Nothing about his writing style or self-presentation points to beta. One of my main issues with Infinite Jest was that he would always digress into these overly detailed Si monologues that were just caricatures of some theme he had been developing for the past ten pages or so. It was just a way of contextualizing things without any boundaries; this is not beta at all. An EIE, if they did monologue, would be much more measured and seem less like they were indulging it for some kind of quirky fun. Oh and the writing style lacks the naturally stream-of-consciousness quality of beta NFs; it's fluid and definitely well put together, but it just doesn't have that internal continuity. And none of this is to critique ILEs or anything, the guy was a genius; it just doesn't fit.
edit: I could see ESE, but high dimensional Fe seems off.
4w3-5w6-8w7
what are Si monologues in DFW's work? Si is the processing of signals from all five senses. si is about avoiding discomfort, coercion, prolonged tension of forces. it's about pleasure, saturation, a relaxed and comfortable state of mind, and a satisfaction of a sense of thirst or hunger. dunno what is has to do with Infinte Jest. looking at his interviews, I think he's the opposite of a Si type. he's always very tense and nervous, which is a huge indication for me that he had Si as vulnerable function.
Wallace was so embarrassed by his tendency to sweat that he carried a tennis racket in high school, hoping people would think he had just left the court.
gulenko on EIE:
Has an innate feeling of own inferiority for which he compensates by demonstrative behaviors.
I think your description of Si is relatively stereotypical, no offense. I'm not saying it can't relate to those things, but the more basic mechanism which governs it has to do with processing subjective sense impressions of the environment on an ongoing basis. This means that when it comes to how one describes things, Si naturally offers more sensory detail; and when Ne is brought into the mix, a much more expansive space for this process is established. The "monologuing" I mentioned in this regard re: Infinite Jest was intended to get at this—not that an expatiation makes one an Si-valuer, but that Ni/Se-valuers don't care as much about the kind of details and tangents he endlessly employs.
I've watched interviews, and I agree that he is nervous, but it comes off as more of a kind of childish insecurity, like he's waiting for someone to tell him it's ok. And while there are some Si-related qualities to it, IMO it points more to suggestive than polr, as the latter is always eschewed and downplayed, not continually projected or compensated for. And the only tension I see is just social awkwardness that could apply to any type, not the more controlled, inwardly directed kind you get from Ni-EJs.looking at his interviews, I think he's the opposite of a Si type. he's always very tense and nervous, which is a huge indication for me that he had Si as vulnerable function.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I personally find it a bit irritating when a person criticises a researcher's definition of a function tbh claiming that it's stereotypical. he has been observing types for 40 years.
physically, state S is recognised by a soft and relaxed body, a comfortable position, in which the body is maximally in contact with the support surface. gestures are mean and precise, but at the same time smooth, without tension.
I fail to see that in DFW at all. you can have your own opinion of Si, but it's not how socionics describes it.
Easy:
When the person continuously refers to logical standards he/she shows weakness in it but likes to evaluate ethics qualities from their own perspective shows person's strong point in ethics. He evaluates ethical qualia of the society a lot.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
the reason why I'm quoting Gulenko so often is because people often respond to me with their subjective opinion on socionics which often isn't in line with the theory at all. you are free to have your own view, but it's just surprising to me that my knowledge is "stereotypical" when it's literally a definition of another researcher, and I don't see why it's a bad thing. view it as having "no opinion of your own", whatever. you can type people on your own defintions of functions but that won't help you very much in my opinion.
Again, I'm not arbitrarily employing some ad hoc description I find palatable. I briefly characterized Si as "processing subjective sense impressions of the environment on an ongoing basis," which I hope you can see relating to "external dynamics of fields"; and pointed out how that kind of information processing pattern could have extrapolations into the realm you were describing. But ultimately, if you literally think Si is just physical comfort and sensory pleasure or whatever, there's no point in discussing it
4w3-5w6-8w7
One of my favorite authors. His works are emotion-saturated though subdued by his logic. DFW said somewhere that he identified with the character Smerdyakov in Dostoevsky's The Brother Karamazov. Smerdyakov is more beta or gamma than alpha or delta. DFW's logic is service of his ethical agenda imo. The essay Consider the Lobster is an example. He logically and cool-heartedly discusses whether lobster suffers but essentially he's trying to persuade readers to Consider the Lobster. He talks and writes a lot about what fiction is for. To make suffers less lonely and get the contented to think (Fe obvious and anti-Si). Plus, there are plenty of masked religious discussiones in his works. One of his statements: choose your faith, choose your passion, choose what you love, but carefully. DFW went to Church regularly, he was desperate for faith, and he appealed people to seek the capitalized TRUTH. The big-T truth is a stereotypical beta theme imo.
I'm not sure of his type but I feel he has a lot in common with Van Gogh personality-wise (there is even a poem parallelizing DFW with VG). Though shy in public and lovely towards his students and acquaintances, DFW was emotionally turbulent and violent in private (according to his biography and DFW's ex-girlfriend's accusation in the MeToo movement, DFW threw a chair at his ex and stalked her). Another beta trait?
Last edited by Ada; 01-11-2020 at 04:01 AM.
English is not my mother tongue.
EII is a really good typing, I can see that more than EIE.
I can't see EII writing something like this:
“I read," I say. "I study and read. I bet I've read everything you read. Don't think I haven't. I consume libraries. I wear out spines and ROM-drives. I do things like get in a taxi and say, "The library, and step on it." My instincts concerning syntax and mechanics are better than your own, I can tell, with all due respect. But it transcends the mechanics. I'm not a machine. I feel and believe. I have opinions. Some of them are interesting. I could, if you'd let me, talk and talk.”
I'm wondering if this hints a little bit at EIE's occasional narcissistic nature. he's just constantly talking in interviews, covering many different topics. it's the typical extroverted broad perspective. introverts usually study single topics that they become experts in. EII doesn't make much sense tbh, considering how he interacted with women and his suicide, which hints at valuing Se, and is clearly not Fi humbleness.
https://www.bustle.com/p/mary-karr-s...vement-9003387
EII is the most undemonstrative, shy, and humble type in the socion. they don't even remotely behave like you describe them. EII is the type that displays real humanism (do what you want others to do towards you), while beta usually preaches moral principles (especially EIE), but violates them very often.
exroverted broad perspective: Ne
but he doesn't really pose, behaves, writes like an extrovert, especially a Fe one, he couldn't care less of expression, of fitting in the crowd, of playing by standard etiquette or merging/meddling in people's stuff and moods.
A supposedly fun thing I'll never do again, good example of Fe avoidance tendencies.
Maybe an ILE-Ne, but his abusiveness in his relationship sounded IEE (IEE can be quite abusive in relationships and after someone has left them, I don't know if ILE-Ne are like that but ILE-Ti aren't). He doesn't V.I. or behave or dress like an ILE-Ti. ILE-Ne are often depressed (not as cheerful and playful as the logical subtype) so he could have been one.
Thing is, some of things he said were definitely anti-Ti, like "fiction's what it means to be a human being". I don't know why a Ti-valuing type would say that, because it's the opposite of logical.
EIE. He was a deeply depressive and emotionally volatile person, and thought a lot about the deeper nature of society at large. From what I understand his writings used footnotes as a way to insert extensive digressions, and played with temporal progression much like Quentin Tarantino's films do. The only possible alternative is IEI but I don't really see it.
...I got nerved out of my mind because his pic with glasses looks like Jung ( I guess same glasses?) ...because I see him as mbti-intp LII and ...I see Jung as IEI, even though I understand Jung sees himself as LII.
...um do U think I’ve drunk too much coffee??? ...Nah...that’s impossible.
It’s rude but physically his book is written with bible thin pages because the page # is huge. I thought that was funnier than anything he said which I see as Ti spinning aimlessly .
Not ILE, certainly not LII or EII. ENFx is my best guess. Probably EIE.