Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Thomas Edison

  1. #1
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure Edison is known for his imagination. He was well-known for his workaholism and for performing hundreds or thousands of experiments until he finally found a combination that worked (in his lightbulb). I think in his case LSE is not hard to believe.

    I'm not sure how many socionists are serious about Da Vinci being an LSE. I don't have an opinion.

    "LSE lacks imagination" is too broad a statement to be correct. There are different kinds of 'imagination,' and imagination or abstract thinking in general is also tied to IQ. The fact that Edison was an experimentor and preferred hands-on applications as opposed to paper-and-pen theorizing is a good argument for LSE over, say, ILE, ILI, or one of the other "imaginative" types.

  2. #2
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nm

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    I'm not sure Edison is known for his imagination. He was well-known for his workaholism and for performing hundreds or thousands of experiments until he finally found a combination that worked (in his lightbulb). I think in his case LSE is not hard to believe.

    I'm not sure how many socionists are serious about Da Vinci being an LSE. I don't have an opinion.

    "LSE lacks imagination" is too broad a statement to be correct. There are different kinds of 'imagination,' and imagination or abstract thinking in general is also tied to IQ. The fact that Edison was an experimentor and preferred hands-on applications as opposed to paper-and-pen theorizing is a good argument for LSE over, say, ILE, ILI, or one of the other "imaginative" types.
    But wasn't he also known for employing other people to perform those hundreds of thousands of experiments while he was thinking new things up? I've heard that it's a myth that he did all those experiments himself. If he saw the opportunities and got other people to do the tedious parts, wouldn't that be a case for him being ?

  4. #4
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't know if this is true or if it's a rumor, but I heard he stole inventions from Tesla.

  5. #5
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    I'm not sure Edison is known for his imagination. He was well-known for his workaholism and for performing hundreds or thousands of experiments until he finally found a combination that worked (in his lightbulb). I think in his case LSE is not hard to believe.

    I'm not sure how many socionists are serious about Da Vinci being an LSE. I don't have an opinion.

    "LSE lacks imagination" is too broad a statement to be correct. There are different kinds of 'imagination,' and imagination or abstract thinking in general is also tied to IQ. The fact that Edison was an experimentor and preferred hands-on applications as opposed to paper-and-pen theorizing is a good argument for LSE over, say, ILE, ILI, or one of the other "imaginative" types.
    But wasn't he also known for employing other people to perform those hundreds of thousands of experiments while he was thinking new things up? I've heard that it's a myth that he did all those experiments himself. If he saw the opportunities and got other people to do the tedious parts, wouldn't that be a case for him being ?
    I've heard the same thing, and I know socionists are also aware of this. We can do a "type Edison" thread in the other section. I think there are several strong arguments for LSE -- not just the number of experiments.

  6. #6
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Don't know if this is true or if it's a rumor, but I heard he stole inventions from Tesla.
    As far as I know, he didn't really steal anything from Tesla as Tesla was working for Edison for some time, so Edison got the use of the inventions.

    Tesla did see Edison as a very non-imaginative person, who relied on sheer number of experiments to accomplish anything -- whether Edison himself actually ran the experiments is of lesser importance.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  7. #7
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Where did you get that? ES*j-s are known exactly for not being conservative and being open minded, often controversial. It's the types in Ni quadras that are known for their close mindedness.
    I am not saying that I'm not agreeing with the other things you say, but this statement of yours is obviously false. ESTjs are one of the most conservative of all the types, and they belong to one of the most conservative of quadras. Perhaps you were ironic?
    Belive it or not, I've found LSE teachers being more open to imaginative approach to problem-solving as opposed to step-by-step ones that were required, for example, by LSIs, approacing it by thinking "if it works and the solution is right, why bothering about the way it has been reached?"
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Don't know if this is true or if it's a rumor, but I heard he stole inventions from Tesla.
    As far as I know, he didn't really steal anything from Tesla as Tesla was working for Edison for some time, so Edison got the use of the inventions.

    Tesla did see Edison as a very non-imaginative person, who relied on sheer number of experiments to accomplish anything -- whether Edison himself actually ran the experiments is of lesser importance.
    What do you think about Tesla? Is it impossible that he was LIE?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Don't know if this is true or if it's a rumor, but I heard he stole inventions from Tesla.
    As far as I know, he didn't really steal anything from Tesla as Tesla was working for Edison for some time, so Edison got the use of the inventions.

    Tesla did see Edison as a very non-imaginative person, who relied on sheer number of experiments to accomplish anything -- whether Edison himself actually ran the experiments is of lesser importance.
    I'm not talking about him physicals taking his inventions, I'm talking about him presenting it as his own. I'm talking about Tesla working for him and Edison taking the credit for Tesla's inventions.

    But like I said, I have no idea and I though somebody else might as I remember reading that Tesla did say people stole his inventions and people accusing Edison.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Don't know if this is true or if it's a rumor, but I heard he stole inventions from Tesla.
    As far as I know, he didn't really steal anything from Tesla as Tesla was working for Edison for some time, so Edison got the use of the inventions.

    Tesla did see Edison as a very non-imaginative person, who relied on sheer number of experiments to accomplish anything -- whether Edison himself actually ran the experiments is of lesser importance.
    Interestingly, both ESj and ENp would value and . Tesla may have valued more. In that case, both ILE and LSE may seem to him inefficient and not imaginative in the way.

    If Edison was LSE, he must have been a little atypical, maybe an subtype of LSE....because he was so motivated to keep moving to the next invention. Wouldn't LSEs be more typically motivated to build up a successful business in a more convergent way? I mean, once Edison had a few successful inventions, he could have focused on capitalizing on them and building up the standard sort of corporation which gets bigger and bigger based on refining one single business.

    Instead, it seems he was too bored to just focus on one thing; he had to always move on. So he built his business around inventions. I'm not saying he couldn't be LSE....just that it seems he was always motivated to branch outward, to look for the next thing, rather than to be content building an empire around one successful thing.

  11. #11
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Don't know if this is true or if it's a rumor, but I heard he stole inventions from Tesla.
    As far as I know, he didn't really steal anything from Tesla as Tesla was working for Edison for some time, so Edison got the use of the inventions.

    Tesla did see Edison as a very non-imaginative person, who relied on sheer number of experiments to accomplish anything -- whether Edison himself actually ran the experiments is of lesser importance.
    Interestingly, both ESj and ENp would value and . Tesla may have valued more. In that case, both ILE and LSE may seem to him inefficient and not imaginative in the way.

    If Edison was LSE, he must have been a little atypical, maybe an subtype of LSE....because he was so motivated to keep moving to the next invention. Wouldn't LSEs be more typically motivated to build up a successful business in a more convergent way? I mean, once Edison had a few successful inventions, he could have focused on capitalizing on them and building up the standard sort of corporation which gets bigger and bigger based on refining one single business.

    Instead, it seems he was too bored to just focus on one thing; he had to always move on. So he built his business around inventions. I'm not saying he couldn't be LSE....just that it seems he was always motivated to branch outward, to look for the next thing, rather than to be content building an empire around one successful thing.
    Might be a case of what is mightly thought about as "integrated type", that is to say, a type which has taken up the qualities of its dual?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Might be a case of what is mightly thought about as "integrated type", that is to say, a type which has taken up the qualities of its dual?
    Could be. Do we have threads on that concept? I've often felt that some famous people in fact do take on the qualities of their dual....not just in a compensatory, rule-of-thumb sort of way, but in an essential manner so that their work almost seems like that of their duals.

    Rick's site suggests that famous people probably are people who focus more on their strengths and delegate their weak areas to others. That's probably true in a lot of cases, but I think that in particular famous classical composers have tended to take on qualities of their dual, at least in their art (probably not in real life as much).

    Apparently a number of Socionists have typed Wagner as SLE and Rachmaninoff as LII. Yet Wagner's music dramas seem to be so much about symbolism, inner imagination, a literary quality, and basically IEI...yet with the confidence and attention to details one expects with SLE. Rachmaninoff seems all about F....so if he's really LII, it's LII with very strong Fe.

  13. #13
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,429
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rick's site suggests that famous people probably are people who focus more on their strengths and delegate their weak areas to others.
    If that's the case how did he manage to type so many SLI actors.

  14. #14
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric
    Rick's site suggests that famous people probably are people who focus more on their strengths and delegate their weak areas to others.
    If that's the case how did he manage to type so many SLI actors.
    There is demand for actors of all types because people want to be able to identify with the people they see. Not many SLIs are drawn to theater (that's a whole different genre), but in movie acting you just have to be able to convincingly portray a set of archetypes clustered around your own personality. Also, a good body and symmetrical facial features help. That means that all types are equally good at movie acting, and people just work on the archetypes closest to their own type and constitution.

    Rick's site suggests that famous people probably are people who focus more on their strengths and delegate their weak areas to others. That's probably true in a lot of cases, but I think that in particular famous classical composers have tended to take on qualities of their dual, at least in their art (probably not in real life as much).

    Apparently a number of Socionists have typed Wagner as SLE and Rachmaninoff as LII. Yet Wagner's music dramas seem to be so much about symbolism, inner imagination, a literary quality, and basically IEI...yet with the confidence and attention to details one expects with SLE. Rachmaninoff seems all about F....so if he's really LII, it's LII with very strong Fe.
    Yes, but now you're talking about individual, not group achievements. There's no leadership or delegation in music composition, so you have to master all elements on your own. The ones who become famous seem to convey an 'entire world' to the listener -- not just a message about his leading function. Yes, Wagner's music is about symbolism, but it is also about power, conflict, and victory -- probably much more so than the works of IEI composers. And Rachmaninoff's music is probably more technically intricate and melancholic than works of composers. In real life, Wagner was very un- and Rachmaninoff very un- , but this side definitely came out in their compositional work.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •