I have no doubt that he's an EIE-Ni
If you've met a couple of both subtypes, a clear distinctive pattern is visible:
Fe: submissive, friendly, once in an while bitchy
Ni: dominant, fanatical, sometimes narcissistic
Printable View
That's a little extreme on both counts...
Read the OSS's psychological profile of ******. He was an introvert.
One thing I've noticed is that you can clearly "perceive" an EIE's inner person, a characteristic attitude that is so apparent in their expression that it's unmistakable. ****** was filled to the brim with pride and it's immediately apparent in his features (alongside paranoia).
In comparision, IEIs are like Irish setters: whatever their mood, they always look the same.
The most easy thing to "understand" a human is to call him mad. :) I strongly doubt ****** believed in everything he showed as it (he was an actor muchly, plus he could tell only "part of true" wich motivated him). The evident thing is, - he was good sponsored for WW and that sponsores were not crazy and should to know what he wants to do. I'm sure that "people" have gotten benefits from WW and still are there influencing on world poilitics.
what is WWW?
LOL :hyper:
EIE so/sp 8w7
he had that community welfare/'bug exterminar' focus of so/sp stacking
Posted - 09 Apr 2012 : 1:58:52 PM
So/sp has a 'health of the community' (neurotic) focus. So/sp, with the group-welfare focus, becomes 'bug exterminator'. It's the classic witch hunt motif...because so/sp also has a pseudo-religious/cultural overtone.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ction-of-Notes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBu6xI1iUM0
****** is the best example in history of an EIE-Fe 1w9 so/sp.
I didn't know that Jung met him, along with Mussolini. Jung thought that he was more inhuman than Mussolini.
I've been considering ILI.
https://tinyurl.com/5bcx8sssQuote:
In comparison with Mussolini, ****** made upon me the impression of a sort of scaffolding of wood covered with cloth, an automaton with a mask, like a robot or a mask of a robot. During the whole performance he never laughed; it was as though he were in a bad humor, sulking. He showed no human sign.
His expression was that of an inhumanly single-minded purposiveness, with no sense of humor. He seemed as if he might be a double of a real person, and that ****** the man might perhaps be hiding inside like an appendix, and deliberately so hiding in order not to disturb the mechanism.
With ****** you do not feel that you are with a man. You are with a medicine man, a form of spiritual vessel, a demi-deity, or even better, a myth. With ****** you are scared. You know you would never be able to talk to that man; because there is nobody there. He is not a man, but a collective. He is not an individual, but a whole nation. I take it to be literally true that he has no personal friend. How can you talk intimately with a nation?
EIE...
'If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the revolution.'
-Literally no EIE ever. Unless the 'revolution' they are against is a counter-revolution of a revolution they started.
****** is definitely not an EIE. If he was EIE I would have definitely enjoyed reading Mein Kampf, for starters. But I didn't. And no not because it's 'racist' or whatever but because it's fucking booooOOOOOring.
You think ****** is Friedrich Nietzsche's Dual? The guy who banned Jazz music in favor of WAGNER. Lol ****** is Nietzsche's nightmare, German chauvinism and anti-Semitism.' That half-man, half-monster' Nietzsche would probably call him. No doubt Nietzsche would respect ******'s achievements however. Which I think is apt considering I type ****** as EII.
****** would always make poor first impressions of people who he met. No way in hell for an Fe base. Jung noted it was mainly Germans (Delta Quadra nation) who he made an impression on.
Nazism in general is just Delta as fuck. 'To be a [national] socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbor, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense, socialism equals service [Marx cackles in the distance]. The individual refrains and the commonwealth commands.'
But then someone might go 'ohHHH but they were just tricking everyone'. Yeah no. I can tell when people are being genuine. Watch his Krupp factory speech. Typical EII missionary high priest. No fucken doubt. Nazis were socialists, but they were what socialism meant to them. There are many many different kinds of 'socialisms' from different quadras. Even gamma quadra has a type of 'socialism' called social democracy/democratic socialism. Lol.
Most people I see who support Nazi ideology tend to be Delta types. 'He fought against moral decay, degenerate art/music, etc.' So when I see people moralize ****** it definitely makes me LOL because the Nazi regime was the regime of the moralists. I am not saying this stuff to piss on Deltas but it's just how you guys are (to me). Not evil people but just normal people who would also like me to be part of their religious community. Even his paintings are Delta. I read people, who are obviously Betas write 'his paintings show no emotions'. Yeah cuz he is a fucken Fi user! My closest friend is an EIE and an artist and her drawings are PURE ANGST and EDGE.
So yeah, the current zeitgeist that thinks ****** is the physical manifestation of Satan belongs to what socionics calls the 'humanist' archetype. I'd love to claim another 'evil' individual for my beta quadra collection but the dude just isn't one. Really gets my noggin joggin.
“What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.”
For an actual EIE dictator see: Gabriele D'Annunzio.
*Edit: Also, why did the Nazis hate communism so much? The 'November Criminals' as they called them. Well because they felt betrayed. And what is the biggest sin for someone of the Delta quadra? Also ****** is so obviously an introvert. And he ain't no IEI that's for fucken' certain. He did not have dual relationships with that sexy beast Mussolini. They didn't even get along as friends. Most likely because Mussolini was ******'s conflictor.
Goebbels, likely another EII or IEE (idk enough about him to tell if he is an extravert or an introvert) who Talanov typed as IEI is not a fucking IEI. I read two pages from his diary (again not gonna read his whole diary just to type him. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. I swear on some pages he would just write what he ate for the day) and he was talking shit about Mussolini's Fascism. The EPITOME of SLE movement. 'Fascism is not a real weltanschauung' he says. Typical Delta holier than thou shit.
Marinetti [who is likely IEI]: UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH those lame-o Germans are having another one of those 'degenerate art' exhibitions. Can you like, NOT let them come to Italy?
Mussolini: Um, ok.
Adolf who?
his individuality was beaten out of him
he let the people consume him to turn him into what he was. he wasnt his own person
Whatever type he was, he isn't a good example IMO. I certainly think he was more likely to be an introvert than an extrovert but that he matches the EIE stereotype better than the EII one (Both types are "Humanists" in their own way). I don't think the Socionics stereotypes match well with the corresponding dichotomies that make up each type.
According to Model G, Jung is LSI and Adolf is EIE. I think it's really funny how Jung could see through his Dual so easily, I've seen similar complaints from LSIs grousing about how fake and phony they are from their perspective. Interestingly, I've seen the same with an ILE and SEI Dual pair. The ILE finding the SEI stupid and incapable of understanding her ideas, and the male SEI thinking the ILE is plainly disgusting.
Is this some official typing, or just some personal view by the student? This sounds to me like an attempt to force Jung into an Ni valuing type. Probably the greatest psychiatrist ever with the deepest insights into the human soul an LSI?? Imo one of the main points of Jungian psychology is that it is not Ni valuing. Jung is not metaphysics, instead he shows where metaphysics comes from.
It's been stated as official. Jung's work does constantly talk about the "collectivistic" nature of the psyche, it is pretty Beta and his own conception. I'm actually friends with an LSI with a Philosophy PhD that said he could see Jung as his Identical and never considered him particularly iNtuitive, unlike Immanuel Kant that is typed LII.
At this point, it's pretty plausible, but who knows - it's not like dead people can give professional interviews or even say anything to the contrary on the subject of their supposed types. I do like the idea that Carl and Adolf are Duals though.
@StereoTYPE
Jung was not a Ti ego. He had trouble with Freud and Nietzsche who were both LSI. Your LSI friend doesn't see him as iNtuitive but Jung is pretty much rejected by psychology today because of the 'mysticism' in his work.
Nietzsche is not 'a pretty obvious EIE'. Nietzsche first of all was not an extravert. He was such a lucid individual that even his 'madness letters' are logically consistent. Marx was not EIE. Lol. Absolutely ridiculous typing. You think an EIE would write 'Das Kapital'? LOL. Karl Marx is obviously an Alpha/Gamma NT type. A system maker like Hegel.
@StereoTYPE
What do you know about Nietzsche's personal life that makes you type him EIE. Can you share?
Living as yourself must be hard then.
Marx: EIE
Nietzsche: EIE
******: EIE
Idiot.
@StereoTYPE
How do I have temper? You are the one who insulted me first. You were aggressive first. I was not. Unless you perceive me saying LOL at your typing to be 'aggression'. The way you talk to me you are probably not a Beta and type Marx, Nietzsche, ****** as all EIEs because you don't like them.
Correct, I'm not Beta, but I'm actually indifferent to all of those people and feel nothing. The aggression bit is a lot of projection that I don't care to address. Furthermore, consider this idea. You're mistyped and everything you think about typology is underlaid by the fact that you are mistyped, thus virtually everything you think about typology is wrong and not really worth my time to consider, Mr. Retard.
Have a good day.
@StereoTYPE
'The aggression bit is a lot of projection'
I said your typing is wrong and you called me a retard. I consider 'retard' an insult and so I called you an idiot in return. And then you say I have 'temper'.
I don't mind if you think I mistyped myself. I would LOVE for you to tell me what type I am. Thank you!!!
Well, empathy is absolutely one of my core values and typing you now would be an act of empathy. The problem is, I reserve my empathy and love for friends, family, and my dog. Maybe when I'm bored later? I'm going to go play Vice City (the new HD one), I pirated it yesterday.
@StereoTYPE
I understand. ;)
SEI
Do you mean the collective unconscious? Yes, it is very important in Jungian psychology, but why would that have anything to do with "Beta"? It's simply a psychological fact that the unconscious contains inherited material specific for the human species. However, the whole psyche is not collective in this sense. Ego and consciousness is the great exception.
Jung's most important value is individuality and for human beings to become more conscious and rise above collective behaviour. Is this "Beta"?
Well, Jung is not a philosopher, so your friend might be used to reading more abstract texts. This whole thing about mapping out the unconscious is very intuitive. Most people don't even know that it exists. Not to speak about discovering the types. There's an enormous amount of analytical-intuitive work behind that. To arrive at the functions etc.Quote:
I'm actually friends with an LSI with a Philosophy PhD that said he could see Jung as his Identical and never considered him particularly iNtuitive, unlike Immanuel Kant that is typed LII.
Jung typed himself as a thinking type with intuition. Marie-Louise von Franz, who worked with him for a long time, confirmed this. She said she is the same type. I find it very easy to type both Jung and von Franz as LII.Quote:
At this point, it's pretty plausible, but who knows - it's not like dead people can give professional interviews or even say anything to the contrary on the subject of their supposed types.
Jung went through individuation, that always develops the type. Meaning that he would at the end of his life be a very mature version of the type he was born with.
It's interesting to know that an LSI typing exists but I can't really take it seriously, and I can't help suspecting that people just haven't studied Jung enough.
Pretty much. In Model G Beta and Delta are both collectivistic by nature, it's funny that an SEE I know actually laughed at the concept of Beta rappers being all like "I'ma do me and get mine, yuh know? I'm out for me now." Because she's been that way her entire life (and often hides it) and it just goes to show how bound they are to the collective by needing to advertise that they are breaking away from it in the first place (Central and Fe valuing). Democratic types don't have the that issue. I'm actually not a Jung aficionado myself, but this idea you've brought up has convinced me that DarkAngelFireWolf69 was right about Jung being LSI and Kant being LII.
Orson Welles:
https://www.openculture.com/2020/03/...churchill.html
Quote:
Welles met everyone. He even met ******, he says in the clip above from a July 1970 appearance on the show, his second that year. In those early days, he says, “the Nazis were just a very comical kind of minority party of nuts that nobody took seriously at all” except Welles’ Austrian hiking instructor, who brought the legendary actor and director to a Nazi dinner with the future mass-murdering dictator. Welles was seated next to ******, who “made so little an impression on me that I can’t remember a second of it. He had no personality. He was invisible…. I think there was nothing there.”
https://i.imgur.com/6PJ2UtO.png
Analysis of The Personality of Adolph Hotler
EIE-D seems to be the safe betQuote:
A 240 page report completed in October, 1943, by Harvard psychologist Dr. Henry A. Murray. The report attempted to present an analysis of Adolf ******'s personality and its development. This analysis was then used to make predictions about what ****** would do after an Allied victory and how he should be dealt with if taken into custody. The reporting sought to give the OSS an understanding of how it may be able influence ******'s mental condition and behavior. Murray correctly predicted that ******'s most likely end would be suicide. Murray believed that understanding ****** would provide for an understanding of the psychology of the German people.
I’m working with an EIE-D right now. He’s extremely unstable. One minute he’s incredibly enthusiastic and the next minute, blackness descends and no one is helping him.
An LII said that she thinks he is brilliant but he needs to increase his meds. I think he is not brilliant. He is not technical at all. He’s only good at screaming that he needs more and more from you.
He reminds me a lot of descriptions I’ve read of Steve Jobs. “A good boss, but only if you like an exploitive abuser.”
>Ethical EJ types, the most talkative and social of all types
>suffering from mutism
>Dominant subtype
>When in social situations literally recluses himself in the nearest room for most of the times, only talks to few.
https://youtu.be/k17SFG_rLSA
Certainly H escapes most socionics conventions...
Like being a 2D unvalued Te type yet showing equal to superior proficiency in matters of military engineering to some german officers, despite not even being educated, & without the internet nor the access to the information.
Like being Si-PolR yet being a highly capable watercolorist with small-insignificant perspective problems.
Alongside lots of other things.
As an historical character, H was EIE due to lack of a better sociotype category. But the observable facts point out to someone far beyond the typical constraints of TIM.
When in a Ni state, Ni-valuing types drift away into their imagination, or become "observants" outside of the physical current moment, sometimes even giving the impression of being introverts albeit not necessarily being introverts.
Normalfags interpret this as either;
1; Being a boring, invisible, a wallflower, a nobody
2; Being dumb, autistic, mentally ill, or all of the three combined
It isn't weird that Welles thought that.
the problem that Ni base types have is that they can be extremly gifted, but nobody might notice it. to most extroverts, they just seem like skinny nerds who are stupid because they can't do basic tasks in the real world. I don't want to think about how much potential has been wasted throughout history because these types just drop out of society to live in peace from the rest of the world.
Ah yes, the mild and doubtful H and N IEI that suffers from emotional outbursts, hysterics, possession, is an actor who turns on and off emotions as he wishes and speaks like he has no Ti hidden agenda at all.
I think the main argument for EIE is that he gave speeches that infuenced the nation, but is that really Fe base? does Fe really switch emotions on and off, or is it a concrete emotional response to everything that happens around you? is giving speeches really related to Fe, or is it Ni? the ability to imagine yourself in a different role. was hilter really that extroverted? or was he a failed artist that spend most of his time in a secluded area in berchtesgarden to discuss art with his generals.
Well, as DCNH is DarkAngelFireWolf69's construct we can say that he was a contact type. Why? He talked to large audiences. This the probe that DarkAngelFireWolf69 uses in his interviews. Another thing was a drive towards victory. This gives D subtype. I assume we are talking about the war monger here, not the misunderstood artist. You need to understand that he had very little regard towards others' opinions. He was a dictator, not a negotiator.
I don't think we would have much to argue about tbh. he seems more about general ideas and I think I agree more with his perspectives than most users here. in a way I also have a very similar perspective to DarkAngelFireWolf69. I just don't see EIE's as being the dominant type among historical figures, while DarkAngelFireWolf69 sees IEI only as dreamy poets. just a slight difference in perspectives. for me EIE have emotions first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk8UEWHYfEg
and then they occasionally reflect about life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pP6G-AAHw&t=1s
all these ideas of types are based on subjective perspectives by single individuals, because even if you are extremly social, you likely haven't met more than a hundred examples of each types in real life. DarkAngelFireWolf69's subjective perspective just makes more sense to us, but of course, even his idea of EIE being the revolutionary is just based on his own idea of what this type is.
life is just full of these contrasts. as a mirror example I would name Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. an IEI with a dominant subtype imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pP6G-AAHw&t
here he entertains a whole crowd with a mesmerizing introduction to a game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rWHebscl0
and here he gives an intimate interview about himself. so what is he? NiFe? or FeNi? I would type him the former, DarkAngelFireWolf69 would probably type him the latter
Adi was an atheist materialist social Darwinist who thought of humanity as animals and wanted to propagate the race and kill other races because he viewed it as successful natural selection and survival of the fittest. Adi was driven primarily by megalomania as I see it, and probably also the perfect scion of Nietzsche despite Nietzsche's disapproval, though to be fair to Nietzsche Fritz at least does praise pagans, ancient civilization, and aesthetic ideals somewhat rather than seeming to want to turn everything into a murderfest.
I wish we could talk about Adi in non-Socionics terms. Socionics is neat, but it needs more interdisciplinary influences.
I think Hı̇tler is an introverted sensing type if I have to type him. Hı̇tler started out painting postcards and when he failed at that he seemed to want to spread materialism out of the belief humans are animals. He would probably not have been interested in politics at all without the influence of Dietrich Eckhart because he seemed shy to me. Not everyone evil or edgelordy is a beta NF or beta in general. That's just all the lousy little poets coming around trying to sound like Charlie Manson. Quiet artist dude who isn't even interested in politics until someone else pushes him into it does not scream EIE. People are just doing the Jung thing for Ni but the pulp villain thing for Hı̇tler, treating Hı̇tler as the magician and Ni as magic or psychic or similar. That is probably not how this is supposed to be done. Jung's reference for his version of an EIE is Goethe. If you think Adi and Goethe are similar you are just stereotyping Germans. Adi Hı̇tler did not even like ideas of the occult and thought mysticism was some kind of life-denying force preventing supremacy of the Aryan race.
Yes, I understood you. I should have said I don't really believe in the IMs or Model A, so I think an ENXX type, being an extrovert, would not score so strong on INXX.
It would be better to spend time discussing to what extent AH was an extrovert or an introvert. I can believe he was extroverted in terms of activity level and assertiveness, but not so much sociability (that's influenced by the Big Five). I think he was probably middling overall.
In terms of intuition, in Big Five "Openness to Experience" terms: he was obviously extremely authoritarian and hostile to various groups, and yet his early life shows he had a big interest in the arts (albeit an interest that was not diverse).
In terms of Agreeableness, he was one of the most disagreeable people who ever lived. Even in Socionics terms, it's difficult for me to see him scoring high on :Fe: or :Fi:.
In terms of rationality/conscientiousness, he was extremely driven to obtaining power, although he wasn't keen on handling day-to-day affairs.
It's hard to discuss types when you don't really believe in the fundamentals that are responsible for the type in the first place. I'm not too rigid about the model but disregarding functions at all? I mean you could say he was disagreeable but he also socialized with all the generals at his hide-out. You don't grt to the top without any social skills at all
I think the fundamentals for type are extroversion/introversion, intuition/sensing, logical/ethical, rational/irrational. The difference in my view is that I don't think that combinations of three extremes on each dichotomy make IMs with traits distinct from what can be described by those four dichotomies.
But IEIs with their pros and cons as described in Socionics existed before DarkAngelFireWolf69. Your weakness is that for some reason you think Ni is a deity that overrides Te polr and Ti HA. And they are important in that EIE are not so lost in the outside as you describe them vs IEI and neither is someone with that hidden agenda likely to become an eloquent fanatic that bewitched the masses, rather the ditzy and peaceful dreamer the type’s always been in Socionics. And it’s getting to a point where you’re willing to blindly argue that someone with all the cursed traits in Miasma’s source mean H subtype (!!) and is going to soothe the SLE-C better than anyone. Get a grip. Stick to George Harrison for IEI because that is closer to what the type has always been about and definitely not with H!tler the EIE.
You are relying too much on your idea of Hı̇tler the magician here, when that seems completely ahistorical. Additionally, EIE and IEI are in the same quadra which means they have the same values, and comparing Hı̇tler to George Harrison seems like such a nonsequitur it's amusing.
Introverts an extroverts hardly mix other than in interests.
IEI public speaker is like Susan Cain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4
Own internal experience, subjective, lets reflect together.
Meanwhile ******
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tlenyBWs4w
External things, hardly expresses his own subjective experience, audience is captured in means of external cohesion.
You're onto something, although there's a point where I see this more as someone's incapability and unwillingness to get their heads out of their asses to try and see more general patterns concerning everyone/thing, not only navel-gazing their insufferable 10x10cm² patch of reality, unrelated to being an extrovert or introvert.
That's not extraversion, that's just being a sociopath. Sociopaths are probably definitionally introverted sensors or thinkers honestly (but the reverse is probably not true, nor does this have any bearing on introverted feelers or intuitionists which seem to be definitionally not sociopaths.)
As far as I can tell, sociopathy is a subtype of solipsism. The other seems like dissociation or psychosis which seems like what introverted intuition and feeling tend to describe, though dissociation is much milder than psychosis or sociopathy and not usually a big deal at all I think, just I think extreme dissociation is psychosis. While all introverted sensors might very well be straight sociopaths. Introverted thinking seems better but the possibility is still there, probably relating to what people think of as functions or quadra values rather than thinking itself. An introverted thinker is always a philosopher I think, but it matters what the philosophy is. While sensing seems to just always lead to the sort of might-makes-right mentality, the kind where the future does not matter, the way of all flesh. That is speculation on my part, it has been forever since I touched socionics, but the types seem to be described horribly badly to me.
Bad descriptions by Jung as I see it:
Impressionism: literally the most Ti art ever. Impressionists were operating on a certain philosophy and the results they got were not very realistic as a result. The academic art they surpassed would probably be Te, an example of art as engineering or as craft, using certain techniques to achieve results.
In general, I think Jung did Te dirty. I don't think Te is about trying to look or sound smart. I think it would make more sense to say Te is about the application of knowledge (putting it out) and Ti is about making discoveries (taking it in,) so Te would be engineers, computer programmers, and inventors and Ti would be scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers. Everyone instinctually considers those different and important things. No one considers the people who spew facts on Jeopardy all that important, that is considered a hobby.
Goethe is probably an Ni type and not Fe. Goethe can be pretty socially extraverted and is not the milquetoast IEI or cynical ILI people think of. However, he does not seem like a feeling type, especially not the feeling type Jung described. Goethe did a huge amount of scientific work. He also liked to wander around alone. The same people can wander around alone and be gregarious later, it's called reading a book then talking about it at a party. In the normal world, this "ambiversion" is a commonly accepted fact of life. Like the Impressionists with their black-free paintings, it only gets lost in overanalysis. I agree with the analysis of Schiller as Ti, he was a philosopher and scientist as much as a poet and dramatist and he straight up would faint on the stage when he tried to perform in his own plays I heard. Goethe was so much not a conformist that it is hard to even imagine him as Fe, though. The whole reason he took off his hat before the Duke of Weimar while Beethoven did not is Goethe wanted the aristocracy to exist so that mob rule would not force him into conformity, while Beethoven was more democratic. Goethe also had very unusual views for his society on topics such as religion, nationalism, and the military.
I would say sociopathy is characterised by a lack of empathy. Sociopaths are usually focused on others, at the same time, they don't care about them much, which makes them dangerous.
Most, if not all, destructive forces and movements in history have been characterised by a focus on something outside of oneself. These movements are essentially exoteric, as opposed to esoteric. That's not to say every exoteric current is destructive though, that would be a stretch. But when you see "the problem" as being outside of yourself, you are really projecting. This is essentially what ****** did, project outward: the Jews, the gays, tha handicapped, the gypsies, Chruchill, etc, were all manifestations, projections, of himself, but it was more convenient of him to deal with it the way he had, than look inward, I suppose.
An unhealthy EIE is also pretty clear.
That's not what Hı̇tler did. Hı̇tler did not think any specific group was the problem really, he just viewed existence as a nonstop race war and he wanted to kill Jews since they were this big powerful group he could get rid of to make his race superior. If it wasn't Jews it would be something else. The part that seems like absurdity, though, is imagining Hı̇tler in a world without Jews. I don't think it would even be possible, honestly. I don't even think Earth without Jews could exist in anything resembling the way the world is now, I think they are sort of logically necessary. But even more than they are necessary for the current state of the world as a whole they are necessary for the Nazis. Nazism is specifically a reaction to the Jewish culture and religion, not one that is justified at all, but it seems like that is what it is to me. The fact that they tried turning it into a race thing instead of a religious or cultural thing is probably really why they were completely weak and a nonthreat to the Jews (despite being able to kill lots of individual Jews, they were not even vaguely a threat to Judaism as a whole,) at the same time, there is no such thing as non-racist Nazis, that is literally what Nazis are, so Nazis were doomed from the start. Adi Hı̇tler was not fixated on anything besides will-to-power and spreading his race's genes. Anything else he said was lies because that's what being hopped up on thinking you're like your race's materialist god does to you. The key for Hı̇tler is to gain and project as much power as possible and if he thinks lying will do that, he will lie. He clearly did lie, for one, he promised to make Germany religious but also actively shut down religious schools themselves and infamously persecuted people like Dietrich Boenhoffer of Operation Valkyrie fame. He also just made universally poor decisions, such as taking Germany off the gold standard or any other standard and switching them to fiat money permanently, and treating Germans like bigger idiots than even the average Walmartian probably actually is.
Jung's typings should probably not be taken seriously, since Jung himself was an esoteric Hı̇tlerist at least for a while and a nihilist throughout his entire life. If something like typings would really influence people into having various ideologies (something I think I would agree with,) then Jung's typings themselves would probably be heavily predisposed in light of his nihilism. However, I would probably agree that Jung is an introverted thinking type with secondary sensing and the Hı̇tler typing as EIE is from Russian tabloid magazines, not from anything scientific or even really pseudoscientific. Hı̇tler could be that, but even with Jung's seeming misdefinitions of his types Hı̇tler would not be EIE. Quite simply, he seems introverted and also like a sensing type. Hı̇tler was a vegetarian because he viewed people as worse animals and did not want to kill the animals he admired, even though he admired them for their brutality, and I am not kidding.
Why do we assume Hı̇tler was a beta? I know people think of beta as aristocracy, elitism, Nazis, intensity, edgelords, and all the failed poets trying to sound like Charlie Manson, but Hı̇tler does not seem to match any of the type descriptions in beta quadrant. If I had to type him using only what we have in mainstream socionics (which I think is problematic) I would probably place him in delta quadrant. Historically Germany has probably been mostly beta according to mainstream socionics descriptions, but Herr Hı̇tler is a marked departure from that. Germany and America are probably mostly beta or alpha in general, Adi Hı̇tler is probably delta based on the function groupings. He is probably a sensing and thinking type, probably like SLI or LSE. I am not trolling. I see his social Darwinism and nihilism as being extraverted thinking and introverted sensing gone haywire if I have to use socionics the way it is. Nazism was opposed to introverted intuition when introverted intuition is assumed to be mysticism and visionary ideals, and it was opposed to introverted thinking seen as philosophy, science, and the like, since it believed that there was no truth other than will-to-power.
Based on his paintings, school and physique it seems that he was born as a H subtype who (d)evolved into a neurotic D subtype. As such a H type should be connected to their environment having extra set of dynamism.
I encourage to read 240 page analysis on personality. It is good quality albeit not very neutral in tone.
His qualities: masochism, femininity (what I gather it mostly links to those who are born with H sub), expression, abstraction, good oratorical talent, bothered by Fi [mother], adorance for art, lack of practicality, drive, ability to simplify, somewhat asexual.
He also liked to eat sweets. :thinking:
A world where ****** is a delta ST?
Coereleum's typings are like an interlude in the absolute elsewhere. Or, as the kids would say, a parallel universe.
Neither SLI or LSE would be appropriate in this case, one less than the other because Fe polr and that SLI have no stage presence at all, public speaking is not their forte; LSE is too occupied caretaking to even conceive "stage possession" as its not in their makeup really. You speak elements but don't consider the types. Regardless, even if we take sociopathy into account, an SLI with that disorder would just be a cool-headed, silent and mysterious type of beast. Someone like that in power in any case is the quiet and reserved statesman that doesn't speak much and then goes on to do the dirty work behind close doors.
Hı̇tler does not care about Fi. To Hı̇tler people were something to be engineered, to be treated like objects. The people who rejected Hı̇tler from art school said he should be an architect and not an artist because he could not draw people. I think socionists want Hı̇tler to be EIE because they are communists who identify themselves as delta due to being nihilists. However, Herr Hı̇tler was a nihilist too. So all they can do is reach for the silly pulpy-theosophical Hı̇tler the Magician stereotype to say Hı̇tler must have been a mystic who used mysticism, when Hı̇tler hated mysticism. And anyways, a mystic using mysticism would probably be an Ni lead and not an Fe lead.
I meant to write Fe. Stop trying to make SLI into a stageman with a penchant for the dramatic, lacking in the physical realm and with 'unmanly' characteristics about whom have authors from the time calling a charlatan. It just shows that you don't know what SLI-LSEs are about. 'Pragmatic' has a place in delta but it's doesn't work the way you think.
Hı̇tler does not have a penchant for the dramatic. Hı̇tler was the most tame person ever, other than, you know, the whole thing about believing his race was in a Darwinian war with other races and needed to destroy them or be destroyed. You forget Hı̇tler the general, Hı̇tler the chancellor, Hı̇tler the statesman. Ironically, all the "dramatic" images of Hı̇tler are just pictures of him on the same kind of postcard art he himself made. Talking in front of a microphone is not Fe. Appearing in paintings is not Fe.
A psychopath or a sociopath would probably have no need for self-justification and projection to himself, he would rather accept himself and adore himself in his negative characteristics and not value anything outside of his own interest.Quote:
But when you see "the problem" as being outside of yourself, you are really projecting. This is essentially what ****** did, project outward: the Jews, the gays, tha handicapped, the gypsies, Chruchill, etc, were all manifestations, projections, of himself, but it was more convenient of him to deal with it the way he had, than look inward, I suppose.
Populist ideologies superficially share a characteristic that's actually an incredibly powerful structural propaganda tool, there's a "positive collective unit" (The Volk, the proletariat, the black race, the female gender...) and a "negative collective unit" (The jews, the bourgoisie, the whites, the men) which works as an antithesis to the former, having opposing interest, character traits, ideas to it, and often being painted as the "abuser" of the "positive collective unit". "Fanatics" usually share characteristics of the positive collective unit and are encouraged to pour their frustrations through the ideological lenses, unleashing their indignation onto the negative collective unit, thereby freeing themselves from responsability, mechanism through which a populist ideology gains a following base.
On the structural, intellectual composition of an ideology though, that mechanism stops being the core of everything, and you can find constructive thought and ideological affirmations and assertions instead of the reactive emotionalism, confrontation of the another and negations that initially attracted the fanatic to the idea in the first place.
More often than not this manipulation technique works wonders; the least intelligent or interested will stay on it forever, and the most intelligent will go past it, get captured by it, invest themselves into the deeper side of the ideology, and unknowingly build an emotional bond to the ideology, preventing ideological drift when it is due.
****** was probably not antisocial, he showed affection and bonds (often unhealthy, as with the woman he stalked in Vienna or his little cousin) and was motivated by an emotional and identity attachment to his "Volk" (that is to say, positive collective unit in his ideology). His "jews and fags are le bad" is ideology.
Literally everything you posted is a form of communism. Hı̇tler had as much ideology as anyone else, but he was a nihilist and a socialist. In standard Marxism, the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie. National socialism is the same as Marxism, but with the race in the place of the proletariat. Radical feminism, which blames every individual man for anything perceived by the Marxist as oppression of women, is Marxist feminism. Black Lives Matter is a race-oriented Marxist movement. Generalized contemporary Marxism that combines all these categories is called intersectionality, and it is often considered equivalent with poststructuralism, the Frankfurt school, and sometimes postmodernism in general, though often people want to differentiate between postmodern literature and cinema and poststructuralist philosophy, which don't seem directly related to me either.
The entire system of socionics is built on quadra values. I don't really subscribe to socionics any more, but that is what the system is based upon. I largely don't subscribe to it because that is what the system is based upon.
I still think Hı̇tler would be an ST for being a nihilist and a politician though, and betas are not nihilists, they are full of mysticism and things Hı̇tler literally militantly opposed with force.
I don't see why it needs to be essential, or why "Socionics" should be irreducible to whatever Augusta believed. If it isn't true or useful, it must be abandoned.
The personalities of LSIs and EIEs are quite alien to each other generally. As far as I'm concerned, the ST, NT, NF, SF clubs are the most significant "quadras", if there must be a set - I believe people naturally have a preference for grouping with others from the same club.
Duality is probably bullshit too. People place far more importance on shared values and interests, desired skills, and a harmonious personality.