Alan Watts

[sar]

 

quotes:

"I have suggested that behind almost all myth lies the mono-plot of the game of hide-and-seek."

"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."

"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama."

"It must be obvious... that there is a contradiction in wanting to be perfectly secure in a universe whose very nature is momentariness and fluidity."

"There is no formula for generating the authentic warmth of love. It cannot be copied. You cannot talk yourself into it or rouse it by straining at the emotions or by dedicating yourself solemnly to the service of mankind. Everyone has love, but it can only come out when he is convinced of the impossibility and the frustration of trying to love himself. This conviction will not come through condemnations, through hating oneself, through calling self love bad names in the universe. It comes only in the awareness that one has no self to love."

"Camus said there is only really one serious philosophical question, which is whether or not to commit suicide. I think there are four or five serious philosophical questions:
The first one is: Who started it?
The second is: Are we going to make it?
The third is: Where are we going to put it?
The fourth is: Who's going to clean up?
And the fifth: Is it serious?"

"Religion is always falling apart."

"Ego is a social institution with no physical reality. The ego is simply your symbol of yourself. Just as the word "water" is a noise that symbolizes a certain liquid without being it, so too the idea of ego symbolizes the role you play, who you are, but it is not the same as your living organism."

"The prevalent sensation of oneself as a separate ego enclosed in a bag of skin is a hallucination which accords neither with Western science nor with the experimental philosophy-religions of the East — in particular the central and germinal Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism."

"This is the real secret of life -- to be completely engaged with what you are doing in the here and now. And instead of calling it work, realize it is play."

"I am amazed that Congressmen can pass a bill imposing severe penalties on anyone who burns the American flag, whereas they are responsible for burning that for which the flag stands: the United States as a territory, as a people, and as a biological manifestation. That is an example of our perennial confusion of symbols with realities."

"Zen ... does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes."

[Exodus]

ENTj.

Could you at least provide some inkling of your thought process?

My impression based on the video was SEI based on his obvious appreciation of nature and relative dislike for things unnatural and/or rigid and limiting of free expression. I also know he was a big proponent of (the external trappings of) Zen which is basically an philosophy.

[Exodus]

lots of Si

[Galen]

I like what I'm hearing from him, a lot. Sounds very similar to philosophies I've come up with, or at least very compatible philosophies; like the entirety of the universe is a system of ordered chaos where everything is in constant, unimpeded motion. Seems very Vortical-Synergetic, if cognitive styles have any merit to them. I also like the cadence of his voice a lot. It all gives me Te vibes, but not much else.

Fucking love his sideburns too.

[Exodus]

Hmm, actually I'm seeing a lot of now. (Look at 7:00 in the second video.) Maybe SLI? He certainly seems > though.

[717495]

Idk much about the cognition styles, but I get strong Gamma NT vibes. subtype comes through. His way of loose philosophizing and exploration of ideas, at least from how I interpret it, seems rather similar to how I go abouts it, restating general statements, working with concepts and branching off, staring at fields and crap, which is interesting, but his means seems more , reminds me of how a lot of Gamma NTs surmise ideas I would generally ignore or see no value in, due to their uh, subjective or over-generalizing roots, perhaps is the word (roots being a hint to , which has no means to be applied other than to a large general concept, not one that is general as a means to application, if that makes sense.)

[Exodus]

lol look at 9:20 in the second video. How can you not see the there? I'm going to go with SLI for now.

[Exodus]

Idk much about the cognition styles, but I get strong Gamma NT vibes. subtype comes through. His way of loose philosophizing and exploration of ideas, at least from how I interpret it, seems rather similar to how I go abouts it, restating general statements, working with concepts and branching off, staring at fields and crap, which is interesting, but his means seems more , reminds me of how a lot of Gamma NTs surmise ideas I would generally ignore or see no value in, due to their uh, subjective or over-generalizing roots, perhaps is the word (roots being a hint to , which has no means to be applied other than to a large general concept, not one that is general as a means to application, if that makes sense.)

The philosophizing and conceptualizing is a combination of and , but there is a very concrete aspect to what he's saying; in fact he is arguing against experiencing the world through abstractions.

[silke]

LIE-Te so/sp 1w9


Edit: What he is doing in this video titled "The Greatest Skill of All" is explaining the works of vortical-synergetic style of thinking. VS cog. style belongs only to four types in socionics: LIE, ESE, SLI, and IEI - imo his type is one of these four.

[The Reality Denialist]

Goes deep in order to search an answer. ego type with strong / .


Lots of themes (fields, streams etc) with some to back it up. Fits well with Jung's description of a crank.

[Jake]

ESTJ would be my guess, he reminds me of Hugh Laurie

[strrrng]

ILE was my tentative impression based on the samples of his talks I've heard in psytrance and the lecture he gave on technology -- the way he explored abstractions was a little more concrete than what I'd expect from, say, an Ni-ego -- but at this point I'm not certain he's not just a more grounded LIE. VI is a little ambiguous.

[Exodus]

ILE was my tentative impression based on the samples of his talks I've heard in psytrance and the lecture he gave on technology -- the way he explored abstractions was a little more concrete than what I'd expect from, say, an Ni-ego -- but at this point I'm not certain he's not just a more grounded LIE. VI is a little ambiguous.

I think I agree with you. Alpha seems almost certain. But he was far more on the intellectual side than the emotional-experiential side of it. Like when he's talking about how to meditate he goes off on a tangent about what the word "think" means lol. Here is a great interview with his daughter that gives more insight on his strengths and weaknesses:



Describes him as "fun, playful, creative"
Wrote a lot, starting at 15
She says he loved the philosophy but didn't practice it (Buddhism or anything else).
Instead he "loved to bring knowledge in and put it out there" This is characteristically ILE. He also had lots of friends and contacts from many different cultures, he was very in touch with the world.

[Iwantpeace]

I enjoy listening to Alan Watts. His talks seem logical and clear.

Overall, he sounds like an irrational to (I think), especially the way he describes how he views his surroundings, physical body, control, the world. He gives off a precieving vibe with how he gets information nature and surroundings and responds to it.

However, he also sounds like an LII to me. Maybe he is an ILE? Or perhaps I am in the wrong quadra and he is ILI? Overall, I get a strong Ne and Ti vibe. What do you think?

https://youtu.be/3Qptyt0-S9U




https://youtu.be/tl00SQdakx4

[Exodus]

We just had a thread on him a few months ago (the search function is handy for this). I think he is ILE.

[mu4]

Gamma/Delta irrational

He is Fi/Te valuing

If I had to pick on it's like IEE. Not much of a thinker, kind of just a entertainer. Really lack the frankness or bluntness Fi polrs have, kind of always buttering things up for others instead of dealing with reality. Ecological writer rather than a scientific one.

[mu4]

Hotel- I found one past thead....: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...992-Alan-Watts.

Mu- I did think he might be an IEE briefly as I picked up on a lot of Ne...but thought he sounded like a Ti leading and a strong thinker.
I introduced his talks to my LII friend, thinking she would find him interesting and she pointed out several flaws in his thinking.

Yes, for many strong Ti type the flaws in his thinking should be easily apparent. Much of the Ti that people see in him comes secondhand from his study of Taoism and other philosophies, he isn't creatively working with these Ti structures, I think they're just something he's repeating via script. And it's largely empathy and curiosity that drives him in his study of them. When his own thinking is observed I think the structure is flawed and limited.

I merged the threads.

I think he knows himself better calling himself a philosophical entertainer, which is sort of exactly what he is.

[Exodus]

Gamma/Delta irrational

He is Fi/Te valuing

If I had to pick on it's like IEE. Not much of a thinker, kind of just a entertainer. Really lack the frankness or bluntness Fi polrs have, kind of always buttering things up for others instead of dealing with reality. Ecological writer rather than a scientific one.

IEE is maybe plausible but where do you see Fi/Te values exactly? I wouldn't say ILEs are necessarily "blunt" -- maybe they are more prone to holding controversial views.

[mu4]

IEE is maybe plausible but where do you see Fi/Te values exactly? I wouldn't say ILEs are necessarily "blunt" -- maybe they are more prone to holding controversial views.

Little things in most of his work. It's difficult for me to get into minutia since once you go there it's a task of picking at a mountain with a teaspoon. I would say his writing is mostly ethical and even more so moral, ecological writing often is. It's mostly something like, "this is what I like, this is why I like it", "this is what I don't like, this is why I don't like it".

[golden]

Essentially, he's a hippie, and he talks like all the Delta California hippies I lived with for years.

I agree with the ideas behind what he says, but I also don't think most of it is a big deal. I don't love talking religion and spirituality, because a lot of it seems obvious to me. And because too many people want to use this kind of mentation as an escape pod from reality.

When I deal with Beta-STs who are looking for some of this information they can start to sound a little similar, like WOW-this-is-so-amazing-did-you-know-this. And if I'm interested I might restate the information they're digesting in terms that apply to their own lives instead of letting it remain floaty and disconnected. And then they seem satisfied and we move on.

In light of the discussion in this thread, I just went to the first stuff I found that he says about religion.

We run a talking shop. We pray, we tell God what to do, or give advice (as if he didn’t know). We read the scriptures. And remember talking of the Bible, Jesus said, “You search the scriptures daily, for in them you think you have life!” . . .

I think the Bible ought to be ceremoniously and reverently burned every Easter. We need it no more, because the Spirit is with us. It’s a dangerous book, and to worship it is of course a far more dangerous idolatry than bowing down to images of wood and stone. Nobody can confuse a wooden image with God, but you can very easily confuse a set of ideas with God, because concepts are more rarified and abstract.” . . .

Supposing we are really quiet. We don’t think. Be absolutely silent, through and through. They say, “you’ll just fall into a blank!” Oh? Ever tried? . . .

I feel then you see that it’s enormously important that Churches stop being talking shops. They become centers of contemplation. What is contemplation? Con-Temple, it’s what you do in the temple! You don’t come to the temple to chatter, but to be still, and “know that I am God.”

So I'll point out some things I dislike about this, beyond the fact I think it's rather obvious and that I thought it was obvious by the time I was 10 or so, simply in reaction to being raised in a hypocritical, anti-ecstatic, anti-holy, anti-contemplative religious environment. (IOW, it's not obvious just because Watts broke some intellectual ground and I enjoy the fruits of that.)

I dislike his use of this invented term "talking-shop." It's a typical hippie thing to invent a new lingo to replace the old lingo. Lingo shuts down analysis and lays a groundwork for cultic thinking all over again.

I dislike his advice to read the scriptures because he isn't talking about building up people's intellectual lives, critical thinking skills, and historical knowledge. I think what makes scripture dangerous is the lack of those things, not the lack of contemplativeness per se.

I dislike his idea that "the Bible ought to be ceremoniously and reverently burned every Easter." This just seems silly. If you're able to think for yourself, there's no need to do this. If you're not able to think for yourself, you won't understand the gesture. If you're looking for a lack of in Watts, this is it. (I'm also not a fan of burning any book.)

I dislike how he talks about being really silent, without addressing how to do that, or what the point is. Of course he addresses this elsewhere, but again I don't think it's a great antidote to the problem he's identified.

I absolutely despise it when he says, "What is contemplation? Con-Temple, it’s what you do in the temple! You don’t come to the temple to chatter, but to be still, and 'know that I am God.'” It would be fantastic to get into a serious etymological analysis of the words "contemplate" and "contemplation" and "temple," but that's not what he does here. He avoids any deeper intellectual discussion and just glides over the surface of this potentially rich information.

Now, having said all that, I've convinced myself he's Delta, and ENFp is okay with me. I'm not sure a respectable ENTp would stand for this stuff. It's true sometimes that with ENTps I have had to stop them riffing and focus them on a topic or get them them to justify their statements, but I also think they aren't really content to be so loose and even kind of sensationalistic, especially when they are teaching, and they don't seem to enjoy replacing one set of unexamined ideas with a new set of unexamined ideas that just sounds more examined.

[strrrng]

having heard a few more samples of his talks and reevaluated some aspects, I'm inclined to think LIE-Te. Te—>Se and Ti—>Si both reify things, but the difference is whether perceptions emerge or are reduced from one another. example: "because without a memory, you wouldn't know there would be any tomorrow....because there isn't, tomorrow is an illusion...so where is it? ahahaha." the way he 'shifts' from one perception to the other strikes me as kind of vortical—I would expect an ILE to say something like, "without a memory, you wouldn't know of tomorrow—and that's the point."

[Singu]

He sounds like some NF, probably Fi. He's comfortable with talking about the subjective, essentially making judgments from his feelings, so that points to more F.

I can't really see any obvious logical connections in his thoughts, so he is rather confusing and hard to understand for me. It's like he doesn't back up anything with Ti, it's just "how he feels" about things.

However this could be just Zen Buddhism and not lack of Ti, because Zen Buddhism is "anti-thinking". Zen Buddhism is often purposefully illogical.

But there is also a lot of subjective and speculative thinking, so he could be a subjectivist.

[golden]

He sounds like some NF, probably Fi. He's comfortable with talking about the subjective, essentially making judgments from his feelings, so that points to more F.

I can't really see any obvious logical connections in his thoughts, so he is rather confusing and hard to understand for me. It's like he doesn't back up anything with Ti, it's just "how he feels" about things.

However this could be just Zen Buddhism and not lack of Ti, because Zen Buddhism is "anti-thinking". Zen Buddhism is often purposefully illogical.

But there is also a lot of subjective and speculative thinking, so he could be a subjectivist.

I think it's a misconception (not yours, but one that has become widespread) that zen is anti-intellectual. There are a lot of Buddhists, including in the zen tradition, who are strongly intellectual and deeply value scholarship.

The misunderstanding may arise because Buddhism recognizes the limits of intellect when it comes to the core problem of suffering.

[mu4]

I think it's a misconception (not yours, but one that has become widespread) that zen is anti-intellectual. There are a lot of Buddhists, including in the zen tradition, who are strongly intellectual and deeply value scholarship.

The misunderstanding may arise because Buddhism recognizes the limits of intellect when it comes to the core problem of suffering.

I think Zen Buddhists misunderstand Zen as much as non Zen Buddhists, especially the parts appropriated from Taoism. However you are right, it is not anti-intellectual, I would say in fact in many respects it is too intellectual(although not necessarily rational).

The core issue with Buddhism is that it is world denying. And Zen is no different in it's attitude towards the world. As a philosophy influenced by Taoism, it appropriated many ideas, stories and parables, but often leaving out crucial components.

Even some of the most basic Taoist parable translated into Zen koans loses it's Taoist and thus worldly nature.

Zen version(What zen thinks speak of this parable)

“Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

Taoist version
"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things."

This is a simple to see and simple to understand example of how Zen has taken half of Taoist thought and discarded the world embracing aspect.

In Zen(And Buddhism as well) this question is unsolved, and the solution does not matter, it is solipsistic at it core. Taoism has no such solipsism, it is firmly ground in material transformation, worldly differences.

Zen's proposed solution to suffering is a preference for world denying(most individuals cannot fully deny the world), and of course this is an acceptable path for some people, this is why self-control, meditation and such acts are their chosen methods.

I would not say that Zen is anti-intellectual at all, there is a deep core of thinking within Zen that seeks to intellectualize the worldly, including the emotional, spontaneous and even communication. And this last parts creates a problem of silence, silence becomes a intellectual imperative.

Zen appropriated the Taoist skepticism for words but left out key world affirming aspects of Taoism related to words, that words may be unable to express absolute Tao but speech is not nothing. Communication is not nothing.

For speech is not mere blowing of breath. It is intended to say some thing, only what it is intended to say cannot yet be determined. Is there speech indeed, or is there not? Can we, or can we not, distinguish it from the chirping of young birds?

How can Tao be obscured so that there should be a distinction of true and false? How can speech be so obscured that there should be a distinction of right and wrong?(10) Where can you go and find Tao not to exist? Where can you go and find that words cannot be proved? Tao is obscured by our inadequate understanding, and words are obscured by flowery expressions. Hence the affirmations and denials of the Confucian and Motsean(11) schools, each denying what the other affirms and affirming what the other denies. Each denying what the other affirms and affirming what the other denies brings us only into confusion.

There is nothing which is not this; there is nothing which is not that. What cannot be seen by what (the other person) can be known by myself. Hence I say, this emanates from that; that also derives from this. This is the theory of the interdependence of this and that (relativity of standards).

The words of speech may not be able to present the absolute Tao yet speech itself IS of the Tao, as nothing is not of the Tao. The dialectical nature of Taoism does not deny anything that exist nor it's relation to the Tao.

You could say it like Alan Watt's "talking-shop" vs "contemplation" is just one example of the silence bringing aspect of Zen and is without a doubt a influence of Zen on Watts.

It is also another example of how often Zen thinkers world denying attitude often loses part of what exists in the world.

The temple is not merely a place of contemplation, but also of communion, and that communion communicates something, it is not merely nothing. And perhaps the temple is all around us.

[Singu]

Yeah I remember now, I think Zen Buddhism is "becoming empty" so that "thoughts (or wisdom or reality) rush in" to that empty space. I don't really buy that argument, though.

[chrys]

I'd almost agree with IEE until I watched the video "The Silent Mind", but that's only because of his syntax and how he conveys his experiences with meditation... It's so very objective and scientific almost, it doesn't seem like he's very emotionally involved in what he studies with culture and religion and spirituality. All I hear are Observations primarily, and then the implications of those observations, nothing to do with how he feels about them. So I would prefer ILE, or even LII over IEE.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I agree with what he says, but I often think his stuff is 'so boring' maybe because it's too much like listening to something I already know, so I just drone out. It's like a lot of ethical nf philosophy crap that I was born with an innate understanding on. I did like the prickles and goo vid though.

[wacey]

I think Alan needs to be understood within the context of his time. At that time (mid century), nobody was speaking on topics like he was in such a eloquent tone. His mannerisms are typical of dessiminations at that time period. Just watch PSA/ governement/ TV shows from that era. Its very intellectually masculine.

Second, Eastern Oriental concepts and philosophies, although not new to western ears, was certainly not mainstream. Alan was the first objective meditation teacher of his time popularizing ancient ideas for fertile minds. Now his brand of satsang is so common here in the west. Alan was the first.

[Exodus]

Little things in most of his work. It's difficult for me to get into minutia since once you go there it's a task of picking at a mountain with a teaspoon. I would say his writing is mostly ethical and even more so moral, ecological writing often is. It's mostly something like, "this is what I like, this is why I like it", "this is what I don't like, this is why I don't like it".

ok, you don't have to get into minutiae but this (in particular the bolded part) doesn't agree with how I see him generally. I find he is mostly expounding general truths about the world, or explaining what Buddhism says about the world. It's largely impersonal, like the video @Frogman posted. More about "we" than "me". There may be examples where he is talking about personal information but I haven't seen any of that.

e.g. "Does what we know depend on a knower?" -- this kind of abstract TiNe (mostly Ti) generalities are sort of antithetical to IEEs.

[mu4]

ok, you don't have to get into minutiae but this (in particular the bolded part) doesn't agree with how I see him generally. I find he is mostly expounding general truths about the world, or explaining what Buddhism says about the world. It's largely impersonal, like the video @Frogman posted. More about "we" than "me". There may be examples where he is talking about personal information but I haven't seen any of that.

e.g. "Does what we know depend on a knower?" -- this kind of abstract TiNe (mostly Ti) generalities are sort of antithetical to IEEs.

I'm not sure if it matters here, I'm talking about information preference more than what his behavior. A IEE can certainly make Ti statements and behavior, often in a reactive and incomplete manner, much like a SLE can engage in Fi behavior. These are still mental ring functions, conscious functions. Much of what I wrote has to do with his narrow perspective and incomplete perspective. contemplation without communion, he doesn't even recognize the communion aspect of religious service and group praying, what I see as essentially Fe. Instead what does he say? Ritualistic and ceremoniously burning of the Bible.

I spend a great deal of time talking about relationships and empathy, of topics which I should not engage in, as did the inventor of socionics. Why? Because I approach it from a different perspective, Alan Watts is no different, he approaches perhaps a Ti-Ne topic but from a different perspective. It's unsurprising you see this individual on the same supervision ring because there is a great commonality of perspectives in cognition here, but I don't see the preference or perspective towards Ti even if this individual engages in the topic.

[myresearch]

LIE. I notice that most gamma NTs typed as Alpha NTs because people expect gamma Te to sound like delta Te in other words more practical, more earthy regarding pragmatic and practical side of things. LIE has Si polr and strong Ni, Ne, one would expect LIEs to engage with abstractions. Besides it is more important to focus on how people express themselves rather than the context of the topic. He express himself by forming short sentences one after another one and all of his sentences are to the point and clear. His sentences lack analysis, he doesn't decompose and then compose to express himself, which refers to ignoring Ti.

[valhalla]

Zen is Si. There isn't really much Se in it except to pay attention to the moment, which is something Se does by nature anyway.

[valhalla]

An Ni type discussing similar topics would be someone such as Terrence Mckenna.

[valhalla]

You think a guy like Alan Watts supervises/benefits the Beta irrationals?

Is that even common sense? Or does it make more sense that a Se type supervises him?

This is stuff I would consider anyway. It might just be true that he is a ENTj if the intertypes fit right.

[ashlesha]

(Personal take, maybe intertype relevancy)

I like listening to his talks on YouTube while I fiddle around the kitchen sometimes and my reaction to him is similar to my reaction to reading Jung in that I really enjoy it during the moment and can nod along but 5 seconds later if asked to summarize it'd be like, "I dunno, pretty words though"

I felt like the general vibe of his talks was similar to the good form of energy I get from IEI bf, so I asked if he liked him and he said he couldn't get into his writing because it was like obvious stuff in his head anyway.

[gone]

(Personal take, maybe intertype relevancy)

I like listening to his talks on YouTube while I fiddle around the kitchen sometimes and my reaction to him is similar to my reaction to reading Jung in that I really enjoy it during the moment and can nod along but 5 seconds later if asked to summarize it'd be like, "I dunno, pretty words though"

I felt like the general vibe of his talks was similar to the good form of energy I get from IEI bf, so I asked if he liked him and he said he couldn't get into his writing because it was like obvious stuff in his head anyway.

Lol, my dad and his girlfriend love Alan Watts. He's LII, she's ESI. He likes to show me clips of something wise he says, and expects me to take it to heart as much as he does. But it's kinda hard. How receptible you are to things like that, depends on where you are in life I think. I'm still a young buck, down in the shit swamp, wrestling in the puke, bile and piss.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

gamma NT

you guys need to read more about Ni if you think that he's a sensing type. Ni is the most religiously coloured and philosophical function. it is interested in mysterious phenomens, in the otherwordly, it gets information from the outside world, from the cosmos. it reflect upon the meaning of life. it's very clearly visible in Alan Watts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac

he's also interested in the laws of nature, views things from a logical perspective. I heavily lean towards LIE for him.

[Adam Strange]

gamma NT

you guys need to read more about Ni if you think that he's a sensing type. Ni is the most religiously coloured and philosophical function. it is interested in mysterious phenomens, in the otherwordly, it gets information from the outside world, from the cosmos. it reflect upon the meaning of life. it's very clearly visible in Alan Watts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac

he's also interested in the laws of nature, views things from a logical perspective. I heavily lean towards LIE for him.

I really have a hard time seeing how an LIE could be as full of BS as Alan Watts.

I agree about him having Ni, though.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I really have a hard time seeing how an LIE could be as full of BS as Alan Watts.

I agree about him having Ni, though.

haha, you might have a different subtype than him. I'm suspecting that he's a creative subtype, and identical types with different subtypes very often don't see themselves as identicals. I'm not entirely sure on his type, and I'm still considering if he was an ILI.

[WVBRY]

I agree with LIE and I think he was actually a Harmonizing subtype.