agreed.Originally Posted by Marie84
agreed.
ENTj. This guy was no F.
Don't forget F has also a dark side. And a F-type is not necessarily empathetic.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
That's true.
I know he's often typed as an ENFj but I think he fits the ENTj description better.
He's ENFJ.
ENTj's won't make such a drama during speeches.
Are you referring to idea that eradicating a bunch of people in order to give more to his German people is what was his moral? I can understand that somewhat and believe that if that was the case then he would have bestowed his moral code to the rest of the people of the world (killing the rest of the world), given the opportunity.
But was that really his goal or did he just really hate Jewish people? If he projected the hatred of a few Jews onto the whole race of them, he was committing a huge moral fallacy by assuming they were all equally as vile as the ones he might have had the misfortune of being victimized by. Morals might not really exist, but I believe they do and without turning this into a complex theoretical discussion of morality, I think from this it is safe to say his genocide was quite immoral, or at least not rationally justified.
Yes, I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. ******'s Fe strongly resembles Fe-base/Fi-ignoring. He's practically an Fe-base poster child. Or is everyone using a different variation on the socionic theory in an attempt to fit discrepancies between contradictory observations? If so, I can understand that, but please then explain what your variation is or no one will learn anything.
My exact identical. He was no gamma.
And lacking empathy=not type related. Not like that, not to that extent. Cmon people.
Yes. Yes he was very much a hater.
Godwin's law.and lol I always think its so corny and housewife-ish how ****** is mentioned in internet forums like theres always a 90% chance the conversation will devolve in some comment about him. (no offense to this thread)
He's ENFj. I didn't realize there was even any question about this.
IEI-Fe 4w3
I'm with Maritsa on this one. An obvious ISTp.
As it is not so obvious to most people and classical Socionicists, you will have to explain exactly why ****** is "an obvious ISTp."
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I've heard that ****** post power was a lot different from pre-power. That is, if you looked into his life before obtaining his position, he was quite a different person from what he put on in videos and the radio.
At the same time, I've read that he was probably psychologically ill and unnatural, so typology systems don't 'work' on him in the same way that it doesn't work on people with weird mental illnesses the theory can't account for.
In other news, Immanuel Kant is a SEE.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
ENTp...unfortunately because there are awesome ENTp.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Most agree he's EIE. Most agree Maritsa is cuckoo.
Not the David Bowie, Marilyn Manson, or Michael Jackson type. Seems more Fe based.
You can effectively scratch EII from your self typing list; as a Humanist and a lover of human beings, ******, as you can imagine isn't very admired or anywhere on the top of that list and association or affiliation with such a person isn't regarded. What I'm trying to say is that an EII, out of certain humanist values, would not choose a name for themselves that would include ******.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It doesn't matter, EII are a very serious type and we don't joke around like that. The very thoughts and images that are produced with names and associations with people being or getting hurt is enough for an EII to make strong reactions against things, names, ideas. In fact, I'll say it; I think it's rude of you to choose "******" as a name; it's wrong, uncaring and inconsiderate of this evil man and his capacity to kill and take lives of people and your association with that name doesn't make it easier to digest.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
That sounds like strong Fe ethics, Maritsa. Not helpful for those who think you're actually EIE. Ironically, you may be the same type as your favorite Fascist dictator.
Let's see the rest of your teeth.
Maritsa outside of the destruction brought on by Nazi Germany
under ******'s leadership, what do you know of the man himself?
Last edited by Birdie; 02-03-2012 at 06:47 PM.
IEI
maybe ****** was a fi base because he had very very intense feelings of disgust.maybe he was a Se polr,as well.plus,judicious,check.
ENFJ
****** was awesome too. There were many politics who made cruelty things, mass kills and made things wich resulted to death of many people (plus poverty of others), many of them provoke feeling of honor mostly and have monuments. Genocide of millions of american Indians by ancestors of modern Spaniards and Americans, earlier Romans killed millions while conquering territories and resources, etc. The only unusual thing with ******, - he tried to kill all Jews in Europe.
Does this justify what he did? Because many others did similar things before? Besides, you didn't explain why ****** was awesome in your opinion.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
****** was not awesome nor do I think he is ENTp, from reading a case study on him published before his death I'd guess he was an INFp.
One thing I will say is I think people over-exaggerate his "evil", I think many people if elevated to that level of power could easily act in similar ways. However that's very far from saying the guy is awesome.
hitandrunler mirite
At worst, he's monomaniacally manipulative as he was still only human(?).
Not many people could pull off what he did and it's not certain how much of his success was attributed to providence or luck.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I went with LSE-Se for ******.
no. My duals have a huge "guilt" spot; this kind of individual behavior is associated with putting people into patterns of thought or "superiority" and implementing that as though that kind of a future makes better sense, which is what ****** does. This thought and action is irrational.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Thank you, whatever that means.
But to the point.
****** is ILE like you say and you hate him. I think gamma quadra is best fit for you.
I don't hate ******, Absurd. I hate what he did. He overlooked the value of individuals and judged them according to his formula of what a "strong" person was and fortunately, that's not how it works.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 02-06-2012 at 03:49 AM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
That is typical to Fe, not Fi.
Reply With Quote
