Bill de Blasio
For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
Bill de Blasio
For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-06-2014 at 08:34 PM.
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 09:58 AM.
Apparently LII is everywhere:
Nick Offerman is ILI.
At least I'm not a poo poo head.
If by "poo poo head" you mean "has shit-for-brains", then you may indeed be "a poo poo head".
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.
I expected a better response. Come on, call me a shit-for-brains too!
Put a vid of yourself in this thread, JoshuaBloom, just to end this argument once and for all.
What do you mean by "use inconsistently"?
Get her(?), Johannes. 8 posts are no match for 443.
I know. Because you were underwhelmed by my reaction I explained to you why I reacted in such a way.
By "emanate" I assume you mean "talk about" or "convey information about". Perhaps by talking about what you consider to be Si, he is expressing his hidden agenda?
Si + Introvert - SEI = SLI
I don't agree with your methodology. First, I've already demonstrated how LII might "emanate" Si. Second, I'm not sure you even know Si when you see it, because "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache" have nothing to do with it. Third, given how some "introverts" are actually "introverted extroverts" and vice versa, I don't think labeling him an introvert is a valid way to narrow down our list of possible types. Finally, simply saying "not-SEI" won't work. You need to show me why he uses Te > Fe, and "showing me" isn't just saying "he is not Fe-ego".
There presently exists no definite explication of what exactly it is that constitutes so-called "Classical Socionics" theory - making it essentially a contentless buzz-phrase at best that could arbitrarily be used to represent an ulterior viewpoint. Furthermore, it seems to have inherited the same fundamental flaw suffered by the rest of Socionics in general, which is that the basic semantics used are in critical need of established and consistent denotation (see Redefinition).
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.
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 07:15 PM.
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 07:25 PM.
Okay guys, I agree: Nick Offerman is no LII. The jury is still out on his actual type, though.
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.
Maybe you have now resigned your statement that he is an LII, but I still find there to be more to say, as a measly 9-post noob.
I did not just equate Si to "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache". They are just concrete examples and his abstract reasons for liking them point to Si-ego. There is no way an LII would be so confident, competent and skilled in such generally Delta ST areas. If you personally equate hidden agenda with dual seeking, all intertype relations that change rationality (e.g. LII and ILE differ in rationality) fall apart. I was not hitting your PoLR, but merely pointing out that when you separated my reasons into different quotes you treated them as if I didn't say the other reasons, deliberately ignoring the other reasons so as to forge your own opinion out of them. I did not intend to justify my arguments just by asserting them. It is obvious, for example, that he is not an Fe-ego when you listen to him talk, but if I gave concrete reasons and examples you would just equate Fe to those concrete examples and keep mocking me for it, like you did with Si, and if I gave no concrete reasons you would say that it's not "showing you". You haven't demonstrated how LIIs might emanate Si; you just asserted that Si is the hidden agenda function of LIIs. But every type has Si as some function. In that case, emanating Si (or "emanating" Si, if you like to get hung up on incidental words like you did with Si) is something every type and every single human being does, and therefore it is trivial for you. You cannot just say that LIIs demonstrate Si by having them on their information metabolism, or you negate the importance of any IM (not function, because functions are the roles that IMs take in a particular type, like dual-seeking, and it separates Socionics from purely sequential function models as in MBTI), like in typing anyone. And merely quoting someone that said statements that oppose my opinions does not do anything. Talking about Socionics (I use the capital S because it is a proper noun) does not automatically make anyone an authority. This is what I mean by what goes in classical Socionics: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ical_socionics. When arguing, you have to agree to some kind of convention or you will get nowhere. Likewise, you have to find a way to convert your dichotomous IM definitions to physical acts and tendencies.
Last edited by ideae; 02-11-2014 at 04:26 AM. Reason: You best put that underlined in your signatures.
I also mix in some Reinin, specifically the constructivism/emotivism and positivism/negativism dichotomies. Constructivists seem very "balanced" and "glued together"; their mood doesn't fluctuate much, and if it does they never show it. Their speech flows naturally from low pitches to high pitches; it is an even gradient of intonations. Emotivists seem moodier and more "unstable"; it's as if their "current disposition" depends on their "current surroundings"; i.e. if their "current set of information" changes, then so does their "current set of thoughts and feelings". Another way to look at it: emotivists always have something to bitch about (SEE is the worst about this; no offense to anyone). Emotivists employ a "low pitch", "monotonous", "business-style" mode of speaking when relating information; their speech takes on an entirely different gradient of tones when they become emotional. It is as if they "switch" between two distinct "modes" of speaking.
And everything you need to know about the positivism/negativism dichotomy is contained in the following quote:
Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one.
- Function 6 – mobilizing function. This is a weak and unconscious function which one often understands poorly. Nonetheless, this function has a strong influence over one's actions. Individuals requires assistance from someone who uses it confidently in order to understand it. Often an individual is only aware that they are totally unaware of how to use this function. At the same time, it's 2D function, so it's capable of collecting a number of easy receipts for daily needs. Being successful in aspects of this function makes one happy and motivated. (That's why it's called mobilizing.)
Strength Valued UnvaluedFor the sake of contrast, here is IEE:4 Ne Te
3 Ti Ni
2 Fe Se
1 Si Fi
For the sake of variety, here is LSI:4 Ne Fe
3 Fi Ni
2 Te Se
1 Si Ti
I think you get the picture.4 Ti Si
3 Se Te
2 Ni Fi
1 Fe Ne
P.S. "strength" could be taken to mean "predominance in speech"
Last edited by Olduvai; 02-11-2014 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Next time you feel like criticizing me, remember the bolded text
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.
What I meant by the exaggerated "LIIs can in no way do Delta ST stuff" was that if they did, they wouldn't be LII. Strength is not predominance in speech because some guy stuck in his PoLR will keep talking about it and fixating on it without being strong in it. "...when you're as strong as SLI in Te" is not good defense when you just admitted that one ignores unvalued functions. Your depiction of emotivism has dynamic undertones. Talking about "we" and "us" also relates to aristocracy. By introvert I mean that he is always talking about how he himself sees the world and his own experiences. He is passive and his statements are directed towards himself. That's what I mean by introvert: turned (for Latin verto) inward. But whatever.
In case we need to, here is a BASELINE Sensing Logical Intram:
His obvious vulnerability (ie PAIN is Fe.) What the David Letterman interview.
Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions.
So basically, if a PoLR subject comes up, the type with the PoLR will not use his PoLR function to address the subject; instead, he will use one of his strong functions.
So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes"; thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".
""Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do"."
LIIs would not want to engage in Te. Pointing out similarities alone does not work, because while adept in Te, LIIs still won't look at it the same way. Show me devalued Te.
Talking about the PoLR function ≠ Using the PoLR function.
I meant dynamic as a Reinin dichotomy, not as a dichotomy of information elements, even though they relate. Your description of emotivist types sounded a bit like dynamic types as well. It is precisely because it conflates different things that it is a mistake.
While aristocrats do think of people in terms of archetypes, like "that kind of person", they will also identify with their own kind and use "we".
You criticize my own arguments but your only defense was "LIIs can be like that too."
Last edited by ideae; 02-13-2014 at 10:53 AM.