Maximilien Robespierre, 1758-1794

[Jonathan]

It's interesting that Augusta chose this controversial figure from the darkest moments in French history not only as the name to represent INTj, but apparently also as the model...the image...of what INTj is like.

I'd be interested in people's thoughts on what he was really like, and why Augusta chose him.

My general impression from biographical accounts is that he was extremely uncompromising, absolutely convinced that he was right, and very adept at persuading other people of his position. It appears that his obvious intelligence led others to choose him as a leader, but his inability to compromise, causing heads to roll (literally), led to his downfall.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

I would have said without hesitation ISTj for Robespierre.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Expat]

Besides, most of the people that she picked for "typical examples" have been retyped I think, and probably still, most of them are wrong I would guess.

I think that the non-Russians she picked up were typed wrong.

I would have said without hesitation ISTj for Robespierre.

I agree. He was a guy who was totally convinced he was right and was willing to impose his ideas on others (including that ridiculous Supreme Being cult that only made him look stupid); he also seemed to have been a very forceful and ruthless personality in close contact, able to dominate others by his sheer personality.

Also, the way he was totally caught by surprise when toppled - he probably could not even think that it could happen - suggest ISTj to me too.

[Jonathan]

I think that the non-Russians she picked up were typed wrong.

Ironic that out of all the people she could have picked, she would have picked the wrong one.

But I still think that these personalities influenced her in how she conceptualized type. Whether ISTj or INTj he'd still be dominant . And the main thing that seems to characterize Robespierre is his uncompromising nature, which helped him at first because people felt he was immune to corruption.

Many people on the forums say things like " is understanding" or that sort of thing. It seems clear that in Socionics, is not understanding; is not about asking "why" questions or being open-minded; it seems to be more about having a fixed, clearly defined, systemmatic view of the world that helps one be organized and decisive.

And I think if we look at these characters, or more precisely, what Augusta saw in them, we get a better idea of the spirit in which we should understand the definitions....and put away such notions as " is about understanding" or " is about axiomatic reasoning."

[Mariano Rajoy]

I think that the non-Russians she picked up were typed wrong.

Ironic that out of all the people she could have picked, she would have picked the wrong one.

But I still think that these personalities influenced her in how she conceptualized type. Whether ISTj or INTj he'd still be dominant . And the main thing that seems to characterize Robespierre is his uncompromising nature, which helped him at first because people felt he was immune to corruption.

Many people on the forums say things like " is understanding" or that sort of thing. It seems clear that in Socionics, is not understanding; is not about asking "why" questions or being open-minded; it seems to be more about having a fixed, clearly defined, systemmatic view of the world that helps one be organized and decisive.

And I think if we look at these characters, or more precisely, what Augusta saw in them, we get a better idea of the spirit in which we should understand the definitions....and put away such notions as " is about understanding" or " is about axiomatic reasoning."

axiom:
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

edit: i should be more clear and ask, "is there a difference between axiomatic thinking and systematic thinking, or for our purposes are they indistiguishable?"

[Rocky]

@Jon:

= "why"

= "should"

[FDG]

I agree. He was a guy who was totally convinced he was right and was willing to impose his ideas on others (including that ridiculous Supreme Being cult that only made him look stupid)

Clear-Cut hidden agenda alert!

[FDG]

edit: i should be more clear and ask, "is there a difference between axiomatic thinking and systematic thinking, or for our purposes are they indistiguishable?"

Systematic thinking is not necessarily axiomatic, whereas axiomatic thinking is necessarily systematic.

[Rocky]

I agree. He was a guy who was totally convinced he was right and was willing to impose his ideas on others (including that ridiculous Supreme Being cult that only made him look stupid)

Clear-Cut hidden agenda alert!

But don't INTJs do this as well?

[Mariano Rajoy]

edit: i should be more clear and ask, "is there a difference between axiomatic thinking and systematic thinking, or for our purposes are they indistiguishable?"

Systematic thinking is not necessarily axiomatic, whereas axiomatic thinking is necessarily systematic.

is non-axiomatic systematic thinking just systematic thinking with an unacknowledged axiom? if thinking is systematic, can we define an axiom for the system?

[FDG]

edit: i should be more clear and ask, "is there a difference between axiomatic thinking and systematic thinking, or for our purposes are they indistiguishable?"

Systematic thinking is not necessarily axiomatic, whereas axiomatic thinking is necessarily systematic.

is non-axiomatic systematic thinking just systematic thinking with an unacknowledged axiom? if thinking is systematic, can we define an axiom for the system?

I did take that into consideration, and yeah you're right if you consider the algorith used on systematic thinking the axiom upon which the sys thinking is based.

Rocky: INTjs CAN do that, but I think it's more charateristic of ISTjs.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i just realized how much i love axioms

[MysticSonic]

"But don't INTJs do this as well?"

Always think they're right? Yeah. Feverishly obssess with a particular belief? Not really.

[Rocky]

I've seen that kind of behavior tied more to Ti. Think of someone like tcaudilllg. He basically thinks that the way he sees things is the way that everyone will eventually see them (maybe recognizing how stupid they were without him?) He just throws things out there and expects that everyone will automatically "get" it and accept his perticular view (he's become so convinced himself that he is right because he has molded things his way and everything works out in his world).

And doesn't the Ni hidden agenda have something to do with dealing with the fear of the changing outter world? Or does it have more to do with not wanting to take the energy to learn new things?

[Jonathan]

Yeah, I personally think that the assumption that anyone who imposes his ideas on others has in the ego block is false. I don't ISTjs are the type who would be true to a philosophy and impose it on others. They'd want control over things...especially over how things get implemented...but wouldn't be loyal to any particular belief.

It seems to me that when in positions of authority:
N types want to implement their ideas
S types just want to make sure that stuff gets done
ST types want control over how stuff gets done, but are flexible about what the underlying idea is.

[Rocky]

I think that again sounds like Te/Ti.

[Jonathan]

I think that again sounds like Te/Ti.

What sounds like Te/Ti? Please explain.

You mean that the way I'm describing S sounds like Te? But I know that a lot of ENTjs and INTps want their own ideas to be implemented (rather than just anything). Anyhow, Fj types are also interested in stuff getting done.

Does anyone else here think that Te is about wanting to make sure that stuff gets done (but not being particular about what it is) and that Ti is about wanting one's own ideas to be implemented?

[Rocky]

That's stupid. Everyone wants their ideas implemented.

ST types want control over how stuff gets done, but are flexible about what the underlying idea is.

This however sounds like Te. Ti is about the structural components. Te cares much less about the system/structure then what actually works. Just like ENTJs. Just look at the people on this forum. A Ti type for example may look at the functions and say that anything pertaining to that function is applicable to people who have that type, and they won't generally change what they would associate with that function (MBTI INTP is socionics LII because they are both Ti-Ne). A Te type would look at the actual types, and adjust the definition of the function as it fits (Ti for ISTPs in MBTI is the similar to Si for SLIs in socionics).

[Jonathan]

That's stupid.

Why do so many people talk this way on this forum?

Everyone wants their ideas implemented.

Okay, maybe I wasn't explicit enough in my comments. I'm referring to many observations I've made in workplace situations. Some people, at meetings, try to get other people to adopt their idea. Not everybody does this. At a meeting with a lot of different N types, sometimes there's a battle as each person tries to have influence over what the group will actually do.

In my experience, S types, or at least certain S types, are less likely to do this. I've been in many situations where ISTjs or ISFjs focus on the timelines and let the N types battle out what ideas go in. Anyhow, that's what I'm talking about, and it's what I've observed.

MBTI INTP is socionics LII because they are both Ti-Ne

Well, as you know, that's been one of the major subjects of debate.

Ti for ISTPs in MBTI is the similar to Si for SLIs in socionics

Why is it that the you think the definitions flip for ISTPs (i.e., Ti in MBTI being Si Socionics, so that what appears Ti/Se in MBTI is Si/Te in Socionics), but you don't think a similar flipping of the definitions occurs for INTps?

Is there a particular reason why the definitions would flip for S types and not for N types?

[FDG]

That's stupid. Everyone wants their ideas implemented.

ST types want control over how stuff gets done, but are flexible about what the underlying idea is.

This however sounds like Te. Ti is about the structural components. Te cares much less about the system/structure then what actually works. Just like ENTJs. Just look at the people on this forum. A Ti type for example may look at the functions and say that anything pertaining to that function is applicable to people who have that type, and they won't generally change what they would associate with that function (MBTI INTP is socionics LII because they are both Ti-Ne). A Te type would look at the actual types, and adjust the definition of the function as it fits (Ti for ISTPs in MBTI is the similar to Si for SLIs in socionics).

Agreed on everything.

Why do so many people talk this way on this forum?

Because we have , and here:

Why is it that the you think the definitions flip for ISTPs (i.e., Ti in MBTI being Si Socionics, so that what appears Ti/Se in MBTI is Si/Te in Socionics), but you don't think a similar flipping of the definitions occurs for INTps?

Is there a particular reason why the definitions would flip for S types and not for N types?

This is the stereotypical thing that makes us say "this is dumb". Why do we have to give you a reason? It's just like this. Observe the descriptions, observe the people, and you'll see that it's this way.

By the way, If you really really need an explanation, I'd say that MBTI messed up what Jung said, and ended up with an off-base description of .

[Rocky]

That's stupid.

Why do so many people talk this way on this forum?

MBTI INTP is socionics LII because they are both Ti-Ne

Well, as you know, that's been one of the major subjects of debate.

Ti for ISTPs in MBTI is the similar to Si for SLIs in socionics

Why is it that the you think the definitions flip for ISTPs (i.e., Ti in MBTI being Si Socionics, so that what appears Ti/Se in MBTI is Si/Te in Socionics), but you don't think a similar flipping of the definitions occurs for INTps?

Is there a particular reason why the definitions would flip for S types and not for N types?

This is why along time ago I said you were , not .

Yeah, I think it happens for INTPs too. And there doesn't have to be any specific reason for it, other than it's a result of decades of misunderstanding. Now, most MBTI definitions of Introverted Thinking hardly resemble "judgment" at all. Believe it or not, but most definitions of the functions are an attempt to explain observed behavior. And what happens when you try and explain the dominant mode of someone who's strongest side is perception? Oh, but the system said that it has something to do with judgment, so they adjust. Furthermore, you can see how sometimes it's difficult for people to find their type, even after reading about a lot of this stuff. That just means that it would be hard to identify the workings of the actual individual functions in yourself unless you had a little guidance (models) to do so. Which is why people would rely on the MBTI. But models in the scientific community are revised all the time anyway.

The best way to get people to believe a lie is to tell it over, and over, and over again.

[Rick]

I think that the non-Russians she picked up were typed wrong.

Ironic that out of all the people she could have picked, she would have picked the wrong one.

But I still think that these personalities influenced her in how she conceptualized type. Whether ISTj or INTj he'd still be dominant . And the main thing that seems to characterize Robespierre is his uncompromising nature, which helped him at first because people felt he was immune to corruption.

Many people on the forums say things like " is understanding" or that sort of thing. It seems clear that in Socionics, is not understanding; is not about asking "why" questions or being open-minded; it seems to be more about having a fixed, clearly defined, systemmatic view of the world that helps one be organized and decisive.

And I think if we look at these characters, or more precisely, what Augusta saw in them, we get a better idea of the spirit in which we should understand the definitions....and put away such notions as " is about understanding" or " is about axiomatic reasoning."

I agree with the above interpretation of .

This could be an interesting topic. We should talk more about Robespierre, bring out some facts and stuff. We could start with the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre.

There has been some dissention as to Robespierre being an LII, but nonetheless, there he is in the benchmark list with 15 socionists all typing him as an LII.

I don't think these typings of famous people had such a huge influence on type concept originally, because Augusta was studying real people and discussing her ideas with a fairly wide circle of enthusiasts over 12 years. At some point they began to talk about historical figures, but some of her typings have since been "disproven," such as Napoleon being an SEE (the original type pseudonym). However, it would be nice to know her reasons for her typings, or at least a brief synopsis. I think she drops info here and there in her works.

I personally lived with an LII "tyrant" for a year as an exchange student. He applied intellectual pressure with his nationalistic ideas and baited questions. He was very much an idealist and an upright 'servant' of society. So I can see how an LII might possibly become a revolutionary figure like Robespierre.

In discussing Robespierre, we should look at his whole life and career, and not just his year-long stint in the "Committee of Public Safety." Here is what the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says about him:

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica sums up Robespierre as a bright young theorist out of his depth of experience: "A well-educated and accomplished young lawyer, he might have acquired a good provincial practice and lived a happy provincial life had it not been for the Revolution. Like thousands of other young Frenchmen, he had read the works of Rousseau and taken them as gospel. Just at the very time in life when this illusion had not been destroyed by the realities of life, and without the experience which might have taught the futility of idle dreams and theories, he was elected to the states-general."

The Britannica then goes on to write, "At Paris he was not understood till he met with his audience of fellow disciples of Rousseau at the Jacobin Club. His fanaticism won him supporters; his singularly sweet and sympathetic voice gained him hearers; and his upright life attracted the admiration of all. As matters approached nearer and nearer to the terrible crisis, he failed, except in the two instances of the question of war and of the kings trial, to show himself a statesman, for he had not the liberal views and practical instincts which made Mirabeau and Danton great men. His admission to the Committee of Public Safety gave him power, which he hoped to use for the establishment of his favorite theories, and for the same purpose he acquiesced in and even heightened the horrors of the Reign of Terror. It is here that the fatal mistake of allowing a theorist to have power appeared:

"Billaud-Varenne systematized the Terror because he believed it necessary for the safety of the country; Robespierre intensified it in order to carry out his own ideas and theories. Robespierre's private life was always respectable: he was always emphatically a gentleman and man of culture, and even a little bit of a dandy, scrupulously honest, truthful and charitable. In his habits and manner of life he was simple and laborious; he was not a man gifted with flashes of genius, but one who had to think much before he could come to a decision, and he worked hard all his life."

Augusta tended to see things in sort of simplistic big-picture terms. Who was Robespierre? A man who tried to impose his favorite theories on society regardless of whether society needed them.

Discussion?

[Rocky]

There has been some dissention as to Robespierre being an LII, but nonetheless, there he is in the benchmark list with 15 socionists all typing him as an LII.

I'm not going to debate him not being LII, however the above quote leaves me unimpressed. I don't think this is the way to go about typing people (appeal to authority, etc...) because peoples' opinons on the matter are rather irrelevant.

[Rick]

There has been some dissention as to Robespierre being an LII, but nonetheless, there he is in the benchmark list with 15 socionists all typing him as an LII.

I'm not going to debate him not being LII, however the above quote leaves me unimpressed. I don't think this is the way to go about typing people (appeal to authority, etc...) because peoples' opinons on the matter are rather irrelevant.

This is not about appealing to authority! Show me which authority I'm appealing to?? This is about appealing to accepted definitions in the socionics community. Definitions and types are pretty much whatever the socionics community agrees upon. One can either 1) accept those definitions as is, 2) re-formulate some definitions, showing that our new formulation is more effective than the old, or 3) choose to ignore accepted definitions, creating a home-grown version of the system that will go nowhere because it has only one follower.

In confirming or refuting Robespierre's or anyone else's type, we need to show that he fits or does not fit the definitions and understanding that are accepted in the given community. Even if 15 well-known socionists typed him as an LII, they could still be wrong, but we would need to show why they were wrong, appealing to their own definitions.

[Rocky]

Ok.

Did any of them give any reasons? Or was it more like a generally-accepted thing (Augusta said it first, etc...)?

[Rick]

Ok.

Did any of them give any reasons? Or was it more like a generally-accepted thing (Augusta said it first, etc...)?

This celebrity typing project didn't include explanations -- just typings. The organizers hoped to stimulate discussion of all these people and gradually amass material and arguments concerning the people in the list. Implied (according to the instructions given at the beginning of the project) was that each socionist would include only people that he had studied and felt sure of. Of the thirty some socionists who participated, only 15 chose to type Robespierre, despite the fact that everyone knows Augusta typed him as LII. That should say something. Again, the link to this benchmark list project is http://www.socionics.us/celebrities/benchmark.shtml

[Jonathan]

FDG: This is the stereotypical thing that makes us say "this is dumb". Why do we have to give you a reason? It's just like this. Observe the descriptions, observe the people, and you'll see that it's this way.

By the way, If you really really need an explanation, I'd say that MBTI messed up what Jung said, and ended up with an off-base description of .

Well, first of all, if it's so obvious, you should have noticed that Rocky was referring to the MBTI definition of , which he said is really , not visa versa (although he may have implied that, but didn't state it directly).

Beyond that, if you consider all the implications of what you and Rocky are saying, it leads in the direction of the following rather non-trivial statement:

Regarding typical j/p behaviors as described on many Socionics sites, the "J" behaviors would correspond to ISj and INp, and the "P" behaviors would correspond to ISp and INj.

I understand there are a number of step in seeing that, but we'll settle for the standard you've set of "obviousness."

[Jonathan]

Rick: I agree with the above interpretation of .

Would you agree also that the way Rocky is describing and is quite a bit different from this understanding?

[FDG]

Regarding typical j/p behaviors as described on many Socionics sites, the "J" behaviors would correspond to ISj and INp, and the "P" behaviors would correspond to ISp and INj.

I seriously think my head is going to explode if I see you trying to find those kind of mind-boggling useless translation rules.

No, P types are genereally P, and J types are generally J. Nothing hard to understand, except for the fact that the J/P dichotomy it's by far the harder to tell, if we try to type by dichotomies.

[Rocky]

FDG: This is the stereotypical thing that makes us say "this is dumb". Why do we have to give you a reason? It's just like this. Observe the descriptions, observe the people, and you'll see that it's this way.

By the way, If you really really need an explanation, I'd say that MBTI messed up what Jung said, and ended up with an off-base description of .

Well, first of all, if it's so obvious, you should have noticed that Rocky was referring to the MBTI definition of , which he said is really , not visa versa (although he may have implied that, but didn't state it directly).

It seems like MBTI Te is the only function really close to Thinking (both Te and Ti) in socionics.

Regarding typical j/p behaviors as described on many Socionics sites, the "J" behaviors would correspond to ISj and INp, and the "P" behaviors would correspond to ISp and INj.

I don't know about that. Lytov tends to think that I-S-T-J traits are the ones that are associated with "Jness" and E-N-F-P traits are more "Pness". This may be true, maybe not. Though, I can see why a lot of INTJs tend to think that they are more perceiving and so on. Some people would consider me rather J, however.

[Rocky]

Regarding typical j/p behaviors as described on many Socionics sites, the "J" behaviors would correspond to ISj and INp, and the "P" behaviors would correspond to ISp and INj.

I seriously think my head is going to explode if I see you trying to find those kind of mind-boggling useless translation rules.

No, P types are genereally P, and J types are generally J. Nothing hard to understand, except for the fact that the J/P dichotomy it's by far the harder to tell, if we try to type by dichotomies.

I'd like to add that I've agreed with everything FDG has said in this thread.

[Jonathan]

GAAAAHHHHHHH I THINK I'M GONNA DIE IF YOU TRY ONCE MORE TO FIND OUT THIS KIND OF TRANSLATION RULES

It's not about translation. Socionics also involves notions of J and P (the Socionics interpretation of rationality/irrationality). It's well-documented. It's not just an MBTI thing.

Anyhow, it's a very significant aspect of personality, that's often even more pronounced and noticeable than any of the other letters.

Rick: but one [Robespierre] who had to think much before he could come to a decision

By the way, Rick, does that one part of it fit with the Socionics view of INTj as you understand it?

[Expat]

Back to Maxime's type --

At least everyone agrees that he was dominant, so the question is simply whether he was or creative.

I can't say I have read eyewitness reports on what he was as a person, but I have read something.

Looking at Reinin's dichotomies and what Smilingeyes put together:

the political operators who are just seeking their fortune in politics (tactical):
Carefree power-tripping politics:
IJ:
Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician uses an iron fist to crush opposition. Victory is about being the only one still functioning on the field.
Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Flailing around, trying to do things one hopes the public would like, trying to milk gratefulness from the public and other politicians.

Mode 1: obstinate, narrator, tactical, carefree - and resolute.

I think we can see Maxime as rather mode 1 than mode 2, right? And obstinate, narrator, tactical, carefree and resolte ----> ISTj, not INTj.

But even without this -- I think a guy who dominated others with the sheer force of his personality as well as ideas, and who was caught totally by surprise when toppled, is more likely to have a than PoLR.

[Jonathan]

Mode 1: obstinate, narrator, tactical, carefree - and resolute.

I think we can see Maxime as rather mode 1 than mode 2, right? And obstinate, narrator, tactical, carefree and resolte ----> ISTj, not INTj.

But even without this -- I think a guy who dominated others with the sheer force of his personality as well as ideas, and who was caught totally by surprise when toppled, is more likely to have a than PoLR.

Well that's very interesting...because I think this is what makes Maxime (I like your nickname for him ) such a fascinating character. He was both a dominating figure and a pawn being led into a trap....someone that people gravitated to in uncertain times because he seemed honest and above the fray, propelled into leadership in part by others who had their own agendas, and being given the blame over events he didn't necessarily have full control over (at least that's one other interpretation).

By the way, Jung's description of introverted thinking suggests that the introverted thinker would be likely to be caught by surprise....and perhaps the key to not being caught by surprise would be , not ?

Of course, underlying this analysis is the subtext, namely the true nature of INTj. So, while discussions about whether the definitions are right may seem like a digression, they're not really, because some people think of INTj as the kind of person who may dominate others with the sheer force of their personality, and other people don't.

Consider Rick's comment:

I personally lived with an LII "tyrant" for a year as an exchange student. He applied intellectual pressure with his nationalistic ideas and baited questions. He was very much an idealist and an upright 'servant' of society. So I can see how an LII might possibly become a revolutionary figure like Robespierre.

I'd like to know more about this LII tyrant and what he was like.

This is a very different sort of LII than what some others here perhaps have in mind when they think of LII.

At any rate, I guess the degree of emphasis that one puts on Reinin dichotomies would have a big effect. Are they generally accepted in Socionics? You seem to put a lot of weight on them.

[Expat]

Well that's very interesting...because I think this is what makes Maxime (I like your nickname for him )

If I recall correctly, that is really how his intimates called him.

such a fascinating character. He was both a dominating figure and a pawn being led into a trap....someone that people gravitated to in uncertain times because he seemed honest and above the fray, propelled into leadership in part by others who had their own agendas, and being given the blame over events he didn't necessarily have full control over (at least that's one other interpretation).

I don't think he was that passive.

By the way, Jung's description of introverted thinking suggests that the introverted thinker would be likely to be caught by surprise....and perhaps the key to not being caught by surprise would be , not ?

Anyone can be caught by surprise, old Maxime seemed to be unable to even conceive of the possibility. And rather than look at separately from , I just say that an INTj is more confident in both than an ISTj.

At any rate, I guess the degree of emphasis that one puts on Reinin dichotomies would have a big effect. Are they generally accepted in Socionics? You seem to put a lot of weight on them.

I don't know if they are generally accepted; I think that it is risky to use them in isolation, like, if a person is clearly a narrator in his speech, then assuming he must be a narrator type.

But when they all point in the same direction, as Maxime's known traits seem to, I think they're reliable.

[Rocky]

By the way, Jung's description of introverted thinking suggests that the introverted thinker would be likely to be caught by surprise....and perhaps the key to not being caught by surprise would be , not ?

Lack of .

[Jonathan]

Expat: I don't think he was that passive.

Yeah, that description maybe went overboard in the other direction, but the point is, there is some dispute among historians, and there certainly are both sides to his character....The dominating, aggressive person who killed people who got in his way, and then self-absorbed intellectual who found himself caught up in forces beyond his control. Both sides are there; the historical question is finding the balance.

Rocky: Lack of .

So, Rocky, since you bring this up, what do you think about Maxime's personality? Was he the ruthless, dominating person who by sheer force of his personality got other people to follow him? Or was he someone of much milder disposition who, although placed in a position where he was the dictator of France, was actually used by others, and not as responsible for the killings as was supposed?

And if he was the ruthless sort, that's fine; I can still agree with you that I may be dominant as well; not all types, or even all INTjs, are necessarily the same in that regard.

[Jonathan]

(But Rick says I look like more like an INTp )