rand rand to include her existents - "A is A", identity - in his system, except with the condition of being human conventions or subjective insights.

    Rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction is one solution, however not the wise one, IMO, though not necessarily unreasonable. I'm saying that because if analytic judgments are necessarily purely rational, then because of the contradictions between its definition and the one of existents (predicate adds nothing, though still empirical), for an objectivist they will be false, they would have had a different meaning than if they could possibly be empirical as well. The whole distinction fails in this light, actually. The other solution would have been to redefine the understanding of analytic - and in fact a true redefinition is not even necessary based on the Critique alone IMO, because this extended understanding of the analytic was not even supposed to be so, was not in the definition, but it just stuck with Kant based on lacking real applicability of the other way around (contingency); an ad interim becoming status quo. I think Rand chose the former because of a different understanding - or I may say a misunderstanding - of Kant's necessity, or something else that generated both her choice and this understanding of necessity of hers.

    Consequently, I see her rejection of this distinction actually an intimate and extremely accurate understanding for Kant's reasoning, unlike a number of other thinkers. Only a stern rigor and conceptual fitness could make her understand that incompatibility between her existents and the meaning of analytic/synthetic in its final form established by Kant, IMO. One may argue this could rather point towards SeTi than NeTi (she's too sure of the perception of objects alone), I personally differ for different reasons:
    - having that to her the identification actually happens, the object actually *exists*, similarily to the facts, which surprisingly are acknowledged by Kant. This makes it a logical conclusion instead of an irrational conviction which would necessitate Se;
    - for Se types this whole hasle is meaningless - things are what they are, there's no point in justifying them philosophically, at least not to a such extreme extent;
    - having her impulsive personality and unlike Se types, she is convinced that the human understanding is the source of our misery and blames Kant for what she perceives as misguidance of our spirit - why would a Se type whine about how an old fart cursed us through philosophical means, instead of taking fate in her hands by earthly means? Where is her self-reliance? She is fighting against some mere concepts...
    we have a contrary indicator!

    w00t!

  29. #29
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I really don't really care about VI, but in this interview she keeps moving her eyeballs around like she's "furrowing" through space. () That's Gulenko-code for Ni-creative. Just throwing LIE out there.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  30. #30
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    She doesnt seem LSI to me superficially, but I think it's an option worth exploring.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    000

    It is damn funny after having it digested, especially this:
    3. “Man is an end in himself.”
    Don't know what this is in her language, I mean, I think I know but, I wonder whether she goes further with this or not.

    EDIT: Anyway, it is fruity.
    Last edited by Absurd; 07-01-2011 at 06:36 PM.

  32. #32
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Exceptionalism to not help people. I'm on board, pull up the ladders. Poor people are so because of their lack of will; bad luck because you've done something to deserve it; exceptionalism/objectivism. Very narrow minded view without Ne.

  33. #33
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Exceptionalism to not help people. I'm on board, pull up the ladders. Poor people are so because of their lack of will; bad luck because you've done something to deserve it; exceptionalism/objectivism.


    “Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.” – Adolf Hitler
    That quote by Hitler is why I think he is Fi polr.

  34. #34
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post



    “Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.” – Adolf Hitler
    That quote by Hitler is why I think he is Fi polr.
    Or perhaps he thought he was just quoting Nietzsche or something.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I went with NT... Maybe INTx.

    Just a guess, but I would think that SLEs do interviews mainly because they've got something concrete they want to push...she didn't promote her books or projects once.

  36. #36
    InkStrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    419
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting that LSE has never been suggested as a type for Ayn Rand.

    It boils down to the misunderstanding of what it means to be:
    1) Se valuing
    2) Fi DS/Ti PoLR

    Hence the popular typing of her as SLE. All that has been attributed to Se valuing (ruthless business ideas, etc) are related to being an Enneagram 8. Her objectivism is a rational and very much a Te ego philosophy IMO, and her novels are a personal favourite of mine.

    Some Beta responses:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullets&Doves
    Because her philosophy is more of a vague, idealistic dream than a practical set of instructions, though she seemed to imply that she intended for them to be used more realistically.
    So write what you know. Ayn Rand was just an arrogant bitch who really didn't know anything, and continued to live out her ego (or false-self) in life. That people kiss her ass so much makes me continue to feel sorry for humanity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullets&Doves
    If this shit is based more on how information is presented than the actual information itself, I just flat-out don't like anything about her personality and mannerisms. She just seems like, wrongfully afraid of people and uptight about them and it really hurt what she was trying to accomplish more than she realized.

    If you think I'm being like one of those stupid first grade teachers that thinks people need to 'smile' more and be retarded, that's not it. She just did not seem like a happy, well-adjusted person at all. I don't know. The Rand just bugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by unefille
    She certainly was effective in communicating her ideas and it is very difficult to judge the specific affect she was aiming for. A lot of people certainly seem to find something in her work. Nevertheless, a certain resonance is missing from her work - a resonance which is not based on effectiveness, but recognition of process of writing. It's possible that I am allowing my distaste for her contents to throw me, but I still don't believe it to be EIE writing, which is separate from whether I judge it to be good or bad writing.
    Quote Originally Posted by unefille
    To make a more thorough assessment of her writing I would have to re-read her books, but I felt that they were weighted down with excessive 'information': detail, dialogue, didactic speeches. I disagreed with her sense of prioritisation entirely. I felt she both made her points too 'bald' as it were, and yet belaboured both the points and the path to making them beyond belief.

    ETA: I could see valuing/Te-ego, as it would explain how I felt about the writing. Alternatively, she could have just been a really really bad writer - but my point remains that a really BAD EIE writer would be bad in other ways.
    Quote Originally Posted by unefille
    Her writing style is NOT that of an EIE. It's prosaic, dull and devoid of any emotion. Reading it was like eating air-popped popcorn. No flavour, little nutrition, just a lot of pointless chewing with little payoff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    I am LSI and I hate her philosophy, it is too vague, inconsistent, and unimaginative...objectivism is for Gammas/Deltas. Also, her books are terribly written, pitiful attempts to integrate sci-fi with social commentary, and they always lack Beta values.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    I agree. The Fountainhead seemed to me like it was written by an advanced text-to-speech program with the cognitive abilities of a two-year-old. That is basically -valuing at its worst.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    The soft-hearted, weak-minded, and morally "responsible" characters she rebels against in "Atlas Shrugged" are Fi-types, not passion-driven Fe-types! If anything she is for passion, as long as it is passion for one's own goals rather than "the good of society." Her positive characters have no Fi in their relationships; it's just a passionate meeting of the minds with no moral strings attached whatsoever.
    Her revolt against these 'soft-hearted, weak-minded, "morally-responsible" characters' were in actuality a revolt against hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Her philosophy suffers from singling out this point of view and not seeing the large-scale consequences. She should have lived more, had more varied experiences, seen that every type of value-scale can be fit for a particular environment and a particular social context, instead of close-mindendly BSing about something vague.
    A common complaint regarding the Ni PoLR.

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat
    Ayn Rand hates Betas:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5dgyS5k7ec

    you won't find a more cogent description of a socionical phenomenon in spontaneous speech than this.

    oops, another major the16types fuck-up.

  37. #37
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not really for her or against her. But regarding type, if it says anything, I think she was being creative/personal with an ethical system, rather than a logical system, which means she didn't really utilize the finer qualities of categorization and she's more of an objectivist (utilizes objectivist ethics, which is more subjective in nature than subjectivist ethics). I tend to be pretty laissez faire about what is "good" ethics and take a global view.

    Secondarily, she comes across more accepting/decisive in these views than she does producing/creative, if I'm right (J type being someone more conceptually picky than perceptively.) So overall this would point to her type being LxI, or if I'm wrong on the latter note then at least some Ti.

  38. #38
    InkStrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    419
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    I'm not really for her or against her. But regarding type, if it says anything, I think she was being creative/personal with an ethical system, rather than a logical system, which means she doesn't really utilize the finer qualities of categorization and she's more of an objectivist (utilizes objectivist ethics, which is more subjective in nature than subjectivist ethics). I tend to be pretty laissez faire about what is "good" ethics and take a global view.

    Secondarily, she comes across more accepting/decisive in these views than she does creative/producing, if I'm right (J type being someone more conceptually picky than perceptively.) So overall this would point to her type being LxI, or if I'm wrong on the latter note then at least some Ti.
    I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought. On the first, a non-utilization of what you call the "finer qualities of categorization" conventionally points to Te>Ti. On the second, you argue for Ti>Te due her conceptual pickiness>perceptiveness. It is ambiguous whether: 1) she really is more accepting>producing (and what you mean by these terms), and 2) what you mean by being more conceptually picky than perceptive, as well as how that has any relation to Ti.


    In The Fountainhead, we have Keating with the collectivist mindset against hero, Roark the individualist. Taken from plot summary:
    On Keating: He makes his buildings for no other purpose than to please his clients and gain prestige, which he does completely, because not one of his clients is interested in quality. They are just interested in impressing their friends or the public.

    Roark, on the other hand, cannot get work because he refuses to compromise and put useless features on his buildings. His goal is to stick with his own design and strives to make structures more efficient
    In Atlas Shrugged:
    Atlas, the hero of Greek mythology who carried the weight of the heavens on his shoulders, symbolizes the exploited industrialists, particularly Rearden, whose hard work and great strength support the parasites who live off their productive capabilities. When Francisco tells Rearden that he would advise Atlas to shrug and let go of his burden, he is referring to the strike and calling upon Rearden to lay down his burden and stop believing it is his duty to bear so much weight for the undeserving. Rearden’s only reward for his efforts is the persecution of a corrupt government and the exhaustion of carrying others. Francisco knows it is unjust for Rearden, or anyone, to be cast in this role. By recruiting him for the strike, he tries to show Rearden a way out.
    What stands out in Atlas Shrugged, is her great dislike for the parasites of humanity: the lazy who leech off the ones who work hard and who do their duty in dedication and perseverance. It is a world where the few sustain the many, where the many reap the rewards out of the efforts of the few. What happens when the few refuse to work, and go on a worldwide strike? The novel depicted the end result: chaos and darkness.

    "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

    This is the oath the thinkers recite when they join the strike and come to live in the valley; The striker’s code presents Rand’s belief in egoism, or the doctrine of rational self-interest. Rand believes that individuals have an inalienable right to pursue their own happiness based on their own values and that they must be free to pursue their own self-interest as they choose. Under this code, people have no obligations to each other beyond the obligation to respect the freedom and rights of other self-interested people.
    Fi>Ti. Her ideal (Ne) world at the end of Atlas Shrugged, is one where each man does what he enjoys and does best to his perfection, and getting what he deserves out of it.

    What does she mean by living for the sake of another man? It is the sacrifice of our own needs for the sake of others. Sounds like EII hate, but which I perceive as EII protection.
    I have come here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life.... It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
    In The Fountainhead, she is much against altruism, which on the surface is Fi PoLRish. Except that this altruism is false altruism born out of competitive hypocrisy. It is a revolt against false Fi.

    Productivity:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
    My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
    Against hypocrisy:
    One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.
    On perfection:
    I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between.
    Si+Fi:
    The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
    Love: Te/Fi? Not Fe.
    Love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one's own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns, and derives from love.”
    On reason and profit:
    When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.
    Her philosophy, in a nutshell:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
    Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.
    Chunk on work and productivity:
    Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human— that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that [B]your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up— that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

  39. #39
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InkStrider View Post
    On perfection:
    I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between.
    Depending on how you take it, it is a good example of either Ti, Ti or Se Creative, or Ti/Fe valuing. I can't associate it with Fi per se by no means. The all-or-nothing attitude I associate with Ti/Fe valuing.
    Quote Originally Posted by InkStrider View Post
    Si+Fi:
    The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
    Si+Fi would be Delta, Aristocratic quadra, it is IMO far-fetched to the individualistic idea in the quote.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  40. #40
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InkStrider View Post
    I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought. On the first, a non-utilization of what you call the "finer qualities of categorization" conventionally points to Te>Ti. On the second, you argue for Ti>Te due her conceptual pickiness>perceptiveness. It is ambiguous whether: 1) she really is more accepting>producing (and what you mean by these terms), and 2) what you mean by being more conceptually picky than perceptive, as well as how that has any relation to Ti.
    No accepting/producing of J/P is a J/P difference, not Ti/Te. When you accept Ti in your ego, it means you are LxI. If you produce it, you are xLE. Also the objectivist ethics can be argued either way, you can say its Fi or Fe, but to recognize subjectivism you must become more objective, so the objectivist ethics ayn rand holds are most likely due to her intensified subjective factor, even if they are the after-result of becoming more objective. I'm mainly just pointing out my differences with her.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •