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.