Bill O'Reilly Supervises Ann Coulter

[Krig the Viking]

Before I begin, I ask any political zealots here to set your political views aside for a moment, and analyze only the socionically-relevant aspects of the inter-type dynamics here. Create a thread in the appropriate forum if you want to rant about politics. This goes for both sides.

In my opinion, Ann Coulter is SLE, and Bill O'Reilly is ESI. In the video linked below, I think you can see the Supervision in action. O'Reilly keeps trying to "fix" Coulter by advising her on how not to offend people (Base Fi), and Coulter becomes visibly uncomfortable trying to defend herself against charges that she sees as irrelevant to the main point (Vulnerable Fi). The conversation basically goes "That was offensive to say" (Base Fi), "So what, it was true!" (Creative Ti), "You must be deliberately offending people" (Base Fi), "No, this is just how I talk!" (Vulnerable Fi).

Throughout, however, there is a tacit agreement on the necessity of confrontation (Se), just a disagreement over the means (Fi vs. Ti). There is a sense that they're both trying to achieve the same goal, but with different methods. The argument over whose books sell more, at the end, is an amusing Se vs. Se clash based on materialistic status.

PopModal - Ann Coulter

I know there's been discussions of Bill O'Reilly being LIE, but I think he's far too confrontational and ethically-oriented for that. He's more like Richard Nixon than Bill Gates.

[Logos]

There have also been discussions of Ann Coulter being Gamma Rational. I will have to dig those up from the bowels of the forum.

[Krig the Viking]

I can't see her as anything other than an EP. She pokes and prods and stirs up trouble; a Gamma Rational like O'Reilly might be confrontational, but it's always for the purpose of creating a "new normal" and settling things down the way he wants them settled down. Notice how O'Reilly criticizes her for being a "bomb thrower" -- someone who stirs up chaos and has no interest in creating stability.

Also, the Base Fi vs. Vulnerable Fi thing seems pretty self-evident to me. I'm extremely confident in these typings, somewhere around 90%, which is unusually high for me.

[Aleksei]

They two of 'em are definitely Beta/Gamma sensors, but Bill strikes me as more of an SEE.

[Aleksei]

Not sure what you're reading out of this. O'Reilly just seems like he's just trying to be professional and impartial towards her (since that's his job), but it seems pretty obvious the two are on friendly terms under the surface and that no genuinely harsh words were traded here.

FTR, I think she's ILE and he ESE.

Also wtf@Nixon being "ESI" lol. Did some Socionist put that typing up as a joke?

O'Reilly and Coulter are consistently harsh and abrasive. Just watch O'Reilly in any interview. King of the finger-point. Similar to Nixon, in fact.

Nixon was a very grumpy and abrasive man, an Se-subtype ESI who loved putting people under pressure. It was a common debate tactic of his, seen in his debate with Khrushchev and in his congressional run against the woman he called "pink, right down to her underwear." He was additionally a rather obvious Fi-ego type, being obsessively focused on the depth of his interpersonal relationships with his daughter and wife, as well as several of his cabinet members (Henry Kissinger in particular). The common stereotype of him is that of a crooked LSI or SLE, but it's flatly untrue.

[Aleksei]

None that sounds particularly type-relevant.

...depth of interpersonal relationships is the central defining theme of .

[Aleksei]

So everyone w/o has shallow interpersonal relationships.

Not necessarily (nor do valuers necessarily have deep interpersonal relationships), but valuers are much more likely to be preoccupied with their emotional distance to others. devaluers are more likely to take their connection to others for granted, and super-egos outright don't know how to handle it.

Types with valued strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

[Krig the Viking]

Not sure what you're reading out of this. O'Reilly just seems like he's just trying to be professional and impartial towards her (since that's his job), but it seems pretty obvious the two are on friendly terms under the surface and that no genuinely harsh words were traded here.

FTR, I think she's ILE and he ESE.

Also wtf@Nixon being "ESI" lol. Did some Socionist put that typing up as a joke?

This is an example of why I regard your typings as a separate "school" -- your typings seem to be based on entirely different criteria than most socionist's. Coulter and O'Reilly seem self-evidently Se-valuing to me, and it's hard to imagine what line of reasoning could lead to a different conclusion. In most cases, with typings I disagree with, I can at least understand why people would arrive at such conclusion, but not here.

Regarding Nixon, he seems widely regarded as an example of a "solid" ESI typing -- a brief check reveals that he is used as an exemplar of the ESI type by Lytov in his Introduction to Socionics, and was typed so by four socionists in Oleg Khrulyov's Celebrity Benchmark List. If you want to dispute Nixon's type, I have no objections, but it's not accurate to represent your views as being in some way obvious or mainstream, when they clearly represent a new line of thought.

That said, I remain fascinated by the possibility that you may be unintentionally typing people based on their energy types. I had independently concluded that O'Reilly is a Dominant ESI, and Coulter a Creative SLE, which would seem to be consistent with your ESE and ILE typings.

[Words]

In my opinion, Ann Coulter is SLE, and Bill O'Reilly is ESI. In th video linked below, I think you can see the Supervision in action. O'Reilly keeps trying to"fix" Coulter by advising her on how not to offend people (Base Fi), and Coulter becomes visibly uncomfortable trying to defend herself against charges that she sees as irrelevant to the main point (Vulnerable Fi). The conversation basically goes "Tha was offensive to say" (Base Fi),"So what, it was true!" (Creative Ti), "You must be deliberately offending people" (Base Fi), "No, this is just how I talk!"(Vulnerable Fi).

Maybe it's just a game?

It's just a short post on my cell phone, but I'd have thought any type could be argumentative, and consideration of how people come across can equally be Fe, or a product of upbringing, am I right do you think?

[krieger]

This is an example of why I regard your typings as a separate "school" -- your typings seem to be based on entirely different criteria than most socionist's. Coulter and O'Reilly seem self-evidently Se-valuing to me, and it's hard to imagine what line of reasoning could lead to a different conclusion. In most cases, with typings I disagree with, I can at least understand why people would arrive at such conclusion, but not here.

Seconded. The ESFj typing is just bizarre. Abrupt vibe typing fail.

[Krig the Viking]

Maybe it's just a game?

It's just a short post on my cell phone, but I'd have thought any type could be argumentative, and consideration of how people come across can equally be Fe, or a product of upbringing, am I right do you think?

Fe is mostly concerned with how one's behaviour affects the mood of the people around them. Fi is concerned with how one's behaviour affects the opinion of others. O'Reilly is clearly concerned with how Coulter's actions affect the opinions of onlookers.

Careful implying things about what "most Socionists" supposedly agree on—I'd like to see that qualified with actual references about what Socionists have typed Nixon ESI and so forth (and further, why their opinions should be considered credible). Typically there's a great deal of divergence among Socionists about most typings and even the basic precepts of the theory itself.

Feel free to look up the relevant Te data yourself. I've been unable to find any Russian socionist who types Nixon as anything but ESI, and the only English-speaking socionists I could find other than yourself who type him as anything other than ESI usually type him as LIE. I don't have enough interest in ferreting out Te facts to pursue the subject further.

Well, how much do we really disagree here overall? Obviously we concur that Coulter's EP + and that O'Reilly's at least ethical + rational.

I'm guessing you regard them as -valuing because they're "confrontational and abrasive" or some such. At least that tends to be what most non- valuers on here primarily think represents. Whereas I think these are simply bad stereotypes.

This is one area where we disagree, then. In my opinion, most Se-Egos, particularly Beta STs, display "confrontational and abrasive" behaviour to some degree, though not all of them to the extent that Coulter does. It's a stereotype, but in my opinion it's a useful stereotype.

So you're just parroting the opinion because someone else said it, instead of investigating it for yourself. That's about what I expected.

I haven't researched Nixon as exhaustively as others, but everything I know about him is consistent with ESI.

I'm not trying to represent my views as being anything. I just want some good 1st-hand evidence to support why Nixon should be classed as ESI. Appeals to authority or common practice are absolutely not valid arguments.

As I said, I have no objection to you using all the 1st-hand evidence you want to argue that Nixon is ESI. My objection was merely to your tendency to deride mainstream socionics as if your views were commonly accepted. In effect, you're the one appealing to your own authority; I was just pointing out what the other authorities believe.

In practice, I treat the typings of the "authorities" as starting points for research. Certain people are more consistently correct in their conclusions, but no-one is 100% accurate at all times (or at least no-one should be treated as such).

Curious—what are the supposed differences between energy-types and sociotypes, and how would one potentially mask the other?

According to Gulenko, the difference between energy-type and info-type is the difference between actions and words. Info-type is the awareness and processing of incoming information about the world, while energy-type is the tools and methods one uses to interact with the world.

He also describes them as "Ego-Type" and "Persona-Type". Rick has a good article on the persona here. I would say that Gulenko's "energy type" is an attempt at classifying people's personas as a second layer of type.

When I type people I'm looking at temperament and IE usage in their speech/apparent thought patterns. On the latter measure, I've seen nothing to suggest / valuing in either one.

Then it's clear that we have drastically different opinions on how Se manifests in behaviour. That could account for a significant number of our disagreements on type, if this difference of opinion holds true in a large number of cases.

[Logos]

Expat typed her as LIE.

[ashlesha]

According to Gulenko, the difference between energy-type and info-type is the difference between actions and words. Info-type is the awareness and processing of incoming information about the world, while energy-type is the tools and methods one uses to interact with the world.

He also describes them as "Ego-Type" and "Persona-Type". Rick has a good article on the persona [urlhttp://socionics.us/practice/nature_persona.shtml]here[/url]. I would say that Gulenko's "energy type" is an attempt at classifying people's personas as a second layer of type.

this sounds similar to dual-type theory if i'm understanding it right?

[Saoshyant]

I don't know much about politics at all, but I found Ann Coulter pretty interesting. I wonder what she is like in bed?

Lots of differing views here, but I think she is a LII !

And Bill O'Reilly would look like a natural with a mustache. LSI

So that'd make them a 'comparative' relationship. I can sleep with that.

[Logos]

Lots of differing views here, but I think she is a LII !

Thanks for that, Saoshyant. I needed a good dose of comedy.

[Saoshyant]

Thanks for that, Saoshyant. I needed a good dose of comedy.

Enlighten me then, or are you agreeing with Expat's typing?

[Logos]

Enlighten me then, or are you agreeing with Expat's typing?

-valuing quadra. I am examining LIE, EIE, and SLE as her possible types.

Although Krig has a video of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter disagreeing, most videos show them agreeing:




And here is another video of her getting corrected:

[Marie84]

I watched the video you posted and I didn't get an obvious typing for either of them, though I lean towards LIE for O'Reilly and either LIE or SLE for Coulter, although these are vague impressions based on what I've seen so far, as I don't follow their careers enough to have a more solid opinion either way.

The problem I see for O'Reilly as Fi base is that I can't particularly see him as having weak , he seems overtly arrogant in that department. But in terms of him actually making attempts at maintaining an accord, I agree, but this hasn't been uncommon with 's IME

fwiw, I'm not a fan of either of them and think they're both trolls but I don't necessarily think that points towards ego

This is an example of why I regard your typings as a separate "school" -- your typings seem to be based on entirely different criteria than most socionist's.

Coulter and O'Reilly seem self-evidently Se-valuing to me, and it's hard to imagine what line of reasoning could lead to a different conclusion.

[Words]

Fe is mostly concerned with how one's behaviour affects the mood of the people around them. Fi is concerned with how one's behaviour affects the opinion of others. O'Reilly is clearly concerned with how Coulter's actions affect the opinions of onlookers.

It's a debate geared towards onlookers, I suggest caution about seeing it as type related.

[Aleksei]

I don't know much about politics at all, but I found Ann Coulter pretty interesting. I wonder what she is like in bed?

She's probably into pegging.

So that'd make them a 'comparative' relationship. I can sleep with that.

To each their own dude, but there's gonna be one woman in that threesome and it ain't gonna be Coulter.

[Saoshyant]

She's probably into pegging.


To each their own dude, but there's gonna be one woman in that threesome and it ain't gonna be Coulter.

*Googles Pegging*

[Aleksei]

*Googles Pegging*

[marooned]

Yeah, I seemed to get an impression of Ann Coulter as ESI from that. I also thought it was funny how she kept saying that this is just the way she talks and it's not to be provocative on purpose and despite her saying this over and over O'Reilly says at the end "I think you're provocative on purpose, to get attention" and so on (he didn't want to hear what she had to say and insisted on thinking what he thought in the beginning regardless of her saying it wasn't true). I thought he was rather misinterpreting her and perhaps worse so than Matt Lauer. Also she told him he was "arrogant, chauvinistic" and so on, not the other way around.

I do think she's kind of a defensive communicator but I thought that was because she feels like everyone's trying to shoot her down before she even starts (and it seems like people are... although of course acting defensive to begin with probably invites this and it's a vicious cycle and all). But I thought it was very barbed of Matt Lauer to accuse her of being "paranoid" and why are both these people instant dicks to her? She was suspicious about being delayed coming on the Today show and she said why, but he didn't address that of course and instead just called her "paranoid".

I love how the subject of how provocative she is seems more important than anything she might say.

I thought she didn't care about offending people because she's just trying to tell it like it is from her pov and tell herself like she is and just sees it as what she does... so then why should she have to edit herself so as not to offend people? I don't know that I think Fi would be all concerned with how not to offend people (or maybe it would?)?

Anyway I don't know what type Bill O'Reilly is and I don't seem to have too many impressions about him.

Edit: although you can't put comments like "So-and-so celebrity was too busy throwing up to comment" or something in your book and not expect people (i.e. the media) to react, so perhaps she is playing a little innocent about this provocation thing. Still though that's her business whether she is or isn't and it's not the point (she wanted to talk about her book, or so she said).

I'm also not really sure about this idea of 'of course you'll be immediately attacked--you're a conservative!!!'. But that's beside the point. It's more that I'm not sure the media has a liberal bias despite the claims of many "conservatives" and I think that the biases of the media might stem from more complex issues than simply liberal or conservative. I also think that the bias is more "ethereal" in the way that individual people working in the media may not even see it. If it were as simple as a puppet-master fully consciously pulling the strings and leaning deliberately in an anti-conservative way (or in any biased way with an obvious agenda) it would be easier to expose, confront, and take down than it is. I'd be surprised if there's an "evil master mind" behind the scenes (although I can't eliminate that given that the wealthy 1% or whatever in a way control everything).

Edit 2: Also I wouldn't be opposed to Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly being in the same quadra, and there does seem to be a sort of liking between them, unless I'm just imagining that. They seem comfortable with each other or something. I'm wondering if maybe I'm wrong about him mis-interpreting her (perhaps "mis-representing" would have been a better word, as that's fair since he seemed to be disregarding what she was saying was true/not true about herself and her intentions).

[Aiss]

Fe is mostly concerned with how one's behaviour affects the mood of the people around them. Fi is concerned with how one's behaviour affects the opinion of others.

Not sure if I agree with it. I mean, I agree with dynamic, temporary nature of Fe - more focused on the moment than how it affects the relation, so to speak. But I'm not sure how Fi is supposedly related to affecting the opinion of others, unless you meant their opinion of the person who acts, which obviously affects their attitude to them.

Feel free to look up the relevant Te data yourself. I've been unable to find any Russian socionist who types Nixon as anything but ESI, and the only English-speaking socionists I could find other than yourself who type him as anything other than ESI usually type him as LIE. I don't have enough interest in ferreting out Te facts to pursue the subject further.

You're doing your case no favours by playing - and twisting - silly stereotypes. One could just as well say that by looking on others' opinion, you don't consider facts (as their opinion is no fact, which you associate with Te), but a ready-made reasoning (Ti, in this case).

... and let's not forget IEIs need to be raped.

This is one area where we disagree, then. In my opinion, most Se-Egos, particularly Beta STs, display "confrontational and abrasive" behaviour to some degree, though not all of them to the extent that Coulter does. It's a stereotype, but in my opinion it's a useful stereotype.

Then it's clear that we have drastically different opinions on how Se manifests in behaviour. That could account for a significant number of our disagreements on type, if this difference of opinion holds true in a large number of cases.

Kind of useful, especially when it comes to Beta STs, but not reliable enough for a typing. Socionics is primarily concerned with information processing, which isn't always consistently reflected in behaviour. I don't know much about people you discuss here, and Ashton's typing are sometimes strange (or hasty, in some cases), but for example a confrontational and abrasive ILE is no oxymoron.

this sounds similar to dual-type theory if i'm understanding it right?

Dual-type theory is based on Gulenko's idea of energy types. I don't know at which point or how far tcaud derailed from it.

[marooned]

but it seems pretty obvious the two are on friendly terms under the surface

I'm starting to notice this (unless it's just my imagination, but since someone else seemed to notice it as well, that's nice).

Coulter and O'Reilly seem self-evidently Se-valuing to me

Yes (although I'm still not really getting a read on O'Reilly), they seem to have a very communication style to me. I'm pretty comfortable I think with seeing Coulter as Se valuing at the very least (if not an Se ego type). I guess this just comes down to "seeing" the IMEs and how different people see them differently. I mean I see in their exchanges.

but I'd have thought any type could be argumentative

this comment may have been more about Fe (I'm not sure), but I'm responding to it as Se in the sense that I think that O'Reilly and Coulter are highly argumentative and confrontational with one another and are both very comfortable with communicating that way and seem to enjoy debating with each other in this way. Any type can be argumentative of course... and lots of people enjoy debating... it's not about that... it's the way in which they communicate going beyond simply being argumentative... it just hits my "Se sensor" and I don't know how to explain it.

I can't see her as anything other than an EP. She pokes and prods and stirs up trouble

I see her as very rational. I think that some EPs can seem "rational" to me, but I really think she has to be Ij or Ej for the most part.

Fe is mostly concerned with how one's behaviour affects the mood of the people around them. Fi is concerned with how one's behaviour affects the opinion of others.

I'm not sure about this. I think that Fe ego types can be very concerned with what others think of them... this just seems odd to me, this statement.

Anyway I think Coulter is Gamma, or I'm leaning that way.

[Krig the Viking]

Although Krig has a video of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter disagreeing, most videos show them agreeing:

Actually, the second video there shows Coulter and O'Reilly disagreeing rather strongly. But yes, they do typically agree on fundamental principles and goals, they just often disagree on the best means to achieve those goals.

I watched the video you posted and I didn't get an obvious typing for either of them, though I lean towards LIE for O'Reilly and either LIE or SLE for Coulter, although these are vague impressions based on what I've seen so far, as I don't follow their careers enough to have a more solid opinion either way.

The problem I see for O'Reilly as Fi base is that I can't particularly see him as having weak , he seems overtly arrogant in that department. But in terms of him actually making attempts at maintaining an accord, I agree, but this hasn't been uncommon with 's IME

Well, the issue of O'Reilly's Te vs. Fi is a little tricky, since he often uses both. It's likely that he's either an LIE-ESI or an ESI-LIE, making the distinction between the two rather tricky. In my opinion, he actually focuses more on Fi-related issues (in a Te context of "what is the most effective approach to politics"), and he displays more "stubborn" Creative Se than an LIE would. He reminds me more of LSI than EIE.

fwiw, I'm not a fan of either of them and think they're both trolls but I don't necessarily think that points towards ego

I honestly don't think they're trolls. They have an abrasive and confrontational tone (particularly Coulter), but "troll" implies someone who is more interested in the conflict they generate than the actual issues being discussed, which I don't think is the case. While I'm not a fan of their confrontational tones, and prefer a quieter and more reflective approach myself, I do think they're sincere in their beliefs, and their confrontational tones are just their natural ways of expressing themselves, rather than some sort of "show".

I thought she didn't care about offending people because she's just trying to tell it like it is from her pov and tell herself like she is and just sees it as what she does... so then why should she have to edit herself so as not to offend people? I don't know that I think Fi would be all concerned with how not to offend people (or maybe it would?)?

In my opinion, that sort of attitude ("I'm just telling it like it is, why should I have to edit myself so as not to offend people?") is more characteristic of Ti-Egos. Fi-Egos are certainly capable of offending people, but when they do so they are fully aware of what they're doing; they fully realize that what they're saying is going to cause offense, and they do it on purpose anyway. That's what O'Reilly is saying when he calls Coulter a "bomb-thrower"; since as an ESI if he said the things she had been saying, it would have been obvious to him that it was going to be offensive, so he assumes that she is also aware of this, and does it on purpose anyway for some reason ("throwing bombs"). Coulter, with her Vulnerable Fi, is not good at estimating how people will respond to what she says, and she doesn't really care, either. She see's O'Reilly's interest in whether people will be offended as irrelevant to her primary Ti-based point.

This seems a major oversimplification. Being concerned w/ how one's behavior affects others opinions is a fairly routine human attribute, i.e. doesn't appear to be anything proprietary to .

In my opinion these are not opposing statements. All humans are concerned, to one degree or another, with how one's behaviour affects others' opinions, because all humans have Fi somewhere in their psyche.

Coulter, for example, seems to care far less about how her behaviour affects others' opinions, because Fi is her Vulnerable function, and she has learned to disregard it and pretend not to care. O'Reilly cares more about it, because it's an Ego function (or at least a valued function, in the case that he's LIE).

Except it can be highly misleading, hence not all that useful.

This place really needs more egos, so they can explain what it's like.

From my perspective, the reason you find it misleading is because you mistype many non-Se-Egos as Se-Ego, which has forced you to rethink how Se manifests itself in behaviour, and discard "confrontational and abrasive" as diagnostically useful behaviour.

As I said, not all Se-Egos are quite as confrontational and abrasive as Coulter and O'Reilly are, but all are certainly capable of it, and such behaviour will manifest at least occasionally.

Such as? You don't have to write a novella about it. I'm just curious to see what, if any, plausible arguments exist for this typing.

His harsh behaviour toward his "enemies" and people he disliked, his tendency to operate on a personal level rather than according to abstract logical principles, his general body language indicating an IJ temperament and likely Se-Ego, etc. Since this all correlates well with ESI, leaving no unexplained or contradictory evidence, I see no reason to disagree with the Russians, who I have found to be generally reliable in their typings. Were I to use Nixon as more central evidence, rather than an off-hand comment at the end of a post as an example of a generally agreed-upon ESI, I would obviously do more thorough research.

Who would you use as an example of a generally agreed-upon ESI?

Er, what? You're attributing intentions I don't have. All I said was that appeals to authority or common practice are not valid arguments.

I'm not saying you're deliberately trying to portray your opinions as "mainstream" and set yourself up as "the authority", but that is the inevitable effect of your tone in the post I was originally referring to.

Not sure if I agree with it. I mean, I agree with dynamic, temporary nature of Fe - more focused on the moment than how it affects the relation, so to speak. But I'm not sure how Fi is supposedly related to affecting the opinion of others, unless you meant their opinion of the person who acts, which obviously affects their attitude to them.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. For the record, here's how I describe Fe and Fi:

Fe is internal dynamics of objects. This means it is an internal thing sometimes expressed externally. Fe is the ever-shifting mood: excitement and passion and emotion. Fe Ego types are good at sensing and influencing their own moods and the moods of others. Being dynamic, Fe moods can shift and change, but this does not mean Fe is shallow: deep and powerful feelings of passion, love, anger, hope, etc., are all Fe. At its strongest, Fe can be an all-consuming fire that overwhelms everything else.

Fi is internal statics of fields. Fi is all about the connections between people: like and dislike, good relatioships and bad relationships. Fi can be friendship, loyalty, trust, dislike, mistrust, hatred. Fi Ego types are good at determining the status of relationships: which people are to be trusted and which are not, etc. Unlike Fe, Fi is a very stable thing, solid and seldom changing. At its strongest, Fi is an unbreakable bond between people that will resolutely weather all storms and anything that may be thrown at it, or an unswerving loathing that will give no quarter to the enemy.

Kind of useful, especially when it comes to Beta STs, but not reliable enough for a typing. Socionics is primarily concerned with information processing, which isn't always consistently reflected in behaviour. I don't know much about people you discuss here, and Ashton's typing are sometimes strange (or hasty, in some cases), but for example a confrontational and abrasive ILE is no oxymoron.

Obviously, I wouldn't type someone as Se-Ego solely because they demonstrate abrasive and confrontational behaviour. It's just one piece of evidence, which needs to be corraborated by many other pieces of evidence.

Dual-type theory is based on Gulenko's idea of energy types. I don't know at which point or how far tcaud derailed from it.

I think tcaud's derailed pretty far from Gulenko's theory, but he apparently doesn't agree, so it's up to the impartial reader to decide.

[Aiss]

In my opinion these are not opposing statements. All humans are concerned, to one degree or another, with how one's behaviour affects others' opinions, because all humans have Fi somewhere in their psyche.

Coulter, for example, seems to care far less about how her behaviour affects others' opinions, because Fi is her Vulnerable function, and she has learned to disregard it and pretend not to care. O'Reilly cares more about it, because it's an Ego function (or at least a valued function, in the case that he's LIE).

(...)

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. For the record, here's how I describe Fe and Fi:

Fe is internal dynamics of objects. This means it is an internal thing sometimes expressed externally. Fe is the ever-shifting mood: excitement and passion and emotion. Fe Ego types are good at sensing and influencing their own moods and the moods of others. Being dynamic, Fe moods can shift and change, but this does not mean Fe is shallow: deep and powerful feelings of passion, love, anger, hope, etc., are all Fe. At its strongest, Fe can be an all-consuming fire that overwhelms everything else.

Fi is internal statics of fields. Fi is all about the connections between people: like and dislike, good relatioships and bad relationships. Fi can be friendship, loyalty, trust, dislike, mistrust, hatred. Fi Ego types are good at determining the status of relationships: which people are to be trusted and which are not, etc. Unlike Fe, Fi is a very stable thing, solid and seldom changing. At its strongest, Fi is an unbreakable bond between people that will resolutely weather all storms and anything that may be thrown at it, or an unswerving loathing that will give no quarter to the enemy.

I'm trying to say that "how one's behaviour affects others' opinions" doesn't make sense for Fi. Including how you describe it here. Unless what you really mean is "how one's behaviour affects others' opinion of them" or something of the sort. Otherwise it's just meaningless. "People will hate you for this" might be Fi related, but "you'll make people think X [in general, not about yourself]" is not.

Obviously, I wouldn't type someone as Se-Ego solely because they demonstrate abrasive and confrontational behaviour. It's just one piece of evidence, which needs to be corraborated by many other pieces of evidence.

More like a clue, while it's too often the best argument people can come with. Or say that someone is "in your face". Or something of the sort. You can come up with many such pieces, but they don't add to make a stronger one if there's nothing better.

[Krig the Viking]

I'm trying to say that "how one's behaviour affects others' opinions" doesn't make sense for Fi. Including how you describe it here. Unless what you really mean is "how one's behaviour affects others' opinion of them" or something of the sort. Otherwise it's just meaningless. "People will hate you for this" might be Fi related, but "you'll make people think X [in general, not about yourself]" is not.

Ohhh, ok, I get it now. Yeah, I did mean "how one's behaviour affects others' opinion of them", sorry if I wasn't clear. It didn't occur to me that someone might think I meant the other one.

More like a clue, while it's too often the best argument people can come with. Or say that someone is "in your face". Or something of the sort. You can come up with many such pieces, but they don't add to make a stronger one if there's nothing better.

As a Holographic thinker, my method is to try different hypotheses to see which one fits the evidence best, like trying on different hats to see which one fits one's head best. Sometimes several different hypotheses fit the evidence, in which case I go looking for more evidence. ILEs, for example, can be confrontational (in a somewhat different way), so more evidence is needed to distinguish between ILE and Se-Ego.

[717495]

All humans are concerned, to one degree or another, with how one's behaviour affects others' opinions, because all humans have Fi somewhere in their psyche.

Coulter, for example, seems to care far less about how her behaviour affects others' opinions, because Fi is her Vulnerable function, and she has learned to disregard it and pretend not to care. O'Reilly cares more about it, because it's an Ego function (or at least a valued function, in the case that he's LIE).

Huh?

[Krig the Viking]

I dislike standards like this because they're too open-ended and in practice effectively allow the rationalization of any typing. There's no clear differentiation here and it makes evidence assessment too amorphous to be useful.

Going by standards like this, it could just as well be said that O'Reilly happened to be having an " moment" at the time of this video or something like this, despite not being an ego type. Or that Coulter was just brandishing role here when she was being abrasive/confrontational… so on, so forth. You could make up a dozen different explanations to justify a dozen different types if you wanted to. What you're saying here leads to an epistemically unsound approach.

This is one area then where you differ not only from me, but from standard socionics as described by Augusta. It should make no difference whether you don't like the idea that all humans have all eight elements somewhere in their psyches, or whether you think it leads to an epistemically unsound approach to type diagnosis -- what matters is if it is in fact true or not.

Information elements manifest differently depending on which function they're in. This is a fundamental part of socionics, and type diagnosis is based on it. An Fi-Ego will be confident and at ease when dealing with Fi information, while an Fi-Super-Ego will be self-conscious and awkward when dealing with Fi information. Learning to tell the difference between the two is the essence of type diagnosis. If this is something you disagree with, then it's unsurprising that your typings differ so widely from the mainstream.

For the record, which elements do you believe are not expressed in behaviour? If I recall correctly, your old "Model X" stated that unvalued elements are not expressed -- is that still your belief?

One could easily argue that O'Reilly's coming from a stereotypically POV and simply informing Coulter on what the emotive causality of her delivery style will likely be—he's basically telling her, "If you do X, Y, Z it causes people to react this way towards you and odds are they'll feel this opinion about you as a result…" That kind of emphasis is well within the domain of according to standard definitions (Aushra's or those found on Rick's IE Semantics page).

"If you do X, Y, Z it causes people to react this way towards you" () "and odds are they'll feel this opinion about you as a result…" (). The emphasis is still ultimately on how what she says will other people's opinions of her, which is by definition Fi. Ethical types are skilled at both Fe and Fi, having one element in their Ego and the other in their Id. Fi types use Fe to support their primary interest in Fi (making sure the proper emotions are displayed, so as to maintain the proper relationships), while Fe types use Fi to support their primary interest in Fe (maintaining positive relationships as a way of maintaining positive emotions).

I discard it because there's too much potential for misleads. Applying this standard, any cantankerous and disagreeable person risks getting relegated to being an type/valuer. That's not a very realistic angle.

There are many ways that avails itself qualitatively in a person's words and actions if you know how to look for it.

Granted, I can see how might seem too direct or abrasive to a non- valuer—whereas I might regard it as simply 'normal' because it's what I'm accustomed to. I suspect this misunderstanding of that many of you apparently experience, induces you to attribute false behavior patterns to it.

Obviously, Se is not just cantankerousness and disagreeableness -- it's an awareness of the external statics of objects. As a consequence of that, Se-Egos are very aware of issues of territory, image, and the balance of power, and can therefore use that awareness to further their own ends. This often results in behaviour that would be characterized by an Alpha like me as "aggressive", "abrasive", and "confrontational". I don't contend that "Se = Agression", but that Se includes the capacity for aggression.

Such behavior manifests in everyone on occasion—that's why it's a bad litmus test for . I'd suggest relying on other indicators.

Exactly -- everyone has Se somewhere in their psyche. Se-Super-Egos like me can still be aggressive and confrontational, but we are self-conscious and awkward and not very good at it when we try. The question is not whether a person uses a certain element, but how and how frequently they use it.

I agree he's ego, though I'd go with EP>IJ temperament as he appears more visibly extroverted and spontaneous. This video is interesting as it shows him under a more candid light:

If you want to create a new thread on Nixon, I'd rather keep this thread more closely on topic.

I'd use Georgia O'Keeffe as a good example of ESI. Not sure what the consensus opinion of Socionists is on her, if there is one.

This excerpt illustrates both and qualitative themes:

“A flower is relatively small. Everyone has many associations with a flower—the idea of flowers. You put out your hand to touch the flower, lean forward to smell it, maybe touch it with your lips almost without thinking, or give it to someone to please them. Still, in a way, nobody sees a flower—really—it is so small, we haven't time—and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. If I could paint the flower exactly as I see it no one would see what I see because I would paint it small like the flower is small. So I said to myself—I'll paint what I see, what the flower is to me—but I'll paint it big and they will be surprised into taking time to look at it. I will make even busy New Yorkers take time to see what I see of flowers. Well—I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower you hung all your own associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see of the flower—and I don't.”

is suggested here by the emphasis given to conveying discrete experiential qualia; by the emphasis given to describing subjective feeling states and their associated influences. More reference material can be found here if you're curious.

Interesting. I don't know anything about her, but I would've typed her as IEI based on that excerpt. Certainly some Intuitive type. Our divergence in type diagnosis is indeed wide.

Now you're lecturing me on .

I'm always a bit perplexed when people criticize my tone or delivery, because I don't naturally pay attention to these nuances much. I just say things. I like to think that it's irrelevant how my tone sounds or how I might seem to be coming across—if it doesn't coincide with my actual intentions, then why should it matter? Unfortunately most people don't work this way. :/

To be more precise, I'm lecturing you on how affects . My Role Fi is a little overly sensitive at times; I find myself paying a significant amount of attention to these things, and it annoys me when others don't.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Before I begin, I ask any political zealots here to set your political views aside for a moment, and analyze only the socionically-relevant aspects of the inter-type dynamics here. Create a thread in the appropriate forum if you want to rant about politics. This goes for both sides.

I don't agree with this. Let people be angry and political if they want to. I'd much rather a right wing anti-gay christian rant about what they hate about me online and get it off their chest, then meet them in real life and have them want to kill me.

I don't think it's healthy to contain your political beliefs....about anything. People have the right to not like anything. Being nice is an illusion if you have to force it. I'd rather somebody just be honest.

We're already sheltered too much in life. We won't ever get along in the world if we avoid conflicts like that and avoid facing people and what they really think.

And why are you trying to make us 'nice.' =( It won't work and it will just make people troll you. BEING NICE IS SO FAKE AND MIDWESTERN. REAL RICH CELEBRITIES LIKE ROSEANNE AREN'T AFRAID TO GET UP IN YOUR GRILL AND TELL YOU WHAT THEY THINK LIKE A FAT GIRL THAT SMELLS LIKE CHEETOS.

the internet is a place for mouthing off.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think ann coulter likes to be throat fucked btw. I think she's into some dark kinky shit. her eyes are so dead and soulless lol. It's clear that she just likes saying the most insensitive things she can think of to get a rise out of people.

but aren't most famous people like that? Everybody who is 'noticed' has had the same ability.

she reminds me of a high school bully that uses a lot of gay jokes, and 'canadians and jews are weak man' jokes.

[07490]

I watched the video you posted and I didn't get an obvious typing for either of them, though I lean towards LIE for O'Reilly and either LIE or SLE for Coulter, although these are vague impressions based on what I've seen so far, as I don't follow their careers enough to have a more solid opinion either way.

On the second video logo posted, I also have the impression that bill is Dom and Ann is an SLE, I would lean him towards being LIE if I had not known for a fact that he is a dumbass in some Ni issue, he is weak at connecting to things together, so maybe LSE.


Note: I watch it again and I think O'Reilly is a LSE.

[Marie84]

I honestly don't think they're trolls. They have an abrasive and confrontational tone (particularly Coulter), but "troll" implies someone who is more interested in the conflict they generate than the actual issues being discussed, which I don't think is the case. While I'm not a fan of their confrontational tones, and prefer a quieter and more reflective approach myself, I do think they're sincere in their beliefs, and their confrontational tones are just their natural ways of expressing themselves, rather than some sort of "show".

idk, I find it difficult to believe that when O'Reilly words statements like "Muslim's killed us on 9/11" he isn't trying to get under peoples skin. Perhaps it's just a -slip and he doesn't mean to offend anyone, that is, it's all "matter of fact" to him

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I this poster.

In my opinion, that sort of attitude ("I'm just telling it like it is, why should I have to edit myself so as not to offend people?") is more characteristic of Ti-Egos. Fi-Egos are certainly capable of offending people, but when they do so they are fully aware of what they're doing; they fully realize that what they're saying is going to cause offense, and they do it on purpose anyway. That's what O'Reilly is saying when he calls Coulter a "bomb-thrower"; since as an ESI if he said the things she had been saying, it would have been obvious to him that it was going to be offensive, so he assumes that she is also aware of this, and does it on purpose anyway for some reason ("throwing bombs"). Coulter, with her Vulnerable Fi, is not good at estimating how people will respond to what she says, and she doesn't really care, either. She see's O'Reilly's interest in whether people will be offended as irrelevant to her primary Ti-based point.

This answered a question for me that is not related to this thread. Thank you.