EII?

[leckysupport]

Delta?

[leckysupport]

[Marie84]

EII, absolutely

[Lobo]

Actually, I would say enlightened LSE.

[leckysupport]

Actually, I would say enlightened LSE.

Nah, spends too much time creating a warm family atmosphere (including within his crew), having a understanding attitude to criminals and making connections with people. He is also very sensationalist and dramatic; not exactly the hallmarks of a LSE.

The only thing which is remotely LSE-like is his tough-guy persona.

Edit:

[Lobo]

Nah, spends too much time creating a warm family atmosphere (including within his crew), having a understanding attitude to criminals and making connections with people. He is also very sensationalist and dramatic; not exactly the hallmarks of a LSE.

The only thing which is remotely LSE-like is his tough-guy persona.

I can see why you would say EII, but I still get an LSE vibe from him... The way I look at it is that it's impossible for anybody to belong 100% to a certain type. Everybody falls somewhere in the information processing closed loop, and each socionics type is distinct. While what you're saying is true that EIIs spend energy in creating a warm family atmosphere, it doesn't mean that other types cannot do so as well for whatever reason. An LSE in socionics theory, strictly functional wise, will not spend his life energy on something like that, and I agree. However, people in real life are organic, they change and develop based on what happens around them and their experiences. I think this is what Smilex referred to when he said that people can change their type. Personally, I would see it not so much that your type changes, but that you are able to process and value other types of informational elements, making it seem that you are a different type. I think the usual approach to typing is based on observing what you "spew out" rather than what goes on internally, at the core. IMO, temperament is something that you can't fake, especially going from Ij -> Ej energy, which is what I think Dawg demonstrates. There's just something about Dawg that does not convince me of EII, though the values he projects do seem to point to that type.

[UDP]

I think the usual approach to typing is based on observing what you "spew out" rather than what goes on internally, at the core.

That's the difference between MBTI and Socionics. Many people using MBTI criterion and throw around socionics terminology. It's a very simplistic way of using socionics, and leads to misunderstanding.

IMO, temperament is something that you can't fake, especially going from Ij -> Ej energy, which is what I think Dawg demonstrates. There's just something about Dawg that does not convince me of EII, though the values he projects do seem to point to that type.

Possibly. I don't really see him as an EII. I almost think ESE or some extratim F type. If he's LSE, he's 1 or 3.

[leckysupport]

I can see why you would say EII, but I still get an LSE vibe from him... The way I look at it is that it's impossible for anybody to belong 100% to a certain type. Everybody falls somewhere in the information processing closed loop, and each socionics type is distinct. While what you're saying is true that EIIs spend energy in creating a warm family atmosphere, it doesn't mean that other types cannot do so as well for whatever reason. An LSE in socionics theory, strictly functional wise, will not spend his life energy on something like that, and I agree. However, people in real life are organic, they change and develop based on what happens around them and their experiences.

Another way of putting this is that he displays limited and non-existent Te, Si or LSE like behaviour; and a lot of Fi, Ne and EII like behaviour. The show hardly goes into how the criminals are found, all that work is already done before the team leaves. He catches them (exciting and sensational) and proceeds to become their psychologist, works out some problems and then gives some social commentary. He isn't "organically" a LSE enough for him to be called a LSE.

Personally, I would see it not so much that your type changes, but that you are able to process and value other types of informational elements, making it seem that you are a different type.

I personally believe there is more than one way to be a particular type and a lot things we call type related aren't really type related. So behaviour is more fluid then what people expect, but type and the basic way type does thing stays the same.

I think the usual approach to typing is based on observing what you "spew out" rather than what goes on internally, at the core.

IMO since we can't see the process, we focus on the manifestations of the process and we type off that. With seeing enough expression of a types manifestations you should be able to intuit/deduce the type based off the manifestations.

IMO, temperament is something that you can't fake, especially going from Ij -> Ej energy, which is what I think Dawg demonstrates.

IMO temperament is a pretty large abstraction, it covers 4 elements and 4 types (not to mention subtypes). The thing which makes it not as bad as Quadra is that the base elements are rational, accepting and extroverted, and the creative element irrational, producing and introverted. In comparison, type is one abstraction up from expressed type (the least abstracted construct of socionics) and elements sit on the same level as type. So when I want to type someone I focus on elements and type behaviour because those behaviours are closer to what can be easily and readily observed.

There's just something about Dawg that does not convince me of EII, though the values he projects do seem to point to that type.

Fair enough.