Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 61

Thread: Fe-dominant visionaries and intellectuals

  1. #1
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Fe-dominant visionaries and intellectuals.

    Let's go.

    Peter Molyneux is an EIE, imo. He has a history of having a very maudlin presentation and making huge promises that never get delivered (lol Fable).

    Richard Dawkins? I've heard ESE thrown around but I can't really personally substantiate it.

    As always if you somehow think this is an attempt to vindicate my self-typing, you have a thread for that. I'll give you a hint, as well: it's not this one.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  2. #2
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,617
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Two mathematicians:

    John Baez (ESE)
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

    Writing sample

    Popularizer of mathematical physics, writing style is very familiar, good at making difficult math topics approachable. Recently took a professional hiatus from math to research climate change and environmental issues.



    Alexander Grothendieck: the father of modern algebraic geometry, one of the most widely renowned mathematicians of the 20th century. Became a hermit and doesn't do math anymore. Mainly considered EIE/ESE, but he could be IEI. Writing style is ever poetic and romantic.



    Looks a bit like Steve Jobs, doesn't he?

    edit: I now think Baez is ILE and Grothendieck is IEI.
    Last edited by thehotelambush; 10-18-2016 at 07:51 PM.

  3. #3
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    how about Cat King Cole, is he one?

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Off the top of my head for ESFj I'm thinking politician Al Gore, writers Stephen King and J.K. Rowling, and composer Johannes Brahms. They're in the visionary category... if you read into their personality. The first two are Fe subtypes. This probably won't help you too much, but is a good collection of Fe/Si brand personalities to get a couple kinds of visionary impressions.

    Richard Dawkins is ILE imo. He doesn't have that same humanistic softness that comes with Fe dominants.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    Off the top of my head for ESFj I'm thinking politician Al Gore, writers Stephen King and J.K. Rowling
    ...according to Ashton at least.
    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    and composer Johannes Brahms.
    But where do you get that from? Is it just that the music has this sonorous and expressive quality? Is there any evidence that Brahms really was ESE? Or it's just that his music sounds like that to you?

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Al Bore couldn't be more lacking in Fe. anyone typing that as ESFj has got to be either braindead or pushing an agenda.

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BS. Why are you guys wondering how they're ? It's like you're redefining it in your own way and can't see the forest for the trees or something. How do I even begin to explain something so basic? but to give examples of how looks.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    BS. Why are you guys wondering how they're ? It's like you're redefining it in your own way and can't see the forest for the trees or something. How do I even begin to explain something so basic? but to give examples of how looks.
    Well it may be obvious to you, but there are a lot of sites by people who are considered experts that type these people differently. Ashton has his school of thought that some people follow, but there are others. If each "school" merely defends its position by saying "it's obvious!" without any explanation, what does that accomplish?

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know, but you seem to be somewhat lost so I'm trying to show you examples, or for anyone. It is obvious, especially if you are reading the very basics of Jung or Aushra's interpretation of him, but you don't need to stick to one train of thought. You can keep contemplating the possibilities.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    I don't know, but you seem to be somewhat lost so I'm trying to show you examples, or for anyone. It is obvious, especially if you are reading the very basics of Jung or Aushra's interpretation of him....
    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    Bump. Let's keep going with this, but remember to follow the rules in the OP: no type debates here please.

    Here is a page with famous benchmarks http://socionics.org/type/celebs.html and from this list, celebrities selected in order of youtube search results:

    ILE - Albert Einstein 6120, Dustin Hoffman 5110, Jamie Lee Curtis 3000, Jeff Goldblum 2940
    SEI - Barbra Streisand 7070, Kevin Spacey 5060
    ESE - Paul McCartney 134000, Bill Clinton 6670, Sandra Bullock 6340, Courtney Love 5880, Liza Minnelli 5710, Juliette Binoche 1660
    LII - Al Gore 6770, Vladimir Putin 5850, Kevin Costner 5130, Patricia Kaas 4110
    You even posted that some Russian socionists put Al Gore in the LII camp. So how can you say that it's so obvious that he's ESE that anyone who doesn't immediately accept that is lost and clueless?

    I have an idea why you might think he's ESE, as he dramatizes points when he gives lectures, though I don't know that an LII wouldn't necessarily do that also.

    But it clearly isn't obvious; it's a matter of controversy. Or at least controversy between the Ashtonian school and some of the others. I'm not saying which one is correct though.

  11. #11
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't want to babble on about it, but there are plenty of outlets to draw a connection to these typings. It's not all up-in-the-air like you suppose.

  12. #12
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Well it may be obvious to you, but there are a lot of sites by people who are considered experts that type these people differently. Ashton has his school of thought that some people follow, but there are others. If each "school" merely defends its position by saying "it's obvious!" without any explanation, what does that accomplish?
    And those experts are quite often in disagreement, nor do they always provide rationales for their typings. Furthermore many of them are exponents of tarot, astrology, and other bogus codswallop. So a fat lot of good these top-notch sorcerers are.

    As far as Ashton having a school and followers, I've observed that his ideas like Model X and the typing database have been developed through collaborative efforts (I've made a few additions to the db myself). If he's at all influential in this it stands to reason that this stems from a solid ability to explain his thinking in concrete and intelligible terms, not from any magical powers that might be conveniently attributed to attempt diminishing his credibility. Try living up to Effie's praise of you as an independent and rigorous thinker instead of lazily repeating ignorant and agenda-driven opinions.

  13. #13
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,905
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have Al Gore as a Te-LSE as far as I know him; more than anything, he strikes me as being part of Delta, and his comfort in bringing up statistics, the kind of stiff relaxed dryness he has about him, his repeating of "lockbox" during the presidential debate in 2000 as a sort of related concept, all of that gives me a bit more of a push to my conclusion...

  14. #14
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    Off the top of my head for ESFj I'm thinking politician Al Gore, writers Stephen King and J.K. Rowling, and composer Johannes Brahms. They're in the visionary category... if you read into their personality. The first two are Fe subtypes. This probably won't help you too much, but is a good collection of Fe/Si brand personalities to get a couple kinds of visionary impressions.

    Richard Dawkins is ILE imo. He doesn't have that same humanistic softness that comes with Fe dominants.
    Ridiculous. Dawkins is like the Alpha Steve Jobs, lol.

    Also Wtf, jk Rowling is Fi as shit.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Well it may be obvious to you, but there are a lot of sites by people who are considered experts that type these people differently. Ashton has his school of thought that some people follow, but there are others. If each "school" merely defends its position by saying "it's obvious!" without any explanation, what does that accomplish?
    And those experts are quite often in disagreement, nor do they always provide rationales for their typings. Furthermore many of them are exponents of tarot, astrology, and other bogus codswallop. So a fat lot of good these top-notch sorcerers are.

    As far as Ashton having a school and followers, I've observed that his ideas like Model X and the typing database have been developed through collaborative efforts (I've made a few additions to the db myself). If he's at all influential in this it stands to reason that this stems from a solid ability to explain his thinking in concrete and intelligible terms, not from any magical powers that might be conveniently attributed to attempt diminishing his credibility. Try living up to Effie's praise of you as an independent and rigorous thinker instead of lazily repeating ignorant and agenda-driven opinions.
    Well there are obviously a few misunderstandings here, so let me try to clear them up:

    I never said that Ashton has some sort of magic powers of persuasion or implied that the fact that he has his own school and followers diminishes his credibility. I actually quite agree with you that he's good at explaining his point of view. And I agree with him on a number of things, such as there being no 1-to-1 correlation between types and fields of interest. I think I annoy him sometimes (and his gang too, apparently), and I wish sometimes that there were more civility, but overall I respect the fact that he's a pretty clear thinker generally, although I disagree with model X.

    I have not lazily repeated any opinions. Nor did I say that the Russian socionists are perfect. I really merely pointed out the obvious, which is that the typings of some of these people proposed as ESE are not obvious. These are typings where the variance is rather large, unlike how so many Socionists seem to agree that Einstein was ELI. This is a pretty obvious point I'm making, and I don't know why it's being regarded as so controversial.

    But since almost everyone here seems so stuck on whether Al Gore's type is obvious or not, I'll just have to guess on why you think he's ESE and make the point for you.

    I think possibly where you folks are coming from is that since his passion is in championing various points of view (rather than developing those points of view themselves), then he is by definition focusing on Fe, regardless of whether or not he uses mostly factual data to make his points, and regardless of how emotional he seems, or how adept or inept he is at coming across as charismatic vs. "wooden."

    So the fact, for example, that he did not invent the Internet, but did champion it, or that he champions the theory of global warming...all of these would, under that interpretation, be examples of Fe.

    I'm just guessing that this is your reasoning, because nobody here is willing to say. I have some misgivings with that theory, because I think that if some sort of logical type were to choose politics as a career, that person would need to play the role of champion, because that's what politics is about. Similarly, I think that if someone tends to focus on logical and factual details a lot, or is described as "wooden," those might be regarded as evidence against being an Fe type....or at least, shouldn't necessarily be ruled out.

    But I'm willing to consider the (unstated) point that, in relation to the OP, Fe is about championing positions, and thus the role of Fe intellectuals is typically as champions of various points of view.

  16. #16
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    EIE

    Grigori Perelman

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
    Skinny, just like a good N type.


  17. #17
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,359
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sean Parker, creator of Napster and later took part in Facebooks success, is possibly EIE
    He talks a lot about poor usage in companies who don't do enough to stay relevant on a long term basis, mixed with strong understanding of dealing with new competitors/ideas that can push current companies out of business


    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Ridiculous. Dawkins is like the Alpha Steve Jobs, lol.

    Also Wtf, jk Rowling is Fi as shit.
    Lol.

    We don't see Fe doms the same way. Your way is more stereotypical "expressive = extroverted feeling." Mine is more classical, deep-seeded Jung, where Fe doms are very empathetic and in touch with a common humanitarian attitude and others emotions. So in your case it separates the blabber mouth ILE impressionist from the true humanitarian EIE feeler and philosopher.

  19. #19
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml

    Black (extraverted) ethics

    Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.

    When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.

    What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity. A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.
    Last edited by Cat King Cole; 09-08-2011 at 05:50 AM.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  20. #20
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not only in facial expression but in the correct use of words to convey these things as well.

  21. #21
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If it's a stereotype, it probably came from somewhere. In this case, that place is Aushra herself.

    If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  22. #22
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Not only in facial expression but in the correct use of words to convey these things as well.
    The key point is that is defined as communicating, openly, your emotional states to others and trying to impress your feelings on those around you.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  23. #23
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat King Cole View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Not only in facial expression but in the correct use of words to convey these things as well.
    The key point is that is defined as communicating, openly, your emotional states to others and trying to impress your feelings on those around you.
    Yes, and you do this quite well, I've noticed. I remember my *spunky* sister trying to get laughs out of people; she would do all sorts of crazy shenanigans but that now, she is embarrassed about (I saved the pictures).

  24. #24
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most of those descriptions are vague, yet you don't seem to fit the one very well so I wonder why you're typing ESE. If I were you, I'd look around for a better set of descriptions to reference, maybe one that forces more people to question their knowledge of your typing.

  25. #25
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wtf. My post had nothing to do with my self-typing. This thread has nothing to do with my self-typing. I even have a thread specifically for challenging my self-typing, so don't derail this one. Delete your post and move it over.

    EDIT

    And Maritsa, if you don't mind as well. Let's keep this thread on-topic.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat King Cole View Post
    http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml

    Black (extraverted) ethics

    Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.
    This is a very good source. It points out the differences in definitions that are so often the source of misunderstanding.

    Poli, however, keeps mentioning Jung, and so I suspect that he's referring to Jung's understanding of extraverted feeling as having to do with shared values. (In fact, for Jung, the difference between the extraverted and introverted functions was largely the degree to which a common, shared framework is accepted.)

    Jung gave examples of extraverted feeling that make it seem inherently conformist; the person's opinions are in some way dictated by conformance with some shared ideal, such as the person a person is *supposed* to marry or the picture on the wall that is *supposed* to be seen as beautiful (although that conformity may also be with a sub-culture, and thus possibly viewed as subversive even).

    So Jung actually didn't talk about extraverted feeling in terms of emotions; for him, it as with all judging functions is fundamentally a basis of decision-making. What made it a form of "feeling" was the fact that it can't be rationalized away; the person has a deep-seated opinion based on identification with some sort of shared value, and hence all of the logic the person may muster to defend that opinion always points in one direction and omits anything that would oppose the shared value.

    But Augusta described Fe in a very different way, and I think [Edit: Augusta's] definition [quoted on Rick's site] is a good description of Russian Augusta-based Socionics, which is different from Jung.

    Of course, there are many cases where these definitions of Fe are apparent in the same person. (This may be because externalized expressions and shared values are both examples of something inherently "non-logical" that's in the public sphere.) It's those cases where they're not mutually apparent that form the basis of controversy.
    Last edited by Jonathan; 09-08-2011 at 06:23 AM.

  27. #27
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    But since almost everyone here seems so stuck on whether Al Gore's type is obvious or not, I'll just have to guess on why you think he's ESE and make the point for you.
    I haven't paid Gore a moment's notice since he ceded the '00 election like a chump and have no opinion on his sociotype. Regarding the rest of your post:

  28. #28
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's translated as feeling. You need to understand that he wrote in German, not English, and thus we're at mercy of the translators. If you read Chapter X of Psychological Types he repeatedly refers to Feeling as measuring "value". A more consistent translation would be "Valuation" rather than "Feeling".

    In that sense as well, "Ethics" in Socionics is certainly closer to "feeling" than Jung's "Valuation".

    EDIT

    Also, Jung's definitions of Introversion and Extraversion is different from Socionics (as it appears on Rick's page; so I can't source it). As Jonathan says, I/E in Jung is about whether a person habitually views the world subjectively, or habitually attempts to be as objective as possible. I/E in Socionics is about whether a person views the world in terms of objects that can be broken apart and studied, or views the world in terms of how it affects them personally.

    Based on my knowledge of the source materials for Jung's typology (which is limited to Chapter X of Psychological Types, and none of his other writings) and Socionics as written about by Augusta, you absolutely cannot claim that either system is the same. Certainly, in places, they're similar, but taking either as an authority on the other is simply misleading.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  29. #29
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps. In the case of Extraverted Feeling and Extraverted Ethics, for example, the only overlap is dominants internalizing social roles. A dominant can follow his emotions around and prick his ears up at people who are displaying uncharacteristic emotions without processing in the least what the outside world thinks is "proper" (which is the realm of Extraverted Feeling/Valuation).
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post

    Lol, who are these "followers" you speak of? I'm not affiliated with any gangs, bruh.
    Why all the vitriol? It always baffles me. I've said mainly good things about you, but you take issue with having followers. What's wrong with that?

    A person who agrees with all or most of your typings, consistently defends your views against others, and agrees with Model X, would be a follower by any reasonable definition.

    Probably, you have some baggage about others in the past who may have said that the people who agree with and defend your point of view aren't thinking for themselves, and that therefore their views don't count.

    I never said that your followers are mindless or unjustified in their position, but you clearly have followers and you should be happy about that.

    If you want to talk about someone else, how about J.K. Rowling?

  31. #31
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    deals in changes in excitability or agitation.

    An example I gave someone today is that if you have a really hyper person, and one day they're all mopey, will pick up on that and want to know what's up. is reading an object (in this case a person) as having undergone a change in their excitement. It says absolutely nothing about prevailing social mores or customary values.

    It does raise the interesting question of where gets its sense of purpose. For myself I just reason that I have goals and I want to get them done; or I have feelings which go straight in and come straight out, but I obviously don't like this approach because it says nothing of other people and focuses exclusively on me. The easiest solution is to just look at what a big bunch of people do and come up with a model that explains what they have in common--in this case an imperative to openly express their excitability and impress it on as many people as possible.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  32. #32
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sure, but all you need to do to resolve that problem is expand from an input to an input and an output (which is what the elements are defined as anyway). PoLRs are going to be shy about expressing their emotional states for fear of judgement, and they're certainly not going to try and impress their excitement or agitation on anyone else.

    And just like that, the problem dissolves.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  33. #33
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good catch.

    But, in general, is a PoLR going to try and effectuate excitement or agitation in other people? Considering that, again, the problem is exposed as spurious.

    Isolating one behaviour says nothing. Functions describe consistent observable values and behaviours (and, if you incorporate semantics, themes in conversation and characteristic quirks in language use). No one datum in a void has any particular relevance or meaning, since we're not dealing with any kind of logic proof that can be dismantled with a counterexample.
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  34. #34
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat King Cole View Post
    PoLRs are going to be shy about expressing their emotional states for fear of judgement
    Bull. I generally don't have much of an emotional state to speak of other than a goofy/pissed continuum, though toward people I care about my mien and sentiments are more varied, nuanced, and softer. For the remainder of humanity I don't particularly care what they feel or think, and their judgment is often little more than a source of comedy to me.

    they're certainly not going to try and impress their excitement or agitation on anyone else.
    And yet as a DJ and musician I've skillfully guided the mood and dancing shoes of rooms full of people, incidentally inspiring others to pick up or improve their efforts at the auditory arts along the way. In light and sociable moods I can be quite the card, busting people up with witty rejoinders and pithy yet humorous observations. Guests at my occasional dinner parties enjoy attending not just for the gustatory experience my kitchen affords but also because I foster a relaxed environment with wide-ranging and novel music that appeals to nearly everyone, being neither too rumbustious, soporific, challenging, nor strange. I've sent belligerent assholes scampering from bars with their tails tucked and all the patrons applauding my fiery denunciation and the scoundrel's flight. When the mood strikes me to hold forth on a favorite subject, my autodidactic disquisitions kindle the love of knowledge in the eyes of other lifelong learners. In emergencies my calm demeanor helps others maintain their cool as a solution is effected. And if my peeps are threatened then I'm quick to instill fear of incapacitation or death in him what done it. So given the desires, whims, or requirements of a certain moment, yes, sometimes I will impress excitement and agitation on others.

    And just like that, the problem dissolves.
    No. It does not.

    But, in general, is a PoLR going to try and effectuate excitement or agitation in other people?
    Pay attention and you'll see me do it time and again by cracking jokes, pulling legs, or initiating disputes. True, it's often easier for me to produce negative emotional effects in others, individual or aggregate, but it certainly isn't impossible for me to positively affect a social vibe. The issue with Fe, at least in my case, is in assimilating myself to the overall tone of group atmospheres. If my spontaneous feeling doesn't jibe with prevailing expressions or expectations I simply don't participate because doing so would be inauthentic and forced.

    Considering that, again, the problem is exposed as spurious.
    Pfffft. If you're still confused after this try impersonating an xLI for a few months. I suggest ILI since you'll only have to reverse the polarities of your IEs.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I despise being accused of having followers, because it implies whitewashing people of accountability for their own thoughts, as if I'm somehow exercising a determinative influence over the conclusions they happen to hold. This is beyond preposterous.

    For the last time: I am not responsible for what others may or may not happen to think.
    I certainly meant nothing of the sort. I never said or implied that other people aren't accountable for their thoughts or that you're responsible for what they think. Jung is often described as a "follower of Freud." In no sense does this mean that he always agreed with Freud or didn't have his own thoughts; obviously he developed his own system and overshadowed Freud to a degree. Augusta was a follower of Jung. The term can be applied in a much more neutral way than you're making out. But that's okay, I'll try to avoid the term as applied to you and the people whose views resemble yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    What a gross assumption. No, that has never been the case.
    I'm sorry if I said things in the wrong way. I shouldn't have used the word "baggage." But what you said in very response basically makes the point I was saying....That you're reacting to my use of the word follower as if I'm implying that these people are mindless followers or something, which I"m not.

  36. #36
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    Off the top of my head for ESFj I'm thinking politician Al Gore, writers Stephen King and J.K. Rowling
    I feel like stating my disagreements. I never saw anything that looked remotely like Fe with Al Bore Gore. I think Stephen King is Ni--I always thought IEI, but I'm okay with EIE, since sometimes mirrors can look the same from afar. I think that J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books are full of Ne (I suspect EII, but well, I can't really type her on her books... but I think she has Ne).

    I think I'll list Bono... I suspect Bono's an EIE (as I know that's never been mentioned before by anyone). And he seems very involved in his causes and I wouldn't be surprised if he saw himself as a visionary or is highly regarded as one (having vision and carrying it forth).

    I almost think with Fe dominants that because a lot of them can be so charismatic and display their passions, that they often end up feeling like visionaries to themselves or looking visionary-ish to others. I don't know how I would think of a "true visionary."

    I've considered mentioning Hitler.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    If you want to talk about someone else, how about J.K. Rowling?
    No. Try again.
    How about Brahms? I've been trying to draw Poli out on why he thinks Brahms is ESFj, but each time I only manage to annoy him further.

    I see on the list you posted that he's listed as ESFj there too.

    It's not that I can't imagine him as ESFj...I can project and imagine his music that way if I want. However, nothing I've read about him makes him seem ESFj. I always thought he was INFj or something like that.

    But in any case, he surely was one of the most intellectual of all composers, so if he really was ESFj, that would tie in nicely with the OP's question.

  38. #38
    EffyCold thePirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    TIM
    ??
    Posts
    1,897
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    BS. Why are you guys wondering how they're ? It's like you're redefining it in your own way and can't see the forest for the trees or something. How do I even begin to explain something so basic? but to give examples of how looks.
    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    I don't know, but you seem to be somewhat lost so I'm trying to show you examples, or for anyone. It is obvious, especially if you are reading the very basics of Jung or Aushra's interpretation of him, but you don't need to stick to one train of thought. You can keep contemplating the possibilities.
    You keep stating that things are obvious when time and time again only you and perhaps two other people are aware of the vague correlations you draw with IE's. Connections can be drawn to anything, but the same thing you are espousing also applies to you. It's hard to take you seriously when so many socionists, members, and and even literature seemingly contradict you; I still have a hard time seeing how a typological approach emphasizing Jung's passages is still able to fall under the realm of socionics.

    I am genuinely curious in hearing out your your ideas, do you ever plan on fleshing them out or is this veil of arrogance the only means in which we'll see you interact?
    <Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not

  39. #39
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can't always just explain it in simple words or stereotypes, it's more in comparing a very essential similarity that is identified in Jung to other people (of the same type). I just made a vague sort of explanation on Tchaikovsky's type in the musician thread, for instance, and I try to make other explanations wherever I can think of them (there are a number of them. I guess you just have to catch me when the words come out more smoothly.)

  40. #40
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I don't have followers,
    False

    I'm not a leader of anything,
    True

    I'm nobody's guru,
    nor am I the creator of any particular schools of thought.
    lol you wish it could be considered that much.

    I despise being accused of having followers, because it implies whitewashing people of accountability for their own thoughts, as if I'm somehow exercising a determinative influence over the conclusions they happen to hold. This is beyond preposterous.
    No, it does not imply that you magically steal other people's free will. It DOES imply that they glom on to you because you project more confidence than you have and you seem straightforward even though you are inconsistent and full of shit.

    For the last time: I am not responsible for what others may or may not happen to think. If you've an issue with someone else's opinion(s), you will address it exclusively to them—do not involve my name.
    I, for one, will continue to accuse you of everything I see you as being guilty of, and you are smoking fucking crack if you think that "laying down the law" will change that for even a second.



    There are people that I converse with, but nobody 'follows' each other. It's much more open and collaborative than that, and we don't always agree with one another.
    lol yes you do.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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