Lol hkkmr will probably be glad to have me out of his category, I feel like I give LII's a bad name because of my highly excitable temper when arguing.Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Lol hkkmr will probably be glad to have me out of his category, I feel like I give LII's a bad name because of my highly excitable temper when arguing.
Don't you dare leave. You're one of the "cool" LIIs.
LSI is my current favorite.
Can't deny it I think I put alot of emphasis on Ne over Ti, but you've never seen me go off on a Ti frenzy, Ne to me seems like more fun to use than Ti, Ti is what I use to refine my Ne based ideas.Right! Here's how he puts Ne ahead of Ti (again). When I'll hear you or other LII making such public assumptions, I'd be more understanding with your grievance, MatthewZ.
Perhaps I am LII-Ne? If not then I may be ILE. Either way I'm glad to have that degree of uncertainity (and please don't say that means I am irrational).
Anyways, I'll contribute a +1 to the Ti Goebbels group. I'll let Gilly and the other people do the debating though, I'm just interesting in reading on this topic.
Yup, LSI.As for German, isn't is the integral type of Germany a
I'll make such public assumptions when I'm in the mood for it. As of yet, I haven't been a big enough character here to attract that kind of attention.Right! Here's how he puts Ne ahead of Ti (again). When I'll hear you or other LII making such public assumptions, I'd be more understanding with your grievance, MatthewZ
Correct my memory if I'm wrong, but doesn't HaveLucidDreamz type himself as a 5? An Ne-LII 5 is much more feasible than any sort of ILE 5.
Holy shit, bro! I wasn't even knocking youYou just mentioned something about German Ti looks and it reminded me of this German dude from some thread Parkster posted a few days back that I thought was hilariously pretentious.
Look I know you've been in a rash of spats lately with a few other forum members but not everyone's a hater, man.
Feel free to make a thread about it. I'm curious what your reasoning is, since all I really remember was you saying something about me being Ni-PoLR because I never grasp the essence of whatever points you're trying to make.
ok thats fair enough, I get a little pissy when I spend too much time online which I think is my problem.Holy shit, bro! I wasn't even knocking you
Look I know you've been in a rash of spats lately with a few other forum members but not everyone's a hater, man.
I got a strong sense of Ti from him too, at least from VI. I haven't really analyzed his philosophies or anything like that, but I do agree that the idea of "life as a war that must be fought and won" as a sort of beta value if not Se/Ni in general.
Welcome back, loved one.I've always thought IXTj for Goebbels with a strong leaning towards ISTj, since the value themes he extols strike me as especially Beta in nature. A good example of this would be his 1943 'Totaler Krieg' (Total War) speech:
YouTube - Goebbels Total War Speech (Extract in German)
Lots of appeals to collective identity, heroic sacrifice, epic struggle, etc. Not that all Betas will believe in these things; many certainly do not. Nevertheless, the manner in which Goebbels presents these ideals is far more suggestive of/
as opposed to
/
IMO.
Further, I would also consider Nazi Germany to be an essentially Beta regime as a whole. In light of the integral role he played within that government, arguments for him being Beta make more sense I think.
BTW, for anyone interested in that period of history, the movie 'Downfall' is worth seeing. The portrayals given of the various Nazi figureheads seem fairly compelling to me in terms of their historical accuracy.
My name isn't Deb...
I retract the EIE guess, which was based on his emo-silly speeches like the "Total War" rant. It now seems to me the dog had learned to bark like it's owner. LII, LSI, IEI all seem to be good bets.
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
I don't buy into the ISTj typing. The only reason he could be called INTj on the basis of those pictures is exactly the fact that he has the lean, scrawny features of an intuitive. The ISTj typing also doesn't mix with the reports of him being dreamy and flighty at all.
Newsflash: everything in socionics is a stereotype. You can't type anything without engaging in some form of stereotyping.Banal stereotypes. You should probably get out more.
The day we stop raising an eyebrow when an type with Se is described as flighty and dreamy, socionics will be useless in its entirety. I'm not saying its ever entirely impossible, but there have to be strong counter-arguments for it to be allowed.
So far the arguments presented in favor of ISTj are rather flimsy:
- looks like a Ti type (VI; not the most reliable method and very subjective)
- has beta values (beta is a pretty heterogeneous group; so this doesn't exactly lock down ISTj)
Ni and Ne being the dreamy irrational information elements and Si and Se the practical, down-to-earth ones is standard classical socionics theory. If these aren't things we can rely on without much doubts, there is a whole lot of other things that have to pulled into question. The theory as a whole wouldn't survive the revision and you'd end up with something other than socionics. I'd like to not do that and talk about the real socionics instead, like this forum was intended for.I don't know how common a practice that really is. Even if it were, that doesn't make this kind of argument any more rational.
ISTj in particular is a type for which there are no arguments based on information metabolism in favor of their being dreamy. Ti and Se are both practical and concrete functions.
You can use this reasoning style to defend any position. Maybe the guy just seems beta because he is pressured into it by ****** & company. Maybe he has the Ti stare because of a trend running in the genetics of his family. I could go on.At least arguments of this nature usually refer to the information metabolism of the subject. Whereas arguments of the kind you're positing about the man's flimsy constitution and physical build, could be more satisfactorily explained by branches of knowledge other than Socionics. The man may have been born a sickly child, on account of bad environmental variables, bad genes, or both. It's been thoroughly documented for at least a few centuries now by biological science and medicine, that such conditions frequently result in stunted growth and development. Surely you're not going to argue that disease and malnutrition cause Intuitives?
The only argument you provide in your post is that of his beta values. Like I said, these are very easily explained in terms of how he was just adapting to the style of his times and his nation. Also again: the possession of beta values hardly locks down ISTj. Why is he ISTj rather than some other Beta type?
The scrawnier build of intuitives is also not unrelated to information metabolism. Types that use Ni or Ne instead of Si and Se generally end up doing less Si or Se based tasks in life and thus end up training their bodies less. The body adapts to this early in life and shifts to an energy conserving build.
Is it wrong for me to see some truth in this? Stephen Hawking COULD have been ESTp but...
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I agree with what you say here, however, the same would go for his being dreamy and thus not likely being ISTj. The most suitable explanation for his being dreamy is that he is some intuitive type and not ISTj. If you're going to deny the unanimously agreed on fact that ISTj is one of the least "dreamy" types in the socion, I am at a loss as to how to rationally communicate with you from this point on.Paying attention to what a person says and how they say it is often a strong indicator into understanding a person's IM, and there's good reasons to suspect why this is so. Of course, I could invent an alternate explanation for why Goebbels 'only seems Beta' because he was forced to take on certain characteristics as a matter of national and cultural exigency. Oh yes, it's possible, sure. And I'm certain there are exceptional cases of persons out there who have done this very thing. But they're just that—the exception. By and large, most people aren't skilled social chameleons nor do they wish to be. Can you imagine the kind of skill and discipline it would require to adapt yourself to such an extreme and diabolical role, to play it convincingly in the presence of ******&Co. on a regular basis, for a duration of many years, under strenuous wartime conditions? Nigh on impossible. The overwhelming odds are that Goebbels is presenting himself as he really is, and this is the conclusion I 99% settle on.
Also relevant to the issue:
First thing Gulenko mentions in his ISTj description.
Jesus christ labcoat. Quit being an idiot.
Being "dreamy" does NOT make Goebbels an intuitive type. This is some sickening bullshit, coming from someone who has been around Socionics as long as you have.
How do you explain this, then:
And forgive me if I don't feel any sense of insult from being criticized by a guy who can't even figure out his own type after being at this for as long as you have.
Also: notice that I don't say he its impossible for an ISTj to be dreamy. It is just an argument against that type. It also happens to be a strong one that gets mentioned in just about every description of the type. ISTjs are not normally dreamy people.
Clearly you are grasping for straws, citing type descriptions instead of the actual person and trying to lay on claims about my credibility that aren't even true. When did you last see me questioning my type?
I'll give you that Goebbels is not a prototypical LSI in every way, but it seems to fit better than anything else. LII, IEI are slight considerations, but I don't see any compelling reason to question LSI, really. ******'s dual, rapid advancement in an ideologically-driven social hierarchy; hell, even the VI works almost perfectly.
Also he VIs similarly to Christian Bale, who is an LSI IMO.
You were flipping back and forth between ENFj and INFp only a few months ago. That means your self-typing can't be older than that.Clearly you are grasping for straws, citing type descriptions instead of the actual person and trying to lay on claims about my credibility that aren't even true. When did you last see me questioning my type?
We're discussing two things in this thread: a person, and a "type". Descriptions of both are useful for determining whether the two fit together, and on the topic of being "dreamy" there is a clear mismatch. How are you going to know what a typical ISTj is like without citing either type descriptions or descriptions of functions/information elements? The information elements doesn't exactly lend a more solid basis for calling him ISTj where the issue of his inclination to fantasy is concerned.
I'm content to have exposed this fact. Its all I ever meant to do.I'll give you that Goebbels is not a prototypical LSI in every way, but it seems to fit better than anything else.
I may have considered IEI briefly, but if anything it was due to momentary mood fluctuations. I have not seriously considered any type other than EIE for myself for a long while.
What's the point of "exposing" a minor possible doubt in the form of him not being prototypical, if LSI is the best fit?
I have two solid arguments against ISTj, both of which are supported by descriptions made by socionists with extensive professional experience with socionics. Verbal violence will not hide this fact from the public at large.LSI is the best fit for Goebbels, and I'm not sure you have any argument against that, so please kindly stop your wanking.
Oook, you are so noble. Congratu-fucking-lations. You still have no better typing for him than LSI.
I prefer to be undecided over being fanatically invested in a wrong answer.
Nothing says I'm wrong except your stubborn indecisiveness and a line from a type description.
Also, what makes you think I'm "fanatically invested?" If you actually had something to go on other than a one-word subjective descriptor you heard somewhere, I would listen to you. How do I even know what "dreamy" means when you say it? It could mean he had lofty ideals; sounds like a Beta to me. It could mean he was zealously driven towards accomplishing his far-reaching goals; sounds like an LSI to me. What the fuck is "dreamy" compared to everything else set before us here?
Exactly. Saying "type x is always/never y" is useless; type is hardly the only thing that affects personality, and while for the faint of heart it might suggest a reason to doubt a certain typing. in reality, one trait can hardly be thought to override the larger picture when determining the validity of a type suggestion.
There happens to be almost nothing to support your thesis either, except a bunch of subjective assessments on your part. "Looks like a Ti type" and "looks like a beta", wow. That's advanced objective reasoning.Nothing says I'm wrong except your stubborn indecisiveness and a line from a type description.
All type descriptions mention it in some form, and all descriptions of the information elements list Se and Ti among those manifesting the least "dreamy" behavioral characteristics of them all. That's as close to a unanimous consensus you're going to get in socionics.Unanimously agreed on? By whom? According to what standards? Do you have a source?
Your perception of his "beta values" suffers from the same problem. In fact, it is vague, frivolous and prone to misinterpretation to an even greater degree.I'm not trying to argue the opposite—that ISTjs are "dreamy." I think that attributing the presence or absence of traits like these to any type is frivolous. There's too much room for interpretation and hearsay. Everyone's going to have different ideas of what being "dreamy" is, have different impressions about which people are "dreamy" or not, etc.
For one thing, I'm not claiming its "always/never", more like "usually this/rarely that". For another, this "larger picture" you talk about is subjective. If any random person has a different view of the "larger picture" than you do, this is enough to pull your view into question. That is why it is useless to mention such things in rational discussions on a person's type and why you instead have focus on dichotomic ascription of traits no matter how much less "elegant" such methods are. Also, how is any perception of what constitutes a typical beta mentality an less based on "usually this/rarely that" distinctions?Exactly. Saying "type x is always/never y" is useless; type is hardly the only thing that affects personality, and while for the faint of heart it might suggest a reason to doubt a certain typing. in reality, one trait can hardly be thought to override the larger picture when determining the validity of a type suggestion.
-VIs like a Ti type
-Works well as ******'s dual
-Part of a largely Beta regime
-Exhibits a kind of social nervousness easily attributable to types that are receptive to Fe
-Rigid, limited bodily movements easily attributable to an introverted rational type
-Conveys his ideas in a manner that appeals to Beta values
Got any better ideas, buddy?
That's nice. I'm sure no Beta STs have lofty ideals or are imaginative in any way. Surely there are no Beta ST artists, no Beta ST writers of fiction, no Beta STs who believe in anything questionable, impractical, or unrealistic. Get fucked.All type descriptions mention it in some form, and all descriptions of the information elements list Se and Ti among those manifesting the least "dreamy" behavioral characteristics of them all. That's as close to a unanimous consensus you're going to get in socionics.
Oh really? Have you watched the videos? Maybe you should watch them again.Your perception of his "beta values" suffers from the same problem. In fact, it is vague, frivolous and prone to misinterpretation to an even greater degree.
Well, let's hear your different view, then. Until then, nothing has been brought into question. And I still have yet to hear any explanation of exactly what his "dreaminess" entails, haven't I?For one thing, I'm not claiming its "always/never", more like "usually this/rarely that". For another, this "larger picture" you talk about is subjective. If any random person has a different view of the "larger picture" than you do, this is enough to pull your view into question. That is why it is useless to mention such things in rational discussions on a person's type and why you instead have focus on dichotomic ascription of traits no matter how much less "elegant" such methods are. Also, how is any perception of what constitutes a typical beta mentality an less based on "usually this/rarely that" distinctions?
If you're just going to sit on your fucking high chair and try to shoot down reasonable assertions with petty, minor objections, without offering anything at all in return, I will not speak with you.
Criticism itself is always a valuable addition to a discussion. The day we stop listening to people who only have criticism to offer is the day the next Nazi empire arrives. My comments have all been reasonable assertions themselves. I don't need a fully integrative view of my own to point out weaknesses in yours.
You're not making sense. All of the resources I mentioned are among the most epistemically sound of all information on socionics.
It is when your subjective view is not backed up by further evidence in the form of distinctive measurements.
There are no "distinctive measurements" in Socionics, you twit.
I was just talking about something along the lines of...
"Does the person speak with ideological convinction or not"
as a means of determining whether s/he is beta.
In other words, those "usually this/rarely that" distinctions I mentioned before.
If such measurements are impossible, its impossible to type anyone.
Did anyone say that? Look again, dipshit.
Then there is nothing you can base knowledge on in socionics. This is the only thing you've got. You're making a case for the thesis that all discussions on socionics including the one in this thread are useless and completely divorced from proof and empirical verifyability. Meanwhile you dogmatically claim for your views to make sense and any opposed to them not to.No they're not. The type profiles, function descriptions, etc. are based on nothing more than the author's aggregated subjective impressions of what they think a given type/function is like. We have no way of knowing what observations were fed into these descriptions nor why the authors inferred the conclusions they did. Whatever process they went through can't be systematically replicated by a 3rd-party. None of it is falsifiable in any rigorous sense.
I'm not saying that these forms of evidence are entirely useless—some of the descriptors may be quite accurate overall. But they are an epistemically weak form of evidence nevertheless and it would be irrational to pretend otherwise.
You use these yourself in your posts when you ascribe Beta characteristics to Goebbels.As of yet, there is no such thing as a distinctive measurement in Socionics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote