Exceptionalism to not help people. I'm on board, pull up the ladders. Poor people are so because of their lack of will; bad luck because you've done something to deserve it; exceptionalism/objectivism. Very narrow minded view without Ne.
Exceptionalism to not help people. I'm on board, pull up the ladders. Poor people are so because of their lack of will; bad luck because you've done something to deserve it; exceptionalism/objectivism. Very narrow minded view without Ne.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That quote by ****** is why I think he is Fi polr.Originally Posted by Ashton
“Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.” – Adolf ******
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Or perhaps he thought he was just quoting Nietzsche or something.That quote by ****** is why I think he is Fi polr.
“Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.” – Adolf ******
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I went with NT... Maybe INTx.
Just a guess, but I would think that SLEs do interviews mainly because they've got something concrete they want to push...she didn't promote her books or projects once.
Interesting that LSE has never been suggested as a type for Ayn Rand.
It boils down to the misunderstanding of what it means to be:
1) Se valuing
2) Fi DS/Ti PoLR
Hence the popular typing of her as SLE. All that has been attributed to Se valuing (ruthless business ideas, etc) are related to being an Enneagram 8. Her objectivism is a rational and very much a Te ego philosophy IMO, and her novels are a personal favourite of mine.
Some Beta responses:
I agree. The Fountainhead seemed to me like it was written by an advanced text-to-speech program with the cognitive abilities of a two-year-old. That is basically-valuing at its worst.
Her revolt against these 'soft-hearted, weak-minded, "morally-responsible" characters' were in actuality a revolt against hypocrisy.
A common complaint regarding the Ni PoLR.
I'm not really for her or against her. But regarding type, if it says anything, I think she was being creative/personal with an ethical system, rather than a logical system, which means she didn't really utilize the finer qualities of categorization and she's more of an objectivist (utilizes objectivist ethics, which is more subjective in nature than subjectivist ethics). I tend to be pretty laissez faire about what is "good" ethics and take a global view.
Secondarily, she comes across more accepting/decisive in these views than she does producing/creative, if I'm right (J type being someone more conceptually picky than perceptively.) So overall this would point to her type being LxI, or if I'm wrong on the latter note then at least some Ti.
I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought. On the first, a non-utilization of what you call the "finer qualities of categorization" conventionally points to Te>Ti. On the second, you argue for Ti>Te due her conceptual pickiness>perceptiveness. It is ambiguous whether: 1) she really is more accepting>producing (and what you mean by these terms), and 2) what you mean by being more conceptually picky than perceptive, as well as how that has any relation to Ti.
In The Fountainhead, we have Keating with the collectivist mindset against hero, Roark the individualist. Taken from plot summary:
In Atlas Shrugged:On Keating: He makes his buildings for no other purpose than to please his clients and gain prestige, which he does completely, because not one of his clients is interested in quality. They are just interested in impressing their friends or the public.
Roark, on the other hand, cannot get work because he refuses to compromise and put useless features on his buildings. His goal is to stick with his own design and strives to make structures more efficient
What stands out in Atlas Shrugged, is her great dislike for the parasites of humanity: the lazy who leech off the ones who work hard and who do their duty in dedication and perseverance. It is a world where the few sustain the many, where the many reap the rewards out of the efforts of the few. What happens when the few refuse to work, and go on a worldwide strike? The novel depicted the end result: chaos and darkness.Atlas, the hero of Greek mythology who carried the weight of the heavens on his shoulders, symbolizes the exploited industrialists, particularly Rearden, whose hard work and great strength support the parasites who live off their productive capabilities. When Francisco tells Rearden that he would advise Atlas to shrug and let go of his burden, he is referring to the strike and calling upon Rearden to lay down his burden and stop believing it is his duty to bear so much weight for the undeserving. Rearden’s only reward for his efforts is the persecution of a corrupt government and the exhaustion of carrying others. Francisco knows it is unjust for Rearden, or anyone, to be cast in this role. By recruiting him for the strike, he tries to show Rearden a way out.
Fi>Ti. Her ideal (Ne) world at the end of Atlas Shrugged, is one where each man does what he enjoys and does best to his perfection, and getting what he deserves out of it."I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
This is the oath the thinkers recite when they join the strike and come to live in the valley; The striker’s code presents Rand’s belief in egoism, or the doctrine of rational self-interest. Rand believes that individuals have an inalienable right to pursue their own happiness based on their own values and that they must be free to pursue their own self-interest as they choose. Under this code, people have no obligations to each other beyond the obligation to respect the freedom and rights of other self-interested people.
What does she mean by living for the sake of another man? It is the sacrifice of our own needs for the sake of others. Sounds like EII hate, but which I perceive as EII protection.In The Fountainhead, she is much against altruism, which on the surface is Fi PoLRish. Except that this altruism is false altruism born out of competitive hypocrisy. It is a revolt against false Fi.I have come here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life.... It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
Productivity:
Against hypocrisy:
On perfection:One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.
Si+Fi:I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between.
Love: Te/Fi? Not Fe.The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
On reason and profit:Love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one's own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns, and derives from love.”
Her philosophy, in a nutshell:When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.Chunk on work and productivity:
Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human— that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that [B]your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up— that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.
Depending on how you take it, it is a good example of either Ti, Ti or Se Creative, or Ti/Fe valuing. I can't associate it with Fi per se by no means. The all-or-nothing attitude I associate with Ti/Fe valuing.
Si+Fi would be Delta, Aristocratic quadra, it is IMO far-fetched to the individualistic idea in the quote.
No accepting/producing of J/P is a J/P difference, not Ti/Te. When you accept Ti in your ego, it means you are LxI. If you produce it, you are xLE. Also the objectivist ethics can be argued either way, you can say its Fi or Fe, but to recognize subjectivism you must become more objective, so the objectivist ethics ayn rand holds are most likely due to her intensified subjective factor, even if they are the after-result of becoming more objective. I'm mainly just pointing out my differences with her.
Perfection jibes with the Ne hidden agenda of the LSE.
Individualism and socionics aristocracy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
I know.
Perhaps. But you need to analyze deeper than that, into the details of the philosophy in reference to her elaborations as per her writings in order to gauge her actual meaning, which would potentially reveal her socionics type.
At least she didn't call it realism. Keep her in your quadra, Pinky.
Have you ever added anything concrete to any discussion?
Well, calling oneself a Jewish "princess" and being a tyrant in real life, claiming she is all for a real merit system, at the same time hating it, which can be seen in her excursion to U.S, again which was completely the opposite of a merit system, and yet last but not least having a thing for Aryan types - pure fucking stereotypical opposite, walking contradiction on two legs.
How's that for concrete, Pinky?
Provide your sources and reasoning as proof to back up each of your claims:
1) That she called herself a "Jewish princess"
2) That she's a tyrant in real life
3) That she's all for a real merit system and at the same time hating it
4) That she has a thing for "Aryan" type and what you mean by that
and
5) Explain how each of the above ties in to your opinion of her type.
Do it.
Haha. You're hilarious. Know that this special lady wasn't living in U.S. for her entire life, nor wasn't she born there. These 4 points were actually "confirmed, settled and decided" by people who knew her, people who worked with her in some other very different land, than U.S.
You have to know what merit system is to begin with, I'm not going to lecture you, I'm not getting paid for this, although you can try and challenge me.
I'll give you a hint seeing you're so well-versed in objectivism and you want to type her LSE - metaphysics.and
5) Explain how each of the above ties in to your opinion of her type.
Do it.
Just as I have suspected, you refuse to engage in proper debate. But I won't push it. If you have any convincing arguments, I would be more than happy to hear it.
@InkStrider: you're so off that we have no common ground to argument with about. Also, I don't buy into your self-typing, you're IMO Intuitive Irrational (probably ILE). The way you come across and the fact that your knowledge is so fucked up appear to me to coincide. Enjoy your inner world of "Socionics".
You didn't say shit, just quoted Ayn Rand. Of course you won't push it, you don't even know what you're talking about. I have had the "pleasure" struggling with metaphysics during philosophy of politics and as much I hate it, I know what I'm talking about contrary to you.
Objectivism asserts that use of force to cause others to submit to the will of the stronger or cleverer individual is "wrong" for the individual, you dumb cunt, plus objectivism is completely atheistic in its nature.
It's the Te vs Ti difference. I can't argue your style, and you can't argue mine. I do not accept your system/approach to begin with. Which is the reason for the lack of common ground.
LSE works fine. But I don't expect many to buy into it. Stereotypes had gotten in the way for far too long.
Last edited by InkStrider; 10-11-2011 at 05:10 PM. Reason: grammar
you can't be fully certain of your typing until Bolt has denied it. congratulations, InkStrider.
Yeah, I quoted her because I found it to be of relevance in proving my point. You are free to argue on those quotes/points and to provide your take on it.
Okay. Prove me wrong and tell me exactly what are you talking about.
I'm personally bothered by the fact that one of us is certainly wrong. Seems like it is not even a possibility for you, hence I give you little chances of progress, though I think you have potential (interest).
This was your problem all along our discussions: you misinterpret what I say and project on me different prejudices that you're sure people have. You're wrong, both here (i.e. I don't think individualism and Aristocracy are mutully exclusive) and in the Si thread (i.e. claiming I believe that Si types are incapable of information synthesis). Now we got one reason that made me believe yu're Intuitive Irrational: you "guess" too much where me and others come from at the first sight, ST at least is out of question, get real.
I'm a motivator.
Beyond everything, the claim that Ayn Rand can be EII is so hilarious that if I were you I'd retreat to Tibet to recollect. Even your gut feeling about what types can be is fucked up, InkStrider. Just put up a description of EII and one of Rand side-by-side and behold the enormous antagonism.
I already did. By the way, whom am I arguing against, Rand or you?
Haha. Fact is, assertion made by Rand that one's metaphysical assumptions determine one's ethics is still unproven, that is, disagreement over this issue still continues, comprende? All I wanted to say it sounds a bit intuitive to me.Okay. Prove me wrong and tell me exactly what are you talking about.
Just to clear things up, I'm suggesting that Ayn Rand is LSE, not EII. That you could have made this mistake show that you have hardly considered (possibly not even read) what I wrote.
One or perhaps the both of us might be wrong. It'd be good to pinpoint the cause of contention and deal with that.
Point out where I have misinterpreted you, and we'll address it. The projection accusation is getting trite.
Here, you said it yourself that individualism is "far-fetched" from Delta. Alright, not mutually-exclusive perhaps, but close enough for me to assume that as your stance. If I'm not wrong, the nature of our misunderstanding in the Si thread is similar to the one here.
Okay, thank you for describing one of your indicators in how you determine a person to be an Intuitive Irrational. I'm tempted to slap the "non type-related" label onto it, but I'd also point out that how much "too much" is, is subjective to our interpretation. Also that what you termed as my "guess", had been how you came off in your words. I had simply assumed what had been to me your most obvious stance, considering the general nature of your words.
The obvious answer is neither. We're arguing on her type.
Whether it is unproven or not is besides the point. In this context, it doesn't really matter whether what she's saying is accurate, but that she actually said it, claimed it, believed in it. Which means that her views have possible correlations to her type.
Last edited by InkStrider; 10-11-2011 at 06:56 PM.
You just typed her differently after posting some quotes. I've seen ILE, LSI and SLE for her. Now it is LSE coming from you, not to mention labcoat who types her gamma, prolly LIE.
Haha, you almost shit your pants, when I, supposedly, couldn't prove something but it is alright when Rand is wrong, and not alright when I'm right. That's pretty hilarious. Anyway, post some more quotes, preferably those about willpower.Whether it is unproven or not is besides the point. In this context, it doesn't really matter whether what she's saying is accurate, but that she actually said it, claimed it, believed in it. Which means that her views have possible correlations to her type.
EDIT: Don't get so fanatical about socionics, you said it yourself I quote "socionics is blah" or that "socionics doesn't exist" or some shit like that. Keep that in mind before I steamroll over you.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-11-2011 at 07:14 PM.
One day, we shall all look back into these threads and take a good long laugh at ourselves. Good long laughter in affectionate amusement at our own absurdity.
Good times, we would say to ourselves... The good old times.
Jershey Shore is the single greatest television show to have been concieved.
My money's on Ayn Rand being an INTp.
Justify it.
Many months ago on an mbti forum I posted the following...
Ayn Rand, well I think she would qualify as she certainly set the American mindset to laissez faire for at least 20 years and still has a profound impact worldwide.
I quite like objectivism in it's own way, but it is a philosophy entirely dependant upon self sufficiency and the ability of individuals to pursue wants that are a universal trade-off and to actually see beyond the self for it to be palatable. I just don't think it can reach the true global optimum espoused by Rand due to the limitations of society and of individual competency. Perhaps we can all aspire to be more objective and I doubt it would hurt us at all.
Anyway, considering the lack of the global viewpoint of the issue, I would have to say she falls into that awkward category of: is it an ISTp or INTp seeking a new optimum that is different or is it an INFj or even ENFp with a cause?'
I'm also not sure if her studies of Nietzsche imply that Nietzche was the INTp who set the ball rolling with Will to Power and she was an xNFj who found something that resounded with her own aspirations and struck her against her early history in the Soviet Union.
Certainly there is little as xNTj with Fi and Te than the Will to Power.
Power and will are seen as this strong internal benchmark that doesn't just override individual action but those we interact with as seen in the 'Who is John Galt?' that permeates Atlas Shrugged. John Galt's quiet ability to simply be powerful in will and direct the world rather than necessitate that others give from them to him through force is at the core of Will to Power.
We also see the traditional failing of Fi and Te as a mindset when it has ran out of steam in Ayn Rand. After the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Rand fell into a "deep depression" and chided herself for not being more like her ideal man, remarking:
I'm going to be the revolutionary and go 'ENFp/ESFp' on this one just because it's too easy to choose INTp/ENTj.
This is a good question; Is she preferring F over T? I can't be sure; infact you've got me thinking that because her writing has such a logical basis behind her beliefs that she preferred T as the overarching structure of her value system. In addition because she disintegrated to isolation after the book was published that this would make her ENTJ.
The Fi inferior crept up and overwhelmed her sense of self; disappointed that she could never gain the moral conviction of John Galt, a character who she could dream off but who she could never be in her eyes.
I'm withdrawing ENFp as a poorly thought out conclusion and raising ENTj instead as something more global.
--------------------------
Current Thinking
--------------------------
It is now clear to me that Ayn Rand is an xNTj. The will to power is quite the gamma quadra trait and thus indicative that Ayn Rand could be SFp or NTj. She idealises Fi so this appears to be in the inferior however Fe is PoLR. xNTj it is.
You're completely wrong. Nietzsche didn't write Will to Power. Will to Power was produced off Nietzsche's discarded notes and published after his death by his his own sister Elisabeth who, in turn, was married to a chauvinist and anti-semite. I don't have to mention she was pretty enthusiastic about ******, and this is how Nietzsche's name was linked with fascism or still is seeing you comment on it.
Anyway, this is political, in case you haven't noticed.
That isn't a relevant point of context to the discussion of Ayn Rands type.
wank wank wank.
Oh I see, being sure she was influenced by someone else is completely off. What's the point in mentioning Nietzsche, then? Can't you stick to your own advice and keep irrelevancies out?
Quackie, quackie, rubber duckie.wank wank wank.
ENTj is a pretty good suggestion, IMO. I caught on to the Fi idealizing as well. But why the Ni emphasis over Si? What specifically of the Will to Power do you perceive as Gamma?
Last edited by InkStrider; 10-12-2011 at 06:49 PM. Reason: grammar
I'm amused and your absurd. Do you even know what the idea of this thread is?
Drawing parallels/benchmarks is important as long as we don't treat those parallels/benchmarks in isolation.
It should be implicit. INTp/ENTj, particularly INTp desires Fi and disdains Fe. According to Jung/certain socionist, ENTj is somewhat hot for Fi, moreso than INTp, ESI being their dual. INTp has a sufficient tackle of the matter to be able to use it without finding it scary. See Se for the similar in INTp. As the text above said, Ayn idealised Galt as the 'ideal person'. Infact she compares her husband to him directly in the prologue of the fountainhead she wrote in the 50's.
It definitely isn't comparing her to Nietzsche or vice versa.
Like in similarities? Know Nietzsche's sister committed petty forgeries when producing and publishing Will to Power and shaped it more in the image of her husband who later committed suicide, his beliefs, I mean.Drawing parallels/benchmarks is important as long as we don't treat those parallels/benchmarks in isolation.
As for Rand, seeing you, Pinky and labcoat talk same language gamma it is.
If I do, promise me you won't hack me to death over it.
In my eyes, she exhibits a great deal of Ni and Te behavior.
"Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time, the understanding of a course of processes in time, and forecasting. Ni understand how things may change and evolve over time and throughout history. Ni is acutely aware of events that are occurring outside of the immediate perception of the moment, and sees events as part of a continuous flow. Ni perceives the possible ramifications of future events and notices ties to the past. Ni observes behavioral patterns and can assess a person's character."
"Te is efficiency of an action, technical processes, the accomplishment of work, the efficient and prudent use of resources, factual accuracy, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information. Te understands the difference between effective and ineffective behavior when performing a procedure or accomplishing a task, and aspires to increase the frequency of productive outcomes within a system." (Taken from Wikipedia, because there aren't many good sources on Socionics in English anyway.)
She often speaks about economics according to her understanding of the history and nature of man. She often spoke her opinion on which forms of economics she found to be the most beneficial for society. Based on these reasons alone, I've concluded that Ayn Rand is ILI, an INTp.
Though I may be completely wrong.
I do agree with Te valuing but again why Se>Si and Ni>Ne?
Ah. I do tend to come off a little too strongly at times.
I can understand where you're coming from. My beef is with the description of the functions, especially with the Ni one. I can relate to everything that is attributed to Ni, and if I have to type myself based on those alone, it would make me some Ni type. Except that I'm ironically, an Ni PoLR.
Anyway, you should post more.
Gamma quadra? Didn't I raise this already in some depth?
You make strong tea as far as I am concerned. Too dense for my taste.Ah. I do tend to come off a little too strongly at times.
Posting Permissions
