23 replies to this topic

[Ashton]

Winston Churchill - Se subtype



Vladimir Lenin - Ti subtype



Napolean Bonaparte



Hannibal Barca - Ti subtype



Benito Mussolini - Se subtype



Hugo Chavez



Georgiy Zhukov



Vyacheslav Molotov - Se subtype



Lavrenty Beria



Nikita Khruschev - Se subtype

[Starfall]

edit

[Lux]

Haha... yes, I quite like Winston Churchill. Can't say much about the others though. Any... more RECENT ESTp examples?

[Haze]

Uhh Madonna? She's probably ESTp.

[Aesop]

Haze, on Dec 28 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Uhh Madonna? She's probably ESTp.

hmm....yes.
more ESTP females please.

[Ezra]

Other possibilities: Hannibal - LSI, Chávez and Khrushchev - SEE.

[jxrtes]

I agree Chavez is a much better fit for SEE.

I see Kruschev as Ti valuing not Te valuing (due to the rigid and systematic way he responded to certain economic crises), though SLE is a bad suggestion for him IMO. I agree with the accepted SEI typing, as it would have made him Stalin's benefactor and hence drastically upped his survival value within that administration. Stalin was an impatient man, and I think would have been even more impatient with people who didn't value his Ti -- like a supervisee who couldn't get it through his thick skull.

Also as Expat likes to point out, the way he intimidated JFK is more in-line with supervision, assuming JFK was EIE.

Also the shoe banging incident at the UN plus the dramatic personality --- gotta love Alpha.

[Ashton]

jxrtes, on Jan 7 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

I agree Chavez is a much better fit for SEE.

SLE. Everything he says and does screams Beta. Grandiose, image-focused, belligerent, nationalistic, collectivistic, megalomaniac, you name it - he's Beta. He's also very tight and ideologically sympathetic with Fidel Castro (EIE) and other typical-Beta regimes around the world (Iran, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq...). He is not in any way an SEE.

Quote

I see Kruschev as Ti valuing not Te valuing (due to the rigid and systematic way he responded to certain economic crises)

Agreed. Though keep in mind that the style of his responses were standard protocol for any Soviet politician/bureaucrat, as this is the doctrine they were trained in. I commend Kruschev for being bright enough to realize though, that the USSR's defense budget was gnawing a black hole in their GDP and advocated to cut spending, earning him many enemies within the Soviet military.

Quote

though SLE is a bad suggestion for him IMO. I agree with the accepted SEI typing, as it would have made him Stalin's benefactor and hence drastically upped his survival value within that administration.

Kruschev looks and acts SLE to me. I think someone from Beta, like Stalin was, would have had a better chance of surviving and maneuvering through the deadly internecine politics of Stalin's inner circle. Indeed, most of Stalin's inner circle through the years were also Betas - Lavrenti Beria, Vyacheslav Molotov, etc. An SEI - or any non-Beta for that matter - wouldn't have the specific kind of guile to survive in a social environment like that and predictably would have avoided ever getting involved. I don't blame them.

I'm not sure 100% if Stalin was EIE or LSI - he was one of the two for sure. Separating the man from the myth is not an easy feat, as he is said to have been very adept at cultivating a cult of personality about himself - much like Adolf Hitler (EIE) was adept at doing the same. As well, their style of rulership was distinctly similar, as well as the way they went about attaining and consolidating their power.

Quote

Stalin was an impatient man, and I think would have been even more impatient with people who didn't value his Ti -- like a supervisee who couldn't get it through his thick skull.

Either way - whether Stalin was Beneficiary or Supervisee to a hypothetical SEI - I sincerely don't think he'd have allowed his ego to chafe under that kind of intertype stress. Being a Supervisee or Beneficiary isn't a particularly enjoyable experience at all.

Quote

Also as Expat likes to point out, the way he intimidated JFK is more in-line with supervision, assuming JFK was EIE.

Was JFK (I agree with EIE) really intimidated? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides reciprocally backed down. I would say that's a fairly rational, responsible course of action when you have two superpowers aiming arrays of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at each other and placing the world on the brink of holocaust.

According to his autobiography, Kruschev apparently quite liked Kennedy:

I was impressed with Kennedy. I remember liking his face, which was sometimes stern but which often broke into a good-natured smile. As for Nixon... he was an unprincipled puppet, which is the most dangerous kind. I was very glad Kennedy won the election... I joked with him that we had cast the deciding ballot in his election to the Presidency over that son-of-a-bitch Richard Nixon. When he asked me what I meant, I explained that by waiting to release the U-2 pilot Gary Powers until after the American election, we kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.

Quote

Also the shoe banging incident at the UN plus the dramatic personality --- gotta love Alpha.

Sounds Beta. Like Ed Harris (LSI) banging a podium at the Toronto Film Festival.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Jan 8 2009, 05:17 AM, said:

SLE. Everything he says and does screams Beta. Grandiose, image-focused, belligerent, nationalistic, collectivistic, megalomaniac, you name it - he's Beta. He's also very tight and ideologically sympathetic with Fidel Castro (EIE) and other typical-Beta regimes around the world (Iran, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq...). He is not in any way an SEE.

Hmmm, I could not give a rat's ass about my image beyond the fact that I do not like to be misunderstood or have my actions misinterpreted. Grandiose? well I guess could be seen that way, I dislike little things overall, in my world bigger is usually better.

Belligerent? an ESFj described me with that very word not 2 months ago but really I lie low 99.9% of times and if she was not trying to control me then she really would not have seen the "belligerent" side of me. It is always a bad idea for anyone to attempt to control me . Lots of deltas and gammas seem highly belligerent to me so this is all a matter of perspective and opinion.

Nationalism is extremely and highly replusive in my view. I blame nationalism for nearly all the ills of the world and by instinct and reasoning I would never hold any sort of nationalistic view. I could shorten this all by saying nationalistism seems very dumb to me. Collectivistic? well sort of, the western world is run by deltas and gammas, deltas and Fi types in general have a hard time understanding me and I do not really understand them much of the time either, I prefer to stay amongst a group of people whose loyalty has been proven and who do not judge me too harshly for being so different and quite likely the opposite of what the delta west values but I hate to see anyone excluded from any group that I am apart of without good reason.

Please, Ashton would you kindly stay away from these beta stereotypes or at least tell us why these qualities are intrinsic to beta and why then it is that all betas do not have them?

[Ashton]

Ajax, on Jan 8 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

Please, Ashton would you kindly stay away from these beta stereotypes or at least tell us why these qualities are intrinsic to beta and why then it is that all betas do not have them?

These qualities aren't intrinsic to Beta, but they are appropriate stereotypes of bad, negative Beta regimes and their leaders. Hitler/Germany, Mussolini/Italy, Stalin/Russia, Mao/China, Castro/Cuba, Khomeini/Iran, Hussein/Iraq... Chavez/Venezuela. All of these political leaders were Betas, and they all shared the traits I listed.

Some better examples of good Beta leaders who weren't like this: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, Barry Goldwater, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. I've been wondering for awhile if Thomas Jefferson is Beta too. All of these people were quite the opposite of collectivism and megalomania and what not.

[hoodrat]

I agree that Chavez is SLE

[Mr 2012]

I take the stereotypes with a grain of salt. I have similar to Ajax's take on them but I pretty much instill some of the things described when I have the position to implement/change although not in the literal descriptions above.

[Ezra]

jxrtes, on Jan 7 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

I agree with the accepted SEI typing, as it would have made him Stalin's benefactor and hence drastically upped his survival value within that administration. Stalin was an impatient man, and I think would have been even more impatient with people who didn't value his Ti -- like a supervisee who couldn't get it through his thick skull.

You're not a man of the Enneagram, by any chance?

Ashton, on Jan 9 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

These qualities aren't intrinsic to Beta, but they are appropriate stereotypes of bad, negative Beta regimes and their leaders. Hitler/Germany, Mussolini/Italy, Stalin/Russia, Mao/China, Castro/Cuba, Khomeini/Iran, Hussein/Iraq... Chavez/Venezuela. All of these political leaders were Betas, and they all shared the traits I listed.

If they're not intrinsic to Beta, why use them as an argument for the fact that Chávez is Beta?

[Ashton]

Ezra, on Jan 9 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

If they're not intrinsic to Beta, why use them as an argument for the fact that Chávez is Beta?

Because the likelihood of a non-Beta - especially an SEE - acting in the ways Chavez does, is next to impossible.

[jxrtes]

Ashton, on Jan 8 2009, 06:17 AM, said:

SLE. Everything he says and does screams Beta. Grandiose, image-focused, belligerent, nationalistic, collectivistic, megalomaniac, you name it - he's Beta. He's also very tight and ideologically sympathetic with Fidel Castro (EIE) and other typical-Beta regimes around the world (Iran, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq...). He is not in any way an SEE.

Grandiosity, image-focus and megalomania are all signs of an unhealthy individual. They do not and never signify a quadra.

He's a collectivist because he was born poor and practically a second-class citizen and chose to belong to a communist political affiliation, which is *the* vent in third world countries for the disenfranchised. In addition, it's difficult to believe that any single quadra is the sole representative of any type of political government. The types might (under ideal circumstances) gravitate towards certain social leanings, but his circumstances are far from ideal. Furthermore, being sympathetic with other anti-American regimes around the world is typical political maneuvering and good for his economy. The fact that they all happen to be Beta is purely coincidental.

Quote

I'm not sure 100% if Stalin was EIE or LSI - he was one of the two for sure. Separating the man from the myth is not an easy feat, as he is said to have been very adept at cultivating a cult of personality about himself - much like Adolf Hitler (EIE) was adept at doing the same. As well, their style of rulership was distinctly similar, as well as the way they went about attaining and consolidating their power.

Their leadership style was similar but they had radically different personalities.

Quote

Kruschev looks and acts SLE to me. I think someone from Beta, like Stalin was, would have had a better chance of surviving and maneuvering through the deadly internecine politics of Stalin's inner circle. Indeed, most of Stalin's inner circle through the years were also Betas - Lavrenti Beria, Vyacheslav Molotov, etc. An SEI - or any non-Beta for that matter - wouldn't have the specific kind of guile to survive in a social environment like that and predictably would have avoided ever getting involved. I don't blame them.

Bullshit. You're underestimating SEIs and don't understand them properly.

Quote

Either way - whether Stalin was Beneficiary or Supervisee to a hypothetical SEI - I sincerely don't think he'd have allowed his ego to chafe under that kind of intertype stress. Being a Supervisee or Beneficiary isn't a particularly enjoyable experience at all.

Trotsky who was Beta (and Stalin's dual btw) was chased out of the politburo. Plenty of other Betas were axed under Stalin's regime.

In benefit there's a request transmitter and request recipient. If Khrushchev was transmitting requests to Stalin then Stalin would have felt unconsciously ompelled to carry them out for his own personal betterment. It's also not that hard for an SEI to tone down the amount of requests he has to make to appease someone with lots of power. But here's definitely something that would have really jerked Stalin in the right way about Khrushchev -- a benefactor doing his bidding.

In the years leading up to 1943, Khrushchev carried out Stalin's orders with uncritical obedience, earning the nickname "the Butcher of Ukraine" in the late 1940s.[2]

To tell you the truth though, inter type relations are not well documented enough for any of this to be proof without serious academic research, which I can't be too bothered about.

Quote

Was JFK (I agree with EIE) really intimidated? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides reciprocally backed down. I would say that's a fairly rational, responsible course of action when you have two superpowers aiming arrays of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at each other and placing the world on the brink of holocaust.

I was actually referring to JFK's first actual meeting with Khrushchev during the 1961 summit in Vienna. Kennedy reportedly exclaimed that "[Khrushchev] beat the hell out of me," and actually felt quite intimidated by the other man. Khrushchev also felt stalled and beaten, but Kennedy took it extremely personally and was even slightly depressed after the incident. This is according to a recent-ish book I've read on the subject called from "Yalta to Berlin."

Quote

According to his autobiography, Kruschev apparently quite liked Kennedy:

I was impressed with Kennedy. I remember liking his face, which was sometimes stern but which often broke into a good-natured smile. As for Nixon... he was an unprincipled puppet, which is the most dangerous kind. I was very glad Kennedy won the election... I joked with him that we had cast the deciding ballot in his election to the Presidency over that son-of-a-bitch Richard Nixon. When he asked me what I meant, I explained that by waiting to release the U-2 pilot Gary Powers until after the American election, we kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.

Which is perfectly and utterly consistent with benefit. I've completely adored some of my beneficiaries.

Quote

Sounds Beta. Like Ed Harris (LSI) banging a podium at the Toronto Film Festival.

A generalization like that is wrong on quite a few levels. So I guess all shoe bangers are betas huh? That's supposed to be related to some quirky Fe you're implying here that only betas have -- which is bullshit. Harris' shoe banging is punctuated by clear Se and Ti themes. Khrushchev's isn't.

[Ashton]

jxrtes, on Jan 9 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

Grandiosity, image-focus and megalomania are all signs of an unhealthy individual. They do not and never signify a quadra.

They are symptomatic of individuals of certain types when unhealthy. How an ESFp acts when unhealthy will be different from how an ESTp acts when unhealthy. If you don't believe this, then you may as well be arguing that personality types don't exist.

Quote

He's a collectivist because he was born poor and practically a second-class citizen and chose to belong to a communist political affiliation, which is *the* vent in third world countries for the disenfranchised. In addition, it's difficult to believe that any single quadra is the sole representative of any type of political government. The types might (under ideal circumstances) gravitate towards certain social leanings, but his circumstances are far from ideal. Furthermore, being sympathetic with other anti-American regimes around the world is typical political maneuvering and good for his economy.

How a person responds to the circumstances of their environment/upbringing will be influenced by their type. Who the man is and what the man does is not solely a function of the situational variables he's endured in life. You can't argue that he's a collectivist just because he grew up poor - and I'm not arguing that he's a collectivist just because of his type, only that it's an observed tendency of (unhealthy) Betas in power.

No single quadra solely represents a particular kind of political government, I never said that. But again, there are tendencies in the kinds of political outlooks types/quadras tend to gravitate towards. Granted, there are exceptions to the trends - for instance Murray Rothbard (Te-ENTj) is an Anarcho-Capitalist, while Paul Erdos (also Te-ENTj) is a Socialist.

Quote

The fact that they all happen to be Beta is purely coincidental.

It's a significantly evincing coincidence then. To ignore it without counter-evidence of comparable significance would be foolish IMO.

Quote

Their leadership style was similar but they had radically different personalities.

And leadership style has nothing to do with personality...?

Quote

Bullshit. You're underestimating SEIs and don't understand them properly.

Right. I can totally imagine bee, dee, Kamangir, pinkcanary, Jem, or TheMime being great buddies with a guy like Stalin.

Quote

Trotsky who was Beta (and Stalin's dual btw) was chased out of the politburo. Plenty of other Betas were axed under Stalin's regime.

I don't know that Trotsky was ENFj - I don't know a lot about him and have to look into him further. He doesn't seem ENFj to me in the least. Beta is certainly plausible though.

And yes, I fully realize that being Beta would not make you exempt from Stalin's unpredictable wrath. But I do believe it would up your chances of successfully surviving that kind of social environment, which is a prediction already implied by Socionics intertype relation patterns.

Quote

In benefit there's a request transmitter and request recipient. If Khrushchev was transmitting requests to Stalin then Stalin would have felt unconsciously ompelled to carry them out for his own personal betterment. It's also not that hard for an SEI to tone down the amount of requests he has to make to appease someone with lots of power. But here's definitely something that would have really jerked Stalin in the right way about Khrushchev -- a benefactor doing his bidding.

That's awfully speculative and can't be substantiated. If you can make a compelling case with some reasonable evidence that this is what happened and why it happened, then okay. Good luck.

Quote

In the years leading up to 1943, Khrushchev carried out Stalin's orders with uncritical obedience, earning the nickname "the Butcher of Ukraine" in the late 1940s.[2]

So he basically served as one of Stalin's loyal henchmen. Sounds like a typical ESTp role to me. You know, Chavez and Castro (ENFj) are quite tight in a similar capacity as well. Link for further information on their relations. Chavez emphatically refers to Castro as his "mentor."

Quote

To tell you the truth though, inter type relations are not well documented enough for any of this to be proof without serious academic research, which I can't be too bothered about.

To an extent, I agree with you - which is why I dismiss your hypothetical analysis above. Though I still think certain patterns of interaction are recognizable, and occur with enough regularity, that they can successfully inferred in most intertype cases.

Quote

I was actually referring to JFK's first actual meeting with Khrushchev during the 1961 summit in Vienna. Kennedy reportedly exclaimed that "[Khrushchev] beat the hell out of me," and actually felt quite intimidated by the other man. Khrushchev also felt stalled and beaten, but Kennedy took it extremely personally and was even slightly depressed after the incident. This is according to a recent-ish book I've read on the subject called from "Yalta to Berlin."

Okay, so you have one incident where Kennedy remarks to have felt intimidated - and yet curiously, Khrushchev also felt stalled and beaten. I'm not going to argue that one incident proves or disproves anything, as you seem to be doing. But that doesn't sound like much of a Benefit relation to me thus far. Transmitters usually aren't intimidated by Recipients.

But of course, there's a lot of complicating factors here. Two world leaders of adversarial superpowers meeting for the first time, it makes sense that both would be a bit intimidated. Had they gotten more relaxed with each other over time, different interactions would have emerged.

Quote

Which is perfectly and utterly consistent with benefit. I've completely adored some of my beneficiaries.

Odd. My beneficiaries come off to me a bit like children looking for guidance/praise. Which is consistent with what's described of a Transmitter's POV.

Quote

A generalization like that is wrong on quite a few levels.

You made the generalization in the first place?

Quote

So I guess all shoe bangers are betas huh? That's supposed to be related to some quirky Fe you're implying here that only betas have -- which is bullshit.

I was actually making a joke when I brought up Harris.

Quote

Harris' shoe banging is punctuated by clear Se and Ti themes. Khrushchev's isn't.

Really...? Dare I ask, why is Khrushchev's not...?

[jxrtes]

Ashton, on Jan 11 2009, 04:14 AM, said:

They are symptomatic of individuals of certain types when unhealthy. How an ESFp acts when unhealthy will be different from how an ESTp acts when unhealthy. If you don't believe this, then you may as well be arguing that personality types don't exist.

Yeah probably. But I don't believe that you understand all the varieties of unhealthy SEEs. If you try to list them, I'll know you're bullshiting because there's no way you're an expert on this.

Quote

How a person responds to the circumstances of their environment/upbringing will be influenced by their type. Who the man is and what the man does is not solely a function of the situational variables he's endured in life. You can't argue that he's a collectivist just because he grew up poor - and I'm not arguing that he's a collectivist just because of his type, only that it's an observed tendency of (unhealthy) Betas in power.

You just contradicted the paragraph after this.

Quote

No single quadra solely represents a particular kind of political government, I never said that. But again, there are tendencies in the kinds of political outlooks types/quadras tend to gravitate towards. Granted, there are exceptions to the trends - for instance Murray Rothbard (Te-ENTj) is an Anarcho-Capitalist, while Paul Erdos (also Te-ENTj) is a Socialist.

Good. Proves my argument. His political affiliation can't be used guage his type very well, because of contra-positive cases like the ones you listed, which knocks out your earlier argument completely.

Quote

It's a significantly evincing coincidence then. To ignore it without counter-evidence of comparable significance would be foolish IMO.

\

You're also ignorant of global politics and are bullshitting again. Here are the problems with your analysis:

1)The people in charge of these "beta" regimes aren't always betas.
2)The people that conduct diplomacy on either side, including political and economic analysts aren't always betas.
3)The reason he's buddy buddy with them is because they have a common enemy - usually, America.

Hence, it's not their beta-ness that is the most consequential factor in all of this, but the fact that they're closely aligned against a common enemy. How about not trumping up lots of irrelevant politics in the discussion?

Quote

And leadership style has nothing to do with personality...?

So what if their leadership style was the same? They still had completely different socionics personalities, and had different personal goals and ambitions for themselves and others. You're zooming in on only one aspect of their lives.

Quote

Right. I can totally imagine bee, dee, Kamangir, pinkcanary, Jem, or TheMime being great buddies with a guy like Stalin.

First of all, you're using the same fallacy you railed against in your essay on wikisocion. Khrushchev was not any of Jem, Kam or the others so don't get them mixed up. Try not embarras yourself again like that. Second of all, you have no idea how any SEI would react under that kind of pressure, provided they had the same background as him. People talk one thing and do another.

You're allowing your biases and extremely short-sighted type definitions, as well as bigoted opinion, to influence your judgements in typing.

Quote

I don't know that Trotsky was ENFj - I don't know a lot about him and have to look into him further. He doesn't seem ENFj to me in the least. Beta is certainly plausible though.

And yes, I fully realize that being Beta would not make you exempt from Stalin's unpredictable wrath. But I do believe it would up your chances of successfully surviving that kind of social environment, which is a prediction already implied by Socionics intertype relation patterns.

1)Again, you don't understand benefit.
2)I'm not going to argue this point further because it would require more research into their relationships.

Quote

That's awfully speculative and can't be substantiated. If you can make a compelling case with some reasonable evidence that this is what happened and why it happened, then okay. Good luck.

Nope. Russian socionists define it this way. Check the wiki if you want. And these are people that've worked with patients for a while and had a chance to study socionics in the field, which is often more than anyone in the west has done.

Quote

So he basically served as one of Stalin's loyal henchmen. Sounds like a typical ESTp role to me. You know, Chavez and Castro (ENFj) are quite tight in a similar capacity as well. Link for further information on their relations. Chavez emphatically refers to Castro as his "mentor."

Because only SLEs obviously serve as loyal henchmen. Presumably, there's also a neat enneagram correlation to go with this type of SLE as well.

Quote

To an extent, I agree with you - which is why I dismiss your hypothetical analysis above. Though I still think certain patterns of interaction are recognizable, and occur with enough regularity, that they can successfully inferred in most intertype cases.

Yes true, but if you'd reasoned properly, you would have agreed with me.

Quote

Okay, so you have one incident where Kennedy remarks to have felt intimidated - and yet curiously, Khrushchev also felt stalled and beaten. I'm not going to argue that one incident proves or disproves anything, as you seem to be doing. But that doesn't sound like much of a Benefit relation to me thus far. Transmitters usually aren't intimidated by Recipients.

Actually it would have been a supervision relationship not benefit , and supervisees are usually intimidated by their supervisors.

Quote

But of course, there's a lot of complicating factors here. Two world leaders of adversarial superpowers meeting for the first time, it makes sense that both would be a bit intimidated. Had they gotten more relaxed with each other over time, different interactions would have emerged.

Well that's why I don't like using intertype relations, but I was merely pointing out a trend. Personal contact though through interviews and such, is probably the best source material we have for determining someone's type relative to another, hence why I used that example. Lots of body language is transmitted that otherwise wouldn't be, etc.

Quote

Odd. My beneficiaries come off to me a bit like children looking for guidance/praise. Which is consistent with what's described of a Transmitter's POV.

1)Not all beneficiaries are created equal.
or
2)You've mistyped some beneficiaries.
or
3)You've mistyped yourself.
or
4)Khrushchev felt that way but was polite.

Quote

You made the generalization in the first place?

I was actually making a joke when I brought up Harris.

Oh ok, so was I when I cited the shoe incident.

Quote

Really...? Dare I ask, why is Khrushchev's not...?

Harris' is clearly Ti Se. He was referring to an explicit conceptual problem in that clip - namely, what is the definition of violence? He used the shoe banging to illustrate that something can seem violent when it might not really be. Khrushchev's was way more ambiguous than that.

[jxrtes]

One more thing, you're also completely mistaken about the SLE being just a loyal henchman. The classic SLE is General Zhukov, and he was well known for criticizing Stalin. So I suggest you revise your understanding of SLEs.

[Ashton]

jxrtes, on Jan 12 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Yeah probably. But I don't believe that you understand all the varieties of unhealthy SEEs. If you try to list them, I'll know you're bullshiting because there's no way you're an expert on this.

And you're an expert on this? No. The idea that there any "experts" in this pseudoscience that is Socionics, is frankly laughable. Were it ever to become an established discipline complete with formal training and accreditation programs - then okay, we can start talking about who is and who is not a expert. But until that day, all "Socionists" are nothing more than hobbyists.

Quote

You just contradicted the paragraph after this.

No, you just don't read very carefully or don't understand English semantics. I specifically used the word tendency. Or do you simply have a hard time understanding the concept of a trend?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just acting this stupid to try and aggravate me, and that you don't take what you're saying seriously.

Quote

Good. Proves my argument. His political affiliation can't be used guage his type very well, because of contra-positive cases like the ones you listed, which knocks out your earlier argument completely.

It doesn't prove your argument in the least. As I specifically told you, there are exceptions to these affiliations. What I'm looking at is the general trends of what can be observed and I'm making probabilistic inferences only. I'm not propounding absolute, all-encompassing laws about Sociotypes here. I've provided reasonable evidence to demonstrate the significance of the trend - therefore my argument holds. You on the other hand, have yet to provide anything here other than unsubstantiated speculation and dramatic sophistry.

Quote

You're also ignorant of global politics and are bullshitting again. Here are the problems with your analysis:

And what makes you such a wisened analyst of history and politics?

Quote

1)The people in charge of these "beta" regimes aren't always betas.

I doubt the entire ruling body of these regimes I listed were composed 100% of Betas. For instance, if we look at some of the principal leadership of the Third Reich - Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Adolf Eichmann, Julius Streicher, Albert Speer, Wilhelm Keitel, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hess... I doubt they are all Betas but it would not be a surprise to me if quite a few of them were.

The point is, that the primary shapers and influencers of the regimes I listed were in fact Beta. And that their influence is strongly recognizable in the internal political structure of these regimes, the character/personality of those employed in them, and their governmental policies.

Quote

2)The people that conduct diplomacy on either side, including political and economic analysts aren't always betas.

Obviously.

Quote

3)The reason he's buddy buddy with them is because they have a common enemy - usually, America.

The nature of the relationship between Chavez and Castro is richer and more complicated than this, hinging on more than just a mutual antipathy of the United States. If you'd read the article I linked - and others on Venezuelan Analysis - you'd know better than to make a lazy over-simplification like this.

Quote

Hence, it's not their beta-ness that is the most consequential factor in all of this, but the fact that they're closely aligned against a common enemy. How about not trumping up lots of irrelevant politics in the discussion?

Read more.

Quote

So what if their leadership style was the same?

It's not unreasonable to consider that Socionics personality would have a significant influence on leadership style. There's been a wealth of research studying the influence of personality on leadership style already, and the implications are interesting. Socionics should have at least some overlap with other theories and models of personality that have been studied in these research designs, if Socionics deals at all with personality. I'll find you some research papers if you really want me to, but don't have me go out of my way to do so if I'm just going to be wasting my time.

Quote

They still had completely different socionics personalities,

Different Sociotypes, though still well within the bounds of being the same quadra.

Quote

and had different personal goals and ambitions for themselves and others.

So? It's obvious that the goals and ambitions of people of the same Sociotype can have a lot of variance, why are you even bothering to say this? For instance, some ESTps end up as movie actors, some end up as computer technicians, some end up as military leaders, and some end up as janitors. And I'm sure they have many different reasons/motives for doing so. What is your point?

Quote

You're zooming in on only one aspect of their lives.

A person's leadership style - what they do as a leader, what their aims are, and how they go about doing it - is a rather significant and multi-faceted aspect of a person's life (assuming they're in a position of observable leadership). And yields a great deal of Socionics-relevant information about them. Socionics gives us an idea of how different types socially interact, and leadership is very much a social operation.

Quote

First of all, you're using the same fallacy you railed against in your essay on wikisocion. Khrushchev was not any of Jem, Kam or the others so don't get them mixed up. Try not embarras yourself again like that.

I was being obviously sarcastic when I listed those people. The thought of dee or Kamangir, etc. being friends with Stalin was making me laugh pretty hard.

Not that I don't think there's truth in my sarcasm. I realize Khruschev is not any of those people. I also realize he's not an ISFp.

Quote

Second of all, you have no idea how any SEI would react under that kind of pressure, provided they had the same background as him. People talk one thing and do another.

You have no idea. You're presenting hypothetical speculations that are contingent on far too many "ifs" to ever be anything remotely observable. Give me some facts, descriptions, testimonies - give me something we can call evidence. I'm not asking for anything academically rigorous here, but I can't give much weight to baseless meandering either.

Quote

You're allowing your biases and extremely short-sighted type definitions, as well as bigoted opinion, to influence your judgements in typing.

You don't know that and there's no way you could possibly know that. Can you read my mind and empirically observe my psyche in action as I perceive, contemplate, and make decisions? No, you can't. You're just making fallacious ad hominem arguments. Next.

Quote

1)Again, you don't understand benefit.

I understand Benefit (or Request) relations as they are described on Rick's site:

Asymmetric relationship. One partner (the recipient) finds he is constantly trying to solve the other person's (the transmitter's) problems and is overly emotionally involved in the other partner's life — always waiting for a reward from the transmitter. The transmitter, on the other hand, is largely unaware of this and wonders why the recipient is so dependent and so sensitive to the things he (the transmitter) says.

Quote

2)I'm not going to argue this point further because it would require more research into their relationships.

Great.

Quote

Nope. Russian socionists define it this way. Check the wiki if you want. And these are people that've worked with patients for a while and had a chance to study socionics in the field, which is often more than anyone in the west has done.

The Russian Socionists define Benefit relations specifically as this?:

"If Khrushchev was transmitting requests to Stalin then Stalin would have felt unconsciously ompelled to carry them out for his own personal betterment. It's also not that hard for an SEI to tone down the amount of requests he has to make to appease someone with lots of power. But here's definitely something that would have really jerked Stalin in the right way about Khrushchev -- a benefactor doing his bidding."

This hypothetical, non-evidenced example is what I was calling speculative. Why? Because you can't possibly know what Stalin "felt unconsciously." Or that Khruschev deliberately "toned down the amount of requests he made" to appease Stalin. This is just speculative, unsubstantiable noise, nothing more.

Quote

Because only SLEs obviously serve as loyal henchmen.

I didn't say only. But it is a familiar role they play, yes. Read more history.

Quote

Presumably, there's also a neat enneagram correlation to go with this type of SLE as well.

Not that I know of. You presume too much. Again.

Quote

Yes true, but if you'd reasoned properly, you would have agreed with me.

Well, if I could actually get some well-reasoned analysis out of you, with some sort of evidence that isn't just your own personal, convoluted hypotheses - then we'd have something to agree upon.

Quote

Actually it would have been a supervision relationship not benefit , and supervisees are usually intimidated by their supervisors.

My mistake. I meant to say Supervision, but was too used to thinking the word "Benefit" in my mind since we'd been discussing Stalin-Khruschev (as a hypothetical ISFp).

And yes, it's well known that Supervisees are usually intimidated by their Supervisors. Why is exactly why I remarked that it's odd you said Khruschev felt "stalled and beaten" from his meeting with Kennedy. It's unlikely, IMO, that a Supervisor would feel that way towards a hypothetical Supervisee.

Still, considering all the factors at stake in the interactions between Khruschev and Kennedy (national leaders of adversarial Cold War superpowers armed to teeth with ICBMs and all) - I think trying to dote on this one example as you are, as if it's some kind of singular proof that Khruschev supervised Kennedy - is not a good argument. A more full and cohesive picture of their interactions across time and in other situations, ought to be developed in order to attain any reasonable certainty about the true nature of their intertype relations.

Quote

Well that's why I don't like using intertype relations, but I was merely pointing out a trend. Personal contact though through interviews and such, is probably the best source material we have for determining someone's type relative to another, hence why I used that example. Lots of body language is transmitted that otherwise wouldn't be, etc.

Is there a video of that meeting between Kennedy and Khrushchev anywhere that can be watched, so that the body language can actually be observed?

Quote

1)Not all beneficiaries are created equal.

Obviously.

Quote

2)You've mistyped some beneficiaries.

Doubt it.

Quote

3)You've mistyped yourself.

No.

Quote

4)Khrushchev felt that way but was polite.

Maybe. I thought the autobiographical commentary Khrushchev made about Kennedy, shed interesting light on his personal perception of Kennedy - which obviously read like he had a rather positive admiration of him. I've certainly never had that kind of sentiment towards any INFps. Not saying it would be totally impossible, just seems extremely unlikely as it has not happened yet and I've known quite a few INFps.

Quote

Oh ok, so was I when I cited the shoe incident.

Oh, good.

Quote

Harris' is clearly Ti Se. He was referring to an explicit conceptual problem in that clip - namely, what is the definition of violence? He used the shoe banging to illustrate that something can seem violent when it might not really be. Khrushchev's was way more ambiguous than that.

I agree that Harris is an ISTj.

[jxrtes]

Quote

And you're an expert on this? No. The idea that there any "experts" in this pseudoscience that is Socionics, is frankly laughable. Were it ever to become an established discipline complete with formal training and accreditation programs - then okay, we can start talking about who is and who is not a expert. But until that day, all "Socionists" are nothing more than hobbyists.

No, you just don't read very carefully or don't understand English semantics. I specifically used the word tendency. Or do you simply have a hard time understanding the concept of a trend?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just acting this stupid to try and aggravate me, and that you don't take what you're saying seriously.

It doesn't prove your argument in the least. As I specifically told you, there are exceptions to these affiliations. What I'm looking at is the general trends of what can be observed and I'm making probabilistic inferences only. I'm not propounding absolute, all-encompassing laws about Sociotypes here. I've provided reasonable evidence to demonstrate the significance of the trend - therefore my argument holds. You on the other hand, have yet to provide anything here other than unsubstantiated speculation and dramatic sophistry.

Go fuck yourself you pusillanimous piece of psychopathic shit for even suggesting I don't understand something so beneath me. You're the one who's contradicted yourself with regard to evidence many times in this thread: I'm still waiting for this precious "evidence," which I only have your word for. And I don't want to hear some subjective interpretation as obviously culled from between your ass cheeks as "OMFG!!! All betas r collectivists."

Quote

And what makes you such a wisened analyst of history and politics?

Well, I am smarter than you.

Quote

I doubt the entire ruling body of these regimes I listed were composed 100% of Betas. For instance, if we look at some of the principal leadership of the Third Reich - Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Adolf Eichmann, Julius Streicher, Albert Speer, Wilhelm Keitel, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hess... I doubt they are all Betas but it would not be a surprise to me if quite a few of them were.

The point is, that the primary shapers and influencers of the regimes I listed were in fact Beta. And that their influence is strongly recognizable in the internal political structure of these regimes, the character/personality of those employed in them, and their governmental policies.

The culture of the UK is/was strongly Te-centric. The Soviet union was strongly TiSe centric. That didn't stop them from having an alliance of convenience against Hitler. The same can be said of any number of present-day regimes. Another problem you have is assuming there exists some perfect match-making system between political type and socionic type, or that indeed, prime ministers aren't held accountable to their organizations. You picked as a counter-example one of a few regimes that was so highly centralized that it's likely most of the inner brass was of the same quadra, and even had many similar views.

Quote

The nature of the relationship between Chavez and Castro is richer and more complicated than this, hinging on more than just a mutual antipathy of the United States. If you'd read the article I linked - and others on Venezuelan Analysis - you'd know better than to make a lazy over-simplification like this.

Once again, benefit relations. I'm not debating this point further as it seems obvious by now even to a school child.

Quote

It's not unreasonable to consider that Socionics personality would have a significant influence on leadership style. There's been a wealth of research studying the influence of personality on leadership style already, and the implications are interesting. Socionics should have at least some overlap with other theories and models of personality that have been studied in these research designs, if Socionics deals at all with personality. I'll find you some research papers if you really want me to, but don't have me go out of my way to do so if I'm just going to be wasting my time.

A person's leadership style - what they do as a leader, what their aims are, and how they go about doing it - is a rather significant and multi-faceted aspect of a person's life (assuming they're in a position of observable leadership). And yields a great deal of Socionics-relevant information about them. Socionics gives us an idea of how different types socially interact, and leadership is very much a social operation.

Find me and link me the papers.

Of course it's not unreasonable. You're missing something so completely obvious though. And that is, despite a similar leadership style (I'm taking your word on this, I don't know if it's true, I doubt your claim is based on anything) these two people had completely and utterly different personalities.

Try this thought experiment: Suppose I like to ejaculate sperm the same amount of times a day as Freddy Kruger. That doesn't make us the same type. You see the problem with your methods?

Quote

So? It's obvious that the goals and ambitions of people of the same Sociotype can have a lot of variance, why are you even bothering to say this? For instance, some ESTps end up as movie actors, some end up as computer technicians, some end up as military leaders, and some end up as janitors. And I'm sure they have many different reasons/motives for doing so. What is your point?

That is my point dipshit, and I wouldn't have to make it if you weren't so thick. It proves wrong the very rigid impression you've had all this time of SLEs.

Quote

I was being obviously sarcastic when I listed those people. The thought of dee or Kamangir, etc. being friends with Stalin was making me laugh pretty hard.

Not that I don't think there's truth in my sarcasm. I realize Khruschev is not any of those people. I also realize he's not an ISFp.

Then you realize incorrectly.

Quote

You have no idea. You're presenting hypothetical speculations that are contingent on far too many "ifs" to ever be anything remotely observable. Give me some facts, descriptions, testimonies - give me something we can call evidence. I'm not asking for anything academically rigorous here, but I can't give much weight to baseless meandering either.

This entire conversation is based on your faulty assumptions. I am merely deconstructing them.

Quote

You don't know that and there's no way you could possibly know that. Can you read my mind and empirically observe my psyche in action as I perceive, contemplate, and make decisions? No, you can't. You're just making fallacious ad hominem arguments. Next.

Yeah, it is an ad-hominem attack and you if you can't handle it then GTFO. Seriously though, I've seen this attitude from you before to know what kind of bigoted scumbag you are, and I don't need access to your private unconscious domain to know this.

Quote

The Russian Socionists define Benefit relations specifically as this?:

"If Khrushchev was transmitting requests to Stalin then Stalin would have felt unconsciously ompelled to carry them out for his own personal betterment. It's also not that hard for an SEI to tone down the amount of requests he has to make to appease someone with lots of power. But here's definitely something that would have really jerked Stalin in the right way about Khrushchev -- a benefactor doing his bidding."

This hypothetical, non-evidenced example is what I was calling speculative. Why? Because you can't possibly know what Stalin "felt unconsciously." Or that Khruschev deliberately "toned down the amount of requests he made" to appease Stalin. This is just speculative, unsubstantiable noise, nothing more.

Um what?? Relations are an attempt to model how people interact. If benefit is defined as request transmission, then toning down one's requests is a very reasonable assumption to getting along with a person that doesn't want to perform them. Of course it's possible that Stalin had a hard-on for requests, but we make the assumption that he wouldn't enjoy being overburdened despite wanting to be around the benefactor - like a normal person with power, but never forgetting the alternative. Obviously a lot of alt. psychology plays into this shit. By your logic, absolutely no investigations into historical psychology can be attempted.

Quote

I didn't say only. But it is a familiar role they play, yes. Read more history.

That goes double for you bub.

Quote

Well, if I could actually get some well-reasoned analysis out of you, with some sort of evidence that isn't just your own personal, convoluted hypotheses - then we'd have something to agree upon.

My logic is pure so fuck off.

Quote

My mistake. I meant to say Supervision, but was too used to thinking the word "Benefit" in my mind since we'd been discussing Stalin-Khruschev (as a hypothetical ISFp).

And yes, it's well known that Supervisees are usually intimidated by their Supervisors. Why is exactly why I remarked that it's odd you said Khruschev felt "stalled and beaten" from his meeting with Kennedy. It's unlikely, IMO, that a Supervisor would feel that way towards a hypothetical Supervisee.

Funny how after you slander not knowing what goes in someone's unconscious mind, you use the exact same type of analysis. But anyway, you'd have to explain this. I don't think that's a correct interpretation of supervision.

Quote

Still, considering all the factors at stake in the interactions between Khruschev and Kennedy (national leaders of adversarial Cold War superpowers armed to teeth with ICBMs and all) - I think trying to dote on this one example as you are, as if it's some kind of singular proof that Khruschev supervised Kennedy - is not a good argument. A more full and cohesive picture of their interactions across time and in other situations, ought to be developed in order to attain any reasonable certainty about the true nature of their intertype relations.

This is true and I don't dispute it.

Quote

Is there a video of that meeting between Kennedy and Khrushchev anywhere that can be watched, so that the body language can actually be observed?

I don't know and I don't go for VI anyway.

Quote

Doubt it.

Fuck you.

Quote

No.

Yes.

Quote

Maybe. I thought the autobiographical commentary Khrushchev made about Kennedy, shed interesting light on his personal perception of Kennedy - which obviously read like he had a rather positive admiration of him. I've certainly never had that kind of sentiment towards any INFps. Not saying it would be totally impossible, just seems extremely unlikely as it has not happened yet and I've known quite a few INFps.

Maybe you need to get out more and meet more people.

Quote

I agree that Harris is an ISTj.

Yeah.

[Capitalist Pig]

So ENFjs are the dictatorial figureheads (the star of the show), and ESTps are their Porky Pig sidekicks (e.g., Mussolini to Hitler, Churchill to Roosevelt)?

[Gilly]

Megan Fox:

[Gilly]

Capitalist Pig, on 24 February 2009 - 01:01 PM, said:

So ENFjs are the dictatorial figureheads (the star of the show), and ESTps are their Porky Pig sidekicks (e.g., Mussolini to Hitler, Churchill to Roosevelt)?

Sort of, but SLEs are the ones who really run shit usually, like Goering to Hitler.

Speaking of which....

Herman Goering

[Airborne]

If Goering and Hitler weren't Betas, we'd be much better off now, nazis would've won the war with a less radical ideology.
BTW another very stupid SLE Nazi was Sepp Dietrich, who from Hitler's driver became the leader of SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler which later engaged in western front as Waffen-SS division. The guy was completely DUMB.

Attached Files

•  Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J06632,_Sepp_Dietrich.jpg   48.22K   0 downloads