Genghis Khan

[CuriousSoul]

Edited...

[Rocky]

You can't be serious.

[Expat]

I don't know much about him but here's the assessment of the Encyclopedia Britannica --

As far as can be judged from the disparate sources, Genghis Khan's personality was a complex one. He had great physical strength, tenacity of purpose, and an unbreakable will. He was not obstinate and would listen to advice from others, including his wives and mother. He was flexible. He could deceive but was not petty. He had a sense of the value of loyalty, unlike Toghril or Jamuka. Enemies guilty of treachery toward their lords could expect short shrift from him, but he would exploit their treachery at the same time. He was religiously minded, carried along by his sense of a divine mission, and in moments of crisis he would reverently worship the Eternal Blue Heaven, the supreme deity of the Mongols. So much is true of his early life. The picture becomes less harmonious as he moves out of his familiar sphere and comes into contact with the strange, settled world beyond the steppe. At first he could not see beyond the immediate gains to be got from massacre and rapine and, at times, was consumed by a passion for revenge. Yet all his life he could attract the loyalties of men willing to serve him, both fellow nomads and civilized men from the settled world. His fame could even persuade the aged Daoist sage Changchun (Qiu Chuji) to journey the length of Asia to discourse upon religious matters. He was above all adaptable, a man who could learn.

Organization, discipline, mobility, and ruthlessness of purpose were the fundamental factors in his military successes. Massacres of defeated populations, with the resultant terror, were weapons he regularly used. His practice of summoning cities to surrender and of organizing the methodical slaughter of those who did not submit has been described as psychological warfare; but, although it was undoubtedly policy to sap resistance by fostering terror, massacre was used for its own sake. Mongol practice, especially in the war against Khwarezm, was to send agents to demoralize and divide the garrison and populace of an enemy city, mixing threats with promises. The Mongols' reputation for frightfulness often paralyzed their captives, who allowed themselves to be killed when resistance or flight was not impossible. Indeed, the Mongols were unaccountable. Resistance brought certain destruction, but at Balkh, now in Afghanistan, the population was slaughtered in spite of a prompt surrender, for tactical reasons.

The achievements of Genghis Khan were grandiose. He united all the nomadic tribes, and with numerically inferior armies he defeated great empires, such as Khwarezm and the even more powerful Jin state. Yet he did not exhaust his people. He chose his successor, his son Ögödei, with great care, ensured that his other sons would obey Ögödei, and passed on to him an army and a state in full vigour. At the time of his death, Genghis Khan had conquered the land mass extending from Beijing to the Caspian Sea, and his generals had raided Persia and Russia. His successors would extend their power over the whole of China, Persia, and most of Russia. They did what he did not achieve and perhaps never really intended—that is, to weld their conquests into a tightly organized empire. The destruction brought about by Genghis Khan survives in popular memory, but far more significant, these conquests were but the first stage of the Mongol Empire, the greatest continental empire of medieval and modern times.

[CuriousSoul]

Edited...

[FDG]

The thing is Se dominant types need justification through a belief system of sorts (Ni).

Just what Expat quote. Another case closed!

[aestrivex]

this is ridiculous.

i don't know a thing about genghis khan but the a 30 second search on wikipedia rules ESFj completely out of the question

[CuriousSoul]

The thing is Se dominant types need justification through a belief system of sorts (Ni).

Just what Expat quote. Another case closed!

Propaganda, and terror yes, but he was no Mohammed for sure.
Case closed, oh well... :wink:
You have your opinion, I have mine.
When we only have introverted thinking, there is no point in arguing.

[FDG]

What you want deep down most of all is the ID

This would throw socionics out in the water, since the ID block corresponds to the Role and PoLR of the dual.

[CuriousSoul]

What you want deep down most of all is the ID

This would throw socionics out in the water, since the ID block corresponds to the Role and PoLR of the dual.

No it would not, because you cannot use your ID block.
Types with extraverted sensing in the ego seek status and dominance in order to gain personal comforts. Types with introverted sensing in the ego want power and wealth rather than their insignia. Similarly with the other functions. I have Ne in the Ego, and have been much troubled by the lack of inner wholeness or belief. You do things in order to get other things. What you can do cannot be what you really most of all want from others. If you can smile at will (Fe), surely a happy smile (Fe) is not the highest payofff? What you want is to become happy yourself (Fi) by finding others who appreciate your efforts at cheering them up.
Have you read the Smilingeyes description of ISFP type for example.

[aestrivex]

No it would not, because you cannot use your ID block.

even if the remainder of what you write is true, this is certainly not.

[CuriousSoul]

No it would not, because you cannot use your ID block.

even if the remainder of what you write is true, this is certainly not.

Well these functions can not be loaded constantly, etc.
OK, a lot of wild speculation and trying to desperately make sense of other people's ideas, but at least we got a discussion going.
Ego serves to fulfill the needs of the Id.
That is from Freud.
He was not too bad at all. :wink:

[aestrivex]

freud's ego and id are not only unrelated concepts to the ego and id in socionics, they're just stupid concepts. anything freud wrote cannot be taken seriously.

[CuriousSoul]

Socionics is heavily based on Freud's work.
You cannot really understand Jung without Freud either.
Freud wrote with far more confidence than what was justified, and I still do not understand why Dioklecian thinks he was INFJ, but he was a gifted writer to say the very least. Many of his ideas, (Oedipus complex, sibling rivalry, etc.) have also been resurrected in evolutionary psychology. I was going to post some links, but could not find them now, sorry.

[aestrivex]

Socionics is heavily based on Freud's work.
You cannot really understand Jung without Freud either.

false and false.

[FDG]

Socionics is heavily based on Freud's work.
You cannot really understand Jung without Freud either.
Freud wrote with far more confidence than what was justified, and I still do not understand why Dioklecian thinks he was INFJ, but he was a gifted writer to say the very least. Many of his ideas, (Oedipus complex, sibling rivalry, etc.) have also been resurrected in evolutionary psychology. I was going to post some links, but could not find them now, sorry.

Ok, now it's official: you have ENFj for INFj and ISTj for ISTp.

[CuriousSoul]

Socionics is heavily based on Freud's work.
You cannot really understand Jung without Freud either.
Freud wrote with far more confidence than what was justified, and I still do not understand why Dioklecian thinks he was INFJ, but he was a gifted writer to say the very least. Many of his ideas, (Oedipus complex, sibling rivalry, etc.) have also been resurrected in evolutionary psychology. I was going to post some links, but could not find them now, sorry.

Ok, now it's official: you have ENFj for INFj and ISTj for ISTp.

Maybe , but I know for a fact that ****** was INFJ.
With regard to Stalin: I think a conflicting relationship with Trotsky would make quite a lot of sense. There was a degree of personal animosity quite beyond the struggle for power.

[Expat]

freud's ego and id are not only unrelated concepts to the ego and id in socionics, they're just stupid concepts.

That is my view, too.

Socionics is heavily based on Freud's work.
You cannot really understand Jung without Freud either.

Regarding psychological types? I very much doubt it.

but he was a gifted writer to say the very least.

That I don't dispute, but it's irrelevant.

[CuriousSoul]

CuriousSoul, stop posting. Thanks in advance.

Do not worry.
I will - eventually.

[CuriousSoul]

CuriousSoul, stop posting. Thanks in advance.

Do not worry.
I will - eventually.

I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

As soon as I run out of ideas.
Patience, patience.
Of course you are perfectly free to leave this useless forum too.

[CuriousSoul]

Of course you are perfectly free to leave this useless forum too.

Nice to know your opinion of the forum.

So you actually appreciate the forum.
Nice to hear.
There is always the ignore this poster option. I kindly recommend it to you. I have had my share of difficulties with the ENTJ temper...
Of course, if you could try to specify what it is that you find so particularly annoying...
Fortunately I am blessed with the patience of a saint.

[Dioklecian]

freud's ego and id are not only unrelated concepts to the ego and id in socionics, they're just stupid concepts. anything freud wrote cannot be taken seriously.

Umm, I disagree. Freud singlehandidly made psychology what it is today.

[07490]

I don't know much about him but here's the assessment of the Encyclopedia Britannica --

this is ridiculous.

i don't know a thing about genghis khan but the a 30 second search on wikipedia rules ESFj completely out of the question

No question about that NIffweed he is at the very least NI/SE. I feel have a feeling that he can be SLE, LIE, EIE from expat's wiki description. and this man is proberly related to Allie.

[Ezra]

Don't post irrelevant shit on here.

Genghis Khan was probably an LSI, and possibly an SLE.