Oh god, I love this. <3Originally Posted by implied
Oh god, I love this. <3
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
IEI has always been my first guess, followed by ILI or perhaps LSI.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I think he is Gamma....
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
It's strange looking at stuff that I wrote so long ago... I don't believe much of it anymore.
I feel the same watching it... Either he's acting, or he's depressed... Frankly, I don't believe much of what he says in it... It seems calculated for effect. Unreal.
Watching the old interviews... ISFj, ISTj, or ENFj ... Definitely rational... It's tough to type someone who's acting though. (See Captain Jack Sparrow thread.)
Weird. I really didn't see this. For some unbelievably naive reason I was inclined to believe him or give the benefit of the doubt or something... even though it doesn't make sense. It's like, "how odd that your songs were "magically" written and you have no idea where it came from really and never had any intended message to them (other people just read too much into it)... what a strange fuzzy mental world you must live in..."
I was shown Bob Dylan by two people. The first time I was not told his type.
Watching him I was annoyed and tense. He is stubborn, cold, tight, and pushy.
Here ya go:
(video will go here later when I'm able to access youtube)
When I was informed he was typed as ISFj by the person showing me him I was not surprised.
I heard his music before that even, and I disliked it.
Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 03-25-2009 at 07:51 PM.
The end is nigh
bob dylan is great, achron sucks. now everyone, in unison!
asd
But how? Like in the last video I mean he's apparently making a BIG deal about someone throwing a glass in a street? I don't really understand... I don't know why that's even important (maybe in those days it wasn't as common to find broken glass all over the streets?). It seemed like he was just trying to make a big deal over something that doesn't even matter just for the sake of riling things up. I don't see how that's Fi - trying to rile things up and create a big drama is usually associated more with Fe and Se super-id. And it seems like he's worried about who would take responsibility for it but he doesn't want to have to take responsibility himself and so he's whining about it (weak, valued Se?). Also things like "I know your kind, I've heard it 100 times before" seems really aristocratic to me.
did you watch the time magazine video?
He has the same pointed personalized questioning as does morgan freeman in the Fi blast thread. There is no Ti. No logically constructed objective beliefs. Everything is based on his own subjective compass.
And he's against even defining or categorizing his music! How does he value Ti?
The end is nigh
So if he does not have Ti ego then he is Fi ego? Even apart from that, those are some weak arguments. I am not saying that he is not ESI, but I am saying that you are doing a terrible job of convincing me with either proof or logic.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Can you really, honestly tell me that because you don't think something matters, that that's a universal consensus? You don't find it important, you think he's riling things up for the sake of it. How do you know he is? Do you believe his word? How else is someone like Bob Dylan going to be able to communicate to you that whatever it is is important? Do you trace lines between people, things, events, objects - without bothering to check if these lines are warranted?
Why? Don't you think having an awareness of Fe and Se might make you more likely to be able to guage people's reactions to this sort of thing? So why would you want to go around riling people up for the fun of it? Wouldn't some people use it to get ahead, with minimal conflict, as well? Do you see Betas, like Baby, Starfall, glamourama, etc, iniating chaos and drama for the heck of it? Aren't Betas, who are able to create drama with this awareness, also able to respond to situations with more subtleness than this, if they choose to do so? And no, Ip temperament is not related to liking or disliking drama. People see drama as different things. I can be as genuine and non dramatic as possible. I can tell people this is important, and fuck everything else. I mean it. But how do I communicate this to you? When you don't believe me? How does a person like Bob Dylan go about communicating with you? How do you communicate something that's so extremely important, that carries real weight with it, without someone labeling you as dramatic? Focus on the presentation? Tbh, that seems like the last thing on his mind.I don't see how that's Fi - trying to rile things up and create a big drama is usually associated more with Fe and Se super-id. And it seems like he's worried about who would take responsibility for it but he doesn't want to have to take responsibility himself and so he's whining about it (weak, valued Se?).
It sounds like he's frustrated with people in general, to be honest. He's seen a pattern people take and is commenting on it. Why is this aristocratic? Making distinctions between people does not correlate one to one with aristocracy.Also things like "I know your kind, I've heard it 100 times before" seems really aristocratic to me.
And, just for the record, I don't agree with Archon coming into a thread and saying vaguely, "Fi blast". He's not really communicating the connotations attached to this concept, and even if he tried, I doubt he'd make much headway. Plus "Fi blast" is a really stupid phrase regardless. Socionics isn't Starwars. I know your kind, Archon.
But hey, I've actually said that before. I wonder if that makes me aristocratic.
what?
I was responding to Loki who was saying he was Fe ego.
And (what-a-surprise) Fe ego's do actually make use of Ti
The way he talks, the pointedness, the aggressive stance, the dislike of being categorized, the way he makes the argument personal, all point to ESI.
His arguments are not Ti. I know Ti and thats not it, buddy.
What do you want me to do? Watch the videos.
Do I need to type out what he says and dissect it point by point or can you figue things out on your own?
Maybe ill try more later...
The end is nigh
I noticed in the Time magazine one that he's rather confrontational, refuses to be pinned down, can easily influence the mood/tone/atmosphere, doesn't seem to acknowledge that there are *obvious* reasons other than just entertainment that people are going to his concerts (at first I thought that maybe he just didn't know but I think that was naive of me), and is prone to these whiny sorts of Fe-charged outbusts (e.g. "you would have the nerve to ask me that?!?!?!!"). I don't know really how to talk about categorizing... I wouldn't be surprised if he has a categorized system of ideals, even if it's not reflected outright in his behavior.
I thought with the Morgan Freeman example that it was about a more moral discussion... (e.g. "would you like a white pride month? no? why not? well I don't want a black pride month either."). It seems to be a sort of "golden rule" sentiment. (It stung a little when I watched it too even though I agreed with him, but I think I can have this reaction to both Fi and Ti. I think these things sting because they seem to make me feel guilty even if I haven't done anything wrong... with Ti it's like I'm breaking some rules of conduct that I didn't know about... with Fi it's like I've done something morally reprehensible deserving of burning in hell for, that I again didn't know about.)
I'm not trying to say Fi/Te is "moral" while Fe/Ti is not btw... It's more that with Morgan Freeman it's like an attitude of "these are people, consider them as individuals, they have rights, how would you feel as an individual person with rights if <...> ? well that's how I would feel too." I see that as Fi (i.e. how will this affect how you feel inside... does it trample on your rights... is it treating you with less respect than everyone else etc.). With Dylan it's like ideological arguments or something... ?
I don't know how to talk about "subjective compass" either because it's too hard for me to try to define this specifically... I think I know what you mean by the Fi/Ti distinction you're trying to make, but I've found so far that every time that I try to think about or talk about it in those terms it doesn't work because it never seems to say adequately enough what I'm trying to get at.
I agree that he's most likely ESI, but I disagree that "making an argument personal" is typical of ESIs. I never take things personally and I get very frustrated when something I say is taken personally. That's just not how I go about arguing or communicating in general.
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
John Muir
Hmm..
Maybe "personal" is not the right word.
I mean like using the second person singular alot to create the affect of bringing the debate down to "me and you". So, its like being cut off from the happy Ti blimp of impersonalness and objectivity into the world of how I feel about this, right now, and how I feel about. The argument is not separate from the arguers. Now its specifically about them and who they are and how they feel will decide things.
idk if that helped.
The end is nigh
I'm honestly curious. Do you think because people influence the mood/tone/atmosphere by default, that they are Fe by design? You seem to be very aware of what he's doing. But is he? And don't you consider yourself INFp, loki? I know a ton of the Betas on here wouldn't engage in "You would have the nerve to ask me that?!???" or "whiny emotional outbursts", in fact they're like the antithesis of whiny. I just don't see how whiny emotional outbursts can be correlated to type, but I do think there's something to the fact that you're interpreting his behavior this way.
It did. Thanks for clarifying.
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
John Muir
Bla. These are the traits I noticed with HIM ... and that's what you have to do is try to notice the traits of the PERSON YOU'RE TRYING TO TYPE... then you have to try to figure out where to place these traits. Does that mean that all people of that type are going to do that or be that way? NO. I honestly think your entire mode of argumentation has been EXTREMELY RUDE!
ETA: also how honestly are you supposed to do that without putting forth something that sounds like a bias... there are all sorts of biases and logical issues that can come out... and all you can do is try to minimize them but it isn't going to happen all at once, it's a process... Socionics is by nature biased... it's categorizing people... you can't just not categorize them while you're blatantly categorizing them. and it's far easier to try to criticize people trying to create arguments for their underlying "biases" than it is to actually try to make an argument.
Last edited by marooned; 03-25-2009 at 10:13 PM.
If all the people of the entire type aren't going to be that way, then it's not type related..type is independent of personal quirks and habits. It's hard to separate completely type and personality...but it can be done. Type isn't a mishmash of traits. It's a way of categorizing and defining thought processes. Hyperfocusing on a whiny emotional outburst without trying to see the process behind is banal. Lots of people have whiny emotional outbursts. So it's not condusive to make that particular correlation. I'm not trying to be rude, but I do think your way of typing people hinges too much on this trait thing.
Or you could both make more weak arguments while providing scant proof so that you two can chide each other some more.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
What are you constituting as proof?
Loki's reaction to him seems to fit with the way INFps often see ISFjs. This isn't set in stone but it's a correlation I've made. I could be wrong. Read the benefactor descriptions, and see what you think. I'm interested in hearing others reasons.
I don't think I've provided much in the way of arguments for Dylan as ISFj. I have provided arguments against him as what Loki seems to see as a common theme of Beta NFs or whatever. It's hard to think properly with nonsense stereotypes floating around. I take into account that what she sees may be valid in her eyes, but I don't think it's a good representation of Dylan's motives overall.
You are doing a terrible job of observing that he is obviously ESI, and it's not anyones job to walk around and pamper to your logic.
Hard evidence divorced from snide comments.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yes, I am doing a terrible job of observing. Would you mind holding my hand and pointing to the evidence then? Once more, I am not saying that he is not ESI. I will readily admit to him being an ESI once more evidence apart "Fi blast" is actually provided.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
So you can't make a decision without us explaining to you in depth?
Im pretty sure the videos make it quite obvious.
The end is nigh
No I cannot, so please start explaining for my poor sake.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Everyday here I read people take hardline stances on topics about which they know little, or about which they are very confused... Every so often it's good to remind people to open their fucking minds.
The analysis has been misleading. It could set back newcomers, (and even to some of the more impressionable veterans.)
Dylan is a great lyricist. A personal favorite. Indeed, I've listened to almost every dylan song committed to tape at least twice... The songs he gave to others, the wilburys, etc... I've read a biography, etc.
What people here haven't yet taken into account: Dylan almost always wears a mask (so to speak, and even for a time, literally... See: Rolling Thunder Review tour, conversion to Christianity, etc.) This makes him extraordinarily difficult to type.
Everyone hides their true selves to a degree, but this man especially so... In almost everything he does, he acts. He calculates for effect.
I'm not sold that he's ISFj... Although I do think it's the most likely typing. Both beta rational types should be considered, if for no other reason than Dylan's friends (in music and elsewhere) are almost entirely beta. For example, George Harrison, his bandmate in the Traveling Wilburys (INFp,) Johnny Cash, (ESTp,) his first wife Sara, (ENFj,) etc.
Frankly, I've never seen a ISFj carry on like Dylan does in these interviews, (although, like I said, I still think it's probably the most likely type.) The type most prone to this identity-crisis/mask-wearing/self-mythologizing stuff is ENFj--it's one of the type's hallmarks.
I don't think there's a chance he's irrational... Or Alpha/Delta. Ni and Se are evident. As is Fe.
Why would you assume this? Know what I mean? No need to be defensive or flippant... Open your mind, yeah? After all, any of us could be wrong.
I do this. I don't want to present something as wishy-washy. Inside my head, I tend to be uncertain about most everything, but that is not something it works well to present.
I don't generally agree with these kinds of arguments. I think people are capable of making their own evaluations... if they are impressionable, they will be wherever they go, and changing the things they run into will not change that.The analysis has been misleading. It could set back newcomers, (and even to some of the more impressionable veterans.)
If this is a characteristic of someone throughout their entire life, I tend to think Fe. It suggests that they are highly aware of the effect they are making, and able to spontaneously adapt it such that it is just natural... I haven't met any ESIs or EIIs that do this in a way this fundamental as part of who they are. I think that much Fe use would be tiring for Fe-ignoring. If a person is that concerned with how they are coming off and has developed a complicated sophisticated arrangement of it that is central to their identity... then I tend to think "Fe ego is likely" until I see something that says otherwise. Maybe this really is a "bias" and maybe it's wrong.Everyone hides their true selves to a degree, but this man especially so... In almost everything he does, he acts. He calculates for effect.
I agree with this, but I don't see the Se as very strong... as the guy he was arguing with says, he "makes a big noise" and it really seems (to me so far) to be only that... putting up a strong front.Ni and Se are evident. As is Fe.
Last edited by marooned; 03-26-2009 at 07:07 PM. Reason: meant "Fe ignoring"
What I'm not understanding is how what he did is Fe.
Seems like you are attributing being loud and energetic to Fe. Try these videos:
There is a "personalness" as I explained before, and a stubbornness to viewpoints in which I cannot see how he makes such descisions. Also (ime) ISFj's especially when young, have this tendancy to go into extended monologue's and they get very righteous sounding, and concerned for the world at large as Dylan does. However, their point of view is rooted in themselves, so when looking at "the big picture" they will speak of their own experience, as if they are the center point of one of those oriental fans and the events are the stems of the fan spreading outwards. I think people underestimate ISFj's more philosophic tendancies and want to give the "intuitive" types all the glory.
So there's a bit of my reasoning...
The end is nigh
OMG! You're right! Pete Townshend's must be an ESI too!
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
@Logos:
Notice the detached quality to his speech. As though he's describing something, but does not have personal investment...
Do you see Pete attacking the interviewer? I would never do something like that. I wouldn't bring ad hominem's into the discussion like ISFj's tend to do and neither does Townsend. There is no pointedness, no lashing out, no hard cold statements. Everything is tentative, and generalized.
The end is nigh
The "hardest" evidence there is is perhaps if you adhered to a clear standard of VI. Even on that people disagree with what they see.
Otherwise, these concepts exist in the mind, are theoretical, abstract, and immaterial. Of course people are going to argue in defining and assigning them. How do you define "hard evidence"? How can a concept that's not even universally defined nor agreed on be hard evidence? This is a manifestation of people's thoughts, which by their individual nature of being interpretations of phenomenom become more or less subjective when expressed. They cannot be considered "hard evidence".
Snide comments got the house and the kids because Hard Evidence (aka Logical Positivism) couldn't make an argument in court. :/
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
What do you consider hard evidence Te-seeker? Make strong connections between the theory and the observations. Simply posting a video and saying "Fi blast" or providing broad blanket statements that could be easily applied to other types, or statements that show poor grasp of the theory does not constitute hard evidence. So far, very little or very poor arguments have actually been made about Bob Dylan's type. All I am asking for is to be provided with actual argument and evidence to supplement it.
No.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Arguments for a perception of cognitive processes do not always come in neatly stacked bullet points. No one has an obligation to structure their arguments in a certain way for you unless they choose to do so.
Your request, "strong connections between the theory and the observations" is faulty because there is no universal consensus on what constitutes a function or type here. Only attempted communication as to that end. To do so either you or another must first define and make known what your premises are. People find it hard to do that, because their premises are often largely conceptual. Maybe you should be the first to define your premises?
You definitely misunderstand me, as I am not asking for bullet points or structure, so I do not know why you apparently think that I am being belligerent in my persistence. I am simply asking for arguments for the type that amount to more than "Look and see!" Even Diana has asked for as much, and as of yet, I am not sure if she her requests have been satisfied either.
Huh? This is unclear muddled thinking.Your request, "strong connections between the theory and the observations" is faulty because there is no universal consensus on what constitutes a function or type here. Only attempted communication as to that end.
I simply want to know where is the creative-Se, the Te-seeking, the leading-Fi, and the Ni HA is actually present in Dylan. I am not asking for the world here.To do so either you or another must first define and make known what your premises are. People find it hard to do that, because their premises are often largely conceptual. Maybe you should be the first to define your premises?
Could you answer my question to you please? What would constitute evidence for you as a Te-seeker?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
The idea you can reduce an explanation of Dylans type, or anyones type, to a concrete and simple set of logical reasonings is a mistake in thinking. In this sort of all encompassing explanation, the perspective you choose to take on any concrete reasonings will always be called into further question. When you type something or someone you use past experience and a wide myriad of perceptions and understandings working in tandem. To understand any one of my reasons for believing Dylan is ISFj, you'd have to understand all my other reasons. If you don't have that sort of experience based, holistic thinking going for you, Logos, it's a waste of time trying to teach it to you. You can teach it to yourself, if you try. You can specifically request input in places where you're confused, and you may get feedback. Beyond that, he's ISFj, that's as far as an end-all explanation goes.
So it's bullshit on the fly? That's what I thought.
What other reasons have you provided?To understand any one of my reasons for believing Dylan is ISFj, you'd have to understand all my other reasons.
Is me asking for Te + Ni seeking in Bob Dylan specific enough? Is me inquiring about Gamma values in Bob Dylan specific enough? Is asking for proof for how Dylan's behavior is similar to Se-creatives or Fi-leading egos specific enough? I have not asked anyone to pamper to my logic. I have simply asked for evidence. Since when has a request for evidence and proof been an unreasonable request? Has the world gone crazy?If you don't have that sort of experience based, holistic thinking going for you, Logos, it's a waste of time trying to teach it to you. You can teach it to yourself, if you try. You can specifically request input in places where you're confused, and you may get feedback.
so it's settled then; jung is ILI.Beyond that, he's ISFj, that's as far as an end-all explanation goes.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
