Peter Schiff

[discojoe]

He was Ron Paul's economics adviser.

Here's a video of him using funny analogies in several interviews:

[tereg]

I didn't watch this video, but I have seen other related videos of him.

I think he's certainly a logical type. I guess my first instinct was to say Gamma NT, with ENTj > INTp

My second choice would be ENTp, but I'm not as confident about that though.

[discojoe]

I didn't watch this video, but I have seen other related videos of him.

You should watch this one. After 2 minutes it starts to get really funny, and the final analogy about the Chinese is hilarious.

I think he's certainly a logical type. I guess my first instinct was to say Gamma NT, with ENTj > INTp

I kind of lean toward INTp. He seems to value Se in his arguments, (i.e., "You're dead wrong. Go reread your history.") he makes a lot of accurate economic predictions, uses a lot of Te, and is rude in that harmless, unaware INTp way.

I really like him a lot, and his analogies are funny.

Yeah, I always check out youtube for new videos of him. He cracks me up, and he's a great advocate for free market economics.

[Joy]

I think he's LIE.

[discojoe]

One of the most successful and perspicacious economists in the world is LSE. Peter Schiff is the only person in the media who predicted all of the economic woes of the last decade, and he's the only one who seems to know what the fuck he's talking about whenever he's on the news debating some Keynesian tool.

He is consistently correct in his predictions insofar that they come true within a few years of making his claim, but his estimates for when these events will happen are usually far off. So it seems like his Ni PoLR only blinds him to unexpected delays and spikes, but his overall forecasting keeps turning out correct.

Think of a meteorologist who predicts (pretend chaos theory doesn't exist for a moment) that a hurricane is coming, but keeps giving the wrong estimate for when the storm will finally arrive. After a while, people start to call him crazy even though the fundamental logic of his position is sound.

To make matters worse, he's using some obscure barometer that the mainstream considers to be antiquated and fringe (Austrian economics). So right from the start, people regard him with sharp skepticism and condescension. He gets frustrated at this, because his position, he believes, is so obvious that he can't see why anyone would disagree with him.

So you see, he has tunnel vision. He sees straight ahead to the most salient destination toward which we're headed, and people regard this as short-sighted oversimplification. "Aren't things more complicated? Aren't you being a bit naive? Aren't you ignoring this or that trend that suggests the opposite of what you're saying?" No, he thinks, those trends are red herrings, and you're the one who's naive if you can't see where we're headed.

Then one day: BOOM! Suddenly there's a crash; suddenly there's bankruptcy; suddenly everything he said would come true finally does. The hurricane arrives with a vengeance and everyone who didn't pay heed to the warnings pays the price.

This, I believe, is an example of a PoLR being a strength rather than a weakness. I believe economics is often over-analyzed by Ni types (who are still brilliant), who can't see it for the common sense, brick-and-mortar subject that it really is. By ignoring uncertainties, anything not pertaining to the most concrete, obvious interpretation of events, Peter Schiff turned out to be the most clear-sighted economist in the media.

Filatova on LSE Ni PoLR:

Particularly, due to the weakness of intuition, LSE cannot always catch on to the trends of development, prospects for one or another form of production, the possibility of demand for one or another commodity. It is therefore not surprising that she neither hurries to use innovation in the house nor at work nor in administrative activity.

In economics, this can be a strength. Instead of intuiting events, he strictly adheres to Austrian economic perspective. To him, that's the only authority when it comes to analyzing economic indicators, and because Austrian economics actually does describe reality, he will consistently turn out to be correct whenever challenged. He lacks insight into trends, sure, but in this case that only limits the when, not the what.

Now to balance things out, here's his predictable dark side. Skip to the end of this video, about 10:20, and watch him unleash the LSE wife-beater Se simply by talking to himself while vlogging.

[mfckr]

I told you he wasn't LIE lol

[rat1]

Yeah and the polr is even stronger than you're giving it credit for. You make it sound like it's a coincidence it just so happens that the information he ignores worked in his favor. But he actively chooses to ignore the information. That discrimination requires using the polr function. Not in a conventional way. It's more like it's the boundaries for what matters and what can be ignored. Economics is so real worldly it doesnt surprise me an LSE is good at it.

[discojoe]

I told you he wasn't LIE lol

I've thought that for a while now. I was fooled by his perceptiveness, then I started to notice the angry Se leakage and went from there.

[krieger]

i was watching that vid just hours ago. i've been calling Schiff ENTj to myself. still having some trouble seeing the unvalued Se, but it's a typing worth considering.

Peter Schiff is the only person in the media who predicted all of the economic woes of the last decade

depends; between Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, Robert Shiller and Nouriel Roubini there must have been at least one that caught some airtime and got as much right as Schiff.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2...ng-balderdash/

So you see, he has tunnel vision. He sees straight ahead to the most salient destination toward which we're headed, and people regard this as short-sighted oversimplification. "Aren't things more complicated? Aren't you being a bit naive? Aren't you ignoring this or that trend that suggests the opposite of what you're saying?" No, he thinks, those trends are red herrings, and you're the one who's naive if you can't see where we're headed.

he definitely does that to me. it's annoying because i know i'm fighting something that has a lot of weight behind it, but i can't bring myself to make the shortcut like he does.

i think Marc Faber, a possible ISTj, might have something similar going on.

[discojoe]

Yeah and the polr is even stronger than you're giving it credit for. You make it sound like it's a coincidence it just so happens that the information he ignores worked in his favor. But he actively chooses to ignore the information. That discrimination requires using the polr function. Not in a conventional way. It's more like it's the boundaries for what matters and what can be ignored. Economics is so real worldly it doesnt surprise me an LSE is good at it.

You don't ignore the PoLR. You compensate for it. Reinin calls it the problem solving function. It's an area that you hate dealing with, so you come up with ways to not have to think about it rather than fully ignore it. An LSI might come up with a codified guidebook for methods of avoiding unforeseen disasters (Art of War). Schiff acknowledges that trends are there, but he's figured out a niche that allows him to completely ignore most of them and achieve great success.

[rat1]

You don't ignore the PoLR. You compensate for it. Reinin calls it the problem solving function. It's an area that you hate dealing with, so you come up with ways to not have to think about it rather than fully ignore it. An LSI might come up with a codified guidebook for methods of avoiding unforeseen disasters (Art of War). Schiff acknowledges that trends are there, but he's figured out a niche that allows him to completely ignore most of them and achieve great success.

Well ignore isnt the perfect word. Ignoring is part of it but thats not all of it. What it does is choose what you do and do not value. Inevitably you put alot of stock in the areas you value. That's what makes it look like a massive compensation. But it's not a blind compensation for a weakness. The information you don't value is considered irrelevant, not a vulnerability. That's the ignoring aspect of it. On the whole it's just an allocation of values. Selecting which information is valuable is the discriminatory function of it.
Also you shouldnt confuse the ignoring function with this process. The ignoring function actively dismisses information. It's a defensive mechanism.

[stray]

Beside the point, but he looks like Absurd's older twin.

[discojoe]

Beside the point, but he looks like Absurd's older twin.

Yeah, he does lol

[golden]

That's not really Absurd, I don't think.

But I do think the guy in that photo Absurd posted is LSE. And the economics dude is not LIE.

[discojoe]

Oh and this is a good example of a Process type consistently trumping Result types.

They object: "Peter, look at all these RESULTS!"

He responds: "Here's my PROCESS that explains why those results are wrong!"

And wrong they are. So stop acting like process types are morons.

[rat1]

process & result are dual aspects and are reliant on one another. It's not just one is right, the other is wrong.

[discojoe]

process & result are dual aspects and are reliant on one another. It's not just one is right, the other is wrong.

I KNOW THAT FOOL.

But seriously, the point is that this is a good example of how a Process way of thinking can have a clearer picture of reality than a Result (and of course there are reverse examples). I think that's what's happening today with the current economic situation.

And I mention it because there seems to be this bias that Process is somehow naive and can't see the forest for the trees.

[silverchris9]

Ewwwwww... I wonder if I would've found him this gross if you hadn't described him as LSE beforehand. Shrug. He needs to calm his tits thought.

Also, he's probably not terribly good at predicting the perceptual aspect of economics. But he'll still be right on the macro-level, I suppose.

Also, your analysis suggests a good example of object vs. field. He knows where a specific object will go on a macrolevel. What he doesn't understand is how that object will interact with other objects that will accelerate it or slow it down or push it slightly to the left, or make it take a roundabout way to its destination, etc.

[UDP]

Ugh I hate when LSEs have that tone in their voice. I saw a relative do it a lot, and then realized I was doing it recently. It's this weird droning sound, and it comes out most when we/they are locked in a very 'rational' mindset, of "explaining something", and the rest of the body sort of becomes unconscious, so it's just the mind and it's Te focus that's sort of....... propelling things.

: /

[UDP]

FWIW I guess it also lends to more about that "4 dimensional " whatever stuff; he'd have the ability to understand Te over time.

It's a curious thing because I feel like I understand the "structural intuition" of something very well, that is, what something can and cannot do as per what it is and how it functions. But that's not the same as a typical sense of intuition, or flowing of things.


PS it's become really apparent over the last year that if you are someone who has weak N, it's a good idea to be close with someone who is strong in N. I haven't had someone strong in N in my life for most of it, and it's like I'm only now being able to grow in certain ways, because I had no real N input in my life : /

It can also lead to awkward communicative problems, but ,on the whole I'd rather deal with those than reinforced tunnel vision.

[Exodus]

I KNOW THAT FOOL.

But seriously, the point is that this is a good example of how a Process way of thinking can have a clearer picture of reality than a Result (and of course there are reverse examples). I think that's what's happening today with the current economic situation.

And I mention it because there seems to be this bias that Process is somehow naive and can't see the forest for the trees.

The only problem is when Process types get caught up in all the Process'ing and forget what the point of it is.

[discojoe]

The only problem is when Process types get caught up in all the Process'ing and forget what the point of it is.

I think that was indirectly implied by what I said.

[Absurd]

Beside the point, but he looks like Absurd's older twin.

Oh my, I shouldn't leave my photo(s) on here.

Yeah, he does lol

Yup, striking resemblance.

That's not really Absurd, I don't think.

But I do think the guy in that photo Absurd posted is LSE. And the economics dude is not LIE.

Come on Golden, have more faith, you believe in souls already.

[UDP]

The only problem is when Process types get caught up in all the Process'ing and forget what the point of it is.

I wish I understood earlier in my life just what that meant. But at least I know now.

[mfckr]

Oh and this is a good example of a Process type consistently trumping Result types.

They object: "Peter, look at all these RESULTS!"

He responds: "Here's my PROCESS that explains why those results are wrong!"

And wrong they are. So stop acting like process types are morons.

I don't think that has much to do with Process-Result—I'd assume it has more to do with him being a contrarian against prevailing anti-market orthodoxy. For instance, if you're arguing against educated Keynesian tools, they're usually quite capable of vomiting epistemically fallacious results at you purported to substantiate their views. Results which can be easily refuted by demonstrating how they're based on a fundamental misunderstanding(s) of economic processes.

[Nevero]

bump. what's the current opinion of his type? LSE? LIE?

[silke]

ESE sp/so (the 'hybrid' type of LSE and LIE)

[Contra]

I'm pretty sure he is LIE. No real argument for that other than he doesn't seem similar enough to my LSE father (or any LSE I've met) to be an LSE and his general demeanor fits with most LIEs I know.