Faces of Consensus - INTj (Robespierre)

[Crispy]

The following pictures depict the Eastern Consensus (75%-100% convergence) of the type INTj. Full methodology, and additional data can be be found at the source:
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...XyVl5ddkbpG3lg


Adomaitis Regimantas


Amosov Nicholas


Budraitis Juozas


Giuseppe Garibaldi


Paul Gauguin


Victor Gulenko


Rene Descartes


Thomas Jefferson


Felix Dzerzhinsky


Yermak, Vladimir (Ермак Владимир)


Immanuel Kant


Thomas More


Sergei Rachmaninoff


Maximilien Robespierre


Anton Chekhov


Oleg Jankowski

[Aleksei]

Robespierre was LSI. Jefferson was some kind of Decisive type, probably IEI.

[Crispy]

Incorrect. Although I now know why you type Light from Death Note as LSI. Too bad their almost identical goals were focused entirely on . I still don't see how you claim to have any knowledge of the information elements, even to go so far as to exclaim that 15 socionists (many of whom were pioneers of the theory in the East) were wrong about the Prototypical LII. (Kant and Descartes commonly share this title with Robespierre). Your lack of understanding is already expected so it's no longer a big deal. And Jefferson INFp = LOL

[EyeSeeCold]

The following pictures depict the Eastern Consensus (75%-100% convergence) of the type ISFp.

Did I miss something here?

[Crispy]

Copy/Paste oversight. Fix'd

[Aleksei]

Incorrect. Although I now know why you type Light from Death Note as LSI. Too bad their almost identical goals were focused entirely on . Your lack of understanding is already expected so it's no longer a big deal.

Like Light, Robespierre had a very short time preference, and was quite Decisive. He was fixated on having his plans put in action immediately. Much like authority figures such as Stalin (the general consensus for whom is LSI), and quite unlike the abstract theorists Kant and Descartes (who are, indeed, LII).

I still don't see how you claim to have any knowledge of the information elements, even to go so far as to exclaim that 15 socionists (many of whom were pioneers of the theory in the East) were wrong about the Prototypical LII. (Kant and Descartes commonly share this title with Robespierre).

I'm not sure how you can make arguments like these (appeal to authority fallacy btw) and still call yourself leading. Surely you can understand that consensus can easily be erroneous if it follows from faulty assumptions?

And Jefferson INFp = LOL

Jefferson was a sappy romantic with an obsession with both his past and tradition. blocked with .

[Crispy]

I'm not sure how you can make arguments like these (appeal to authority fallacy btw) and still call yourself leading. Surely you can understand that consensus can easily be erroneous if it follows from faulty assumptions?

The only other arguments I could make would involve the numerous readings I've done on Robespierre, but since I know you do zero research even if sources are brought up (ie you ignore evidence) there is no reason for me to discuss reality with you. Suffice to say if you actually read biographies about the people you type, you would be of the same opinion as the East, myself, and anyone else who has any capability of understanding the theory. Seeing as how no one listens to you anyway, I have nothing to worry about.

Btw typing famous people when your self typing is obviously wrong makes you look retarded. Thought I should let you know.

[Aleksei]

The only other arguments I could make would involve the numerous readings I've done on Robespierre, but since I know you do zero research even if sources are brought up (ie you ignore evidence) there is no reason for me to discuss reality with you.

I've read up on Robespierre as well. You could enlighten me as to what about his personality is so clearly -valuing.

[Crispy]

Here's Thomas Jefferson expressing clear rationality.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”—
Thomas Jefferson.

And here's Reinen's book on INTj's creative using none other than Robespierre to illustrate it:

Function #2 - objective intuition (): the area of creativity. The external world has to be complete. We will build the City of the Sun and inhabit it with beautiful, happy people.
The world lacks integrity and people work hard to bring it to harmony. “The world should live in harmony, people deserve to be happy", says a Robespierre, "so let's take a guillotine and chop off heads of all bad people who hamper our creation so that only good ones remain and everyone will be happy. Let's build a society free of the bad people, oppression, violence, injustice … But this purpose is achieved by means of a guillotine”. This is how this type expresses his creativity. Ideals of the Sun City are very typical of the Robespierrean utopianism of Thomas Moore and Tommazo Campanella, Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Furrier, Robert Owen.

Notice how his goal is Harmony of the Objective World (Definition of ). Relate the preceding to this Wikisocion quote on Creative and notice the similarity:

Ne as a creative (2nd) function (LII and EII)

The individual likes to apply his insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards, even unreasonably so, for those around him.

He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific questions and issues that he feels are important.

Here's Robespierre taking an Se PoLR hit (and arguably an Fe suggestive one as well) from Danton (ISFp)

"You are a cripple," Danton said at last. His voice was weary, flat. "It's not Couthon who's a cripple, it's you. Don't you know, Robespierrel don't you know there's something wrong with you? Do you ever ask yourself what God left out, when he made you? I used to make jokes at your expense, I used to say you were impotent, but it's more than balls you're missing. I wonder if you're real, I see you walk and talk, but where's the life in you?"
"I do live." Robespierre looked down. He touched his fingertips together, like a nervous witness. "I do live. In my fashion."

[Aleksei]

Jefferson was far from the most rational person. He'd hold these illogical grudges against people for decades over one minor insult about minor things. He likely had asperger syndrome, and anger management issues.

Incidentally, you dodged my point about Jefferson's sappy romanticism and attachment to the past.

Robespierre had ideas, of course. Revolutionary ones. So did Stalin. The point is, he took immediate action in dealing with them, in the form of chopping off peoples' heads. He was not an abstract theorist, nor a very long-term thinker.

[Crispy]

I don't have to dodge anything that's blatantly untrue. Jefferson was an aspiring scientist, far from a romantic.

"Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science, by rendering them my supreme delight. But the enormities of the times in which I have lived have forced me to take a part in resisting them, and to commit myself on the boisterous ocean of political passions."

“Science is my passion, politics my duty.”

Also Thomas Jefferson was very private (like most INTj's) and much resisted giving public speeches, even as president:

As President, he discontinued the practice of delivering the State of the Union address in person, instead sending the address to Congress in writing (the practice was eventually revived by Woodrow Wilson); he gave only two public speeches during his Presidency. Jefferson had a lisp[54] and preferred writing to public speaking partly because of this. He burned all of his letters between himself and his wife at her death, creating the portrait of a man who at times could be very private. Indeed, he preferred working in the privacy of his office rather than in the public eye.[55]

Beta NF's are renowned for being talented public speakers, are they not?

[Aleksei]

I don't have to dodge anything that's blatantly untrue. Jefferson was an aspiring scientist, far from a romantic.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Many IEIs are aspiring scientists given plus mobilizing .

Jefferson and Hemings shared a life time together. Sally would always be for Jefferson the woman who had given up something of enormous value on the basis of his promises (Gordon-Reed, 342) In my opinion, Jefferson and Hemings must have meant something to each other. It is not certain that Jefferson would have asked Hemings to return with him had he not wanted to be with her. He had his choice of any servant he wanted. Perhaps he chose her because he loved her, and she loved him. Sally did have a choice. It is quite possible that the connection is there because she had his children, and she also resembled his wife (whom he loved and dearly missed). Because Sally looked like Martha, Jefferson may have been attracted to her. Perhaps another reason he was attracted to her was her young age. Jefferson and Hemings were 30 years apart, and Gordon-Reed suggests in her book (The Hemingses of Monticello) that youth was considered attractive during Jefferson's era. (310) It is definite that this would be considered a felony in today's 21st century.

Romantic nostalgia for his dead wife: Pure sappy /.

Also Thomas Jefferson was very private (like most INTj's) and much resisted giving public speeches, even as president:

Beta NF's are renowned for being talented public speakers, are they not?

Jefferson was a talented and moving public speaker, but very reserved, which fits very well with being an introvert-subtype IEI.

[Crispy]

I didn't know that INTj's couldn't be attracted to women who look like their dead wives. Jefferson was known to all (including himself) as a bad public speaker. Like most INTj's, he communicated best in writing. Are you done making shit up yet?

[Aleksei]

I didn't know that INTj's couldn't be attracted to women who look like their dead wives.

Which would matter if he was INTj.

Incidentally, the reason I bring it up is because it's precisely WHY he was attracted to her - the fact that she looked very much like his dead wife, probably because she was her half-sister. (she's generally accepted as the daughter of John Wayles) This being in essence the sole reason, while not absolute proof of Ni/Fe, is generally an indicator of it. He would also walk his wife, Martha, to church despite not being a believer and, indeed, being outright contemptuous of the clergy.

Jefferson was known to all (including himself) as a bad public speaker. Like most INTj's, he communicated best in writing.

I see no sources that state actual badness at public speaking, having read multiple biographies of the man - rather, I see an abundance of sources stating that he feared and greatly disliked public speaking, which is not the same thing, and not incompatible with IEI.

He also actually studied rhetoric, and advised his grandson to do the same if he wanted to succeed in politics -- which makes sense for a Beta NF to deem as necessary. IEIs are naturally very good demagogues, but not good rhetorical speakers (LSIs and LIIs by contrast are).

[Crispy]

I see an abundance of sources stating that he feared and greatly disliked public speaking

Those who are good at something do not commonly fear and dislike it.

The dead wife is bullshit because it can and does apply to most people. The only people that would find someone who looks like their spouse unattractive are those who were not attracted to their spouse to begin with.

[Aleksei]

Those who are good at something do not commonly fear and dislike it.

Public speaking can be draining to very strongly expressed introverts (which Jefferson was), and tends to be a harrowing affair even to people who are good at it.

The dead wife is bullshit because it can and does apply to most people. The only people that would find someone who looks like their spouse unattractive are those who were not attracted to their spouse to begin with.

The point is not simply that he was attracted to her. That's the thing. The point is that he fell in love with her precisely because she reminded him of his wife. It wasn't "I love her personality," it wasn't "she's gorgeous," it was "I'm still yearning for my wife and holy shit this girl looks like her, so I'll relieve my grief by basically pretending she is her." Normal non ego people don't do that.

By the way, you dodged (again) my point on rhetoric. Being naturally good at rhetoric in the Aristotelian sense would generally indicate Ti-ego.

[Crispy]

Downloading 12 volumes of the works of Thomas Jefferson. I'd like to find out the types of most/all of the US presidents eventually.

[CloudCuckooLander]

I would also sincerely doubt the guy had Aspergers considering his depth of conceptual-mindedness. People on the autistic spectrum usually have very poor ideational capacities—i.e. you could ask them what the concept of 'justice' means, and they'd probably rattle off something about how it means men with gavels who wear black robes and funny wigs. But they'd have little to no sense of what it means as a value or the implications of why one should feel strongly about it. Quite the opposite of Jefferson, obviously.

Not taking a side here (though to make a note of it, I do agree that Jefferson was a Beta introvert), but that's actually an unfair stereotype, speaking as someone with an aspie grandfather and who grew up thinking he himself had it (I was diagnosed with it as a child, but the diagnosis has been disputed by two different psychiatrists, and bipolar individuals are often misdiagnosed as having it).

I can't speak in regards to other autistic spectrum disorders, but aspies actually often have strong creative and ideational capacity. They simply have strong difficulty vocalizing them, or understanding the ideational theories of others. Rather than operating on purely logical grounds and not understanding illogical thought processes, as is the stereotype of an aspie (see: Dr. Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory), they'd operate on their own subjective premises and not understand ideas that conflict with those specific premises (see: Dr. Gregory House on House). They thus tend to flip out or feel pressured when anyone contradicts what they state on a given matter, when someone was merely making a friendly correction - they take corrections as statements of hostility.

[Crispy]

Some random quote I found attempting to describe Thomas Jefferson's personality. I didn't read anything that conflicted with something I've read before so I'll post it here. I'll bold things I find interesting.

Pay no attention to ignoramuses like J&C H, who have probably never read a history book in their life, considering that every thing he wrote is flat wrong.

Thomas Jefferson was a quiet man, tall, lanky, but had very earthly good looks. He wasn't a great orator (he had a lisp, and was bitterly embarrassed of it), and only gave two public speeches as president of the United States, but what he lacked in natural charisma, he more than made up for with shrewd intelligence and a legendary writing style. Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republicans, who were seen as the party of the people, who were bitterly opposed to the Federalists, who were seen as the party of the aristocracy and the big bankers. In fact it is Alexander Hamilton, not Jefferson, who was viewed as an antidemocratic aristocrat, while the perception of Jefferson was that he was a man of the farmers, firmly devoted to preventing a central bank from forming, as well as the large corporations that grew up around them. In fact, Jefferson derisively callled Hamilton and the Federalists the "Monocrats", as he saw them as advocated of a constitutional monarchy, which he saw as inimically opposed to the freedoms of the people.

Jefferson was NOT a pampered Aristocrat. He was a Virginian, a man of the land. His rival and at times best friend, John Adams, was a rich lawyer from Boston who at times was infuriated by Jefferson but never lacking in admiration for him. According to Adams, Thomas Jefferson could "calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin." He is also called the "father of archeology", because of his pioneering excavation techniques, and had a master's understanding of agriculture.

As president, it is amusing to note that he used to answer the door (of the white house) in his robe and slippers, and he, his daughters, and James Madison's wife, Dolly, were well known for turning the formal state dinners that had been cultivated under Washington and Adams (both of whom were well known aristocrats) into casual and entertaining social events.

As a person, he was a relatively quiet man, not a carefree party-animal like Benjamin Franklin, but not a ultra-formal, stone-faced gargoyle like George Washington. In his spare moments, he was a vociferous reader. "I can not live without books" he famously said. He was fluent in ancient Latin as well as ancient Greek, and he used to read the classics in their original Latin or Greek.

He was personally revolted by Tobacco, but it is also known that he and George Washington used to exchange gifts of "smoking mixtures", possibly Marijuana. George Washington's love for Indian Hemp was well documented, and Thomas Jefferson, ever the farmer, advocated that Americans plant hemp instead of tobacco, arguing that tobacco ruins the soil that it is planted on.

He was also an avid drinker of Gin, as were most Americas. Europe imported so much booze to America that a common epithet for America at the time was the "Alcohol Republic".

Thomas Jefferson's Wife was Martha Wayles Jefferson, and throughout their short marriage, they were completely and utterly devoted to her. Jefferson was said to have been a doting and loving husband. However, Martha was a very sickly woman (she is believed to have been diabetic) and later in her life, as her health failed her, Thomas was known to go through bitter and prolonged bouts of depression. When she died in 1782, Thomas mourned her death for nearly three weeks, refusing to even leave his room, only occasionally emerging to go horseback riding by himself.

Jefferson and slavery is perhaps the most troubling aspect of that man, and no one was more deeply troubled about it than Thomas Jefferson himself. Biographers point out that Jefferson spent almost his entire life in debt, which prevented him from freeing his slaves (he vowed to free his slaves once he was out of debt, which he never was). Jefferson seems to have suffered pangs and trials of conscience as a result, which was far more than virtually any other man of the time could boast. He also tried desperately to enact legislation in Virginia outlawing slaves, knowing full well that it would ruin him to loose his slaves, and throughout his political career, fought tirelessly for the emancipation of slaves. In his will, his 5 most trusted slaves were freed, but unfortunately, his estate sold the rest to pay off his debts. the duology of Jefferson's relationship with slavery is an unfortunate one, And its impact on his personality is not one to ignore, because his ownership of slaves wracked his conscious to no end.

At one point in time, it was thought that Thomas Jefferson had slept with his black slaves and they had borne him children. In fact, his political opponents accused him of keeping his black slaves as concubines, which Jefferson wrote off as vicious slander, beneath responding too. However, the tests did not link them specifically to the Jefferson, merely "a Jefferson". Modern scholars consider it far more likely that the forefather of those children was either Thomas's cousin, Peter Carr, or his brother, Randolph Jefferson
Source(s):
"America, the last best hope", Wikipedia, and a lifetime of studying the American founders

Intelligent but not Charismatic?
Democratic as opposed to Aristocratic?
Dressing for Comfort rather than for Show? (<--- this ones for fun )

[Aleksei]

IEI:

Jefferson was said to have been a doting and loving husband. However, Martha was a very sickly woman (she is believed to have been diabetic) and later in her life, as her health failed her, Thomas was known to go through bitter and prolonged bouts of depression. When she died in 1782, Thomas mourned her death for nearly three weeks, refusing to even leave his room, only occasionally emerging to go horseback riding by himself.

and he, his daughters, and James Madison's wife, Dolly, were well known for turning the formal state dinners that had been cultivated under Washington and Adams (both of whom were well known aristocrats) into casual and entertaining social events.

The bolded stuff could easily fit Ti-mobilizing.

Democratic as opposed to Aristocratic?

What are you, retarded? Yes, he was against the party of aristocracy, but that has nothing to do with the Aristocratic dichotomy, which itself refers to group identification. Jefferson happened to identify with agrarian types as opposed to the Northeastern industrial aristocracy that ran the Federalist Party. In fact, Jefferson's personal life is a sign of the Aristocratic dichotomy. He frequently rambled about "bawwww the poor farmer, always ignored by the industrialists."

[CloudCuckooLander]

I don't think they're necessarily hyper-logical (some are, some aren't—it varies). But yes, the cognitive rigidity you describe is a frequent trait. Whatever their basis for thinking something happens to be—logical or illogical, objective or subjective—they'll insist on the specificity of it being 'this' thing, or something defined in this particular way. Being that their abilities to generalize or cross-contextualize information into unifying higher-order concepts, is usually quite limited. A cognitive feature which seems to reflect itself in the fact that autistic brains usually contain less inter-departmental connectivity between the various component processing areas specific to certain senses/tasks/abilities. Whereas in 'normal' brains you'll see a lot of rich association going on between these same areas, with more densely packed grey matter visibly bridging them together.

In some ways, this actually confers certain advantages to autistic persons. Being that 'normal' brains have a tendency to mash things together and generalize (sometimes too much), we often overlook a lot of details that they don't. Which can and apparently does give them an edge in some kinds of scientific and artistic work.

Exactly - all of the above I agree with. It's not a lack of creativity or ideation ability per se, so much as hyper-specification and inability to comprehend the ideations of others.

[Crispy]

You seem to be using an artificially tailored meaning of Aristocracy. Also, Jefferson being described as Intelligent but not Charismatic can not be explained with Ti mobilizing. Those with Weak Ti/Te, All F types, would always be described more as Charismatic than Intelligent. They are simple definitions.

[Aleksei]

You seem to be using an artificially tailored meaning of Aristocracy.

No I'm not. Read it again.

Aristocrats
Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: feeling energized by identification with a group, as in a team within a company, sports team, and the like; and seeing others foremost through the prism of the other teams they belong to.

Democrats
Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved.

Jefferson fits this definition of Aristocratic (which distinctly has nothing to do with the national aristocracy, or with elitism) to the T.

Also, Jefferson being described as Intelligent but not Charismatic can not be explained with Ti mobilizing. Those with Weak Ti/Te, All F types, would always be described more as Charismatic than Intelligent. They are simple definitions.

That's downright insulting to Ethical types. there's nothing about being F that'd make one stupid. And while it is true that Fe-ego types are usually charismatic (not necessarily all F types), but charisma is also related to features that are not type-related, such as clear oratory and photo-friendliness. Jefferson, as mentioned in the very first quote, had a speech impediment.

[Crispy]

It's not insulting. It's the truth. I didn't say F types are stupid (and it's interesting that you would say that), but that if someone is regarded as being Intelligent at the cost of being Charismatic, it is the same as saying he is Logical at the cost of Ethics. Notice how these are pretty much synonyms. Also I have no idea what you're trying to illustrate with Aristocratic/Democratic. Jefferson obviously values the individual qualities of people as opposed to what group(s) he/she belongs to.

[Aleksei]

It's not insulting. It's the truth. I didn't say F types are stupid (and it's interesting that you would say that), but that if someone is regarded as being Intelligent at the cost of being Charismatic, it is the same as saying he is Logical at the cost of Ethics. Notice how these are pretty much synonyms.

You said that Fs are charismatic at the expense of being intelligence. Ergo, it'd stand to reason that you're saying they're less intelligent than T types. And then there's the fact the reason Jefferson wasn't charismatic is he, erm, had a speech impediment. One of your very own quotes clarifies that.

Also I have no idea what you're trying to illustrate with Aristocratic/Democratic. Jefferson obviously values the individual qualities of people as opposed to what group(s) he/she belongs to.

This is absolutely false. Jefferson makes repeated reference to things like, say, "our Saxon tradition," "us agrarian-folk," "those bankster weasels," etc. Some quotes:

Yet Jefferson’s interest in the Saxon heritage went far beyond matters of philology. He held that the forward movement of British settlement in North America was a continuation of the original migration of Hengist and Horsa. It was all part of the vigorous expansion of a superior group of people. Jefferson even went so far as to suggest that the form of government being adopted in the emerging United States represented a restoration of the sublime Anglo-Saxon principles. It was now North America that represented these verities, not a corrupt England under the rule of foreign monarchs.

Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.

The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body

All of this clearly shows group-oriented thinking. Sainted Saxons, sainted laborers, evil city-dwellers, etc.

[Aleksei]

While we're on the subject, I'm not entirely sure on his type, but Garibaldi was not devaluing -- let alone PoLR. I think he was some kind of Beta ST. Chekhov I'm not sure about either, but I'm getting a vague impression of IEI based on his marked focus on interpersonal dialogue and interaction in his plays. Thomas More as LII is ridiculous. There's no way an LII would be known as The Hanging Judge for executing so many people, and then go up in front of Henry VIII and go BAWWWW STOP KILLING CATHOLIIIIICS! The guy was ESI.

[Crispy]

You said that Fs are charismatic at the expense of being intelligence. Ergo, it'd stand to reason that you're saying they're less intelligent than T types. And then there's the fact the reason Jefferson wasn't charismatic is he, erm, had a speech impediment. One of your very own quotes clarifies that.

Depending on what you mean by intelligent, that's exactly what I, and Socionic's theory, are saying. The speech impediment can not be used as an excuse for being uncharismatic. It said that was partly why, ie there are other parts. He was uncharismatic regardless of the impediment.

And none of those quotes have anything to do with Aristocratic vs Democratic. Does Jefferson ever claim he feel energized because He is a laborer? Or even that he was "one of the founding fathers"? No, he simply doesn't attach a separate entity to his person. (ie put himself in a group). The closest he gets to this is being a man of Virginia and representing his state as such.

[Aleksei]

Depending on what you mean by intelligent, that's exactly what I, and Socionic's theory, are saying. The speech impediment can not be used as an excuse for being uncharismatic. It said that was partly why, ie there are other parts. He was uncharismatic regardless of the impediment.

Care to name some of them? Far as I can tell, a lisp can make someone uncharismatic all on its own. It did so for Churchill, after all.

And none of those quotes have anything to do with Aristocratic vs Democratic. Does Jefferson ever claim he feel energized because He is a laborer? Or even that he was "one of the founding fathers"? No, he simply doesn't attach a separate entity to his person. (ie put himself in a group). The closest he gets to this is being a man of Virginia and representing his state as such.

Actually, he was proud to be the heir of this Anglo-Saxon tradition. He was also proud to not be a city-dweller. Aristocratic means being energized from NOT being something just as much as being something.

[Crispy]

While we're on the subject, I'm not entirely sure on his type, but Garibaldi was not devaluing -- let alone PoLR. I think he was some kind of Beta ST. Chekhov I'm not sure about either, but I'm getting a vague impression of IEI based on his marked focus on interpersonal dialogue and interaction in his plays. Thomas More as LII is ridiculous. There's no way an LII would be known as The Hanging Judge for executing so many people, and then go up in front of Henry VIII and go BAWWWW STOP KILLING CATHOLIIIIICS! The guy was ESI.

At this point you're obviously trolling. If not I feel sorry for you because your view of the theory is skewed and you insist to put poorly thought out opinions against years of study done by the core socionists of the East. These people actually know their own type and haven't changed it since they became sure long ago. I'll make it a policy of mine to refrain from correcting people who are deemed hopeless. Since anyone of any intelligence has seen enough of your reasoning to disregard your opinion, I see no reason to protect the rest from your ignorance. So go on and attempt to change the consensus to what you believe, but just know in the end that everyone of any credibility disagrees with most/all of your views.

[Aleksei]

At this point you're obviously trolling. If not I feel sorry for you because your view of the theory is skewed and you insist to put poorly thought out opinions against years of study done by the core socionists of the East. These people actually know their own type and haven't changed it since they became sure long ago. I'll make it a policy of mine to refrain from correcting people who are deemed hopeless. Since anyone of any intelligence has seen enough of your reasoning to disregard your opinion, I see no reason to protect the rest from your ignorance. So go on and attempt to change the consensus to what you believe, but just know in the end that everyone of any credibility disagrees with most/all of your views.

So many words for a simple appeal to authority fallacy...

[Not A Communist Shill]

At this point you're obviously trolling. If not I feel sorry for you because your view of the theory is skewed and you insist to put poorly thought out opinions against years of study done by the core socionists of the East. These people actually know their own type and haven't changed it since they became sure long ago. I'll make it a policy of mine to refrain from correcting people who are deemed hopeless. Since anyone of any intelligence has seen enough of your reasoning to disregard your opinion, I see no reason to protect the rest from your ignorance. So go on and attempt to change the consensus to what you believe, but just know in the end that everyone of any credibility disagrees with most/all of your views.

Desist from making the personal attacks (claiming that anyone of any intelligence need not be protected from his ignorance on account of them having even a low level of intelligence means that you are fairly clearly attacking aleksei's mental faculties).

[Crispy]

It's not a surprise that his mental faculties need Third-Party protection, but if you insist, I'll desist.

[Aiss]

This thread is worse than I thought from chatbox references.

Regardless of Jefferson's actual type or even the possibility of figuring it out based on probably biased historical accounts, it's as ridiculous to claim he was Logical for his intelligence or lack of charisma as it is to claim that an LII wouldn't easily execute people, take part in a revolution or be a hypocrite just because they're LII.

[Aleksei]

The point isn't that More was a hypocrite - he actually wasn't, really. Nor is the point that he executed people. The point is his harsh, Se-creative sort of legislating his moral framework and putting it immediately into action, combined with his Fi sensitivity to the feelings of others. Since he combined the two in a manner almost similar to, say, Richard Nixon, he was probably ESI.

[Crispy]

I didn't claim that automatically made him logical. I used the same "lol it's an indicator herp derp" tactic as Aleksei did. If he's not going to put the effort into making a real argument, why should I?

Romanticism indicates Feeling? Oh that's cool guess what Intelligence indicates Thinking. If both of these statements are fallacious, we're back at the beginning, where the consensus stands as the strongest evidence we have so far.

[Aiss]

You sure didn't, either of you. Except when it served you in this fight, that is.

If he's not going to put the effort into making a real argument, why should I?

...

[Aleksei]

Romanticism indicates Feeling? Oh that's cool guess what Intelligence indicates Thinking. If both of these statements are fallacious, we're back at the beginning, where the consensus stands as the strongest evidence we have so far.

Except I'm not arguing that romanticism indicates Feeling. I'm actually arguing that Jefferson's is a specific kind of romanticism, a nigh-obsessive romanticism, and specifically focused on the past -- which above all indicates . I could easily type him ILI instead, except he did show a lot of and was more emotionally expressive than an ILI would be (locking himself in his room those 3 weeks and the like).

Official consensus is indicative of nothing. Especially when it comes to sociological theories.

[Crispy]

I'm not saying eating beans indicates Rationality. I'm saying eating Green beans indicates Rationality.

Try harder.

Official consensus is indicative of nothing. Especially when it comes to sociological theories.

Wrong. Official consensus is not proof. But to say it's not evidence is to ignore evidence. I already know how good you are at that.

[Aleksei]

I'm not saying eating beans indicates Rationality. I'm saying eating Green beans indicates Rationality.

Try harder.

False analogy. You're saying that I'm saying "eating beans" (not that simple - a focus on time perception is indicated as Ni by Augusta, and a focus on the past is indicated as a subfactor of it by Wikisocion) indicates feeling. I'm saying not only is it a specific kind of "beans," but that it doesn't actually equal feeling - it equals Ni.

[Crispy]

So if an LSE's wife dies and he sees another women that looks just like her, he's gunna be all like "ewwww gross, she reminds me of the past!". Get real.