You'd do perfectly as one of those corporate drones, Maritsa.Originally Posted by Maritsa33
You'd do perfectly as one of those corporate drones, Maritsa.
You have me wrong, Ezra. I would do perfectly in the field where I could my best skills were contributed, which is to use the corporate money to help people.You'd do perfectly as one of those corporate drones, Maritsa.
And, I don't follow ideas/people blindly. I do my fair share of reading, analysis and concluding my own understanding; but, unlike the corporate drone drivers, I look at all sides of the issue.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 12-21-2011 at 06:35 AM.
-
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
Arnold is most likely LIE. I don't understand the LSE typing.
- from Please Understand Me II by David Keirsey; p. 106 [The Supervisor (ESTJ)]: They are dependable and dutiful almost from infancy, and they usually respect their parents whether or not their parents have earned it. If, for example, they are punished by a parent, they do not hold it against that parent, and are likely, in retrospect at least, to say they deserved it.
LSE works IMO. Seems Ej, Si creative, a bit too stiff/tense in his self-presentation to be Fe dominant.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Lol this actually seems to hold true across Keirsey-Socionics borders. Probably not true for 100% of LSEs but this is something I can see an LSE doing even if they resent it.
Fi suggestive is ridiculous.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Those of you who think LSE: Please watch some more interviews and documentaries with Arnold. He is so Ni creative.
This is just a side note: Very successful body builders are seldom Si valuers.
Overall impression and life philosophy and style: totally gamma
He's an extravert and as such, they tend to be very driven to acquire an object that they want and as Jung said, sacrificing things for that even things of their own subjective well-being, I think you're mistaking that for "Si" valuing.
His Rationality and Te is best described by his interview where he decides to be Terminator, that he says "this is a part I can do a lot with" that is seeing the external even and knowing his own capability and how things work together in a dynamic sense, this allows LSE to pick the right things to do which they are good at and likely to succeed in and which I have a great deal of trouble with hence need their help on.
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
I agree that he is TJ, but he is nothing like an LSE. Arnold has a natural focus on process and change, and not some neurotic focus, he really knows how to operate and manipulate these things. LSEs focus more on getting all the details right for change to happen, being unsure what's too little or too much. LIE knows how momentum works and can focus directly on it. Then after that the relevant details can be implemented.
This guy went from growing up in a small Austrian village, moving to america with no money, to becoming the best body-builder, becoming a millionare as a business man, then a world famous actor and then a politician. He is too risk taking, too dynamic, and - very important - he can handle it.
I was ok with the LSE typing at first because he seemed to have stereotypical sensor values. But when I actually started listening to him and reading about his life, he is totally Ni oriented.
And then the bodybuilding thing. Bodybuilding is about constantly pushing the limits of your body as far as you can, creating pain and staying there as long as possible. The primary focus should NOT be on getting sensory variety (like it would be for myself), but to actually push the limits, to force the body to do "impossible" things, at least if you want to be the best (do this daily, for over a decade). Any type could be ok in this field with the right genes, but when talking about a world champion then type matters more. And then some quote by Arnold: "The mind is more important than the body because it is the mind that creates the body". Lol Ni-Se.
Ok, forget this last bodybuilding thing if you think it's stupid. I just hope some of you will see that the LSE typing is very problematic. Ultimately this of course comes from my personal experience with the LSE and LIE types, where I see no recemblence between Arnold and the many LSEs I know. But I know an LIE quite well who is exactly like that: the drivenness, the positivity, pushing physical limits, the fearlessness, risk taking, the almost psychopatic calmness, the confidence in the unknown, the charisma, dynamic life style, the walking style...
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
It would be hard for me to convince you that what I say about him is a matter of fact because those things are devalued by you, but what makes him an LSE are the following things:
His work ethic, determination, driven. LSE are very work focused and ignore women, their relationships because those things sometimes are like a crutch to them, unfortunately. This is one of the reasons why an LSE is likely to quit Socionics sites, because they go off and do things, real life things, that are very highly productive in a lucrative sense, because they build relationships here and relationships consume time, those precious time, the Ni PoLR sensitivity, coupled with Fi DS, they need those who care about them to be patient and understanding, but also leave them alone so that they can do their work.
Terrible in relationships although he values them, like a serial monogamist.
His perfection comes through as an other oriented perfectionist, hold others to his own high standards when they don't meet that he can be blunt and dismissive and he's been known to be critical of executives in that way.
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
LIE
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I can't get over this guy's acting! (Voting for Ej as well, more in favor of sensing)
wow we've been at it for 12 years
I'd go with Si-LSE for him, enneagram likely so/sx 8w7.
LSE
I have the impression he's reading it all... great speech anyway <3
I've read his biography. What stood out the most to me was Ni over Si. His belief is incredible, always driven by his own imagination and vision of where to end up.
Setting goals should be essential to achieve anything, but that's not necessarily Ni, if they're realistic and well planned then following up on them could just be Te.
It's relly interesting that you've read his bio lol
Intuition is about dealing with information on the basis of its hidden potential (Ne) or its possible existence (Ni). He was always driven by the dream - the possible existence of his successes. To him the possible existence was not possible, but truly existed. That sort of thing is what socionics calls Ni, which is different from having concrete goals such as everyone has.
I can see myself wanting to get a certain job, but to the Ni, they already have that job, that's how LIEs can turn their job into their religion so to speak - and what makes them great entrepreneurs, to them the vision of the company already exists, their Te implements it by functional logic.
Actually, good point, I can see Ni playing in that sort of fashion in LIEs, and Schwarzy even kinda looks like sort of a lie too, a bit.
why the hell did u read his bio tho
?
He was a no-one from Austria who dreamed big.
-Moved to America and became the best bodybuilder in the world - revolutionizing his sport.
-Became a multi-millionaire property magnate
-Couldn't act but dreamed big to be an actor - during his prime he was among the top grossing actors in Hollywood
-Decided to become a politician, held the highest office possible for a 1st generation immigrant.
Even one of these things alone is an amazing story, but all four are rolled into one person.
How could someone not want to read his story?
I feel like his path to power was Te, but the Si was the bodybuilding and even the acting. Compare to Elon Musk, similar rags to riches story but more Ni>Si. More abstract, more visionary in the sense of a product, whereas Schwarzenegger's vision was more the time component of his base Te, more personal and individual, less a creative offering to the collective in of itself. Schwarzenegger embodied a certain vision in his bodybuilding (Olympian body) and acting (taking on the role, bringing to life, embodying personal narrative), whereas Musk brought an abstract vision to the world in the form of certain technological prospects and possibilities that transform society in a a disembodied way (4d demonstrative Ne)
a lot of this goes to pervasive confusion about how any rational plot through time gets confused as the product of strong intuition but thats really not the case... complex rational development in time is generally the product of rational functions first and foremost. the underlying perception is the twist on it, not it of itself the basis for it. its like how not all abstract talk is necessarily intuitive, rational thought, i.e.: communicable and structured cognition can be complex without regard to whether it is communicating sensory or intuitive perception. some of the most sophisticated rational bodies of thought are based almost entirely on sensing, for example most of biology
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-30-2017 at 06:18 PM.
✸✸✸✸✸ The magic of E3 ✸✸✸✸✸
And oh god. I finally cast my vote. Now we have 8 participants
Bertrand sort of nailed it, aha. I guess that if the creative function is the one dedicated to express our base, then his expression always involved his persona, his personal well-being, accomplishments, and wealth comfort too. And that's Si/Se. Demonstrative in all its strength. Te is indeed about well planned actions so it makes sense for him to be LSE > LIE. Voting now~
Of course, because plying oneself with drugs is all about Si, health and wellbeing.
There's a difference between a guy picking up some weights in the gym, to what's required to effectively destroy your health, heart and body to be a professional bodybuilder. But of course bodybuilding = S so he must be LSE despite the fact that he uses Ni creatively throughout his entire life. (aha).
Arnold is like the poster child for "doing it right" though, because he was a champion without destroying his body, unlike many contemporary bodybuilders who do exactly that. he's certainly the type who knew how to manage his health innately and channel his efforts productively on that front. you see low Si in people who burn out. Arnold is still going amazingly strong for Si polr. your emotional reaction is noted tho
I like Arnold and don't see "not being LIE" as an insult, which in defending him emotionally you seem to be projecting that premise onto me. I was also really into bodybuilding for a while and greatly admire the skill and effort that goes into it. Ni is not the basis for all achievement, or even some of it, which is a common misconception Ni worshipers have
I also think he is an obvious LIE. I know some people type him LSE, so I watched a couple of hours of documentaries with him (Pumping Iron etc.) There's a lot of material about him, and quite easy to type him. And as you said, he is incredibly driven. I don't really see an LSE doing the things he did. And acting is definitely Creative Ni. And the way he talks about development and ambition reveals a good understanding of these things
Have you watched Pumping Iron? Great film.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
there's 16 different ways to act. method acting being Ti base, etc. Hamlet being called the actor is a total misconception if you confuse that with the profession. For example how many "deep" roles did Arnold have. His portrayal is pure creative Si, which is a staple in acting
Yeah, the guys a total legend.
AHA Don't take it out on me I haven't read his bio ok tbh I love this site http://www.the16types.info/info/types/ESTJ.htm it has my fav descriptions, and Schwarzy fits better in LIE. NOW... 1 one point for LIE.
http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum...arnum_demo.htm
- You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
- You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned to your advantage.
- Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside.
- You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
- You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others statements without satisfactory proof.
- You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
- At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
- At times you are extroverted, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
- While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.
^Hoho.
LSI as an odd ball guess. The bodybuilding seems like creative use of Se and the acting a kind of Fe sociablity. Plus navigating politics could be hierarchical mindset.
Si body builders are more the youtube ‘Buff Dudes’.
Arnold strikes me as a childhood introvert.
?
I wrote a good ten lines yesterday in reply to your pissy message. And the more I was trying to explain how he's a Te + Si the more I was near to see that it could actually be a Ni thing. Then i checked that site, because it contains the dirty parts of each type, something important to determine who someone is, and found that Schwarz fitted better a dominance/power dynamic (LIE), rather than a fear of being stepped on (LSE).
Anyway, those 2 descriptions are basically identical... and even the fears resemble each other, one is aggressive and the other is just passive aggressive. I opted for the one that made more sense for the way I see him, but well...
edit, I'm reading his bio on wiki, his dream-drive is really great you're right, and he's cheerful, driven to success no matter what it takes, rather than preoccupied with his own comfort, he's aggressive, taking charge of all situations, rather than seeking the necessary to personal needs... LIE description fits better. LOL k
Last edited by ooo; 12-31-2017 at 08:23 AM.
Looking at the larger picture, it seems LIE fits bests. The presence of his independent thinking rules out LSE. The soul purpose of LSE is to describe people who never think outside the box, love to follow established procedures and protocols. They don't challenge existing structures, hierarchies. They aren't Republicans who challenge the sitting republican POTUS. LSE do not invent, create new ways of doing things by independent thought and collaboration. They follow the work of someone else and make sure it all gets done. They believe in following what is socially acceptable. If someone is thinking, "well, that is just stereotyping, there are plenty of LSEs that think outside the box," you are missing the point of typology. Once you start thinking outside the box or demonstrate you are capable of doing so, you can no longer be considered LSE.
Arnold is a democratic type, believing in the merit of the individual to accomplish one's goals. He looks at the individual first, then the group.
first of all, this is kind of a ridiculous way to put itThe soul purpose of LSE is to describe people who never think outside the box, love to follow established procedures and protocols. They don't challenge existing structures, hierarchies
second of all, Arnold never challenged any existing hierarchies or structures. he %100 operated within the system and never invented anything new along the way. rather he followed the beaten path, except he was good at it. people seem to confuse being good at things with Ni. His vision was %100 constrained to climbing the ladder so to speak. As for challenging the president, he did nothing more than what many LSEs do which is stay loyal to their direct constituents, which is to his credit in many ways. lets not confuse being part of a democratic system with being democratic as a psychological feature (this is something I doubt most people comprehend in its fullness). top-down loyalty only makes sense in a system arranged that way. he was bound, by aristocratic notions, to represent the interests of california
challenging a heirarchy itself and simply wanting to be at the top are two different things (and they really are first of all mental attitudes toward hierarchy itself). Arnold would have done more to challenge the hierarchy if he decided to stay put in his home country and reform it. one thing he always talks about is how much he loves America. he loves America precisely because it was the hierarchy about it he loves, why would he challenge it? people confuse, on a low level, participation within a system that allows for competition with an attitude of disregard for the system itself. Arnold reveres the system. He got to play both sides because California via its referendum system allows for "subversion from within" which is very clever of him, but that he sought it out goes to his respect for hierarchy not to disregard for it, because he only ever did all that he did within the confines of a system that allowed for it, which by his own admission his prior arrangement did not.
its perfectly appropriate for aristocratically minded people to integrate "democratic" political principles into their system; in fact the whole point of aristocratic as a psychological feature is that is where they believe democracy firmly belongs, as a political apparatus (if it exists at all--of which itself being questionable in principle is the hallmark of aristocratism), not as a radical component of individual perspective itself (which is itself unrealistic--even Arnold would believe on a psychological level he is aristocratic. I mean look no further than his engagement with the Kennedys). Arnold does not live his life as a psychological democrat. He very much does distinguish between rank and affiliation, in fact this is his greatest achievement, that he made a name for himself, not that he cares not, he lived his entire life precisely because he does care. compare him to bill gates who drives a honda or whatever, Arnold is in a hummer. its not Se HA, its aristocratism. Bill Gates' self esteem inheres not in the symbol but in the real capabilities he can leverage (Ne v Se HA). you see his democratism in giving away billions to africa, its as if he recognizes their radical equality in some sense. Arnold's gestures to give back are largely symbolic (Ne) precisely because he's not about actually (Se) leveraging credible threads to the system itself in the way that getting Africa on an even footing would. Bil Gates is aiming at precisely that. that is Ni vision. not climb the ladder to the good life in America (which is what they both have in common)
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-31-2017 at 12:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
