Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Julian Assange - Study of IEI-D

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Julian Assange - Study of IEI-D

    I'm sure everyone's heard that name by now. In Personas Famosas (and in socionix tinychat) the consensus, based on the available material, is that Assange is an IEI. Given his position as leader of Wikileaks and his ambition to shake the foundations of world order as we know it, we can additionally conclude without difficulty that he's a dominant subtype.

    It has been suggested that IEIs have a strong sense of ethic. In my experience this is not necessarily true. IEIs have a certain knack for knowing what set someone off, or how to set them off, but they are not necessarily driven by emotion, only values. Values and emotions are not the same. For that matter, beta NFs in general would not be so adept at manipulating others' emotions if they found themselves "giving in" to their passions in the midst of manipulation. Granted they are shaped by their emotions, but judging from their self reports there is something of a hierarchy of emotional impulses which serves more as a drive, than as a reactionary dynamo. An EIE may feel like punching someone for insulting their country, but if that means loosing the chance to make a good impression for purposes of winning over the locals to a new prospective treaty, that punch is like to go unlanded. In claiming that IEIs are the judges of good and evil who frame our notions of right and wrong, something doesn't add up.

    According to Andrew Ayers, a premier ethical philosopher, ethics is known by our ability to accept a behavioral premise, or to be repulsed by it. To accept it, means it's ethical or good; to not accept it, means it is unethical or evil. In between there are things that we don't accept, but nonetheless abide by out of necessity ("necessary evils"). Feelings of the ethicality of a thing are immediate: we know whether something is acceptable to us or not based on our emotions toward it at that instant. We can even test our emotions in hypothetical situations, to create a sense of empathy and even sympathy with people whom we have heard about being in those same situations -- or alternatively, we can discover that we feel little to no justifications for their behavior and hence, little to no empathy. To judge whether something is evil or not, however, goes beyond mere feeling -- it goes beyond feelings of personal distaste to evaluate an action, and say with certainty that it is wrong and worthy of condemnation. It requires understanding the alternatives, and knowing why those alternatives were right and ethical in spite of the choice that was made. Good and evil are relative: one decision may be more "right" than another one, thus one is "more" good than another and "less" evil than that other. In all things, we try to select the lesser evil. Apparently people devote varying amounts of energy, thus we have varying levels of ethical fortitude not only as a matter of personal conduct, but also in terms of resistance to other's choices of conduct. There must be a standard which reaches above the law, a willingness to punish behavior that does direct harm (or even indirect, if intentioned, in some cases) whether or not the society as a whole can agree to punish it. Even in service to society's eventual collective condemnation, there must be someone to propose the condemnation in the first place. The condemnation of wrong behaviors has well its place in the right thoughts of men.

    Yet before there is a judgment, there must be something -- someone -- to be judged. If, as has been argued previously, there is a variance among the willingnesses of persons to commit to the judgment of others' behavior, then there is a sector that is willing to judge in full confidence in spite of any and all criticism. To stir these persons is to set in motion the wheel of judgment against those who warrant it. Therein, for an IEI in particular, lies the problem, the matter of bringing to light the people who are to be judged. The IEI individual is a cajoler, particularly the IEI-D. In all things, IEI-D seeks to compel a reaction -- not even a focused reaction, but a reaction that will illuminate the character of persons. The IEI argues, at heart, that what is truly lacking in society is a sense of ethical awareness -- a sense that man does not know what other men are capable of, does not know what dangers lurk in other mens' hearts. To know a good man from an evil man... IEI lives are plagued by naive interactions with people whom they feel they should have avoided getting involved with in the first place. But they risked it anyway because they did not want to miss in those dark hearts the faint glimmers of hope, the evidence to all that these people whom others judged as evil were not all they appeared to be. So they embraced them, drew them out into the open, and tried to show their peers a different side... or perhaps they divined to plunge them even deeper into the darkness. IEI attitudes towards the virtuous are similar -- either to put on display their radiance, or to soil them in the muck.

    The IEI-D, Juliet Assange, divines to do neither and both. By airing the dirty laundry of the United States, he aims to shake down its diplomats unawares. How better to make them react -- all of them -- than by releasing the one thing which binds them all, the secrets that they shared amongst themselves for the last 44 years? Far from exposing the United States' supposed collective corruption, Assange is exposing, through arts most covert, the individual characters of not only the nation's diplomats (and their assorted contacts and counterparts), but of the entire U.S. political community. This is an attack not on the U.S.'s interest, but on its politicians, in a manner from which its most dangerous, reactive leaders will never manage to recover from. That, I suspect, is Assange's true motive in releasing these leaks, to separate, as much as he can, the world's wheat from its chaff, and set in motion the wheel of revolution to shake down the entire world order.

  2. #2
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    I bet you wear a cape.

  3. #3
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for writing this. I'm not sure as an IEI to what extent I identify with it, but it's certainly worthy of my consideration.

    I also don't know my subtype in this system.

    What I will say is that I do have a feeling that if wrongdoing needs to be exposed, I would take something like this approach: merely presenting the unvarnished facts, the truth, and letting that speak for itself.

    Yet it's frustrating to me that I will have a sense of whether someone is an agent of "good" or "bad" based on what must be , only to note that to other people with strong my insight is merely obvious, and to those who cannot easily accept or fathom , my insight is completely useless and irrelevant.

    This leads to "voice in the wilderness" syndrome.

    So if Assange is IEI, then it would seem he has hit upon a solution, a way of stepping outside the endless cycle of "the [not-so-]obvious whole" versus "[im]practical activity," which for me is one way of describing how current mainstream journalism functions in its commentary on the world.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEI EM people (the "condemners" I was observing the post) see "evil" and "good" around them. The trait of being IEI is not in itself an initiative to judgment -- it's ascription of personal labels, as you say, to people of having good or evil traits. "That person has X state, meaning person is evil." It's more a matter of understanding evil than reacting to it. And it's worth noting I think that they just apprehend the point of view -- they aren't "bound" by it as much as an IEI EM would be. (and should an IEI have an IEI EM, that would make them that much more circumspect and critical of their own tendencies to condemnation)

    It's like "X person is repulsed by Y activity, thus X person sees Y as evil." Real, actual empathy... which carefully distinguishes itself from sympathy. Now take a person with weak beta NF... they won't necessarily be willing to acknowledge what they see, because they will take issue with the actual observation. "That can't be true! They must be more open than that!" And that's exactly what an SLE will try to do, see openness where there isn't any. So IEI takes them aside and says, "Zhukov, you need to understand that they don't like what you are doing. They see you as the problem, not [that other guy]." (cite -- esper)

    And of course to figure all this stuff out, they on the one hand "start shit", and on the other try to stand in the way of attempts to prevent "shit" from even erupting. They want to know -- they insist on knowing -- the character of their peers FIRST HAND.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-02-2010 at 01:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't want to nitpick, but his name is Balzac (Honoré de Balzac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and no, this one is not Russian I'm afraid, so no need to "k"apitalize him!

    Also without nitpicking, but in the advent you chose to use that nickname in particular, and not another one, in a socionics context, I'd like to point it's the nickname of the ILI...(but otherwise why didn't you use "John" or..dunno)

    Anuhoo! (ahem! sorry I caught some cold last weekend, my voice is f**cked up) you made interesting points on the ethical judgments side. Interesting in the sense it seems many types are perceived as "judgmental" (not necessarily in the j/p context here) by other types. But those types don't have the impression they are judgmental, on the contrary! And for them other types seem way more judgmental...

    I'd like to explore this a bit as it's something that struck me personally, even if I'm not able to word it properly yet.
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thanks for the correction

    Anuhoo! (ahem! sorry I caught some cold last weekend, my voice is f**cked up) you made interesting points on the ethical judgments side. Interesting in the sense it seems many types are perceived as "judgmental" (not necessarily in the j/p context here) by other types. But those types don't have the impression they are judgmental, on the contrary! And for them other types seem way more judgmental...
    I wasn't even discussing j/p.

  7. #7
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh no, damn, it's really hard for me to get my tone right with English. I'm limited by the few ways of constructing sentences I know, and I wish I was able to express myself in more diverse ways with this language.

    My corrections were more puns/nagging than something else, as even if I like correctness, it didn't really affect the substance of what you were saying.

    I know you weren't talking about j/p, and neither am I, even if I employ the same "judgmental" word. It's perhaps not the right once, and hence why I got the impression I'm not able to fully express what I think about that....
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  8. #8
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, let's leave out the j/p thing and just talk about judgmentality, then, Kero. This touches on something we discussed a bit in PMs--what is judgmentality, and why might someone see an IEI as interpersonally judgmental? It also goes back to an earlier thread of tcaud's, in which he asked about how Beta NFs (I think?) perceive good and evil.

    What makes me uncomfortable about the good vs. evil proposition vis a vis the IEI type is that I really don't take things into that conceptual zone, where good and evil are like frozen, finished concepts. This is why I used the wording "agent of" good or evil ... but even that is a stretch.

    Rather, I get a holistic impression of a person and I can sort of animate the person into the future (and the past). That sort of inner-movie-of-the-future will show me bad actions, meaning actions that run counter to the best interests of, well, it depends: myself as an individual, loved ones, people I don't know well, or society writ large.

    So ...

    * My response could be strictly onetime situational (move to opposite side of street to steer myself and friends away from an individual or group giving off a predatory vibe).

    * My response could be geared to the longer term (warn someone to be wary of Person X without outright condemning the person I speak of). Or

    * My response will be useless because the situation is greater than my sphere of power (George W. Bush has the most fucked-up energy of anyone I've ever stood near, but I cannot personally stop him from becoming governor of Texas).

    The Bush thing is a real example, btw. I was interning for a progressive political news magazine and had to photograph him when he was running for office in Texas, and what I experienced in participating in that reporting is a crazy story.

    Yet these kinds of observations stop far short of me thinking someone is inherently good or evil. The person's inherent qualities are not even in question--they're irrelevant. It has to do, rather, with what the person is apt to do--or will inevitably do. I guess my Christian girlhood, or some other mystical perceptions, lead me to think that any human individual cannot be inherently evil. "Evil" to me is a funny word, a detour from the truth. And yet I respond strongly to the potential for destructive force.

    If I had to put words to what "evil" is, I think I'd say something like this: a human being in a state of extreme unconsciousness and thus weakness, reaching for or using external power. In such a case, power will be misused.
    Last edited by golden; 12-02-2010 at 11:23 AM.

  9. #9
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    just tell your story

  10. #10
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    IEI EM people (the "condemners" I was observing the post) see "evil" and "good" around them. The trait of being IEI is not in itself an initiative to judgment -- it's ascription of personal labels, as you say, to people of having good or evil traits. "That person has X state, meaning person is evil." It's more a matter of understanding evil than reacting to it. And it's worth noting I think that they just apprehend the point of view -- they aren't "bound" by it as much as an IEI EM would be. (and should an IEI have an IEI EM, that would make them that much more circumspect and critical of their own tendencies to condemnation)

    It's like "X person is repulsed by Y activity, thus X person sees Y as evil." Real, actual empathy... which carefully distinguishes itself from sympathy. Now take a person with weak beta NF... they won't necessarily be willing to acknowledge what they see, because they will take issue with the actual observation. "That can't be true! They must be more open than that!" And that's exactly what an SLE will try to do, see openness where there isn't any. So IEI takes them aside and says, "Balzak, you need to understand that they don't like what you are doing. They see you as the problem, not [that other guy]."

    And of course to figure all this stuff out, they on the one hand "start shit", and on the other try to stand in the way of attempts to prevent "shit" from even erupting. They want to know -- they insist on knowing -- the character of their peers FIRST HAND.

    it's really hard to tell what the hell you're trying to say.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well then Golden it appears from your testimony that IEIs indeed are not necessarily judges of good and evil.

    What I see, based on your description, is a reliance on gamma Ni to take a person you know about; put them in situations you believe may be probable for them to be in; and then evaluate the practical consequences of their behavior in those situations (using beta Ni).

    It's worth noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't much talk about good and evil... but she does evaluate behavior, particularly in terms of the harm it causes.

  12. #12
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Well then Golden it appears from your testimony that IEIs indeed are not necessarily judges of good and evil.

    What I see, based on your description, is a reliance on gamma Ni to take a person you know about; put them in situations you believe may be probable for them to be in; and then evaluate the practical consequences of their behavior in those situations (using beta Ni).

    It's worth noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't much talk about good and evil... but she does evaluate behavior, particularly in terms of the harm it causes.
    Why is it a reliance on gamma Ni versus beta Ni?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because gamma Ni is the time machine, and beta Ni is the function of critique.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Because gamma Ni is the time machine, and beta Ni is the function of critique.
    And yours is the function of insanity.

  15. #15
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Because gamma Ni is the time machine, and beta Ni is the function of critique.
    So why would I be using a Gamma thing, since I'm Beta?

  16. #16
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And why the gamma Ni type is called "the Critic" and the beta Ni type sometimes called "the Seer"?

    I'm not against when people emphasize that some quadras use a particular function in a quadra-related way, but in this particular case I'm not overly convinced.
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •