Classical composers

[The Ineffable]

...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?

I haven't typed Beehoven. I have no idea about his type. I focused exclusively on what function, what information is used for that specific purpose. Fe type makes sense to me, though.

You can't deduce *the type* just from that, it must normally exist in the Ego, though something else is used in different conditions. In Beethoven's case - assuming I understood his procedure correctly and it is Fe that is used for validating the work - what I can be sure of is that he is not (Gamma or Delta) Irrational.

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.

I agree. Note that you and noid were arguing what function is used for that, I gave you my answer, it is IMO incorrect to believe it was Ni or Te that was used.

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?

Hmm I said I'm sure of Extroverted + Internal (Ne, Fe), I explained why, not Dynamic. But there are two main reasons why I consider Ne incorrect:

1. A Dynamic procedure determines how something works at a given time or in a given configuration. Dynamic judgments differ from the Static ones in respect to persistence: there's no difference in common language, it can only be determined from the general view of a person, for instance when you say "this is good", it has 2 meanings:
- this is good right now, it works, I like it, it is useful;
- this is good in itself, analytically, it has the right properties, it will always be good.
Therefore, it is unlikely for Beethoven's procedure to be Static, since from what we know it is apparent that the ends he was using were merely what worked, instead of say "they are made for one another" based on some principle or some other obvious reason. Note two things:
- as well observed by you, a complete jugment requires a full mental block (Introverted + Extroverted), but blocks are always fully Dynamic or fully Static. Static and Dynamic functions don't work together and it is common-sense: you can't decide on the persistent qualities of something based on contingent observations, and the other way around. This is basically the second rule for forming blocks, this is why we have only 16 types based on the 8 IEs.
- the Super-Id and Id are necessarily accepted, although subconsciously. It is impossible to deny them based on the Ego, they are always there, assumed. Static elements can't be used but to determine the intrinsic qualities, not how they work. Square cross-section beams are fit for square cross-section holes, whether and how you can use those beams with round holes is totally irrelevant in respect to Static functions/blocks.
2. Ne is an Irrational function, it is normally not used for validation. Irrational functions are used mainly for orientation, they provide insights for what way to go, they are used for decisions in urgent situations, but rarely for perfecting something. They don't form attachments either, as far as I can tell.

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?

Other functions can be used for composing, in the case of SLIs it is almost sure it is not Super-Ego, but Super-Id. You misunderstood my statements, it is not necessary to be Dynamic to compose, but Internal. I personally don't know any SLI composer and in fact a SLI I know who wanted to make music like other friends told me something along the lines of "I can't, how can I make something out of nothing? I would like only to perform". But anyway, it is possible to compose through static elements, in fact that's always used more or less, it's musical structure, musical style, etc.

I don't know about Sibelius, but if he is truly SLI I suspect he was doing familiar, "correct" music, precisely how folk follows the rules of previous compositions OR the other way around, creating something "personal", but the themes and tunes must have some inner relationships between them and the music. I can't give you musical examples, but I can give you examples from literature: JRR Tolkien and Terry Pratchett - ultimate examples of Fi in art. They both use familiar, traditional, historical elements combined together in an original manner - conservative fantasy, so to speak. The Fi-valuing exploration goes for more and more humanist elements in more and more fancy combinations, while the Fe goes for "something else", more spontaneous and immediately satisfactory. BTW, here's another difference: Serious types struggle to keep and gather what is good, Merry types to get rid of and replace what is bad, you can observe that in the opposite utopias presented by the Aristocratic, Beta (idealized, "upgraded" roots/ancients to satisfy us) and Delta (authentic roots transposed in different times/conditions - nowdays).

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?

Because different functions paired together work differently and people use the Ego to do anything except for something where it can't apply. People try to use their Ego at anything, but depending on their type and the matter as stake, here's an example:
- a Logical type will extensively use Id where Logic is required, for example a Ti scientist will use extensive testing and statistics, although his main purpose is to confirm somethng or create some rules. Although this testing is temporary and not intended to be complete - it is impossible to know everything, too - it is used to form universal concepts.
- a Logical type will use Super-Ego or Super-Id for ethical matters, this is pretty easy: a Rational uses Super-Ego Role, DS is something one can't provide to himself - but this Role is temporary and uncomfortable, fake; an Irrational will use Super-Id HA, the PoLR is felt impossbile to be used - but this HA requires support/feedback from others.

So again, to be able to tell what function is used in a certain situation, you also need to consider what information is required to be used. One can't talk usually about Logic or Sensing when it comes to active insights into beliefs, tastes, inspiration or the unknown - and the vice-verse.

I could buy into these types for Beethoven: ESE, EIE > IEI, SEI > ILE, SLE > EIE, LSE > anything else. Logical Introvert is very unlikely, IMO, he was very impulsive, moody and angry. I recall he angrily scratched Napoleon's name off one of his works, how the hell man, as a Logical type, how can you do something else out of something, just by clapping your hands? No explanation, nothing, just pure irritation. I could see an LXI doing something similar, like "this is not what it was meant to represent", though not so over the top. He saw Napoleon as an immortal just to suddenly few minutes later after hearing the news to declare him mere mortal? Let's be serious... he had a very fiery, inconsistent and capricious temperament for a Logical Introvert, IMO.

[Gilly]

Beethoven is a probable IEI IMO.

[noid]

A Fe creative stubborn like this in matter of social stuff ?
Have you just see other IEI video , and contrast ?
Gilly the more I read you the more I think you stay influenced on the Fe defined in MBTI.

imo ILI is really likely

: ESE, EIE > IEI, SEI > ILE, SLE > EIE, LSE >

omg the nightmare continue...
2 Fe personnality placed on first ? Have you ever just one time meet ONE Fe guy IRL ? Do you really think that there is something of a beginning of correlation with beethoven personnality ?
Do you think beetoven is the one who was mastering at social stuff, and who was energized by this ?
I was hesitate beetween EII and ILI, but reading other stuff (like "pathetic HA" on wikisocion) and this bio seems to effectively toward ILI.

[The Ineffable]

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):

That *is* the problem! Not only that people disagree, but often people don't use rigor for consistency, they don't have a reason for their understanding. They don't care what's the correct semantic and a lot of enthusiasts brought in different views, borrowed from Jung or MBTI.

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).

That is not Aushra's definition of Ne and neither the Socionics' definition of Ne! I told you so already, that is Ni, it is merely similar to some descriptions of Ne made by other Jungian authors - mostly MBTI. By the definition of Bodies/Fields in Socionics, those qualities of Ne information are impossible. Please read this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...654#post730654

Why do you say that's Aushra's definition? Here's one of hers:

The content of the object. Its potential energy and the inner content, internal capabilities. The program, built into the object, its internal structure, any specific abilities. "Labor force", ie amount of physical and mental abilities.

A sense of presence-absence of hidden internal abilities, capabilities, giving the ability to see the continuity or short duration of some object or phenomenon.

It's everything *in the object*, there is something that exists, it's not imagination, it's just an extended interpretation - compared to Se, for example. It is not a sense of how it could be or should be (Fields, Introverted), but how *it is*.

The problem with these "interpretations" is that they are not Socionics interpretations. Socionics ecompasses a series of definitions and rules of its understanding, it's not that free. Bodies/Fields is pretty concise, for example. Read the aspectonics and its meaning, that is the fundament of Socionics IM:

Theory aspects (aspektonika) - the foundation and the foundation of all other sections of Socionics. It introduces concepts and features used in all of science.

Consider the three pairs of categories:
1. internal - external.
2. static - the dynamics.
3. body - the field.
Category of each pair are in a relationship of dialectical opposites. We say that aspect of the following construction: the first defines the word, any word from the first pair, the second from the second pair, and finally, the third defined the word, from the third pair.
Thus we get eight aspects:

1. internal static body - black intuition
2. external static body - black sensory
3. external
4. internal
5. internal
6. external dynamics are the dynamics of the body dynamics of the field dynamics on - Black Logic - Ethics black - white intuition - sensing white
7. external static field - white logic
6. internal static field - white Ethics[/B]

Black intuition
(Internal statics of the body)

The set of properties of the body, which determine its potential relationship with other bodies (objects) and each of these properties individually.

Explanation Indicators: property (at a hundred degrees, boils), determined by the properties of the potential of the object, its purpose, design object, reflecting its abstract scheme, capacity and quality perspective of the object, sign and sign system, and the value, meaning and content of the text. person's character, his abilities, talents, etc. . The potential of a person in the situation. The inner content of the theory and its capabilities. The state system.

perception: ch.i. perceived as an understanding of the vision of the object as a whole. becomes possible to determine the properties of one other, aside from some properties, modeling and design, synthesis, videnieobschego, the prediction of behavior or emotions in some situations the object and change its properties.

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.

That is not necessarily evidence for the inconsistency of Socionics as it is for the inconsistency of views - or the community. Really, if some people came with unjustified interpretations, what do these embellishments tell about Socionics?

[Gilly]

I don't know much about MBTI Fe.

ILI is a plausible typing for Beethoven.

[The Ineffable]

omg the nightmare continue...
2 Fe personnality placed on first ? Have you ever just one time meet ONE Fe guy IRL ? Do you really think that there is something of a beginning of correlation with beethoven personnality ?
Do you think beetoven is the one who was mastering at social stuff, and who was energized by this ?
I was hesitate beetween EII and ILI, but reading other stuff (like "pathetic HA" on wikisocion) and this bio seems to effectively toward ILI.

You may ignore what I wrote, I'm interested in Jonathan's opinion. Your understanding is superficial and literal, I can't help you. Fe-Base types are not like you imagine, all happy and jumping around. Take for instance W Shakespeare and A ******, who are typed EIE and were very "introverted". Shakespeare is typed INFP in MBTI.
Socionics is not about social extroversion, learn the basics, every type is a model of psyche that determines a specific meta-mindset. First of all you are incapable to understand why an ILI would not behave like Beethoven behaved, so we can stop here.

And yes, Beethoven was energized by social stuff, his music in the first place, he was socially idealistic and also wanted to be recognized. He preferred to make something for a cause than for money. He was good at performing in front of an audience at 7. He could easily socialize and made a lot of acquaintences. He was also overly caring (even pushing with caring) with the others, including his brothers and nephews. He was acting on impulse and often quarreled with people just to make peace a while later. He was extravagand and dramatic, he was emphasizing everything, including his disgust of "fate" who "unfairly" made him, a musician, deaf.
Again, I have no typing on him yet, I may need to read some more detailed bios, but while I could indulge EII with a grain of salt, ILI is just ridiculous, you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.lvbeethoven.com/Bio/BiographyLudwig.html
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-30-2005-65025.asp

[Jonathan]

You can't deduce *the type* just from that, it must normally exist in the Ego, though something else is used in different conditions. In Beethoven's case - assuming I understood his procedure correctly and it is Fe that is used for validating the work - what I can be sure of is that he is not (Gamma or Delta) Irrational.

I agree. Note that you and noid were arguing what function is used for that, I gave you my answer, it is IMO incorrect to believe it was Ni or Te that was used.

Hmm I said I'm sure of Extroverted + Internal (Ne, Fe), I explained why, not Dynamic. But there are two main reasons why I consider Ne incorrect:

1. A Dynamic procedure determines how something works at a given time or in a given configuration. Dynamic judgments differ from the Static ones in respect to persistence: there's no difference in common language, it can only be determined from the general view of a person, for instance when you say "this is good", it has 2 meanings:
- this is good right now, it works, I like it, it is useful;
- this is good in itself, analytically, it has the right properties, it will always be good.
Therefore, it is unlikely for Beethoven's procedure to be Static...

I understand what you were saying now. I guess I was drawing you out in my copious questioning. Yes, the way I described his compositional/revision process is dynamic, as it's sequential, and it does seem to me different from the way a static type would typically work. In such a sequential revision approach, it seems to me that theoretically, one might use Te or Fe. Te might have criticisms like "It goes through this section only to come back to the same level where it was before, and it has done this twice before; let's cut that part out and see what happens" or "Bringing in the horn at the passage spoils the tutti passage later on. Let's take it out or make it pp." Fe might say something like "This is too dry...It's not what I'm trying to express...it's too calculated, as if the composer is 'trying' to make it do something." I know from personal experience that the same person can make both types of criticisms, but generally the first would be associated with Te and the second with Fe.

It is also possible that they can get crossed in the following manner: You write something which is clearly from Fe, but there are technical problems with the form, and you see that there is a deficiency which you catch from Te. Or, you could also start with Te and then hear what you've done in a more Fe context and use juxtapositions to give it some sort of Fe meaning.

In addition, one might have a Te criticism that channels something from Fi, sort of like using a mirror to see something from behind...and similarly Fe with Ti.

Now to get an idea of what sort of critical process Beethoven actually used...unfortunately I don't have in front of me examples of Beethoven's sketches; perhaps they can be found on the internet. I must admit also that they my primary impression is from one of Leonard Bernstein's books, based on his T.V. series.

I found an excerpt from that passage....Perhaps the full version is uploaded somewhere too? Anyhow, this is an instructive passage, and I think Bernstein does a great job dramatizing and explaining the process:



To get a longer sense of the progression of Beethoven's ideas, one can listen to his Leonora Overtures #2 and #3, the later being essentially a reworking of the ideas of the former:

Leonora Overture #2


Leonora Overture #3 (inserted between the scenes of Act II of Fidelio, following the tradition established by Mahler)


Really, it seems that Beethoven always had a dynamic idea and wrote down something that conveyed that general gist, but what he wrote down perhaps wasn't up to what he had inside; I see this as an indication of Ni involvement, as there wasn't some specific sensory thing he was trying to achieve; it is more that there was a general idea, a general flow, a flow of concepts rather than sounds...and therefore, each sketch was perhaps like an attempt to get truer to that flow....Very different, I think, from what you'd get with Si or Se.

[Jonathan]

Why do you say that's Aushra's definition? Here's one of hers:

I stand corrected on that one. I got very excited by the pattern of opposite quadra typings by these famous Socionists, and I tried to understand what they might have been thinking...or perhaps more precisely, how I might try to understand the different composers' mental process based on their different typings.

I clearly made a mistake in suggesting that my attempt to reconcile their typings of these people by hypothesizing what they might have been thinking is actually an accurate portrayal of their definitions.

After I wrote that long, rambling post, I wrote a disclaimer (you can see it above), but I didn't point out what was wrong.

Nevertheless, Augusta's official definitions are very abstract. They don't give one enough detail to understand how she applies them in real-life typings. So when these big name Socionists disagree so fundamentally on composers' typings, it makes me doubt that they understood the definitions in the same way, even if they used all the right words to make it seem as if they were talking about the same thing.

BTW...just a few small points.
Sibelius was an amazingly creative composer. In typing him as SLI, I believe Augusta was implying that SLIs might be far more creative than some would think. But that's her typing.

Also, ILIs can lose their temper and be volatile in certain situations...Yet it is of course not the norm.

I do share your concerns about base-Ti for Beethoven, as it is hard to reconcile his music with the idea of a static type...although I do think any great composer must master to some extent the "dynamic" aspect even if the person is personally a static type. Possibly one reason why Ausra/Stat type him as LII is because he seems to have a coherent basis behind his strong feelings...as if he not only has these volatile feelings, but also understands the exact reason. However, that is perfectly possible in an Fe ego type.

There is also the possibility, if he were EIE, that his progressive deafness made him act quasi-ILI. It's well-known that he purposely appeared aloof to people so that they wouldn't know he was hard of hearing. Naturally, he was afraid it would hurt his career. Therefore, I think somewhere in his letters, he complains about how he has been forced to appear unsociable whereas earlier he was much more social.

...On the other hand, the possibility of him being Gamma NT would not necessarily contradict the idea that he might be volatile sometimes and write emotionally expressive music. Some people view ILIs as being kind of emotionless because they have "Fe PoLR" but I think that's incorrect and comes from the idea of people as being rather simplistic "Model A Machines."

[noid]

You may ignore what I wrote, I'm interested in Jonathan's opinion. Your understanding is superficial and literal, I can't help you. Fe-Base types are not like you imagine, all happy and jumping around. Take for instance W Shakespeare and A ******, who are typed EIE and were very "introverted". Shakespeare is typed INFP in MBTI.
Socionics is not about social extroversion, learn the basics, every type is a model of psyche that determines a specific meta-mindset. First of all you are incapable to understand why an ILI would not behave like Beethoven behaved, so we can stop here.

And yes, Beethoven was energized by social stuff, his music in the first place, he was socially idealistic and also wanted to be recognized. He preferred to make something for a cause than for money. He was good at performing in front of an audience at 7. He could easily socialize and made a lot of acquaintences. He was also overly caring (even pushing with caring) with the others, including his brothers and nephews. He was acting on impulse and often quarreled with people just to make peace a while later. He was extravagand and dramatic, he was emphasizing everything, including his disgust of "fate" who "unfairly" made him, a musician, deaf.
Again, I have no typing on him yet, I may need to read some more detailed bios, but while I could indulge EII with a grain of salt, ILI is just ridiculous, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I dont ignore what you wrote, dunno why you say that. But EIE from my point of view is close to be impossible.
A things you dont seems to understand looking at your text is that feeling motivation in life are close to be similar, even if Fi and Fe. Choosing beetween Fi and Fe is not based on the argument "want to be recognized".
I never see a bio where he appear dramatic, and make something for a cause not money suggest a Fi valuer, but perhaps you can share more information on this "cause".

Ive just one understanding of Fi, description on personnality theory is just result of this : Fi is having an internal sense of self, without being able to say what is it, and a sense of "romantic" attachement toward internal object you fear lose when facing reality.
Rest of behavior is just result of defense toward the fear of losing internal static attachment (value system, static way to present yourself, ect).
When facing reality, Fi user ask : is this particular things good or bad for my sense of self and my future ?

and Fe : IDK , its more adapting to the global feeling environnement ?
And beethoven : strike me like Fi valuer, perhaps not in ego. his music dont share many Fe you cant dismiss this.

IMO :
Beethoven : INTp, or a strange EII.
and you one of the first to type beethoven EIE.

[noid]

Does anyone think Delta NF for Rachmaninoff?

I miss this.
At the time I know only his well know concerto no 2, I was thinking yes, delta NF, or beta NF.
After seeing other of this piece with more emphasis on Ti, I begin to doubt this.
What lead you to think delta NF ?

[Jonathan]

Does anyone think Delta NF for Rachmaninoff?

I miss this.
At the time I know only his well know concerto no 2, I was thinking yes, delta NF, or beta NF.
After seeing other of this piece with more emphasis on Ti, I begin to doubt this.
What lead you to think delta NF ?

I've thought Delta NF for Rachmaninoff as a possibility. That's how I typed him before I learned about Socionics, and I still think he may be. I can see LII with a lot of emphasis on Fe or EII as possibilities. His music to me seems to convey emotions about relationships...it's the perfect music for a date out in the countryside, or meeting your perfect soulmate by traveling back into the past (e.g., played by Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour)...seems as if that could be Fi.
As with any typing, it depends on the definitions, so two internally consistent Socionic frameworks could have him as Alpha or as Delta. Also, his music can be played as if it's either Ti/Fe or Fi-based. It depends a lot on the performer. The music is very expressive but has a lot of rich counterpoint underneath and sort of noodly passages that may remind one of LII.

I've heard a few explanations given for Rachmaninoff as LII...such as friendships with people typed ESE and a tendency to be very still when performing. Neither is a good reason. Nevertheless, maybe there are other reasons.

It's also possible for a person to shift personalities slightly in his/her artistic persona. So Rachmaninoff might be LII in real life, but exploring Fi in some of his music.

For the artist, the "super ego" block isn't something to avoid. Traditional Socionics makes that area seem "off limits," but the entire scope of mental experience is part of the artist's palette. Perhaps that's why some of these composers are hard to type.