David Foster Wallace
Last edited by pinkcanary; 06-10-2017 at 02:13 AM.
Last edited by pinkcanary; 06-10-2017 at 01:47 AM.
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.
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.
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".
Originally Posted by hkkmr
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.
I'm getting the vibe that you think I'm a thick-skulled moron, hkkmr, lol.
Originally Posted by hkkmr
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.
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.
I agree. it has been years since I've read Infinite Jest but the storyline just screams Ne to me (year of the whopper, Les Assassins en Fauteuils Roulant etc.)
Originally Posted by strrrng