Bruce Lee

[crazedrat]

If you are seeing Fi then argue for ISTp, not ENFp. ENFp is a terrible guess.

obviously a blown up country isn't going to be bringing in good revenue .. to say there is a direct connection may be stretching it though

[MatthewZ]

SLE. Makes sense for a benefit relationship with an ESE Jackie Chan: finding something interesting about his style at a distance, later adopting it but not fully accepting the philosophy behind it.

However, I'll believe SEE.

[Sol]

ESTP

[Aiss]

God... you are so annoying. You are literally incapable of seeing any kind of errors or flaws in your ways. Now I'm not necessarily saying that I'm right, but this is just ridiculous. All I got was some overly convoluted crap that went off in a million little directions. I'm not sure if you actually know what the crap you're talking about, or you're just making all this shit up to cover up your own lack of Socionics knowledge. I'm not saying that I know a lot about Socionics, but this is just ridiculous. I also wouldn't necessarily disagree with everything you say, but come on... actually know your stuff before presenting them as if you've figured it all out.

Amen to that. Even when Pinocchio happens to have a point one can agree with (as part of what he'd said here about xEEs), he adds so much bs to it that the entire thing ends up a bs mix.

[Aiss]

Besides the fact that you refuse to acknowledge my superior understanding fearing misjudgment (call this bullshit, too, if you like)

Those who call themselves superior are more often than not the fools for it.

the problem is that you don't see how things connect together. The arguments that you don't agree with are the same used to conclude the ones you agree with, and my view is totally unitary which validates with most bits and pieces that are to be found in the descriptions, model and whatnot - the ones you actually can and do use for agreement.

I don't so much have a problem with connecting things as I'm disagreeing with many of these arguments in the first place. You can deduce anything from false argument, both true and false conclusions. I may agree with some facts you arrive at but it doesn't mean I have to agree with your reasoning behind them. This is something you fail to notice - there are many other factors besides valid or invalid reasoning. That's Ti way - if it's consistent, it's correct. Except it isn't enough.

Your current problem is that I said that Serious and Decisive information is information of the relatives, of comparison, right?

No. You're jumping to conclusions yet again.

But this is actually what helped me understanding certain functions and IEs, the fact that you disagree or don't understand some arguments don't make them particularly less valid. Denying these arguments is denying the ones "one can agree with" as well because they're on based one another.

See above. Or here you have it in Ti-friendly form: (0 -> 1) <=> 1. Denying arguments you used in your reasoning invalidates the reasoning, but it doesn't guarantee conclusion to be false. In fact, if it's true it should be possible to reach it by other means.

It is impossible to separate my view on from my view on the polarity of the three function dichotomies, or from my view on the types of certain users because they are the same thing, the fact that I bring them together is a direct result of this consistency of the big picture, not my desire to justify my "doubtful" arguments with credible ones.

Consistent doesn't imply true.

As long as the focus of the discussion was changed from objectivity to my persona (again), please choose two such concepts and PM them to me or create a thread, I can hopefully show you how they connect together in a consistent manner with older quotes of mine, if my time permits and I can find enough information.

Thanks, but no thanks. The issue isn't consistency but accuracy. You can have a completely consistent view which coincides with reality in some points, but not in others. In fact that's part of the nature of theoretical models describing the world.


FYI I don't particularly disagree with your view of Gamma as 'relativist' quadra, because some Gamma values are actually quite relativist. I disagree with many other aspects of your opinion of it (not the least the way you contrast Fe/Te), which, I think, may be the reason most of your epic mistypings are related to Gamma (aixel, thePirate, Vero, Krig, etc.).

What I really, really disagree with in your view is, first, behaviouralistic tendencies (s/he acts this way, so they must be in X quadra or value Y or soemthing - I've seen this behaviour from people not falling into said group in many cases, sorry). Second, your view of functions, especially super-ego - like what PoLR is and how it manifests itself - if I went by your list I'd be clearly IEI (!), and that's not the first time you speak in this way. Third, your tendency to speak in absolutists terms when there's no absolutist point to be made - blame relativism in my case, if you want, but it's hardly only "relativist" serious types that disagree with you there, from what I've seen.

[Aiss]

I ask you politely to stop blaming without justification, and the only thing I'm interested from you is to tell me what exactly what didn't make sense or was wrong in what I wrote in this thread. Anything else I won't address.

I never blamed you for anything in that post; if you see it where there's none of it, perhaps you feel guilty and subconsciously expect it from people?

Example (one of many) of what I disagree with:

As explained above, would have been a good evaluation based on results, but that needs testing. The example would be: this guy is a war veteran, he survived and had great results wearing that red cap all the time. But in a :Ti manner, the evaluation is as negative as before - what he is doing is logically incorrect in the context of today military principles, why he survived or had good results is absolutely of no concern. Not only that classifies wearing that cap as incorrect, but also absurd, as long as it has no logical explanation (unless you know Socionics), but doesn't judge things in absurd or sensible, as long as the business goes on.

You keep saying things like this about single IEs, totally neglecting the fact that what manifests in reality is how all elements play out together. Never considering that giving a practical example of alone, without it being with or (not to mention what block it is or other functions) is not only unrealistic, but that you also arrive at hypothesis - like one above - which don't work. Except you don't seem to care about testing them against evidence; the reasoning is correct, so therefore it must be true.

[thePirate]

Don't feel bad, Singularity, Pinocchio is impervious to mere reason and logic. He wears his opponents down with sheer belligerence, then finishes them off with a barrage of non-sequiturs. He seems to think this is the same thing as proving the validity of his arguments.

basically

---

Now there, the differences between and are those by definition and my examples are based on their understanding, not the other way around. I don't understand why should one doubt or change an example which matches the notion of , or whatever IE. As long as we know that , as an information element, not type, deals with production, efficiency, how things work, dynamic systems - while is information connected to structure, properties, relations - why should I change this view as long as this is what we started off?
---

I'm sorry, probably I misunderstood you, but this is absurd and it appears to me that you don't actually know what's wrong, or whether there is something wrong, but you make such attacks on the purpose of "teaching a lesson" to someone you perceive as arrogant (you admitted this view on me already - you pointed the finger at me along with Krig, Marie84, while the subject was totally different, lol).

My advice, as we're off-topic: focus on your competency and understanding - I actually think that you're among those who have a clue, unlike the aforementioned pitiful specimens - and forget about my character, what I think about myself is my problem and has nothing to do with what I tell about Socionics, labelling me as "unreasonable" based on this perception of superiority towards myself (which is not even completely true, I know what are my strengths and weaknesses) is an ad hominem argument which can't be other than logically incorrect.

The problem is that Pinnochio does not understand people, this he has shown clearly - socionics has a very human aspect to it that requires that additional human understanding in order to master it. Yes, Pinnochio has an understanding of the concepts to a basic degree - basically, as far as the knowledge texts can provide. This, however, has been distorted by reality. People do not act in clear cut ways to their type, many times this image is distorted and getting to the truths requires sorting out what is distorted from what isnt. Reality is only going to be consistent with theory if you can see this.

Pinnochio, if you adhere to socionics consider:

"Habit to overstate its own abilities "

"The individual does not expect others to be actively aware or concerned with his own personal sentiments, and so sees little reason to be concerned with those of others, unless they have direct consequences for the individual. Statements by other persons reflecting their inner feelings are not fully registered by the individual if not accompanied by external emotional expression or actions. Suggestions that the individual may have acted unethically in the eyes of another person who has not clearly expressed disapproval are met with bafflement by the individual; those that are expressed without tact are either dismissed or reacted to aggressively. "

These are descriptions of Fi PoLR, as Im sure you are aware. Im not dropping this arguement because it is something that is pervading your judgement. If you can not see why these things- not being actively aware or concerned with personal sentiments, or not registering peoples feelings if their not accompanied by Fe - are detriment to understanding socionics, well then that is a damn shame. Fi also has to do with intentions - good will vs bad will towards an individual - which is also imperative

Look: If someone behaves in a certain way to you, i.e. breaks an Fi rule with good intent - this can tell you where their values lie if assessed properly (what rule, how important was it in relation to the situation, have they done this before, etc.). What do values have to do with socionics, GEE I DONT KNOW, MAYBE EVERYTHING? Not to say that Fi is EVERYTHING in terms of typing but it is certainly NOT something to be dismissed. Perhaps you dont understand the importance of it precisely because it is your PoLR, so on that note I ask you to consider that perhaps there is something your missing - and to acknowledge that.

When it comes to PEOPLE what you are doing is subjectively evaluating based on what you feel is objective criteria - but the application requires getting to the OBJECTIVE truths of reality which requires an understanding of the pieces in it. You can not say your are objectively evaluating because this particular theory does not DIRECTLY translate into reality. Again, two Ti dominant people have had different views on reality and clashed for it - the systems are only as good as the information you put in it right? Human relations, Fi, is also another network or system. One that can NOT be ignored, as doing so is essentially ignoring the human aspect of a theory BASED ON HUMANS. This cracks the whole foundation.

[Timeless]

Because of the natural Dual-seeking behavior of being evaluated through Fi, Te types may become anal about submitting to external objective facts, especially combined with Ni/Se - Gamma NT -, when these facts come in contradiction with what they call "myself", their existing personal position, they try to resist. Concrete examples are some users who refuse to retype themselves with the objective facts in front of them, like Vero and Timeless, they are known as "ENTp" by people (Timeless had even that "ask an ENTP" thingie), that's what represents them, stepping back from them means making a shit of yourself (in their view). They don't take any attempt to retype them personally, as an attack, because they agree that the facts may be correct, but simply once everyone knows you as Takeda, you stay Takeda till the end. It is extremely disappointing for Fi types to see others changing their identity, no matter of the circumstances.

Hey, I had a cool idea last night before I went to sleep. I woke up this morning and made this out of notecards!

[thePirate]

thePirate, you confuse two unrelated things:
- not caring about people's feelings, convictions, diplomacy, the fact that I might attract disagreement and not get out the best from things for everyone, including me;
- not understanding people's emotions, feelings, insights, personal values and beliefs.

Guess which is true and which is not: only the first is true about about Fi-PoLR. And it's not even not caring about people's feelings, because -PoLR do care, but this conflicts with their objectivity which has the highest priority:

Can you make the difference between not understanding feelings and not letting them interfere in your job?

You're way off and totally wrong to think that an ILE can't understand people, forgetting that ILE is also Intuitive and understands a lot of internal things. I just don't agree with bullshit feelings like "everybody is a winner" or "my cat loves me", but that doesn't mean I don't understand those people, simply that's nothing for me and definitely I'd not accept someone to come with such claims to me for taking decisions.

If we have to use an ad-hominem argument, I'd say rather that the ILE has the best features to understand Sicionics and typing, an ILE naturally makes classifications and correspondences between things from early childhood, smart-ass, I'm telling you this from personal experience. For an ILE is a psychological requirement to understand and sort everything, including people. It's closer to reality to say that Ethical types don't understand people because they view them through their subjective perspective and limited interests - although my opinion is that it's more than that.

You're funny but naive saying these things, could someone make you realize how wrong you are? Then did you forget that Aushra was an ILE and also analytical psychology is a field? Assuming you're an IEI, IMO you should get rid of this prejudice if you want to understand what your Dual is .

wow, you are fucking delusional

for one, my problem is with your typing, not your grasp of theory - what does it matter that Aushra is an ILE, an ILE being able to understand THEORY isn't the problem; its the typing which incorporates theory but is not SOLELY comprised of it - this is where you are severely lacking. neither did I say ILE cant understand people, these 'little' misinterpretations you make constantly. I said you, the user pinnochio, does not understand people. you cant even respond to peoples statements accurately, yet you feel you can type them based on understanding them. you have a major communication problem; what makes you think you can type so accurately if you can not even understand simple sentences

ILE have trouble understanding the things you talked about, this is clear from theory and my experiences with the type. Them, also THINKING they do, is also correlated, despite the opposite often being the case. I do not know why you are making the claims you are making because they are complete bullshit. You are a brilliant example of someone who misunderstands peoples personal values, yet think you do. The claims you come up with are outrageous at times, and this has been expressed by VARIOUS members here with seemingly little taken in from you. Knowing something on a conceptual level is not the same thing as true understanding; you are heavily confusing these concepts.

As far as your claims about ethicals, just more ridiculousness. Our subjectivity allows us to relate to people on a deeper level; theres a point where objectivity cuts off understanding in this (people) sense - as paradoxical as this may seem.

ALSO you claim that Ti is objective and you herald it as some sort of truth - what about the fact that two Ti types can have differing life views, philosophies, interpretations, etc. They can even clash because of it; then whose right as both are 'objective'. That hypothesis is invalid, making classifications and correspondences doesn't mean they are going to be the RIGHT classifications and correspondences, now does it? Just as being an ethical type does not neccessarily mean being good with people, being a logical does not mean coming up with the right logical conclusions. You apply my argument specifically meant for YOU towards a broader context when it was not intended for that. I am saying your PoLR is limiting YOU, pinnochio, not the greater ILE at large.

I had to respond to this as I didn't get the chance before the site went down, though I have little interest in carrying this on further; I doubt you will adhere to reason.

[mu4]

SLE

Let's get this straight. Morally guiding people, talking about ethics, social justice and other facets of morality, has absolutely nothing to do with type.

“The art of Jeet Kune Do is simply to simplify.” The martial artist must ask two questions. 1) What is it that I want to accomplish? 2) What is the quickest, most efficient and effective way to reach my objective?

“There is a great temptation to exploit favorite strokes to the neglect of most others. While this may bring initial success, it is unlikely to enable one to gain regular results in the highest-class competition. All too soon one’s opponents will find the answer to a limited game; a routine system of defense, for instance, plays into the hands of an observant opponent.”

If you want to understand the truth in martial arts, to see any opponent clearly, you must throw away the notion of styles or schools, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth. Then, your mind will cease all conflict and come to rest. In this silence, you will see totally and freshly.

Anyone that thinks Bruce Lee is Fi valuing is really off the reservation.

I disagree. is about expressing emotion, preference, arousal - identity is , as a matter of fact, emotional expression without an ethical meaning is despised by types. I explained this above already, I don't know what else should I say.

You're just wrong here.

is ethics of relations, which is about attraction and repulsion, personal preferences, in short the personal relation one has to something else.

I'm not going to use words like identity or meaning because these are all things that are touched on by all our information elements, but people are not merely their ego functions.

As far as your claims about ethicals, just more ridiculousness. Our subjectivity allows us to relate to people on a deeper level; theres a point where objectivity cuts off understanding in this (people) sense - as paradoxical as this may seem.

Ethics caters to people stuff. Logic caters to universe stuff. This is about as simple as it gets.

There is a difference between catering or working with people and understanding them and vice versa.

Also for myself personally, understanding is not confidence. I like certain things to be supported by someone else, corroborated by someone who I trust in those areas, and this is where you will seek other people who are going to help you thru life. This is almost a biological necessity for most people, even the most relationship phobic and anxious people.

As far as ethical types relating to people on a deeper level, let's go to a strip club and I'll introduce you to many many ethical people relating to people on a very deep level.

Sometimes ethical types tend to overstate their understanding of anything and everything.

[thePirate]

The sentiment is reciprocal: you also don't understand what I mean. You think that Logical types don't understand your feelings & stuff. I didn't even imply that I understand your feelings and personal values, I understand your type and this is all I'm interested in. To identify the behaviour of a dog or a cat, you don't have to bark or meow. What's the big fuss?

On the other hand this "empathy" is useless in this field, is harmful even. As you see, people tend to put people they like in their quadra because they "must be compatible".

socionics isn't about behavior, its about cognitive processes

if behavior is all you measure, go study MBTI.

[Gilly]

I love how all of hkkmr's quotes have absolutely fuck all to do with the functions he says they do. I can't believe I considered selling him this forum...what a profane prospect.

[Gilly]

Despite his horrible functional interpretations, I actually now agree with hkkmr: SLE is clear to me after watching him in this interview.

[Azure Flame]

ESE-Si

2nd guess being LSI-Se

[mikemex]

Bruce Lee was SLE (not sure of subtype, probably Se). Like most SLEs out there, emphasis was on building an image. I bet he wasn't really that "fierce" in private, he simply cultivated that public image.

I've always thought of Chuck Norris as LSE (Te subtype). He was far more expressive compared to SLIs like Charles Bronson (Si subtype).

Jackie Chan is probably Fe-SEI (reminds me of Nikita Krushev).

[silke]

No, that's too simplistic. Not all martial artists are Se eg. Jackie Chan. In addition to the videos listed, I have read up about him before.

His philosophies seem rather Ti and Ni-seeking imo.:


Be Formless, shapeless like water. Now if you put water into a cup it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle, you put it into a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash, be water my friend.

If there is a God, he is within. You don't ask God to give you things, you depend on God for your inner theme.

Before I practised the Way, A cloud was just a cloud and a mountain was just a mountain. After I'd studied the Way, a cloud was no longer a cloud, a mountain was no longer a mountain. Now that I understand the Way, A cloud is again just a cloud, a mountain is just a mountain. (The clouds and mountains are simply kicks and punches).

The more relaxed the muscles are, the more energy can flow through the body. Using muscular tensions to try to "do" the punch, or attempting to use brute force to knock someone over, will only work to opposite effect.

Mere technical knowledge is only the beginning of Kung Fu, to master it, one must enter into the spirit of it.

Do not deny the classical approach, simply as a reaction, or you will have created another pattern and trapped yourself there.

By adopting a certain physical posture, a resonant chord is struck in spirit.

Eventually, you learn to read groups of words. Where a student will see three motions, the experienced man will see one, because he see's the overall energy path.

The void is no mere emptiness, but is real, free and existing. It is the source from which all things arise and return. It cannot be seen, touched or known, yet it exists and is freely used. It has no shape, size, colour or form, and yet all that we see, hear, feel and touch is "it". It is beyond intellectual knowing and cannot be grasped by the ordinary mind. When we suddenly awake to the realization that there is no barrier, and has never been seen, one realizes that one is all things, mountains, rivers, grasses, trees, sun, moon, stars, universe are all oneself. There is no longer a division or barrier between myself and others, no longer any feeling of alienation or fear. Realizing this, results in true compassion. Other people and things are not seen as apart from oneself, on the contrary, as one's own body."

More quotes from wikiquote: Bruce Lee - Wikiquote

I got a sense from these quotes that his perception is quickly switching between Ni and Se like he's equilibrating them, which points to one of these being his creative function - i.e. a Ni/Se rational type. The Se of ESTps is "inert" and they have difficulty 'switching out' of its perspective in such a flexible manner as he's going it. I'd go with LSI > SLE for him.

[Amber]

LSI - Se

" I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

[The Ineffable]

Bruce Lee was SLE (not sure of subtype, probably Se). Like most SLEs out there, emphasis was on building an image. I bet he wasn't really that "fierce" in private, he simply cultivated that public image.

I don't relate to such a reasoning, but if I did, this would rather make him Se HA or Role.

Jackie Chan is probably Fe-SEI (reminds me of Nikita Krushev).

ESE just works.

[Amber]

I don't relate to such a reasoning, but if I did, this would rather make him Se HA or Role.

ESE just works.

That sounds reasonable for Se base. Ne may be also be interested in building an image for a public they have the ability to know extremely well, but that has nothing to do with Se role.

[HERO]

As far as I know, SLE's either don't (feel the) need to cultivate a "fierce" image (in public) or they actually are "fierce" in private too.

[darya]

LSI-Se

[some chair]

ILE. Man was a systemiser and a diverse intellectual.

[darya]

ILE. Man was a systemiser and a diverse intellectual.

Not everybody is ILE Holon

[some chair]

I honestly think people are confusing for in Lee.

[The Ineffable]

ILE. Man was a systemiser and a diverse intellectual.

Systemiser - that sounds like a convincing argument for Ti. Just you have to tell whether this is produced by him or is inherited (outer influence). Consider that the world of martial arts is traditionally systemising, this is how it is inherited and how all (or most) of them do it.

In my knowledge Lee's own school, Jeet Kune Do, is eclectic, in opposition to an unitary construction. This points contrary to a Ti type, eclectic elements simply don't go with each other consistently. I just read a little about JKD, I have to disagree with your proposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do

[some chair]

Ah, sorry @The Ineffable, that wasn't really an exceptionally serious suggestion on my part. I don't really know Socionics enough to type people.

[Pookie]

I now side with SLE, because him and Tupac are my faves. Beta Males unite!

[Aylen]

I now side with SLE, because him and Tupac are my faves. Beta Males unite!

mmhmm

[Olly From Wally World]

SLE-Ti... not. Not to be bitchy but why are people so confident and typical in their ego typings on here? They see a martial artist and tough exterior and go with SLE, despite the person not seeming EP temperament at all. "Ok, let's type him subtype so we can rationalize him seeming less EP than SLEs typically are while still typing him SLE." :/ That shit is also done for other typings on here, not just SLEs. Whenever anyone thinks someone is base here though, I am automatically suspicious because I have a good feeling many of you guys automatically lump all the alpha males, tough guys or e8s you meet as SLE, regardless as to whether they are really base.

LSI is a better typing than SLE in some ways and not so much in others (they also type him ISTP in MBTI, I think). I do agree that he is introverted and has a subjective focus but his emotionality is quite strong for someone with 1 dimensional or someone seeking and, for the most part, flows well and he has the dramatics of a Beta NF. Lol, just look at the way he is as a martial artist, how he is in movies, etc.


Sure, he was an actor but compare him to Clint Eastwood, who some peeps in chatbox agreed LSI fit. A lot more rigid and fits IJ and not much emoting at all. CE seems fairly impersonal and logical as well, Lee seems more ethical to me.

Based solely on the evidence in this thread, I would go with Beta NF. Maybe EIE? He talks in generalities and focuses primarily on things beyond the physical -- Ni. Instead of logically categorizing his work (Ti), or discussing the technical aspects of fighting (Te), he discusses the emotional aspects, internal attitudes, etc. -- Fe. His focus is the spiritual and profound.

Wish this guy was more active here, not this post specifically but his posts in general from what I've seen are pretty good. SLEs, quite frankly, do not talk like Bruce at all, nor have a similar energy. They talk about concrete things, very literal and never missing a single detail in the environment. SLE sis is only concerned with concrete things, pretty materialistic really, doesn't bother much with any sort of abstractions or philosophical talking. Also, I like how people mention his value or seeking for anything seeming in what he writes, instead of ego. o.O He doesn't need it, that's what he's about. Golihov's interpretation of the dual seeking function is that we basically move in the direction or to an environment where that function is being supplied, not supplying it ourselves with great control.

VI-wise, another thing I'm dumbfounded by is how ILEs look to people here??? Like I've seen many threads where someone says Lennon, Einstein, Bruce Lee, etc, look ENTp. o.O It's like creatives here don't look, behave or have any sort of Exxp temperament and look like IXIs to people or something? Maybe Ausra is to blame?

One thing you'll notice with dom and sometime creative celebs, and it might seem quite plain since there are plenty of them, is that they are often introspective and often talking about what's going on in the background, what others aren't seeing, the dynamics, what it's doing to us, what it really means, the effects on the psyche or spirit, the bigger picture, phenomena, spirituality, etc. Like Tupac and J. Cole. I just watched a bit of an interview with Cole and notice it well all throughout the interview. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about and that's what Bruce Lee does.

I've kinda wanted to tie in the functions that are opposite (like /) by what they're similar in and noticed Jung describes it well. base types "perceive all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctiveness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects." Over all, these are people who see behind the scenes or [think they] know what's really going on, sometimes not talking about what they're perceiving because they don't think people will understand it. Spiritual leaders, philosophers (along with doms), artists, visionary leaders, etc. This doesn't happen much with doms, they are really concrete and anything observable or tangible is what they focus on and are the most in tune with static physical details, to the point where the dynamics in the background are largely unseen. They wouldn't likely take martial arts and create a philosophy out of it and you won't hear them talking about what I mentioned about base types, they are experts with the physical details of the outer world and the biggest realists, not people often focused on intangible dynamics. doms focus on that to the point where they are very vague with details, may not know what color their house is, what street they live on after years, etc.

There's the argument for him being a great martial artists meaning he's sensory but anyone can become talented at something they put their mind to, especially introverts who are more focused and deep in their interests in comparison to extroverts who are more broad in them. Looking at those quotes, listening to him in any interview... my god, there's no way he is base. Just listen to him speak a little, please? He is IEI.

[darya]

I think he's LSI.

[darya]

Looking at those quotes, listening to him in any interview... my god, there's no way he is base. Just listen to him speak a little, please? He is IEI.

Olly I'm not going to analyze Bruce Lee too deeply, but you are very very wrong if you think those quotes or the way he speaks can't belong to a LSI

Edit: I've noticed that IEE males (and the only ESE guy I have ever encountered ) also tend to be very into martial arts.

[Krig the Viking]

Wish this guy was more active here, not this post specifically but his posts in general from what I've seen are pretty good.

I drop by once in a while to see if anyone has tagged or quoted me, and wants to talk.

You have some solid reasoning in your post there. The whole "he's world-class good at a physical activity, therefore he must be Sensing" thing is a significant stumbling block, even for me. But when you look at how he actually thinks, how his mind processes information, it's pretty clear that he's focused on processing what's going on behind the physical activity, like you said.

I'm still torn between EIE and IEI for him, but I agree Beta NF is highly probable.

[golden]

SLE-Ti... not. Not to be bitchy but why are people so confident and typical in their ego typings on here? They see a martial artist and tough exterior and go with SLE, despite the person not seeming EP temperament at all. "Ok, let's type him subtype so we can rationalize him seeming less EP than SLEs typically are while still typing him SLE." :/ That shit is also done for other typings on here, not just SLEs. Whenever anyone thinks someone is base here though, I am automatically suspicious because I have a good feeling many of you guys automatically lump all the alpha males, tough guys or e8s you meet as SLE, regardless as to whether they are really base. ...

... SLEs, quite frankly, do not talk like Bruce at all, nor have a similar energy. They talk about concrete things, very literal and never missing a single detail in the environment. SLE sis is only concerned with concrete things, pretty materialistic really, doesn't bother much with any sort of abstractions or philosophical talking. Also, I like how people mention his value or seeking for anything seeming in what he writes, instead of ego. o.O He doesn't need it, that's what he's about. Golihov's interpretation of the dual seeking function is that we basically move in the direction or to an environment where that function is being supplied, not supplying it ourselves with great control.

I disagree with the bolded and suggest that this is still another stereotype. Abstraction and philosophizing are basically higher-order thinking and can be done by any type so long as the individual has sufficient intelligence to do so.

I've kinda wanted to tie in the functions that are opposite (like /) by what they're similar in and noticed Jung describes it well. base types "perceive all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctiveness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects."

Here I agree with the bolded. It's quite general. It describes perceptual processes, but not precisely how those processes will manifest in terms of interests or behavior.

This doesn't happen much with doms, they are really concrete and anything observable or tangible is what they focus on and are the most in tune with static physical details, to the point where the dynamics in the background are largely unseen.

Actually, those details they see can add up to a lot of insight and appear quite similar to intuitive leaps. They can seem to skip over all the dynamics and simply arrive at outcomes. It's a way of processing. It doesn't occur just in relation to outer objects, like "me see rock, rock big." In any case, it will be blocked with an introverted function. And it will be as sophisticated as the individual him- or herself.

They wouldn't likely take martial arts and create a philosophy out of it and you won't hear them talking about what I mentioned about base types, they are experts with the physical details of the outer world and the biggest realists, not people often focused on intangible dynamics.

I haven't read about Lee lately but imo he was not interested in intangibles per se. There was always a relationship to the physical. Arguably, martial arts is itself an embodied philosophy. He inherited a tradition that didn't treat the physical and the spiritual as separate domains, imo.

doms focus on that to the point where they are very vague with details, may not know what color their house is, what street they live on after years, etc.

I hope you're exaggerating for effect. I don't even know literally mentally retarded people who are this clueless. And please try telling any ILI I've ever known that they don't know what street they live on, ell oh ell.

All that said, I don't have a typing for him. I've generally thought he might be Beta ST and not concerned myself with reasoning it out. I think any type could be a good martial artist. I will leap on the bandwagon that says dual-seeking can create a huge emphasis in a personality. Not as sure about hidden agenda.

[suedehead]

He's not that abstract.

[Olly From Wally World]

I disagree with the bolded and suggest that this is still another stereotype. Abstraction and philosophizing are basically higher-order thinking and can be done by any type so long as the individual has sufficient intelligence to do so.

What you bolded was me speaking about my sister so that isn't really up for disagreement. While I wasn't talking about capability, I agree with the second sentence, my b if I suggested otherwise.

Here I agree with the bolded. It's quite general. It describes perceptual processes, but not precisely how those processes will manifest in terms of interests or behavior.

I see where you're getting at, tbh, I like it better that way too.

Actually, those details they see can add up to a lot of insight and appear quite similar to intuitive leaps. They can seem to skip over all the dynamics and simply arrive at outcomes. It's a way of processing. It doesn't occur just in relation to outer objects, like "me see rock, rock big." In any case, it will be blocked with an introverted function. And it will be as sophisticated as the individual him- or herself.

Yeah, I know they're not cavemen or people with nothing to offer lol.

I haven't read about Lee lately but imo he was not interested in intangibles per se. There was always a relationship to the physical. Arguably, martial arts is itself an embodied philosophy. He inherited a tradition that didn't treat the physical and the spiritual as separate domains, imo.

You think? Idk, he seems clearly in tune to the intangible to me but you make a good argument. Actually, I did think after the fact, that his culture had a hand in that.

I hope you're exaggerating for effect. I don't even know literally mentally retarded people who are this clueless. And please try telling any ILI I've ever known that they don't know what street they live on, ell oh ell.

Ell Oh Ell, kinda and sorta not. With a strong focus on that often results in a natural suppression for being in tune to the physical world around you and its details. Personally, I am not too sure what color my house is off the top of my head, if I look sure maybe and I do sometimes forget the name of the street I live on (not the street street but like the one it is attached to and that's what people ask for around here, although I did say a few days ago that we currently lived on the old address we used to live on and my mom said I was confused). Heck, I recently learned they have places called 'villages' to divide the sectors in my town and I've been here for quite a long time. My mother criticizes me for not knowing where we are when I ask her a question that suggests I'm clueless or says shit like "you're telling me that you wouldn't be able to give directions from here to get home?", telling me that I need to open my eyes, etc. The lists go on and, to those with strong senses, it is mind boggling. Jung uses an introverted intuitive girl as an example.

"When it comes to reality now, that same girl came to me because she couldn't hear the step of her feet any more, because she walked on air, literally. She couldn't hear it, and that frightened her. When I asked for her address, she said, "Oh, Pension so and so. Well, it is not just called a pension, but it is a sort of pension.” I had never heard of it.” I have never heard of that place," I said. She replied, "It is a very nice place. There are only young girls there; they are all very nice young girls, very lovely young girls, and they have a merry time. I often wish they would invite me to their merry evenings.” And I said, "Do they amuse themselves all alone?" "No," she replied, "there are plenty of young gentlemen coming in; they have a beautiful time, but they never invite me.” It turned out that this was a private brothel. She was a perfectly decent girl from a very good family, not from here. She had found that place, I don't know how, and she was completely unaware that they were all prostitutes. I said, "For heaven's sake, you fell into a very tough place; you'll hasten to get out of it."

In short, Jung uses an introverted intuitive girl who came to him as an example of the introverted intuitive's vagueness for details. He asks her where she lives, she tells him and describes the place and Jung realizes that it is a whorehouse, and she didn't even realize she was living there. I read that to my mother and she said she can imagine me not noticing that too. I am probably worse than mentally retarded though, good thing I don't have to handle anything but a dull pocket knife at work. But yeah, I'd imagine ILI's makes them better in regards to that and EIEs too, them being extroverts. Of course, having more experience and having more independence will make you more aware and I'm still pretty jung.

All that said, I don't have a typing for him. I've generally thought he might be Beta ST and not concerned myself with reasoning it out. I think any type could be a good martial artist. I will leap on the bandwagon that says dual-seeking can create a huge emphasis in a personality. Not as sure about hidden agenda.

He seems clearly in tune to the intangible to me, I wonder a good way to demonstrate this actually, but I do agree and believe I realized this after wards that his culture could have influenced that emphasis so yeah, great point.

I actually appreciate your response since I can be hypocritical in that I also hate stereotyping especially through quadra and may have done a bit of stereotyping here too . That doesn't change my mind really though, I think the strongest argument and reasoning for ego typings is him being a martial artist so far, which isn't much of one, imo.

 

But yeah, the problem here in these threads is that no one reasons anything out, and this is a 'Socionics Discussion' thread, not solely a poll but there are not much discussions on threads like these. That's why I especially appreciate some posts from some egos (like Krig and Chemical, even though sometimes the latter is a bitch to read) or a few IEIs (like SilverChris, Strnng, etc). That's because I can at least sometimes see the principles they used to reached their conclusions (if they even have a conclussion, which Chemical hasn't before, lol), gauge their understanding of certain dichotomies, functions, etc. Most people here are not concerned with explaining themselves or showing any explanation (not to put you on blast or to suggest that you must or that I'm entitled to one, you saying it just gave me a good chance to say it), just throwing around their typings and then somehow everyone ends up agreeing because we are all socionics experts and then it becomes a standard and anyone similar in some way is typed the same type- bloop, bloop, bloop, ESIs for everyone!- and then you have people like Elina who will be studying the type exemplars created through this shitty ass process, in order to get a better feel of the types which could all really have been bullshit that just continued being bullshit because everyone agrees with each other. "Oh, Lungs is ESI? Yeah, I can see what you see." (seriously, she had so many ESI votes, i didn't even know there were that many active members. Even if she is, like wtf, can't some people be wrong?). / polr rant, I guess.

Anyways, thanks for the response, Golden. I didn't expect to get anything out of this thread and didn't know if I even wanted it to get active again.

[golden]

With a strong focus on that often results in a natural suppression for being in tune to the physical world around you and its details. Personally, I am not too sure what color my house is off the top of my head, if I look sure maybe and I do sometimes forget the name of the street I live on (not the street street but like the one it is attached to and that's what people ask for around here, although I did say a few days ago that we currently lived on the old address we used to live on and my mom said I was confused). Heck, I recently learned they have places called 'villages' to divide the sectors in my town and I've been here for quite a long time. My mother criticizes me for not knowing where we are when I ask her a question that suggests I'm clueless or says shit like "you're telling me that you wouldn't be able to give directions from here to get home?", telling me that I need to open my eyes, etc. The lists go on and, to those with strong senses, it is mind boggling. Jung uses an introverted intuitive girl as an example.

"When it comes to reality now, that same girl came to me because she couldn't hear the step of her feet any more, because she walked on air, literally. She couldn't hear it, and that frightened her. When I asked for her address, she said, "Oh, Pension so and so. Well, it is not just called a pension, but it is a sort of pension.” I had never heard of it.” I have never heard of that place," I said. She replied, "It is a very nice place. There are only young girls there; they are all very nice young girls, very lovely young girls, and they have a merry time. I often wish they would invite me to their merry evenings.” And I said, "Do they amuse themselves all alone?" "No," she replied, "there are plenty of young gentlemen coming in; they have a beautiful time, but they never invite me.” It turned out that this was a private brothel. She was a perfectly decent girl from a very good family, not from here. She had found that place, I don't know how, and she was completely unaware that they were all prostitutes. I said, "For heaven's sake, you fell into a very tough place; you'll hasten to get out of it."

This is just super difficult for me to relate to. I would lose my mind if I had to live that way. It sounds like a really extreme case of something, maybe Ni, but maybe something else. No idea what, although I think I read once that there may be a specific brain structure having to do with sense of direction. Maybe there's something in that. (ETA: It's not a brain structure, it's signal processing, here's a recent article on the topic, though it's in a crap publication.)

 

But yeah, the problem here in these threads is that no one reasons anything out, and this is a 'Socionics Discussion' thread, not solely a poll but there are not much discussions on threads like these. That's why I especially appreciate some posts from some egos (like Krig and Chemical, even though sometimes the latter is a bitch to read) or a few IEIs (like SilverChris, Strnng, etc). That's because I can at least sometimes see the principles they used to reached their conclusions (if they even have a conclussion, which Chemical hasn't before, lol), gauge their understanding of certain dichotomies, functions, etc. Most people here are not concerned with explaining themselves or showing any explanation (not to put you on blast or to suggest that you must or that I'm entitled to one, you saying it just gave me a good chance to say it), just throwing around their typings and then somehow everyone ends up agreeing because we are all socionics experts and then it becomes a standard and anyone similar in some way is typed the same type- bloop, bloop, bloop, ESIs for everyone!- and then you have people like Elina who will be studying the type exemplars created through this shitty ass process, in order to get a better feel of the types which could all really have been bullshit that just continued being bullshit because everyone agrees with each other.

Regarding your spoiler rant, yeah, that's exactly the thing I see happen -- convergence on what a type is like, enough for exemplars to emerge, and then convergence around the exemplars. Does it have anything to do with reality? I guess it does, but whether it's going to match up with the written material about Socionics, less clear.

You mentioned people not making cases for their typings, and you're right, ppl don't do that, imo bc mostly it just takes too damn long. I don't have a big investment in Bruce Lee's type, but for the sake of argument, I'll give some ideas for ESTp, since that's the type you argue against. I'll just use the four dichotomies.

Irrational / rational. First of all I think he’s probably irrational. He talks about the state of mind as the point of origin for action. He seems to think that the inner state comes first.

He moves with fluidity, somewhat more in the horizontal plane (and I associate that horizontal orientation with Ep generally), and he’s not particularly linear imo.

Espousing “the style of no style” seems to me to cast off rigid systems that hamper ability to act in response to whatever is thrown at him in the moment.

Introversion / extroversion. I'll say he was an extravert. He was always looking for ways to channel his energy. He spread himself thin, fanning his interests across a broad spectrum. He created a school and brought people together through it.

He took on the external battle of being able to teach Chinese martial arts to non-Chinese. He was future-oriented, I think, like he talked about how to achieve "immortality" in terms of reputation. He said life should be constant movement, never stagnant.

Intuiting / Sensing. You’re saying that Ni has a very weak relationship to the sensory. I’m hard-pressed to see how Bruce Lee had this weak relationship. (I also don’t think this is universally true of N people, especially not to the degree you describe, but I’ll set that aside, since you have a personal story tied up in it.) In that 1971 interview he’s very on-the-spot about the complicated external logistics of filmmaking, for example.

Even though he was interested in philosophical ideas and abstractions, he himself said it wasn’t enough to think, you have to act, you have to do. And he said that everything he knows comes from martial arts. I.e., something physical.

And honestly, he has a settled, firm quality in his body that I just think is more S. Sue me.

Thinking / Feeling. It’s actually on the T / F dimension that I get more torn, because of his rejection of systems, which could be P but could be interpreted as F.

However, he seems to have very strong knowledge of the systems (i.e., Wing Chun) but to have thrown them off deliberately, and I can call that a T move.

He seems expressive (F?), but then, he’s an actor, and he’s certainly not the most expressive actor, he was rather restrained judged against other actors. (T.)

But he was really interested in people, so far as I know. He seems to have placed great importance on his relationships of all kinds. That could be E, but it could be F.

He had an overarching goal of creating an ideal martial art that was probably not achievable in reality, i.e., a perfect, universal martial art. We could put that elsewhere, but I’m going to put it in the zone of Ti. Actually, I’ll put a lot of his abstracting and systemic non-systematizing in the Ti bucket.

The end. A clumsy verbal justification for ESTp. I could approach it other ways, such as by functions. I'm not sure how something like this is any better than just saying, eh, maybe he's Beta ST. Because in the end, my opinion is still eh, maybe he's Beta ST. Also, I think someone else could take the exact same information and twist it in a different direction, in order to build a case from nothing more than an impression of his type.

[may]

wow a bit of a contentious thread.

Just to come in and add another vote, I'd say beta quadra and would narrow down to SLE/ESTp.

[Aylen]

[Jarno]

I thought there was general consensus that bruce lee is an SEE.

[Kill4Me]

ILE 7w8 so/sp

Bruce Lee...ILE 7w8-8w9-3w4 so/sp





Enneagram:

He looks too fierce for a 3 and was too fierce for a 3. 3 action stars like schwarzenegger come across wooden. Lee had no problem coming across as the real thing due to his own natural fierceness. That leaves 7w8 and 8w7 as the only real contenders. 7w8 > 8w7

7w8 and 8w7 can look similar. 7w8s are more refined and fitness focused than 8w7s. 8w7s are cruder and more blunt. 7w8s have a sleeker quality. 8w7s have a more primitive quality. 8w7s exploit the environment for intensity. 7w8s pump intensity into the environment. 7w8s make better marathon runners. 8w7s have a 'heavier' energy, 'lower to the ground,' with a more clipped speech. 7w8s are lighter on their feet.

Stacking:

he attained a global presence. he wanted to unify all the different schools of martial arts into one elite fighting system.

Socionics (cognition):

since he's 7w8, that eliminates any of the introverted types for him.

ILE > SLE: he has an innovative cognition. he innovates by envisioning the potential for something novel in martial arts. He's got his eye fixed on the possibilities such that he combines the essentials of various karate systems into his own unique, personal fighting system. ILE cognition is the most synthetic. so/sp 7w8 ILE are what I call ultimate guinea pigs for the novel...they hold themselves out as proof that the novel (or even the impossible) is in fact real....

Lee is sometimes typed LSI, but I would suggest that's another case where so/sp can easily be mistaken for, or even mistake themselves as, LSI.