I don't think her conceptual logic was very good to tell you the truth. People have disproved her logic many times.
I don't think her conceptual logic was very good to tell you the truth. People have disproved her logic many times.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
ISFj or ISTj possibly. She seemed to be coping with weak Ne, though I could be wrong.
I agree with al lthat you say Phaedrus. The only thing is her logic, it's not very consistent IMO. Many T types who become philosophers, such as Kant or Plato, are more consistent, although no more correct.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
We agree on that.
That is irrelevant. Here you confuse two different concepts. The word "logic" in Socionics does not have the same meaning as in "formal logic" or "conceptual logic". Even logical types can think illogically.
Here the same arguments apply, but you confuse the concepts even more. Her defence of capitalism is based on ethical grounds, but her arguments are clearly logically constructed. She is good at conceptual logic, but that doesn't mean that her arguments are necessarily correct, since her premises might be false.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Maybe she is atype and you prefer
.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Both Kant and Plato are INTJs IMO. Rand does not have the same kind of all encompassing enthusiastic logic as they do. Her philosophy seems to be more about what one should do and shouldn't do.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
The thing is, everyone knows all about her arguments, even if some people find them terrible. Find a IEE or EII, for example, who projects his arguments everywhere he goes. In interviews she establishes absolutely no personal connection with the interviewer or audience. When she ardently defends the ideas she believes in, she unwittingly projects ethical information as well -- not verbally, but in her tone and volume of speech, her gestures, etc. But these things don't serve to establish contact with the audience, but instead seem inadvertent.
I am undecided between ILE and LII, and I might be able to entertain LSI, but with difficulty. She had an extreme lack of style in her physical appearance and didn't seem to care how she looked or came across physically (sat in strange poses, etc.).
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
It is still impossible for me to see Rand as anything but one of the four NT types. I am not sure which one though. Gilly might have a good point when he argues for Gamma>Alpha. If we look at her general values and function preferences, there is a good case for Gamma, but I don't see that as a definite proof. Rand's arguing is similar in structure to my own, and I have no particular problem following her reasonings and logic, which might suggest LIE or ILI as more likely than ILE or LII.
Not necessarily -- she bases her arguments on deeply-held, personal premises and beliefs, and develops her whole philosophy from there.
Then we have the following questions:
1) Those personal premises and beliefs are based on?
2) Does she develop her argument, based on them, usingor
?
3) Do you (and others) find her arguments "terrible" based on her personal premises, or based on how well she develops and presents them?
To me it seems that her beliefs were generated from
she is definitly an mbti INTJ and doesn't an mbti INTJ roughly equal an INTp?
INTp
It was not. There was no such consensus.
That's not a trait that can be correlated to classical socionics. I do the same thing, and I'm an INTj type.
The mark of the ENFj is planning. ENFjs are always discussing plans for this, plans for that. She never discussed plans; she considered them unimportant and next to never followed through with them. (a distinguishing INTj trait) To the contrary, she hypothesized about various situations and followed them through to their logical conclusion. This is the content of her writing.
hmmkr: socionics type has nothing to do with energy. Period.
When I read some of her stuff I thought she might be INTJ. But, ahem, I really don't know enough yet to know.
One thing I noticed is how she defines her idealized main characters. They are terribly logical sorts who relate to others in a logical way. Ayn Rand was cynical about things like compassion and altruism. She believed that compassion was really only a justification for suffering or an excuse for people to appear virtuous in the eyes of others. She believed altruism didn't exist--at least not in the way most people understand it. Anyway whatever she was I'm sure she was a T. Given the way her idealized characters interact (and assuming they view the world in a way rather similar to how she did) I think that's definitely more of an introverted thinking type's way of perceiving. So I would say ISTj or INTj if I had to say something.
Now I'll read the thread and try to see if I can get an idea of how "off" I am.
Actually though... I'm starting to wonder why I'm saying rational rather than irrational here... hmm... I'll think about this more.
She is with absolute certainty a T type, so every ethical type is out of the question. You can see it on V.I., and you know for sure the moment she opens her mouth and starts to speak. To even suggest that she could be an ethical type is ridiculous.
All of the characters she likes are mbti INTJ and most sites list her as one of the 'famous INTJ'. She is in no way a feeling type, that is ridiculous.When I read some of her stuff I thought she might be INTJ. But, ahem, I really don't know enough yet to know.
One thing I noticed is how she defines her idealized main characters. They are terribly logical sorts who relate to others in a logical way. Ayn Rand was cynical about things like compassion and altruism. She believed that compassion was really only a justification for suffering or an excuse for people to appear virtuous in the eyes of others. She believed altruism didn't exist--at least not in the way most people understand it. Anyway whatever she was I'm sure she was a T. Given the way her idealized characters interact (and assuming they view the world in a way rather similar to how she did) I think that's definitely more of an introverted thinking type's way of perceiving. So I would say ISTj or INTj if I had to say something.
Now I'll read the thread and try to see if I can get an idea of how "off" I am.
Actually though... I'm starting to wonder why I'm saying rational rather than irrational here... hmm... I'll think about this more.
INTp
i agree with expat.
I think she VIs as an Se/Ni xxxj, but I don't think she is an ISFj.
Another possible distortion is that Ayn Rand seemed to expect men and women to behave according to certain roles... I think she kind of thought women should be more passive, and men more aggressive... and I don't know if that reflects her type, or the way society was when she wrote her books, or both... I often couldn't quite clear up the male/female roles in my mind... sometimes it seemed like she was portraying women as subordinate to men, while at other times they appeared as equals. Hmm.
Just random tid bits.
Last edited by marooned; 07-22-2008 at 03:59 PM. Reason: edited for stupidity
She also said some really whack-job things about homosexuals that makes me want to punch her in the face (which does seem to fit in her roles about how women and men 'should be'), and I think all her opinions are pretty much just ass-y stereotypes. I have no idea why she's so popular either, to be honest. What the fuck? Her ideas suck and aren't original or creative or productive at all.
Just look at her face. She's just a bitch. The 'bitch type.' I totally hate her. Totally devoid of any compassion or common decency or anything, yuck.
(I realize I'm being extreme here but really, I don't like her.)
TRUCK.
Ayn Rand looks to the right too late as a huge semi comes crashing into her.
I think she said more along these lines in The Virtue of Selfishness but I can't remember. I have that book but it's at home.Ayn Rand on Compassion: (Perhaps)
"Compassion is a wonderful thing. It's what one feels when one looks at a squashed caterpillar. An elevating experience. One can let oneself go and spread—you know, like taking a girdle off. You don't have to hold your stomach, your heart or your spirit up—when you feel compassion. All you have to do is look down. It's much easier. When you look up, you get a pain in the neck. Compassion is the greatest virtue. It justifies suffering. There's got to be suffering in the world, else how would we be virtuous and feel compassion?… Oh, it has an antithesis—but such a hard, demanding one[…] Admiration[…] So I say that anyone for whom we cant' feel sorry is a vicious person." (Dominique said this in The Fountainhead)
Anyway, I sort of thought with her idea of second-handers that compassion is something for the sake of getting validation about oneself through others by demonstrating one is "compassionate." So people act as though they are compassionate so others will admire them and then this will give them a much needed sense of self-worth that they are deriving through others rather than through themselves (and thus are "betraying their own souls").
I often found that I agree with Ayn Rand half way. I agree about her emphasis on self-worth, self-respect, individuality, etc. What she says about selfishness vs. selflessness makes a lot of sense as well, except I start having a conflict with her ideas there... I haven't fully decided what I think about selfishness/selflessness and the many meanings there.
Anyway, I can see what she's getting at with compassion. In a way she is right. And compassion and suffering are two things that do appear to be connected in a rather intimate way. But compassion is more than just a show, or a lie we tell ourselves--I think it is a genuine feeling... people act off it at times not to demonstrate that they're compassionate but because they *have* to act according to it. I began to wonder if this is just a very logical look at compassion... if maybe Ayn Rand didn't really understand compassion because she didn't often feel it, and therefore didn't know it. In this and in a lot of what she says I just got this feeling like she's trying to think about emotions in some sort of logical way (well, a very logical way) because she doesn't understand them very well in an emotional sort of way.
Eta (July 2008): I don't think this anymore quite exactly... I think she did understand compassion, but perhaps doubted that it was usually genuine with others...? For instance in the Fountainhead the Roark character said he would die for Gail (forget his name)... but only because he personally in his selfish way wants Gail alive. Gail means something to him; matters to him. So it's not that he would selflessly sacrifice himself to save Gail... but that he would do the purely selfish thing and manifest his will, giving up his own life to save Gail (because he wants Gail alive). There is compassion in this, not as easy to see. If someone matters to you or means something to you and you want them to live... then you love them. If you will even give up your own life to save theirs because they matter to you, you love them. I think that Ayn Rand thought that this form of "selfish" love is real love, and most other things that we say are love are not.
Also I remember that she said that if you cannot fully hate you cannot fully love. If I were to attribute such a notion to a quadra, it would be Gamma.
As a disclaimer... I don't know if the character Dominique's views match up entirely with Ayn Rand's views. I think insight can be gathered about Ayn Rand through how she writes her characters--however it's a pretty big jump to say Dominique=Ayn Rand, which this post may come off looking like.
So there's my $0.01.
Last edited by marooned; 07-23-2008 at 06:07 AM.
Still don't like her. I can name you six-graders that sound a lot more intelligent than that.
That's because her ideas suck. I'm not trying to be difficult, but really, what do you see in this woman? What can ANYBODY see in her?What she says about selfishness vs. selflessness makes a lot of sense as well, except I start having a conflict with her ideas there... I haven't fully decided what I think about selfishness/selflessness and the many meanings there.
Bingo. She comes off as a blowhard that tries to sound all smart and shit but just look at her face, she's one of those bitchy women that don't feel real feelings. And her whole 'you look down, not up' thing, I believe was subconsciously describing the CONDESCENSION she had for other people, not genuine compassion or pity.I began to wonder if this is just a very logical look at compassion... if maybe Ayn Rand didn't really understand compassion because she didn't often feel it, and therefore didn't know it.
I still hate her. And next time I see a squashed caterpillar I'm gonna laugh.
Sounds ISxj to me (and no, I don't want Ayn Rand to be my type, lol).
I see weak or unvalued Fe there.In interviews she establishes absolutely no personal connection with the interviewer or audience. When she ardently defends the ideas she believes in, she unwittingly projects ethical information as well -- not verbally, but in her tone and volume of speech, her gestures, etc. But these things don't serve to establish contact with the audience, but instead seem inadvertent.
I don't think that points to or away from any particular type. A disheveled/awkward look is more indicative of eccentricity, imo.She had an extreme lack of style in her physical appearance and didn't seem to care how she looked or came across physically (sat in strange poses, etc.).
I read one of her books like 8 years ago, and from what I remember of it, there was a strong Fi/Te > Fe/Ti preference.
I think it's weak Fe and polr Fi.
No doubt she was eccentric. But I think there's merit in the thinking that lack of attention or value in personal appearance is a Si/Se thing. She seems to reject any kind of attention from inner body sensations - Si, or how she looks to people - Se. And also she set a weird atmosphere (Fe?), and like Rick said, no Fi connection to be found.
So, Phaedrus (I think it was?) I agree - XNTx.
LII? with no desire foror
?
Yeah, it's been a while since I've read Atlas Shrugged... But I get gamma vibes from it. Maybe she's LIE? Hmm..
I went to school with this guy, who was LII, and called himself a philosopher and absolutely loved Ayn Rand. But he didn't admit to it or nothing. He liked bringing her up with me, because I was possibly the only person his age that has ever heard of and read Ayn Rand, even though the only things I said about her were: "She doesn't tell a good story." and "Her morals are all over the place."
"But she's right!"
lol. i just laughed at him. he liked me anyway.
yeah i agree with this, which is why i dont discount ENFj. I don't believe this woman had any Si. Seems like she craved or idealized Se.
also i thought it interesting bullets and doves reacted the way that he did. haha maybe I shouldnt say this but i used the loathe her for some of the same reasons.
She was a dolt.
My sentiments exactly. Marry me.She was a dolt.
She was extremely intelligent.
Te/Fi > Ti/Fe
Se/Ni > Si/Ne
watching her in interviews and her body language etc...
especially in this one that miss k posted:
she reminds me a little of my dad, oddly. mostly the body language i think although it may be her accent that is throwing me off hah. the eyes, though, even. i doubt he'd ever say anything like this about defining morality through logic or some such things, though. he is equally well spoken though.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
I do something like that when I talk, too, but it's not as exaggerated. I realized this recently because Peter does it sometimes when he's imitating me.
She's a bitch with no connection to actual human beings at all. Whatever spouts out of that shrew's mouth makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, not even in the slightest. WTF is she TALKING about?
Can she be my conflictor? Pretty please?
If they moved the ENTp to Delta, then he is, but then again, so would you.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Everything she says makes perfect sense. You're a moron.
Why do you say that? Would you please enlighten me?Everything she says makes perfect sense. You're a moron.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Because I agree with her.Why do you say that? Would you please enlighten me?Everything she says makes perfect sense. You're a moron.
And what does she say that you agree with?Because I agree with her.Why do you say that? Would you please enlighten me?Everything she says makes perfect sense. You're a moron.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sentences encompassing her elaboration of the philosophy of Objectivism.And what does she say that you agree with?Because I agree with her.Why do you say that? Would you please enlighten me?Everything she says makes perfect sense. You're a moron.
Which includes?Sentences encompassing her elaboration of the philosophy of Objectivism.And what does she say that you agree with?Because I agree with her.Why do you say that? Would you please enlighten me?Everything she says makes perfect sense. You're a moron.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not going to write an essay for you, dumbass.
That's a good thing, smartass, because I'm not asking for one. I just want some points of agreement.I'm not going to write an essay for you, dumbass.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I guess the main point is the idea that the greatest accomplishment is to achieve your own happiness.That's a good thing, smartass, because I'm not asking for one. I just want some points of agreement.I'm not going to write an essay for you, dumbass.
yea but she could also say it in a less annoying and grandiose way methinksI guess the main point is the idea that the greatest accomplishment is to achieve your own happiness.That's a good thing, smartass, because I'm not asking for one. I just want some points of agreement.I'm not going to write an essay for you, dumbass.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
