straw man argument.Originally Posted by jason_m
straw man argument.
no, it's a pretty decent argument compared to most of what you hear in socionics. there isn't anything even roughly in the direction of such explosive, resistance defying behavior in what she does.
I'm just messing with you.
Oh shut up, man!
sound like Fe to me
Stop bullshitting.
sounds more like Ti/Te
They cornered me
Just sit down!
I have to take a lot of crap.
are legit.
Not to mention the ton of Se vocabulary on Wikisocion that jason_m conveniently neglected to quote. Not all Se leading types are super-aggressive or in-your-face, especially SEEs who know when to use Fi.
so she isn't:
- a base Fe type
- Ti/Te
- Se
QED
I don't like the informal fallacies.
Here is an example to illustrate:
A: Thinkfast did damage to John's cognition because it required him to think at high speeds; his mind is now racing. I think his cognition would have been improved originally by having him do a cognitive enhancement program that involves meditation and thinking slowly, because he responded negatively to the quick-thinking cognition regime.
B: This is a fallacy (the name is not important); just because a quick-thinking program does damage, does not mean that a program that emphasizes slow thinking would have been originally helpful.
- The problem is that there might be some application-specific principle to human thinking or general heuristic that dictates that when one answer doesn't work, doing the opposite might be helpful; in the real world, things often come coupled together in various ways, often involving contrasts; something that running slowly is often helped by being sped up, something that is soft and not functioning properly could perhaps be helped by being hardened. Further, coupling insight with experimentation often gives good results. Finally, the fallacies cannot be applied blindly; the information the fallacy is applied to is important, as well as the context that that the information comes in.
With respect to the argument above, there aren't many options with respect to Se and how the concept can be applied; there aren't specific words that the person must use, but the person has to be strong-willed to be an Se-ego. Lady Gaga, as outrageous as she can be, is not strong-willed. Rick Delong's EIE description is a better fit; there is nothing about her that is power hungry, political, ruthless, tactless, etc., and that is what those quotes imply; the key point is that they have to be put under the same classification system.
Last edited by jason_m; 04-02-2011 at 05:41 AM.
1. You think SEEs are tactless?
I am guessing Rick put most of those phrases up there and he may have been conflating Se with Ti and Fe, which is natural given his type.
2. Lady Gaga is indeed political. She has been quite outspoken about gay rights. Lots ofvaluing types, and especially Gammas, seem concerned about civil rights issues like that. She's often rightfully compared to Madonna, who was also Se leading. IMO while she does have some good music, a lot of it is style >>>> substance and definitely lacking in
, even monotonous at times. Works on the senses more than the emotions.
Check out this interview.
YouTube - Lady GaGa - Interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20
The very first thing she says (I don't take my glasses off for many interviews, but I will for you) is
She frequently talks about her fans as if she has a very personal relationship with them - more
3:15 - "I was almost a monster in the way that I was fearless with my ambitions" - more, not the blunt obnoxious kind as exemplified by the above quotes
3:40 - took her clothes off in public (!!!), clearly confident in sensing. "Something just came over me" - irrationality.
4:00 - "Is it your desire to 'shock'?" "Certainly."
6:50 - More about Fi: "You're not going to die in this house...I only get one set of parents."
General aspects of her music: yes, artificial, image-focused, attention-seeking, sexual, shocking. Uses Fi more than Fe. All great evidence for SEE.
looks totally introverted in that interview (for the most obvious set of reasons that don't take rocket science to detect).
i see most of those arguments (although i find them schetchy to begin with) indicative of Strong Fi and Valued Se more so than of presence of either in the Ego (if i am to use such contrived terms as non-ego blocks to get across a point). as for actual Base Se; it's just not visible in her in her real life interviews.
I just don't really ever see her using Fe per se; it's always Fi. ESI is maybe possible.i see most of those arguments (although i find them schetchy to begin with) indicative of Strong Fi and Valued Se more so than of presence of either in the Ego (if i am to use such contrived terms as non-ego blocks to get across a point). as for actual Base Se; it's just not visible in her in her real life interviews.
Also, @jason_m, regarding "strong-willed":
she types herself as intuitive in that vid.
half serious remark, though.
the thing about Fe in IxFps is that it's a much less explosive and active thing than it is in ExFjs. if you're looking for something that bounces all over the place you've just got the wrong idea in mind. and if she was ExFp, we should in fact be seeing something "bouncy" and active along those lines.
No, definitely not. In fact something like that isn't really type-related IMO. It varies a lot within type. There are Fe-creative types that are way more effusive than Fe-leading types. Lady Gaga is probably an ectomorph which would explain her being rather reserved.she types herself as intuitive in that vid.
half serious remark, though.
the thing about Fe in IxFps is that it's a much less explosive and active thing than it is in ExFjs. if you're looking for something that bounces all over the place you've just got the wrong idea in mind. and if she was ExFp, we should in fact be seeing something "bouncy" and active along those lines.
Aw, she used to be so cute! Like a normal sized Snooki!
A potential SEE would be a guy who showed up at the Michigan socionics conference a couple years ago when Rick's wife (then girlfriend) and some of your friends/roommates were putting together a bbq spit. (Beside the point) the debate about the spit was filled with Si and Te information - where to place it, how long it should held up for, its weight, what will make for the best bbq-ing, etc. (what are, unfortunately, often boring issues for an). The guy who I'm talking about showed up along the outside during the middle of the debate. He was loud, abrasive, outspoken, and seemed to be the life of the party; he did seem somewhat tactless, but I don't know if I misinterpreted his behaviour because of my built-in bias against Se. (I see all Se-egos as the same for some reason; he was either a highly-Fe-valuing SLE or an SEE; strong ethics plus leading Se - I'm not good enough to distinguish between the two. Also to my dismay, I keep noticing Fe-egos going for these guys in movies and just observing what goes on in traveling around my city.). Other and perhaps more extreme examples of Se-leading in my system might be "Stifler" from the American Pie series or the Jason Statham characters in the "Crank" movies. I have seen Se-egos that aren't as "intimidating"; they just happen to be a little bit "rough-around-the-edges", but we cannot communicate effectively with each other.
I think in reality Lady-Gaga is tough to nail-down; she is in between on some measures, and so she slips through the cracks; on the one hand, some things about her are not friendly and gregarious enough to be an EIE, on the other hand, she doesn't seem "powerful" enough in the way she speaks and behaves to be an SEE.
Hm, don't remember who that might be specifically. If it's who I'm thinking of, he was actually LSE.
loud, outspoken, even abrasive - ok, sure, SEEs can definitely be like that. Female ones, maybe less so.
But 'tactless' connotes to me a lack of understanding of social graces (ethics). Not a big deal, it's just a word.
jason it seems that you're overly focused on surface traits. Lady Gaga's overall agenda and motivation are better evidence than apparent aspects of her behavior, because they are things that she necessarily shares with all people of the same type.on the other hand, she doesn't seem "powerful" enough in the way she speaks and behaves to be an SEE.
I don't think so. I think he had a leather jacket. He was really loud, too loud to be an LSE, a type which is often more conservative and therefore reserved.
Your understanding of the trait is more indicative of what I consider an ILI to bestow; brutal honesty (= weak Fe). I'm thinking of someone who is direct in an almost vulgar way (which is what makes it difficult, because ILIs often behave that way as well - think of Niffweed, for instance, and how direct he can be).But 'tactless' connotes to me a lack of understanding of social graces (ethics). Not a big deal, it's just a word.
All that I can infer is that her overall behaviour and agenda seem to be an attempt to attract attention and make an impact, traits that a number of types can have.jason it seems that you're overly focused on surface traits. Lady Gaga's overall agenda and motivation are better evidence than apparent aspects of her behavior, because they are things that she necessarily shares with all people of the same type.
See, this is the problem. LSEs can't be really loud but SEEs usually are? Being loud has little to do with type.
Pretty sure this is who I'm thinking of, and yeah, he's LSE.
Better, but still not universal.direct in an almost vulgar way
It helps to have some other examples. For instance, most people (including myself) agree that the character Rocky is an SEE. But he's not loud, crude, or vulgar. At the same time, he does have a powerful persona and uses Se and Fi.
Sure, but if it's the main overarching theme the only possible typing isAll that I can infer is that her overall behaviour and agenda seem to be an attempt to attract attention and make an impact, traits that a number of types can have.
oh god.....Being loud has little to do with type.
every time someone uses this argument against you, you respond with "not type related" like in the above. you don't play by your own rules. this conclusively indicates you're a cornered rat and have lost the argument.Sure, but if it's the main overarching theme the only possible typing is
Being loud has little to do with type.
...
Sure, but if it's the main overarching theme the only possible typing isJust happened to notice this thread. Small point, but actually thehotelambush isn't being contradictory here. I think the insight is that often on the forums, people will pick some arbitrary/isolated trait and make too much of it typewise..."This person is too [loud | friendly | normal | red-haired] to be [x] type" ... but if someone identifies something as the "the main overarching theme," of a person, then that suggests a more serious type connection.
As to Lady Gaga's type, it is difficult because in interviews, she still is doing an "act." Her singing/act suggests SEE to me, but I can also see EIE from her interviews, or maybe some other Ni type. Her constant changing of costumes suggests that she's externalizing some sort of constantly changing internal imagery...seems like an Ni theme. In her 60-minutes interview, she seems more conceptual, more driven to make specific idea points than the typical star...this suggests possibly some N type as well.
Lady Gaga is an ENTp (ILE).
If I'm recalling this correctly, in her interview with Anderson Cooper, she explains that she specifically learned how to gain fame and now uses that accumulated attention to her advantage (sometimes towards political/social causes she gets involved in). What she does is all very calculated; she knows how to play the game of the industry and make it work for her. Compare her to Britney (SEE) and I think the difference is astoundingly obvious.
Britney seems more fun, open, personable, and down to earth; she wants to fit in, show herself as similar to everyone else, and she doesn't seem at all rehearsed. She seems driven to keep doing music because it is her career. Gaga on the other hand practically makes it her goal in life to be original, to not fit in. You can say this is part of her "act", but the fact that she is "putting on an act" in the first place again suggests to me how very calculated everything is for her.
Compare her videos to one of Britney's, where Britney is usually portrayed as being flirty, sexy or cute; they are fairly safe in terms of being easy for the viewer to digest without having to think about what's going on. When Britney's videos are pushed to be more abstract, they lack a certain depth to them; it seems like they tried to make it abstract purely for the sake of doing it (and following a trend). Gaga overwhelmingly portrays herself in her videos as original, a chameleon able to transform for whatever she needs to do, even if it comes off as "too weird" for some. Some of her songs (and certainly some of her videos) are pretty dark, and each video has some definite purpose behind it. You originally hear the song and think it means one thing, and then she releases a shocking, sometimes confusing video to go along with it.
She likes doing things that other people might be afraid to do (standing up for certain social movements she believes in such as taking gay soldiers with her to the VMAs), things other people might gasp at. She does this not only because she believes strongly in what she is doing (her fashion, music, her social causes), but because she wants to see how people will react.
Last edited by Clumsy; 02-11-2012 at 07:35 PM.
@Clumsy, Everything you say seems to be pretty much on the mark, except I'm not sure why the transforming images, story aspect, chameleon quality, etc., signify Ne as vs. Ni. I guess in a larger sense, that's a pretty endless, ongoing debate around around here, judging from a lot of other typing threads. If someone basks in weird, surrealistic imagery and seems to turn everything into some sort of story/allegory with some kind of symbolic significance, half of the people will say it's obvious Ne and the other half will say it's obvious Ni.
Similarly, the "calculated" quality could just as easily come from Te as from Ti. Whether that sense of "calculation" necessarily means the person is an ego-block-logical type is another question.
But it's interesting that you pointed out the differences with Britney Spears, as I was thinking much the same thing. Britney's down-to-earth nature is more what one would usually expect for a sensing type.
EIE...obviously? I understand how people can see SEE but she obviously has Ni up the butt...my opinion anyways. Why not IEI? She's more "crisp" than IEIs if that makes sense...like a tiny bit more sharp and not as scattered. Reminds me of Bowie.
bump. what is the consensus about her here ??? I heard ENFj and I disagree . SEE mby ? Sx/so ???
IEE.
really feels SEI/ISFp.
Lady Gaga
I know.
EIE? A bit boring at superbowl apparently, but still a performer; what do you have her as?
Yep EIE
Ok... Why do you type Manson as IEI, but Gaga as EIE?
+1
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Agreed. SEE
Here's another thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...8556-Lady-Gaga
I think she's a bit too weird to be an S type.
Lady Gaga:
Britney Spears (SEE) with the same interviewer:
You can often easily tell Se types, because they take up a lot of "space" with their arms etc.
Last edited by Singu; 02-14-2017 at 07:49 AM.
What do you mean?
Gaga's one of those people that nobody will agree on (and that's her goal). I personally think Gamma SF 6/7 border makes most sense.
Manson is Ni ego 5w4 imo.. Britney Spears is (bless her heart), a very basic person, so not comparable.
I type her sp/sx 7w8
I think it just has to do with the fact that people don't know enough about her to come up with a consensus (which can be said for anyone). If you dig enough, then some more obvious things will come out.
--
"I love pop music. Pop music is the only music in the whole world, that no matter who you are, where you come from, where you live, when that one pop song comes on, it just moves anyone, anywhere in the world. It's got that magical, visceral power." < This is rather Fe sounding. Universality of emotions. "Moves anyone" "visceral power".
"I have an intrinsic sense of what it feels like to write a pop chorus. That's my job, my calling. But it's really up to the people, isn't it. I think some of it is science, and some of it is knowing something about the future. What kids, fans need from you." < Obviously Ni and Fe. She is expecting something, she is reading the trend of what people need and want and then write a song about it.
"Now the objective is not to seduce, which is the objective of any songwriter. Now my objective is to please my fans"
"Because I know them now. My fans have a soul. So when I make music, I feel the soul of my fans and say, 'What do you need?' and then I write". < Fe is about focusing on the attitudes and needs of others.
Those are rather obviously Fe > Fi. Very intuitive, Ni > Si.
"I realized that what I am is a Warhol fan, an obsessed Warhol fan. I fell so deeply in love with pop art. And then at some point, once I had looked through it all, read through it all and obsessed through it all, I realized that culture was now in a place for it to flip, that it had come so full-circle that it was having a rebirth. This rebirth is now that art culture is now coming into pop culture." < Warhol = IEI
"What is the principal message to your fans?"
"I want them to feel that their creativity is an important part of them, no matter who they are. I want them to feel that they don't need to prove anything in order to be artistic or creative. I want them to know that part of them is what's going to be dictating pop culture in the future. You are the future of what we will see because commercialism now is so big, it's trash, it's everywhere like fast food." < I think these are rather Beta Ni values.
Last edited by Singu; 02-14-2017 at 01:40 PM.
Yeees we need to get her TIM already
Whatever type she is, it's very close to mine. I've been compared to her a myriad of timesAnd I enjoy all of her projects as well
What strikes me about Gaga's oevre is that there are strong intuitive AND sensory elements. As in, her rationale behind it + the artistic, professionalized execution/ emphasis on very hard work.
Can we type her ex Taylor Kinney? That might give us clues. I get Fe quadra from him.
Does her overall innovative agenda line up with
She isn't actually trying to be innovative in an Ne manner. She just likes to be "different" and "unique" in the Type 4 way – that's her main agenda, I'd say.Does her overall innovative agenda line up with
Besides, assuming she is Fi subtype: the Fi subtype's PoLR is "shielded", so it is not that obvious as if she was Se subtype.
Also, you don't actually need Ne to be a good (visual) artist. Good Sensing is typically more required, but not always necessary either.
I'd argue that most (visual) artists are Gamma SFs.
You think she's an Intuitive?
I find it obvious she is Se/Ni valuing, so that only leaves us with Beta NF then.
IEI is unlikely, I don't see any Ti HA nor does her Se seem that weak.
EIE could be argued for I suppose, but her energy in interviews and so forth is rather weak or muted, she simply doesn't seem to be Fe lead or extroverted, she is very focused on her "internal experience, feelings" like she mentioned in that one interview above, and ... that's just me, but EIE and Type 4 doesn't work together, and I find she's obviously 4w3. See the Marilyn Manson thread for my explanation there.
Or in other words, I "see" strong and valued Fi, Ni HA, subtle Se Creative, and Type-4ness, which leads me to type her as ESI.
So far so good, how does
One can be weird S type...It manifests itself in S ways especially when N is in suggestive.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
