I might be an idiot. It’s possible.
But isn’t all discourse, in some way, an IQ test?
Printable View
Well, I'm going by description and experience.
The 'un SLI-LSE' bits from the document are fun:
****** also suffers from agitated depressions, affrighting nightmares.
A lady-like way of walking (...) gestures with his arms his arms — a peculiar graceless Ineptitude reminiscent of a girl throwing a baseball
Eyes with an intense flame of dedication.
There is the mystical H!tler, hinting at a thousand years of superiority for the German folk; the possessed H!tler shrieking with fanatical fury as ha exhorts the masses; the hysterical H!tler rolling on carpets as he wakes from a nightmare.
Other descriptions: prone to tirades even if addressing a single individual, proclivity to spend time to build castles in the air and not be aware of the brutality within his own party
Rauschning's works (which you seem to be quoting), are now considered to be wartime propaganda.
I don't think he was anything other than a sociopathic version of EIE though (H!tler, not Rauschning, lol), even if Rauschning can't really be considered an objective insight into his personality. .
That said, I think you're wasting your time trying to debate this person. They claim they don't believe in socionics, yet want to argue H!tler was "delta ST". Their statements contain contradictions in the same sentence. "He was the most tame person ever, except for the part where he believed in Darwinian race wars". Yeah, so he wasn't tame at all in other words.
Also, they don't seem to actually take debate seriously despite making outlandish statements that invite debate, so personally, I'm not gonna try here, lol, but others do what they want. :)
Almost none of that is true of Hı̇tler from my recent studies of him. He was the brutality within his own party and he created that deliberately. He could lie but he was no dramatist. He did not believe in mysticism, he believed in hoodwinking a nation which did, because to him there was only survival of the fittest and mysticism was an otherwordly force and a form of soulsickness extinguishing the racial flame. The race must be made this-wordly for Hı̇tler, and there is no truth but power for him either, for there were no facts to Hı̇tler, only interpretations. And behind him was his Dietrich Eckhart, who was the provider of the nihilism, the ideology, the perverse guidance to Hı̇tler. Adolf Hı̇tler was only the pragmatist, the chancellor, the general, the person who was drawn on posters.
It doesn't really matter if he was considered dramatic, what matters is what he did. He communicated on a grand scale, to society (social mission of EIE and no other type).
None of it is true according to you and yet the flair of his speeches and collectivist inclinations using the idea of nation go against SLI in everything from how the types expresses itself in public and how they would choose to 'hoodwink' people, while your description of a fraud remains suspiciously close to the propaganda description you're denying as true. Funny.
Methinks it Opposite Day for a certain forum member. :p
Socionics is not a cult!
Honestly, socionics seems so nonsensical to me it hardly matters what you type him as. Going by pure Jung-like functions it seems like he should be typed ST or maybe NT if people want to relate intuition to "big-picture thinking" rather than mysticism, however, AH was definitely a failed artist first which just makes me think straight Si. But, socionics descriptions of deltas don't match how Adi acted. I tend to think socionics is sort of a cover for nihilists to pretend they're great humanitarians which would make delta a perfect home, but that's not the description socionics canonically gives for delta at all despite Te and Ne being "valued" kind of implying endless pointless revolution (which the Nazis absolutely did exemplify.) Also the idea of quadra values and duality themselves seems like nonsense.
An alternative to the hypnosis theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNDZ9EKJLJs
https://i.imgur.com/fXhWx6B.gif
Yes, the reports show him to be the calm, logical, grounded mister practicality.
I mean, they literally do. By temperament, he is all pragmatist and does not have much of a personality or even any interest in relationships with other people, nor did he care about the dramatic or any kind of mysticism. Simply, his philosophy was one of merciless violence. He is Darwinism exemplified.
No, I like Gunleko's book for being amusing and I think it sounds like a torture manual, but not something I can take seriously.
I don't think art is Si, but I think AH's art is more Si than Ni. It's all "look at this pretty prettiness" and not much visionary ideas.
I wouldn't type someone as EIE (or IEI) who made paintings like that. David Bowie is usually considered EIE and has a lot more going for that typing than AH does, and Bowie's amateur paintings are usually pop-surrealism which is visionary and Ni. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is Jung's prototypical EIE, and Goethe was Ni and visionary as well. AH, however, is not visionary at all, in art or in life. He might talk about his desired future for the German people, but that is all the work of Dietrich Eckhart and Propganda Minister Goebbels. AH himself was only a politician. All politicians talk about the future, yet Jung generally does not type them as Fe or Ni but as Se (I would think that is wrong, I think of politicians as probably being primarily Te, Se is probably rightfully bodily awareness and physical prowess, hence Se's reputation as not being that great.)
I think socionics is probably deeply-flawed to the point of being invalid so I don't type people as EIE. I think typing someone as Fe type makes sense, though, and I don't consider AH to be likely to be that based on what I know of him. I consider Fe types as mostly being socialites or tabloid celebrities in most cases. AH primarily seemed like a typical politician after being a failed artist, similar to Churchill, so probably Te type.
I think if social introversion is considered equivalent to types, AH was definitely a social introvert, but I think probably Te is more socially introverted than Ni or Si in general, to the point where it is not even a contest. Which would place AH firmly in Te for me based on what I know of him.
AH was interested in architecture. It is said that his paintings reflected that. Simply lacking Si essence aiming for objective coldness. Purely technical feats.
For an analogy: Harry Potter isn't real, but if Harry Potter were real I'd be a wizard and not a muggle. Socionics isn't real, but if socionics were real AH wouldn't be EIE. We used to have an entire forum fantasy, in fact, where everyone had a class based on certain aspects of their personality and the like. But clearly, we aren't fantasy characters. Doesn't mean everyone would equally easily be a warrior or a wizard or a priest in our fantasy world. Socionics, on the other hand, contradicts itself endlessly in its bid to try to fit the biases of the systems' creators. I think functions are primary and AH seems to mostly exemplify Te based on my conception of it, however, if Te had to mean sociability (one aspect I think is a fallacy of socionics) I would type him as Si based on the type of art he did and not Ti because to me, Ti is about philosophers, but I don't think AH is Ti or Si, because I think Te does not implicate social extraversion at all and most politicians are Te. I don't think AH is intuitive because I think intuition refers specifically to something I don't think AH used, however, I could be wrong on either or both of those counts. Specifically, I think sensing is correlated to materialism and the like which AH exemplified. I don't think intuition is ESP or that it makes people overly interested in mysticism necessarily, but based on my understanding AH did not exemplify it, someone who did would be more visionary and AH seemed completely like a pragmatist who did everything he did out of the conception that he was already doomed and he wanted to be as famous and powerful as possible on an individual level, along with killing lots of people because he viewed life as zero-sum and whenever someone else had something bad happen to them that must have been good for him. I think MBTI is wrong about Nx too, I don't think it has much to do with political views, IQ, or attempts to be euphemistic about ESP. (Jung thought it was about ESP but I think it is more likely something related to concepts from gestalt psychology on a psychological level and certain concepts in physics on a nervous system level. I don't think AH could have exemplified N because N tends to be purely impersonal, and S tends to be self-referential, which seems to be the real difference between S/F and N/T.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knnlKS7jRI4
I don't think AH is closed to the description of EIE at all. I think aside from the description of EIE being completely incoherent AH does not match the description of an Fe type which is the primary attribute of the description of EIE. I think AH is closer to the description of a Te type than anything. I have been reading about AH a lot recently for reasons that have nothing to do with socionics or psychology and based on what I know about him I think he is closer to a Te type than Fe type.
No, I have not, because the description seems like an extremely convoluted and self-contradictory mess that differs widely between authors and even between different paragraphs in the same text by one author. The most coherent picture I have of EIE comes from Jung himself describing Fe and Ni and even that is laden with many issues, because I think it should be Fe and Ne rather than Fe and Ni, and I do not completely trust Jung's descriptions. I think Jung is likely onto something, because the four functions are has been said an Aristotelean thing, and other authors do very similar things as he did, so it is probably possible to have a dichotomy-based typology that does not even need Jung. Calculus was supposedly invented because of things ancient Greeks said, but the case of Jung makes it feel a lot like some idiot crank made up proto-calculus and added a lot of garbage like the time cube theory before Newton and Leibniz were even born. And to be honest, if something like that happened with calculus happened in real life we would have probably forgotten it anyways.
:Si: = NOT art
:Fe: = orchestrating war and genocide
Remember we are discussing SOCIONICS not MBTI.
It's very strange that in all these years you haven't met at least one person who:
1) abides by the general description of extroversion 2) has good management of mimicry 3) makes harmless ‘threatening’ jokes more than other people 4) creates harmless ‘tense’ situation with a comment or two than other people 5) says something with an expression and then with a flick has a different expression on their face.
Of course, I mean presenting this set of traits more in relation to other people.
I think I remember you.
Ni = art
Let us assume all art is Ni. Why is Adolf Hı̇tler EIE over IEI, ILI, or LIE? Also, why should art be Ni? Ni even in socionics is generally treated like a visionary thing, but Hı̇tler paintings are not visionary, they are just postcard doodles, "oh look, pretty." However, I would not argue that Hı̇tler is even an Si-"valuing" type because I do not think socionics' idea of quadra values makes sense. If they did make sense, Hı̇tler would probably have to be in delta for being a nihilist, however, I think they are not applicable.
While it can be fun to use double standards for one's advantage there's a point where it becomes ridiculous. But even ****** made the same mistake.
https://soziotypen.de/wp-content/upl...-Churchill.png
I want to mention that I obviously don't think every artist is an IEI, but yeah, art to me is heavily related to openess to experience and also agreeableness, which relates to NF personality types. I also want to mention that a sensing type like ESI can be somewhat interested in art, but they usually don't participate in the spotlight, and focus more on folk art, or being a small part in an orchestra for example. it's probably a topic that deserve its own thread, but I don't have the energy right now.
I don't think NF is supposed to be described in terms of the Big Five. Big Five is basically behaviorism which was a failure in linguistics and in many other fields of study. NF are supposed to related to cognitive processes and they seem to be ultimately based on Aristotle, which is fine, despite all the things the Ancient Greeks were wrong about it wasn't everything and we still use things like the Pythagorean theorem and Platonic solids. Additionally, even if we did want to describe socionics in terms of the Big Five literally no one on the planet would have a lower agreeableness or openness score than Mister Hilter except maybe Stalin and Mao.
all functional elements learn by their environment, how you grew up, the people that you surround yourself with, the information that you take in. if you are an ethical type that grows up in a shitty environment and you get treated like trash, you will not become an agreeable person. the big five are not objective truths, neither is socionics, but they describe tendencies. on average, I would say that ethical types will score higher in agreeableness than logical types, but not every ethical type will be an agreeable person.
I came to the same conclusion as you. He was born as an H subtype and after WWI developed into a REALLY delusional D subtype. I believe ****** at the end of his life was EIE-DH - he still carried many traits of the H subtype.
And yes... he would eat 1KG of chocolate when he was depressed. He was very superstitious too.
Tell me about it. On my off-color days I can easily eat that amount of chocolate. More staggering is that reading AH's early years I found many similarities with me. He had frequent disputes with his father, rebelled in his teens and dropped out of school, lived part of his life as a vagabond obsessed with art and classical music, and so on. It's kind of weird to make that kind of connection with a bloody dictator, but anyway.
Though I no longer practice socionics and think the fundamentals of the system are no longer valid, I would like to know if this information I possess as someone knowledgeable about German history would change anyone's typings of Mister Hilter:
In German culture, for a long time, there has been this idea that if you become an artist, you can become a genius and the Superman and replace God. I am under the impression the idea originates with the German Romantics, which were a very specific group of people who as far as I can tell absolutely did not include the Weimar classicists such as Goethe, Schiller, or Beethoven, and in particular it came from the writings of Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg also known as Novalis. When I say replace God, I do mean I am under the impression that the Romantic Movement was very proto-Nietzschean and proto-Jungian, in that they appreciated the influence of religion on society, but they were also very Hegelian and did not actually really believe in God, just in the need for "sentiment" and "overturning rationalism."
Only today I read Novalis's Christendom or Europe (German: Christenheit oder Europa) and he specifically promotes for people to join Catholicism. I already knew many people joined Catholicism as a result of Romanticism, but I did not really know so much that the actual Romantic Movement, a sort of proto-Marxist or proto-National Socialist group, did not really believe in Catholicism and encouraged people to join the Catholic Church anyways to fulfill their "sentimentality" and "antirationalism," primarily because I have never been all that interested in the Romantic Movement between the fact that they are not very good writers for the most part (some of Novalis's poems seem moderately interesting in the same way some of Bertolt Brecht's poetry and Kurt Weill's music seems moderately interesting despite them also being seemingly horrible people with terrible politics, perhaps they were plagarized based on what historians know about Brecht, but it has not felt like it has been worth the time for me to look into so far with how difficult it was.)
However, if Mister Hilter's family was the descendant of those original Romantics, which I could probably find easily and the answer is almost certainly "yes," then believe it or not, all of Hilter's interest in the arts would be directed towards power and not really a deeply-held personal interest. However, that information might change nothing, I am leaving it to people who still do socionics to decide. I think it changes things, but it would not change my typing and some others' typing of him as Te before I considered this.
Why the heck is the info on Mister Hilter's family, teachers, etc. so hard to find? People make all these Freudian speculations on whether Hilter was abused or something, which is likely, but 99% of people who were abused do not go on to become politicians. All of Hilter's behaviors are extremely consistent with someone who was indoctrinated into Romanticism in general and possibly Nietzscheanism in particular by a parent, teacher, friends, or similar. That is the most likely explanation for Hilter's behavior, things like what he said and did were not idiosyncratic but common to many Germans. Those philosophies also tell you to be a prick, but people being a prick to him is not the proximal cause. I have found records that his father wanted him to become a civil servant so he was raised to be a politician. I cannot find anything else interesting so far.
Well, unlike Europe the "United States" is termed, felt by its "true" inhabitants, and by and large seen by outside observers as "one" nation. Europe never was even under the auspices of the Roman Empire. That the U.S. is seen as "LIE" in type is not surprising. "America" is a nation that can be honestly be said to have the "soul" of a church. To be an "American" is to reject almost all creeds and identities racial or ethnic in the ultimate analysis. Instead, there are common "American" ideals and archetypes that, let's be perfectly clear, other racial and ethnic nations recognize as distinctly "American".
There is the phrase "Only In America" and it exists for damn good reason. Only in America would things like the Western, Pulp Fiction, Jazz, etc. ever develop. That the PTB have done pretty much all they can to suppress the things I mentioned only proves both my tangential points that Americans have a distinct national character and identity. A character and identity said PTB fear with brick-shitting intensity. It is, after all, the "good" version of what many would term globalism (the thing they push for in the profoundly negative and demonic "Tower of Babel" sense). The true American seeks not to impose his or her national character or identity upon the other. Instead, it's an offer to be taken or left on its face and if rejected is met with the challenge to be the best version of themselves they can be. We sure as hell will continue to strive to be the best version of us ourselves.
You either come to America with the intent to live as one does as an American in rejection/righteous and ardent rebellion to what your "native" homeland and/or ethnicity would dictate, or you do not. You either come to America as a pilgrim convert or as a duplicitous invader. No middle ground on this one. Sadly, our current rulers want more of the latter and far less of the former for they serve their master below while, at the end of the day, America always truly sought to serve the one true God. When the founders said "In God we trust" they didn't mean the god of Islam, Pagans, etc. They meant the Christian God.
This is all rather Gamma if you really get down to it. I want to explain why, but I'm rather tired now. Out of energy and spare damns, let alone shits or fucks. Gotta sleep now...
First time running into this problem eh? He was a product of his time and several bad things happened to him. He actually fought in the trenches of WWI and survived a Gas attack for instance. Did you know that? He really hated gas after that one. Probably why he didn't authorize the use of "Tabun" when, if used on the D-day invasion, would have stopped that assault dead in its tracks and probably altered the momentum of the war. After all, first uses of WMD's tend to be highly effective and "Tabun" was the first true "Nerve Gas" to be discovered and only a full-on Hazmat suit could hope to prove an adequate countermeasure.
Tabun, like most any good nerve gas, isn't effectively countered with a good gas mask. For it can and is absorbed by the bare skin to similar results. Oh a small puff on your skin will merely cause a horrific legion but is otherwise survivable. A great cloud of it rolling over your forces? Yeah, they dead. All of them. Period!
I type him as an IEI for this reason. Nobody with :Ni: dominance who saw the worst-case scenario play out would risk it. After all, he experienced gas attacks directly and as horrifically effective as Tabun might prove to be who was to truly say that the Allies hadn't cooked up something far worse somehow? Best not to risk giving them the excuse they were likely hoping his Reich would provide them to show them a potentially horrific truth. After all, Winston Churchill himself was all too eager to use Gas in the second World War because, as he saw it, everyone was eager enough to use it during the first so why the hell not in the second?
"Oh you can do that? Well, we can to. Only ours is better!" And then his loss would be a certainty. So he held its deployment back. Perhaps he was "wrong" to do so given how it all played out but hey, hindsight is 20/20 as they say and he, thankfully, was not afforded the opportunity to benefit from it.
As far as I can tell, the American Founders did mean the god of pagans, specifically Deists. Of course that's not a real god, but people are actually not always Christian just because they're white. I don't think there's any of the DNA of Christianity in American governance, I think that's all deism, contrary to the American population (this seems quite similar to Germany in most people being deeply religious but the government being seemingly rather anti-religious, and dissimilar with almost every other Western country and absolutely all the other heavily-populated ones I can think of.)
And there it is! I can guarantee you that all of the Founders of my nation proudly could and would look upon you with absolute disgust as they easily pass a Witch Test that I will now issue to you. Can you even simply say the words? Can you but merely type out, hell, even a copy and paste would be enough. "I confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead"
No wiggle room. No clarifications or legalistic BS. Just the words I've stated. Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. Say it. Say it anyway you wish, but say those words. Even saying them with venomous sarcasm and vitriol qualifies.
Again, a mere copy and paste will do if your feeble fingers cannot manage to depress the necessary keys. I'm a bit sorry to be so confrontational here but damnit you really struck a nerve in regards to being an ignorant fool. I can and will expand upon that last point you made but let's just say don't blame me for going all out. You literally asked for it in that case and well, that's on you...
I confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. I also think the Founding Fathers of the US were probably a bunch of deists and this probably contributes to the problems we have today. Now prove they weren't. Novalis used a bunch of Christian-sounding rhetoric, but he definitely didn't believe it. So let's look at the Founding Fathers.
For the record, I don't think the US founders could pass your witch test. I think they would say something such as "If such a magnificent person as Jesus was Christ, we would have to confess he was raised from the dead." That is a rather different phrase and the kind of thing every sort of Jacobin seems to like to say.
He is definitely a H-subtype (Ni-harmonizing) based on his looks and facial expression, maybe some other traits mixed in as well (I'm guessing N or D?). EIE already makes way more sense than IEI just for this very reason. Maybe another type is possible as well. Eva Braun looks like a C-subtype actually.
I found some EIE-H descriptions and wonder how much of that is applicable of ******.
Harmonizing Subtype
Mentor — Visualizer
Prototypes: Seers and interpreters like Nostradamus or Helena Blavatsky
He is very imaginative and is able to see what is happening around him in terms of fate or hidden meanings. He waits for an event or sign to alert him that it’s time for change. He is prudent and far-sighted, capable of planning things far out into the future. He is able to wait for an ideal situation. He is inclined to be pessimistic in his visions, favoring them over common sense.
He is often interested in the unusual and mysterious phenomena. He frequently anticipates future developments. His health and mood fluctuate. He is distrustful of information that is not consistent with his own views, be it from phenomena or people. He is slow in his decision making as he weighs all the pros and cons. He rarely violates his inner balance; therefore, he responds irritably to those who disturb his peace.
He is able to patiently listen to people, gently expressing his opinions without giving stern or intrusive answers. He sometimes mediates between disputing parties, trying to appease all parties, aiming for a mutual winwin solution. He may spend a long time trying to bring conflicting friends together, explaining the position or motivations of their opponent.
He is devoted to pursuing a stable and relaxed way of life; at home, he is undemanding and disorganized. He is inclined to pursue an artistic expression in literary work or handicrafts. He is fairly suspicious and is afraid of diseases and injuries. He is able to manage in a minimally relaxing environment, though he greatly appreciates comfort. Taking care of his health systematically is difficult.
He dislikes handling many things at once and is capricious and picky when faced with options, from clothes to personal relationships. He will postpone unpleasant things until the very last minute. He is quite unsure of himself and is afraid of being ridiculed or rejected. He is self-conscious about his physique or abilities.
He spends a lot of time alone, reading books from rare authors or listening to music. At such moments he conjures visions, pictures of unusual events or archetypal characters. He often suffers from recurring depression or panic attacks. Something attracts him to the dark side of life.
No, doesn't fit, normalizing subtype description fits more. ****** was a mix of an ideological crusader and a self-exhalted prophet when he rose to power. He claimed to be well-read and some sources claim he was very well read, he superficially mentions schopenhauer and nietzsche but he gives the vibe that he was being a poser more than anything.
Likely started actually reading at the middle of his political career.
I think you're wrong. "The founders" were hardly "orthodox" in their belief in Christianity, if you can even call it that, from what I can tell.
In any case, why does it even matter? The explicitly made an amendment to protect freedom of religion, so what does it matter if the god they believed in was "true" or "the one", or not? You and End are acting like what they believed was some kind of a standard to follow. Which is just stupid.
A lot of them did believe in the One True God and Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior -- Orthodox Christianity, but ... some didn't, and some of them had influence from other things while not Deists entirely, but all in all, they didn't believe that anyone should be persecuted for their beliefs. No government branding religions being forced on anyone.
I think the US constitution authors (I think I'll stop even calling them "the founders" because the US as a country was around a long time before they were even born) did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, they were basically Jacobin Bolsheviks who believed in the Deist god and they believed that Jesus was a moral model for keeping the "Untermensch" in line essentially. I don't hate America either, I just think America needs to move past its civic idolatry which even leads people to romanticize (heh, that word) the past too much and not be able to see what's really agonizing the country.
I'm not a big proponent of RationalWiki, but to be honest, they tend to be as unbiased as Wikipedia, just tonally different. Which is to say, in many cases extremely biased, but that's what we have our Aristotelean rhetorical triangle of ethos, logos, and pathos for. This page doesn't say everything I've said about the US constitution authors, but it does really make Jefferson look the way I said. Jefferson Bible - RationalWiki
My opinion of the history of American politics now: the American constitution authors seem to have been mostly horrible people who believed in deism for them and pushing religion on the "Untermensch" like many other revolutionary types. However, it also seems to be the case that no one involved in the American Revolution really put politics at the center, culture was at the center, and no one really cared about the Constitution when most of the country was the lawless Wild West and most people were not literate anyways. Thinking of the history of the country as being centered around the cult of Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton seems to be an almost Hegelian later addition and the cause of all our present problems. I heard the neocons were Trotskyites anyways, so what can I say.
Praise be the lord for the graces of conversion! I think you might be the first person I've tested here that passed. Holy hell you have no idea how happy I am to be wrong about someone on this front. Finally, someone who isn't a total lost cause! I may yet see you in Heaven if I am granted enough grace.
(Rifles through some stuff I read a few years back in) Ah! Found it: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu...ntext=hist_fac
Give that one a read would you? All the founders would have passed the test as you did (at least publicly) if only because their political careers depended on it and, end of the day, I doubt any of them were demonically obsessed or touched by said creatures at the times it mattered most. I found the parts about Jefferson and Washington especially interesting. Also, fun fact, Washington was a Freemason. That's a whole can of worms you can dive into at your leisure.
No, no we don't. For Muslims and Jews (save for the case of Messianic Jews) openly and ardently deny the divinity of Christ and the truth that he is the Son of God. I believe in the Trinity and thus accept God the Son as both fully human and fully divine. They openly and professedly do not. Their claims that my God and theirs are the same is malicious sophistry of the kind I, Socrates, and other seekers of undeniable truths rightly condemned in the harshest of manners.
As for why "freedom of religion" is enshrined in our constitution well. Here's a hot take on how most Americans who happen upon Europe's 30-Years war see things...
https://youtu.be/pj9Hzs-vBLE?t=14
Far as I (and most other Americans are concerned) it should have just ended without the police brutality. Shit was just dumb man. That .001 Percent deviation from your dogma is a non-issue if we truly have full faith in our concvictions. After all "If God is with us, then who is against us?"
Like I've said time and again I have the full faith of my convictions. I'm right, I know I'm right, and I am so certain I am right that, if I hazard a wager that you too are a rational being, that you will come around to my point of view in the future absent of any of my own actions save for the seed I've now planted in your mind.
Force? Coercion? Thumping a bible/koran/torah/etc? Counterproductive efforts! Time itself will convince you as you continue to view my predictions and assertions ring true in your own life.
All I need do is openly and proudly plant the seeds even if the current political/power structure would kill me for doing so. After all, the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. Christ on the Cross is the ultimate example of this. One "man" died and shed his blood. Billions now believe, in one form or another. Trillions more will in the coming centuries for I doubt we're gonna land upon the true "end times" before we've finished colonizing this galaxy and, well, that's a whole other lecture from me but suffice it to say that once we get this current Clown World BS sorted out it'll only have a chance of "trying again" once we've literally populated the Milky Way to a rather significant extent...
Quote:
EIE-Fe: While he foresees further development of events, he doesn’t like to rush them, hesitates making a decision, wavers, weighing out all the “pros” and “cons”. Doesn’t like when he is hurried. Ignores the attempts of others to impose any other pace. In conversation, gives a lot of attention to details.
Often takes the initiative in making acquaintances and contacts. Oriented at correct, appropriate, polite attitude towards himself. Needs sensitive, attentive, careful relation to his person, intolerant of familiarity in communication. Self-loving, sensitive and vulnerable, for a long remembers offenses and insults. Respects people not only for their personal qualities and achievements, but also for their position in society. Tries to understand the motives and predict future actions of people around him, to give them timely advice.
A romantic in his soul, put feelings above reason. Emotional, with difficulty hides his sufferings and emotions, but in deeds usually demonstrates caution. Only after carefully weighting everything out can make a radical decision. After that, not inclined to make compromises. He would rather suffer a defeat than renounce his beliefs, as he has a tendency for self-suggestion. Distrustful by nature, skeptically oriented, critical towards the actions of others. Appreciates words, but prefers concrete evidence of affections and practical services. Nitpicking when it comes to his outward appearance, takes care of his looks and his manners of behavior.
Values his authority and reputation of a serious person. Distrustful of unverified information. Afraid to make a mistake, prefers to share responsibility for some assignment or task with someone else. Proactive, operative, diligent, seriously considers work that was assigned to him. Does not like doing several things at once, but when he feels that he cannot delay any longer, can with much energy and vigor complete a significant bulk of work within a short period of time.
EIE-Fe-DN suits him.Quote:
Dominant Subtype
Mentor — Leader
Prototypes: Public figures, radical clerics, tactical commanders, charismatic leaders
This subtype is emotional and eloquent. He is a good speaker who can speak with enthusiasm, expressing various shades of emotions from the sublime to intonations of irony and sarcasm. He knows how to captivate people with his ideas and leadership. He uses mass-audience suggestion techniques such as persistent repetition of slogans or repackaging the message in various ways. He can rally people against his opponents. He is skilled at psychological influencing techniques and is capable of seeking justice for victims and defending ideals such as law and order, as well as driving ideology, creating, destroying, or interpreting symbols, explaining perceptions of ideas.
He is inclined to dramatize events and escalate tensions, warning others of impending danger. He always calls for decisive action. He is subject to constant inner emotional tension, and periodically needs to discharge such accumulated tension in a drastic way.
He never resorts to compromises: it is easier for him to fail than to renounce his beliefs. He generally believes that concessions and appeasement do not contribute to restoring stability in society. He focuses on major, fundamental problems for humanity. Sensing impending danger, he’ll promptly take necessary measures to avoid it.
He is impatient and does not like to wait. He’ll weigh ambiguity or uncertainty immediately when making decisions, going from bold and resolute to recklessness in extreme situations. He operates on the principle of “sink or swim.” He is not afraid to go ahead with “blitzkrieg” tactics; he is categorical and authoritarian, and does not accept criticism and objections.
Adjectives I associated with AH (out of all words considered):
Not Respectful, not Timid, Rebellious, not Conventional, not Polite, not Traditional, Outspoken, Reckless, not Cautious, not Bashful, not Dependable, Disrespectful, not Modest, Uninhibited, not Meek, Aggressive, not Submissive, not Passive, Unconventional, not Responsible, not Reliable, not Cooperative, Impolite, not Humble, not Restrained, Conceited, Bold, not Unaggressive, Dominant, Forceful, Assertive, not Trustful, Domineering, Impulsive, not Peaceful, not Consistent, not Patient, not Discreet, not Reasonable, Boastful, not Steady, Bossy, not Cowardly, Rough, Independent, Distrustful, Clever, Magnetic, not Naive, Selfish, Quarrelsome, not Tolerant, not Helpful, Expressive, not Undemanding, Confident, Enterprising, Courageous, not Mature, Demanding, not Uncompetitive, not Gullible, Brave, not Pleasant, Assured, Competitive, Bitter, Cold, not Compassionate, Unstable, Energetic, not Affectionate, Knowledgeable, Cranky, Irritable, not Self-critical, not Friendly, not Relaxed, not Optimistic, not Indecisive, Moody, not Unexcitable, Excitable, Grumpy, Passionate, Negativistic, not Wise, not Unemotional, not Easy-going, not Amiable, Decisive, Alert, Insecure, Purposeful, Emotional, not Happy-go-lucky, Self-pitying, not Carefree, Self-disciplined.
(I was unable to decide for: Analytical, Cheerful, Fearful, Firm, Genial, Industrious, Jovial, Logical, Mannerly, Masculine, Merry, Practical, Quiet, Rational, Reserved, Sensitive, Sentimental, Shy, Silent, Sociable, Social, Talkative, Unsociable, Warm).
This makes me think ILE is most likely (I previously thought LIE), with EIE being unlikely (even SLE is more likely than EIE).
That's somewhat wrong.
Hilter was respectful,, timid, obedient, polite, submissive, weak (although he had huge complexes over this), not agressive, not rough, delicate, helpful, somewhat compassionate, cheerful, firm, mannerly, reserved, sensitive, sentimental, shy, warm.
What he really was above all of that is dramatic, unstable, and an extremist. Had a teenage crush for which he simped, so he severely stalked her, and eventually planned to kidnap her and kill her as he killed himself throwing themselves hugging down the danube river.
And then you investigate and see things like Eva Braun getting envious of some british actress and regaining Mr.H attention through a suicide attempt, or all the things surrounding his cousin (Geli Raubal) and you can see the kind of world he built and lived in.
Certainly the first EMO lol
****** was (evidently) EIE-N.
Attachment 18219
He wanted the deaths of millions of people, and his actions resulted in the deaths of millions of people. I think he was the opposite of "respectful, timid, obedient, polite, submissive, weak, not aggressive, not rough". He may have given the illusion of being respectful in diplomatic interactions, but even in public speeches and private meetings, he was naturally disrespectful. I couldn't decide if he was sentimental or not - I couldn't decide what was meant the term generally. He had a sentimental appreciation of the culture and art he didn't consider degenerate, certainly. His natural attitude was to form Europe to his liking, even though though it meant the deaths of millions and large scale upheaval (not sentimental, compassionate, mannerly there). Not liking animals being killed and occasionally giving someone some sympathy doesn't make him on the whole a compassionate and helpful (as opposed to selfish) individual.
There's not even conclusive evidence that links ****** to the Holocaust (as there is for the Madagascar plan). ****** didn't intend to kill millions but to implement a new system alongside a new form of "ethnic cultural-spiritual" life, and well, all which is encompassed by ******ite national socialism. The intended deaths were either results of political maneuvering or often the "means" to the "end" of nazism which was not even archieved.
His actions were born out of compassion for his own people on detriment on others, some analysts think he changed his care for his dying mother when she expired for caring and providing for his people, while protecting his people from jewish bankers, on which he might have projected his abusive father and his hate might have been fueled by that. I know he was responsible for motivating the german army to be atrocious on Poland but I think you should take things on their context (on this case, ****** was also dramatic and unstable). ****** was not as much convinced of his role in the Nazi party at the start, where (as he describes in Mein Kampf) he saw national socialism as a tool to help Germany and the Germans, but the more he progressed the more fanatical he became for his cause, essentially becoming an exhalted prophet of nazism. If you take a look at his speeches, you'll notice at the start they are more "calm" but as the time passes they turn more and more emotional and involved.
Furthermore you cannot judge someone by ideological beliefs when comparing to his day-to-day life. He was generally respectful, kind, mannery, weak, languid, etc. He was also weak-willed, to the point of preferring to not eat than to work. For most of his life we was respectful, timid, obedient, polite, submissive, weak, not aggressive, not rough...
An anecdote; When ****** was in love with certain noble woman I mentioned in the previous, he sent his only friend to stalk her. When he told ****** she loved dancing, he answered that in reality she hated dancing and only did it because society expected her to do so (****** hated dancing). When he was informed that she had romantic things with military officers, he demonized the officer class and the army. He even left her a love note where he told her to wait for him until he graduated from arts school to marry him (He was a nice guy by today's standards). Once she threw some roses from a car and one of them got to Mr.H's hands, he interpreted that as an evident sign that she loved him and became flamboyant.
****** had been denied from the Vienna Arts school, and when his only friend Kubizek was admitted into music school, H stopped talking to him.
******'s speeches seem to me to be sincere transcripts of his emotional state, and lots of them are almost anxiety attacks.
All of this reveals certain character traits, such as dramatism, deep-felt emotionality, dreamyness and imaginativeness... as well as fantasizing, categorical judgement and intolerance as tools to maintain mental integrity.
I honestly would avoid to judge sociotype by the results of his politics or his/her opinions, but rather type by Info metabolism and real-life traits.
BTW it is not right to equate agreeableness with "subjective karma score" (it even conflicts with inborn trait assumption). I have heard that English speakers are blind to this (hence they created HEXACO which seems to address agreeable machiavellianism but I view it only as a beginning) .
Ok, an other observation, I read somewhere on the internet.
His table manners.
People who had watched him eating reported: He ate fast, mechanical and without any expression of relish.
Does that fit Si PoLR?
Mein Kampf and his speeches are good sources of evidence that he was the architect of the Holocaust. It was decades in the making.
****** and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Alan BullockQuote:
Having launched the deportation program precipitately in the autumn of 1941 on ******’s orders, Heydrich found it necessary to call a conference to discuss the large-scale problems of organization involved in carrying out “a total solution of the Jewish question in Europe.” Known as the Wannsee Conference, it met in Berlin on January 20, 1942. On the agenda were questions of selection (How was a Jew to be defined?) and possible exceptions (for example, Jews employed in the war economy, the Mischlinge, i.e., half and quarter Jews). The most difficult problems were how to remove hundreds of thousands of terrified people from their homes, to transport them hundreds of miles in the middle of a war, and then to provide for their reception in the occupied territories before they were put to death.
The minutes of the conference were written by Eichmann. Later he testified that the discussions took place “in very blunt terms—the talk was of killing, elimination, and annihilation.”88 But the circulated record is all the more horrifying because of the official, businesslike, and objective way in which it records such points as,
Around 11 million Jews come into consideration for this final solution of the European Jewish question, who are distributed among the individual countries as follows. [Among those listed were the 330,000 Jews in England and the 4,000 in Ireland.]
In the process of carrying out the final solution, Europe will be combed through from west to east.89
A year later Himmler had a report prepared for ****** on the progress made with the Final Solution during 1942. The total number of Jews who had received “special treatment”—altered to read “who had passed through camps in the Government-General”—was 1,873,539. Retyped on the special Führer typewriter with large letters for ****** to read, it was eventually returned to Eichmann with Himmler’s instruction: “The Führer has taken note: destroy. HH.”90
THERE WAS ONLY one man among the Nazi leaders who could have conceived of carrying out literally so grandiose and bizarre a plan. Not the bureaucrats who attended the Wannsee Conference and were concerned with the practical problems it presented. Nor the SS and party bosses in the Government-General, the Warthegau, and the Ostland, who wanted to find ways—and were quite prepared to consider mass killings—to relieve the overcrowding in the ghettoes and camps for which they were responsible. They had no interest at all in bringing large additional numbers of Jews into their territories and seeing these used as killing grounds for the extermination of the whole of European Jewry.
****** alone had the imagination—however twisted—to come up with such a plan. How long he may have nursed it, no one can say, but it was entirely in keeping with the importance he had attached to “the Jewish question” since he made his first speech at the end of the First World War, and if there was one year in which he was capable of making the leap from imagining such a “solution” as fantasy to imagining it as fact, it was 1941.
This was the year in which he had shown his terrifying capacity to turn into fact another part of his “world view,” the fantasy of Lebensraum in the east, by launching the German army against the Soviet Union in an unprovoked act of aggression. As in the case of Operation Barbarossa, ****** himself had neither the ability nor the interest to organize the execution of his Final Solution himself: That he left to Himmler and Heydrich, to the Eichmanns and Hösses, as he had left organizing the invasion of Russia to the army General Staff. But if there had not been a ****** to conceive of such projects and to convince others that they could actually take place, neither would have occurred. This was ******’s unique gift, already demonstrated in bringing the obscure Nazi party to power, in making a defeated Germany again the most powerful state in Europe, in defeating the French. As he said in his “prophecy” speech about the destruction of the Jews, at every stage he had been laughed at and not taken seriously; the Final Solution was to prove one more example of his claim that those who had mocked him as a prophet would end choking on their words.
******’s second contribution to the Final Solution was to legitimize it. Those involved in carrying it out knew very well that it was a state secret which could never be admitted in public. They understood why there was no signed ****** order. ******’s references to his “prophecy speech”—to which he referred six times in major speeches, each broadcast between January 1942 and March 1943—were enough to convince them when Himmler and Heydrich said they were carrying out the Führer’s orders. As Führer, he combined all the principal offices in the state, party, and armed forces, giving him a unique authority with which to reassure them that, however disturbing the job they were called upon to do, they were acting in the interest of the German Volk. As Himmler told his SS commanders: “This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written…. We had the moral right, we had the duty to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us.”91 ****** was the guarantee of this.
******’s final contribution was to supply the will not only to launch such an operation but to insist that it would continue up to the end of the war, long after everyone knew it was lost. The search for Jews continued all over Europe: in France, Holland, Italy, Greece. The transport was found to move them to Poland at a time when the railways were under constant attack from the air and hard-pressed by the demands of war. As late as July 1944, Eichmann despatched another 50,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. Once there they were put through the same ghastly routine. White-coated doctors—with a gesture of the hand—selected those fit enough to be worked to death. The rest were required to give up all their clothing and possessions and then, in a terrified column of naked men and women, carrying their children or holding their hands and trying to comfort them, were herded into the gas chambers. When the screaming died down and the doors were opened, they were still standing upright, so tightly packed that they could not fall. But where there had been human beings, there were now corpses, which were removed to the ovens for burning. This was the daily spectacle which ****** took good care never to see and which haunts the imagination of anyone who has studied the evidence.
Hopes of being liberated from the camps as the Red Army advanced were crushed by the SS, who organized death marches to the west, the horrors of which few survived. Those who did were shot in concentration camps in Germany. The last death march of the war, from Mauthausen in Austria to Günskirchen, took place in the first week of May 1945, after ****** had committed suicide.
Continuity is not a conclusive argument in proving ******’s responsibility for the Final Solution, but neither can it be ignored. Sitting amid the ruin of his hopes in the Berlin bunker, the man who had first appeared in history twenty-five years before ranting against the Jews found consolation in the thought: “Well, we have lanced the Jewish abscess; and the world of the future will be eternally grateful to us.”
Agreeableness indeed allows that it can (or not) be rather twisted behind the scenes. Anyway he agreed with the "science" that was contemporary but it went very far and formed a dogmatic belief (I advice to be non dogmatic even when it comes to Big5!). These sort of deeds do not reveal nothing new in humanity.
Te role (wants to be seen as efficient but not if it violates his ethics), Fe leading (good at interacting with people and probably ties something's value to how much it makes him passionate). I would generally not say that he's Ni vulnerable. He has a good chance of being an EIE.