I do not currently believe I know his type. The Reinin dichotomies would seem to exclude ISFJ.
Wikiquote
interview -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LLos4IE5Fc
I do not currently believe I know his type. The Reinin dichotomies would seem to exclude ISFJ.
Wikiquote
interview -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LLos4IE5Fc
Last edited by silke; 02-22-2020 at 02:48 AM. Reason: updated links
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Goddamn he annoys the fuck out of me.
Edit: After watching this video, Eva Braun still strikes me as ISFp as I had guessed from Der Untergang.
Is she the one in the red hat? If so... yeah... that's about as ISFp as they come.
Yep! Her red hair is a dead giveaway in color media. This is a photograph of her and ******, in the same outfit minus the hat:Originally Posted by Joy
I agree about Eva Braun; if you watch more of such movies - there are still some - the ISFp impression is confirmed.
As for Goebbels being ISFj, especially from those few seconds *shrugs* perhaps.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Maybe, but it's really incoclusive.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I have typed him as an INFj, but maybe I'm wrong.
"Wenn der Deutsche in einen Satz taucht, dann hat man ihn die längste Zeit gesehen, bis er auf der anderen Seite des Ozeans wieder auftaucht mit seinem Verb im Mund." - Mark Twain
Well, one thing in favor of his being IJ at least is the diary-writing -- that is perhaps a bit stereotypical but it seems to me that systematically, daily, writing a diary is more likely to be observed in IXXjs, and in ISTjs and ISFjs in particular.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
I think these actually were "bullshit typings".
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Curioussoul, cut the bullshit. All your typings are far fetched at best, and the fact that you have Dioklecian as grandmaster speaks for itslef
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I do see the similarity in Goebbel's and Churchill's expressions in those two pictures, but does this similarity exist across other pictures as well? Here is a video with lots of pictures of Churchill and his famous WWII speech ("we will fight them on the beaches") where the similarity is gone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belzgoxfayo
Only ESTps have grandmastersOriginally Posted by FDG
Usually their wives
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
ISFJ seems accurate to me. Strangely enough, the alternative could be ENTP.
Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Sophie Scholl
Once I did push up in front of dozens of people to win the affection of a gilr just like her, it was my first week in uni
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubtOriginally Posted by FDG
Bertrand Russell
I did not initially deem this comment worthy of a reply, but perhaps a few things need to be said. Typing is a process - and as you may have noticed my typing is a very slow and convoluted process indeed. :wink:
What I write on the forum presents my best informed guess at that moment - more often than not it is an semi-educated guess deeply rooted in my subjective understanding of socionics and human beings in general - but a guess nonetheless.
I do not consider Dioklecian my "grandmaster". I have commented positively on his typing skills on the forum since he does not seem to have received the recognition his efforts merit, IMHO. I have disagreed with him on many occasions - furthermore my atheistic world view may make deeper level of understanding with him virtually impossible, but that is perhaps beside the point...
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
I don't understand how a given thought process can go both ways so easily. If a person is typed a certain way due to a given reasoning, then given the same evidence how is it possible to reivew the type in the opposite direction? I think that if the evidence is lacking then typing should be avoided.Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
Besides, Russel betrays his saying himself by:
1)Setencing such a thing is a betrayal of being full of doubt
2)Trying to convince Wittgenstein in the famous episode of the elephant under the table
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
OK, I do get a bit carried away from time to time.Originally Posted by FDG
Sometimes something appears almost certain - then contradictions start to appear. Time to quote Russel again though:
Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.
--Bertrand Russell
This is the major trouble in socionics.
When people appear to agree on someone's type it usually only indicates that he seems to fit a certain socionics type description remarkably well.
There is no objective proof available.
Throwing ideas around can stimulate discussion and sometimes even lead to new discoveries.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
I cannot see myself writing a diary. That would entail finding something interesting to write about every day--not likely. It also seems an incredible waste of time, unless you want to be a writer or something.Originally Posted by Expat
******'s Minister of Propaganda
My impression is EIE, idn relations to his slightly less insane boss.
Last edited by ragnar; 06-07-2010 at 11:53 PM. Reason: dypo
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
I was thinking LII.
Right, because one must be Fe dominant to be theatrical.
I'm really fucking sick of this stereotyping bullshit.
INTj
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm positive by VI alone that he is Ti dominant.
Second pic looks like my really cool LII professor. Said professor is actually very theatrical, and performative, but in sort of a weird, half-shy way. Very LII. I'm sure if pushed he could *act* super-dramatic over-the-top, but I'm sure he wouldn't *want* to be that way, and that it would be uncomfortable for him Although, hmmm, he might get a weird kick out of it. Actually, no, I bet he'd get a weird kick out of it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Hard to tell who was more insane of these persons.
My first guess would also be LII, but I think there is a chance of IEI because he was a dreamer in school, he often fled into heroic fantasies. He also studied German philology and became dramatist. Besides that, Beta values doesn't seem to be so wrong here, I suppose.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I would consider IEI, but not EIE.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Those pictures don't display him with the raw charisma ****** had. Of course, that could just be from the style of photography at the time.
VI-wise, he reminds me of Vladimir Putin, but I'm still out on Gobbels' type. IEI with a 1/5 certainty.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
See thats why I don't consider myself an expert at VI, but... I don't consider you an expert either, so its pretty much just like one big shoulder shrug. I just find it funny how I'm supposed to be convinced from a single video clip, and your so confident in it that your laughing, stupidity really. Try making an argument instead of making ultra-confident assertions and showing a video clip with this whole attitude of "come on like everybody knows that, dur!, Hahaha". God I feel like I am back in high school. I don't even feel like taking the time to mention why exactly this is wrong from a purely logical POV, actually I just feel like resigning my life to all the super confident idiots out there, or better yet just laughing at them. Really I am not insulting you I just wish I was stupid myself, that way I wouldn't have to be pulling my hair out in frustration and we could both hold hands and do stupid stuff together and everything would be fine, but instead I actually have to see the errors in peoples arguments 24/7, and there boorish self-confidence doesn't make it any easier to get through the day.
Edit: ok I'll explain it.... after I've taken a hammer to the head and banged it repeatedly.
1) You can either say VI is true or its bullshit, there is no middle ground. If VI is true then there has to be something about a person's visual appearence that is correlated with a particular dominant function such as Ti. If VI is false then this is not true, therefore saying VI is false is a good argument and providing evidence to convince someone.
2) Now consider the idea that people of different ethnicities and races have different physical appearences but share a particular similarity in physical appearance with those of the same race and ethnicity. This is because of evolution, hereditary, and the isolation of particular cultures. You could disagree with this point and it would be reasonable if you provided evidence to bolster up this point.
3) Finally consider that if it is a german person who is being VI'd then it would be plausible that there is a particular look german-Ti people have. You could argue that he is not Ti or any of the other arguments in 1 to 2.
See each of these arguments; (1) VI is false and you cannot tell if a person is Ti from there appearance, (2) You cannot tell if a person is a particular race from their physical appearence, (3) Geobbels is not Ti.
Each of those arguments will succesfully disable any point I've made, because they directly address my assertions. A convincing argument provides evidence that is solid and factual and real world founded that makes me look at reality and think "maybe I've forgotten something". A video is real world, but how the f*** does a video on its own prove any of that to me. Can a video tell my why geobbels isn't Ti? No! Can a video tell me why Vi is false? No! Can a video tell me why people of a particular race don't share a certain physical appearance? No!
Plus this kind of weak argument gets delivered with a heaping helping of self-confidence just make me loose faith in humanities intelligence.
Really its presumptious but I feel your just trying to argue me on Fi-grounds, it a typical notion that people shouldn't categorize people into races and draw a parallel between physical appearance and race. In fact the reason for this is what the nazis did with the jews, and leave it to a topic about a nazi to bring this to the front of ones mind. The sad part about this is its a perfect illustration of Fi vs Ti in society. Look there is nothing wrong with attempting to draw parallels between appearance and race, the only reason it was wrong with the nazis is because they treated jewish people like lab specimens and not human beings and commited genocide against them. In this topic, there is no de-humanizing or genocide, so its really ok to talk about physical appearance and race, plus there are some very good Ti based reason why occasionally this is reliable, not all the time, there are expections, but whatever, I've already spoken too much and I'm prepared to get a mass of weak arguments that force me in another frenzied defense of my ideas.
Also for the record saying german-Ti was two mutually exclusive adjectives that are independant descriptors, they are not two interconnected adjectives that share a dependance, so I wasn't attempting to say something like all germans look Ti.
Last edited by male; 06-08-2010 at 09:13 PM.
As for German, isn't is the integral type of Germany a type?