Leonardo Da Vinci

[Beautiful sky]

ILE

1. Two birds in the bush [he often chooses this option instead of one in his hand]. He is a genius at finding new opportunities and possibilities. What he has completed always seems to him less important compared to the dawning perspectives which are irresistible an inexhaustible. Scientists of this type tend to procrastinate with the publishing of the results of their research, thinking that the greatest discoveries are still ahead. He lives for the future; meanwhile being not acknowledged does not intimidate him. He chooses to do what is interesting rather than what is lucrative.

2. Recharge. He needs to feel emotional enthusiasm and ardor, and thus needs permanent sensory and emotional "recharge". He is unable to supply it himself, so he depends a lot on his surrounding. If nobody feeds him with impressions and positive emotions (nobody can do it as well as his dual The Mediator) – he mopes about life, loses ability to work and taste for life. To compensate for the absence of his dual he begins to mix with a lot of friends, becomes active in social projects, starts up clubs or scientific schools (Sigmund Freud, a representative of this type, invented the concept of sublimation to explain this fact).

3. A leader. He is a good organizer because he remarks potential possibilities in people and situations. If he is to wield power, he needs justification for it: why he must take that position, e.g. a critical situation that nobody else can deal with, assignment from the top. When he takes power, he begins to analyze the needs of his subordinates, tries to provide them with everything and only then makes the necessary demands on them.

4. A servant. His dependence on the emotional ambiance of others produces an effect of extreme compliance in minor and routine things. Having freed himself thus from having to pay attention to such unpleasant things, he switches for his favorite activity – figuring out the essence of things and phenomena. He does not differentiate people into “us” and “them”, tries to be equally polite to everybody.

5. Undifferentiated feeling. He believes that all people in their essence are kind and love one another. Therefore he looks funny enough when the situation requires initiative in expressing feelings – they are not his line at all.

6. Danger. Critical situations pep him up as much as good others’ emotions. The more emotions and panic there is around him, the more active and assertive he becomes. It is impossible to intimidate him – an attempt to do so produces just the opposite outcome. He willingly takes responsibility in critical situations; however, in peaceful and quiet conditions he starts to doubt his right to occupy a responsible position, gets frustrated by the competition and leaves.

7. Liberty of communication. He likes familiarity in communication, however, does not show initiative in this, but awaits it from others.

[Beautiful sky]

Can you not understand me. Is there some sort of mental block that's keeping you from understanding me?

I don't think Einstein is ILI.

What is wrong with you?

Sorry, I thought you meant likely....
Wow, you agreed with me for once.

[krieger]

Also to say that ILE are not detailed oriented is false, they are detailed to a extreme, the only way for something to be invented is to make it work and that requires details which other people would otherwise overlook. However, because a ILE's focus on details it pointed towards their interests, it's hard for them to be detailed outside their interests, which can be many and varied.

But are they detail oriented in the sense a painter is, the way Da Vinci was towards his artistic ventures? I somehow doubt it. Also you are describing an attitude of focussing on details for the sake of inventing stuff, which isn't what Da Vinci always did. He upheld the exposition of detail as the primary purpose of his scientific investigations, forgoing even theoretical expositions for the sake of it.

People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts).

[Beautiful sky]

But are they detail oriented in the sense a painter is, the way Da Vinci was towards his artistic ventures? I somehow doubt it. Also you are describing an attitude of focussing on details for the sake of inventing stuff, which isn't what Da Vinci always did. He upheld the exposition of detail as the primary purpose of his scientific investigations, forgoing even theoretical expositions for the sake of it.

People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts).

NO; they are more into arts and crafts, like knitting and sawing, small finger painting projects.

[Pa3s]

ILE. I think Ne base is fairly obvious, as he was the most inventive motherfucker who ever lived.

+1
Yes, that's also my guess. Given the fact that he was way ahead of his time and made many great inventions I'd say he's definately N. He didn't care much about what the public or the church said about his studies of human's anatomy. His research was the most important thing to him.

[FDG]

#hkkmr

"Also he is unlikely a ILI, he had many problems completing his University education for the lack of ability to conform to his professors demands. He was incapable of doing the work as required by his professors and thus was only able to attain a teaching degree."


Wrong.
ILI are very compliant.
It's ILE that are very stubborn and challenging, like myself.
That shows me how very little you actually know of either type; maybe, because I told you that you are neither.

That's exactly what he said...

[Beautiful sky]

That's exactly what he said...

I know sorry I thought he wrote likely.

[krieger]

People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts).

Another thing about this.

One interpretation of Creating that I like to use is that of "focussing" (Limiting when Static, means the focal point lies outside of oneself rather than on one's experiences).

Process is the property of having a Creating function that is more practical/specific than one's Accepting function (T is more practical/specific than N, and S more so than T, the rest are trickier so this mainly only works when applied to T types).

Hence, Process is in a sense the property of "focussing on specifics" or "focussing on what is relatively specific in your frame of reference".

[Beautiful sky]

Another thing about this.

One interpretation of Creating that I like to use is that of "focussing" (Limiting when Static, means the focal point lies outside of oneself rather than on one's experiences).

Process is the property of having a Creating function that is more practical/specific than one's Accepting function (T is more practical/specific than N, and S more so than T, the rest are trickier so this mainly only works when applied to T types).

Hence, Process is in a sense the property of "focussing on specifics" or "focussing on what is relatively specific in your frame of reference".

With De Vinci we have to remember what he used most of Te or Ti.

The vastness of his abilities and interests could not be covered by ENTp.
"Leonardo would have been exposed to both theoretical training and a vast range of technical skills[17] including drafting, chemistry, metallurgy, metal working, plaster casting, leather working, mechanics and carpentry as well as the artistic skills of drawing, painting, sculpting and modelling.[18][nb 7]"

And development of these skills in almost equal time frame is not likely of any ENTp.

"Leonardo began making detailed plans for its casting,[16] however, Michelangelo rudely implied that Leonardo was unable to cast it.[10]"

ENTp would get bored too easily to to plan in such vast detail and work and ration work to himself on such steady on going nature.

[mu4]

But are they detail oriented in the sense a painter is, the way Da Vinci was towards his artistic ventures? I somehow doubt it. Also you are describing an attitude of focussing on details for the sake of inventing stuff, which isn't what Da Vinci always did. He upheld the exposition of detail as the primary purpose of his scientific investigations, forgoing even theoretical expositions for the sake of it.

People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts).

Why do you think I said that Leonardo could be a Te type?
But ILE has 8th function Te which is equal in strength(dimensionality) hypothetically to the ego function.

Leonardo was not a prolific painter, but rather he was a prolific observer. His principles of observation was to open it up and see how it works in nature and this is something that is shared with ILE's.

Also let it be said that these people which we talk about such as Einstein and Leonardo are not mere representative of their type, whatever they might be, but supremely talented and motivated models of their type.

If their is something that is shared for 4-D Te types, it is that they do not like to leave anything unexamined(within some sphere of interest, large or small).

[Beautiful sky]

Di Vinci never commented on philosophical or ethical issues did he?

I don't see him making any novel connections between any ideas and only exploring the obvious an apparent nature of a being and incorporating ideas.

I thought there were 8-T types.

[717495]

You guys suck. You keep associating all this stuff with the types. No wonder you type people wrong. At least try to be a little more relevant, you know this is a Socionics forum, not a *fill in the blank with your own typology* forum. And yeah I'm talking to myself too: I'm violently scolding myself with that metal strip of a ruler.

[xixi]

Anyway, Da Vince - i'd kinda like to investigate the possibilty of ENFp.

I doubt that da Vinci was ENFp, simply on the basis of his uber-detail-orientatedness. This is a guy who spent a great portion of his life meticulously pulling apart corpses (hundreds of them), then meticulously drawing them with austere exactitude. he was also very socially withdrawn and 'mysterious'. ENFp isn't out of the question, but seems unlikely compared to other types.

one thing about da Vinci that might be worth noting is that he had a massive, high-bridged, hook-shaped schnoz. i've personally noticed this kind of big, down-pointing nose is particularly common amongst ESTj's. ESTj men seem to have the biggest noses (Clive Owen, Daniel Craig...).
Who is someone famous who looks a hella lot like da Vinci?
Which actor would best play him in a film? Sir Ian McKellen?

[Aiss]

3.A profound analyst. He is convinced that living is impossible if one disregards the natural laws that regulate the world. One who ignores reality is heading for disaster. The Criticist believes that it is better to be somewhat too cynical then be a hypocrite. Hearing of a situation, he very soon thoroughly understands it and begins to tell to the bewildered interlocutor the details and aspects that the latter had overlooked. His analysis is devoid of any self-encouragement. "You shouldn't have a different attitude towards life than you have for the kitchen—the same amount of stinking odor; if you want to cook a dish, you'll have to get your hands dirty, just make sure you'll be able to wash the dirt off once you are done; that's the entire moral of our day and age."— (commitment)So speaks Vautrin, a hero of Balzac's books. Such misanthropy can kill the anybody's spirits, except his dual (The Politician)!

If you think this citation has anything to do with commitment, you should probably read the whole thing again. And again. Until you finally understand.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this discussion, by the way.

[Amber]

Ne creative -- LII

[Marep]

Te dom

[on a peaceful hiatus]

LIE

I feel like many people type inventors like da vinci as ILE because they think that Ne base is almost always responsible for inventions. aushra used to make this mistake, too. that's why Einstein is so commonly typed as ILE, even though ILI makes much more sense for him.

da vinci was very artistically gifted. you need to have highly developed Ni to create the things he did, and it's the surpressed 7th function for ILE. many of his pursuits and inventions had Te aspects, and it's important to keep in mind that LIE have Ne as 4 dimensional function.

[WinnieW]

From what I know about L. Da Vinci, he hadn't that many original ideas, but he adapted many already known principles, combined and refined them.

Valued Ne does make sense for Da Vinci because he was not only interested in so many different areas of activity, but capable and competent at them. Art, science, human atonomy, botanic, engineering.

He left a lot of the projects he started unfinished. I don't know how that fits gamma values.
Gamma people would just select a few promissing projects and work them trough, I guess.

He was much more process oriented than goal oriented. The projects he finished were to make a living, his real interest was studying and researching however.

[The Reality Denialist]

From what I know about L. Da Vinci, he hadn't that many original ideas, but he adapted many already known principles, combined and refined them.

Valued Ne does make sense for Da Vinci because he was not only interested in so many different areas of activity, but capable and competent at them. Art, science, human atonomy, botanic, engineering.

He left a lot of the projects he started unfinished. I don't know how that fits gamma values.
Gamma people would just select a few promissing projects and work them trough, I guess.

He was much more process oriented than goal oriented. The projects he finished were to make a living, his real interest was studying and researching however.

With such great variety in capabilities it would have been a huge waste of time to concentrate in something when rest of the technology was dragging behind his time.

Anyway, LIE's are known to be refiners of something that is extremely crude and has a potential. Hence pioneer.

[Adam Strange]

I knew a guy who was incredibly intelligent and was good at finding patrons for his brilliant but completely unmarketable inventions and processes. He looked sad near the end of his life. ILE’s tend to remain insanely, delusionally optimistic for their entire lives. I typed my friend as ILI.

I think DaVinci was ILI, also.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I knew a guy who was incredibly intelligent and was good at finding patrons for his brilliant but completely unmarketable inventions and processes. He looked sad near the end of his life. ILE’s tend to remain insanely, delusionally optimistic for their entire lives. I typed my friend as ILI.

I think DaVinci was ILI, also.

ILI is the second option that I would consider for da vinci. he definitely valued Ni, Se and Te. he spend a lot of time dissecting bodies to understand how they work and the way he was designing and improving many practical and technical aspects made me lean more towards dominant Te. he also said that he saw himself more as a scientist, as someone who really wants to know how things work. his artistic pursuits were rather secondary for him (Ni creative)

[Marep]

LIE

I feel like many people type inventors like da vinci as ILE because they think that Ne base is almost always responsible for inventions. aushra used to make this mistake, too. that's why Einstein is so commonly typed as ILE, even though ILI makes much more sense for him.

da vinci was very artistically gifted. you need to have highly developed Ni to create the things he did, and it's the surpressed 7th function for ILE. many of his pursuits and inventions had Te aspects, and it's important to keep in mind that LIE have Ne as 4 dimensional function.

This makes me wonder if Nikola Tesla was LIE too

[on a peaceful hiatus]

This makes me wonder if Nikola Tesla was LIE too

Tesla was an ILI imo. I think his love for a pidgeon can be explained by ILI's hidden agenda "to love" haha. Gulenko types him as ILE... I guess there will never be an agreement on historical figures.

[Marep]

Tesla was an ILI imo. I think his love for a pidgeon can be explained by ILI's hidden agenda "to love" haha. Gulenko types him as ILE... I guess there will never be an agreement on historical figures.

Would you then say alpha NTs are mainly interested in theories and explaining stuff whereas Gamma NTs in all things which can have practical application (robots, mechanical wings etc)

[Adam Strange]

ILI is the second option that I would consider for da vinci. he definitely valued Ni, Se and Te. he spend a lot of time dissecting bodies to understand how they work and the way he was designing and improving many practical and technical aspects made me lean more towards dominant Te. he also said that he saw himself more as a scientist, as someone who really wants to know how things work. his artistic pursuits were rather secondary for him (Ni creative)

In DaVinci's time, calling yourself a scientist rather than an artist might only have meant that you were more interested in T and N rather than S.

Your comments caused me to go back and review the photos I have of my deceased ILI friend. In his late teens and early twenties, he worked in the early laser industry and he and two partners started a company to sell laser rods, because he invented some early processes for making ruby crystals. His partners sold the company, which made him independently wealthy, and he basically spent the rest of his life inventing incredibly fascinating and completely economically useless things. He was interested in optics and bought land and built a building on it and filled it with machines to process optics, which I bought from his sister after he passed.
He would make these DaVinci-like drawings on large sheets of paper, then would make wooden models of what he imagined in order to work out the bugs in the design, and then would sometimes build the things full scale. He made a large tracking platform covered with mirrors that tracked the sun, so he could reflect sunlight into the north windows of his building. He made laser disks for the National Laser Fusion Project which were better than anything they could get elsewhere. He made the world's best Camera Lucida after I showed him a New Yorker article by David Hockney. I tried to market it for him, but he was absolutely hopeless at making money from his inventions. It was the imaginative aspects of his inventions that interested him.

He churned out invention after invention. He made a piezo-controlled single mode laser because he needed one for his laser disks. An LIE would have subcontracted that design to some build house and would have sold those on the market in a heartbeat. But my ILI friend had zero interest in making money or doing anything to mass-produce his inventions.

DaVinci seems never to have actually made anything that he invented. The Se aspects of the process simply didn't interest him. You might argue that this behavior also fits ILE, but ILE's can be terrific Masters of Ceremony and seem to love being in front of captive audiences, while ILI's tend to be loners and usually appear to hate everyone. I'd say that DaVinci was more of a loner.

[The Reality Denialist]

ILi's are kind of known o not coming up new things while they certainly see the flaws.

[Marep]

ILi's are kind of known o not coming up new things while they certainly see the flaws.

I believe ILIs make up the majority of literature and movie critics, which would explain why a huge lot of masterpieces have Ni values in them.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

hmm, from the things I've read, da vinci wasn't really a loner and was often regarded as a very interesting and talkative person. this is another reason why I prefer LIE, because ILI are usually really on their own working on projects (Fe as vulnerable function). I also think they can invent systems in technical fields as long as the data is already out there (meaning they invent things by improving data instead of coming up with something completely new). (Larry Page, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos). LIE are more often trying something completely new, gathering new data with Te and getting new insights with Ne. in a way, da vinci reminds me a bit of Alexander von Humboldt, whom I've types as LIE in the last couple of days.

I think alpha NT's are very heavily drawn towards completely theoretical concepts that don't even need to have a basis in reality. socionics kind of falls in this category. it's a theoretical model that can't be proven scientifically (and alpha doesn't even care to prove it). that's why the Te dominated scientific community doesn't really show interest in this theory.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

double post

[WinnieW]

Anyway, LIE's are known to be refiners of something that is extremely crude and has a potential. Hence pioneer.

Leonardo was a very talented painter and sculptor. He showed a good perception of aesthetics.
I wonder how that fits with -PoLR of LIE.
His drawings are very detailed.

[The Reality Denialist]

Leonardo was a very talented painter and sculptor. He showed a good perception of aesthetics.
I wonder how that fits with -PoLR of LIE.
His drawings are very detailed.

But isn't that some sort consciousness block doing its work. Like I could easily write essays in ethics while not acknowledging my own state. Like stripping out its essence using logic and he using golden ratios and such.

[WinnieW]

Everbody can use the PoLR function, but it's most likely perceived as annoying to do.
And creating artwork like paintings involves utilizing for long periods of time.

Yeah, I know my hate-love relationship with my .

[on a peaceful hiatus]

And creating artwork like paintings involves utilizing for long periods of time.

I disagree, it depends on the painting. Si types love to paint nature, because it evokes in them aesthetic sensations from their memory (see Bob Ross).

Ni is the function that is responsible for artistic abilities, and Ni art very often contains mystical and spiritual elements. Ni is your mental imagery, a often has a focus on mysterious and hidden things. these types are often obsessed with creating something timeless, something that will be remembered hundreds of years from now. I think that the majority of famous painters had Ni in their Ego Block, especially the ones that focused on religious themes.

[WinnieW]

Hard to tell if he prefered or . A lot of his paintings are portraits of real people, others are religious subjects.
The religious ones are likely more , but the portraits of real people are more , imo.

[Marep]

Hard to tell if he prefered or . A lot of his paintings are portraits of real people, others are religious subjects.
The religious ones are likely more , but the portraits of real people are more , imo.

I wouldn't call the Mona Lisa a Si painting, honestly.

[InterPrizeWes]

Da Vinci was boundlessly curious, always learning, Imagining endless contingencies and platforms of interaction for magnifying nature and the sublime with an aurora of gem and tide to unwrap and explore alternative threads springing hyperactive sense of wonder for illuminating man with the soul of life, the harmony of the water, the flower of the fields. He archived masterpiece notebooks, detailing every piece of the larger puzzle. To always be studying like that, myth making, surfing through pattern after ingenuity is very crafty and exquisite. I wish only to be more like Spinoza than da Vinci, so I could speculate on broad frontiers of drapes conjured for empowering fissure after framework of mental capture sprites.

[Salty]

post video