As much as I 'd like to think that he is an ILE, he seems like a total jerk more and more, so I am going with Beta NF > ILE for him, Gamma SF for her and Delta Extravert for the author. Pics will tell for sure.(j/k)
As much as I 'd like to think that he is an ILE, he seems like a total jerk more and more, so I am going with Beta NF > ILE for him, Gamma SF for her and Delta Extravert for the author. Pics will tell for sure.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Yes, that makes sense. His "she's a real person" comments would then easily be explained by his sharing
I actually thought that the author was something of an asshole. But my guess for the author was either IEE or EII, with strong awareness of, but with it being somewhat undervalued plus valued
. This also rightly puts the author at odds with the man in terms of their valued means of information processing, and makes the author more sympathetic to the female, while being critical of the female's use of
and lack of
with her, while at the same time "criticising" her for the low
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I am amazed how you didn't see (realize) this before.Yes, that makes sense. His "she's a real person" comments would then easily be explained by his sharing
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Because I am tired and haven't slept and eaten properly. A nice example of SLI supervising me.
(funny thing, me neither...)
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I mentioned it in a couple places in my previous post. I also see possible evidence of Ti ignoring (as in the 7th function).
She's most likely Gamma, in any case. And he's Fe/Ti.
.
I couldn't decide from what was written if it sounded like valued Ne criticizing weak/unvalued Ne or valued Ti criticizing weak/unvalued Ti. It sounds like the author is saying that she's not as into intellectualism/academia as her husband is.
Also, I don't think that her inability to come up with creative solutions is necessarily type related. Like I said, anyone who's that miserable is going to lack creative energy.
I could see a Delta NF seeing an ESI that way though.
I think this works. ESI for her seems really clear to me. I saw him more as IEI, because I got this removed, detached, cold feel to him... BUT his showering others with affection (presenting a public face?) and the author describing him as "anal-retentive" (which I was having difficulty figuring out which type would perceive IEI as anal-retentive) would make sense with EIE. Anyway, I don't really care which Beta NF.
I actually thought that the author was something of an asshole. But my guess for the author was either IEE or EII, with strong awareness ofDiana's post was awesome.Yes, that makes sense. His "she's a real person" comments would then easily be explained by his sharing
I still am not convinced of any type for the author.
I saw the author's description of her not being as intelligent as failing to recognize her intelligence (although she simply could be "less intelligent" and it's not type-related). The author sees intelligence as being creative and being able to arrange the world in new ways and being intellectual and jumping over things coming up or going around them (in essence, s/he sees intuition and intellectualism as intelligence -- for instance the husband could read tons of books and fail to really get them but if he mentioned them all the time the author might think it a sign of his intellectualism and intelligence).
Her intelligence is more of the practical kind and the author doesn't seem to recognize this. For one, she doesn't feel the need to flaunt an intellectual air. She reads what she needs to know and uses it for an end. The realm of practical intelligence is complex and advanced, but I don't think the author is looking far enough.
I can see the arguments for the author valuing
But I did get the feeling that the author is much more sympathetic to her than to him. I almost detected a protective feeling towards her. She is a "real person" and she "adores him" and if she were to leave him... The author cares about her and what happens to her. The author seems to see her as trapped with him when he cannot love her because she is addicted to him and because she loves him.
I didn't see the author as really having a problem with her
I have difficulty seeing the author as Alpha because although I can see the case for
I have difficulty seeing the author as Beta because he so clearly doesn't seem to fully understand the husband. (Maybe there is more here that I am missing - well obviously there is much more, that we will never know).
I have difficulty seeing the author as Delta NF because I don't see the author as perceptive enough about what's going on... I could see the argument that the author sympathizes with her more because they share
I can't see the author as Gamma because he doesn't understand the wife well enough... for some reason I get the feeling that the author came to understand the wife through much time and observation... but still the author describes her as a sort of foreign exotic entity.
Anyway, if there are sides, I see the author on the wife's side... to protect her from the husband.
I can't figure out if the husband is really this way... or if this is someI don't think that he's in any way addicted to her. I think that he uses her to help enable him. To do good things and bad things, but to enable him. He sees the world in very functional terms. In regard to affection and relationships and conversation, and rewards, punishments and coldness and warmth and praise and thanks and blame and yelling and all those things, these are tools he uses to get people to do what he wants them to do. And his goal is to get everybody to do what he wants them to do. I don't think he draws a lot of distinction among people -- Some people he just feels are more important to him than others. It's a largely functional relationship: I've always said it's a shorthand that she loves [him] and [he] loves [himself], so they have something in common".
the description suggests Fe dual seeking for the man. he doesn't have these emotions himself he radiates them back to the person who has them. i've seen LII liven up this way in the presence of strong Fe again and again.
i went back and read the parts about her again, and yeah, there's really not much Fe there for her. i was more focusing on his reaction/Fe seeking. but she does seem to be able to fill that for him, this is what made me think Fe. perhaps she's reaching into her superid functions?
but what Loki said above about the author's interpretation of the relationship....this is the same thing as what i've been saying....and it would make sense. if the man is LII and the woman is ESI, then perhaps the author is delta NF. perhaps IEE, who supervises ESI and would be supervised by the LII man. you always like your supervisee more than your supervisor, dontcha know. lol.
Last edited by Blaze; 07-08-2008 at 03:46 AM.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Good point. Especially if the author is IEE, with
Yes.
And especially if the author isI can see the arguments for the author valuing
Yes, although one can indeed think he thinks little of her due to his earlier "not very bright" comments. The author's take seems to be, "he's more intelligent, but she's the better person".
I didn't see the author as really having a problem with her
Actually there is a lot more that we can knowI have difficulty seeing the author as Alpha because although I can see the case for
I have difficulty seeing the author as Beta because he so clearly doesn't seem to fully understand the husband. (Maybe there is more here that I am missing - well obviously there is much more, that we will never know).
I don't quite agree with that, actually. Maybe the husband is truly as cold and heartless as he describes; but if the author is Delta NF and the husband is Beta NF, we have them in opposing quadras, so contraries or quasi-identicals. It could have happened that initially the author mistook the husband as of being of his own quadra, and then realized he wasn't - but, of course, intepreting that as him being cold and heartless. Which may be unfair, or not. Being a Delta NF doesn't necessarily make you understand or appreciate everyone, especially of the opposite quadra.I have difficulty seeing the author as Delta NF because I don't see the author as perceptive enough about what's going on... I could see the argument that the author sympathizes with her more because they share
Yes, I agree.
I think that as far as those descriptions go, this is unanswerable. I do think it's aI can't figure out if the husband is really this way... or if this is some
Yet, for the purposes of typing, it is useful. It's the same as, say, an Alpha describing a Gamma NT could put it like this: "he likes correcting other people's erroneous remarks to make them feel stupid, or just to be plain rude. He's arrogant". Maybe the Gamma NT isn't really as bad as that; but the remark is still useful anyway.
I understand, but as others have pointed out, I think any
To me it seemed that what she does for him is more
I really have a problem with seeing the guy as LII overall, from the description, because of the
I'm not sure that it's true, generally, that you like your supervisee more than your supervisor as a person, although you may find it easier to have your supervisee around you than your supervisor. But I don't think it's what we're seein there.
I'm sure that when I give more information on the couple's identity - and on the identity of the author - many of you will want to throw eggs on my face.
But where I'm coming from is this: of course the author is biased. He is patronizing about the woman's "intelligence" and a bit scared, perhaps, of her use of
However, in spite of all of the above, the author was presumably describing what he perceived to be true, even if biased, and obviously expecting others to to believe it. So, for instance, the general impression of the wife as being "tougher" than the husband must be something that most people who know them would recognize.
My point is that with all the bias involved, we still manage to see her as ESI, the author as likely Delta NF, and the husband as Beta NF (except for SL, but she also sees him as
I think this is all remarkable, and shows what you can do with socionics - especially with regard to spotting such biases, and knowing where they come from.
And now I hesitate to receive eggs on my face.
Not that I disagree, but I am curious what makes her ESI > SEE. Is there enough info to throw out SEE-Fi?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Maybe not "throw out", but things like this:
It seems to me that this kind of thing would be less likely to be said about a SEE than ESI."She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."
Also, what the author keeps mentioning about her is how he sees her low
Perhaps the most cautious answer - and thus less likely to be wrong - would be Joy's: Gamma SF for the woman, and Fe/Ti quadra for the man. But I do think we can go beyond that and say ESI and EIE as likely.
Yeah, I said that like an hour before Joy even read this thread.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
ESI (not very healthy kind of, but could also be that the descriptor is of a type which does not value the strenght of hers) for her, ILE for him
edit: EIE? Maybe a very unhealthy kind of, but I don't think EIEs need to reiceve emotions from the outside in order to "mirror" them; that seems to be more of a characteristic of logical types
Last edited by FDG; 07-08-2008 at 11:24 AM.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Okay, here's some more information.
The author's type is the subject of this thread:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=19721
His descriptions are quoted at length in the book A Woman in Charge by Carl Bernstein.
For VI purposes, here's a picture of the couple the author was talking about:
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Thanks.
By the way, it would be too easy to dismiss those descriptions as the product of Morris's bias. Bernstein interviewed tons of people, many of whom are quoted, and the portraits he paints are not that different from the Morris description. I thought it was useful because it was quoted at length in the book, so it provides a consistent description from the PoV of one individual.
I actually thought she sounded EJ and that Te dominance and Ti ignoring could make sense. The description of her does clearly sound like an outsider's view of Gamma though.
I was wondering why everyone was seeing Fi in her? Just because she stays with a man that she's not happy with? I agree that the description sounded Fi valuing, but I don't remember reading anything that would suggest strong Fi.
If the primary reason is that the author doesn't think of her as being into intellectualism/academia so she must be an ethical type, it's a very poor one.
I actually thought Hillary was a possible ENTj. I guess Gamma rational makes the most sense for her.
As for mr. Jazzman, I always thought he was Alpha and probably ESFj, but I don't know, now I think EIE is a LOT more likely. Maybe even ILE.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
It's not so much "strong
No, it's that the author seems to be strong in
Well, if she's ISFj, then we have either Illusion if he's ENFj, or Conflict if he's ENTp. I think Illusion makes more sense than Conflict.
I agree.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I do see those points. I still think that when someone's life situation sucks as much as the author describes her life situation sucking, I would expect any type to lack creative energy and "bang their head on the wall". If I saw one thing in his description of her weaknesses that I thought was probably type related it was evidence of the EJ temperament under extreme stress (rationality in general could work I suppose).It's not so much "strong
No, it's that the author seems to be strong in
And I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like for a Te dominant to be in such stressful circumstances without having his/her dual seeking function fulfilled.I'd say it would be absolutely amazing if a Te dominant in her situation didn't have a mental breakdown.
Strong Se hadn't stood out to me either (though she was clearly described as Se valuing). I don't remember reading anything in that passage that wouldn't be explained just as well (if not better) by an EJ temperament than by Se ego.
Anyways, I'm not trying to make a case for her type because I don't know much about her besides what I read in that passage. I just know that I saw myself in darker times when I read that (which of course doesn't necessarily make her the same type I am), and I didn't think that what the author said about her not being a "creative thinker" necessarily suggested that she's not an intuitive or logical type. (This is particularly true if the author is IEE and Bill is ILE. Not that I'm suggesting he is.) I was just curious as to why people were seeing ESI > LIE (especially considering the bias in the author's description), and that question has been answered.
And if she's SEE (or LIE), would SEE-ILE (or LIE-ILE) make any sense? What do you think?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Super-ego or quasi-identical, then.
From the point of view of the relationship, I think super-ego might work. Quasi-identical -- in principle I'd say no, but in the precise case of him as ILE and her as LIE it might. But I really think that original description makes a good case for the
I think LIE for her and ILE for him could make sense (based solely on that passage) if the author is IEE. The author's description could essentially be saying "I respect his Ne, but I'm appalled by his lack of Fi. Even though I don't see as much Ne in her, at least she values Fi". The way he talks down about her could make as much sense for a relation of benefit as it does supervision.
@Joy: I do see your points. We have to consider the "matrix":
- the author's description of each of them individually
- the author's description of their relationship
- how the author's own type (and other personal reasons) may be influencing the previous two.
I think that IEE for the author, ESI for her and EIE for him, with a very long-term relationship of Illusion and with the Aggressor-Victim thing working, fits all the evidence in that description, and it's not inconsistent with what we know of them otherwise. But of course there will be other possibilities. I just think this one works best overall.
So we have:
1. EIE - ESI illusion > 2. ILE - SEE super-ego > 3. ILE - LIE quasi-identical
from the point of view of an IEE, ? ...
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I wonder if their relationship isn't more about their careers than the actual relationship itself.Super-ego or quasi-identical, then.
From the point of view of the relationship, I think super-ego might work. Quasi-identical -- in principle I'd say no, but in the precise case of him as ILE and her as LIE it might. But I really think that original description makes a good case for the
Well, you probably know more of them otherwise than most people here.
Hahahaha! Good one Expat...didn't see that one coming.
That's not how it really comes across in his descriptions, imo. There is more going on there.
Joy was not referring to the description, and while there are some (personal) relationship dynamics going on between the two of them they are still not the focus of their relationship, and that's what Joy was implying, imo.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I do think that there's more going on there, but I also have a strong suspicion that they would have divorced a LONG time ago if not for their careers in politics. The stuff in the description about how she was codependent with him was something I could relate to as well. (As in, if you're not getting Fi and you don't feel like you have the option of ending the relationship, you'd do whatever you had to in order to get anything that even remotely resembles Fi.)
Makes sense.
haha. I always thought Hilary was ESTj (for no particularly good or well thought out reason).
Although now that we know Bill is the EIE in question... hmm... he is a remarkably narcissistic individual... all we see is his public face... I tend to see him as warm, affectionate, compassionate, womanizing, narcissistic, charismatic, large ego (though not necessarily arrogant). I liked him mostly as a president because I felt he was very compassionate, which I seem to think is the most important trait in a leader (not because I've actually evaluated this and how naive it may be
This was interesting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
