Bob Dylan

[crazedrat]

You can think of it as "bullshit on the fly" if you want, and that's probably why you aren't very good at typing people. For the rest of the post, you miss the point: That I can't provide any reasons, because this would necessitate me to provide a hundred other reasons.. I don't want to do this.

[Logos]

You can think of it as "bullshit on the fly" if you want, and that's probably why you aren't very good at typing people. For the rest of the post, you miss the point: That I can't provide any reasons, because this would necessitate me to provide a hundred other reasons.. I don't want to do this. It would only catch you a fish for a day, it wouldn't teach you to fish .. and, with socionics, that is something you have to teach yourself.

You know nothing, but little can be gained by asking for any actual proof or understanding of Socionics on this thread. As you say, Bob Dylan is ESI and that is that. I am bad at typing people and that is that. I am wrong to ask for peope to substantiate their claims and that is that. You are a genius at Socionics and that is that. My, how the times truly are a changin'.

[crazedrat]

This is what I said to you two posts back, rephrased:
You can ask a specific question pertaining to a specific thought you have on the matter, or you can ask for a vague explanation. Asking for a vague explanation is asking me to set up your premises for you, and results in an infinite regression from one premise to another.. a never ending argument. Giving me a specific thought which I can respond to, on the other hand, will keep our discussion within that premise. Asking me to "Explain how Bob Dylan is gamma" is not giving me your opinion on the issue. Therefor I have nothing to respond to. Instead I have to set up a series of premises all by myself, without your input, and as each premise is called into question this essentially turns into me "having to explain my entire mind". I do not feel like undertaking such an explanation. If you instead said something specific like "I know an ISFj who acts real sweet, unlike Bob Dylan in that video", then you give something specific to respond to, and this doesn't result in an infinite cycle of trying to set up assumptions for illustrating what we're talking about. If all you say is "I don't think Bob Dylan is Gamma" then, short of hanging myself, all I can respond to you with is "I do think he is gamma". This should be easy to understand. If you do not understand this then you are officially retarded and you will be ignored.

[Logos]

You can ask a specific question pertaining to a specific thought you have on the matter, or you can ask for a vague explanation. Asking for a vague explanation is asking me to set up your premises for you, and results in an infinite regression from one premise to another.. a never ending argument. Giving me a specific thought which I can respond to, on the other hand, will keep our discussion within that premise. This way the job of understanding things as a whole remains your own. Asking me to "Explain how Bob Dylan is gamma" is asking me to set up a series of premises all by myself, without your input; infact to say anything on the topic at all would take paragraphs. I do not feel like being drilled on why I think everything that I think. If you instead said something like "I know an ISFj who acts cordial and proper, unlike Bob Dylan in that video", then you give something specific to respond to, and this doesn't result in an infinite cycle of trying to set up assumptions for what we're talking about. This should be easy to understand

But I am not in the position to make positive statements. I cannot legitimately say with full knowledge of Bob Dylan that "Bob Dylan does not show Gamma qualities," so I am left in a position in which all I can do is ask, "How has Bob Dylan exhibit Gamma qualities and values in his life?" It is not that I do not understand Gamma or Socionics, it is that I lack enough pertinent information about Bob Dylan from which I can spot patterns and make connections. Or if I said, "I know an ESI who does not act like Bob," then that is just as prone to circumstantial evidence and infinite progressions of never ending unsubstantial arguments.

[crazedrat]

Which is why I said if you are not in a position to make any positive statement on the issue, then you need to go learn socionics and or gain some real life experience with ESIs. I cannot "give you an experience" of ESIs. If you cannot say with certainty that Bob Dylan did or did not display gamma qualities in the video you just watched, me illustrating to you how he does show gamma qualities will have to involve me rewriting how you observe gamma values; otherwise you would of seen them. That conversation results in an infinite regression since I am trying to build premises for you. If you said "I know an ESI who does not act like Bob" then you would have once again made the mistake of not providing a proper framework for us to debate in. I could only respond to you with: "Well I know an ESI who does act like Bob".. end of debate. Anything further and I am hanging myself. If you were to continue the conversation, based on past experiences with ESIs: "...The ESI who doesn't act like Bob.. blah blah blah", I could then respond to your "Blah blah blah" with my own "BLAB BLAB BLAB". Get it?
It may also be that you flat out don't observe the sort of information which would be relevant to a debate in this context; through observing a video and making a conclusion on Bobs type based on that video. You're just blind to that style of typing. If that is the case then we don't have anything to talk about at all.. and I shouldn't even hear a "Bob blah blah blah" come out of your mouth right now. You should sit back and say nothing at all. It's like asking me to argue with a blind man about why I chose my favorite color. It is a complete waste of time ..
So discussion progresses as people share a reality. I can't, through words, show a blind man how it feels to see. Talk about what you see, and I can talk about what I see .. then we can start looking around together.

[Logos]

Which is why I said if you are not in a position to make any positive statement on the issue, then you need to go learn socionics and or gain some real life experience with ESIs.

As I said, the problem is not with making a positive statement about Socionics or ESIs, but from a lack of relevant information pertaining to Bob Dylan. I did not know that understanding Bob Dylan was a prerequisite for understanding Socionics.

I cannot "give you an experience" of ESIs.

I am not asking for experiences with ESIs. I have plenty. I am asking for particular qualities of ESIs, based in theory and other known ESIs, that you see in Bob Dylan. Then how about this: Instead of me asking what you ESI, Gamma, or information elements you see in Bob Dylan, why dont you give me your general impressions and some simple, face value observations that you gather on Bob Dylan? How would you describe his behavior in the video? What upsets him? What excites him? What vexes him?

If you said "I know an ESI who does not act like Bob" then you would have once again made the mistake of not providing a proper framework for us to debate in. I could only respond to you with: "Well I know an ESI who does act like Bob".. end of debate. Anything further and I am hanging myself. If you were to continue the conversation, based on past experiences with ESIs: "...The ESI who doesn't act like Bob.. blah blah blah", I could then respond to your "Blah blah blah" with my own "BLAB BLAB BLAB". Get it?

I know an ESI who is no where near as spaced out looking as Bob. She is far more focused and attentive, and well grounded in her surroundings. She maintains focused eye contact (demands the same from others), good posture (definitely of an ISxj variety), and does not spend her time looking down and elsewhere, as is evident in Dylan's videos. When she goes on tirades and lashes out, it is about people with whom she has developed relationships and very rarely about "big picture issues." She, and other ESIs I know, do not do things just to cause a scene or provoke a Fe-reaction as Bob Dylan seems to do with some of the things that he has done and has been indicated in those videos.

It may also be that you flat out don't observe the sort of information which would be relevant to a debate in this context; through observing a video and making a conclusion on Bobs type based on that video. You're just blind to that style of typing. If that is the case then we don't have anything to talk about at all.. and I shouldn't even hear a "Bob blah blah blah" come out of your mouth right now. You should sit back and say nothing at all. It's like asking me to argue with a blind man about why I chose my favorite color. It is a complete waste of time ..

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? One of my central points is that videos alone are not enough. Bob Dylan is more than those videos. Even if I were blind to typing via video, that does not mean that somehow other additional equally valid methods should be discounted or go unheard. Or are you blind to all other forms of typing apart from videos? In the future, if there are typing threads without videos I shouldn't even hear a "blah blah blah" come out of your mouth. Just sit back and say nothing at all.

[crazedrat]

1: You will notice that by splitting up what I have said you change its meaning. You have what I said divided up into four parts. For the first two parts you make responses to, if you read further down, you will find that part four of what I have written (above) actually answers both questions you pose for these parts 1 and 2. So for those posed questions I want you to reread what I wrote, and then start over, or better yet realize you have no question.

2: Since we are discussing Bob Dylans videos right now, and what we see in those videos, whether or not I am competent or you are competent in other typing areas is irrelevant. Since you have not introduced any specific thoughts into this conversation on Bob Dylan beyond what the videos show us, we are only discussing Bob Dylans videos, and relevant topics to those videos.

3: There is no reason to believe I am incompetent in other styles of typing, simply because I claim competence in typing by this video. Right now we are not talking about other typing styles. Again, if you want to change the subject toward one of these other typing styles, you might say something like: "I think Bob Dylans nose and chin look much different than other ESIs I have seen, blah blah blah", or "Bobs music and lyrics don't contain many allusions to Fi". Then, we would be discussing something else about Bob Dylan.

4: In Part 3, you give a good response which could generate discussion. And if I were interested in that seperate discussion on the details of Bob Dylans Gammaness, I would respond to it. This is the sort of thing you should do every time you want to engage people in a debate with you. Anyone who was arguing with you about Bob Dylans display of gammaness in this video can now feel free to come in and actually have a discussion with you. What you cannot do is say nothing, and still expect something. So this issue is solved.

As a side note, I think this conversation demonstrates well Alphas problems with making sense when they're talking, and why anything beyond a lighthearted, meaningless conversation with most of them will likely degenerate into a mind numbing, meaningless argument.

[Logos]

1: You will notice that by splitting up what I have said you change its meaning. You have what I said divided up into four parts. For the first two parts you make responses to, if you read further down, you will find that part four of what I have written (above) actually answers both questions you pose for these parts 1 and 2. So for those posed questions I want you to reread what I wrote, and then start over, or better yet realize you have no question.

I saw your answers. They were inadequate. Merging your responses back would not have affected my own responses to what you wrote.

2: Since we are discussing Bob Dylans videos right now, and what we see in those videos, whether or not I am competent or you are competent in other typing areas is irrelevant. Since you have not introduced any specific thoughts into this conversation on Bob Dylan beyond what the videos show us, we are only discussing Bob Dylans videos, and relevant topics to those videos.

I am talking about Bob Dylan holistically not just what we see in the videos, though I am also questioning what others have exegeted from the videos. As you suggest, they are making positive statements about what they see. The problem is that their statements are vague and lack in an understanding of the types. By asking for theory tied with evidence, I am calling into question their own knowledge of Socionics. But nowhere was it decided that discussion of Dylan would at present be focused on the videos to the exclusion of anything else. If you would like to talk solely about Bob Dylan in video interviews, then you should make it known.

3: There is no reason to believe I am incompetent in other styles of typing, simply because I claim competence in typing by this video. Right now we are not talking about other typing styles. Again, if you want to change the subject toward one of these other typing styles, you might say something like: "I think Bob Dylans nose and chin look much different than other ESIs I have seen, blah blah blah". Then, we would be discussing something else about Bob Dylan.

You have proved your incompetence to typing readily in other threads, so I have all the reason to believe you incompetent in other styles of typing. My requests for proof and evidence of Dylan's types were not limited to video, nor was I expecting simply video responses. I would hope that people would not need invitations to use external knowledge.

4: In Part 3, you give a good response which could generate discussion. And if I were interested in that seperate discussion on the details of Bob Dylans Gammaness, I would respond to it. This is the sort of thing you should do every time you want to engage people in discussion. Anyone who was arguing with you about Bob Dylans display of gammaness in this video can now feel free to come in and actually have a discussion with you. What you cannot do is say nothing, and still expect something. So this issue is solved.

If Archon makes a claim that Dylan is ESI, then he is making a claim about Dylan's Gamma-ness. I tried to have a discussion with him about the nature of the Gamma-ness that was present in the video that he must have seen on some level.

As a side note, I think this conversation demonstrates well Alphas problems with making sense when they're talking, and why anything beyond a lighthearted, meaningless conversation with most of them will likely degenerate into a mind numbing, meaningless argument.

This is not my experience with Alphas (including LIIs) as well-developed serious conversations have been had between Alphas and members of other quadras numerous times on this forum and real life to great success without discussions degenerating into mind numbing, meaningless arguments. This particular conversation is more indicative of our failures to mutually understand each other and is not indicative of any shortcomings of Alphas in serious conversations. Plenty of Alphas make sense when they are talking too. As such, it would be a serious error of false generalizations to think that this conversation is anything more than differences in communication preferences between two individuals.

[crazedrat]

Although you did mention other forms of typing, I didn't see you put fourth actual evidence and thoughts when you mentioned them for people to reply to. Like with the videos, you simply called for other people to present thoughts and evidence. Again, this response to what you've just said to me is written already in my last post. Look for it, it is there. Everything else is either wrong and lacking in information for discussion or has already been discussed in the past posts, so I am bored and moving on. Have a good life being an LII. As for alphas having great discussions with one another .. I don't think this rule applies to all alphas. And for some of these conversations.. I am sure they are great in a mind numbing, irrelevant way.

[Logos]

Although you did mention other forms of typing, I didn't see you put fourth actual evidence and thoughts when you mentioned them for people to reply to. Like with the videos, you simply called for other people to present thoughts and evidence. Again, this response to what you've just said to me is written already in my last post. Look for it, it is there. Everything else is either wrong and lacking in information for discussion or has already been discussed in the past posts, so I am bored and moving on.

It was not my intention at first to supply evidence since I was not the one making a positive claim on Bob Dylan's type, but I was replying to the insubstantial positive claims made by others. I found their unsubstantiated claims to be unsettling. My request for proof stemmed from this and did not require me to make claims of my own for others to discuss. This was by no means an unreasonable request that has no precedent in other typing threads.

Have a good life being an LII. As for alphas having great discussions with one another .. I don't think this rule applies to all alphas. And for some of these conversations.. I am sure they are great in a mind numbing, irrelevant way.

Check what I wrote. I did not say that this was a rule that it applied to all Alphas and it also extended to conversations of successful serious conversations Alphas have with non-Alphas. Also other quadra discussions are just as susceptible to deteriorating into mind numbing, irrelevant ones, so your criticisms of Alpha here are quite misguided.

[JuJu]

Logos, I agree. ISFj=Bob Dylan doesn't sit right.

Dylan uses a lot of Fe in the cited interviews. (e.g. 6o Minutes interview="the idea that the vision you have of yourself... WILL... COME... TRUE.")

That's why it's a problematic typing... I'm now equally inclined to believe he's a beta rational.

His Se is tempered... Indeed, to say it's "strong" would be a lie.

His Ni is all over those interviews and in almost all of his songs, (e.g. "I threw it all away," "Forever Young," etc.)

The Dylan=ISFj typing comes from Ashton, who for awhile, (perhaps still,) was inclined to see most people with vaguely revolutionary leanings as ISFj. (Including Enrique Eglesias, who's leading a revolution in myriad hearts.)

As mentioned in another post, almost all of his good friends are/were beta.

[Logos]

To make sure that what I wrote about Dylan's type is not lost in what was a rather fruitless argument, I will post this again to hopefully move the discussion along.

I know an ESI who is no where near as spaced out looking as Bob. She is far more focused and attentive, and well grounded in her surroundings. She maintains focused eye contact (demands the same from others), good posture (definitely of an ISxj variety), and does not spend her time looking down and elsewhere, as is evident in Dylan's videos. When she goes on tirades and lashes out, it is about people with whom she has developed relationships and very rarely about "big picture issues." She, and other ESIs I know, do not do things just to cause a scene or provoke a Fe-reaction as Bob Dylan seems to do with some of the things that he has done and has been indicated in those videos.

[JuJu]

To make sure that what I wrote about Dylan's type is not lost in what was a rather fruitless argument, I will post this again to hopefully move the discussion along.

One can't attribute specific behaviors to particular types. After all, ISFjs can, you know, look down, have diffuse attention spans, rant and rave, etc.

I know an ISFj who is, generally, spaced-out, and more happy-go-lucky/less proper than what you described. (ISTjs can be spaced out and erratic too, despite what Ij temperament--misleadingly--denotes.)

That said, to echo what you've said, I have never seen a ISFj act (or look, or seemingly think) like Dylan -- at least, Dylan in these videos.

Not to say it's impossible, by any means... However, you're correct in perceiving strong Fe. Wavering Se. Ni for miles. Etc.

[Logos]

One can't attribute specific behaviors to particular types. After all, ISFjs can, you know, look down, have diffuse attention spans, rant and rave, etc.

They can, but they rarely do, so it is to be viewed with suspicion when encountered or as being atypical to usual observable behavior.

I know an ISFj who is, generally, spaced-out, and more happy-go-lucky/less proper than what you described. (ISTjs can be spaced out and erratic too, despite what Ij temperament--misleadingly--denotes.)

IJ certainly does not mean that one cannot be "spaced-out" as the LII and EII can well attest, but rather that is a statement that I have yet to encounter an Se-ego who looks spaced out on a regular basis.

[marooned]

I thought this one was interesting... I wish I could find it transcribed somewhere because the sound is so crappy it's hard to listen to it.

It's funny that the reporter begins by saying that typically when Bob Dylan is interviewed he often comes off as "not quite with it." Lol.

I agree that being spaced out all the time (unless you're constantly on drugs or always half-asleep or are suffering from dementia, so on) doesn't reconcile well with Se ego. I can see Ni and Si leading looking spaced out all the time... Ne ego as looking spaced out a lot... but Se is supposed to be looking at the external world of static objects and it's really hard to do that when you're spacing out and not even looking at that world. But yeah, it's right that it shouldn't be used to say "there's no way in hell he could possibly ever be ESI because he's always not quite there."



I don't think there's anything useful in this, but I decided to post it anyway. Maybe someone else will see something.

[JuJu]

IJ certainly does not mean that one cannot be "spaced-out" as the LII and EII can well attest, but rather that is a statement that I have yet to encounter an Se-ego who looks spaced out on a regular basis.

I bet you will as you get out there more into different scenes... There are quite a lot of them, really... Just as there are a lot of these sluggish Ejs, (ENFjs in particular.) Very typical. The misleading ideas about Socionics temperament, which many here have because of how temperaments been written about, compound the difficulties typing people like Dylan.

[Creepy-female]

I bet you will as you get out there more into different scenes... There are quite a lot of them, really... Just as there are a lot of these sluggish Ejs, (ENFjs in particular.) Very typical. The misleading ideas about Socionics temperament, which many here have because of how temperaments been written about, compound the difficulties typing people like Dylan.

What are temperaments about, in your opinion?

[JuJu]

What are temperaments about, in your opinion?

The temperament (literal sense of the word) differences between two Socionics "Ejs," for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Lennon is absolutely immense... To the point where grouping them together under the banner of temperaments, as is currently done, is misleading.

This XXXx style of notation is one facet of Socionics in which someone tried to over-simplify an idea, (temperament,) and ended up complicating typing.

We're stuck with them, you know, for the time being because of the popularity of MBTI-style XXXX/XXXx notation. However, whereas in MBTI, EXXJ (e.g.) means something one can physically discern; in Socionics, it means much less... To the point of meaning next to nothing.

For example, the most one could say about EXXj (in Socionics) is: a certain rigidity or firmness in personality. (Which means next to nothing.)

This is all to say, in Socionics, the idea of temperament can be useful in typing an extremely blatant case, (e.g. Schwarzenegger.) However, unfortunately, most people are not extremely blatant cases.

[Creepy-female]

The temperament (literal sense of the word) differences between two Socionics "Ejs," for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Lennon is absolutely immense... To the point where grouping them together under the banner of temperaments, as is currently done, is misleading.

This XXXx style of notation is one facet of Socionics in which someone tried to over-simplify an idea, (temperament,) and ended up complicating typing.

We're stuck with them, you know, for the time being because of the popularity of MBTI-style XXXX/XXXx notation. However, whereas in MBTI, EXXJ (e.g.) means something one can physically discern; in Socionics, it means much less... To the point of meaning next to nothing.

For example, the most one could say about EXXj (in Socionics) is: a certain rigidity or firmness in personality. (Which means next to nothing.)

This is all to say, in Socionics, the idea of temperament can be useful in typing an extremely blatant case, (e.g. Schwarzenegger.) However, unfortunately, most people are not extremely blatant cases.

Ok, is what you're basically saying is that you believe temperaments are irrelevant in typing people?

Do you believe in two subtypes for each type?

[JuJu]

Ok, is what you're basically saying is that you believe temperaments are irrelevant in typing people?

Do you believe in two subtypes for each type?

I'm not saying they're irrelevant... I'm saying they can be helpful in typing some people, but not all... Not even half, really.

I go by the two subtype per type, yes.

[Creepy-female]

I'm not saying they're irrelevant... I'm saying they can be helpful in typing some people, but not all... Not even half, really.

I go by the two subtype per type, yes.

Hmm..how do you tell the difference between say, mirrors of the same subtype then?

It's just that, in my experience mirrors of the same subtype or even mirrors of different subtypes often seem quite similar in actual inner makeup that isn't often first recognizable because of temperament differences...and I've used temperament as an indicator of type to tell the difference between them.

Do you go by polrs perhaps? Say, Te vs Si for you and your mirror?

[xerx]

I'm opening up this can of worms again. I think he's ISFp. focus is hard to ignore. Next likely typing is ISTp, with a chance that he's a very reserved ESFj.

Go go go...

[matilda]

Ni

[Rubicon]

Watching that interview again, and I think he's Kam's identical. Not sure what type that is though.

[Rubicon]

That settles it. Kam's INFj.

[xerx]

INTj Creative...

You know, I'd never have thought of that , even though I had him pegged as an Alpha type.

If you can find the 60 minutes interview he did recently, he was mostly controlled, inexpressive, and had a piercing gaze of concentration -- like many logical dominants. But I sort of reasoned that he had time to develop his weak functions.

INTj could be it.

[crazedrat]

I could see ISFp, but I'm really not good at telling the difference between ISFx. INTj I don't see at all.

[crazedrat]

he's like a male version of my ex ISFj girlfriend. So I think ISFj for that reason, they're too similar. Second guess would be IxFp

[717495]

he's like a male version of my ex ISFj girlfriend. So I think ISFj for that reason, they're too similar. Second guess would be IxFp

Just wondering, does this have something to do with VI, or could you elaborate? I am mildly curious.

[Beautiful sky]

When he gets very excited about a topic he really opens up like an INTj... but otherwise he is quite dry on the surface. Also his prolific songwriting and style of writing if you know much about him reminds me strongly of my INTj boyfriend.

INFp is also a type I've guessed at... but I do think INTj-Ne now!

You're going to shoot me down for saying this, but you know me already, so you know I am very honest...you ISTp...boyfriend ENFp. Still duals.

[Beautiful sky]

Bob Dylan is one very tallented ISTp

[UDP]

his voice sounds remarkably intuitive.
No one has said INFp yet?

And not rational

[lemon]

And that post was the cherry on top!

So what does that make mine...

thank you.
and I guess that makes yours the stem

here is what I think, although I don't know if these out-of-context quotes are enough to do it:

"A lot of people can't stand touring but to me it's like breathing. I do it because I'm driven to do it. "

"A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do. "

Both of these point to Fi. Fi is the internal statics of fields, that is, the internal qualities of the relationships between objects. In quote 1, Bob Dylan and "touring" are the two objects, and he is assessing that the relationship between the two objects is Bob Dylan being driven and pulled and drawn into touring. Fi.
In the second quote, he infers that it is important for one to do what he wants... again, an attraction between two objects. If it was Ti, he would have said "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he is supposedto do. Because Ti has to do with external statics of fields, that is, where objects are located in space, where they're supposed to be.... and whatnot.

"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie. "

this quote reminds me of what I've heard about Te PoLRs, about how they think there's no such thing as truth. No facts. But I don't know.

"All this talk about equality. The only thing people really have in common is that they are all going to die."
This sounds like Ti. Assessing the "field" between people but basing it on external qualities.

"I accept chaos, I'm not sure whether it accepts me. "
Fi?

"No one is free, even the birds are chained to the sky."
More Fi? The internal relationship between the birds and the sky?

"People today are still living off the table scraps of the sixties. They are still being passed around - the music and the ideas. "
I don't really understand Ni very well, but if I had to guess, I'd say this is it.

"The radio makes hideous sounds. "
His distaste for the radio - Fi.
Or maybe, an external static of the radio - Se.

"There is nothing so stable as change. "
more Ni

"To live outside the law, you must be honest."
Fi - 'break your invisible ties with the law by doing this'

"Well, the future for me is already a thing of the past. "
Ni?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...b_dylan_3.html

there are a lot of quotes on this page that I left out because I couldn't think of any function to label them with, so a more completed picture might be made by someone else who cares to take a look.

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm lazy as hell right now, forgive me, but he is a sure Gamma. Certain quotes are dead ringers. Most likely ISFj, I don't see him as ESFp.

[lemon]

I'm lazy as hell right now, forgive me, but he is a sure Gamma. Certain quotes are dead ringers. Most likely ISFj, I don't see him as ESFp.

haha. are you an ILI at rest?
and that's what I thought too. and no, I don't think it's very likely that he's extraverted. he hates the media and all that.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The quotes used in this thread could just be said by any introspective singer.

I personally think he's Fe creative, without any strong inclination for either type. I suspect a fairly good case could be made for him being Te PoLR. For example, the way he has always seems to get involved with things without knowing the exact details of the situation, and the way he has dropped certain causes he was previously strongly connected to with little significant explanation (except perhaps a change at the personal).

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think that's oversimplifying.

I think your use of quotes to fit your pet theory is oversimplifying. I don't see how any of the quotes you copied and pasted could not have been said by an IEI or an SEI.

[Marie84]

most of those quote sound more like + with maybe some in the background. He uses a lot of symbolism to describe his feelings more so than making direct sentiments
Personally I think IEI is most likely, especially after seeing him in some interviews on Youtube

[Not A Communist Shill]

Like what? Who's to say he was even personally connected to them? And what would that have to do with PoLR? I change my mind on a lot of things, especially for personal reasons—does that make me PoLR too?

I'm talking about personal causes and experiences. He seems to have the habit of getting connected with various concerns only to later realise perhaps that his initial enthusiasm was wrong. He seems to have the habit of putting his foot in his mouth occasionally, but never acknowledging it due to his rambling nature.

[Creepy-bg]

hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta hitta