...
...
Last edited by pinkcanary; 06-10-2017 at 02:13 AM.
Ne-ENTp.
...
Last edited by pinkcanary; 06-10-2017 at 01:47 AM.
SCIENCE!@1
Take this with a grain of salt, but most people I've known to praise this author are deltas and alphas.
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 02-06-2012 at 05:28 PM.
INTp.
Ti-ENTp.
Here's a quote from Infinite Jest where he pretty blatantly spells out he's a Ne-Ego/Infantile.
"since to be really human (at least as he conceptualizes it) is probably to be unavoidably sentimental and naive and goo-prone and generally pathetic, is to be in some basic interior way forever infantile, some sort of not-quite-right-looking infant dragging itself anaclitically around the map, with big wet eyes and froggy-soft skin, huge skull, gooey drool."
Here's Si Seeking:
Fiction, poetry, music, really deep serious sex, and, in various ways, religion -- these are the places (for me) where loneliness is countenanced, stared down, transfigured, treated.
For Ne, well, Infinite Jest is physically a ridiculous kind of "invention": it's an encyclopedic doorstep of a book about tennis, and it has the reader ergodically bouncing back and forth between the main text and the endnotes, almost like a game of ping-pong or...
Yeah, nobody but a Ne ego could make a joke that stupid.
And Ti, well, dude wrote a thesis on symbolic logic called "Richard Taylor's Fatalism and the Semantics of Physical Modality". Doesn't get more Ti than that.
Also, here's a pic of his ex, Mary Karr. I'm pretty damn sure from that picture she's a Delta ST. Probably his semidual.
Attachment 2791
I'm like 117% sure he's my identical.
Last edited by Whoobie77; 02-07-2014 at 09:38 PM.
IEE, not ILE
Also I seriously doubt a ILE would have wrote "Richard Taylor's Fatalism and the Semantics of Physical Modality", it's more a rejection of thinking in favor of .
His works are not the works of a cause-effect thinkers. Cause effect writers tend to have a very linear writing method, like Chekov, Gorky, Hammett or even George RR Martin, if there is a gun, then it must fire(except when it doesn't and that was the point). These writers especially the types are eliminative writers, seeking economy of words and elimination of adjectives and words that might be senseless. The writing is meant to be clear, understandable by anyone reading it. It creates a experience where the reader fills in the adjectives with their own imagination and creates the subjective experience.
Also his works are explicitly moral and works from a moral perspective while rejecting logic.
If you want to read ILE writers, there are plenty of them but they tend to have a sparse and minimalist style which lends itself to clarity and attempts to avoid misunderstanding.
If you're 117% sure, then you're probably 117% wrong too.
I can't see a Ti PolR, Te-valuing person sustaining the kind of Ti gymnastics going on in "Richard Taylor's Fatalism and the Semantics of Physical Modality".
Ti may be an eliminative function, but Ne is an expansive one. To my understanding, Ne sees all the gestalt possibilities, while Ti cuts it back to scale. The more Ne, the more diffuse a person's thoughts will be. More Ti leads to more rigidity and more systemic thinking. This conflict can exist in one person's ego. Otherwise, how would we have NeTi egos?
The entire structure of IJ is a big gun that doesn't fire (It's called Infinite Jest. It's 1000 pages leading up to Horatio, played by Gately, seeing the ghost, and then it stops).
He's using Ne for a lot of that book, but stuff like Eschaton, Pemulis' discourse on mathematics, the annular fusion charts, and Hal's fetish for the dictionary definition of words points to Ti.
I think his Fi is superego. A Te/Fi user would not go through all the hemming and hawing that Wallace does about faith and ethics behind the thin veil of Gately. They would trust it as being as established protocol (Te) and then value it from there on out (Fi). He's not naturally ethical.
The 117% thing was a joke; obviously I don't know the man so this is all conjecture. If you could point me to your idea of an ILE writer, I would be much obliged.
P.S. He's used as a video example for ILE here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-with-Videos
Last edited by Whoobie77; 11-29-2013 at 06:36 AM.
Those are siuntal/silke's personal typings and not representative of anyone else or this site. Most of what you wrote isn't really relevant to his type. It makes a argument for a type but really doesn't make him a type. If IJ is direct avoidance of Chekhov's gun, then it's anti-Ti. His thesis is also anti-Ti, it matters very little if he wrote it if his content is always anti-Ti. His message is what matters, not the fact that he wrote some philosophical thesis.
""fiction's about what it is to be a fucking human being", and he expressed a desire to write "morally passionate, passionately moral fiction" that could help readers "become less alone inside"."
This is what he wrote about his fiction, and to be quite frank. "Morally passionate, passionately moral fiction"??? ILE? Not likely! Become less alone inside???
Ultimately his hemming and hawing about ethics and morality is indicative of conscious strong ethics. Anyways, it matters very little what you believe someone's type is, but don't go thinking that a types can't write a philosophical thesis or learn about logic. That simply not true.
I'm getting the vibe that you think I'm a thick-skulled moron, hkkmr, lol.
Anyways, it's possible for a Fi type to be concerned with logic, but it's impossible for a Ti type to be concerned with ethics?
I don't think he's Ti just because he wrote a symbolic logic thesis. I think he's Ti also because:
-He had an obsession with cataloging words in order to find the ones which expressed exactly what he meant.
-The end of Consider the Lobster is basically a regurgitation of Wittgenstein's (who I think is LII) final sentence of the Tractatus, which precludes ethics and aesthetics from discussion ("These last couple queries, though, while sincere, obviously involve much larger and more abstract questions about the connections (if any) between aesthetics and morality, and these questions lead straightaway into such deep and treacherous waters that it’s probably best to stop the public discussion right here. There are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.")
-In writing about why he truly wrote fiction, he said, "These moments appeared in proof-completions, or maybe algorithms. Or like a gorgeously simple solution you suddenly see after filling half a notebook with gnarly attempted solutions. It was really an experience of what I think Yeats called 'the click of a well-made box.' The word I always think of it as is 'click.'...It was real lucky that just when I stopped being able to get the click from math logic I started to be able to get it from fiction."
That part about searching for "gorgeously simple solutions" doesn't sound like the motivation of a Fi user.
-Eschaton, the centerpiece of Infinite Jest, is an exploration of whether the physical world affects imagined frameworks. This isn't an Fi concern.
There are other reasons, but I don't care enough to look now. Regardless, we agree he's Ne/Si.
I'm still waiting for you to point me to your idea of an ILE writer.
Last edited by Whoobie77; 11-29-2013 at 07:26 PM.
I'm not here to prove a typing to you, you just want to believe he's ILE, and it's your prerogative. There's really no way for me to convince you and I don't intend to try. Do your research and figure it out for yourself.
But if you have conviction that someone who is interested in writing morally passionate fiction is ILE, then I would say you need to seriously doubt your conviction.
You bring up so many things which are largely meaningless to his type, when his core worldview, writing and content of his writing are against .
Comparing him to ILE's like Don Quixote, George RR Martin, Cervantes, Einstein, and a myriad of other individuals, he sticks out like a sore thumb. Compare him to various cause-effect writers and he also sticks out like a sore thumb. It doesn't matter if he's not the same type as those other individuals, the fact that his thinking style is different indicates he's not ILE.
Do your research, I've already named a large number of individuals here, and he doesn't fit any of them.
I see the error of my ways. He's probably IEE. This was written when I first got into socionics.
he was probably EIE decelerate (EIE) instead of accelerate (ILE). usually easiest way of distinguishing those two also view of humanity which was protective while being heavy handed with IRL relations. And of course long term movements on time scale that matched quite well with predictions instead of trying to give advice how to spearhead those obstacles hence falling into victim hood.
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
have you read infinite jest? one third of the book contains explanations of terminology he used in a very Te way (almost like a dictionary). his whole writing style reminds me of Ne, switching back and forth between ridiculous storylines. the book also has no ending. I've also read his other works and watched many interviews and I can't see him being EIE
I think those are more of personal idiosyncrasies than type specific fingerprints and I don't quite follow with switching behavior as Ne ego style since it sounds like playing with it instead of taking it seriously. He seems to tick EIE related fingerprints (literature, foreseeing, suicide) very well. Also ILE's use technology heavily which is their Te. Dictionary seems like Ti pastime (but I have not read it) nailing down definitions which EIE's love because they are always unsure of it (hence they can be very interested in math).
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
ILE's might be interesting in literature however probably not critically acclaimed other than by public due to Ni because their source is usually to laugh at greatest minds in business (look no further than parody which is their own fingerprint: mocking Ti combinatorics with overblown dramatics that does not really relational mind states of people).
Just note review types and depression. ILE gets lifted up most hastily from their low states by new possibility. EIE likes to dwell in it.
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
I was a little bit reminded by the type description of Voroschenko for ILE
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...Don_Quixote.29
Yes lows are low at least for me and I have planned suicides without truly being suicidal then it becomes fun technical game of carrying it through in certain manner and it is not so sad anymore. It just seems like wanting to vent in dramatic ways in the end.
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
When person talks a lot about time transitions and his attachments to those things it is likely creative Ni of EIE. They usually reflect lot on life.
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
bumping this thread as a reminder for myself. I want to watch this interview in the next two weeks. it's interesting that Infinite Jest contains a lot of references to Hamlet. I am leaning towards ILE, but I can't rule EIE completely out.
ILE. Infinite Jest wasn't exactly memorable, but I'm glad I read it, and the final portion was great. But the writing is just alpha Ne as hell... mostly carefully structured, intricate little Ne digressions with just enough detail to give context so that he can ramble further. The style is rather brilliant in terms of form and delivery, actually. As far as content, the tennis academy storyline gets old halfway through. I did however enjoy his insights into things like mental health and addiction; the cultural commentary was more peripheral for me, in this regard.
4w3-5w6-8w7
after watching several more interviews I've changed my opinion of his type. I think EIE makes much more sense. thanks @Heretic 007 for pointing it out.
Glanced at the Charlie Rose interview. I think Wallace VI's ILE.
in several interviews I've seen, he explicitely judges things in "good" and "bad", something that is extremly common among ethical types. he also mentioned several times that fame has a huge importance on a person's life and he struggled with many inferiority complexes. it fits the EIE description very well. the act of shooting himself with a shotgun is also something that is way more likely to be done by an Se valuing type, and Infinite Jest has a lot of hamlet parallels. his face shows many expressions during interviews. ILE is just not a very politically motivated type, like alpha in general. I think this is evidence enough that he was most likely an EIE, even though I intially thought that he was an ILE too.
He does fine job pretending ILE. Anyway, he is interested in logical purity which sounds very rational. It is like very suggestive drive as he is not creating anything new with his air tight logic. Also trying to understand infinity drove him nuts which does not sound very good Ti or irrationality [it leans on uncontrolled view as you let go].
EXE types find logic very interesting and they might want to understand it. I have encountered math teacher (MSc in math) who is ESE etc.
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
Amazing, but that whole interview is ILE to the core. He's as much pretending to be ILE as you might be pretending to be one.
That's irrationality in a nutshell. With leading Ne and being a Ne-sub, of course he sees infinite options that seem to drive him crazy.
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
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.
sure, but the way I will do it is that I will quote things he said from various videos to prove my point, which is a lot harder on my phone, especially since this site is so hard to use sometimes. it's much more reasonable if I do it on monday or tuesday when I have more time. shouldn't bother you too much though, since I already know that you don't have any points to present till then.