Bill de Blasio
Gene Simmons
Tom Matiatis
EDIT:
For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
Videos of LII
Bill de Blasio
Gene Simmons
Tom Matiatis
EDIT:
For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-06-2014 at 07:34 PM.
Fr. Timothy Gallagher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFdh0LKyZqU
I only listened to a couple minutes of this, but I would say ESI or EII for Fr. Timothy GallagherOriginally Posted by Trevor
been listening to his podcasts
http://www.discerninghearts.com/?page_id=1146
good stuff
Here is more LII for all you budding socionists:
Nevermind on KiwiFuel, but here is Bill Kurtis
Dude from 0:00 to 1:43
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-07-2014 at 08:58 AM.
Apparently LII is everywhere:
Nick Offerman
Nick Offerman is ILI.
nah bruh
nope
yup
Are you on meth
No, I'm actually on crack. I keep it old school.
If by "poo poo head" you mean "has shit-for-brains", then you may indeed be "a poo poo head".
You're a worthless troll and I'm putting you on ignore.
Again: nah bruh
Your loss
I lean towards the ILI typing for Nick Offerman. Some people have also suggested SLI for him. Doubt LII, but i'm not 100% set on any typing in socionics anymore.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
well I'm as confident as ever in my typing ability, and I say LII.
Nick Offerman is obvious SLI and so is his character Ron Swanson. And you all argue like little kids.
Obviously not.
I don't watch the show. I think that makes me a better judge of his type.
It's all just fun and games.
I expected a better response. Come on, call me a shit-for-brains too!
Because LIIs love artisanship, wine, steak and growing a mustache? His personality emanates Si, he is an introvert and he is not an SEI => he is SLI. Don't say he is an LII just because you claim yourself to be IEE and do not feel attracted to him. He is first and foremost a Delta, at least more than an Alpha. That's more conclusive than any of your rigid, robotic and systematic 'Internal Object Statics' definitions which you use inconsistently.
Not really. He has a lot in common with his character. His character is a bit more extroverted and dramatic in comparison, but that is because of the mockumentary format of the show.
Here you exhibit Ne-Si > Se-Ni and Fe-Ti > Fi-Te, just by saying that.
I only called him a shit-for-brains because he expected me to say "what's wrong with being a poo poo head", to which he would have responded "it means you have shit for brains".
You're telling me that no LII has loved or will ever love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? For your sake, I hope you're trolling me.
Isn't Si the dual-seeking function of LII?
LII = Logical Intuitive Introvert
But if we're justifying SLI using Si, then we have to rule out not only SEI but also ESE and LSE, and saying "he is not SEI" is no way to rule out a type.
lol, when did I ever say that?
He is a "judicious" type. That means he values Si and Ne.
"Rigid", "robotic", and "systematic" = "Explicit Field Statics" or "Ne". That's some heavy devaluing right there
What do you mean by "use inconsistently"?
It makes me a better judge of his type because I can better separate "his personal qualities" from "Ron's personal qualities".
How?
I didn't ask why you called him that. How you argued like children is pretty clear to me, because I am viewing the entire thread right now. I do not care about it. I only said that because I was underwhelmed by the reaction. Take a hint.
That is not what I meant. That's not all-or-nothing by any means. LIIs are weaker and less conscious in Si than SLIs. It is called Model A. I did not mean that LIIs cannot do what he does. The LII type is less capable and conscious of such things. The Super-id block is unconscious, valued and weak; it desires help from types that have the functions in their Ego block.
No, the hidden agenda, but so what? Every type has Si as a function. My point was not just that he valued Si, but he had a predisposition towards it. LIIs do not emanate Si, because even though they want it, they are weak in it.
Yeah, LIIs are introverts, so are 7 other types. That is why I also add other reasons to eliminate 7 more types to reach to a conclusive typing. Logical conjunction, how does it work?
ESE and LSE are already ruled out because he is an introvert. I did not just end my reasons by saying he is Si-ego. I added other reasons. Way to think, BloJo. I ruled out SEI because he is not Fe-ego and he is closer to Delta ST values than Alpha SF values (remember, I also said that he is very clearly introverted). SEIs are not as subdued as him, not to say that SEIs have to be so. Real people who are also SEIs can be as quiet, traditional and industrious, but not the SEI type.
So? 8 types value Si and Ne. He would also be judicious if he were an LII but his judiciousness does not constrain him to an LII. Simple logic, isn't it?
Yeah, right. How can you separate them when you do not know how the character is? Descriptive statements, like personalities, theories and usage of instruments, can be discerned more accurately when you get to know them and immerse yourself in them more. Only the type of emotional or normative judgments get skewed when you are too close. So what you are saying is perfectly equivalent to saying that it makes you a better judge of Socionics types to stay out of the field, ignore Augusta for betraying the field and dismiss classical Socionics. Real telling, right there.
Penchant for fun and games implies a general, albeit admittedly superficial, tendency for judicious and merry Reinin dichotomies.
I agree
-
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
Put a vid of yourself in this thread, JoshuaBloom, just to end this argument once and for all.
Get her(?), Johannes. 8 posts are no match for 443.
Offerman is SLI > ILI. LII no way.
LII physician's need to hear validating, suggestive Fe from her Mother may be contributing to her feelings of shame.
There is a good chance that woman is actually LII. Nice find! I wish there was a video of her where she wasn't crying and reluctantly talking about her feelings.
By the way, this video is *SO* NiFe.
I disagree about Offerman, though. Listen to that emotivist monotone of his! The woman in your video I think has a similar emotivist monotone.
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-10-2014 at 06:15 PM.
Okay guys, I agree: Nick Offerman is no LII. The jury is still out on his actual type, though.
Like i've said before, your overconfidence in your socionics is not helping your credibility. It may may you feel self-important, but it doesn't mean you really know what you're talking about.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
idk, Wacey. Check out this video of Jon Stewart interviewing Bill de Blasio:
First, Bill de Blasio seems like much more of an asker than the woman in your video. He usually waits for Jon Stewart to finish his questions, possibly because of role-Fi; occasionally, though, he cuts Jon off, shifting the focus of the conversation back onto himself.
Second, he displays a much more prominent "emotivist monotone".
Third, this video leads me to tentatively type Jon Stewart IEE; if you can see it through the grainy, pixellated video quality, watch Stewart's body language. He hunches over his desk and looks small, like he's secretly intimidated. Furthermore, starting at 3:49 he begins to spew rambling Ne+Fi.
That's nice. Physician: "so she is allowed to use that biting, stinging tone? What would you have done?!" Byron: "That's what people do when they are upset".
Later on: "As Dr. Phil would say, how's it working for you!" Audience and Byron laugh hard. "I made you laugh that's great", the physician says to Byron. Semi-duals.
EDIT: by the way I do indeed see Byron as being a possible EIE>IEE. And, SLI's are often described as having that monotone voice. On another note, I preceive the clear rational, logical voice of an introverted thinker here with this physician.
Last edited by wacey; 02-10-2014 at 06:25 PM.
It's difficult to have a proper convo if you completely edit your posts from black to white, JB. Makes everyones responses to them look silly. I would just create a new post showing the transgression of your opinions, which makes it more authentic.
haha, fair enough. I need to be less hasty with my responses.
good ideaby the way, I still think you might be EIE
In case we need to, here is a BASELINE Sensing Logical Intram:
His obvious vulnerability (ie PAIN is Fe.) What the David Letterman interview.
Socionics -
the16types.info
I only watched like 30 seconds of the second video, but based solely on that I would say SEI > SLI
@Maritsa, are you coming to the aid of your dual?
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-17-2014 at 07:05 PM.
Never typed the person.
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
Whatever Ti means to you, Johannes, LIIs do not just criticize and dismiss. LIIs build positive systems and frameworks, as opposed to methodology. Descartes and Kant are two LII philosophers that demonstrate that. As a counterexample, Nietzsche, a clear Beta NF, did not form such systems, but endorsed a personal and social vision as his philosophy. As a Delta philosopher I have Marcus Aurelius, who focused more on how to be good and such, and I am not quite sure on Gamma philosophers but Heraclitus and Diogenes could have been ILIs.
I was being dismissive because arguing responsibly did not work as well. From an earlier post in the thread, I said that Offerman was more of a Delta than an Alpha, to which you responded that he is judicious, "which means he values Si and Ne", but that meant nothing. Deltas are just as judicious as Alphas.
No, that is not the reality, but your own thought. It is a very common and very dangerous mistake in typology to assume that it holds precedence over the people that it derives itself from. Typology notices, classifies and explains patterns on the actions and thoughts of people. The types do not give rise to the people. Types explain only a fraction of their personality, being derived from their aspects of personality, not vice versa. Most people in the field who take typology up as an action assume that it decides for people, instead of merely classifying and theorizing about their thought patterns. They view typology as a prescriptive, dictating field because they deliberately engage with the field and come up with ad hoc rules for those thought patterns, but they merely come up with a contingent descriptive theory on the already existing thoughts.
No fucking shit. I never said "LII IS ONLY GOOD AT CRITICIZING"; I made that point to emphasize why you notice so many inconsistencies of mine, and also to emphasize how "seriously" Ti-types in general take Fi-statements. That is, not seriously at all.
Again: no fucking shit. Here:
Bill Kurtis (born William Horton Kuretich; September 21, 1940) is an American television journalist, producer, narrator, and news anchor. He was also the host of a number of A&E crime and news documentary shows, including Investigative Reports, American Justice, and Cold Case Files. Previously, he anchored CBS Morning News, and was the longtime anchor at WBBM-TV, the CBSowned-and-operated TV station in Chicago.Bill de Blasio (born Warren Wilhelm, Jr.;[2] May 8, 1961) is the 109th and current mayor of New York City. From 2010 to 2013, he held the citywide office of New York City Public Advocate, which serves as an ombudsman between the electorate and the city government and is first in line to succeed the mayor. He formerly served as a New York City Council member, representing the 39th District in Brooklyn (Borough Park, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Gowanus, Kensington, Park Slope, and Windsor Terrace).Gene Simmons (born Chaim Witz; Hebrew: חיים ויץ; August 25, 1949) is an Israeli-born American rock bass guitarist, singer-songwriter, record producer, entrepreneur, and actor. Known by his stage persona The Demon, he is the bass guitarist/co-lead vocalist of Kiss, a heavy metal band he co-founded in the early 1970s. With Kiss, Simmons has sold more than 100 million albums worldwide.Have you considered "jealousy" as a motivation for my "spitefulness"?Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily inlogic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.[4] From 1939–1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge.[5] During his lifetime he published just one slim book, the 75-page Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), one article, one book review and a children's dictionary.[6] His voluminous manuscripts were edited and published posthumously. Philosophical Investigations appeared as a book in 1953 and by the end of the century it was considered an important modern classic.[7] Philosopher Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating".[8]
I've seen Kant typed as LII before, but never Descartes.
I have Bertrand Russell as IEE and Wittgenstein as LII. I too am not sure about Gamma philosophers, although I have a feeling Leibniz was ILI.
I was just saying that to show the possibility of him being Alpha.
No, it is the reality.
I see a "type" as a "set of implicit and static properties of an object". It's an Fi-ego thing.
Yeah, there are probably other "elements" involved in our personalities, but I still think "type" can "decide" for people. "Type" is something fundamental and fixed; it is a permanent way of viewing the world. Thoughts and feelings come and go; ideas are born, argued for, and cast away; but as an IEE, I will always notice "Expilcit Field Statics" and "Implicit Object Statics". As I grow older and accumulate more information, the way I react to certain information may change, and the way I approach the world may change, but I'll still be accumulating the same kinds of information at age 60 as I was at age 10. Maybe I'll notice more Fi when I'm older, or maybe I'll notice more Ne. Maybe I'll make connections I wasn't able to make before simply because I have a larger amount of information to analyze. Whatever the case, I'll still be noticing Ne+Fi.
Again: meet me in real life and I'll introduce you to your supervisor, and then you'll see how prescriptive this shit can be.
You're an asshole, by the way. You made me feel really bad about my "feeling" nature; you called me a fool for justifying my claims by saying "I feel it is so", but how else am I to justify them? I know these things to be true because I've seen them, yet no matter how hard I try I cannot provide adequate logic. It's like calling a dog a fool for barking instead of speaking a human language.
Also: heard this guy on the radio yesterday, pretty sure he is LII:
His name is Max Fisher, and he works for the Washington Post. Here's another video:
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-17-2014 at 07:09 PM.
Leibniz was a 'pure' philosopher, in that he did not seek real life returns to philosophy, which makes me think Alpha NT at least. Newton was more of an ILI. I did not insult your feeling nature (if I were an LII, my dual would be an ESE, which leads with feeling) per se by calling it inadequate by itself, but said that it was inadequate for particular tasks (like everyone is for some other task), like justifying logical systems. Type can be static and fixed, but that does not mean it decides for people. Types can simply be fixed ways that people never relinquish once they assume them once. They do not have to be prescriptive dictators of personality. Automatically presuming otherwise shapes much of typology's mistakes, including VI (not the kind that judges expressions, because that conveys thoughts, but the kind that judges facial bone structure and such), stereotypes (thinking that types determine people => having people as representatives of their types => defining people by their type stereotypes) and pretty much the entire dangers of relying on systems to dictate actions.
And that Max Fisher guy is a drone. I hate his 'we' talk and I hate statisticians in general.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
