Star Trek characters

[Jonathan]

My apologies if this topic has been covered...seems as if it would, but I don't see it. I'm not much of a Star Trek watcher myself. But it seems that some of the characters are meant to symbolize distinct human traits.

In particular, the character of Data seems interesting. Apart from the portrayal of him as a non-human character, he seems to typify certain tendencies in some individuals.

From what little I've seen of the show, it seems that he represents the sort of person whose mind is completely on intellectual things. Despite the non-human, data-based aspect, it seems that he really doesn't exhibit strong or , so I would guess an INT type. The question is INTp or INTj. My first guess would be , except that he doesn't fit the Robespierre image of what an INTj would be like at all. Robespierre was a very strong kind of personality who pushed his way forward and killed those who didn't agree with him. Data wouldn't hurt a fly and seems not to have any agenda; he sort of goes with the flow. Does that mean he's dominant ? Any thoughts?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Joy]

INTp

[tcaudilllg]

If you are open to a crosstype solution, ISTx. ISTx's place a pathological emphasis on facts. (although you can't tell that to them; they just see it as being intellectually responsible)

[Jonathan]

If you are open to a crosstype solution, ISTx. ISTx's place a pathological emphasis on facts. (although you can't tell that to them; they just see it as being intellectually responsible)

I'm not that familiar with your crosstype theory, but in ISTx, how would you define the S and the T? You couldn't pick either or or or . Is the idea kind of like my compound type idea, where, if you try to assign a type, the person's functions functions 7&8 are so strong that you can't tell if they're really 7&8 or 1&2?

Anyhow, I don't watch Star Trek enough to really know, but I thought that despite the facade of being oriented to concrete facts (S), his behaviors still seemed more N. Maybe someone who watches the show more could verify.

What about Spock? He seems more clearly a rational type. Do you think ENTj for Spock? Or more introverted...?

[Phaedrus]

I have not seen much of Star Trek, except from several episodes of Star Trek Voyager. But when I put on the TV today I accidentally came right into a situation where Jean-Luc Picard, Data, and some other characters I don't know the name of, was on "trial". One thing that immeadiately struck me was that the real life actor Patrick Stewart, who plays Jean-Luc Picard, looks like a perfect example of an INTj based on V.I. When I searched on the Internet I found that at least some people consider Jean-Luc Picard to be an INTJ: http://scifi.about.com/library/weekly/aa080201bb.htm

You can compare the look of Patrick Stewart with SG and the snooker player Peter Ebdon, to name two examples of that rather typical INTj look.

[tcaudilllg]

If you are open to a crosstype solution, ISTx. ISTx's place a pathological emphasis on facts. (although you can't tell that to them; they just see it as being intellectually responsible)

I'm not that familiar with your crosstype theory, but in ISTx, how would you define the S and the T? You couldn't pick either or or or . Is the idea kind of like my compound type idea, where, if you try to assign a type, the person's functions functions 7&8 are so strong that you can't tell if they're really 7&8 or 1&2?

Anyhow, I don't watch Star Trek enough to really know, but I thought that despite the facade of being oriented to concrete facts (S), his behaviors still seemed more N. Maybe someone who watches the show more could verify.

What about Spock? He seems more clearly a rational type. Do you think ENTj for Spock? Or more introverted...?

ISTP is probably on the mark for Spock.

Functions so strong that you can't tell? Not really. Crosstype stipulates that it is possible for entire function blocks to not exist in a person both consciously and unconsciously. Attepting to interact with a nonexistant block reflects the orientational energy exterted by a function back onto itself and insulates it from change. This insulation causes an abnormal splitting of the function from the rest of the personality.

Research is ongoing on these changes and what they mean, and how crosstypes differ from fully differentiated types. (types in possession of every block) In the case of the ISTx, the ego is capable of either introverted sensing (perception of factual data) or introverted thinking. (organization) These traits describe Data pretty well, from what I have seen of the character.

[Joy]

He could be INTj. I see some Alpha in Data.

[Raver]

Welcome to the pinnacle of nerdyness...

..oh, and you put this in the wrong forum too...

...oh, and you can't type computers because they don't follow the same biological rules that we do, and those biological rules are what makes type...

Agreed. Unless Data was programmed to follow the same rules a biological human would. I'm sure A.I. imitates human life, but I believe the rules in a whole would be altered.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Dang you guys Why're you so hateful to the T-man? It's not like he's a threat to any of you and your way of thinking...is he?

he is just silly. he does not have anything valid to say, and hides behind terminology. it is annoying and false. it is not as if no one reads or considers what he is saying, but the charade quickly exposes itself.

[Mariano Rajoy]

I don't think he's hiding behind anything, he's just looking at everything from a different viewpoint is all
If you don't agree with him you don't agree with him, I just don't see the point in getting so hateful. He is a human being ya know

ethics schmethics. if TC wants yes men, this is not the place. one cannot continuously make the same logical/systematic errors and expect a positive response, especially if those errors are being hidden beneath word usage. if you think he just has a different viewpoint, then explain it to me. and i am not hating, i am making a point.

[Jonathan]

Transigent wrote:
Welcome to the pinnacle of nerdyness...

..oh, and you put this in the wrong forum too...

...oh, and you can't type computers because they don't follow the same biological rules that we do, and those biological rules are what makes type...

Agreed. Unless Data was programmed to follow the same rules a biological human would. I'm sure A.I. imitates human life, but I believe the rules in a whole would be altered.

I could have put it in "what's my type," but I felt that this topic would lead to a discussion of more general issues besides merely typing a person (that you don't even consider a person). As I had pointed out, in a story, particularly in one like Star Trek, the characters represent characteristics of actual people, whether or not they're considered people in the story. I mean, it could have been a talking carrot; it still symbolizes qualities of people.

But on to the more important point: Nothing in Jung's arguments is really biologically-based; he didn't come up with the ideas based on neuroscience. So there's reason to think that type theory relates to the structure of reality, although the specific implementation in humans probably has peculiarities of it's own.

That said, considering how to program a hominoid, such as Data, presents a perfect opportunity to see how hard it is to get away from these concepts, if you really want your robot to function at a high level. Of course, our notion of intelligence is based on our own experience of it; and Data clearly represents the branch of AI that seeks to achieve it's goals through imitating people to a large degree. Nevertheless, I think that just from the basis of creating something that survives and performs useful tasks, you'd need to deal with things approximating the functions.

Naturally, you need some way for the your program to handle the various kinds of logic and reasoning, that would appear to be like Ti and Te. And you'd be very limited if all you had were a formal system of a simple sort. I think to efficiently handle the limitations of formal systems, you'd need something approaching N. Although I'm not that knowledgeable about AI research, I believe a lot of the high-level discussion in the field is about how you'd create something that would be sort of like N.

The ability to process concrete data and related it to the other "functions" would clearly be important...so you have S.

Of all the functions, the necessity of F for a robot would be the most difficult to understand; naturally, that's why it seems lacking in Data, at least on the surface. But I don't think you can get away from this one either; even simplistic programs are intended to interface well with people and reflect at least a person's feeling of how to do so.

A robot without any sense of F would also have a hard time coming up with goals; it might work to do our bidding, but to be truly independent, you'd need F too.

Anyhow, once you have T, you really have a kind of F on the flip side; it's just not so apparent.

[Mariano Rajoy]

ethics schmethics. if TC wants yes men, this is not the place. one cannot continuously make the same logical/systematic errors and expect a positive response, especially if those errors are being hidden beneath word usage. if you think he just has a different viewpoint, then explain it to me. and i am not hating, i am making a point.

I don't think he wants yes men, he's just sharing his thoughts. And sorry but it sounds like you're getting hateful and personal when you say immature things like: "ethics schmethics" and "somebody is full of doodoo"

And this just makes you all look like big hateful bullies on top of that:

OMG "RESEARCH IS ONGOING"

I AM GOING TO HOLD MY BREATH

Dont! You WILL suffocate!

That's the idea! I would rather suffocate then have to scroll past his "research posts" on imaginary "crosstypes".

I don't see how any of you are making a constructive point of any kind, you're just being hateful. And it's not just ethics, it's logic. If you dissagree with him explain why you disagree with him, if you don't have anything to offer aside from insults then I can't see your side of the argument and there's nothing to be gained.

we give absolutely clear, logical criticisms that never get replied to. he can't defend what he posts. it seems that he continues to post these intentionally vague, irrational posts that don't hold up to scrutiny. he continues to do this. why? what motivation does he have for doing this? the answer to that question gives everyone else on this forum reason to be irrate. i will not answer the question of motivation because this is just turning into tc bashing.

and if anyone would like me to explain my posts so as to be more explicit about my constructive points, i will do so.

[FDG]

I've not seen you guys try to logically debate with him

Because he doesn't follow logic, therefore it's impossible to logically debate with him.

[FDG]

What I find more illogical are people who try to justify their obviously wrong actions through blaming the victim.

Uh???

[FDG]

I've seen you bashing him too, saw you do it in the Rinoa-Squall thread. And basically what I mean is this:

You claim he cannot understand logic so therefore it's acceptable to insult him because that's all he can understand. So basically you're trying to justify what you guys have done in order to seem in the right and not take responsibility for what you've done.

I find that highly illogical and just selfish and unproductive.

Look, my point is just this: If you don't agree with him you should debate with him logically without trying to personally insult him. Doing so makes you all look bad and can in turn make socionics look bad to a n00b that might happen upon any of these threads. Other then that if you just can't reason with him then just ignore him.

Why? If he's spurring out bullshit, I can't ignore him.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Everytime I've seen him replied to it always turns into a hate fest, I've not seen you guys try to logically debate with him, but hey admittidly maybe I just missed those topics. But in any case in this particular thread you're just making yourselves look bad by acting this way.

I'm not trying to be all preachy or anything, but if a newcomer were to come to this forum and read this thread who's side do you think they would take more seriously? The person who laid out his thoughts or the people that hurled insults and attacked him?

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4010
threads do not occur in a vacuum. if a newcomer disreguards other threads, then they are forming an opinion on less than factual information. trying to join in the middle of a conversation doesn't work in real life, and it doesn't work here.

[Kristiina]

Transigent wrote:
Welcome to the pinnacle of nerdyness...

..oh, and you put this in the wrong forum too...

...oh, and you can't type computers because they don't follow the same biological rules that we do, and those biological rules are what makes type...

Agreed. Unless Data was programmed to follow the same rules a biological human would. I'm sure A.I. imitates human life, but I believe the rules in a whole would be altered.

I could have put it in "what's my type," but I felt that this topic would lead to a discussion of more general issues besides merely typing a person (that you don't even consider a person). As I had pointed out, in a story, particularly in one like Star Trek, the characters represent characteristics of actual people, whether or not they're considered people in the story. I mean, it could have been a talking carrot; it still symbolizes qualities of people.

But on to the more important point: Nothing in Jung's arguments is really biologically-based; he didn't come up with the ideas based on neuroscience. So there's reason to think that type theory relates to the structure of reality, although the specific implementation in humans probably has peculiarities of it's own.

That said, considering how to program a hominoid, such as Data, presents a perfect opportunity to see how hard it is to get away from these concepts, if you really want your robot to function at a high level. Of course, our notion of intelligence is based on our own experience of it; and Data clearly represents the branch of AI that seeks to achieve it's goals through imitating people to a large degree. Nevertheless, I think that just from the basis of creating something that survives and performs useful tasks, you'd need to deal with things approximating the functions.

Naturally, you need some way for the your program to handle the various kinds of logic and reasoning, that would appear to be like Ti and Te. And you'd be very limited if all you had were a formal system of a simple sort. I think to efficiently handle the limitations of formal systems, you'd need something approaching N. Although I'm not that knowledgeable about AI research, I believe a lot of the high-level discussion in the field is about how you'd create something that would be sort of like N.

The ability to process concrete data and related it to the other "functions" would clearly be important...so you have S.

Of all the functions, the necessity of F for a robot would be the most difficult to understand; naturally, that's why it seems lacking in Data, at least on the surface. But I don't think you can get away from this one either; even simplistic programs are intended to interface well with people and reflect at least a person's feeling of how to do so.

A robot without any sense of F would also have a hard time coming up with goals; it might work to do our bidding, but to be truly independent, you'd need F too.

Anyhow, once you have T, you really have a kind of F on the flip side; it's just not so apparent.

I agree on very many things here. I think that robots must have some F, but they will still be Thinkers, probably with Fi PoLR (or just Fi as a very weak function). If they learn, they will be able to use Fe, but they won't REALLY understand morals or interactions between people. They might understand friendship as a mutually beneficial coexistence, but will they really understand the bond between friends?
I somehow get the feeling that robots live in the "right now", trying to think ahead only when necessary. They will have the "if {x} then {y}"-logic, which probably makes them think of one action at a time. They might see alternative outcome of actions, but generally they react to what they see and they choose the best reaction.

SiTe (ISTp) and SeTi (ESTp) would probably suit an average robot the best.

And Spock is probably ISTp, because it seems to me that Fe-polr and Fi hidden agenda seem about right. (PS! I've never been much of a Trekkie, but I've seen a few episodes)

[Expat]

I'll explain what is it all about.

tcaudilllg is irritating not because he has different opinions, but because he presents and pushes them in such a way as if they are facts that only he has been smart enough to observe. A newcomer to this forum, as you put it, might think that there is a lot of sound information on crosstype theory, but if there is, we have seen very little of it.

tcaudilllg does things like just stating that ****** was an xNxx crosstype or that Putin is an ESxx, in such a way as to imply that those who can't see that are idiots.

That would be acceptable, perhaps, if he could indeed make a clear, well-informed argument that there is something unique about Putin or ******, or other people, that would suggest that they are crosstypes -- or at the very least present his idea as a suggestion to be considered.

That's the kind of thing - backed by such pompous statements as "research is ongoing" - that make people attack him.

If he could at least back his theory with some facts - a few clearly described examples of "real life" crosstype cases would be interesting - people would be more willing to discuss it in a more civil way.

That is what this is all about. I don't agree with insulting him when he makes harmless comments on anything, but I can see where Transigent is coming from.

EDIT: just for fun, in as far as it makes sense to type them, I think Data is ISTp logical subtype (since he has zero ) and Spock is ISTj logical subtype.

[FDG]

I don't think what he's spurting out is bullshit, but if that's your opinion then why not try to actually debate with him rather then insult him and his viewpoints?

Again, because there is no way to logically argue his posts, since they make no sense whatsoever.

[Mariano Rajoy]

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4010

[Jonathan]

I think if we were to consider TC's crosstype theory rationally, the place to start would be to accept, first and foremost, that it's a theory about a possible structure, and allow the lack of empirical evidence at first. There are ways to investigate a theory without looking for empirical evidence or applications at the first step.

I think it would be worth exploring some of the basic questions inherent in the theory...for example:
1) How can one formalize the theory so that other people can make statements about, say, what a AxBx would be like, without relying on TC's intuition about it?
2) How might one test if a person is a crosstype?
3) What are the implications of someone having two introverted functions in the ego block (or two extraverted ones), as TC explained ISTx, and why don't these clash (or do they...and with what expected result...etc.)

So, if we think of these kinds of questions, we can give TC some space to develop and explain his theory. He probably gets defensive when people ask for immediate empirical application, because he probably doesn't think from that angle. But fleshing out a theory and getting the applications down later is a valid way to proceed, and potentially gets one to the same place.

[discojoe]

Riker - ESFp

Troi - INFp

Data - INTp

Picard - ISFj

Geordi - ESTj

Worf - ISTp

Crusher - INFj

[FDG]

Seems fair.

[Joy]

I definitely agree with these:

Riker - ESFp

Troi - INFp

Data - INTp

Picard - ISFj

( I was the one who said ISFj for Picrad's type last night)

The rest I'd have to reflect on a bit. I could see Worf as an ISTj or ISTp.

[Joy]

Yeah, all of that "honor" talk from Worf seems like Fe. I can't think of anything else it could be. If it wasn't so cultural, I could buy that it's Fi. Not sure though. Fe seems more likely. I could perhaps even buy Ti, but that ties in with Fe.

[Joy]

What about Geordi being ISTp? Do any of the Deltas here have any input on that? He just doesn't remind me at all of the ESTjs I've known. He's not obnoxious enough (and I'm not saying that I dislike ESTj obnoxiousness... on the contrary I find it rather amusing).

[Joy]

See with Worf though, he physical and mental training and discipline seems like it could be more Si than Se. Gah, that's that problem with typing fictional characters from fictional cultures.

[Typeless Wonder]

What about Geordi being ISTp? Do any of the Deltas here have any input on that? He just doesn't remind me at all of the ESTjs I've known. He's not obnoxious enough (and I'm not saying that I dislike ESTj obnoxiousness... on the contrary I find it rather amusing).

I think ISTp fits for Geordi. When you see him supervising people he doesn't seem to be very forceful or get caught up in bureaucratic procedure, but has a more laid back, egalitarian fashion with those who work under him (even though he has no problem putting his foot down when he really needs to.) Also, like Data (INTp), Geordi doesn't seem to show a lot of enthusiasm or passion about anything, he just kind of goes with the flow. I think Geordi could also be INTp, but he doesn't seem to possess as much of a theoretical side as Data even though he can apply theory well.

[Gilly]

Worf always seemed more ESTj to me, but then I know absolutely dick about Star Trek (not being able to recall ever having sat through an entire episode...)

[FDG]

See with Worf though, he physical and mental training and discipline seems like it could be more Si than Se. Gah, that's that problem with typing fictional characters from fictional cultures.

Not exactly. Discipline is always related to Se. Especially in regard to intense physical training. Si types are said to tend to avoid physical overloads, Se types the opposite.

[Joy]

Wouldn't an ISTp be more likely to have an easier time adhering to a strict diet or exercise routine than an ESTp?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Wouldn't an ISTp be more likely to have an easier time adhering to a strict diet or exercise routine than an ESTp?

I don't know why. Why? IME, no particular difference.

[Joy]

I guess just cause that's what an ISTp told me like a year ago

[Creepy-aurora_faerie]

nm

[Gilly]

I would think that it would be easier for SiTe: they have more (psychologically) at stake in terms of their health, and call me crazy, but Te seems MUCH more regimented (typically) than Ti (this mostly my experience with irrational logical types).

[UDP]

Picard

Fi and Se?

[UDP]

I think that shows a lack of understanding of an INTj devoted to a cause.

[Joy]

I have a hard time seeing Picard as having a Se PoLR.

I see the Fi and Se.