Michael Moore

[Slacker]

Come on haters! Let me know what type you think he is.

I don't reallly have a strong opinion on it I guess. I have a few thoughts about traits that could be type related but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

I'm reading his new book, Here Comes Trouble, and it made me think of what type he might be.

[Trevor]

Come on haters! Let me know what type you think he is.

I don't reallly have a strong opinion on it I guess. I have a few thoughts about traits that could be type related but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

I'm reading his new book, Here Comes Trouble, and it made me think of what type he might be.

Does he remind you of your mom or dad? Socionically wise.

[Slacker]

Hmm. I guess more my dad than my mom. More subdued than my dad I think though.

[Morcheeba]

He's an ENTp, a really annoying one.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Michael Moore is hypocritical I think.

It's fun to hate on Republicans but he's filthy rich and selfish himself, and pretends to relate to his home town of flint michigan when really he condescends and looks down on it.

I agree with him on his values but sometimes he's just ugh.

(I don't know it's so easy for me to hate on everybody famous. Except for Fefe Dobson.)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Wouldn't it be fun to throw anybody you didn't like into a volcano?

[Radio]

My impression has always been ENTp.

[717495]

Yeah it's gotta be ENTp.

[WVBRY]

He doesnt seem ENTp to me. He seems more Ti-ESTp, a kind of squeemish moralistic type of one, but still seems like a his base fucntion and he seems beta not, .

[Radio]

He seems more Ti-ESTp, a kind of squeemish moralistic type of one, but still seems like a his base fucntion and he seems beta not, .

What about him seems Beta?

[WVBRY]

What about him seems Beta?

Well his social concerns for one. Alphas are not concerned with social isssues. In fact, they are the quadra least likely to be concerned with anything but their own pleasures and intellectual leisure. I personally do no not see an alpha crusading against "social injustice" the way he does...

[717495]

That's incorrect, ime. And I know ENTps who fit well with the ENTp description where it's not anywhat against stereotypical behavior.

I mean any type can be for anything; not what they approach but how they approach it is what makes Socionics interesting/useful.

[WVBRY]

I mean any type can be for anything; not what they approach but how they approach it is what makes Socionics interesting/useful.

Im not arguing against that; Im simply saying I find his approach very "rock the boat-ish"(is that a expression?lol) for an alpha.

[World Socionics]

I'd say Michael Moore is an IEE.

Introverted Logic is certainly not in his ego block but rather a pretty clear PoLR. His moralism is pretty clear, but it's sketchy and situational, lacking any logical order to it. Would an ILE subscribe to the Catholic faith AND then take moral issue with that faith (abortion/gay rights etc.)?

He's motivated by change and progress, also having a rather haphazard lifestyle which points to Ne leading, also his weight (despite having the build of a less robust individual) points to the eating fixations often (although certainly not necessarily) seen by someone who is Si valuing, at the same time suggesting it to be weak (super-id) due to the lack of care towards his appearance. Se is thus better suited in the Role form, i.e. quick, pushy uses of force when needed or using indirect volition such as making a highly critical film.

[Gilly]

I'd say Michael Moore is an IEE.

Introverted Logic is certainly not in his ego block but rather a pretty clear PoLR. His moralism is pretty clear, but it's sketchy and situational, lacking any logical order to it. Would an ILE subscribe to the Catholic faith AND then take moral issue with that faith (abortion/gay rights etc.)?

He's motivated by change and progress, also having a rather haphazard lifestyle which points to Ne leading, also his weight (despite having the build of a less robust individual) points to the eating fixations often (although certainly not necessarily) seen by someone who is Si valuing, at the same time suggesting it to be weak (super-id) due to the lack of care towards his appearance. Se is thus better suited in the Role form, i.e. quick, pushy uses of force when needed or using indirect volition such as making a highly critical film.

You seem like a smart guy, echidna, but half of what you are saying here is complete hogwash, and you say it with such simplistic certainty that I wonder if you really have any idea what you are talking about. His weight has zilch to do with his type, more to do with lack of an active lifestyle and genetics. Being motivated by change and progress has squat to do with Ne. His "moralism" does not indicate a lack of Ti in any way.

I'll throw ESE-Si out there as a possibility. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could raise a good crowd in the street, but isn't really cut out for ideological or political leadership on a larger scale, which, to me, says Democratic>Aristocratic.

[Beautiful sky]

Moore seems SEI to me.

[The Ineffable]

I'd say Michael Moore is an IEE.

I think so, too. He is not even close to the ever-analyzing and rationalist nature of the ILE. He is empathetic, but also manipulates (and provokes) people's negative feelings, discontentment, repultion to war, inequality, discrimination, abuses, but without a direction and at least a more clear sketch of what end is he looking for - besides destroying the current system. He has an irrational - as in emotional - problem with authority. He apparently supports everything there is to protest against. He commits fallacies pretty easily and logical mistakes are all over the place - for example claiming that policemen always confuse a wallet in the hand of a black person for a gun, though based on only few incidents across the country (this is just a drop in the ocean). He is defiant. The emotional impact is more important to him than understanding a situation, he believes that this mobilization is a solution by itself, but IMO he is just growing irreconciliable standpoints between the system - which indeed is defectuous - and the average citizens.

I think as typical to an IEE, and in contrast to an ILE, he plays the role of a reporter, he just notices possible problems and points the finger, though without trying to come up with elaborate, constructive solutions. I would see him, as an ILE, rather an economic or political analyst, who would immediately propose long-thought ideas to build something that could work, even if utopic, instead of just call for destroying what doesn't work. He has no answers, he is just exposing what is bad without knowing what is good, apart for an undefined "not bad". Check this out (04:22):

[redbaron]

There's actually lots of understated humor in his movies, esp the earlier stuff. He tries to bring out the irony (I'm not saying any of this is type-related) and appears to want to affect the emotions of his viewers. Totally bad with logic, I agree.

[Luciforms]

Ne - ENFP.

[World Socionics]

You seem like a smart guy, echidna, but half of what you are saying here is complete hogwash, and you say it with such simplistic certainty that I wonder if you really have any idea what you are talking about. His weight has zilch to do with his type, more to do with lack of an active lifestyle and genetics. Being motivated by change and progress has squat to do with Ne. His "moralism" does not indicate a lack of Ti in any way.

I'll throw ESE-Si out there as a possibility. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could raise a good crowd in the street, but isn't really cut out for ideological or political leadership on a larger scale, which, to me, says Democratic>Aristocratic.

Misusing a Reinin trait after criticising me is hardly a smart move. Aristocratic and Democratic is to do with whether you tend to see people by the groups they belong to or by their individual traits, it has nothing to do with whether you'd be cut out to be a political leader or not. After all, SEE is democratic.

I did say that it was not necessarily the case that his weight would only have been due to being a judicious type. However, an Se leading type is far more likely to keep his body in better shape and SLE was being considered. Indeed 'lacking an active lifestyle' would be a very good reason to say he is not an SLE.

You misunderstand my Ti vs Fi point. I'm not saying ILEs can't have moral views, I'm saying that if they do have moral views they'll be far more logically driven with their moral views i.e. not being a proud member of the religion they are openly criticising.

Change and progress are almost always in line with interest and novelty, which is the Ne motivation. It's one reason why IEEs are far more likely to be 'against the system' than SLEs are.

[World Socionics]

It's also an interesting fact that by far the most common Socionics type to belong to the collective Socialist/Feminist/Pro-Choice/Human Rights movement is IEE. It is the stereotypical type for activist students on campus (at least from my observations at UCL).

[World Socionics]

Ne-ILE.

I doubt he believes in the logic of his arguments—I think he just likes to draw attention to himself and make money by tapping into a gullible public.

That would suggest a type that isn't Introverted Logic valuing. Even when an ILE plays devil's advocate they'd still propose an argument that has logical consistency, despite being factually wrong (Ti ego, Te id).

[World Socionics]

Moore seems SEI to me.

I sure do hope not.

[redbaron]

He's not a sensing type. imo.

[Beautiful sky]

I sure do hope not.

It's not a confirm on that

[golden]

Lol. IME, ENTps typically play just enough ad hoc improvisational logic to make their arguments sound consistent—until someone calls them out on a flaw, at which point ENTp throws down the plausible deniability card about how that "wasn't really what they meant", and shifts the ground of their argument into a new one as if nobody was supposed to notice… if that fails, ENTp goes scorched earth and attempts to drown the debate in a semantics quagmire to assure that no clear winner emerges, or proceeds to misdirect their opponent to death with strawmen, red herrings, and mockery.

These are skills I'd kill to possess. I need "argumentative asswipe finishing school." Or maybe that's the Internet, hm.

[mu4]

These are skills I'd kill to possess. I need "argumentative asswipe finishing school." Or maybe that's the Internet, hm.

ILE's are the coolest AMIRITE.

IMO ILE's actually don't care about arguing towards a end although they can find it fun and a learning experience, there are some individuals who care about being right or eventually right but it doesn't matter as much if people believe them. The truth isn't going to go away, someone will pick up on it eventually. As individuals, they can argue many positions but the ones they stick with are the ones they think are right.

If someone actually calls out a ILE on a flaw, I find they are open to correcting the logical error, but I think most people just call them names and make attacks on them, which of course is not going to change their minds.

I think most ILE's aren't there to persuade you, they figure if they speak the truth enough, people will figure it out on their own and if they don't, someone will eventually. They know they can be wrong, so they'll let time and reality prove them right or wrong, not people.

However this doesn't mean that ILE's are frivolous and impractical people who can't persuade others, they have a ability to do this in practical tasks and known areas of knowledge. ILE's are still get things done people.

Anyways, Michael Moore isn't ILE, he's some obstinate type.

[Gilly]

Lol hkkmr, nice apologist rant...

[mu4]

Lol hkkmr, nice apologist rant...

If someone actually calls out a ILE on a flaw, I find they are open to correcting the logical error, but I think most people just call them names and make attacks on them, which of course is not going to change their minds.

Hardy har har...

[marooned]

i would have less issues with IEE than ILE i guess but i'm not really sure where the Ne is... if he were ILE i would expect to see the Ne paraded about a little more and feel less likely to miss it. i mean also, what Ti creative, what Fe HA? i don't see any of that...

i'm actually wondering about SLI. i think he's an IP type, but am not sure which one.

[Gilly]

Misusing a Reinin trait after criticising me is hardly a smart move. Aristocratic and Democratic is to do with whether you tend to see people by the groups they belong to or by their individual traits, it has nothing to do with whether you'd be cut out to be a political leader or not. After all, SEE is democratic.

I challenge you to look through a list of the presidents of the united states and find out what percent were from Aristocratic quadras. Off the top of my head, George Washington LSE, George W. Bush LSE, Bill Clinton EIE, Ronald Reagan EIE, Abraham Lincoln EII, Jimmy Carter EII, FDR SLE, JFK EIE, Theodore Roosevelt LSI, Richard Nixon LSE...obviously these are not solid evidence, they are my typings, but I would just bet that if you typed US presidents without your own agenda in mind, you, too, would see a trend.

Also, think of the most famous political leaders of the 20th century from elsewhere: Saddam Hussein EIE, Adolph ****** EIE, Joseph Stalin LSI, Winston Churchill SLE, Vladimir Lenin SLE, Fidel Castro EIE, Muammar Gaddafi EIE, Mahatma Ghandi IEI, Mao Zedong SLE, Kim Jong Il LSI, Kim Jong Un SLE, Tony Blair IEE, Vladimir Putin LSI...I could go on.

I did say that it was not necessarily the case that his weight would only have been due to being a judicious type. However, an Se leading type is far more likely to keep his body in better shape and SLE was being considered. Indeed 'lacking an active lifestyle' would be a very good reason to say he is not an SLE.

Bullshit. In todays world, where most people live like gerbils, driving to and from boxes in which they are typically sitting, it is foolish to think that size would be a better indicator of type than genetics and lifestyle habits. Absolute rubbish. Get your fucking head out of the sand, you overestimate yourself and it makes you stupider.

You misunderstand my Ti vs Fi point. I'm not saying ILEs can't have moral views, I'm saying that if they do have moral views they'll be far more logically driven with their moral views i.e. not being a proud member of the religion they are openly criticising.

Who would be a member of a religion they are openly criticizing? Do you also believe that all ILEs are scientists? What's the deal here?

Change and progress are almost always in line with interest and novelty, which is the Ne motivation. It's one reason why IEEs are far more likely to be 'against the system' than SLEs are.

Lmao, are they now?

This is absurd, I feel like I'm talking to Maritsa...

[Slacker]

Hmmm I completely forgot what thoughts I had about him when I was reading the book. I'd have to re-read it to discuss his type, and I don't want to re-read it, though I enjoyed it the first time. Drat. I should have written down what he had written and what it had made me think at the time, but I can't remember what I was thinking at all.

[Absurd]

Just noticed he's a bit fat, never heard heard about this guy before.

[HERO]

My impression has always been ENTp.

I think he's Ne-ENFp. My ILE-Ne (?) English teacher is like greed and fear are the biggest most profound motivators in the world or something. (And he doesn't have a problem acknowledging that--there's almost a objective Ti realism in that evaluation/resignation, even if it's at least partially "subjective"). In a way male ILE's, in particular, can be a lot more authoritative (in a Judicious/non-Se way), very tough-minded, Ti=rules, structure. ILE's almost have an inability to sympathize with or relate to people's weaknesses or stupidity. And of course like most logical types (except some Beta ST's) they have the advantage of not being very sensitive about things.
Fi=empathy, psychological/interpersonal depth/feeling/control...

Maybe Ne-ENFp (Harmonizing subtype) [ENFp-ISFp]
Actually I'm not sure if he's the Creative or Harmonizing subtype.

[World Socionics]

Lol. IME, ENTps typically play just enough ad hoc improvisational logic to make their arguments sound consistent—until someone calls them out on a flaw, at which point ENTp throws down the plausible deniability card about how that "wasn't really what they meant", and shifts the ground of their argument into a new one as if nobody was supposed to notice… if that fails, ENTp goes scorched earth and attempts to drown the debate in a semantics quagmire to assure that no clear winner emerges, or misdirects their opponent to death with strawmen, red herrings, and mockery.

Assuming your reasons for calling them ILE are not the same as your reasons for calling Michael Moore the same.

[World Socionics]

I challenge you to look through a list of the presidents of the united states and find out what percent were from Aristocratic quadras. Off the top of my head, George Washington LSE, George W. Bush LSE, Bill Clinton EIE, Ronald Reagan EIE, Abraham Lincoln EII, Jimmy Carter EII, FDR SLE, JFK EIE, Theodore Roosevelt LSI, Richard Nixon LSE...obviously these are not solid evidence, they are my typings, but I would just bet that if you typed US presidents without your own agenda in mind, you, too, would see a trend.

Also, think of the most famous political leaders of the 20th century from elsewhere: Saddam Hussein EIE, Adolph ****** EIE, Joseph Stalin LSI, Winston Churchill SLE, Vladimir Lenin SLE, Fidel Castro EIE, Muammar Gaddafi EIE, Mahatma Ghandi IEI, Mao Zedong SLE, Kim Jong Il LSI, Kim Jong Un SLE, Tony Blair IEE, Vladimir Putin LSI...I could go on.

It doesn't matter how many examples you list (many of which are debatable). Aristocratic vs. Democratic does not mean that a person can be a leader or not. Even if I were to trust your ability to type people, which blatantly I do not as I'm arguing with you over Michael Moore's type, you would still be basing your argument on a misunderstanding of a Reinin trait and thus be incorrect.

I could explain why there are several deltas and many more betas in the list you have mentioned... For instance, deltas tend to try and bring about positive changes in their society. At the same time, betas tend to try and unite people towards a single, ideological goal. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of alphas and gammas who were also leaders, for reasons other than the quadras you have mentioned. For example, among gammas we have Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and Julius Caesar.

You're also forgetting that Kim Jong Il inherited his position from his father and the same for Kim Jong Un. Their ascension was nothing to do with political leadership on their behalf.

Bullshit. In todays world, where most people live like gerbils, driving to and from boxes in which they are typically sitting, it is foolish to think that size would be a better indicator of type than genetics and lifestyle habits. Absolute rubbish. Get your fucking head out of the sand, you overestimate yourself and it makes you stupider.

I don't see why there is any reason to stoop to an ad hominem, it's not as if it improves your argument. I just said that 'lifestyle choice' is directly influenced by your personality type, an argument that someone trying to connect the choice to lead people with being Aristocratic would be silly to disagree with.

Who would be a member of a religion they are openly criticizing? Do you also believe that all ILEs are scientists? What's the deal here?

*sigh* What I mean is that it's illogical to subscribe to any religion or set of beliefs or ethos or code of practice while at the same time openly criticising it. If Michael Moore is a Catholic, it is illogical for him to go against his own religion and criticise it for its policy on homosexuality. Indeed to be Catholic is to take a stance against homosexuality as an 'abomination' [Leviticus]. Such a 'having your cake and eating it' error is the benchmark of IEE's Ti Vulnerability and something an ILE is unlikely to commit.

Lmao, are they now?

This is absurd, I feel like I'm talking to Maritsa...

Well, yes they are. Ti PoLR also contributes to this dislike of the system.

An SLE is a type far more likely to conquer the established system rather than be averse to even participating in the formal bureaucracy.

[Gilly]

It doesn't matter how many examples you list (many of which are debatable). Aristocratic vs. Democratic does not mean that a person can be a leader or not. Even if I were to trust your ability to type people, which blatantly I do not as I'm arguing with you over Michael Moore's type, you would still be basing your argument on a misunderstanding of a Reinin trait and thus be incorrect.

No, you have simply only STUDIED this Reinin trait, which I have actually OBSERVED and found non-theory-based behavioral and social corrollaries to, while you waste time organizing meets and flaunting your partial knowledge.

Join Date
Jul 2011

Join Date
Nov 2005

BACK TO THE BOOKS

I could explain why there are several deltas and many more betas in the list you have mentioned... For instance, deltas tend to try and bring about positive changes in their society.

Oh, right, I forgot, the rest of us are selfish xenophobes.

At the same time, betas tend to try and unite people towards a single, ideological goal.

Yes of course, all the rest of you lazy slobs just sit and piddle your own dicks. I knew it.

But seriously, even within your own flawed logic, can you not see how these two traits would even be related to Aristocracy? Even if they were as exclusively true as you make them out to be?

This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of alphas and gammas who were also leaders, for reasons other than the quadras you have mentioned. For example, among gammas we have Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and Julius Caesar.

That's nice, my list is longer and more relevant.

[quote]You're also forgetting that Kim Jong Il inherited his position from his father and the same for Kim Jong Un. Their ascension was nothing to do with political leadership on their behalf.[quote]

Yes, and you forget that they were CHOSEN from among their siblings, by their predecessors.

I don't see why there is any reason to stoop to an ad hominem, it's not as if it improves your argument.

It's not just an ad hominem. Read again.

I just said that 'lifestyle choice' is directly influenced by your personality type, an argument that someone trying to connect the choice to lead people with being Aristocratic would be silly to disagree with.

As much as your warped logic would make that plausible, I think you can see how they are completely unrelated. There are no mitigating external factors that make Aristocrats more inclined towards leadership of large groups. Genetics and everyone living the same lazy, indolent lifestyle OBVIOUSLY contributes to obesity more than personality type. Do you really want to dispute that? I can be back here with about 50 pictures of fat real life SLEs by the end of today, if you're really serious. If you are truly that dense, I will help you break through.

*sigh* What I mean is that it's illogical to subscribe to any religion or set of beliefs or ethos or code of practice while at the same time openly criticising it.

It's not illogical, necessarily; I agree it's not the most logically consistent thing to do, but it does not defy logic and is clearly very possible, as it happens every day.

If Michael Moore is a Catholic, it is illogical for him to go against his own religion and criticise it for its policy on homosexuality.

Actually it's very logical indeed if he has been raised Catholic and is attached to their traditions, and yet maintains a progressive mindset and hopes to help his religion evolve. that seems very rational to me. I can see why you would want to nitpick it, though.

Indeed to be Catholic is to take a stance against homosexuality as an 'abomination' [Leviticus]. Such a 'having your cake and eating it' error is the benchmark of IEE's Ti Vulnerability and something an ILE is unlikely to commit.

But see, you missed the part where he likes MOST of being Catholic, but would just like to change some parts about it. It's not "having your cake and eating it too;" it's fucking social progress, lol.

Well, yes they are. Ti PoLR also contributes to this dislike of the system.

NO

IT FUCKING DOESN'T

SOCIONICS IS NOT A RECIPE FOR JUSTIFYING THE STEREOTYPES YOU HAVE CREATED

Ti PoLR does not contribute to being "against the system." If anything, Deltas are the quadra most consistently supporting and comprising "the system," but it's still a hilarious fallacy to assume such things either way. You are being overly black and white in your judgments.

An SLE is a type far more likely to conquer the established system rather than be averse to even participating in the formal bureaucracy.

No, I disagree. Please meet more real life SLEs. I think you will find most people who have been studying and practicing this theory for many years will vehemently disagree with you, but you can believe as you wish.

*washes hands*

[glam]

damn Gilly, it's not that serious lol

[Gilly]

He's hard headed, its necessary

[World Socionics]

No, you have simply only STUDIED this Reinin trait, which I have actually OBSERVED and found non-theory-based behavioral and social corrollaries to, while you waste time organizing meets and flaunting your partial knowledge.

You're now making assumptions about me that are untrue. I too have "OBSERVED" the Aristrocratic/Democratic divide in my friends, noticing possible ways in which possessing said Reinin trait has influenced their approaches to things. For instance, many IEEs I know don't like telling people that they are IEEs because they assume, possibly through their 'group judging' Aristocratic tendency, that people will come to conclusions about them based on their type instead of judging them from direct experience. ILE friends of mine, on the other hand, tend to not mind this, possibly because their 'individual judging' Democratic-ness causes them to assume that people will attempt to come to conclusions on the individual rather than the type he or she belongs to.

I don't understand why it is a waste of time to organise meetups. If anything, it's the best thing I could be doing to find new patterns through observation.

BACK TO THE BOOKS

Because it is impressive to have lasted 7 years on this site without being sure enough of your own type to list it...

I can assure you that although I haven't needed 7 years to work out which type I am, I have been in Socionics longer than I have belonged to this forum and have been with MBTI as well for over 5 years.
Do you actually know your type or are you just a silly billy who can't type himself let alone others?

Oh, right, I forgot, the rest of us are selfish xenophobes.

I'm saying that Deltas as a whole are most likely the ones trying to bring about a "positive" change to the society around them, feeling a sense of duty to helping that society. Nevertheless, I also know of Alphas and Gammas who do this as well, just not as strong a trend.

Certainly, the Judicious and Serious qualities of Delta create a very different approach to politics than Betas, with them seeking piecemeal improvements and slow but sure changes i.e. making things work better by improving efficiency from the latest statistics, also seeking new, but comfortable alterations..

Yes of course, all the rest of you lazy slobs just sit and piddle your own dicks. I knew it.

The tendency to unite people around a cause and motivate them towards that cause is a result of the Beta values. Being Aristocratic may very well contribute to them seeing themselves as a united whole working towards something, but being Decisive and Merry is just as important i.e a focus on achieving important projects and utilising the method of emotional display to incite passion in audiences. So yes, I agree that these can be important quadra values for a leader of a political party.

While I can agree that being Aristocratic can increase the chances that a person will be involved in a political movement (should they identify their group as being that of a society or nation). I would disagree that by being Aristocratic, you are more likely to be a political leader. Types like IEI and EII are especially unlikely to seek a position of leadership, preferring either to follow the lead of an assertive other (IEI to SLE) or being averse to any kind of forceful persuasion (EII).

Because of this, I find your argument against Michael Moore based on him not being enough of a leader to be an Aristocrat to be quite misguided. Indeed, applying the Reinin traits correctly, Moore's tendency towards 'bettering the nation' (i.e. improving on the group he perceives himself to belong to) through his liberalism is a better indicator of him actually being Aristocratic than him not being one. This is another reason why I think he is an IEE and not an ESE.

That's nice, my list is longer and more relevant.

Of course yours would be longer, I'm not the one who has spent 7 years looking for Aristocratic political leaders.
How would it be any more relevant? Both are lists of political leaders and so both would be equally relevant/irrelevant.

Yes, and you forget that they were CHOSEN from among their siblings, by their predecessors.

So now we can suppose that within North Korea, being Aristocratic makes you more likely to be your father's favourite child. It doesn't mean that they were any more inclined towards being political than their siblings, assuming their siblings were not Aristocratic in order to make a worthy comparison.

It's not just an ad hominem. Read again.

I read it again. It still doesn't improve your argument, just makes you appear imperious.

As much as your warped logic would make that plausible, I think you can see how they are completely unrelated. There are no mitigating external factors that make Aristocrats more inclined towards leadership of large groups. Genetics and everyone living the same lazy, indolent lifestyle OBVIOUSLY contributes to obesity more than personality type. Do you really want to dispute that? I can be back here with about 50 pictures of fat real life SLEs by the end of today, if you're really serious. If you are truly that dense, I will help you break through.

Living a lazy, indolent lifestyle is what I'm saying to be connected to Socionics type and that is why your argument is inconsistent, unless you are going to forego lifestyle and entirely blame genetics.
Of course there are SLEs who are fat, especially later on in life, although it's often coupled with an already sturdy build, like a retired athlete gone to fat. I'm just saying that a tendency to not know the limits of ones body while enjoying the comfort of eating is often found with people who are Si-suggestive. What's more important to note is that Michael Moore is overweight, DESPITE having the skeletal structure of a thin, lanky man (as seen in his younger days), this is also BUT NOT NECESSARILY common in Intuitive types that live too lazy and indulgent a lifestyle.

It's not illogical, necessarily; I agree it's not the most logically consistent thing to do, but it does not defy logic and is clearly very possible, as it happens every day.

If two claims are logically inconsistent, then it is impossible for both to be true. In this case, it is impossible to accept the Catholic faith in its entirety and have disagreements with it. Thus to hang onto the belief of being a Catholic while having these disagreements is an illogical behaviour i.e. a behaviour where the multiple claims behind that behaviour cannot both be true.

Actually it's very logical indeed if he has been raised Catholic and is attached to their traditions, and yet maintains a progressive mindset and hopes to help his religion evolve. that seems very rational to me. I can see why you would want to nitpick it, though.

Nope, it's not logical, just socially acceptable... Fi>Ti.

But see, you missed the part where he likes MOST of being Catholic, but would just like to change some parts about it. It's not "having your cake and eating it too;" it's fucking social progress, lol.

I missed the chapter in the Bible where it says that rules can be forgotten for the sake of social progress. Social progress is the abandoning of your religion and the taking up up a new one.

Not that this is the only instance of logical inconsistency seen in Michael Moore: http://www.mooreexposed.com/

NO

IT FUCKING DOESN'T

SOCIONICS IS NOT A RECIPE FOR JUSTIFYING THE STEREOTYPES YOU HAVE CREATED

Ti PoLR does not contribute to being "against the system." If anything, Deltas are the quadra most consistently supporting and comprising "the system," but it's still a hilarious fallacy to assume such things either way. You are being overly black and white in your judgments.

Defending the system isn't a Delta thing, it's a LSE thing.

See, I even have sources: "Or one might become on expert on some field, but prefer to discuss it with friends and write about it as a hobbyist rather than entering the field and making it a career. This is especially typical of IEEs, who tend to avoid making binding professional decisions (sensitive Ti + Ne that wants to be free of external limitations). ILEs feel more comfortable being part of institutions and organizations that obligate them in some way, because they understand that these obligations are mere formalities that aren't too hard to perform. IEEs blow the importance of formalities out of proportion, as if having to get a few signatures or recommendations is simply "too restrictive" to allow them to work."
http://www.socionics.us/theory/bi.shtml

No, I disagree. Please meet more real life SLEs. I think you will find most people who have been studying and practicing this theory for many years will vehemently disagree with you, but you can believe as you wish.

*washes hands*

Se - understanding the structures of power in a hierarchy and knowing how best to achieve in that hierarchy.

Ti - understanding the rules and formalities on which this hierarchy runs.

This is SLE's type specialty while IEE severely lacks in this area. I'm not saying that an SLE will defend the system, (unlike your stereotypical LSE) but that an SLE can conquer the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg Watching this video you can see how he simply is incapable of 'arguing the principle' as Milton Friedman puts it. The young Michael, looking like the most stereotypical young, male IEE I have seen in a while * , gives the facts (Te) "Ford did this and that" with his moral conclusions (Fi) "I think this is wrong". Friedman points out what his Ti vulnerability simply cannot appreciate i.e. it's the principle that needs to be considered, not the facts of the specific case with moral judgments derived from it.

* compare to other young, male IEEs I know:
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...54513138_n.jpg
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...99474559_n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6302387_n.jpg

The above in RED is due to a mistake I carelessly made before submitting this post. The person in the video is not actually a young Michael Moore but a lookalike. As the point made was more icing on the cake than a necessary criticism of @Gilly's points I can deem what I have said above to be irrelevant without leaving a hole in my argument.