One of my teachers was absolutely fascinated with Wright. Plus there's a house designed and built by him that I drive by all the time. It feels out of place, but seeing the inside looks awesome!
One of my teachers was absolutely fascinated with Wright. Plus there's a house designed and built by him that I drive by all the time. It feels out of place, but seeing the inside looks awesome!
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
FL Wright is INTj... and a genius.
Ayn Rand (Se ESTp) was a huge fan of Frank Lloyd Wright and based her character Howard Roark off of him.
Ashton has him typed as Te INTp. Here is the link:
Frank Lloyd Wright
He has a large selection of quotes from Wright, which imo hit on the same themes as others in his gamma gallery.
As of now I'm going with the Te INTp typing. If I am presented with contrary evidence I might change me mind.
Also I enjoy his architecture.
The end is nigh
No offense, Archon Alarion, but Ashton doesn't even have his own Socionics type correct, nevermind the correct type on FLW.
Nevermind that Ashton has not studied FLW, you know? (A certain person responding in this thread took a whole course on him at Northwestern as an undergrad.)
You'll learn more about Socionics if you open your mind to things beyond Ashton's typings... A lot of Ashton's early typings were right on, but after his friend left him there, frankly many of em have been off by an entire quadra.
I'd just recommend that you read FLW's numerous architectural treatises if you're really interested... You know what I mean? I don't have time to spoon-feed people this Socionics stuff. (I'm not getting paid for it, you know?)
lol okay.
Ya know, Its not like Im closed minded or just "blindly following" Ashton. He has a nice big gallery.
Like I said "As of now I'm going with the Te INTp typing. If I am presented with contrary evidence I might change me mind."
The reasons for my Te INTp typing of him includes, but is not limited to what Ashton has shown. In fact, I probably would of guessed Ni INFp as a tentative typing.
He VI's like the other Te INTp's too.
He could be INTj, idfk. Like I said, I'm starting with Te INTp and I'll take other paths depending on information I integrate.
Also, I really hate implications that I'm Ashton's minion. Totally uncalled for.
The end is nigh
I'm not trying to put you down, you know?
What I'm saying is: just because it's labeled "INTp" in Ashton's gallery doesn't mean it is... He has a lot of those wrong. In fact, we could go through it together if you want, and I'll show you which ones are wrong and why.
(Sarah, his old friend--who used to post here as well--helped him with most of his accurate typings... The result is: those good old typings are intermingled with a lot of bad new ones, which aren't even close... E.g. your friend Tom's type thread... Ashton, thought he was ESTj, right? Via VI alone, Tom is obviously Ti-ESTp... AFter reading his writings, delta is a crazy typing.)
I like you, you know... Not trying to offend... It's just, if you're looking for a Daddy figure to show you the correct way of doing this, and you're looking to Ashton for benchmarks... You could end up wasting some time, like I did.
Humor me for a minute and compare, via VI, Neil Peart c. 1980 (whom we both apparently agree is INTj,) and FLW in the above photo... Then, if you want, read transcripts of interviews. Then let's talk.
Actually I think Te INTp is correct.
Look at the comparison:
Wright:
Ludwig von Mises, also Te INTp:
Sergei Brinn, Te INTp, next to Wright:
VERSUS:
INTjs:
See the Fe receptivity in the INTjs and the voidness of it in the INTps?
I've been thinking about this and it wouldn't surprise me if FLW's mentor, Louis Sullivan, was INTp.
What I'm having difficulty with, Steve, is squaring Wright's architectural philosophy with anything Ni related... It's a rigid system of proportions (based on the nature particular to the site and the clients' wishes) and with an underlying objective to break entirely free of historic forms and let the architecture blend in with the natural environment.
It sounds textbook LII, you know?
All of that said, I keep coming back to his admiration for sullivan, and I do think sullivan was ILI... (Neither here nor there, but at the time, Chicago was as Gamma a city as it ever gets.)
(IMO Steve, FLW looks less like your INTp example than the second picture down INTj example... Also, aside: a lot of late 19th century pictures have that "look in the eyes" because one had to sit and not blink for some seconds, otherwise the picture would come out blurry... The effect is spooky looking, isn't it?)
Last edited by JuJu; 04-09-2009 at 11:34 PM.
Sorry I'm going to do this quickly b/c I've got to get to editing film before school closes tonight.Originally Posted by Starfall
TiNe = INTj
Ti, in this case = systematizing logically, and using that system as a logical justification for action. Wright did this throughout his career--seemingly constantly, given the number of drawings, etc--museums (AIC esp) are filled with his studies of rooms, decorations, objects like chairs based on systems of proportions Wright derived from nature.
Wright liked a certain--I forget the exact term now, it's been three years since i took that course--but it was akin to the 'natural flow of a space'--see: The Robie House on the South Side of Chicago for an example. He meant that the house should unfold organically to those who enter it, from the walkway to the end of the property. In actuality, this glorification of the organic was very contrived and precise, down to the measured placement of chairs and fixtures... As beautiful as the results often were to look at, some clients complained that the results were 'unfit for living.' (Mies van der Rohe famously said "form follows function..." FLW, some clients complain, would have done well to think about function at all... Doesn't strike me as particularly Te, you know?)
Ne, in this case = recognizing the unrealized potentialities in landscapes that would produce extraordinary-looking buildings... Each big project was a start from scratch--based entirely on the natural landscape around the building, (except the Guggenheim in NYC, which many consider a disaster. I like it, but w/e.) I think we'd all probably agree he was a master at that.
This is neither here nor there, really, and it's not particularly un-Ni, but during Wright's early career, Daniel Burnham was the most famous Chicago architect... Burnham was known for his early neo-classical skyscrapers (see: Flatiron building in NYC as an example of Burnham's work, and also his plan for the Chicago World's Fair) FLW's total rejection of Burnham's style, and all past architecture in favor his 'organic' artistic vision is one of the themes of his career... WOuld you call it Ne or Ni? Or anything? I don't know.
Hope that helps
Do you think he's INFp, Starfall? If so, I think you might have it.
He looks the part, IMO, (like a middle-afged version of strrrng haha.) And to be honest, the strongest case I can make for any function in FLW is Ti, and rejection of Te... He certainly embraces Fe, like you pointed out.
I can't really think of a good case for Ne>Ni or vice versa.
Except that, according to what you said, Wright's function was the form.
What about that contradicts Te? Juju said "In actuality, this glorification of the organic was very contrived and precise, down to the measured placement of chairs and fixtures". Wright understood that form facilitates the flow of things. He understood that form does indeed create effect and feeling. If he had a specific feeling in mind for his creations, why not apply an amount of preciseness equal to the effect he wanted to achieve?
I highly doubt NiTe is all about making physical living easier. He built with precision to make his ideals reality. He lived according to his ideals. He could build churches without guilt because his patron saint was Nature.
Now, what about any of that is anti Te? Why are we reducing an idealistic aim to Fe?
You said earlier that empathy is something that runs deeper than type. How are ideals not something that go past it as well?
Ni INFp?
That was my initial guess.... Rand did love the guy...
The end is nigh
Elizabeth Farrelly | Frank Lloyd Wright
I read that newspaper opinion piece a few days ago, and immediately thought INFp. (Note: it's very critical, and from briefly skimming this thread, it seems there are a lot of fans of his here.)
allez cuisine!
Ni can not be simplified into "ideas and fortuitous events". Everyone has ideas. Fortuitous events are events - and the awareness of them is not function related since everyone defines fortuitous events differently. Te is not simply "profitable and marketable". When you separate functions down to their base components one of them does not separate into money or the pursuit of it. Functions are a way of doing something - not the action itself. How are the labels of "self sacrifice" and "serving society" relevant, then? If you refuse to define Te and Ni by anything more than this incredibly banal little blurb, I guess I really can't say anymore. Your idea of Te is incredibly different than mine, I guess.Originally Posted by Socionics :: Quadras
blocked with
:
This quadra believes that ideas and fortuitous events should be turned into something profitable and marketable — something that does some kind of work for people. The Gamma Quadra values self-sacrifice in the name of serving society.
I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here. Are you saying that our mind is a function? And since Te is the mind, and he had a "no mind" way, or since he focused on his ideals for how his creations should be, he had to be Fe because Fe is the emotions, not the mind?They could if they serve no attachment. To me empathy only runs deeper when one doesn't identify with it, same goes for ideals imo. To be honest, I do think Wright had a "no mind" way for going about things which is what made me interested in his type in the first place.
Te is a bottom up approach. It's not a framework like Ti. In a framework, things are connected to eachother in many ways, so if you break one, it still manages to stay together because that one premise is not it's sole basis. Te is bottom up - self contained - the validity of the Te structure depends upon the validity of the things underneath it - the validity of the data, concepts, whatever it has to work with. Look, FLW even said it himself.
"I hate intellectuals. They are from the top down. I am from the bottom up."
Fwiw, have you ever seen an INTj not terming themselves as some sort of intellectual? lol.
For some reason people make this stupid correlation that Gammas are like "money, money, money", day in and day out. No. You can't categorize a 4th of the Socion and say they like money than for no other reason than to stroke and caress it in their fucking safe. Money is currency - most people who like money like it for that precise quality. FLW's view on this issue is one I think illustrates Gamma's view of money on a more general level.
"A vital difference between the professional man and a man of business is that money making to the professional man should, by virtue of his assumption, be incidental; to the business man it is primary. Money has its limitations; while it may buy quantity, there is something beyond it and that is quality."
This is Te:
"Architecture is the triumph of Human Imagination over materials, methods, and men, to put man into possession of his own Earth. It is at least the geometric pattern of things, of life, of the human and social world. It is at best that magic framework of reality that we sometimes touch upon when we use the word "order."
Te is not simply meaningless facts. People who describe Te this way forget that facts are not meant to be floating in space. The way you see facts, use them for a bottom up approach, doesn't mean you simple use an immaculate attention to details for profitability. You don't always see "reality" simply as a tool to heighten marketability. Sometimes you use your awareness to try to bring a vision, ideals to life. If you see, experience, try to describe your reality in a bottom up, solid foundation, premises building on one another way, why would you automatically have a incredible urge to go serve society? Where, how are these "experts" on socionics.com making their correlations?
Maybe this won't make sense to you. But I'm not pulling definitions off socionics.com, either. I'm trying to describe a phenomenon I see in people. I simply don't see an entire group of people being reduced to being satisfied with physical concerns and lots of profit. We're talking about motivations and cognitive perceptions.
Boo, dolphin flouts the verified "authorities" on Socionics and rips a new one. Whatever.
You can use how things work to fit whatever you want. The idea is that just because reality is organized in a bottom up fashion does not mean it's going to be based on manufacturing physical comfort. He's an architect for Christs sake - not a interior decorator.No. You've got Ni and Ti in there, but not Te. Te, to quote Joyis "what works". Function, not high-minded idealism. What's going on, what's working, how things work.
Archon suggested Rand used him for the character of Roark, but the thing about Roark is that it is excessively stressed how functional his buildings were. One building either designed by Roark or his mentor was described as totally non-descript, nobody paid any attention to it. The genius of it, was how ultimately well-designed it was. The people working there wouldn't want to work anywhere else. He examined the qualities of the building site, and made a building to take advantage of them, and all his buildings were very liveable.
Roark is a character in a book. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about Frank Lloyd Wright, a real person.
However, this
Who said he disposed of function though? No one. Look, he says it here,The form and function worked together. So, Rand may have admired Wright, but if he was focused on form to the extent of unlivability, then he greatly differs from Roark in that respect.
"Form follows function — that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union."
What do you think Te with Ni is? Your "what works" sounds more like Delta to me.
Bill Gates isn't Gamma.
My point is that we are talking about how the mental process Te manifests. I'm not talking about something working. Period. Not all inventors are Te. Not all inventors of useful things are Te. I'm talking about the way a mental process functions. Can you understand that?
No, it's not. Something working is not function related, how it works is. Being beautiful in form and fitting together nicely means nothing unless you know how it's beautiful and to whom. How it fits together. Not the fact that it fits together. The solo fact that something fits together does not tell you anything about how it was made. Things can fit together in an Fe way, they can fit together with Ti, with Te, with Fi, etc. It is only when you examine the structure and see how it was put together that you gain insight into what caused it. Te works in a bottom up way. It operates in a more localized way as opposed to Ti. And by localized I mean that the mental process itself is self contained. It is not a field function like Ni or Ti or Fi or Si. Of course, Te does not function alone. You won't see isolated Te. It doesn't exist. Quadras and types are a combination of functions. That's where the diversity comes in. It exists with whatever other functions the person has. And for crying out loud don't tell me that Ni is a vision brought to life. I said it's possible for a NiTe to bring his vision to life based on his Te thought process, not that Ni simplified was a vision brought to life. Some people have visions. Some don't. Having a vision is not type related. The way he brought to life his vision was in an extremely NiTe way.Function, being useful, is not about physical comfort either. You can sit down and type on a typewriter that has keys, paper, and so on. A typewriter that "breathes" but you can't use, is most definitely "anti-Te". It can be full of Si, being beautiful in form, and fitting together nicely, but there's no Te there. It can be created with Ni, being a vision brought to life, but still, there's no Te.
Can he really qualify that statement? How do you define "unliveable"? Is it truly unliveable? As in, impossible to use? Or is it merely not in accordance to the wishes or asthetic preferences of the clients? If it it was truly unliveable then maybe you have a case. If the bathroom sink is in a cumbersome spot, I doubt that's a reason for FLW lacking Te.The quote referring to people not being able to live in his houses. This one:
Originally Posted by Juju
As beautiful as the results often were to look at, some clients complained that the results were 'unfit for living.' (Mies van der Rohe famously said "form follows function..." FLW, some clients complain, would have done well to think about function at all...
So far Juju has not told us what qualifies as unliveable.Function, being useful, is not about physical comfort either. You can sit down and type on a typewriter that has keys, paper, and so on. A typewriter that "breathes" but you can't use, is most definitely "anti-Te".
Also in the 1930s, Wright first designed Usonian houses. Intended to be highly practical houses for middle-class clients, the designs were based on a simple but elegant geometry. He would later use similar elementary forms in his First Unitarian Meeting House built in Madison, Wisconsin, between 1946 and 1951.
His Usonian homes set a new style for suburban design that was a feature of countless developers. Many features of modern American homes date back to Wright; open plans, slab-on-grade foundations, and simplified construction techniques that allowed more mechanization or at least efficiency in building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Personal_style_and_concepts
What works is what works. It's not a function.Delta is a Te quadra also, so I would hope that they would fit in with Te definitions also. If they don't, then something's wrong with your understanding of Te. And "what works" is just Te, not Te with Ni.
I think alpha extrovert makes the most sense, also by reading about his life.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Unfortunately, I have to make this brief for now, as my whole family is together for Jesus & Rabbit day.
Many of Wright's clients have maintained his residences (e.g. Robie House, etc) and instutions (e.g. Guggenheim, Milwaukee Greek Orthodox Chuch, etc) were not designed with their practical functions in mind, but only their aethetics... Also, they are notoriously expensive to maintain.
E.g the Guggenheim, an art museum in NYC, is built around interior spiral staircases, which although incredible to look, do not allow vistors to stand on level ground to look at the artwork. People attempting to study paintings have fallen, even hurt their feet (!) People often complain of sore calves... In other words, Wright's design makes it physically difficult to look at artwork head-on.
I can go into more detail next week when I'm back if you want.
No, no. The point is that FLW is able to be both "efficient" and "non-efficient" in other people's view of him. He was able to build efficient structures, so it's silly to make a blanket statement saying "all of his houses were unliveable". Some of his houses and structures were extremely "practical". Yet others fulfilled an ideal and weren't physically practical. I never said he was all head in the clouds ideals, or all efficiency. So the fact that he builds something that is practical or non-practical can't be relevant to having Te polr, since he is well able to do both, with skill.
And yes, I'm going to state that Te can't be simplified to "efficiency". The most important thing to remember is to whom it has function and efficiency. Do you think all quadras view Te as the same thing? No. Te/Fi. Fe/Ti. They oppose one another. You will never have those two sets of complimentary information elements in the same quadra. Why? Because they're different ways of organizing the same information, perception. In addition, what is perceived to be relevant by the person is going to influence how and what type of information they are going to accept.
Ok - bottom up approach., or external dynamics of objects. External, meaning apparent, explicit. You can for most purposes trace the progression (object) or structure (field) of external functions (Se Te Ti Si), even if you don't agree with them. Statics - "snapshots", points on a line, progression, structure. Dynamics - a moving entity. Objects - separate from the viewer. Fields, seen through the viewer, can't separate from the viewer. This is what I mean when I say Te is a self contained process. Take Ti for instance. Say you have a structure. Imagine the structure of a chain link fence.
This has certain qualities relevant to an external static field. Ti is an interconnected traceable structure.
a) It covers a large amount of space (stretched out).
b) The links are more important than any matter in between them.
c) By merit of the space it covers, it has holes.
d) You can trace the structure and see how any one of them connects to the other. It might get tiring to examine every single one, but it is observable.
Ok, so just imagine that you punched out a square in that chain link fence. Clipped it out with wire cutters, I don't care. The pieces immediately surrounding that square may come loose and look frayed and the immediately surrounding weave structure might get shakey, but overall, the fence doesn't fall apart. It's too interconnected. It's too big. What you just shot down didn't make a whole lot of difference in the overall structure. It's now a chain link fence with part of it's gut kicked out, but it will live. Well, not really. I guess a relevant point would be it doesn't have a gut. It doesn't have insides. See all the gaping square holes?
Ok, next, imagine a set of square, same sized blocks.
Ok so now we have Te. Ug, that's not exactly dynamic. Fuck. If only they were moving. Or progressing. Or something. I need to find a better analogy. Anyway. Ok, so keep in mind the geometrical shape isn't so important in this example. It could be anything where the pieces are inextricably linked together by nature of their progression. (It's not so much they're held together as they follow eachother.) Anyway, notice the blocks will not cover the same space as the fence. They will start ground up, and then go wherever the progression goes. Te doesn't have much regard for the fence, the place it takes up might go straight through the chain link, or wherever. The kind of thought process this represents is one that is traceable, however, it does not cover as much defined space as Ti because it isn't stretched out and doesn't have holes, that is, it's not made of links and multiple interconnections, but rather a causal progression. It's an object, a dynamic process, and it's in motion. It is more accurate for the ground it does cover - the information is self contained, immediate - that individual process is more accurately depicted with Te. Perhaps where the process of Te explains something very thoroughly, there's a square hole of nothingness where Ti is. Te is highly focused and represents a progression of data in a more self contained space. Not that it won't move around depending on how it's tracking a process, however, the process in motion by itself doesn't have much bearing on adhering to the premises of any structure. There you see now where ground up comes from. It's quite causal, and you don't see a lot of skipped steps or loosely connected assumptions like you do with (lone) Ti.
(example) So, Ti people can see Te as too nitpicky and not seeing the whole picture or whatever, since by itself it's contained, and even the field function Te works with (Fi) is not implicit or external. You can put together highly specific data points in a subjective structure. However if you tried to put them in an so called "objective" or measurable structure like Ti, some of your highly specific data perhaps won't fit with the overall links and structure Ti already has. In contrast, Te people might see Ti as too generalizing and full of holes - ignoring the reality of a highly specific, external, measurable process and categorizing things that cannot be categorized and making structures that don't exist. The nature of the two renders them incompatible - the two external, "objective" functions don't fit well in the same psychological space together. Te (or Ti) can be efficient or non efficient, depending on your perception.
However, this is just a crude example, and does not account for the fact that people might see other people as full of holes and too generalizing or too nitpicky, blah blah, for many other reasons, and have little to do with functions. The thing I am trying to describe is most often more subtle - a cognitive process, the way it operates, is organized - and these words, constructs, are only attempts to describe something that is an abstract mental process. So you cannot simply draw your conclusions from my (example) inference. Using the nature of the functions as I described above, you can make your own inferences. See how that works? It's only a cognitive process, and people may choose to do many different things with it, thus rendering the output, or behavior, less empiracle than the mode of thought behind it.
So, my perception of FLW is that he cared greatly about the precise details of his work, wanting it to flow in an "organic" way that mimicked nature, whose processes can be termed a natural causal (yet complex and detailed) progression, which could very well be Te. "In actuality, this glorification of the organic was very contrived and precise, down to the measured placement of chairs and fixtures". His "big picture", however, was incomprehensible to a lot of people. That's because his "big picture" was subjective. I think it may have been Fi dual seeking, or Ni as well (an internal fields function, the most non-concrete function in relation to the others), or perhaps a combination of the two. That's perhaps why you see an incredible concentration on the detail of the process, but the output is seemingly abstract and not "practical", however, he was very capable of practical pieces, but seemingly had to be reminded that he had a customer with comfort concerns.
I don't see how this isn't in line with what I attempted to describe above. But yeah, it would be interesting to hear more about it when you have time.
Last edited by female; 04-13-2009 at 05:27 AM. Reason: rewording for better clarity and fuck you slippery terms!!
SLI IMO.
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...
frank lloyd wright might be an intj
regarding this topic i would like to make my point of view and say that FLW was an INTJ or an ENTP... not INFP (because he had many relationship and wives) and an INFP has difficulties in leaving a bad relationship, and may prefer only one love
- he made many qoutes in which he controlled aspects regarding how an architect should be, he always believes he is wright (intj)
- he created a world of his own, not imitating but creating new set of laws
- he was very confident ( very rare for an intp)
- interested in nature, measures of protecting it - intj
- future oriented
- natural leader
I like the argument for INTp.
Reading more: Yeah, I'm not seeing INTj at all. Reminds me of many Te-INTps I know.
Last edited by 717495; 09-10-2009 at 08:27 AM.
- he made many qoutes in which he controlled aspects regarding how an architect should be, he always believes he is wright (intj)types will always have doubts, it's part of the Ne process of being open to various possibilities, including that you could be wrong.
- he was very confident ( very rare for an intp)
I don't think this is really type related. I've known various types of people from all quadras who care about nature.- interested in nature, measures of protecting it - intj
This is actually more- future oriented
- natural leaderPoLR= natural leader?
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
He's INTp-Te. A very good example actually. The thoughts for INFp are weak, for INTj they're weaker. The reason for these wrong typings is a misattribution of the observed phenomenon (the natural order of his buildings) to a particular function and role placement of said function..
JuJu, ego doesn't mix well with socionics. Every time I see you post your typings are more off-base / egocentric than the last. The counter arguments you give are emotional and authoritative. You are slipping, and you need to reevaluate your thinking patterns and function definitions; and you particularly need to avoid misattributing an observed function to a particular role (usually dominant or polr). That sort of matching / mismatching function and role is a very bad way to type. Very prone to misconceptions about the flow of the observed information, as it metastasizes in your own mind.
one post account: someone actually created a false account to provide themselves social support for this topic. Wonder who that was ..
Everything Hitta said in this thread is very good, and I agree with him.
Last edited by crazedrat; 09-10-2009 at 10:05 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
