If you are seeing Fi then argue for ISTp, not ENFp. ENFp is a terrible guess.
obviously a blown up country isn't going to be bringing in good revenue .. to say there is a direct connection may be stretching it though
If you are seeing Fi then argue for ISTp, not ENFp. ENFp is a terrible guess.
obviously a blown up country isn't going to be bringing in good revenue .. to say there is a direct connection may be stretching it though
SLE. Makes sense for a benefit relationship with an ESE Jackie Chan: finding something interesting about his style at a distance, later adopting it but not fully accepting the philosophy behind it.
However, I'll believe SEE.
ESTP
Those who call themselves superior are more often than not the fools for it.
I don't so much have a problem with connecting things as I'm disagreeing with many of these arguments in the first place. You can deduce anything from false argument, both true and false conclusions. I may agree with some facts you arrive at but it doesn't mean I have to agree with your reasoning behind them. This is something you fail to notice - there are many other factors besides valid or invalid reasoning. That's Ti way - if it's consistent, it's correct. Except it isn't enough.the problem is that you don't see how things connect together. The arguments that you don't agree with are the same used to conclude the ones you agree with, and my view is totally unitary which validates with most bits and pieces that are to be found in the descriptions, model and whatnot - the ones you actually can and do use for agreement.
No. You're jumping to conclusions yet again.Your current problem is that I said that Serious and Decisive information is information of the relatives, of comparison, right?
See above. Or here you have it in Ti-friendly form: (0 -> 1) <=> 1. Denying arguments you used in your reasoning invalidates the reasoning, but it doesn't guarantee conclusion to be false. In fact, if it's true it should be possible to reach it by other means.But this is actually what helped me understanding certain functions and IEs, the fact that you disagree or don't understand some arguments don't make them particularly less valid. Denying these arguments is denying the ones "one can agree with" as well because they're on based one another.
Consistent doesn't imply true.It is impossible to separate my view on from my view on the polarity of the three function dichotomies, or from my view on the types of certain users because they are the same thing, the fact that I bring them together is a direct result of this consistency of the big picture, not my desire to justify my "doubtful" arguments with credible ones.
Thanks, but no thanks. The issue isn't consistency but accuracy. You can have a completely consistent view which coincides with reality in some points, but not in others. In fact that's part of the nature of theoretical models describing the world.As long as the focus of the discussion was changed from objectivity to my persona (again), please choose two such concepts and PM them to me or create a thread, I can hopefully show you how they connect together in a consistent manner with older quotes of mine, if my time permits and I can find enough information.
FYI I don't particularly disagree with your view of Gamma as 'relativist' quadra, because some Gamma values are actually quite relativist. I disagree with many other aspects of your opinion of it (not the least the way you contrast Fe/Te), which, I think, may be the reason most of your epic mistypings are related to Gamma (aixel, thePirate, Vero, Krig, etc.).
What I really, really disagree with in your view is, first, behaviouralistic tendencies (s/he acts this way, so they must be in X quadra or value Y or soemthing - I've seen this behaviour from people not falling into said group in many cases, sorry). Second, your view of functions, especially super-ego - like what PoLR is and how it manifests itself - if I went by your list I'd be clearly IEI (!), and that's not the first time you speak in this way. Third, your tendency to speak in absolutists terms when there's no absolutist point to be made - blame relativism in my case, if you want, but it's hardly only "relativist" serious types that disagree with you there, from what I've seen.
I never blamed you for anything in that post; if you see it where there's none of it, perhaps you feel guilty and subconsciously expect it from people?
Example (one of many) of what I disagree with:
You keep saying things like this about single IEs, totally neglecting the fact that what manifests in reality is how all elements play out together. Never considering that giving a practical example of alone, without it being with or (not to mention what block it is or other functions) is not only unrealistic, but that you also arrive at hypothesis - like one above - which don't work. Except you don't seem to care about testing them against evidence; the reasoning is correct, so therefore it must be true.As explained above, would have been a good evaluation based on results, but that needs testing. The example would be: this guy is a war veteran, he survived and had great results wearing that red cap all the time. But in a :Ti manner, the evaluation is as negative as before - what he is doing is logically incorrect in the context of today military principles, why he survived or had good results is absolutely of no concern. Not only that classifies wearing that cap as incorrect, but also absurd, as long as it has no logical explanation (unless you know Socionics), but doesn't judge things in absurd or sensible, as long as the business goes on.
basically
The problem is that Pinnochio does not understand people, this he has shown clearly - socionics has a very human aspect to it that requires that additional human understanding in order to master it. Yes, Pinnochio has an understanding of the concepts to a basic degree - basically, as far as the knowledge texts can provide. This, however, has been distorted by reality. People do not act in clear cut ways to their type, many times this image is distorted and getting to the truths requires sorting out what is distorted from what isnt. Reality is only going to be consistent with theory if you can see this.
Pinnochio, if you adhere to socionics consider:
"Habit to overstate its own abilities "
"The individual does not expect others to be actively aware or concerned with his own personal sentiments, and so sees little reason to be concerned with those of others, unless they have direct consequences for the individual. Statements by other persons reflecting their inner feelings are not fully registered by the individual if not accompanied by external emotional expression or actions. Suggestions that the individual may have acted unethically in the eyes of another person who has not clearly expressed disapproval are met with bafflement by the individual; those that are expressed without tact are either dismissed or reacted to aggressively. "
These are descriptions of Fi PoLR, as Im sure you are aware. Im not dropping this arguement because it is something that is pervading your judgement. If you can not see why these things- not being actively aware or concerned with personal sentiments, or not registering peoples feelings if their not accompanied by Fe - are detriment to understanding socionics, well then that is a damn shame. Fi also has to do with intentions - good will vs bad will towards an individual - which is also imperative
Look: If someone behaves in a certain way to you, i.e. breaks an Fi rule with good intent - this can tell you where their values lie if assessed properly (what rule, how important was it in relation to the situation, have they done this before, etc.). What do values have to do with socionics, GEE I DONT KNOW, MAYBE EVERYTHING? Not to say that Fi is EVERYTHING in terms of typing but it is certainly NOT something to be dismissed. Perhaps you dont understand the importance of it precisely because it is your PoLR, so on that note I ask you to consider that perhaps there is something your missing - and to acknowledge that.
When it comes to PEOPLE what you are doing is subjectively evaluating based on what you feel is objective criteria - but the application requires getting to the OBJECTIVE truths of reality which requires an understanding of the pieces in it. You can not say your are objectively evaluating because this particular theory does not DIRECTLY translate into reality. Again, two Ti dominant people have had different views on reality and clashed for it - the systems are only as good as the information you put in it right? Human relations, Fi, is also another network or system. One that can NOT be ignored, as doing so is essentially ignoring the human aspect of a theory BASED ON HUMANS. This cracks the whole foundation.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
wow, you are fucking delusional
for one, my problem is with your typing, not your grasp of theory - what does it matter that Aushra is an ILE, an ILE being able to understand THEORY isn't the problem; its the typing which incorporates theory but is not SOLELY comprised of it - this is where you are severely lacking. neither did I say ILE cant understand people, these 'little' misinterpretations you make constantly. I said you, the user pinnochio, does not understand people. you cant even respond to peoples statements accurately, yet you feel you can type them based on understanding them. you have a major communication problem; what makes you think you can type so accurately if you can not even understand simple sentences
ILE have trouble understanding the things you talked about, this is clear from theory and my experiences with the type. Them, also THINKING they do, is also correlated, despite the opposite often being the case. I do not know why you are making the claims you are making because they are complete bullshit. You are a brilliant example of someone who misunderstands peoples personal values, yet think you do. The claims you come up with are outrageous at times, and this has been expressed by VARIOUS members here with seemingly little taken in from you. Knowing something on a conceptual level is not the same thing as true understanding; you are heavily confusing these concepts.
As far as your claims about ethicals, just more ridiculousness. Our subjectivity allows us to relate to people on a deeper level; theres a point where objectivity cuts off understanding in this (people) sense - as paradoxical as this may seem.
ALSO you claim that Ti is objective and you herald it as some sort of truth - what about the fact that two Ti types can have differing life views, philosophies, interpretations, etc. They can even clash because of it; then whose right as both are 'objective'. That hypothesis is invalid, making classifications and correspondences doesn't mean they are going to be the RIGHT classifications and correspondences, now does it? Just as being an ethical type does not neccessarily mean being good with people, being a logical does not mean coming up with the right logical conclusions. You apply my argument specifically meant for YOU towards a broader context when it was not intended for that. I am saying your PoLR is limiting YOU, pinnochio, not the greater ILE at large.
I had to respond to this as I didn't get the chance before the site went down, though I have little interest in carrying this on further; I doubt you will adhere to reason.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
SLE
Let's get this straight. Morally guiding people, talking about ethics, social justice and other facets of morality, has absolutely nothing to do with type.
Originally Posted by TiOriginally Posted by Anti Fi/TeAnyone that thinks Bruce Lee is Fi valuing is really off the reservation.Originally Posted by Anti Fi
You're just wrong here.Originally Posted by Pinocchio
is ethics of relations, which is about attraction and repulsion, personal preferences, in short the personal relation one has to something else.
I'm not going to use words like identity or meaning because these are all things that are touched on by all our information elements, but people are not merely their ego functions.
Ethics caters to people stuff. Logic caters to universe stuff. This is about as simple as it gets.Originally Posted by thePirate
There is a difference between catering or working with people and understanding them and vice versa.
Also for myself personally, understanding is not confidence. I like certain things to be supported by someone else, corroborated by someone who I trust in those areas, and this is where you will seek other people who are going to help you thru life. This is almost a biological necessity for most people, even the most relationship phobic and anxious people.
As far as ethical types relating to people on a deeper level, let's go to a strip club and I'll introduce you to many many ethical people relating to people on a very deep level.
Sometimes ethical types tend to overstate their understanding of anything and everything.
Last edited by mu4; 06-08-2010 at 10:09 PM.
I love how all of hkkmr's quotes have absolutely fuck all to do with the functions he says they do. I can't believe I considered selling him this forum...what a profane prospect.
Despite his horrible functional interpretations, I actually now agree with hkkmr: SLE is clear to me after watching him in this interview.
ESE-Si
2nd guess being LSI-Se
Bruce Lee was SLE (not sure of subtype, probably Se). Like most SLEs out there, emphasis was on building an image. I bet he wasn't really that "fierce" in private, he simply cultivated that public image.
I've always thought of Chuck Norris as LSE (Te subtype). He was far more expressive compared to SLIs like Charles Bronson (Si subtype).
Jackie Chan is probably Fe-SEI (reminds me of Nikita Krushev).
[] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I got a sense from these quotes that his perception is quickly switching between Ni and Se like he's equilibrating them, which points to one of these being his creative function - i.e. a Ni/Se rational type. The Se of ESTps is "inert" and they have difficulty 'switching out' of its perspective in such a flexible manner as he's going it. I'd go with LSI > SLE for him.
LSI - Se
" I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
As far as I know, SLE's either don't (feel the) need to cultivate a "fierce" image (in public) or they actually are "fierce" in private too.
ILE. Man was a systemiser and a diverse intellectual.
I honestly think people are confusing for in Lee.
Systemiser - that sounds like a convincing argument for Ti. Just you have to tell whether this is produced by him or is inherited (outer influence). Consider that the world of martial arts is traditionally systemising, this is how it is inherited and how all (or most) of them do it.
In my knowledge Lee's own school, Jeet Kune Do, is eclectic, in opposition to an unitary construction. This points contrary to a Ti type, eclectic elements simply don't go with each other consistently. I just read a little about JKD, I have to disagree with your proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do
Ah, sorry @The Ineffable, that wasn't really an exceptionally serious suggestion on my part. I don't really know Socionics enough to type people.
I now side with SLE, because him and Tupac are my faves. Beta Males unite!
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
SLE-Ti... not. Not to be bitchy but why are people so confident and typical in their ego typings on here? They see a martial artist and tough exterior and go with SLE, despite the person not seeming EP temperament at all. "Ok, let's type him subtype so we can rationalize him seeming less EP than SLEs typically are while still typing him SLE." :/ That shit is also done for other typings on here, not just SLEs. Whenever anyone thinks someone is base here though, I am automatically suspicious because I have a good feeling many of you guys automatically lump all the alpha males, tough guys or e8s you meet as SLE, regardless as to whether they are really base.
LSI is a better typing than SLE in some ways and not so much in others (they also type him ISTP in MBTI, I think). I do agree that he is introverted and has a subjective focus but his emotionality is quite strong for someone with 1 dimensional or someone seeking and, for the most part, flows well and he has the dramatics of a Beta NF. Lol, just look at the way he is as a martial artist, how he is in movies, etc.
Sure, he was an actor but compare him to Clint Eastwood, who some peeps in chatbox agreed LSI fit. A lot more rigid and fits IJ and not much emoting at all. CE seems fairly impersonal and logical as well, Lee seems more ethical to me.
Wish this guy was more active here, not this post specifically but his posts in general from what I've seen are pretty good. SLEs, quite frankly, do not talk like Bruce at all, nor have a similar energy. They talk about concrete things, very literal and never missing a single detail in the environment. SLE sis is only concerned with concrete things, pretty materialistic really, doesn't bother much with any sort of abstractions or philosophical talking. Also, I like how people mention his value or seeking for anything seeming in what he writes, instead of ego. o.O He doesn't need it, that's what he's about. Golihov's interpretation of the dual seeking function is that we basically move in the direction or to an environment where that function is being supplied, not supplying it ourselves with great control.
VI-wise, another thing I'm dumbfounded by is how ILEs look to people here??? Like I've seen many threads where someone says Lennon, Einstein, Bruce Lee, etc, look ENTp. o.O It's like creatives here don't look, behave or have any sort of Exxp temperament and look like IXIs to people or something? Maybe Ausra is to blame?
One thing you'll notice with dom and sometime creative celebs, and it might seem quite plain since there are plenty of them, is that they are often introspective and often talking about what's going on in the background, what others aren't seeing, the dynamics, what it's doing to us, what it really means, the effects on the psyche or spirit, the bigger picture, phenomena, spirituality, etc. Like Tupac and J. Cole. I just watched a bit of an interview with Cole and notice it well all throughout the interview. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about and that's what Bruce Lee does.
I've kinda wanted to tie in the functions that are opposite (like /) by what they're similar in and noticed Jung describes it well. base types "perceive all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctiveness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects." Over all, these are people who see behind the scenes or [think they] know what's really going on, sometimes not talking about what they're perceiving because they don't think people will understand it. Spiritual leaders, philosophers (along with doms), artists, visionary leaders, etc. This doesn't happen much with doms, they are really concrete and anything observable or tangible is what they focus on and are the most in tune with static physical details, to the point where the dynamics in the background are largely unseen. They wouldn't likely take martial arts and create a philosophy out of it and you won't hear them talking about what I mentioned about base types, they are experts with the physical details of the outer world and the biggest realists, not people often focused on intangible dynamics. doms focus on that to the point where they are very vague with details, may not know what color their house is, what street they live on after years, etc.
There's the argument for him being a great martial artists meaning he's sensory but anyone can become talented at something they put their mind to, especially introverts who are more focused and deep in their interests in comparison to extroverts who are more broad in them. Looking at those quotes, listening to him in any interview... my god, there's no way he is base. Just listen to him speak a little, please? He is IEI.
I think he's LSI.
Olly I'm not going to analyze Bruce Lee too deeply, but you are very very wrong if you think those quotes or the way he speaks can't belong to a LSI
Edit: I've noticed that IEE males (and the only ESE guy I have ever encountered ) also tend to be very into martial arts.
Last edited by darya; 12-25-2014 at 07:47 AM.
I drop by once in a while to see if anyone has tagged or quoted me, and wants to talk.
You have some solid reasoning in your post there. The whole "he's world-class good at a physical activity, therefore he must be Sensing" thing is a significant stumbling block, even for me. But when you look at how he actually thinks, how his mind processes information, it's pretty clear that he's focused on processing what's going on behind the physical activity, like you said.
I'm still torn between EIE and IEI for him, but I agree Beta NF is highly probable.
Quaero Veritas.
I disagree with the bolded and suggest that this is still another stereotype. Abstraction and philosophizing are basically higher-order thinking and can be done by any type so long as the individual has sufficient intelligence to do so.
Here I agree with the bolded. It's quite general. It describes perceptual processes, but not precisely how those processes will manifest in terms of interests or behavior.I've kinda wanted to tie in the functions that are opposite (like /) by what they're similar in and noticed Jung describes it well. base types "perceive all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctiveness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects."
Actually, those details they see can add up to a lot of insight and appear quite similar to intuitive leaps. They can seem to skip over all the dynamics and simply arrive at outcomes. It's a way of processing. It doesn't occur just in relation to outer objects, like "me see rock, rock big." In any case, it will be blocked with an introverted function. And it will be as sophisticated as the individual him- or herself.This doesn't happen much with doms, they are really concrete and anything observable or tangible is what they focus on and are the most in tune with static physical details, to the point where the dynamics in the background are largely unseen.
I haven't read about Lee lately but imo he was not interested in intangibles per se. There was always a relationship to the physical. Arguably, martial arts is itself an embodied philosophy. He inherited a tradition that didn't treat the physical and the spiritual as separate domains, imo.They wouldn't likely take martial arts and create a philosophy out of it and you won't hear them talking about what I mentioned about base types, they are experts with the physical details of the outer world and the biggest realists, not people often focused on intangible dynamics.
I hope you're exaggerating for effect. I don't even know literally mentally retarded people who are this clueless. And please try telling any ILI I've ever known that they don't know what street they live on, ell oh ell.doms focus on that to the point where they are very vague with details, may not know what color their house is, what street they live on after years, etc.
All that said, I don't have a typing for him. I've generally thought he might be Beta ST and not concerned myself with reasoning it out. I think any type could be a good martial artist. I will leap on the bandwagon that says dual-seeking can create a huge emphasis in a personality. Not as sure about hidden agenda.
What you bolded was me speaking about my sister so that isn't really up for disagreement. While I wasn't talking about capability, I agree with the second sentence, my b if I suggested otherwise.
I see where you're getting at, tbh, I like it better that way too.Here I agree with the bolded. It's quite general. It describes perceptual processes, but not precisely how those processes will manifest in terms of interests or behavior.
Yeah, I know they're not cavemen or people with nothing to offer lol.Actually, those details they see can add up to a lot of insight and appear quite similar to intuitive leaps. They can seem to skip over all the dynamics and simply arrive at outcomes. It's a way of processing. It doesn't occur just in relation to outer objects, like "me see rock, rock big." In any case, it will be blocked with an introverted function. And it will be as sophisticated as the individual him- or herself.
You think? Idk, he seems clearly in tune to the intangible to me but you make a good argument. Actually, I did think after the fact, that his culture had a hand in that.I haven't read about Lee lately but imo he was not interested in intangibles per se. There was always a relationship to the physical. Arguably, martial arts is itself an embodied philosophy. He inherited a tradition that didn't treat the physical and the spiritual as separate domains, imo.
Ell Oh Ell, kinda and sorta not. With a strong focus on that often results in a natural suppression for being in tune to the physical world around you and its details. Personally, I am not too sure what color my house is off the top of my head, if I look sure maybe and I do sometimes forget the name of the street I live on (not the street street but like the one it is attached to and that's what people ask for around here, although I did say a few days ago that we currently lived on the old address we used to live on and my mom said I was confused). Heck, I recently learned they have places called 'villages' to divide the sectors in my town and I've been here for quite a long time. My mother criticizes me for not knowing where we are when I ask her a question that suggests I'm clueless or says shit like "you're telling me that you wouldn't be able to give directions from here to get home?", telling me that I need to open my eyes, etc. The lists go on and, to those with strong senses, it is mind boggling. Jung uses an introverted intuitive girl as an example.I hope you're exaggerating for effect. I don't even know literally mentally retarded people who are this clueless. And please try telling any ILI I've ever known that they don't know what street they live on, ell oh ell.
In short, Jung uses an introverted intuitive girl who came to him as an example of the introverted intuitive's vagueness for details. He asks her where she lives, she tells him and describes the place and Jung realizes that it is a whorehouse, and she didn't even realize she was living there. I read that to my mother and she said she can imagine me not noticing that too. I am probably worse than mentally retarded though, good thing I don't have to handle anything but a dull pocket knife at work. But yeah, I'd imagine ILI's makes them better in regards to that and EIEs too, them being extroverts. Of course, having more experience and having more independence will make you more aware and I'm still pretty jung.
He seems clearly in tune to the intangible to me, I wonder a good way to demonstrate this actually, but I do agree and believe I realized this after wards that his culture could have influenced that emphasis so yeah, great point.All that said, I don't have a typing for him. I've generally thought he might be Beta ST and not concerned myself with reasoning it out. I think any type could be a good martial artist. I will leap on the bandwagon that says dual-seeking can create a huge emphasis in a personality. Not as sure about hidden agenda.
I actually appreciate your response since I can be hypocritical in that I also hate stereotyping especially through quadra and may have done a bit of stereotyping here too . That doesn't change my mind really though, I think the strongest argument and reasoning for ego typings is him being a martial artist so far, which isn't much of one, imo.
Anyways, thanks for the response, Golden. I didn't expect to get anything out of this thread and didn't know if I even wanted it to get active again.
This is just super difficult for me to relate to. I would lose my mind if I had to live that way. It sounds like a really extreme case of something, maybe Ni, but maybe something else. No idea what, although I think I read once that there may be a specific brain structure having to do with sense of direction. Maybe there's something in that. (ETA: It's not a brain structure, it's signal processing, here's a recent article on the topic, though it's in a crap publication.)
Regarding your spoiler rant, yeah, that's exactly the thing I see happen -- convergence on what a type is like, enough for exemplars to emerge, and then convergence around the exemplars. Does it have anything to do with reality? I guess it does, but whether it's going to match up with the written material about Socionics, less clear.
You mentioned people not making cases for their typings, and you're right, ppl don't do that, imo bc mostly it just takes too damn long. I don't have a big investment in Bruce Lee's type, but for the sake of argument, I'll give some ideas for ESTp, since that's the type you argue against. I'll just use the four dichotomies.
Irrational / rational. First of all I think he’s probably irrational. He talks about the state of mind as the point of origin for action. He seems to think that the inner state comes first.
He moves with fluidity, somewhat more in the horizontal plane (and I associate that horizontal orientation with Ep generally), and he’s not particularly linear imo.
Espousing “the style of no style” seems to me to cast off rigid systems that hamper ability to act in response to whatever is thrown at him in the moment.
Introversion / extroversion. I'll say he was an extravert. He was always looking for ways to channel his energy. He spread himself thin, fanning his interests across a broad spectrum. He created a school and brought people together through it.
He took on the external battle of being able to teach Chinese martial arts to non-Chinese. He was future-oriented, I think, like he talked about how to achieve "immortality" in terms of reputation. He said life should be constant movement, never stagnant.
Intuiting / Sensing. You’re saying that Ni has a very weak relationship to the sensory. I’m hard-pressed to see how Bruce Lee had this weak relationship. (I also don’t think this is universally true of N people, especially not to the degree you describe, but I’ll set that aside, since you have a personal story tied up in it.) In that 1971 interview he’s very on-the-spot about the complicated external logistics of filmmaking, for example.
Even though he was interested in philosophical ideas and abstractions, he himself said it wasn’t enough to think, you have to act, you have to do. And he said that everything he knows comes from martial arts. I.e., something physical.
And honestly, he has a settled, firm quality in his body that I just think is more S. Sue me.
Thinking / Feeling. It’s actually on the T / F dimension that I get more torn, because of his rejection of systems, which could be P but could be interpreted as F.
However, he seems to have very strong knowledge of the systems (i.e., Wing Chun) but to have thrown them off deliberately, and I can call that a T move.
He seems expressive (F?), but then, he’s an actor, and he’s certainly not the most expressive actor, he was rather restrained judged against other actors. (T.)
But he was really interested in people, so far as I know. He seems to have placed great importance on his relationships of all kinds. That could be E, but it could be F.
He had an overarching goal of creating an ideal martial art that was probably not achievable in reality, i.e., a perfect, universal martial art. We could put that elsewhere, but I’m going to put it in the zone of Ti. Actually, I’ll put a lot of his abstracting and systemic non-systematizing in the Ti bucket.
The end. A clumsy verbal justification for ESTp. I could approach it other ways, such as by functions. I'm not sure how something like this is any better than just saying, eh, maybe he's Beta ST. Because in the end, my opinion is still eh, maybe he's Beta ST. Also, I think someone else could take the exact same information and twist it in a different direction, in order to build a case from nothing more than an impression of his type.
Last edited by golden; 12-28-2014 at 11:41 PM.
wow a bit of a contentious thread.
Just to come in and add another vote, I'd say beta quadra and would narrow down to SLE/ESTp.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I thought there was general consensus that bruce lee is an SEE.