Julian Assange

[olduser]

alpha NT i think






Julian's quotes:

“You can either be informed and your own rulers, or you can be ignorant and have someone else, who is not ignorant, rule over you.” ― Julian Assange

“If journalism is good, it is controversial, by its nature.” ― Julian Assange

“True information does good.” ― Julian Assange

“During the period of house arrest, I had an electronic manacle around my leg for 24 hours a day, and for someone who has tried to give others liberty all their adult life, that is absolutely intolerable.” ― Julian Assange

“What we know is everything, it is our limit, of what we can be.” ― Julian Assange

“Non-conformity is the only real passion worth being ruled by.” ― Julian Assange

“The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be “free” because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction.” ― Julian Assange

“That's a problem. I mean, like any sort of growing startup organization, we are sort of overwhelmed by our growth. And that means we're getting enormous quantity of whistleblower disclosures of a very high caliber, but don't have enough people to actually process and vet this information.” ― Julian Assange

“You can't do anything sensible until you know what the situation is that you're in.” ― Julian Assange

“It's interesting that Swiss banks also hide their assets from the Swiss by using offshore bank structuring.” ― Julian Assange

“The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. It has been hidden by secrecy, complexity and scale. The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen. The internet is a threat to human civilization.

These transformations have come about silently, because those who know what is going on work in the global surveillance industry and have no incentives to speak out. Left to its own trajectory, within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there.

While many writers have considered what the internet means for global civilization, they are wrong. They are wrong because they do not have the sense of perspective that direct experience brings. They are wrong because they have never met the enemy.”
― Julian Assange, Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love. In a modern economy it is impossible to seal oneself off from injustice.

If we have brains or courage, then we are blessed and called on not to frit these qualities away, standing agape at the ideas of others, winning pissing contests, improving the efficiencies of the neocorporate state, or immersing ourselves in obscuranta, but rather to prove the vigor of our talents against the strongest opponents of love we can find.
If we can only live once, then let it be a daring adventure that draws on all our powers. Let it be with similar types whos hearts and heads we may be proud of. Let our grandchildren delight to find the start of our stories in their ears but the endings all around in their wandering eyes.

The whole universe or the structure that perceives it is a worthy opponent, but try as I may I can not escape the sound of suffering.

Perhaps as an old man I will take great comfort in pottering around in a lab and gently talking to students in the summer evening and will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them.” ― Julian Assange

[Sol]

ISTJ

[Exodus]

LII. He's a lot like Sergey Brin, who I think is also LII. Very calm and thoughtful.

Some interviews:



(2:00)

[tcaudilllg]

OMG you're right he looks like Crispy! I didn't see it before but I see it now!

[leckysupport]

His old blog:

IQ.ORG

[Singu]

I would have thought... IP, because whistle-blowing is very indirect, and he affects things indirectly.

His old blog:

IQ.ORG

Sometimes my eyes are lovingly full of Eastern European tradegy. The surest escape from the mundane is to teleport into the tragic realm. To topple kings someone must die. One soon revels in the carnage of change; whatever flowers grow at the end of Lear or Hamlet we know they blossem into a different world, stronger for the corpses under their roots.

If there is a book whose feeling captures me it is First Circle by Solzhenitsyn. To feel that home is the comraderie of persecuted, and infact, prosecuted, polymaths in a Stalinist slave labor camp! How close the parallels to my own adventures! What longing one has when reading Solzhenitsyn's love for his first cell of self similars! Such prosecution in youth is a defining peak experience. To know the state for what it really is! To see through that veneer the educated swear to disbelieve in but still slavishly follow with their hearts!

What is this... "poetic" writing. I find that he is too dramatic, maybe an IEI? He is obviously very intelligent. He often describes his own and others feelings quite well. He sometimes writes "inspirational" speeches.

[tcaudilllg]

He's a consequentialist. Very interesting worldview... he's very transparent. I wonder if he is prepared to become one of the "corpses" beneath the ground of the new order? Although it's worth noting that as yet, no one is known to have died directly from the activities of Wikileaks.

[Exodus]

I would have thought... IP, because whistle-blowing is very indirect, and he affects things indirectly.






What is this... "poetic" writing. I find that he is too dramatic, maybe an IEI? He is obviously very intelligent. He often describes his own and others feelings quite well. He sometimes writes "inspirational" speeches.

That's interesting. Those writings are very different from his interviews.

[Singu]

It's also interesting... that he makes a lot of spelling mistakes.

[mfckr]

Don't know much about him, only that his face gives me instant hate impulses. Skimmed some of his writing and it feels equally repulsive. Dude's sketch as shit. Not type related.

I'm guessing he might be Ni-INFp.

[April]

INFp was my gut reaction as well.

[Krig the Viking]

My first guess would be LII, with IEI as a strong secondary possibility.

Here's an extensive article about him: WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker

This excerpt in particular seems to have bearing on socionics matters:

In private, however, Assange is often bemused and energetic. He can concentrate intensely, in binges, but he is also the kind of person who will forget to reserve a plane ticket, or reserve a plane ticket and forget to pay for it, or pay for the ticket and forget to go to the airport. People around him seem to want to care for him; they make sure that he is where he needs to be, and that he has not left all his clothes in the dryer before moving on. At such times, he can seem innocent of the considerable influence that he has acquired.

To me, this sounds a lot like an absent-minded Infantile in need of a Caregiver. However, I can't dismiss the possibility of IEI entirely, at this point.

[KeroZen]

Hard times being an IEI on this forum... any person being too dramatic or too emotional or who gives people strong hate gut feelings is instantaneously accused/suspected of being IEI...haha

I'm very saddened when I see (not especially talking about that case but in many many other threads here in general) that this theory instead of being a formidable occasion to learn how to respect each others and our mutual differences, turns out to be an excuse for most people to declare "I don't like type XXX because they act this particular way, and see there's even an explanation (proof?) why we can't get along".

As Golden told me, one aspect that is very lacking in the documentation we have at hand is the practical method to overcome those differences. Having a theory that explains why I don't get along with some people is kinda useless (I already know we don't get along very well) if it hasn't practical solutions to help handle these problems...

Or is the conclusion that we're doomed to perceive entire classes of the population as incompatible? Doomed to frequent only people of the types we like? Some sort of type... aristocracy...?

But the more I type my surroundings the more I realize I have no problem with any single type. Even my conflictors. But this might be a cultural thing, as we tend to value and respect differences a lot in there...

[tcaudilllg]

Will an LII to whom that profile does not intuitively apply please speak up?

I'd mention myself but Krig would probably just take it as evidence I'm not an LII.

I'll bet it doesn't even apply to Krig.

What kind of guy would forget an appointment that HE made for HIS purposes? Certainly not an LII who very carefully plans all of their private affairs. (unless of course they lost track of time... but airplane travel is damn important!)

LIIs often remark on the stupidity of others. I don't see a lot of comments about stupidity by Assange, just suspicions of ill intent.

Anyway he's a math wiz, right? So any of the resident LII mathematicians should be able to weigh in.

But BG and Ashton believe he's IEI, and I cannot dismiss the dramatic aspect. That is not LII like, to actually WANT to make enemies and "overthrow kings".

[KeroZen]

I dunno, I got several LII friends who are very curious about all subjects involving conspiracies...He's not trying to make enemies, he just do it for the truth itself.

It's hard to tell from his voice because his accent is heavy and he seems to struggle a lot just to get straight sentences out, so many subtleties are lost...

On the video he looks not very body expressive, but he seems shy so he's surely restraining himself a bit (it's surely not an easy task to appear on US TVnews, esp. when you know you'll get assaulted...)

The only pic where I get why some people say IEI is the red one (tent), but mostly due to the smile.

I'm not saying he's not IEI neither...

[KeroZen]

For sure he's controversial and I understand why some people dislike what he does, even if I do tend to think it's a good thing overall (you might argue on the form, but the intent is quite noble in itself and he surely didn't do that for the fame or to fall under the spot-lights)

As for your answer about socionics being impractical, I hoped you would be a bit more optimistic...The more I learn why different types value some information aspects more than others, the more I'm able to adapt to them, say by forcing myself into giving them some aspects more than others (what they expect) or trying to not give them too much of aspects they dislike (what they don't expect) But it's already something one does unconsciously, so in this regard socionics helps to precise things.

And while I might sound very naive to some, from what I tasted so far, duality (and thus using socionics to help find your dual(s)) is something tangible and practical (and awesome). And it's enough for me to put great faith/hope in this theory. But who cares, I'm just yet another romantic IEI, no big surprise here.

[April]

What the hell... I don't even dislike him.

[KeroZen]

What the hell... I don't even dislike him.

then why do you take what I said personally? :wink:

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about the fact I wasn't talking about someone in particular here, but more a general trend.

[April]

I see. I thought you were taking it too personally.

[KeroZen]

Hehe no problem then!

[Singu]

As for your answer about socionics being impractical, I hoped you would be a bit more optimistic...

Well, I'm more optimistic about more certain pragmatic psychology theories...

The more I learn why different types value some information aspects more than others, the more I'm able to adapt to them, say by forcing myself into giving them some aspects more than others (what they expect) or trying to not give them too much of aspects they dislike (what they don't expect)

But this is exactly what I mean. Well, this doesn't exactly concern Socionics, but it sort of perpetuates this problem. According to the premise of Socionics, people can not change, they are just so. According to "Model A", people supposedly have this precise and accurate mechanics of the inner-mind that is supposedly valid at all times. They have these very complex and at times vague explanations of how the "Functions" supposedly rule their lives.

This whole premise creates the problem of not being able to change. At best, the kind of advice that Socionics can give you is something like "Find your dual" who supposedly solves all of your life problems and become an integrated whole by perhaps merging together, or "become more in-tune with your Quadra values" which supposedly make you into a happier being, or whatever, etc.

So... you are saying that you want to adjust to others and give them what they want, because they are just so, and because you can not change yourself because of the precise and accurate premise of "Model A", and at best, you may only adjust. I find that this view is more pessimistic and fatalistic than almost anything. But this also means that you are not being more like your real self, that is by acting with your real feelings and thoughts and values and convictions. This also means that by definition you can not take an honest look at yourself, of being who you are as you are, being able to take a square look at yourself and making the choices that you want to make. And if you do not see yourself as you are then you can not grow as a person, as you are not longer involved in yourself, that means you are no longer making the choices for yourself by yourself, etc. So basically it creates a whole host of problems for your well-being, and your personal growth.

[KeroZen]

In fact he could be IEI, I don't know...it's just that in a VI training context like this, I got some difficulties deciphering his face and body language (the guy in particular)...hard to explain why, but I don't resonate with him...hard to read for me.

But as stated, the fact English is not his natural language is somehow a barrier. And in the videos he's barely laid back or not at all...

I didn't take time to look at his writing style though, maybe some aspects could be more obvious on that level...

[mu4]

EII

[KeroZen]

Well, I'm more optimistic about more certain pragmatic psychology theories...

Yes, that's what my uncle who is a psychiatrist told me the only time I evoked these theories with him at a dinner... He said "yes there's been a hype, but in the end, it doesn't help me cure my patients, so it's useless".

According to "Model A", people supposedly have this precise and accurate mechanics of the inner-mind that is supposedly valid at all times (cut) whole premise creates the problem of not being able to change

By your constant use of the conditional stance, it's quite hard to get what's *your* take on the "being able to change" question.

Quite honestly I wouldn't be able to answer it easily. I asked so many people, especially older ones, this very same question...In fact I've been asking it since I was a kid, long before knowing the existence of these concepts. That being said, if one must be rational, then yes in a Model-A world, types can't change otherwise it's not logical and it collapses... My current opinion is that "personas" can change, while p-type matures.

At best, the kind of advice that Socionics can give you is something like "Find your dual" who supposedly solves all of your life problems and become an integrated whole by perhaps merging together, or "become more in-tune with your Quadra values" which supposedly make you into a happier being, or whatever, etc.

It's not the holy grail but in practice duality is very nice. And I'm far to be the most experienced to say that!

I won't answer the last part of your post, but let's just say I'm a very diplomatic person, and being diplomatic usually involves being able to make concessions and to adapt to the situation, while not losing the face.

[Singu]

Hmm... I kind of regret posting that. It was too... premature.

[silverchris9]

My first guess would be LII, with IEI as a strong secondary possibility.

Here's an extensive article about him: WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker

This excerpt in particular seems to have bearing on socionics matters:

In private, however, Assange is often bemused and energetic. He can concentrate intensely, in binges, but he is also the kind of person who will forget to reserve a plane ticket, or reserve a plane ticket and forget to pay for it, or pay for the ticket and forget to go to the airport. People around him seem to want to care for him; they make sure that he is where he needs to be, and that he has not left all his clothes in the dryer before moving on. At such times, he can seem innocent of the considerable influence that he has acquired.

To me, this sounds a lot like an absent-minded Infantile in need of a Caregiver. However, I can't dismiss the possibility of IEI entirely, at this point.

Sounds like an IEI. For that matter, sounds like me. I think a lot of IEIs have the absentminded professor thing going on. Head in the clouds, no feet on the ground, that sort of thing.

I'm very saddened when I see (not especially talking about that case but in many many other threads here in general) that this theory instead of being a formidable occasion to learn how to respect each others and our mutual differences, turns out to be an excuse for most people to declare "I don't like type XXX because they act this particular way, and see there's even an explanation (proof?) why we can't get along".

As Golden told me, one aspect that is very lacking in the documentation we have at hand is the practical method to overcome those differences. Having a theory that explains why I don't get along with some people is kinda useless (I already know we don't get along very well) if it hasn't practical solutions to help handle these problems...

Or is the conclusion that we're doomed to perceive entire classes of the population as incompatible? Doomed to frequent only people of the types we like? Some sort of type... aristocracy...?

But the more I type my surroundings the more I realize I have no problem with any single type. Even my conflictors. But this might be a cultural thing, as we tend to value and respect differences a lot in there...

You can get along with anybody. But you can't get close to everybody. I have a very, very good friend who's EII. We're super tight. But there are things about myself that I wouldn't share with her, just 'cause I know she comes from a different perspective, and would find those things weird. There are things I know that I should say with some people and not with others.

[Krig the Viking]

Sounds like an IEI. For that matter, sounds like me. I think a lot of IEIs have the absentminded professor thing going on. Head in the clouds, no feet on the ground, that sort of thing.

The more I see of him (and he's everywhere these days), the more his body language does seem IP. I think I'll switch my position around to IEI with a secondary possibility of LII.

[KeroZen]

Hmm... I kind of regret posting that. It was too... premature.

I do think that people can change greatly gradually. I think that most people that take an interest in Socionics/MBTI/Enneagram often take a nosedive and adopt a complete fatalistic view on things. At best, they can become more like their "type", which really means the prescribed descriptions of their types and functions. So you know, when they're "INFP", they try to be more like the MBTI's description of the INFPs, which is kind of just idealistic, maybe unrealistic.

Oh no please don't regret anything. Your posts don't always have to be "perfect" to be valid. Otherwise if you say that I shouldn't ever post! (seeing how sometimes I struggle just to find the proper words in your language, btw I hope my numerous grammatical errors don't get on other readers nerves too much...)

I really do appreciate your posts in general, as they are insightful and rarely "obsessed" with Typology-only...(I put quotes here because it's normal somehow to be "obsessed" (ie focused) by the main discussion topic on any dedicated forum)

It's clear that a lot of people come here with a "please define me" attitude, a very low maturity (and/or young age), a rather poor introspective capacity and even sometimes a complete inability to be critic regarding themselves...And for these people, telling them "you are type X or Z and this defines you" could be well limiting...They will think I'm ISTJ and that's all I am, but somehow it's already a progress over where they came from (ie: "I don't know what I am at all...")

Types are a bit like the brand of your gloves. Say one day you wake up with IEI gloves, and see someone much stronger than you wearing LSE gloves. Many would think "why don't I have LSE gloves, I would be so strong", but this doesn't work this way, the power is in the arms, not in the gloves. Just exercise and grow stronger arms if you feel you need to, having branded gloves doesn't make any difference in the end.

PS: it seems you deleted that part in the meantime oops

[KeroZen]

You can get along with anybody. But you can't get close to everybody. I have a very, very good friend who's EII. We're super tight. But there are things about myself that I wouldn't share with her, just 'cause I know she comes from a different perspective, and would find those things weird. There are things I know that I should say with some people and not with others.

Yes I agree. Again my bad here, "to get along" should have read "to get close psychological distance".

[golden]

Yes I agree. Again my bad here, "to get along" should have read "to get close psychological distance".

Mm, well, I have accepted that I will not be able to achieve close psychological distance with just anyone. So in fact, I do want to develop strategies for dealing with various "types," but with the understanding that the relationship will never perhaps be ideal or super intimate.

To me, Socionics says of certain type matches, "This relationship is fine ... as long as you don't try to get too close." It can take a long, long time and the attempt to get super close to bring out all the flaws and limitations in a relationship.

It's odd how in my normal, nonintimate relationships, I will feel some people's type much more strongly than others', even when they're of the same type.

Socionics is not an excuse to say, "I'm going to become an unbalanced person who cannot and will not rise above my supposed type. And now I have carte blanche to avoid certain people altogether, discredit them, etc." There are no such excuses in life. So as I view any typology, the value lies in

1. understanding the inherent limitations of certain kinds of relationships
2. understanding other people's values, needs, and intentions more clearly, without judging those things
3. knowing which types of people with whom I can probably feel more comfortable really being myself--a state of being which contributes to my well-being, so that
4. I have the strength and happiness to get along with just about anyone.

[prominentproboscis]

I have seen the clip of his interview and wonder if he could possibly be Ni-ILI as he distinctly reminds me of a friend - I think he has quite a strong command of Te for an IEI... but from his mannerisms and gestures, I am quite confident he is a Ni-leading type

[tcaudilllg]

Mm, well, I have accepted that I will not be able to achieve close psychological distance with just anyone. So in fact, I do want to develop strategies for dealing with various "types," but with the understanding that the relationship will never perhaps be ideal or super intimate.

To me, Socionics says of certain type matches, "This relationship is fine ... as long as you don't try to get too close." It can take a long, long time and the attempt to get super close to bring out all the flaws and limitations in a relationship.

It's odd how in my normal, nonintimate relationships, I will feel some people's type much more strongly than others', even when they're of the same type.

Socionics is not an excuse to say, "I'm going to become an unbalanced person who cannot and will not rise above my supposed type. And now I have carte blanche to avoid certain people altogether, discredit them, etc." There are no such excuses in life. So as I view any typology, the value lies in

1. understanding the inherent limitations of certain kinds of relationships
2. understanding other people's values, needs, and intentions more clearly, without judging those things
3. knowing which types of people with whom I can probably feel more comfortable really being myself--a state of being which contributes to my well-being, so that
4. I have the strength and happiness to get along with just about anyone.

There's a fine line between getting along with a person, and letting them control you.

It is not wrong to observe the intent to control others, or even to see this intent in a negative light, particularly if the probability that this control will cause sustained harm is high.

[tcaudilllg]

As for Assange...

In this transcript, he talks a great deal about moods and opinions. However, he talks about them confidently. From the perspective of the U.S., he seems kind of "out there"; but he does seem to about in step with the rest of the democratic developed world. In fact, it's a little worrying how far behind the U.S. is lagging in sense of world responsibility, a phenomenon that is rapidly developing in the EU member states, in particular. This probably because the U.S. has traditionally only interacted with the U.N. to serve its own interests, and not at all in an altruistic capacity. (where the European nations have a tradition of pooling their military resources to keep the peace). I think this can be possibly be blamed on the backward and self-interested state of the Republican Party.

As discussed in the Wikileaks thread, Assange is ILI EM, "programmer". That neatly explains his use of technical and sometimes mathematical jargon. He seems to have a geniune understanding of what's going on in people's heads. He's a progressive, not a liberal, so he is more attuned to general trends than individual opinions. I've heard he is a hacker, but the mere fact that he got caught suggests he may not be the greatest. He doesn't come off much like the LII programmers I know... interesting that he is calling for Obama's resignation despite the fact that's not the smartest idea in the world... that may be a sign of beta Ni in control. ("He should resign" because "that's the right thing to do"). He himself doesn't seem to take the "right thing" overly seriously in regards to his own behavior... "do as I say, not as I do."

I don't see an LII confidently asserting the moods and opinions of so many people the way Assange does. An LII would never be sure about such things... they would try to speculate about it, maybe even hazard a prediction... but they don't give enough attention to the extrovert rational elements to ever be sure the way an IEI could of where pubic opinion was swinging.... This is one of the chief ways that IEI benefactors LII, if I understand that relation correctly.

Also I've noted that Assange has a lot of commentary and opinion to offer, but not a lot of facts to back it up. This could be a sign of weak Te emphasis. His approach isn't LII-like: he tries to see things that are created from assembled details, rather than breaking down the thing into its details like LIIs do. I've noted that Gilly also does this.

Also he talks about the U.S. constitution as ultimately being whatever the Supreme Court says it is, a view I'm personally at odds with. Is that what's referred to by "aristocracy vs democracy"?

[tcaudilllg]

Anyway I guess this makes Assange the IEI who shook the world! lol

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

He's interesting and likeable to me, only because he seems to see through society's veil and I enjoy people like that. I wish my parents and own family were like that but they are too trapped up in systems and institutions. He seems to have sort of a 'comfort and security is found within' approach to life that all celebrities have, that I admire. I was raised to be fearful of everything all my life, to be slapped at and herded like cattle.

Although he also appears to struggle with narcissism and has a sort of stuck up poetic fag tone to his voice like he needs to come down to earth in a lot of ways. I would suggest hitta throat fucking him, naturally. I think being very smart and being on tv would wreck havoc on anybody's intimate life or ability to get truly close to people. He has that distant poetic linger to his general vibration.... the cry to be raped and for somebody to get through his narcissistic defenses.

[JuJu]

He's a nice example of an INTj.

[tcaudilllg]

Apparently he has an OKCupid profile, which can be viewed here.

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison/tests


He took the LONG Personality Test (an MBTI variant) and scored ENFP. (however, a LOT of people score ENFP on that test, whom I do not think are actually ENFPs)

Still you might want to take the opportunity to encourage him. LOL how often do you get an opportunity for a direct line to someone who shook the whole earth lol? We're rooting for you Assange!

[Singu]

That was... silly. He seems to take things less seriously than he appears.

And how the heck is he an extravert? lol.

[Not A Communist Shill]

87% slut...crikey.

He DID score fairly highly on extroversion there though (it seems?). This makes me more inclined to go along with the IEI typing, but the ENFP typing is interesting .

that's a rather enlightening profile.

[tcaudilllg]

There's a decent possibility he'll close it out today, once he gets bail.