Originally Posted by
Logos
Although Krig has a video of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter disagreeing, most videos show them agreeing:
Actually, the second video there shows Coulter and O'Reilly disagreeing rather strongly. But yes, they do typically agree on fundamental principles and goals, they just often disagree on the best means to achieve those goals.
Originally Posted by
Marie84
I watched the video you posted and I didn't get an obvious typing for either of them, though I lean towards LIE for O'Reilly and either LIE or SLE for Coulter, although these are vague impressions based on what I've seen so far, as I don't follow their careers enough to have a more solid opinion either way.
The problem I see for O'Reilly as Fi base is that I can't particularly see him as having weak
, he seems overtly arrogant in that department. But in terms of him actually making attempts at maintaining an
accord, I agree, but this hasn't been uncommon with
's IME
Well, the issue of O'Reilly's Te vs. Fi is a little tricky, since he often uses both. It's likely that he's either an LIE-ESI or an ESI-LIE, making the distinction between the two rather tricky. In my opinion, he actually focuses more on Fi-related issues (in a Te context of "what is the most effective approach to politics"), and he displays more "stubborn" Creative Se than an LIE would. He reminds me more of LSI than EIE.
Originally Posted by
Marie84
fwiw, I'm not a fan of either of them and think they're both trolls but I don't necessarily think that points towards
ego
I honestly don't think they're trolls. They have an abrasive and confrontational tone (particularly Coulter), but "troll" implies someone who is more interested in the conflict they generate than the actual issues being discussed, which I don't think is the case. While I'm not a fan of their confrontational tones, and prefer a quieter and more reflective approach myself, I do think they're sincere in their beliefs, and their confrontational tones are just their natural ways of expressing themselves, rather than some sort of "show".
Originally Posted by
Loki
I thought she didn't care about offending people because she's just trying to tell it like it is from her pov and tell herself like she is and just sees it as what she does... so then why should she have to edit herself so as not to offend people? I don't know that I think Fi would be all concerned with how not to offend people (or maybe it would?)?
In my opinion, that sort of attitude ("I'm just telling it like it is, why should I have to edit myself so as not to offend people?") is more characteristic of Ti-Egos. Fi-Egos are certainly capable of offending people, but when they do so they are fully aware of what they're doing; they fully realize that what they're saying is going to cause offense, and they do it on purpose anyway. That's what O'Reilly is saying when he calls Coulter a "bomb-thrower"; since as an ESI if he said the things she had been saying, it would have been obvious to him that it was going to be offensive, so he assumes that she is also aware of this, and does it on purpose anyway for some reason ("throwing bombs"). Coulter, with her Vulnerable Fi, is not good at estimating how people will respond to what she says, and she doesn't really care, either. She see's O'Reilly's interest in whether people will be offended as irrelevant to her primary Ti-based point.
Originally Posted by
Ashton2
This seems a major oversimplification. Being concerned w/ how one's behavior affects others opinions is a fairly routine human attribute, i.e. doesn't appear to be anything proprietary to
.
In my opinion these are not opposing statements. All humans are concerned, to one degree or another, with how one's behaviour affects others' opinions, because all humans have Fi somewhere in their psyche.
Coulter, for example, seems to care far less about how her behaviour affects others' opinions, because Fi is her Vulnerable function, and she has learned to disregard it and pretend not to care. O'Reilly cares more about it, because it's an Ego function (or at least a valued function, in the case that he's LIE).
Originally Posted by
Ashton2
Except it can be highly misleading, hence not all that useful.
This place really needs more
egos, so they can explain what it's like.
From my perspective, the reason you find it misleading is because you mistype many non-Se-Egos as Se-Ego, which has forced you to rethink how Se manifests itself in behaviour, and discard "confrontational and abrasive" as diagnostically useful behaviour.
As I said, not all Se-Egos are quite as confrontational and abrasive as Coulter and O'Reilly are, but all are certainly capable of it, and such behaviour will manifest at least occasionally.
Originally Posted by
Ashton2
Such as? You don't have to write a novella about it. I'm just curious to see what, if any, plausible arguments exist for this typing.
His harsh behaviour toward his "enemies" and people he disliked, his tendency to operate on a personal level rather than according to abstract logical principles, his general body language indicating an IJ temperament and likely Se-Ego, etc. Since this all correlates well with ESI, leaving no unexplained or contradictory evidence, I see no reason to disagree with the Russians, who I have found to be generally reliable in their typings. Were I to use Nixon as more central evidence, rather than an off-hand comment at the end of a post as an example of a generally agreed-upon ESI, I would obviously do more thorough research.
Who would you use as an example of a generally agreed-upon ESI?
Originally Posted by
Ashton2
Er, what? You're attributing intentions I don't have. All I said was that appeals to authority or common practice are not valid arguments.
I'm not saying you're deliberately trying to portray your opinions as "mainstream" and set yourself up as "the authority", but that is the inevitable effect of your tone in the post I was originally referring to.
Originally Posted by
Aiss
Not sure if I agree with it. I mean, I agree with dynamic, temporary nature of Fe - more focused on the moment than how it affects the relation, so to speak. But I'm not sure how Fi is supposedly related to affecting the opinion of others, unless you meant their opinion of the person who acts, which obviously affects their attitude to them.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. For the record, here's how I describe Fe and Fi:
Fe is internal dynamics of objects. This means it is an internal thing sometimes expressed externally. Fe is the ever-shifting mood: excitement and passion and emotion. Fe Ego types are good at sensing and influencing their own moods and the moods of others. Being dynamic, Fe moods can shift and change, but this does not mean Fe is shallow: deep and powerful feelings of passion, love, anger, hope, etc., are all Fe. At its strongest, Fe can be an all-consuming fire that overwhelms everything else.
Fi is internal statics of fields. Fi is all about the connections between people: like and dislike, good relatioships and bad relationships. Fi can be friendship, loyalty, trust, dislike, mistrust, hatred. Fi Ego types are good at determining the status of relationships: which people are to be trusted and which are not, etc. Unlike Fe, Fi is a very stable thing, solid and seldom changing. At its strongest, Fi is an unbreakable bond between people that will resolutely weather all storms and anything that may be thrown at it, or an unswerving loathing that will give no quarter to the enemy.
Originally Posted by
Aiss
Kind of useful, especially when it comes to Beta STs, but not reliable enough for a typing. Socionics is primarily concerned with information processing, which isn't always consistently reflected in behaviour. I don't know much about people you discuss here, and Ashton's typing are sometimes strange (or hasty, in some cases), but for example a confrontational and abrasive ILE is no oxymoron.
Obviously, I wouldn't type someone as Se-Ego solely because they demonstrate abrasive and confrontational behaviour. It's just one piece of evidence, which needs to be corraborated by many other pieces of evidence.
Originally Posted by
Aiss
Dual-type theory is based on Gulenko's idea of energy types. I don't know at which point or how far tcaud derailed from it.
I think tcaud's derailed pretty far from Gulenko's theory, but he apparently doesn't agree, so it's up to the impartial reader to decide.