Bill de Blasio
Gene Simmons
Tom Matiatis
EDIT:
For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
Videos of LII
Bill de Blasio
Gene Simmons
Tom Matiatis
EDIT:
For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-06-2014 at 07:34 PM.
Fr. Timothy Gallagher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFdh0LKyZqU
I only listened to a couple minutes of this, but I would say ESI or EII for Fr. Timothy GallagherOriginally Posted by Trevor
been listening to his podcasts
http://www.discerninghearts.com/?page_id=1146
good stuff
Here is more LII for all you budding socionists:
Nevermind on KiwiFuel, but here is Bill Kurtis
Dude from 0:00 to 1:43
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-07-2014 at 08:58 AM.
Apparently LII is everywhere:
Nick Offerman
Nick Offerman is ILI.
nah bruh
nope
yup
I know you are, but what am I
a biscuithead ?
At least I'm not a poo poo head.
If by "poo poo head" you mean "has shit-for-brains", then you may indeed be "a poo poo head".
I lean towards the ILI typing for Nick Offerman. Some people have also suggested SLI for him. Doubt LII, but i'm not 100% set on any typing in socionics anymore.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
well I'm as confident as ever in my typing ability, and I say LII.
You're a worthless troll and I'm putting you on ignore.
Again: nah bruh
Your loss
Nick Offerman is obvious SLI and so is his character Ron Swanson. And you all argue like little kids.
Obviously not.
I don't watch the show. I think that makes me a better judge of his type.
It's all just fun and games.
I expected a better response. Come on, call me a shit-for-brains too!
Because LIIs love artisanship, wine, steak and growing a mustache? His personality emanates Si, he is an introvert and he is not an SEI => he is SLI. Don't say he is an LII just because you claim yourself to be IEE and do not feel attracted to him. He is first and foremost a Delta, at least more than an Alpha. That's more conclusive than any of your rigid, robotic and systematic 'Internal Object Statics' definitions which you use inconsistently.
Not really. He has a lot in common with his character. His character is a bit more extroverted and dramatic in comparison, but that is because of the mockumentary format of the show.
Here you exhibit Ne-Si > Se-Ni and Fe-Ti > Fi-Te, just by saying that.
Put a vid of yourself in this thread, JoshuaBloom, just to end this argument once and for all.
I only called him a shit-for-brains because he expected me to say "what's wrong with being a poo poo head", to which he would have responded "it means you have shit for brains".
You're telling me that no LII has loved or will ever love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? For your sake, I hope you're trolling me.
Isn't Si the dual-seeking function of LII?
LII = Logical Intuitive Introvert
But if we're justifying SLI using Si, then we have to rule out not only SEI but also ESE and LSE, and saying "he is not SEI" is no way to rule out a type.
lol, when did I ever say that?
He is a "judicious" type. That means he values Si and Ne.
"Rigid", "robotic", and "systematic" = "Explicit Field Statics" or "Ne". That's some heavy devaluing right there
What do you mean by "use inconsistently"?
It makes me a better judge of his type because I can better separate "his personal qualities" from "Ron's personal qualities".
How?
I didn't ask why you called him that. How you argued like children is pretty clear to me, because I am viewing the entire thread right now. I do not care about it. I only said that because I was underwhelmed by the reaction. Take a hint.
That is not what I meant. That's not all-or-nothing by any means. LIIs are weaker and less conscious in Si than SLIs. It is called Model A. I did not mean that LIIs cannot do what he does. The LII type is less capable and conscious of such things. The Super-id block is unconscious, valued and weak; it desires help from types that have the functions in their Ego block.
No, the hidden agenda, but so what? Every type has Si as a function. My point was not just that he valued Si, but he had a predisposition towards it. LIIs do not emanate Si, because even though they want it, they are weak in it.
Yeah, LIIs are introverts, so are 7 other types. That is why I also add other reasons to eliminate 7 more types to reach to a conclusive typing. Logical conjunction, how does it work?
ESE and LSE are already ruled out because he is an introvert. I did not just end my reasons by saying he is Si-ego. I added other reasons. Way to think, BloJo. I ruled out SEI because he is not Fe-ego and he is closer to Delta ST values than Alpha SF values (remember, I also said that he is very clearly introverted). SEIs are not as subdued as him, not to say that SEIs have to be so. Real people who are also SEIs can be as quiet, traditional and industrious, but not the SEI type.
So? 8 types value Si and Ne. He would also be judicious if he were an LII but his judiciousness does not constrain him to an LII. Simple logic, isn't it?
Yeah, right. How can you separate them when you do not know how the character is? Descriptive statements, like personalities, theories and usage of instruments, can be discerned more accurately when you get to know them and immerse yourself in them more. Only the type of emotional or normative judgments get skewed when you are too close. So what you are saying is perfectly equivalent to saying that it makes you a better judge of Socionics types to stay out of the field, ignore Augusta for betraying the field and dismiss classical Socionics. Real telling, right there.
Penchant for fun and games implies a general, albeit admittedly superficial, tendency for judicious and merry Reinin dichotomies.
Get her(?), Johannes. 8 posts are no match for 443.
I know. Because you were underwhelmed by my reaction I explained to you why I reacted in such a way.
So if someone has weak Si they can't love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? So LII is worse at loving artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache than SLI?
I guess I personally equate "dual-seeking" with "hidden agenda". Also, I think you're hung up on Si as being solely about sensory pleasures.
By "emanate" I assume you mean "talk about" or "convey information about". Perhaps by talking about what you consider to be Si, he is expressing his hidden agenda?
Your reasons were:
Si + Introvert - SEI = SLI
I don't agree with your methodology. First, I've already demonstrated how LII might "emanate" Si. Second, I'm not sure you even know Si when you see it, because "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache" have nothing to do with it. Third, given how some "introverts" are actually "introverted extroverts" and vice versa, I don't think labeling him an introvert is a valid way to narrow down our list of possible types. Finally, simply saying "not-SEI" won't work. You need to show me why he uses Te > Fe, and "showing me" isn't just saying "he is not Fe-ego".
I feel like you're deliberately trying to hit my PoLR here. Stop that.
Because the only information I have about Offerman is information about Offerman. Someone who watches the show will have information about Offerman and information about Ron all mixed together in their head.
lol, no
There you go with that "classical Socionics" bullshit. You even used a capital "S"!
There presently exists no definite explication of what exactly it is that constitutes so-called "Classical Socionics" theory - making it essentially a contentless buzz-phrase at best that could arbitrarily be used to represent an ulterior viewpoint. Furthermore, it seems to have inherited the same fundamental flaw suffered by the rest of Socionics in general, which is that the basic semantics used are in critical need of established and consistent denotation (see Redefinition).
Penchant for fun and games means I have a penchant for fun and games, just like any other fucking human being. "Merry" and "serious" I think refer more to "preferred topics of discussion" - Alphas and Betas prefer "emotional and lighthearted discussion", whereas Gammas and Deltas prefer "personal and heavy-handed discussion".
Offerman is SLI > ILI. LII no way.
LII physician's need to hear validating, suggestive Fe from her Mother may be contributing to her feelings of shame.
There is a good chance that woman is actually LII. Nice find! I wish there was a video of her where she wasn't crying and reluctantly talking about her feelings.
By the way, this video is *SO* NiFe.
I disagree about Offerman, though. Listen to that emotivist monotone of his! The woman in your video I think has a similar emotivist monotone.
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-10-2014 at 06:15 PM.
That's nice. Physician: "so she is allowed to use that biting, stinging tone? What would you have done?!" Byron: "That's what people do when they are upset".
Later on: "As Dr. Phil would say, how's it working for you!" Audience and Byron laugh hard. "I made you laugh that's great", the physician says to Byron. Semi-duals.
EDIT: by the way I do indeed see Byron as being a possible EIE>IEE. And, SLI's are often described as having that monotone voice. On another note, I preceive the clear rational, logical voice of an introverted thinker here with this physician.
Last edited by wacey; 02-10-2014 at 06:25 PM.
Okay guys, I agree: Nick Offerman is no LII. The jury is still out on his actual type, though.
It's difficult to have a proper convo if you completely edit your posts from black to white, JB. Makes everyones responses to them look silly. I would just create a new post showing the transgression of your opinions, which makes it more authentic.
haha, fair enough. I need to be less hasty with my responses.
good ideaby the way, I still think you might be EIE
Maybe you have now resigned your statement that he is an LII, but I still find there to be more to say, as a measly 9-post noob.
I did not just equate Si to "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache". They are just concrete examples and his abstract reasons for liking them point to Si-ego. There is no way an LII would be so confident, competent and skilled in such generally Delta ST areas. If you personally equate hidden agenda with dual seeking, all intertype relations that change rationality (e.g. LII and ILE differ in rationality) fall apart. I was not hitting your PoLR, but merely pointing out that when you separated my reasons into different quotes you treated them as if I didn't say the other reasons, deliberately ignoring the other reasons so as to forge your own opinion out of them. I did not intend to justify my arguments just by asserting them. It is obvious, for example, that he is not an Fe-ego when you listen to him talk, but if I gave concrete reasons and examples you would just equate Fe to those concrete examples and keep mocking me for it, like you did with Si, and if I gave no concrete reasons you would say that it's not "showing you". You haven't demonstrated how LIIs might emanate Si; you just asserted that Si is the hidden agenda function of LIIs. But every type has Si as some function. In that case, emanating Si (or "emanating" Si, if you like to get hung up on incidental words like you did with Si) is something every type and every single human being does, and therefore it is trivial for you. You cannot just say that LIIs demonstrate Si by having them on their information metabolism, or you negate the importance of any IM (not function, because functions are the roles that IMs take in a particular type, like dual-seeking, and it separates Socionics from purely sequential function models as in MBTI), like in typing anyone. And merely quoting someone that said statements that oppose my opinions does not do anything. Talking about Socionics (I use the capital S because it is a proper noun) does not automatically make anyone an authority. This is what I mean by what goes in classical Socionics: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ical_socionics. When arguing, you have to agree to some kind of convention or you will get nowhere. Likewise, you have to find a way to convert your dichotomous IM definitions to physical acts and tendencies.
Last edited by ideae; 02-11-2014 at 03:26 AM. Reason: You best put that underlined in your signatures.
No, they merely point to Si-valuing. To understand which functions he is strong in you must listen to him speak and analyze his words. Is he logical? If he is logical then his speech sounds "ordered", "deliberate", or "economical"; it is as if it is "more robotic" or "more automatic" than the speech of an ethical type. Does he speak of rules/conditions/fields or does he speak of objects/things/units? Does he speak in terms of "we" and "us" or does he speak in terms of "you" and "me"? Rules/conditions/fields and "we" and "us" would be Ti+Fe; objects/things/units and "you" and "me" would be Te+Fi. Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions. (Logical types can similarly "slip up" with their ethical functions, but it's more subtle and less frequent.)
I also mix in some Reinin, specifically the constructivism/emotivism and positivism/negativism dichotomies. Constructivists seem very "balanced" and "glued together"; their mood doesn't fluctuate much, and if it does they never show it. Their speech flows naturally from low pitches to high pitches; it is an even gradient of intonations. Emotivists seem moodier and more "unstable"; it's as if their "current disposition" depends on their "current surroundings"; i.e. if their "current set of information" changes, then so does their "current set of thoughts and feelings". Another way to look at it: emotivists always have something to bitch about (SEE is the worst about this; no offense to anyone). Emotivists employ a "low pitch", "monotonous", "business-style" mode of speaking when relating information; their speech takes on an entirely different gradient of tones when they become emotional. It is as if they "switch" between two distinct "modes" of speaking.
And everything you need to know about the positivism/negativism dichotomy is contained in the following quote:
Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one.
With enough knowledge and willpower, "you can do anything you set your mind to, man", especially when you're as strong as SLI in Te and value Ne/Si. Assuming that whatever the hell you said (cigars, landscaping, idk) had anything to do with Si, which I don't think it did.
Yeah, that was me combining terms from Model A in my mind. My mistake.
What you need to do is explain how by listening to him talk one might infer that he is not an Fe-ego. What physical clues give it away?
"Is an introvert" (so basically, "is quieter than most") and "emanates Si" isn't specific enough. I want to know the exact behaviors that collectively led you to those conclusions. What does "is an introvert" and "emanates Si" look like to you?
The hidden agenda function is also known as the mobilizing function:
- Function 6 – mobilizing function. This is a weak and unconscious function which one often understands poorly. Nonetheless, this function has a strong influence over one's actions. Individuals requires assistance from someone who uses it confidently in order to understand it. Often an individual is only aware that they are totally unaware of how to use this function. At the same time, it's 2D function, so it's capable of collecting a number of easy receipts for daily needs. Being successful in aspects of this function makes one happy and motivated. (That's why it's called mobilizing.)
True, but we ignore and/or disparage the information processed by our weak and unvalued functions. Next time you catch yourself "mocking" or "making fun of" something, take a second and think about "what sort of information" that "thing" relates to, and then think about "what sort of information" your "actual mockery" relates to. By "actual mockery" I mean "the words in themselves". The idea is that by "mocking", "disparaging", or "making fun of" something, you're emphasizing the importance of "one sort of information" and downplaying the importance of "another sort of information".
Indeed. I operate under the auspices of Model A, although I'm not so thrilled about its emphasis on the "spatial position" of functions; I talk in terms of "strong/weak" and "valued/unvalued" because I think it's less systematic and thus easier to understand (or at least, less to remember). I also abide by the rules of intertype relations. Here is how I would visually represent type ILE:
Strength Valued UnvaluedFor the sake of contrast, here is IEE:4 Ne Te
3 Ti Ni
2 Fe Se
1 Si Fi
For the sake of variety, here is LSI:4 Ne Fe
3 Fi Ni
2 Te Se
1 Si Ti
I think you get the picture.4 Ti Si
3 Se Te
2 Ni Fi
1 Fe Ne
P.S. "strength" could be taken to mean "predominance in speech"
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-11-2014 at 09:43 AM. Reason: Next time you feel like criticizing me, remember the bolded text
idk, Wacey. Check out this video of Jon Stewart interviewing Bill de Blasio:
First, Bill de Blasio seems like much more of an asker than the woman in your video. He usually waits for Jon Stewart to finish his questions, possibly because of role-Fi; occasionally, though, he cuts Jon off, shifting the focus of the conversation back onto himself.
Second, he displays a much more prominent "emotivist monotone".
Third, this video leads me to tentatively type Jon Stewart IEE; if you can see it through the grainy, pixellated video quality, watch Stewart's body language. He hunches over his desk and looks small, like he's secretly intimidated. Furthermore, starting at 3:49 he begins to spew rambling Ne+Fi.
No, they merely point to Si-valuing. To understand which functions he is strong in you must listen to him speak and analyze his words. Is he logical? If he is logical then his speech sounds "ordered", "deliberate", or "economical"; it is as if it is "more robotic" or "more automatic" than the speech of an ethical type. Does he speak of rules/conditions/fields or does he speak of objects/things/units? Does he speak in terms of "we" and "us" or does he speak in terms of "you" and "me"? Rules/conditions/fields and "we" and "us" would be Ti+Fe; objects/things/units and "you" and "me" would be Te+Fi. Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions. (Logical types can similarly "slip up" with their ethical functions, but it's more subtle and less frequent.)
I also mix in some Reinin, specifically the constructivism/emotivism and positivism/negativism dichotomies. Constructivists seem very "balanced" and "glued together"; their mood doesn't fluctuate much, and if it does they never show it. Their speech flows naturally from low pitches to high pitches; it is an even gradient of intonations. Emotivists seem moodier and more "unstable"; it's as if their "current disposition" depends on their "current surroundings"; i.e. if their "current set of information" changes, then so does their "current set of thoughts and feelings". Another way to look at it: emotivists always have something to bitch about (SEE is the worst about this; no offense to anyone). Emotivists employ a "low pitch", "monotonous", "business-style" mode of speaking when relating information; their speech takes on an entirely different gradient of tones when they become emotional. It is as if they "switch" between two distinct "modes" of speaking.
And everything you need to know about the positivism/negativism dichotomy is contained in the following quote:
With enough knowledge and willpower, "you can do anything you set your mind to, man", especially when you're as strong as SLI in Te and value Ne/Si. Assuming that whatever the hell you said (cigars, landscaping, idk) had anything to do with Si, which I don't think it did.
Yeah, that was me combining terms from Model A in my mind. My mistake.
What you need to do is explain how by listening to him talk one might infer that he is not an Fe-ego. What physical clues give it away?
"Is an introvert" (so basically, "is quieter than most") and "emanates Si" isn't specific enough. I want to know the exact behaviors that collectively led you to those conclusions. What does "is an introvert" and "emanates Si" look like to you?
The hidden agenda function is also known as the mobilizing function:
True, but we ignore and/or disparage the information processed by our weak and unvalued functions. Next time you catch yourself "mocking" or "making fun of" something, take a second and think about "what sort of information" that "thing" relates to, and then think about "what sort of information" your "actual mockery" relates to. By "actual mockery" I mean "the words in themselves". The idea is that by "mocking", "disparaging", or "making fun of" something, you're emphasizing the importance of "one sort of information" and downplaying the importance of "another sort of information".
Indeed. I operate under the auspices of Model A, although I'm not so thrilled about its emphasis on the "spatial position" of functions; I talk in terms of "strong/weak" and "valued/unvalued" because I think it's less systematic and thus easier to understand (or at least, less to remember). I also abide by the rules of intertype relations. Here is how I would visually represent type ILE:
For the sake of contrast, here is IEE:
For the sake of variety, here is LSI:
I think you get the picture.
P.S. "strength" could be taken to mean "predominance in speech"
What I meant by the exaggerated "LIIs can in no way do Delta ST stuff" was that if they did, they wouldn't be LII. Strength is not predominance in speech because some guy stuck in his PoLR will keep talking about it and fixating on it without being strong in it. "...when you're as strong as SLI in Te" is not good defense when you just admitted that one ignores unvalued functions. Your depiction of emotivism has dynamic undertones. Talking about "we" and "us" also relates to aristocracy. By introvert I mean that he is always talking about how he himself sees the world and his own experiences. He is passive and his statements are directed towards himself. That's what I mean by introvert: turned (for Latin verto) inward. But whatever.
In case we need to, here is a BASELINE Sensing Logical Intram:
His obvious vulnerability (ie PAIN is Fe.) What the David Letterman interview.
Socionics -
the16types.info
I only watched like 30 seconds of the second video, but based solely on that I would say SEI > SLI
Despite valuing Ne/Si and being just as adept as a Delta ST in Te. Right.
Did you even read what I wrote? Here:
Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions.
So basically, if a PoLR subject comes up, the type with the PoLR will not use his PoLR function to address the subject; instead, he will use one of his strong functions.
"Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do".
"Dynamic" is a category of information; "emotivism" is a behavioral quality.
Disagree. "That kind of person" is something you would hear from an aristocratic type.
"Turned inward" makes sense. Here's my take on extroversion/introversion:
So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes"; thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".
"Despite valuing Ne/Si and being just as adept as a Delta ST in Te. Right."
""Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do"."
LIIs would not want to engage in Te. Pointing out similarities alone does not work, because while adept in Te, LIIs still won't look at it the same way. Show me devalued Te.
Talking about the PoLR function ≠ Using the PoLR function.
I meant dynamic as a Reinin dichotomy, not as a dichotomy of information elements, even though they relate. Your description of emotivist types sounded a bit like dynamic types as well. It is precisely because it conflates different things that it is a mistake.
While aristocrats do think of people in terms of archetypes, like "that kind of person", they will also identify with their own kind and use "we".
You criticize my own arguments but your only defense was "LIIs can be like that too."
Last edited by ideae; 02-13-2014 at 09:53 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
