Ayn Rand's type (old discussion)

[Cone]

So my ISTj friend is forcing me to read Atlas Shrugged, and I was just wondering what is the general concensus on Ayn Rand's psychological type?

I'll give my guess later.

Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

Cone


quotes:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au.../ayn_rand.html

[diamond]

If I am remembering correctly, I think she is INTJ.

[Cone]

Hmm...well, I really think she may just be an ISFp for a couple reasons. First, she has a characteristic ISFp face. Then, on another site, I noticed that they type her as a "conscientious" type of personality, which would fit very well with an ISFp. And finally, and here's the big reason, her writing focuses so much on the interaction between people and their true feelings. She understands people so well that she is able to accurately paint portraits of them and their relationships. That kind of skill can only come from an ISFp.

[Jimbean]

Ayn Rand gave birth to objectivist philosophy, which is one of those subjects that are right up my alley!

She seems to break everything down to its essentail nature to create a system that would logically work in society. Based on her philosophy, I would say she is either an INTj or an ENTp.

[WVBRY]

Actually cone, when you see her pictures, her facial expression seems to suggest thinking. Im no expert at Vi though so be weary of what I just said.

But cone, do you really think that only an ISFp can have a good understaning of relationships? I would think that INFjs and have a better understand of them due to their Fi Ne axis.

So, I dont know what her type is

[Jimbean]

She seemed to me the she had a great passion for life. That might be mistaken for or .

Here is one aspect of her philosophy: right now we are using up are valuable time trying to be right about something, but what is being produced in the process?

[Cone]

Thank you, Transigent. I was up all last night trying to find out her type by V.I., and ISTj was one of the types I was considering. I expected something like that, considering her high authoritative personality and complete lack of understanding in human relationships. That explains why she hated Kant and adored Victor Hugo, and why my ISTj friend loves her writing.

I just couldn't get over the fact that people actually thought she was an NT...

So, I'll keep checking on the V.I. thing for ISTj and we'll go from there.


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[Forest-Dragon]

A little off topic, but since this post began somewhat on the topic of literary authors, I'm wondering if any of you have read any David Malouf. He's a famous author from Australia, and when I read his novella, Fly Away Peter, for school, I was struck by the prevalence of what I think may be ideas in his books, which is quite unlike many novels that I have read in the past. However, I'm not sure whether any of you have read it - he is read fairly widely in Australia and Europe, but not particularly in America (where the majority of you come from, if I'm not mistaken).

[Dioklecian]

ESTJ

[Logos]

ISTj

[Phaedrus]

XNTj.

[FDG]

ISTj.

[Rick]

I typed her as ILE, but that was before I was aware of these video interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poUS...elated&search=
I still tend to think ILE after watching this.
I think a logical preference is self-evident, and I think > . I think her values are incompatible with American / moral values.
I also think her rejection of all forms of compulsion, collectivism, and group responsibility goes against LSI.
You can hear her Russian accent, btw. It's also hilarious to see Mike Wallace smoking during the interview.

[FDG]

There is no way an ILE can preach such an absolutistic worldview, I'm afraid.

[Rick]

There is no way an ILE can preach such an absolutistic worldview, I'm afraid.

But what about Karl Marx?
I might be able to see SLE.

[FDG]

There is no way an ILE can preach such an absolutistic worldview, I'm afraid.

But what about Karl Marx?
I might be able to see SLE.

Karl Marx is far from absolutistic in his writing, meaning, that if you really take a deeper look at them, you can see that even Marx didn't believe in anything he said.

Besides, I think Ayn Rand is a crazy bitch, and that everything she says is a show of complete and utter stupidity and inhumanity.

[Phaedrus]

There is no way an ILE can preach such an absolutistic worldview, I'm afraid.

I tend to agree with that. Otherwise ILE would have made some sense on V.I.

One thing is almost absolutely obvious from those interviews in my opinion: that she must be some sort of NT. Her way of arguing seems to be very similar to my own, so I can't rule out ILI for sure either. Maybe the persons she portrays in her novels are different from the way she was in real life, which I do not know so much about. I have only read some of her novels, most of her political works, some other articles about her philosophy, and now also seen and heard her in action. I don't think that she looks like a typical LII, more like some ILEs I have met, or maybe like an ILI or an LIE.

If I am roughly right about my grouping of different philosophers into Subjectivists (Relativists) and Objectivists, she clearly belongs to the Objectivist group (even though her philosophy "Objectivism" is not the same thing as what I have in mind when I use the same word, and the identity in labelling them both "Objectivism" is a mere coincidence). That would suggest that if she really is an NT (which is almost impossible for me to doubt) then she should be an LIE or an ILI. And if that is true, then an ILI is perhaps more likely to embrace the kind of philosophy she has made up. By the way, Karl Marx's ideas are very different in nature than Rand's, and Marx belongs to the Relativist group, which is also in accordance with what FDG said.

My conclusion is that I'm still not sure which type I think she is -- only that it must be one of the NTs.

[Gilly]

Alpha NT.

3:20-4:00

What more proof do you need?

Well, I'll give you some.

Her philosophy is one of Ti, Fe, and unvalued Se. She does not believe in force. She believes in autonomy and complete independance, with nobody forcibly taking or needing anything material from anyone else (unvalued Se), but with self-interest serving as the primary means of social cooperation (an objectivist take on Fe). The fact that she insists that everything she stands for is logically deduceable and unfallacious, can be proven by pure reason, is quite Ti.

[CuriousSoul]

ESTJ

I could see that, but care to elaborate?

[Gilly]

Ayn Rand is probably one of the most highly misunderstood and under-appreciated philosophers of the 20th century. The fact that people see her views as opposed to things like communism makes them blind to the fact that, in reality, she hates classical conservatives, and especially any kind of big-government philosophy (eg. Neo-cons), just as much. She's NOT simply "pro-capitalist;" it's not nearly that simple, and people who view it that way only do so because they fail to understand what she's actually saying. My personal philosophy is not much different, to be honest; I wouldn't doubt that the reasoning is very much the same.

[Gilly]

A comment from a YouTube user:

What an amazing ability she had to make complicated ideas intelligible in brief statements, by cutting right to the essentials.. This is a really nice interview. Very interesting topics.

Hello Ne dominance!

[rpbailey]

I think her values are incompatible with American / moral values.

Could you elaborate on this? I think I disagree with you, but want to hear more to be certain.

[Rick]

I think her values are incompatible with American / moral values.

Could you elaborate on this? I think I disagree with you, but want to hear more to be certain.

I was referring to the ideas of community, social service, volunteerism, charity, and working for a good cause. All of these familiar concepts are rejected by Ayn Rand and replaced with a kind of highly conceptual individualism where all "good deeds" are seen to be the result of self-interest instead of social or moral duty (concepts that she rejects).

I'm still for the ILE version. I agree with Gilligan that her philosophy is not about capitalism as much as it is about individualism and rejection of coercion of any kind. The people I've known to have most resonated with her works have been types.

[rpbailey]

I was referring to the ideas of community, social service, volunteerism, charity, and working for a good cause. All of these familiar concepts are rejected by Ayn Rand and replaced with a kind of highly conceptual individualism where all "good deeds" are seen to be the result of self-interest instead of social or moral duty (concepts that she rejects).

I don't really see anything wrong with that at all. Oh well, to each his or her own. As long as we're not hacking each other into pieces and using them for fertilizer.

[Logos]

[quote="Rick"]

I think her values are incompatible with American / moral values.

I'm still for the ILE version. I agree with Gilligan that her philosophy is not about capitalism as much as it is about individualism and rejection of coercion of any kind. The people I've known to have most resonated with her works have been types.

But I know just as many types who hate and are unable to relate to her works.

[Rick]

I was referring to the ideas of community, social service, volunteerism, charity, and working for a good cause. All of these familiar concepts are rejected by Ayn Rand and replaced with a kind of highly conceptual individualism where all "good deeds" are seen to be the result of self-interest instead of social or moral duty (concepts that she rejects).

I don't really see anything wrong with that at all. Oh well, to each his or her own. As long as we're not hacking each other into pieces and using them for fertilizer.

Nor do I. In fact, I tend to see things that way myself. But it's just one of the ways of framing the same ideas. Of course Ayn Rand didn't envision a world where people would hack each other up for fun. And I'll bet that she made some effort to be nice and say the right things and do good stuff for people -- just like everyone else. She just preferred to describe her behavior in a way that was untraditional for American culture and was closer to her own type.

[Rick]

[quote="Logos"]

I think her values are incompatible with American / moral values.

I'm still for the ILE version. I agree with Gilligan that her philosophy is not about capitalism as much as it is about individualism and rejection of coercion of any kind. The people I've known to have most resonated with her works have been types.

But I know just as many types who hate and are unable to relate to her works.

Yeah, that probably isn't much of an argument. I know some ILEs who detest socionics, too .

[FDG]

So you don't see any in her philosophy?

This is the worst typing ever.

[implied]

her eyes dart around like an ENTj. she also reminds me of sandra bernhardt, who seems ISTj/ESTpish.


but her mannerisms and such remind me a lot of my dad in that interview. and i swear it isn't just the accent throwing me off!

[Gilly]

So you don't see any in her philosophy?

This is the worst typing ever.

How do you see any? I can see how it could be misconstrued as such, but not by someone as smart as you. You might think of it in terms of a capitalist context, in which case it would appear to be all about materialism and making money. But, if you look at it objectively, it's all about the opposite of Se, with a dash of Si: it's the ultimate laissez-faire philosophy, with everybody indulging in personal pleasures and nobody having any control or authority over anyone else. This is the irony: Communism and Objectivism are thought of as exact opposites by almost everyone, while in reality they are based on very similar reasoning: nobody should be in control of anyone else, and everyone should be treated equally; the difference is that Rand wanted people to be treaed "fairly" in terms of giving them all the same opportunity by leveling the playing field, whereas Marx wanted people to be "forced" into being equals.

[Dioklecian]

I will try to take this thread very seriously for personal reasons and try to type her correctly. I am doubting that she is ESTJ.
She could be ENFP, INFJ or ENTJ too.

[Logos]

As much as it pains me to say it, she was probably an ENTp, since she reminds me very much of Karl Marx in terms of her adherence to her system ().

[Dioklecian]

Her system though is very closed in my experience, it's not something that one could add to or develope.

[Dioklecian]

She could be ESFP

[tcaudilllg]

There is a high degree of contrast evident between her IM and IE types. (whatever they are) This may make her difficult to type.

[Dioklecian]

What do you mean by IM TC?

[Phaedrus]

I will try to take this thread very seriously for personal reasons and try to type her correctly. I am doubting that she is ESTJ.
She could be ENFP, INFJ or ENTJ too.

Either you are not serious, or you are the worst socionist I know. (Those two alternatives are not mutually exclusive, of course). She is DEFINITELY a logical type.

[Slacker]

She is ENTp. and The only other thing I could see would be INTj.

[Dioklecian]

I am perfectly serious, and it's quite likely that I am a terrible socionist. In fact I don't consider myself a socionist (for the record).

However one does not need to be a socionist in order to understand types. I thought that she could be T too however, her logic is not very good. Her arguments are frankly terrible. Her ethics are much much stronger IMO. In fact her defence of capitalism is ethical not logical.

[Phaedrus]

However one does not need to be a socionist in order to understand types.

We agree on that.

I thought that she could be T too however, her logic is not very good.

That is irrelevant. Here you confuse two different concepts. The word "logic" in Socionics does not have the same meaning as in "formal logic" or "conceptual logic". Even logical types can think illogically.

Her arguments are frankly terrible. Her ethics are much much stronger IMO. In fact her defence of capitalism is ethical not logical.

Here the same arguments apply, but you confuse the concepts even more. Her defence of capitalism is based on ethical grounds, but her arguments are clearly logically constructed. She is good at conceptual logic, but that doesn't mean that her arguments are necessarily correct, since her premises might be false.