Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Skepsis]

You're missing the forest for the trees. I know cf dogmatists see functions everywhere. No suprise on a site like this. The truth is Anyone can pick any detail they want to expand upon and use it to justify a type. Every aspiring typologist does it. You have to look at the generalities and not the specifics. Arnold is N>S. He may not fit the specific Ni definition, but who gives a shit. The functions are guidelines to a person's overall personality, not literal things in themselves. They cannot be directly observed or measured and don't exist.

[Bertrand]

not all, quite the contrary in fact, I'm taking the broader view of things; you're the one picking concrete details to one dimensionally assign conclusive meaning to, to which I am only responding. if you look at the overall thrust of their lives, which I agree is what matters, you will see S>N. you are actually equating the scope of "overall life" with N ego itself. viewed from the point of view of time you're going to see a time component, that is my point. Arnold has a time component to his life but he is not defined by it in a way that distinguishes him from any human being, by your criterion (having goals). for example, when Arnold is gone compare him to Musk or Gates. he will have achieved almost nothing in comparison, which is fine, because Arnold's direct attention was to this life, not a future state. To say Ni egos are defined by their own concern for only their concrete time here, is to define Ni in contradiction to itself. Ni is literally viewing things in light of the totality of all time unconstrained by one's physical existence. its the perspective of time itself as absolute, not the body. in other worse Si egos view time in its wholeness as dileanated by physical existence, whereas Ni views time as existing prior to and after physical existence. Ni views physical embodiment as secondary to time, whereas Si is vice versa. everything Arnold does is predicated on the Si perspective. strong Ni is marked by not necessarily caring if you specifically see the fruits of your labor, presuming you know its sure to happen anyway, you might say that's one definition of meaning.. which is precisely the ground on which many Si types are criticized as being shallow, for their lack of meaning in that sense (of course it is only shallow from the point of view of Ni, I am not drawing an objective conclusion, just comparing two things in relation to another)

[Skepsis]

Because he has such a strong time component, he cannot be Ni polr. This is a contradiction. I don't see Si creative, which is more comfort and "physical states" than intense competitiveness, but maybe it depends on your definition of Si. He is a man that has time and time again, stepped outside any comfort zone, which he appears to lack altogether. Body building itself is excruciating, tiresome, painful, and physically demanding. Throw in its competitive nature, the unreliable source of income, and traveling lifestyle, you can rule out the supposed Si use. Body building is also about physical beauty, form, idealism; it is very aesthetic. LSE is to describe the type of person who lacks that type of perspective. That is my point. He demonstrates more than the cognitive functions and overall type descriptions seem to offer.Yet, by my own point, I highly doubt he is Si polr either, but pickings is pretty slim with only 16 types. In one sense, ETj is best fit, but socionics doesn't do xs because it doesn't fit the theory. Cognitively, he seems Se/Ni. Temp seems Ej. That leaves LIE as best fit, but of course he may not be any of the types on the menu.

[Skepsis]

Functions don't do anything by themselves. Si, Ni, Se, Ti, etc, doesn't have a mind of its own. They don't decide shit, they aren't you. They are just abstract tools, guidelines, analogies, and "as if" prescriptive essences. It is an outdated way of viewing the mind, but people have to start somewhere.

[Bertrand]

Because he has such a strong time component, he cannot be Ni polr.

my point is what you consider "such a strong time component" is itself a projection of weak intuition of time, which ultimately functions to collapse the distinction between strong and weak intuition of time when applied in this manner. if Arnold is strong Ni, Ni loses all meaning. That this is lost on you is itself indicative of weak Ni. Because you have cropped the scope of time itself to function as "strong" only within the frame of Si existence. That itself speaks to an outlook wherein "strong Ni" is viewed as such only because Ni is bounded within the context of Si; Ni is weak by definition according to that criterion for judgement

to give a concrete example, if Arnold is strong Ni what is Musk? Super strong Ni? the entire picture loses all meaning if we skew the picture in this way [1]. perhaps you would say Musk is ILI but where does that leave ILI? the point is not that you won't argue these points, the point is that in doing so crops strong intuition by collapsing the distinctions and breadth to it, which is indicative of a sensing psychological outlook (in its low res apprehension of what intuition entails). it is as when strong intuition lacks attention to detail to concrete aspects of reality and tends to paint with a broad brush, however the difficulty is always in knowing when we're doing it. its precisely that inability to know that defines the shortcomings (and strengths) of personality. the battle over type itself is simultaneously the drive to assert oneself by proxy in maximizing the scope of one's own abilities and to minimize the other, which is why you see people argue in favor of a skewed perspective. it is a way of minimizing ones own blind spots by declaring them not to exist by way to promoting an overall picture of things via typology that functions to portray the world wherein there is no such unknown territory in light of which one appears deficient.

this is pernicious because then typology becomes the opposite of growth it serves as denial of weakness, and persists in darkness, rather than the light from the other side which to aspire to. you see this where people launch a campaign of redefining certain types and functions in such a way that collapses them by only functioning, in their entirety, according only the limited capabilities of the campaigner in question. this is a fundamentally limiting approach which is rooted in the need to not feel deficient, not in the positive attempt to grow beyond one's limits. many posters do that here and this place is their platform to do so, but it is my hope they will see the error of their ways and move beyond such a self limiting perspective

[1] it is not that Arnold is a "worse" LIE than Musk, it is they are both portraits of success, according to their own aims. its precisely in how their aims differ, and yet they are equally successful that indicates their cognitive preference. Arnold is the vision of success in the view of LSE because he fulfilled the basic aims of one who views the world through that lens. One is not better than the other, which is what a consequence of what someone with strong intuition who viewed the achievements of Arnold/Musk side by side, and assumed they had the same basic outlook. If that were the case, and they were similar enough to attribute the same type to them, one would be forced to conclude that Musk was the "better" LIE than Arnold, but that is simply not the case. From many points of view Arnold achieved greater success. If one did not view the world through a Si lens one would be forced to conclude that Musk achieved more with less, however, many people would rather be Arnold than Musk. Would we say those people are the same personality? I think not. I think preference to be one over, as an ideal, shows a distinct difference in personality at the archetypal level. to collapse them into the same archetype is reductive beyond acceptable tolerance within the system

in fact a great way to determine personality type is to look to your ideal vision of success, since in that sense it will distinguish between superficially similar types such as kindred relations, the actual fruits of their labor tends to be quite different (because of the perception of what is most "real"--the preference for fruit goes to personality). significantly different preferences are differences in personality, that is what personality is when it comes to psychological values. what happens is people reduce it all to a low res metric like fame or money based on their own low res understanding of those metrics and conflate any two type which achieve fruits of that character, without seeing the nuance within. only from a low res point of view are musk and arnold the same type is my point, but while it sounds simple its obviously beyond the grasp of many people because they can't see past Te base and Si v Ni in that context

i would also like to add that democratism is not necessarily participation in a democratic system, but rather the achievement of influence outside the bounds of the formal political system. it is the inherent disregard for influence being confined solely to the title. professional politicians tend to be aristocratic by their very nature then, because they see the hierarchy itself as from where the rights flow, and their involvement with that hierarchy naturally flows from their desire to influence the direction of that flow of rights. democratism is opposed to this and illustrates this by leveraging power and influence from their individual person and not from their office. democratic types are apolitical in the sense of tending to hold office. what makes the united states LIE, is not its "democracy" which was set up by LII alpha ruler makers, but the fact that corporations have so much "illicit" control, along with hollywood and other influences (from the point of view of say, soviet states)-- that the power flows not from top down, which mandates cultural values and commands the economy but rather flows from the opposite direction (is commanded by the economy and its "officers"--the CEOs, or from its "hollywood elites"), etc

[Skepsis]

I get it, I just disagree. I don't see it as weak.

[Skepsis]

I didn't say he had strong intuition of time, as in "Strongest" What a relative concept anyways. I am saying he is not LSE.

It is not lost me. I am not looking at his type from the same angle.

[Skepsis]

Bertrand, this thread is not about my type, so back off.

[Skepsis]

The presence of a function doesn't require an empirical value. It is a preference. Just because someone is stronger in a function, doesn't mean the other doesn't value or prefer it. You can prefer whatever you want. There are no rules for these mental constructs. Just because it starts to lose meaning, doesn't mean it's less true.

I'm glad you pointed this out because it is a criticism I've had of typology for quite some time. Strength is largely opinion. If that is the case, then there can only be 16 people alive with the strongest representation of that function, maybe there are more if some are equally strong. It seems there is more likely a sliding scale of strength, that cannot be assumed to fit into any one type because the variation is too large.

[Skepsis]

It is more likely that types are useful when comparing individuals within a group, but break down when comparing individuals between groups. It is always contextual and changes with perspective.

[Bertrand]

yeah my point is not that you can/cannot interpret things however you want, its that typology is more useful, and therefore better, if you don't use it as a scheme to reinforce an already limited view of reality. I'm not sure what personality type makes that their aim, but there's a lot of them; again like you said, I could be wrong because there's a context wherein that is precisely the desired aim and typology is most useful toward that end. it is just not mine and not the one i'd like to promote. that people disagree is natural and welcome, its actually in the forum of ideas that we get to work out why things or better or worse in light of our aims. from my point of view the idea that since people cannot agree there cannot be truth is actually backwards because the truth/untruth distinction only has meaning in light of possible disagreement. in other words, people have always been free to make their case, it doesn't mean that all cases are in principle equally valid because everyone is free to be wrong

in other words, truth doesn't exit the room as soon as people disagree, it enters the room the moment people take up sides. that is what truth is, that one is better than the other, not that no one disagrees. if no one can disagree you cannot say such a thing is true so much as it is beneath notice. those things which are beyond disagreement no one even acknowledges. no one says the sky is blue until it becomes useful to do so or is otherwise put into contention. notice the flat earth people, they think they are demonstrating that the truth is unknowable but they are precisely demonstrating how it is in fact knowable and they're wrong precisely because the absurdity of their position. it would not be an absurd position if the truth were unknowable

[The Reality Denialist]

Rather than pioneering per se I'd say well actualized LIE is there to carve his/her future.

[Bertrand]

people seem to confuse being good at things with Ni.

Rather than pioneering per se I'd say well actualized LIE is there to carve his/her future.

could a well actualized LIE be indistinguishable from any other of the 15 types if they made that "their future?". the problem is we judge success in retrospect whereas LIE gambles on the future. is everyone who gambles and wins an LIE because LIE is known for such things? obviously not, life itself entails taking risks. LIE has to be associated with something else in order to be meaningful

the problem is inherent to the nature of "transformation in time" as creative function, which is what Ni is. At some point LIE could be anything if we identify them with Ni itself, which has always been my point. Rather LIE is not Ni it is the gamma complex along with Te Ni Se Fi. Once again people reduce LIE to a single dimension at their own peril

at a certain point Ni creative is the ground on which personality itself transforms, which I do not doubt, it is why LIE/EIE is said to have the most "psychological space." from that point of view though LIE/EIE just becomes useless as a type in an objective sense, rather it is just the sounding board for people to project their own view of type itself onto since literally anyone could be one of those types at some various stage of "future development." In going about treating LIE this way they think they're saying something, but they're actually destroying LIE as a meaningful qualifier. Making LIE "no type" because of its fundamental lack of distinguishing characteristics

if there's a hope for that method maybe it is the surest sign someone is one of those types if they cannot be otherwise typed

[Raver]

Arnold is LSE IMO. It is interesting how the dispute between Arnold being LSE vs. LIE parallels the dispute of Trump being SLE vs. SEE. It is funny how much easier it is to spot the Lead function over the creative function. Perhaps, the solution lies in differentiating the demonstrative function and the hidden agenda function. Unvalued 4D demonstrative function vs. valued 2D hidden agenda function is superficially similar, but very different.

[Skepsis]

Reality is limited, although imagination helps us break new ground and expand our understanding of it. Socionics IS a limited view of reality. It is very cliquey, which is very distasteful. Many people here seem more concerned with getting a type right than understanding our common consciousness. All of us here have way more in common than what is expected based on how we divide ourselves. Anyways, socionics ignores much of reality, unlike the more open ended field of neuroscience. Why explore further when socionics already has all the answers? Socionics has no soul to battle for. I battle for the soul of truth, whatever that is.There is a lense one has to wear to see the colored world of socionics, just as there are other "lenses." At least I question its validity, its limitations. That is what I do.

[Bertrand]

Arnold is LSE IMO. It is interesting how the dispute between Arnold being LSE vs. LIE parallels the dispute of Trump being SLE vs. SEE. It is funny how much easier it is to spot the Lead function over the creative function. Perhaps, the solution lies in differentiating the demonstrative function and the hidden agenda function. Unvalued 4D demonstrative function vs. valued 2D hidden agenda function is superficially similar, but very different.

yes, 4d Ne is the hallmark of people like Musk v Arnold in their fundamental aims, which is what I said in my first post

[Skepsis]

Someone write Arnold a letter and ask him what he values. That is preferred to all the guessing and speculation we are doing.

[Raver]

yes, 4d Ne is the hallmark of people like Musk v Arnold in their fundamental aims, which is what I said in my first post

Yeah, Musk is the perfect example of 4D demonstrative. His company is heavily geared towards based innovations, but the way he goes about in achieving it is via his lead and creative. His HA permeates through the way he manages his business through productive force. Contrast that to Arnold who has a hidden agenda, but the strength of it is nowhere near a 4D demonstrative IMO.

[Bertrand]

Someone write Arnold a letter and ask him what he values. That is preferred to all the guessing and speculation we are doing.

We'd just be interpreting his response like we interpret all the other information about him. whether it is firsthand or not is really sort of irrelevant since as you pointed out people can think whatever they want. I would say there's ample information out there to make a decision, its just that people can't make good ones even when provided sufficient information. pegging it to "he is whatever he says he is" is a weak cop out you see a lot in typology circles. many people subscribe to the view that to contravene another person's own self-applied label is the worst thing you can do, which implicates a certain fundamental value in the mind of the person who thinks that way. but that is indicative of their type, not anyone else's. if people already know everything about themselves then it sort of short circuits self development, if anything questioning a person's type is probably the best thing for them and I don't understand this desire to coddle people as if they're going to crumble under a little scrutiny and not be better off for it. as if the "truth" has any value if it folds under at first sign of resistance, and isn't defined by being exactly and only that which withstands the test of time

[Skepsis]

It was a joke

[Skepsis]

Bertrand, you jump to conclusions too soon, making too many assumptions. More specifically of the values and intention of people you don't know at all. Typology is not for individuals like you.

[Bertrand]

my concern is more for the people who don't think its a joke, because whether or not you seriously hold that position is irrelevant to whether or not it is an issue that should be addressed under the circumstances, which it should, because like I said people think like that. sorry you lumped yourself in with them, since you apparently find their position humorous

[at sirac son of sirac]

Arnold is LSE IMO. It is interesting how the dispute between Arnold being LSE vs. LIE parallels the dispute of Trump being SLE vs. SEE. It is funny how much easier it is to spot the Lead function over the creative function. Perhaps, the solution lies in differentiating the demonstrative function and the hidden agenda function. Unvalued 4D demonstrative function vs. valued 2D hidden agenda function is superficially similar, but very different.

For all the things he did in life, what stood out was that he could see it existing before it did, whilst no one else could see it. That sort of big picture vision is Ni and it is what makes the LIE an entrepreneur/pioneer over the LSE who will concern his business logic with details.

[Bertrand]

just because I couldn't have foreseen those actions under the circumstances, no one could. this thread in a nutshell. I literally spent the last page explaining why people do this with regard to functions they don't comprehend

[The Reality Denialist]

I'd say that he truly capitalized his skills.

#1 body building
#2 acting
#3 politics

Quite perfect continuum from quite distinctly separate places.
He was in a right place in the right time.

[Skepsis]

Get off your high horse. Your explanations are just as muddled and contradictory as most others here. There is no one correct way to interpret this stuff. It is highly subjective. Stop attacking a person's type or character. Feel free to disagree with the ideas.

[Skepsis]

I'd say that he truly capitalized his skills.

#1 body building
#2 acting
#3 politics

Quite perfect continuum from quite distinctly separate places.
He was in a right place in the right time.

Now he boldly awaits death!

[Bertrand]

the problem is we judge success in retrospect whereas LIE gambles on the future. is everyone who gambles and wins an LIE because LIE is known for such things? obviously not, life itself entails taking risks.

He was in a right place in the right time.

wow its like I predicted the future. is this Ni??? You reasoning could literally be applied to anyone, which has been my entire point, about how the qualities people assume to determine him as LIE are universal markers of success only judged in retrospect, and then read as intentional, as if "right place right time" doesn't actually mean the exact opposite, i.e.: luck. is everyone who gets lucky (right place right time) LIE? this is straight up sampling bias. you could say the same thing about any successful figure. its straightforward question begging to assume this makes him LIE and ignores a lot of non-question begging reasoning as to why he shouldn't be. its almost like you're simply being contrarian for the sake of it

the irony is you gloss over the exact aspects of those same conditions that are meaningful and not indistinguishable from chance, which is to say bodybuilding, acting, and politics. all of which I described as being consistent with LSE and inconsistent with LIE. Before anyone wants to re-litigate those points I suggest they reread my posts on the topic because once again, and I'm predicting the future here, I suspect we will go in a circle

[wacey]

Get to the choppa!

[wacey]

Because he has such a strong time component, he cannot be Ni polr. This is a contradiction. I don't see Si creative, which is more comfort and "physical states" than intense competitiveness, but maybe it depends on your definition of Si. He is a man that has time and time again, stepped outside any comfort zone, which he appears to lack altogether. Body building itself is excruciating, tiresome, painful, and physically demanding. Throw in its competitive nature, the unreliable source of income, and traveling lifestyle, you can rule out the supposed Si use. Body building is also about physical beauty, form, idealism; it is very aesthetic. LSE is to describe the type of person who lacks that type of perspective. That is my point. He demonstrates more than the cognitive functions and overall type descriptions seem to offer.Yet, by my own point, I highly doubt he is Si polr either, but pickings is pretty slim with only 16 types. In one sense, ETj is best fit, but socionics doesn't do xs because it doesn't fit the theory. Cognitively, he seems Se/Ni. Temp seems Ej. That leaves LIE as best fit, but of course he may not be any of the types on the menu.

Nah tons of Si bodybuilders. Tons of Se bodybuilders too. The have a differing feel though.

[wacey]

Let’s do it. Let’s go to Mars.

[Bertrand]

Se is like get strong to get big, and Si is like feel the muscle work, less weight better form type stuff. Se would be like Branch Warren, Si is more like Jay Cutler. Watch em work out. Branch makes Jay look like he's lazy, yet Cutler won all the titles. Arnold was very Si. They're all legit strong, but you can tell Si is more about focusing on internal queues whereas Se is more about demonstrating force in action. What makes Si special and gives it the advantage is you don't need modern science or techniques to Si your way to gains, its a form of private understanding. If being a bodybuilding champion was just about lifting the heaviest powerlifters would be champs but they're not. In that vein powerlifting is more Se and bodybuilding is more Si, although they of course have strong similarities in that all of them are big and strong compared to your average person.

[wacey]

Arnold doesn’t seem like he planned much in the sense of Ni. He just sort of seems like he wakes up and decides: I want to be an actor, I want to be the Governor. Since he already has success and networks he probably leverages that and since he’s got charisma and high reputation, things progress easily and naturally.

[Bertrand]

get to mars or get to the choppa, hm makes u think

j/k doesn't matter, earth is flat

[wacey]

Se is like get strong to get big, and Si is like feel the muscle work, less weight better form type stuff. Se would be like Branch Warren, Si is more like Jay Cutler. Watch em work out. Branch makes Jay look like he's lazy, yet Cutler won all the titles. Arnold was very Si. They're all legit strong, but you can tell Si is more about focusing on internal queues whereas Se is more about demonstrating force in action. What makes Si special and gives it the advantage is you don't need modern science or techniques to Si your way to gains, its a form of private understanding. If being a bodybuilding champion was just about lifting the heaviest powerlifters would be champs but they're not. In that vein powerlifting is more Se and bodybuilding is more Si, although they of course have strong similarities in that all of them are big and strong compared to your average person.

Se can so the same thing. Si would be more like: I baked my own proteins cookies and I get to the gym at 6 every morning so that nobody is around, and I like it when the gym is cold because I sweat so much and hate it when the gym brats have the music cranked to the EDM channel.

—-> “and all these things effect my Si flow (and represent disharmony of the external situation and convenience)”

Se: the actual force of will required to push through this moment while still being aware of the body/ movement. “I CAN do this and the resistance is in my mind only.”

[wacey]

get to mars or get to the choppa, hm makes u think

j/k doesn't matter, earth is flat

hmm oh yeah where’s your brain at, you thinking intuition of possibilities HA?

[wacey]

If its a boy, Junior. And if its a girl....Junior.

[Bertrand]

Se can so the same thing. Si would be more like: I baked my own proteins cookies and I get to the gym at 6 every morning so that nobody is around, and I like it when the gym is cold because I sweat so much and hate it when the gym brats have the music cranked to the EDM channel.

well strong sensing implicates the other, but its where the preference lies. Si simply does not care about the weight(Si bodybuilders, obviously Si weightlifters care) except inasmuch as it provokes the proper internally perceived stimulus, so like they know when they're in "sweet spot" for gains, whereas Se is far more likely to mention the real amount of weight lifted as a signal of progress. Of course a lot of that is Se + Ti, in the sense of rigid progress markers by systematic measurement, i.e. progressive weight programming. Se Te is more like "I lifted more than I did yesterday" or "my biceps grew .1 cm" or something. I agree Si valuing would be more nuanced in nutrition making enjoyable recipes, not just systematically prepping a months worth of meals in advance like I envision LSI. lots of protein shakes seem like a Se thing, whereas Si would likely want real food, although I'm sure in a pinch they'll use whatever

Si

89b9bde2bb91e2981e550a361f0e6f42.jpg

Se

XPh8R.jpg

[The Reality Denialist]

LIE's sometimes out of somewhere try to get upper hand over the situation.
It is not that integrated show at all while they take some pride. Attention! Suddenly there is intense concentration. They might get attached to one thing and might start to interrogate something. (For me it is like cringe start when I start to build up something [if I succeed] while thinking: let this be over soon, yuck).

One LIE: As a researcher I need to look for something new to research... that is what I have to do.. and I do it... ugh.


I have bit hard time at seeing Arnold as having low .

[ooo]

This case is interesting on a socionics and psychological context. If he's really the LIE I now make him, his Si is nevertheless popping out all through it, but it’s his weak spot, and that pushes him well over the limits of his own physical comfort, but it’s interesting how these limits are always suggested by the PoLR confines (Si= his body), and it shows, as the PoLR works as a supervisor of the creative function, aka it’s the super-ego.
The restrictions he faced growing up post war, as well as a cold familiar environment tinted by drama etc, could have made his lack of Si as a dogmatic fulfillment to be achieved, rather than Si being the direct expression of his main function. He wants to be someone, away from home, he dreams to move to America since he’s a little kid. And he works his ass out insanely for that. He trains when the gym is closed and wins all the prizes on his way.
The stereotype of LSE is way less iron-willed than LIE, and it makes sense because by the same logic of polr, a LSE doesn't have a superego that blocks his comforts, ie. a LSE doesn't have to grant his survival as a LIE, a LSE creates his own comfort to sort of beat the "schedule" in time (Ni polr), so a LSE would even be less prone to take so many roads and risks, because they go against his need for security/comfort/self.
Psychologically, Schwarz's not working to achieve comfort, well beyond that, but the lack of comfort he faced growing up contributed to create the filter through which everything must pass, Superego function.

I was initially swayed by the fact that all he does is around his persona, but he doesn’t really use his body to fulfill his needs, he uses his body as a tool to fulfill his own vision of grandeur, we can agree it’s a vain one, but socionics doesn’t embed such judgments in the description of its parts.

(I CANT BELIEVE IT'S 3 DAYS IM TALKING ABOUT AS!!) merry xmas all~