type satan, the devil, Lucifer, angel of light, antichrist, Beelzebub, father of lies, and so on.
@Director Abbie
Lucifer
type satan, the devil, Lucifer, angel of light, antichrist, Beelzebub, father of lies, and so on.
@Director Abbie
DADDY
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
EIE... has got to be EIE, the perfect evil..
PS I like it how it's in famous people section
also
should i have put it in "whats my type?"Originally Posted by Persephone
UUUUUPPPPPsolutely not. Perfect thread.should i have put it in "whats my type?"
Lol. I like how you singled me out for this.
Typing angels, hm? Normally I'd give the same argument as my theory for Jesus: lacking a sin nature means lacking a PoLR and socionics as we know it doesn't apply.
But Lucy is certainly a sinner.
Extrovert, I'd say. Not shy about talking to strangers or being in the public eye (regarding Heaven; he's more subtle nowadays).
He likes to get in one's head and fiddle with ideas. Not really interested in anything physical (makes sense, considering he's not a physical being). I'd say intuitive and am more sure of that than I am of extroversion.
Also Ni seems more likely than Ne. I could be biased, but the philosophical mumbo-jumbo I see from Nis seems more like him than the clever absurdities I see from Nes.
For Reinin dichotomies, I'd say he's an asker. "Did God really say that?" I don't know of any time he's monologued (Jesus has). But I know that's not enough to go on.
Thinker vs feeler is hard to say. He's manipulative, but not really in an F way. I'm leaning toward thinker without having a good reason to.
For positivist vs negativist, I consider how Lucy works: to get people away from God, the idea is to add in lots of other stuff. Idols. Worries. Distractions. Seems like a positivistic approach to me.
What does this amount to? ...LIE?LIE for the master of lies is amusing.
I watched the full season of Lucifer, which is how I imagine "Lucy" if he were to take human form and live among us. I could not get onboard with the image of an antichrist no matter how hard I tried. I leave the antichrist behavior, and images, in the realm of demons. hahah
I think he is a misunderstood, rebellious child, who doesn't want to live by Daddy's rules. He is the lightbringer after all. I think Lucy is the scapegoat for humanity. If they blame all evil on him then they don't have to take so much personal responsibility for their own actions. I am sure that "god" still loves him as much as he loves Jesus since a true benevolent, unconditional loving, god would would not have favorites among his creations. I can excuse the Gods that are perceived as having human qualities for showing favoritism.
Lucy just needs to wake up and remember who he really is. <3
I was not sure between LIE or EIE. I was leaning EIE though.
Typing a human concept of an evil being is pretty hard. In the purely abstract there can be no concrete type without form so I chose the form of Lucifer Morningstar. A very likable character.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
"Lightbearer." Not quite the same. He's the bringer of temptations, lies, pride, ect. but not of light. Light was what he was meant to hold, like a standard-bearer. Jesus is the light.
Shame on them.
Jesus was not a creature. Jesus is creator. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." -John 1:1-3
And God does have favorites, in the same way someone who adores all children loves their own children more than the neighbor's.
I looooveee that TV show and I love his character! I thought LIE at first, but beta makes hell lot of sense for him.
I watched the full season of Lucifer, which is how I imagine "Lucy" if he were to take human form and live among us. I could not get onboard with the image of an antichrist no matter how hard I tried. I leave the antichrist behavior, and images, in the realm of demons. hahah
I think he is a misunderstood, rebellious child, who doesn't want to live by Daddy's rules. He is the lightbringer after all. I think Lucy is the scapegoat for humanity. If they blame all evil on him then they don't have to take so much personal responsibility for their own actions. I am sure that "god" still loves him as much as he loves Jesus since a true benevolent, unconditional loving, god would would not have favorites among his creations. I can excuse the Gods that are perceived as having human qualities for showing favoritism.
Lucy just needs to wake up and remember who he really is. <3
I was not sure between LIE or EIE. I was leaning EIE though.
Typing a human concept of an evil being is pretty hard. In the purely abstract there can be no concrete type without form so I chose the form of Lucifer Morningstar. A very likable character.
@Aylen, I agree with Ni/Se-valuing Ej type for Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer) but he seems far too aggressor to be a Beta victim.
No he is a feeler, that is where the pettiness comes from. Lucifer also feels sorry for himself.Lol. I like how you singled me out for this.
Typing angels, hm? Normally I'd give the same argument as my theory for Jesus: lacking a sin nature means lacking a PoLR and socionics as we know it doesn't apply.
But Lucy is certainly a sinner.
Extrovert, I'd say. Not shy about talking to strangers or being in the public eye (regarding Heaven; he's more subtle nowadays).
He likes to get in one's head and fiddle with ideas. Not really interested in anything physical (makes sense, considering he's not a physical being). I'd say intuitive and am more sure of that than I am of extroversion.
Also Ni seems more likely than Ne. I could be biased, but the philosophical mumbo-jumbo I see from Nis seems more like him than the clever absurdities I see from Nes.
For Reinin dichotomies, I'd say he's an asker. "Did God really say that?" I don't know of any time he's monologued (Jesus has). But I know that's not enough to go on.
Thinker vs feeler is hard to say. He's manipulative, but not really in an F way. I'm leaning toward thinker without having a good reason to.
For positivist vs negativist, I consider how Lucy works: to get people away from God, the idea is to add in lots of other stuff. Idols. Worries. Distractions. Seems like a positivistic approach to me.
What does this amount to? ...LIE?
Apparently I typed Lucifer as Jesus's dual (under the assumption that socionics can apply to Jesus, which I doubt as mentioned in the earlier post).What does this amount to? ...LIE?
Given different interpretations, Beta anything or LIE.
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
The ultimate villain means beta rational
Why do you keep saying this?
The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE
-
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
This is what I was talking about in your thread. I don't understand all the ESE hate here. My ESE sister appreciates humanity and is a humanitarian in her own way. I have never seen someone so dedicated to her chosen causes. She is kind and helpful when dealing with others. On her own time and dollar she would visit old people in the nursing home she used to work at and bring Christmas gifts to people who had no family. She would also go sit with old people when they were dying in the hospital. People love her and she is a people lover. She didn't seek recognition for this. She is a sensitive and loving person. ESE hate makes meWhy do you keep saying this?
The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Not all ESE just someone evil enough with the right tools can destroy humanity by categories that are arbitrary and false like "I could kill all the stupid people " or "I think everyone in Africa should be killed" these are not how I approach humanity but ESE in their implementation of a functioning forest or wild life would. They would trust me I know an ESE who says this stuff everyday.This is what I was talking about in your thread. I don't understand all the ESE hate here. My ESE sister appreciates humanity and is a humanitarian in her own way. I have never seen someone so dedicated to her chosen causes. She is kind and helpful when dealing with others. On her own time and dollar she would visit old people in the nursing home she used to work at and bring Christmas gifts to people who had no family. She would also go sit with old people when they were dying in the hospital. People love her and she is a people lover. She didn't seek recognition for this. She is a sensitive and loving person. ESE hate makes me
like how you just put certain people in a strict socionics system and typed them as evil types: ESE, ILE ?
You're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm saying it would take one person who thinks that the state of affairs could be improved or optimal if people in certain categories were the only ones to survive ****** ILE and also ESE are perfect examples of people who think this way but it would take one of these people who obviously grew up in a circumstance where they were bitter to do the type of destruction.
My sister is ESE I wouldn't say that of her Aylen she cares about her family and such but I would say this about some very bitter ESE that I know of
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
so really ILE and ESE are only the most evil if they are raised in bad circumstances, whereas other types raised in bad circumstances are less evil and destructive? (you're still judging by a fixed system and pinpointing the "most evil" types. and if you look at people of these two types - as identified by you - as though they have this evil potential that other types don't have it is still very biased. i just really, deeply, disagree.)
like how you just put certain people in a strict socionics system and typed them as evil types: ESE, ILE ?Why do you keep saying this?
The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE
ESE IS a popular typing for Maritsa! All the voices in my head are telling me it's true!like how you just put certain people in a strict socionics system and typed them as evil types: ESE, ILE ?
I say it because the popular stereotype of the villain is consistent with Beta gone wrong, most often Beta rational.Why do you keep saying this?
The real thoughts of evil come from people who put others in strict systems and don't appreciate humanity ESE ILE
EII or SEE.
He's a bit different in every mythology but the common element seems to be the fall from grace/rebellion, and that sounds Beta. Villains wikia list him as a "God Wannabe" , "master orator", "master manipulator", "Dark Messiah" and "charismatic"--> EIE
Talking about the Messiah, typing ideas for the Antichrist? Mr. A is part of the "Unholy Trinity" which also includes Satan, who apparently is in charge of him. And while we're at it, the archdemons? They are underappreciated not famous people but interesting nevertheless.
antichrist is a man and can be typed when will appear
satan is archangel, while only people have types
Biblical and mythological figures were inspired by human archetypes. Greek gods are the best example, they have characteristics that make them terribly human. Divine things can only be filtered through our earthly brains, making deities human. Hence, I do think that they are typable to some extent. Now, I had some rather bizarre thoughts:
Nomen est omen. Antichrist is said to be the complete opposite of Jesus, whose RL existence is supported, but that is another debate. The fact is that the behaviour of Christ is obviously well-documented by several authors and can be analysed under the aspects of Socionics.
My first tentative thesis would be that they are conflictors. Jesus is commonly typed as NF, that would make Antichrist an ST. Given his description as the demagogue of the entire Christian community (!) during doomsday, we need an extrotim for Antichrist. Which equals: LSE or SLE. Beta - as I mentioned before - is the quadra of revolutionary change. Revolution originates from the Latin word "revolvere" which means turning something upside down. Doomsday is an 180° kind of thing, that is a pro-Argument. SLE Antichrist would render Jesus an INFj - not bad! LSE as the grand judge archetype, however, fits into the notion that Delta is the quadra of the finished civilization (currently, we live in the age of Gamma so we can already make guesses when Antichrist makes his fabulous entrance!). LSE Antichrist as the faux redeemer would technically fit into this reasoning. INFp Jesus seems acceptable as well, Jesus was a revolutionary himself.
Which leads to thesis No.2: could they be from the same quadra? Maybe they will dualize during the Last Judgement. Because I think that Jesus cannot exist without Antichrist! Christian beliefs basically define good and evil arbitrarily, that's why an axis of powers is needed. God - Satan is the most important one, they will merge as well. Side note: I typed Lucifer as EIE. God, therefore, is a divine version of an LSI! I always thought that God would be ILE, being the creator. But a conflicting ESI-Satan doesn't seem quite right.
Thesis 3 serves to clean up the mess: Both heaven and hell are Beta. Jesus, Satan, Antichrist, God, angels, demons - all of them are EIE archetypes.
Last edited by Chae; 07-27-2016 at 08:50 PM.
Wasn't old testament God typed as LSI. Are the two Duals? hmmmm.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
IEE, a logical type would know the futility of fighting God, but Satan just felt it wrong that he should be under God's boot and decided to fight a hopeless battle anyway.
I'm trying to give Lucifer one out of 16 types and all he does is try to find something else to criticize me for. He does so much criticizing that I have called him a Critic ILI and he can't stand it. He NEVER pays the slightest bit of attention to all the good things that I do only when I try to type LUCIFER does he start taking the critic out
Also you can tell a critic by how often he uses the word "you" in a paragraph rather than "I "
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
was your strategy to identify the most evil type and then assign it to lucifer because lucifer is the "ultimate evil"?
I used a process of elimination he can't be a prophet like ILI so that type is out hahah
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
Its actually a sign of a psychologically healthier person to use you more than I in sentence structure.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I'm not sure about that, but Maritsa once (or rather twice) posted two threads two days apart with the titles "VI DISCUSSION FOR RICK DELONG - WE WANT YOUR PICTURES" and "RICK DELONG WE WANT YOUR PICS". People were rather baffled at the time at her use of "We" when she was only referring to herself. Using such language in such a way seems like a form of narcissism or egoism. (The threads were also incidentally a notable example of Maritsa's periodic (and fairly frequent) use of ALL CAPS, although here, she was at least not coupling that with abuse).
The greater we. I use we, and you, and I. I like the generic you myself.
Oddly, the you v. I think is an indicator of narcissism as well. Usage of I signifies the desire to inform people about who you are. That desire, is a byproduct of needing outside assurance or acknowledgment of self, aka narcissism.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
This statement caught my interest. However, I couldn't find any backing for this statement when I did a google search. Do you have a source for this?
I fully agree with @Subteigh in all he has written recently
The enemy of mankind is whatever type I am.
Praise chaos, death, and destruction to anyone and everyone that lives.
I think Maritsa's view of individuals of certain types being evil etc. simply for being that type (or perhaps being a particular type because they are evil), in combination with her self-identification as a Humanist (or rather, THE Humanist, considering the extent to which she confronts and retypes others who type themselves EII, as well as how she describes her identity from EII profiles rather than from her own behaviour (comments where she says that Maritsa is incapable of acting badly because she believes EIIs are incapable of acting badly make this clear) must mean that she considers EIIs, especially herself, the greatest people who have ever lived.
I think it is exceptionally dehumanising for whole groups of people to be classified as "evil", "good", "impure", (etc.). Even if Maritsa did not resort to the language of demagogues and religious extremists, I believe she must be particularly vain in order to see herself as the embodiment of virtue (as she clearly thinks of the EII archetype, which she seems to think she is the exemplar of), and in strong contrast to types she sees as "evil" etc.
In regards the devil: in terms of the Abrahamic religions and popular culture, he is obviously represented as an individual who sees himself as a god (perhaps even trumping God himself), and he offers (or claims to offer) material rewards and knowledge. He is often seen as the Great Deceiver and the Great Destroyer (although it is worth remarking that according to the Abrahamic religions, god is even more skilled at deceit and destruction: perhaps the key significance is that the devil is not a Creator of anything lasting), and perhaps more in popular culture, as an embodiment of narcissism.
The character is implausible illogical (the same with God himself) in that he knows he will be defeated (you would assume, considering that the faithful believe that god is omnipotent despite never observing god for themselves), but still he rebels. It would probably be ludicrous to attach this to poor. It is probably fair to conclude that he is more interested in having personal freedoms and his own kingdom rather than living a well-paced aesthetic life.
I probably type the devil as EIE, placing particular weight on his ability to deceive and flatter. I of course think SLEs and other types can do this, and that EIEs of this type feel incapable of taking part in such behaviour. But I think of the most likely candidates for his type based on being the embodiment of certain traits, EIE is the more likely. There is comparatively little description of the devil with SLE-like negative traits. (It might be worth noting that I also type the biblical Jesus as EIE, and would probably type the Old Testament god as LSI).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
