The bottom line is the "word vomit" points to a typologically relevant distinction between ILE and ILI/LSI. It pertains to what Jung talks about Ne's dramatic fire and more zealous style of presentation. You don't have to use the phrase word vomit. You could reframe it in a more positive light and call it something tailor made for an episode of leave it to beaver.
I think word vomit points to Fe more than anything
yeah but how much of what you call word vomit is just you not getting it. inasmuch as you reserve the right to make that call you essentially define for yourself the line between ILI and ILE, making your system an entirely subjective closed system of words that relate to one another but represent nothing but your own point of view dressed up in objective language. in other words, kind of a scamOriginally Posted by Kill4Me
Oh, I find that both Fe and Ne leads do it. It may very well be particular to extroverts but contextualized differently by the creative function. Courtney Love engages in her share of word vomit. However, Ne and Fe stand out to me as the most. Especially the Ne and Fe subtypes for EIE/ILE.
Bert is a classic passive-aggressive.
yeah Ne can totally do it too I agree, anyway, as Bertrand said, it's usually a symptom of bad functioning whatever the function implied is.
there's a whole thread on what passive aggressive means, you should check it out
Inspector bert gadget is hot on the trail.
Wow...I have no idea how she could be Fe PoLR when she's so attuned to and cares so much about how people portray themselves in society. I agree with the 1w2 typing but that should make Fe PoLR even more clearly not correct. That said, she does seem to have a certain Te bent towards her and values intuition quite clearly. Her extraversion should be obvious...there's nothing very introspective about her, it seems she's much more in tune with picking up on trends in the world outside her and doesn't align these with a clear penchant for intensifying her internal perception so much as she demands women set terms and define themselves in strong ways that deliver their own meaning.
The whole "Delta Vibe" Bertrand mentioned makes sense to me, and maybe could get you to an LSE typing but I think as the initial poster suggested LIE makes the most sense here. Her energy levels are very high and she seems intent on motivating others with her strong rational logic and is rather unreceptive to sensual expressions and indulgences that would take someone away from a desired path to define themselves. I think her commentary on psychedelic drugs and being "glad she never took them" is a good example of this.
What was posted above about her being an Ne type could be true in Jung, but it's hard to see her that way in socionics when she's been more focused on critiquing and refining than creating a new system or way of exploring things. I guess you could make an argument for Fi PoLR, but idk she seems like she might not be so bad in that outside of her speeches.
ILE-Ti is more than obvious...she quite clearly lacks the LIE/ILI's capacity for dispassionate cost-benefit calculation. The expression of ideas is too frenzied, too conviction based, too passionately expressed for either type. That's the marks of Ne/Ti (see quotations posted earlier from Jung -- the primary source for socionic functions) and in her case, colored even more profoundly by the over-zealous gestalt of type 1.
paglia's gestalt in no way seeks intimacy, even negates it. (she doesn't desire it or she tells herself she desires it but must put it off into the future to focus on her massive ambition <-- a line of reasoning sx-lasters report employing when they mistype themselves as sx-first or second)….i.e. she's a brickwall with none of the sx-instincts vulnerabilities slowing her down...and easy to dislike/doesn't haves much in the way of a personality typical sx-laster!
Last edited by Kill4Me; 08-09-2018 at 01:55 PM.
I mean yeah Sx last seems a bit obvious. As I said above, I could potentially get behind Ne in Jung, but in socionics LIE works better. Her ideas are very convergent and she's stuck to the same methods of critique her entire career.
I think LIE is a strong possibility. In the first picture in this thread, I was shocked to see that she looks like a slightly more intuitive version of my LSE mother. Lots and lots of Te. But as I said, she looks more intuitive than my mother.
I see a lot of Ne and Te, as well as a lot of Ni and usable Ti, so any xNTx is realistically possible; however, I think, in order of likelihood:
LIE
ILE
ILI
LII
I think that she is so/sp (fairly obvious IMO), but I can not pinpoint her enneagram. Absolute genius!
sigh. 'pantywaist' a slur against women
Recently watched a new talk she gave. Definitely leaning towards Gamma. She talks a lot about how to state of the culture sees believing in "evil" as naive, and that the culture needs to open its eyes to the fact that "genuine evil exists." Very Gamma theme, and now that I think about it runs consistently through all of her work.
Also, she often brings up the idea that she things "walking in progress to utopia" by instituting more and more social regulation is naive, as it will not change the underlying current of the human psyche, which has ugly components, including bitterness, jealousy, etc., you cannot remove with a social contract and will inevitably cause people to do bad things. Seems to reject/mock Ne and Si there, especially Delta.
Obvious ILE.
Initially I thought so as well, cut-and-dry, but now I am not sure so. She is very strong at all the N and T functions. I definitely think extraverted NT with an N subtype. I do see a lot of myself in here; however, I have definitely wavered on my initial staunch view of her being an ILE. She almost seems to "straight ahead" in a Te-Se way. I also think that, in terms of her strengths, it goes Ni > Ne = Te > Ti.
To be honest, I didn't even watch any of the videos or anything. I just looked at the pics on the first page and immediately got very strong ILE VI vibes.
Haha, fair enough. I can see it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote