ENFp supervises ISFj

[discojoe]

The way to "defeat" Christopher Hitchens in a "debate" is to employ lots and lots of rhetoric aimed at an impressionable crowd. Hitchens can't speak the language, and ends up looking less intelligent than Galloway, though I dare say the opposite is the case, by far.

The typing here is not meant to be absolute, but I believe it to be correct.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zH_BULU2vcM

[discojoe]

Actually, now that I think about it, Galloway could make anyone look bad, especially in front of a moronic crowd.

[Expat]

I don't think Galloway is ENFp, I think he's INFp.

So I don't see it as supervision, nor do I see it as necessarily a good demonstation of a relationship of benefit at work. I see it as a classic example of Fe-Ti against Fi-Te, where the loudest portion of the crowd (not necessarily the largest portion) is also Fe-Ti, so the support for Galloway is more audible.

You have Hitchens using Te data to support his Fi position, while Galloway uses Fe rhetoric to support his Ti position.

[Expat]

This is perhaps an example of ENFp supervising an ISFj:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=an7TaDQ5Yo0

I'm not sure but I think ENFp is a very likely type for Andrew Sullivan. The supervision is seen in that Sullivan thoroughly understands where Hitchens is coming from but also thinks - a bit patronizingly, as also seen from the way he looks at Hitchens - that he's missing something.

[Joy]

the loudest portion of the crowd (not necessarily the largest portion)

LOL

nothing screams Beta like... well... Beta

[aestrivex]

clearly, neither hitchens nor galloway are logical types. hitchens avoids the big picture and doesn't talk at all about the natural consequences of his advocations, while galloway says nothing of substance at all.

[FDG]

Poor argumentation on both sides. Two F people arguing with each other = vomitting spectacle, lose-lose situation (ok, ok, i'm ready to be stoned by Fs!! )

clearly, neither hitchens nor galloway are logical types. hitchens avoids the big picture and doesn't talk at all about the natural consequences of his advocations, while galloway says nothing of substance at all.

i agree completely

[HumanBean]

I see it as a classic example of Fe-Ti against Fi-Te, where the loudest portion of the crowd (not necessarily the largest portion) is also Fe-Ti, so the support for Galloway is more audible.

You have Hitchens using Te data to support his Fi position, while Galloway uses Fe rhetoric to support his Ti position.

How is being against the Iraq war attributed to Fe-Ti? You make a claim that the loudest people in the room support Galloway's argument because they are also Fe-Ti. I just see it as the majority of the room being against the war in Iraq, and against Hitchens' view on Iraq. I don't understand how funcitons can be applied to a large audience solely on the basis of the speaker being a certain type and exluding the argument/claims being made by the speaker?

The loudest people in the room, imo, are not Fe-Ti, but people who are passionately opposed to the war in Iraq.

[Expat]

How is being against the Iraq war attributed to Fe-Ti? You make a claim that the loudest people in the room support Galloway's argument because they are also Fe-Ti.

Which of them is against or in favor of the Iraq war is totally irrelevant to the Socionics case. You have understood nothing.

[HumanBean]

How is being against the Iraq war attributed to Fe-Ti? You make a claim that the loudest people in the room support Galloway's argument because they are also Fe-Ti.

Which of them is against or in favor of the Iraq war is totally irrelevant to the Socionics case. You have understood nothing.

lol

[Expat]

to those who understand what I'm talking about, you're the one looking ridiculous, not me.

[discojoe]

clearly, neither hitchens nor galloway are logical types. hitchens avoids the big picture and doesn't talk at all about the natural consequences of his advocations, while galloway says nothing of substance at all.

Nothing to do with being a logical type. I also don't understand what you said about Hitchens talking about natural consequences of his advocations.

[discojoe]

I don't think Galloway is ENFp, I think he's INFp.

So I don't see it as supervision, nor do I see it as necessarily a good demonstation of a relationship of benefit at work. I see it as a classic example of Fe-Ti against Fi-Te, where the loudest portion of the crowd (not necessarily the largest portion) is also Fe-Ti, so the support for Galloway is more audible.

You have Hitchens using Te data to support his Fi position, while Galloway uses Fe rhetoric to support his Ti position.

I can see that. After watching the entire thing I am still hung up on Galloway's type, because he just doesn't act like anyone I've thought of as INFp, though that may just be my problem.

[discojoe]

Sometimes I think that supervisors are the ones missing the point.

[Expat]

I'm not sure he's INFp either, but that's more likely than ENFp, I think.

The way I see Galloway -- he's Fe-Ti and Resolute, so a Beta, but not a logical type; so INFp or ENFj. Perhaps ENFj since he seems more Obstinate-Constructivist than Compliant-Emotivist, but with politicians it's difficult.

[Expat]

Sometimes I think that supervisors are the ones missing the point.

Sure. Their self-perception is not necessarily correct.

[aestrivex]

clearly, neither hitchens nor galloway are logical types. hitchens avoids the big picture and doesn't talk at all about the natural consequences of his advocations, while galloway says nothing of substance at all.

Nothing to do with being a logical type. I also don't understand what you said about Hitchens talking about natural consequences of his advocations.

just that hitchens, while arguing that there were valid reasons for US intervention in iraq, doesn't touch upon or weigh the consequences of US involvement hardly at all.

[discojoe]

clearly, neither hitchens nor galloway are logical types. hitchens avoids the big picture and doesn't talk at all about the natural consequences of his advocations, while galloway says nothing of substance at all.

Nothing to do with being a logical type. I also don't understand what you said about Hitchens talking about natural consequences of his advocations.

just that hitchens, while arguing that there were valid reasons for US intervention in iraq, doesn't touch upon or weigh the consequences of US involvement hardly at all.

Lol irony.

[Khamelion]

the loudest portion of the crowd (not necessarily the largest portion)

LOL

nothing screams Beta like... well... Beta

>:[

[Joy]

<3

[FDG]

How is being against the Iraq war attributed to Fe-Ti? You make a claim that the loudest people in the room support Galloway's argument because they are also Fe-Ti.

Which of them is against or in favor of the Iraq war is totally irrelevant to the Socionics case. You have understood nothing.

If the people agree because of a precoinceived stance against the war on iraq, then the cause-effect relationship is inversed because the applause would not be caused by Galloway's argument, but would have been given to whoever had made the same argument. Possibly an evalutation of the situation without external influence would be better to underline the difference. I think that Hitchens vs Maher was a better rendering of Ti vs Te, wheras we can consider appeal to emotions and to the crowd as universally recognizable logical fallacies no matter who commits them and what is his scope in doing it.

[Expat]

If the people agree because of a precoinceived stance against the war on iraq, then the cause-effect relationship is inversed because the applause would not be caused by Galloway's argument, but would have been given to whoever had made the same argument.

I agree with that you're saying, but I'm not sure of which point you are making.

The crowd being loud in an emotional atmosphere (Fe) because someone is defending a point they already believe in (Ti) - regardless of the arguments being presented, or the point being made - is almost a definition of Fe-Ti in action. This has nothing - zero - to do with whether the point itself is correct or not.

[Joy]

The Fe/Ti people who disagreed with the Fe/Ti's argument were not loud about it. The Fi/Te people who disagreed with the Fi/Te's argument were not loud about it.

The Fi/Te people who agreed with the Fi/Te's argument, as usual, felt no need to be rowdy about it. The Fe/Ti people who agreed with the Fe/Ti's argument saw the need to create a certain atmosphere to show social support for their speaker's arguments.

(How often do you see Te/Fi types here getting rowdy about supporting another Te/Fi type in their ideas? It generally doesn't happen because we see no need... what's right is right regardless of who's making noise. That's why no one jumped in to defend Expat in his conversation with the ESTp earlier (I chuckled at the irony) and why no one generally jumps in during my conversations in which others are getting "rowdy"... there's simply no need. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Te/Fi is always right or that all Te/Fi types agree with each other... just that other Te/Fi types don't see a need to be loud about it. When something is either right or it's not, there's absolutely no need to cause a scene about it.)

and no, I didn't see the videos

[FDG]

If the people agree because of a precoinceived stance against the war on iraq, then the cause-effect relationship is inversed because the applause would not be caused by Galloway's argument, but would have been given to whoever had made the same argument.

I agree with that you're saying, but I'm not sure of which point you are making.

The crowd being loud in an emotional atmosphere (Fe) because someone is defending a point they already believe in (Ti) - regardless of the arguments being presented, or the point being made - is almost a definition of Fe-Ti in action. This has nothing - zero - to do with whether the point itself is correct or not.

Allright, Joy's explanation, with whom I agree, has cleared up the issue. Just wanted to clarify that even if the crowd is louder, the argument hasn't been won by the side that makes the crowd go wild.

Joy: yeah, that makes sense. Although, your last line "when something either is right or not", is of course true for every sentence or opinion of the world, probably Fe-Ti axis feels the need to manifest the rightness, whereas Te-Fi doesn't. There's really no need to feel the need and, I concede, from an entropical POV Te-Fi is more efficient perhaps to compensate industrial waste

[maze]

The crowd being loud in an emotional atmosphere (Fe) because someone is defending a point they already believe in (Ti)

According to that definition, when the ESFp and the ENFp I was with (INTj/ENFj were also present) protested the loudest during a highly charged environment, they were using their Fe and Ti? And when the INTj and myself were keeping in our POV because we saw no point in being loud; we were exercising our Te/Fi?

Or are you saying that the loudest portion of the crowd had no ENFp's and ESFp's and etc. etc? Or are you saying that the loudest portion might have had those types and if so, they were exercising Fe/Ti?

[Expat]

"Submerging" in the emotional atmosphere of a crowd - such as everyone laughing, or screaming, or crying, etc, because it's the prevalecent emotional atmosphere -- that's Fe. If the ESFp etc protested against the predominant emotional mood, then that's Fi.

Fe-Ti types are more likely to act in a Fe manner, but they are not the only ones, obviously.

[discojoe]

I don't know.... Galloway seems like an ENFp politician again....

[mikemex]

He's ENFp, but it seems obvious to me that he got educated by NTs.