Agree with previous post, but focused on EII, I think Liszt was one too. Vivaldi = EII seems ok judging only his song, but bio of liszt say more EII than previous typing.
Chopin = IEI ? possible
Beethoven = INTj from multiple source and I tend to agree seeing bio.
why typing of classical artist suck = because we miss many data about artist and forgettin that learned skill have an important impact on composition.
Oh god... you're like those people who write snobby comments on youtube classical music videos, talking as if they know everything. Also, it's obvious that your typing of Bach as non-alpha is biased. You find his music boring and don't want to be associated. Ok, you mention inefficiency. Accepting the challenge of writing good music in every key, doesn't seem like efficiency, considering how tedious it is to do so and you can have a more popular (and well sold) piece by using one of the standard keys. You also compare Bach, who is a Baroque composer, to composers from the romantic period to support your claim that he doesn't show Fe... How can you even do that? Obviously music from the romantic period has more emotional depth. And even saying that Bach's music doesn't have an emotional element to it is whack. For the Baroque period, a lot of his music is moving. Tell me a baroque composer/piece then that shows the Fe and Ti you are talking about.Originally Posted by Neverend
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, just deny typings because of baroque? But as we all know Bach is all technical like an efficient machine, curious how you believe he's Fe valuing if there's no proof of it, but you're simultaneously confusing him for Ti when, like I said, he shows no true structural invention nor is known for it, just a mastery of pattern implementation. Tedious composition, I'd certainly expect not for an alpha NT, but Bach likes to repeat his most effective structures and keep it simple. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the process of composing, but we spend hours trying to master one small strand or sequence of music with the intention that it reflects all our favorite aspects of listening, and it's an enjoyable process knowing that you can slow down time and make what you want of it. You can compare him to baroque composers who don't seem Fe-devoid, such as Handel or Vivaldi, there's obviously a stronger presence of acknowledgment for the affects of Fe they've had in their listening. What do you expect an ILIs music to sound like if its not "Ti," more like Mussorgsky? There is not much difference between the two in pattern implementation, you just have a different style and era, and emotional depth doesn't necessarily have to do with Fe, but I'll have to go into that with another example. I don't think its fair to say Bach's music doesn't have some kind of emotional or sentimental undertones to it for the sake that it's beautiful-sounding, and structurally sound music that flows like a wave of objective processing, a similar value to Mozart's Te, more dynamic and coherent than alpha NT music, there are no intentions of fresh layers or leaps. I'd expect more Ne and Ti from any Alpha NT, not seeing it whatsoever. I know of more alpha sounding music from earlier periods off the top of my head, from what I know it's not all that popular, amazing or easy to listen to.
Last edited by Neverend; 06-20-2011 at 10:25 AM.
A list including some of my personal tastes (*):
Beethoven * - Beta Introvert
Brahms * - ESE
Chopin - Gamma Introvert
Debussy - SEI
Gershwin - SLE
Holst ** - ILI
Kabalevsky - ILE
Kodaly * - LIE
Kondo * - xII
Mahler - IEI
Mozart - IEI
Prokofiev ** - Delta NF
Ravel - EII
Schumann * - LSE
Sibelius - EIE
Shostakovich - EII
Tchaikovsky ** - EII
Wagner * - SLE
Williams, John ** - EII
For some reason I'm really attracted to EII music.
That's an excellent recording of the Rachmaninoff, and a very Ti-oriented performance. I guess from the performance, I can hear LII, but when other people play his music, then I hear something completely different.What, a common theory cycle? There is no Ti in that, or especially Ne: it's all the same foundation, a common sense of efficiency in writing. Maybe it doesn't appeal to your Ne, but it's Ni and Te that repeat solidly formed techniques. Can't you read a description of the alpha quadra first before coming to that conclusion. Bach is one of the most Fe devoid composers I've heard, and not an inventor but an obvious reorganizer of common patterns/techniques, and here's some musical education for you: compare to a Ti method of structurizing, which so obviously doesn't reform patterns to complement a certain style, but redevelops the root of the composition's structure each time, and the diversity of Fe-valuing in this piece of music (which can equally be summarized in terms of solid foundations, ie. common emotions forced): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90MuPqYtV_k#t=3m5s
Tell me any Alpha NT on that list who can't do close to that.
Well tempered clavier, hah. Do you really expect an ILE genius to be so boring? At least Mussorgsky, a likely ILI, was highly influenced by the romantic era, you can still tell how traditional to his adopted knowledge he's trying to "get right" without having the proper education. Alpha for both of them is out of the question. Mussorgsky to a Ti valuer after a while is like listening to a pendulum.
Bach can get very emotional, but as with any composer, whether it's Fe- or Fi- emotionality is always the question. His emotional aspect tends to be more apparent in his religious works, like this one:
(That performance is maybe a bit on the slow side, but it still gives the idea.)
What type do you think Bach is....ILI?
I've always thought of Mussorgsky as base-Ni, but I was thinking more IEI.
These ones I agree with:
These ones I find most surprising and would be curious regarding some sort of explanation:
These ones don't agree with my view, but I think I see how you might have gotten them...I'm also curious about your reasoning on them:
My new list from what I know somewhat particularely, and some additionnal blabla
chopin : ??? honestly IDK. Was thinking Ne dom, Ni dom after, ect...
liszt : probably EIE
wagner : something with Se or high in Se searching (se last). SLE seems really valable judging only music. Ive to admit that I dont have read bio, and wikisocion suggest that can be hard to type artist work cuz their is a possibility that they represent mainly their idealized super id. In this case wagner can be seen as IEI too.
beethoven : LII, stop. A possibility to EII as some suggest, but not finding many info confirm this.I agree with wikisocion on this one.
erik satie : ENTp (come from an old discussion where I particularly agree)
Vivaldi : looking at 4 saison, seem Si dom ? Something with Si and Fi, delta can work... Or perhaps Si/Fe (alpha) ?
Mozart : ??? Some say IEE... Its quite possible, he seemed to use some trick of Fi creative when doing first part requiem (I was interrested into what signify the first part of this requiem at times, I perhaps can discuss this more if I re-find the article)
rachmaninov : interesting case. Probably LII or something with Ti, but im not 100% sure.
additionnal unrelated troll/volatile tengeancial question :
Im not really sure about the type of radiohead singer. Hes :
1) IEI (what I think he was before reading some stuff, and because its a quasi obligation and a recuring donkey-like thinking to type artist who is a bit melhancolic delta NF in 16types.)
2) EII
some interview like that :
make me think more EII than IEI.
what do u think about this ?
Last edited by noid; 06-23-2011 at 10:19 PM.
What do you mean you agree with Wikisocion? Wikisocion doesn't have a page for Beethoven's type.The only things I know of written about his type from a Socionics point of view are in Filatova's book (she thinks he's ILI), and on some forum threads here (Rick and some other people think EIE, although lots of other possibilities including base-Fi, IEI, and a bunch of other types have been mentioned.) You're the first person I've heard suggest LII. Seems a bit unlikely to me, but then again everyone has different definitions in Socionics anyway.
Last edited by Jonathan; 06-23-2011 at 04:26 AM.
ah, yes, hes typed as ILI. my excellent memory seems to wanting to remember TiNe...
But ive read that he use Ne when composing, ie try many possibility and end with the best result possible...
I dont think IEI and ILI do this...
I do this too. Its called perfectionnism ^^. Ji Ne things imo. I dont see he as PJJP.Ne appears to have a role in a sort of inverse way: The music seems to strive for such a perfectionist ideal that it suggests that many options were considered in order to find just the right ones.
PS : reading from how sound music at the point to say Se POLR dont compose Se-like music is being a donkey. Its ok for some but number of Fi dom I know composing hard stuff... Some FiNeSiTe I know live only for differenciating them from the masse (probably trying to counter their natural Fi side make them think they are too much connected), even if this mean to be ready for destroying a town just with music...
Just a note in order to contrast wikisocion view.
Last edited by noid; 06-23-2011 at 10:28 PM.
I fail : liszt was probably more a EIE, reading more this bio. I was tricked by the fact he was attracted to belief system (religion, beeing hungarian, ect). But his letter, or some of their speak suggest Fe more than Fi , and some Ni type of reasoning. Supported by the fact he type 3w4 on enneagram.
brahms EII
now its a fact I dont like composer of my quadra. hahaha
And beethoven sound like a INFJ :
http://www.beethoven.ws/personality.html
Well wait a second...this is a pretty fundamental issue:
Does Ne equal trying many possibilities to end with the best result possible?
Now in my experience, I try out possibilities all the time. A lot of people type me as ILI though. I understand that a lot of people think Ne equals trying out possibilities to find the best one. But is that actually true?
Actually, I know some people who are base-Ne types but don't seem to revise much. And I know some ILIs who revise a lot.
In any case, it's not crystal clear to me that your definition of Ne is necessarily the correct one. Maybe it is...there are different versions of Socionics, and it's not as if I've never heard about or thought similar points of view to yours. It's just that I'm not sure it's right. Some would say the difference between Ne and Ni has more to do with static vs. dynamic.
It's interesting now to compare this to the "what is a fact" thread:
Here, MensSuperMateriam is suggesting that Te might be expressed by testing out different alternatives.
Hmm....sounds a little like your definition of Ne.
I'm just challenging you a little bit about the definitions, because if the definitions we're working with aren't robust, or if there's no agreement, then typing people based on those differing definitions becomes a Tower of Babel exercise.
Last edited by Jonathan; 06-24-2011 at 04:45 AM.
I also sometimes turn to whatever is available on the internet to try to match it with Socionics types. Unfortunately, it's often a futile exercise. The sources are unreliable, but more importantly they rarely clearly point to one type. So it's easy to bend such passages to whatever we want them to say.strong personality ... at times quite difficult to get on with. ... a person of noble ideas. ... well respected ... treatment of moralists and critics could never termed as being of a polite nature.
...said to be stubborn. ... would deliberately arrive late at meal times ... paid little attention to the way he dressed. ...had always had a brusque, arrogant personality.
Objectively, the quote above, derived from your link, is quite unlike any Socionics description of EII I've ever heard (or IEI for that matter)...unless all one reads is "noble ideas ...well respected" and leaves the rest out. If anything, it suggests that he was a logical type, because a lot of the way he's described (brusque, arrogant, stubborn, not polite) is reflective of how an ethical type might perceive a logical type. It's hard to see it the other way...that is, it's hard to imagine logical types being annoyed by someone who's an ethical type because the latter is considered too arrogant and not polite enough. It's almost as if there were some Fe (or Fi?) standard that he rubbed up against.
Of course, a lot of people when they hear Beethoven's music feel that they're hearing Fe (or Fi?).
Then again, if one wants to see him as an ethical type, perhaps EIE might be the one most likely to be able to rub people that way? I don't know...would be interested in other examples, or if it is at all likely that an EIE would seem like that to other people.
Last edited by Jonathan; 06-24-2011 at 04:48 AM.
By the way, one other quick thought. ...lest we very quickly assume too much about Beethoven's revision process and what it means in terms of type.
I know an EII, ILIs, an ILE, and an LIE who revise....So the more pertinent question, in my opinion, is what sort of revision process are we talking about?
In Beethoven's case, what we know from the sketches is that he would write out a whole passage from beginning to end. Then he would apparently critique it and decide he wasn't satisfied and correct it rather extensively, usually taking something about the overall gist but completely re-composing it.
So this was not about coming up with a sense of all the possibilities of what one could do...It was more a sequential process of refinement by replacing what didn't satisfy.
It seems to me that doesn't necessarily point to Ne. What we see is a methodical process that might be contrasted with someone who imagines the possibilities in his head and doesn't write it down until he has something he likes.
Mozart's sense of spontaneous invention, it seems to me, is more Ne-like. Yet Mozart is the perfect example of a composer who didn't tend to revise but rather, it seemed, "got it right" the first time around.
mmmhhh okay with you...
I dont see EIE or IEI for beethoven, probably a mix beetween ILI and EII. Admit that he seem somewhat high on Fi.
edit : re reading a stuff on google, youre right , beethoven personnality suggest valued Se. Often speak about moral stuff too, its strange. I dont see it ultimately as an ISFj, INTp seem more okay.
Last edited by noid; 06-24-2011 at 10:44 AM.
I'm interested in what bio or letter you're drawing that from.
I don't know too much about his life except that he was described as very flamboyant and generous. This sort of flamboyance can point to EIE or SEE.
From a pure musical point of view, I see SEE because there seems to be a lack of the soaring emotionality I associate with Fe types. His music tends to oscillate between the strong heroic big chords as if the piano is a hero who will save the day in battle (Se) and gentle, intimate moments that remind me of Fi.
Its the song ive most trying to play. Im fairly good at it now.
with liszt - consolation no3
It seems EII cant do music, when you see number of not INF delta into music (and art in general ?)
Only brahms seems to be, but he suck.
just search letter + liszt on google, Ive find plenty ! I need to read for SEE, i dont really know this profile.I'm interested in what bio or letter you're drawing that from.
can you give exemple of soaring emotionality of Fe plz ? im interested about it !because there seems to be a lack of the soaring emotionality I associate with Fe type
Last edited by noid; 06-24-2011 at 09:42 PM.
I definitely don't see too muchThere isn't muchin Beethoven. Mostly alot of really stormy
, IMO. Love it.
in his music, in comparison with someone like Chopin; but delta seems a bit of a stretch. He uses abrupt metrical shifts prominently in the symphonies, piano trios and string trios, bringing in different instruments somewhat disparately. I've noticed this quality pretty consistently in
-valuing musicians.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I was a violinist in the university orchestra, and can play a few other instruments.
Well, in my theory, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, and Grieg were possibly Fe-ego types. Not everyone agrees, of course.
A lot of socionists seem to think that Rachmaninoff was LII. If so, perhaps his soaring melodies were also a reflection of Fe.
In my theory, when the external gesture/form of the music is efficient and sort of box-like, like Mendelssohn, Borodin, Haydn, and Handel, and the interior material/melody tends towards simplicity like Mozart, Liszt, Faure, that reflects Te/Fi, and when the external gesture/form of the music is the opposite of that...more subjective and expressive, with the inner material tending to be intricate and "noodle-y" that reflects Ti/Fe.
thx
you right, SEE seems finally really possible for liszt.
I can too, but I speak about create real music, as I want to do , for expressing my internal turmoilI was a violinist in the university orchestra, and can play a few other instruments.
Ive struggle with this in the past and it seems socionic agree with god in order to make me minable uncreative guy.
Well you may have more potential than you think. Minable means capable of being mined (although in French it means mediocre, so stick with English.)I can too, but I speak about create real music, as I want to do , for expressing my internal turmoilI was a violinist in the university orchestra, and can play a few other instruments.
Ive struggle with this in the past and it seems socionic agree with god in order to make me minable uncreative guy.
Regarding your post, please vote here.
(In fact this discussion between you and Jonathan was the reason for opening it. Jonathan voted already.)
I think though we already reached consensus that Beethoven's tendency to revise a lot is not in itself a reason to see him in an Ne quadra.Regarding your post, please vote here.
(In fact this discussion between you and Jonathan was the reason for opening it. Jonathan voted already.)
Do I appear to be the one to give a fuck about your consensus? Or rather, do you think anyone who enters the forum to learn and apply Socionics is required to adhere to the agreement between random internet users?
I have prepared a post to answer the problem, but I would like first to understand where you come from to better address your opinions. As a preview: Te and Ni are wrong, possibly Ne too, this is what remains to be discussed, provided you have an understanding in what the functions really mean.
so whats the type of beethoven ?
Im not able to read beetwen your line.
Imo it can be 2 things :
-a INTp who revise
-a Ji Ne personnality. (perhaps what you name as introverted Ne)
(compose - what for me ? - compose - what for me ? ect)
another bio :
http://toddtarantino.com/hum/beethovenhimself.html
maritsa33 I think we need u here.Beethoven was short, but broad-framed. Until his early thirties he was slim... [he had] penetrating brown eyes beneath a broad forehead and thick eyebrows. His ruddy complexion bears the scars of childhood smallpox, his mouth is shapely, and his chin has a cleft which became more marked in later years
Hes somewhat hard to type, we should admit...
re seing this :
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-15266/cultur/ludwig/beeim.htm
I would say INTp is right...
VI makes ILI pretty likely IMO
4w3-5w6-8w7
[quote=The Ineffable;785798]Of course not. I wasn't referring to some sort of extra-thread agreement between users not to disagree, but rather to what was stated very clearly in the discussion of the thread. Noid had suggested that Beethoven's revision process suggested he must be in an Ne quadra. I challenged this assertion on two fronts...
First, the Ne is not necessarily the same as trying multiple ways in order to pick one. Probably everybody considers a few different alternatives when making a decision, but that isn't the same as Ne.
But secondly, I mentioned that Beethoven's revision process was not a matter of coming with up with all kinds of possible ways of doing things, it was more a process of writing down something, then deciding it wasn't good or didn't express what he wanted (perhaps through some judging function), and then rewriting the passage.
I think with that clarification, Noid agreed that the revision process in itself did not necessarily point to Ne. But of course in no way would I suggest just because I or someone else is convinced of something that other people should just follow along. The evidence that I laid out is clear, and if you have an objection to it, please explain.
I'd be very interested in your theory; please let us know your thoughts.
Since different people define the IM elements differently, feel free to include your own definitions as well.
Imo hes ILI, but dont trick yourself with :
I do that too, (imagination -> Ne application ) and this dont mean that im ILI !But secondly, I mentioned that Beethoven's revision process was not a matter of coming with up with all kinds of possible ways of doing things, it was more a process of writing down something, then deciding it wasn't good or didn't express what he wanted (perhaps through some judging function), and then rewriting the passage.
I just use my demonstrative for imaginate + Fi "perfectionnism", and try to represent this with multiple Ne approach, possibility, potential, doubt, ect ... With hopping that my state will not change too much and dont lose interest before the end.
when young I was skilled for this, before my head continually desert myself
Yeah, sureImo hes ILI, but dont trick yourself with :
I do that too, (imagination -> Ne application ) and this dont mean that im ILI !But secondly, I mentioned that Beethoven's revision process was not a matter of coming with up with all kinds of possible ways of doing things, it was more a process of writing down something, then deciding it wasn't good or didn't express what he wanted (perhaps through some judging function), and then rewriting the passage.
I just use my demonstrative for imaginate, and try to represent this with multiple Ne approach, possibility, potential ... With hopping that my state will not change too much and dont lose interest before the end.
when young I was skilled for this, before my head continually desert myself
I think people of all 16 types revise things like term papers, essays, letters, etc., by correcting their mistakes. In part, this is due to training in English class etc.
It's only when you compare different people's revision process that you really see the differences. For example, some people seem to layer ideas on top of each other; they start with a shell or basic idea and then add more and more. Others seem to work out as much as possible in their head before writing anything down.
Then, there are people who may revise because they keep coming up with new ideas, but the revisions aren't any better than the originals; they're just different. These people revise compulsively, and I think that *could* be sign of Ne.
One thing that was characteristic of Beethoven's revisions was the high degree of progress; that is, most people would probably agree that his final result was clearly much better than his first sketch. This may indicate that he had a lot of skill in the area of improving something, whereas other composers are very good with coming up with a great first idea but don't know how to make it better.
I agree, and finally its interesting to notice behavior are often similar for different type... A real typing is somewhat hard with not many information.
There is learned behavior, orientation of the life, ect...
Yeah, I think though that the biographical link you sent does tend argue against most sensing types. It's hard, for example, to imagine an SEI or ESI who's clumsy, spills water from the tub a lot, and is so unkempt.
On the other hand, going just by how the music sounds, one might come up with a lot of different interpretations. These, however, are influenced by one's own mental state.
I've been obsessed with figuring out his type for years; the one thing that I've generally been sure about is that he seems to differ from the "dreamy" IEI, as his music is so direct, concise, and to-the-point. But the question has been what is the source of that quality, typologically speaking. Is it Gamma values with emphasis on clear form (Te) and a moral undercurrent (Fi), combined with the long-term formal values of Ni clearly emphasized over the more momentary emphasis of Si? Or is it the greater concreteness of SEI, being more directly biographical (compared say to IEI) and with fewer digressions? Or is it the rational nature of EIE, conveying the sense of a political speaker goading the audience to action, and tempering emotional directionality with Ni's long-term emphasis?
One can hear the music any of these ways, but that often says more about the performer's interpretation than anything else.
Last edited by Jonathan; 06-28-2011 at 03:13 AM.
Okay. Apparently that poll is not going anywhere but I'll bump it later, "knowledgeable" people suddenly dissapeared off the face of the EarthI'd be very interested in your theory; please let us know your thoughts.
Since different people define the IM elements differently, feel free to include your own definitions as well.
I agree with you, it is Ni who tries different possibilities, but imaginary ones. From what noid said, I conclude that the composer tries existing options to come out with value. It is hard to differentiate them semantically, but one rule of thumb:
- Ne = big picture;
- Ni = different perspective.
If you can differentiate well between them, you can't miss, IMO. The idea is that Ne looks for what already is but missed because a limited/narrow/poor view; Ni looks for something that does not exist but may be good. Ne is Bodies (Extroverted), it always looks for the value in what exists, but it tries to find out more, in a bigger pictures to avoid missing something or to see things that are apparently unconnected but actually fit to be together (made for each other). Ni is the other way around, it can't look for what is "good" in the objects because there's no such thing - Ni is Fields (Introverted) - it's all in your head, how you are gonna *use* these objects (mentally, of course), combine, imagine. There's no such thing as "this is it" as Ni information because there's no "it", but an infinity of combinations and a relative value.
There is a pressure coming from MBTI people to force the meaning of "many possibilities" into Socionics Ne. That's totally false, what you read was misinformation.
They are at least partially right by default, coming with Extroverted functions. One thing is certain to me: the function has to be Internal, so MensSuperMateriam is immediately wrong about Te. Logic and Sensing are obviously not used here where a subjective insight is awaited, they are used for technical/shape stuff, like picking the tone scale, the structure, vibration dissonance, whatever.
But then, less obviously is the fact that it's a Dynamic function, harder to explain and I'm a bit tired. Consequently I think that was Fe, however I make no claim regarding Beethoven's type, may have been Fe Ego but possibly just valued Fe.
Basically, what has Beethoven done? He was needing to come and "discover" the composition in a big whole. He needed a fresh view, exactly like you see something entirely new. The usage of an Introverted function is out of question, it's the Extroverted that goes for experience to get something new.
Internal as in by definition F or N....or (as interpreted) somehow more amorphous or indirect compared to T and S.
...but how do you know? Of course everyone has two valued internal functions in their quadra, so how would the existence of an internal function help to determine someone's type?
Okay, so that seems to be some explanation. All great composers go beyond the technical stuff into more subjective values. But these could possibly be either from the ego block or the subconscious.
Well some people on the forum have mentioned EIE in the past. Some famous Socionists think he's LII.
But how do you know that the dynamic function is also the one that's internal? How do you know that you're not hearing a combination of one internal function and another dynamic one?
Let's test this...It turns out that Augusta typed Jan Sibelius as SLI. So that would be two external dynamic functions in the ego block, and no internal dynamic ones in the quadra, if she's correct. Do you see that as a possibility for Sibelius? And if not for Beethoven, what is the difference you're seeing between Beethoven and Sibelius that points to internal-dynamic for Beethoven?
I don't quite get it...why can't introverted functions discover something new? And if you could deduce that Beethoven uses an extraverted function, a dynamic function, and an internal function, how do you know that these are all the same function? You already said that it may be a valued function (not necessarily ego block). So how do you know that you're not actually noticing a few different functions work together?
I'm not saying you're wrong...Maybe you could show the analysis of a passage or something that demonstrates Fe. I could do that...have done it many times before. Unfortunately, I can do the same for Te or other functions....because it's actually very easy to see something and come up with a good justification for it.
Now this was kind of a revelation for me...it changes how I see Socionics, or rather reinforces the view I've had that there is no single "right" set of definitions in Socionics, and that everyone is really using words differently.
This is really something...from http://sss.info-esta.ru:
Beethoven:
Stratievskaya & Ausra Augustinavichiute: LII
Filatova & Talanov: ILI
Chopin:
Stratievskaya, Ausra Augustinavichiute, & Reinin: IEE
Filatova, Talanov, & Roux Stepanov: IEI
Mozart:
Stratievskaya, Ausra Augustinavichiute, & Gulenko: IEI
Filatova & Talanov: IEE
Rachmaninoff:
Stratievskaya, Filatova, & Reinin: LII
Do you see the problem here? Yes, Ausra "invented" Socionics (after Jung), but these are all professional Socionists, and Filatova is one of the most respected. Yet except for Rachmaninoff, she consistently types these composers in the opposite quadra!
This is not a mere matter of a difference of opinion regarding typing famous people; the thought patterns reflected in the music apparently brings to mind opposite quadras in these Socionists.
This convinces me that their IM definitions are not the same. But to make matters worse, Stratievskaya & Reinin agreed with Filatova on Rachmaninoff, who is obviously so psychologically different from Beethoven, suggesting that they're not even internally consistent.
And it gets worse: Ausra also types Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Paganini, and Rimsky-Korsakov as LII. Same as Beethoven ?? Of course it's possible that you could have different people of the same type who write very different sounding music. But lumping these particular composers into the same type seems a bit suspect to me (and indeed other well-known Socionists tend to give EIE for Paganini, and a very wide range of types for Tchaikovsky).
Now here's what I think is going on. Ausra/Strat Socionics is using one set of definitions (but not entirely consistently). Here is my rough attempt to understand their thought process...it is just a paraphrase, not perfect (and by the way, when I say definitions, I mean operational definitions in terms of behavior. We all know that Ti is static external fields, but people disagree on what that means):
Ni – A sense of the nature of how things are that’s simplified, restricted in terms of sensory detail, is conceptual; Si – a sense of the physical world around you and how it affects you.
Ti – Having clear opinions, such as a political point of view, that you can defend logically; Fi – personal expression, effusive expression, feelings
Ne – Imagination of what could be; story-like imagination; ideals, idealism; Se – Focus on what is and existing powers; working with and glorifying existing authority or awareness of battles between authorities
Fe – A sense of the emotions of characters, understanding how what other people are feeling is apparent in their gestures; ability to caricature, ability to represent the emotions of other people in terms of what they are like; Te – focus on the more non-personal aspects…may be evidenced also by a “calculated” approach to how things progress.
Notice that story-like or "dynamic" imagination is in Ne here...but even more importantly, I think Ausra/Strat see Ne as considering how things could be different...e.g., as idealism. This is why they and Weisband see LII as predominantly a revolutionary, not the sort of mathematician/"analyst" type that people tend to see around here. They assigned to LII Robespierre, one of the most forceful (as well as violent) people in all history...because he had strong political convictions and wanted to lead people toward a different reality (unfortunately, a very bloody one, as it turned out).
Notice also that Se has nothing to do with forcefulness but is more a conservative approach, like working with what really is as opposed to what could be. Notice that expression of personal feelings in the manner of Chopin is more in Fi than Fe.
It is for these reasons, I think, that they became so convinced of LII for Beethoven...as his music is the music of revolution; unlike composers who wrote of feelings inspired by their personal lives, Beethoven seemed to be inspired by the political struggle for freedom from tyranny.
Similarly, the subdued, refined nature of Mozart and the outward emoting of Chopin are apparently consistent with Fe and Fi (respectively) to them, as these are basically "flipped" from the more familiar Filatova-based understanding. Notice, indeed, that in Ausra/Strat, Beta is not the quadra of change; rather, Delta is more about change as it contains Ne; Beta is more conservative...and, if they wanted to be truly consistent, then the fiery orators who want to change things would have to be moved to Alpha (most likely), or possibly Delta.
I think Filatova/Talanov are using definitions closer to this:
Ni – a sense of anticipation, story, narrative, long-term nature; Si – a focus on the immediate senses that point out the enjoyment of the moment.
Ti – an approach to internal logic and finding interest in the way structures unfold and convolute; Fi – an approach to inner structure that represents something personal.
Ne – a tendency towards continuous invention and finding uniqueness; Se – conveying a sense of what really is, the way things are…having a good sense of the environment around you
Fe – an approach to how things unfold that puts together gestures according to concepts of “good” and “bad” or a “personal life story”; Te – a strategic approach to how things unfold involved in reaching certain goals.
Now as I said, what I've jotted down is just a sort of rough paraphrase of the operational definitions that may be parallel to the thought process in how they're coming up with their typings. And of course, the factors that probably influenced them were perhaps in most cases completely unrelated to the sound of the music...which is understandable of course, as this is about historical typing, not musical analysis. Some of these factors may have been the people associated with these composers (e.g., Chopin had a relationship with Georges Sand, typed SLI, "therefore" he was IEE...except that they broke up, so it must have been super ego, so therefore IEI after all...)
The point is, nobody should feel bad that other people keep putting them in the opposite quadra...because this is endemic to Socionics....There is a tesseract structure, and beyond that it's all based on the definitions you use. These typings are strong evidence of the essential inconsistency of Socionics.
Last edited by Jonathan; 07-01-2011 at 05:47 AM.
Actually, a lot of what I wrote must seem like gibberish, as it's just my random thoughts and so some of what I jotted down wouldn't make sense to anybody else. I won't delete it, but I recognize that with historical typings, they're just typing based on scant details about a person's life, and that's not proof that they wouldn't agree better on typing people they've met. I get too hooked into this stuff. Still, I think it's true that there is no one "true" Socionics and that everyone uses different definitions to some degree.
Reply With Quote
