LII, sillies.
LII, sillies.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I have trouble associating this look with Fe PoLR (or Gamma in general):
Alpha NT. I'd lean INTj. ENTp is possible, but he just seems more like an IJ temperament to me.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Yup, LII.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Noam Chomsky - William F. Buckley debate from 1969 on Buckley's show: Firing Line
Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz debate Israel/Palestine issue (14 parts)
(Off topic: The very beginning of the first video before the debate - the author of "On Bullshit" - he seems like a pretty interesting guy lol, and some really surreal conversations and videos about the book on YouTube)
Like this for instance:
![]()
Last edited by tereg; 11-19-2008 at 11:55 PM.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
fwiw, I do not see him as an ethical type at all.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
I am willing to consider EII, but personally I still think LII is most likely. I don't see the consideration of "moral obstacles" as necessarily indication of his being an ethical type, but nonetheless it seems like the only realistic alternative to LII from where I stand, so it's worth thinking about, at least.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
i think ILE. He likes to explain ideas and they are generally broad and non-specific in the political work i've read. I think an LII would have a much more bookish rational approach. His approach to provide infrmation is just to speak and give his ideas. he reminds me of me for some reaosn.
asd
By the way, the most bookish people are usually gamma SF. There are two kinds of bookish people: BP who understand what they talk about and people who don't...
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp![]()
DCNH: Dominant![]()
--> perhaps Normalizing
![]()
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Ugh. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "bookish" - but then again, maybe I'm not alone. So could you please be more specific? 'Cause I'm extremely bookish, and I got plenty of bookish pals, and I don't think half of us are gamma SF. I'm Delta ST, and most of the rest of 'em are N types at the least.
And after reading Chomsky, I also have a hard time seeing him as an ethical type. Reminds me of how badly I try to rationalize emotions at times.
SLIOriginally Posted by Charles Bukowski