Maximilien Robespierre, 1758-1794

[Rick]

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

Yes, no way that you're a type.
From your writing: no abrubtness, no pointed or categorical comments, all just a sort of smooth flow.
From your photos: completely relaxed posture and face, non-evaluatory gaze and expression (evaluation is one of the primary states of types -- judging whether or not something is in accordance with some system, and it comes across in occasional, but very clear cold, stark, "human-less" expressions).

I'll have to respond to the other points later today.

[Expat]

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.

No, but the J/P criteria of MBTI, if applied to socionics, lead to mistypings.

Extreme J types in MBTI will be socionics rationals, the same applies to MBTI P and irrationals. But the MBTI J/P criteria mix together things in ways that make no sense in socionics.

So I suggest you really avoid trying to find a direct correlation. It will only add to (your) confusion. J/P does not switch in terms of the types they are describing; nor are they the same in all cased. Give up trying to find a "system" for that and just try to learn socionics independently from MBTI.

[Expat]

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.

He may have been caught up in forces "beyond his control", that doesn't mean that he wasn't a dominating personality in terms of exercising his will over other individuals, like in the Committee of Public Safety for instance. In terms of socionics type, that is what counts.

If you try to make the case that, as a personality, he wasn't the leader - or at least one of the leaders - of the CPS and of the Terror, and he was actually in the hands of people like Marat or Saint-Juste, I think that, historically, you'll get nowhere. I think you're mixing up the question of whether he was fully in "control" from the historical point of view, and whether he was a dominating personality in socionics terms. These are two different questions.

[Jonathan]

Expat: I think you're mixing up the question of whether he was fully in "control" from the historical point of view, and whether he was a dominating personality in socionics terms. These are two different questions.

I agree with you from an absolute logic point of view; that is, his not being fully in control doesn't imply that he wasn't a dominating personality. My only point was that if one wanted to see him as not so dominating, the revisionist historical view would lend support (in a probablistic way, not through syllogism).

My own opinion is that he was dominating, that he was INTj, and that the INTj type, as the community of Socionists sees that personality, can be pretty dominating (Reinin notwithstanding). It might be that that's not the best way to view INTj, but it seems to be the way people like Rick, Dmitri, and people who had an integral role in developing Socionics theory see that type (note Rick's comments about the INTj "tyrant" he once knew).

[Jonathan]

Rick: Yes, no way that you're a type.
From your writing: no abrubtness, no pointed or categorical comments, all just a sort of smooth flow.
From your photos: completely relaxed posture and face, non-evaluatory gaze and expression (evaluation is one of the primary states of types -- judging whether or not something is in accordance with some system, and it comes across in occasional, but very clear cold, stark, "human-less" expressions).

Thanks. Your insights are always welcome. By the way, if you were to compile characteristic writing samples of the types and put them on your site, that would be a very unique and useful feature.

Anyhow, I think the reason why Rocky thinks I'm Ti, and why I often think of myself that way, is that I like to think in terms of structures and patterns. For example, a very common way for me to understand something is to think "let's divorce this from meaning and just look at the patterns."

I can think about patterns very precisely, and that kind of thinking helps in areas such as math, music, computer programming, etc.. That kind of thinking helps in understanding, helps organize my thinking, and helps form the groundwork for decisions, but it's totally non-judgmental in itself.

This is where the Socionics conception of Ti is so different from the way many people see Ti. In Socionics, Ti is more about making decisions, making specific judgments, deciding whether one approves or will do business with someone, etc. The way you and other Socionists (but not other people on this forum) describe Ti and specifically INTj makes it fit very well with the way I picture Maxime, my "person #2" whom most people thought was ESTj (and who Maxime reminds me of), SG, and someone I had to deal with at work who made a snap decision not to do business with us for some trivial reason.

That leaves open the question of where does thinking in terms of patterns and structures fall within the Socionics framework...

If it's not Ti, is it:
....An application of Ni (a sort of precise imagination)? (But it seems too precise and structured to be counted as intuition)
....An application of Ne (Same comment applies)
....A form of Te (But it doesn't seem like business logic, or practical logic)
...Ti as a producing function (in ENTp) (But how would Ti be different in nature just by being in a different position)
....Ti as some function not in the ego block (Same comment applies)
....An application of Si (Doesn't feel at all like S....Too conceptual, too structured)
....Just an intellectual ability that has nothing to do with Socionics (But it's how I think; it's got to have something to do with personality)

[FDG]

Possibly it's just a perceiving trait, without any particular reference to a function?

Just a speculation.

[Rick]

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?

First we have to make sure we understand the quote as was intended. I assume they are talking about his professional (political) decision making. Secondly, the fact that the encyclopedia said this implies that this quality made Robespierre recognizably stand out from among his peers (i.e. people of similar positions of power).

I think it would be most unusual to hear this said of an extraverted irrational type (having to think much before coming to a decision) and most usual to hear it said of a rational introverted type -- specifically referring to the process of political or organizational decision-making.

One example is the historical anecdote that Stalin (LSI) was so taken by surprise and so shaken by ******'s sudden attack that he fell ill and could do nothing and give no orders for a matter of days while ****** swept across the Soviet Union's frontiers. I think this has also to do with Stalin's lake of foresight (weak intuition) in addition to his inflexible introverted rational nature.

[Rick]

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.

Well, I would call the man "austere" and "principled" and a workaholic who fancied himself selflessly serving his society. This was in Slovakia, and he had very strong anti-NATO and anti-Czech and pro-nationalistic views that he would often bring up by asking baited rhetorical questions in a "see, I told-you-so" sort of way, hinting at his absolute truth rather than expounding his views outright and providing a complete background as, for instance, an ILE would do.

As well as several other LII's I have known and heard of, he had draconian (sp?) household rules, and neither of his sons felt comfortable dating anyone for fear he would find out and make their lives miserable until they were out of the house in college. His morals and principles seemed so picky that they knew that the slightest false step would incur criticism and moralizing, and they felt it was easier just to not have any relationships. For the most part he was feared and avoided by people except for various high-ranking people in town.

Some reasons he was LII and not LSI are:
1. the supervisory effect between us was clearly one-way
2. he was openly critical of what he understood to be my views, rather than simply being suspicious of them
3. he really really wanted me to understand that "communism came to Slovakia from the West, not the East" and a host of other things like that that were SO important to him. When I was leaving, he basically went through the list to make sure I hadn't forgotten anything. He clearly felt that this understanding was clearly the most important thing that he could have given me during my year-long stay.
4. he demanded order in the house, but he didn't do any of the actual grunt work, nor did he explain carefully how things needed to be done
5. his physical touching and movements were pretty meager and uniform

[Rick]

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.

Hm... Actually, I don't believe I've ever mentioned them. Maybe you're thinking of someone else?

The dichotomies are debated, and some are more "popular" than others. There are a number that most socionists admit they "can't see." Some say they're a theoretical possibility that in practice doesn't exist. Others actively use them. At any rate, they're somewhat controversial, and not as authoritative as the understanding of the functions, information elements, and 4 main dichotomies.

[Rocky]

Rocky: Lack of .

So, Rocky, since you bring this up, what do you think about Maxime's personality?

I don't claim to know... only commenting on Jung's description.

[Rocky]

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

Yes, no way that you're a type.
From your writing: no abrubtness, no pointed or categorical comments, all just a sort of smooth flow.

There are plenty of categorial comments, just like the one he had made in this thread.

From your photos: completely relaxed posture and face, non-evaluatory gaze and expression (evaluation is one of the primary states of types -- judging whether or not something is in accordance with some system, and it comes across in occasional, but very clear cold, stark, "human-less" expressions).

I don't think this is very accurate. Look at someone like MysticSonic, an LII who has a seemingly "whatever" type look on his face. LIIs don't always look cold, in fact, Te types can often look just as cold, or more so. It depends on the person.

[tcaudilllg]

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).

I don't expect anybody to "automatically get" anything. That would be unreasonable. I expect people to consider the possibility and approve of it or dismiss it on solid logical grounds, like I do.

[Rocky]

Well, then that's just how other people see you then.

[Jonathan]

Me: 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.

Rick: Hm... Actually, I don't believe I've ever mentioned them. Maybe you're thinking of someone else?

Oh, I was referring to Expat. Expat finds them very useful. Expat was using the Reinin dichomies to argue that Maxime must have been LSI instead of LII. But I take it that your conception of the LII personality may be much more domineering and willing to impose a particular view on others than Expat's conception of what LII is.

[Rick]

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

Yes, no way that you're a type.
From your writing: no abrubtness, no pointed or categorical comments, all just a sort of smooth flow.

There are plenty of categorial comments, just like the one he had made in this thread.

From your photos: completely relaxed posture and face, non-evaluatory gaze and expression (evaluation is one of the primary states of types -- judging whether or not something is in accordance with some system, and it comes across in occasional, but very clear cold, stark, "human-less" expressions).

I don't think this is very accurate. Look at someone like MysticSonic, an LII who has a seemingly "whatever" type look on his face. LIIs don't always look cold, in fact, Te types can often look just as cold, or more so. It depends on the person.

I would say that his blunter statements regard questions of fact that can be verified -- . I don't register those as , nor do I ever find them threatening, because it comes down to a question of knowing facts, which is something I value and am not bad at. Things I register as are categorical statements that something is correct or incorrect because it is part of some logical system. Other visible LII's on the forum do this all the time. If you can find some examples of statements like this from Jonathan, show me.

Regarding type "looks." There are different looks associated with different states of mind, and none of Jonathan's photos (I have seen quite a few) have a pronounced evaluatory look that comes from a state of mind. But he's got quite a few looks. Plus, I don't believe he is considering LII as a possible type, if I'm not mistaken.

[Expat]

Oh, I was referring to Expat. Expat finds them very useful. Expat was using the Reinin dichomies to argue that Maxime must have been LSI instead of LII. But I take it that your conception of the LII personality may be much more domineering and willing to impose a particular view on others than Expat's conception of what LII is.

I was quoting the work Smilingeyes put together, because in that case it seemed to point towards Maxime being LSI clearly.

As for the dichotomies - and Gulenko groups - I have tried to see how they fit into the types. The conclusions from my own modest observations confirm Smilingeyes's that if they, collectively, point toward the same direction, then they are reliable.

In my own case, even without knowing anything at all about socionics I'd have been able to type myself as ENTj through the dichotomies and groups: I easily identify with Victim, Dynamic, Narrator, and Business-inclined. Democrat, Grave, and Strategic also fit me very easily.