Quantcast
Channel: World Socionics
Viewing all 137 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Socionics Relations #2: The 'Meh' Ones

November 13, 2015, 7:18 am
$
0
0
In Socionics, each type is thought to have a certain, set relation to each other type, resulting in 16 separate relations and 136 possible pairings to be had between people of specific types.

Previously, I focused on the relationships that take place within the same Quadra. In this article, I will focus on the four relationships that are not as nice, but also are not too bad. These are the 'Meh' relations that people aren't crazy about, but don't really mind either. Such relations always take place between adjacent Quadras, where some values are shared and other values are not, leading to a partial mismatch.

As before, there are two value dichotomies:
  1. Uniting together under shared structures vs. staying independent with individuals we trust. 
  2. Accepting and exploring reality vs. rejecting and fighting to change reality.
Each of these 'Meh' relationships are going to share one of the above, but not share the other. Consequently, the relationships have a level of misunderstanding, but also a level of familiarity. They simply are middle of the road.

Kindred
In this relation, the two types share the same energy levels, but only half the values and half the strengths. Specifically, they share the same Accepting functions (those which come first and set one's needs). As such, Kindred tend to be very similar in their basic assumptions about what they want, usually agreeing on fundamental things and enjoying each other's similar attitudes. Kindred are can come across as similarly minded in a conversation about the things they find important, and will often follow a similar sort of pattern in life, primarily aiming for the same things. This means that friendships of this relation can start quickly and be maintained reasonably well. However, Kindred do not share the same Producing functions (those which come second and are utilised to fulfil one's needs). On the contrary, the means by which each member of the Kindred relation goes about meeting their own needs can be alien and off-putting to the other. In this way, there can be misgivings between these types, with them feeling that the other person is like them when discussing motivations, yet noticing that they regularly go about ways of achieving these same needs in a 'wrong' or unseemly way. Furthermore, any criticisms they may make of these methods will be rejected by the person as unimportant. However, because Kindred are otherwise rather similar types, they do not tend to expect help from each other, and so are less likely to be personally let down by the other person's approach. The Kindred relations are: ILE-IEE, SEI-SLI, ESE-EIE, LII-LSI, SLE-SEE, IEI-ILI, LIE-LSE and ESI-EII.

Semi-Duality
For this relation, the two types contrast in their energy levels, with one being the proactive Energiser while the other is the reactive Integrator. In this way, Semi-Duals tend to complement each other. Specifically, they complement each other in terms of valuing the same Accepting functions, while being strong in these areas of need where the other is weak, and as such, can provide mutual help and assistance in satisfying needs and motivations. They can be of great mutual benefit, providing what the other Semi-Dual needs, and vice versa. In this way, Semi-Duals are very much like Duals. However, Semi-Duals are the opposite regarding their Producing functions, which differ in their values, but are the same in their strengths. For this reason, Semi-Duals do not go about satisfying each-other's needs in a manner that is comfortable for each other, providing what they need but not in the way that they especially like. This is most apparent in the area of each type's aspirations and conceits. Rather than mutually humouring each other, Semi-Duals will be unresponsive, not going along with supporting the areas the other wants to lead but needs help in. Instead, they will only focus on taking on the other's primary need. For this reason, Semi-Duality is a relation of mutual fulfillment of the necessities, but also a mutual awkwardness that does not easily go away. The Semi-Duality relations are: ILE-SLI, SEI-IEE, ESE-LSI, LII-EIE, SLE-ILI, IEI-SEE, LIE-EII and ESI-LSE.

Look-Alike
This relation is very similar to Kindred. Once again, the two types share the same energy levels, but only half the values and half the strengths. However, they instead share the same Producing functions (those which come second and are utilised to fulfil one's needs). As such, Look-Alikes tend to be very similar in their how they go about getting the things they want, usually coming across to others as very similar in their manner, essentially 'looking alike'. Look-Alikes tend to possess a similar manner or humour, and will often aspire to play a similar role in a conversation. As such, these types tend to find each other non-threatening and tend to maintain a form of healthy respect. However, Look-Alikes do not share the same Accepting functions (those which come first and set one's needs). On the contrary, when these two types are actually questioned on their motivations and the reasons for why they do what they do, the fundamental differences in how they view the world become apparent. In this way, Look-Alikes tend to be on good terms with each other, but are less likely to feel a connection on a closer basis, their basic assumptions opposing despite outwardly acting similarly. A useful aspect of this relation is that Look-Alikes willingly take charge of the unwanted societal roles the other usually has to do. In this sense, a partnership may develop of mutual delegation, that makes this a more helpful than enriching relation. The Look-Alike relations are: ILE-SLE, SEI-IEI, ESE-LSE, LII-EII, EIE-LIE, LSI-ESI, SEE-IEE and ILI-SLI.

Illusion
This relation is very similar to Semi-Duality. Once again, the two types contrast in their energy levels, with one being the proactive Energiser while the other is the reactive Integrator, leading to a kind of complementary relationship. However, they instead complement each other in terms of valuing the same Producing functions, being strong in areas of application where the other is weak, and as such, can soften and smooth each other's rough edges, mutually humouring areas of aspiration and covering up unvalued weaknesses. They can be very comfortable relations to maintain, making each Illusionary feel at ease without awkwardness. In this way, Illusionaries are very much like Duals. However, Illusionaries are the opposite regarding their Accepting functions, which differ in their values, but are the same in their strengths. For this reason, Illusionaries may be comfortable with each other, but do not mutually provide what is actually needed, leading to a lack of satisfaction overall. It is 'illusionary' in nature because each Illusionary is the Look-Alike of the other's Dual and so appears to be doing the right job while actually doing nothing of the kind. Over time, Illusionaries may feel that their seemingly good relationship is failing to hit the spot, and they may try to satisfy their needs from other sources. For this reason, Illusion is a relation of complacent comfort, but an ongoing lack of fulfilment. The Semi-Duality relations are: ILE-IEI, SEI-SLE, ESE-EII, LII-LSE, EIE-ESI, LSI-LIE, SEE-SLI and ILI-IEE.
↧
Search

Socionics Relations #3: The 'Rocky' Ones

December 12, 2015, 5:38 pm
$
0
0
In Socionics, each type is thought to have a certain, set relation to each other type, resulting in 16 separate relations and 136 possible pairings to be had between people of specific types.

Previously, I focused on the symmetric relationships that take place between people of the same quadras, and then those between people of adjacent quadras. In this article, I will focus on the four relationships that tend to be quite 'rocky', with people often greatly misunderstanding each other and failing to reconcile their contrary world views, which can often lead to mutual bemusement and argument. Such relations take place between types of opposing quadras, where no values are shared, leading to a full mismatch. 

As discussed in previous articles of the Socionics Relations series, there are two value dichotomies:
  1. Uniting together under shared structures vs. staying independent with individuals we trust. 
  2. Accepting and exploring reality vs. rejecting and fighting to change reality.
All of the 'rocky' relationships are going to share none of the above, resulting in a complete clash of values. Consequently, types in these relations find each other to have backward and counter-intuitive approaches to a range of problems, and may have great difficulty cooperating closely on a task. This is not to say that people in these relations cannot get along, with there being examples of agreement on matters not directly related to type. Nevertheless, close interaction over such agreement, can often lead to disagreement over the deeper reasons for such agreements.

Quasi-Identity
In this relation, the two types share exactly the same strengths and weaknesses, as well as similar energy levels. As such, they can be confused for being very similar types, having a similar affinity in certain areas of work and interest, and can often be found in comparable careers. Furthermore, their matching strengths means that they can inhabit very similar environments without feeling overloaded or outmatched. However, despite their external similarity, quasi-identicals are very different internally. Because they come from opposing quadras, quasi-identicals view the same matters with contrasting preferences, and may find themselves in great disagreement over issues that they consider to be straightforward. Because quasi-identicals resemble each other and show up in similar areas, there may be a form of rivalry between them, with each feeling that the other is backward in the way they view things, yet somehow performing as well as they are, as a kind of living parody. However, these differences are most apparent when these types are working out how to handle a task together. Often in casual social interaction, quasi-identicals can get on well. Due to their similar strengths, these types do not find each other threatening, and may be quite at ease in the same company. As such, there may be some cordiality between them, provided they are able to respect each other's differences and not be required to cooperate on something important to them. The quasi-identical relations are: ILE-LIE, SEI-ESI, ESE-SEE, LII-ILI, EIE-IEE, LSI-SLI, SLE-LSE and IEI-EII.


Extinguishment
For this relation, the two types once again have similar strengths and weaknesses, but have contrasting energy levels. As such, there is less of a rivalry that exists between extinguishors than with quasi-identicals, but there is instead a sort of mutual subversion and sabotage that exists between these types. Due to their energy levels being what would normally complement, these types often act on and react to each other's behaviours, with the energiser seeking to make things happen and the integrator seeking to tie up loose ends. However, due to their completely different values, the effect is usually unappreciated by each side and rebuffed. One might instigate a new project, thinking they will be supported in the venture, only for the other to criticise the project. Alternatively, one may expect the other to act in a certain way, only for them to go off in a completely different direction. As such, it is often the case that extinguishers continually surprise each other, doing something they expect the other will not mind, only for it to be received or reacted to poorly. It is not surprising, therefore, that these types may sometimes think the other is out to undermine them. Most often, this is not actually the case, with extinguishers simply thinking they could support or lead each other's initiatives, before finding out later they had completely different ideas in mind as to what this would entail. For this reason, extinguishment is often thought to be the most baffling relation. The extinguishing relations are: ILE-ILI, SEI-SEE, ESE-ESI, LII-LIE, EIE-EII, LSI-LSE, SLE-SLI and IEI-IEE.

Super-Ego
In this relation, the two types share the same energy levels, but have contrasting strengths and weaknesses. As such, activators tend to take on similar sorts of roles, albeit in largely different areas of life. As such, they are less likely to run into each other in their careers. However, in a social environment, activators are able to quickly notice each other, including their various apparent differences. It will be quite clear to super-egos that they are rather different people, with different priorities in life. However, their energy levels will not particularly conflict and they will not so quickly conflict. Instead, there may be a period of mutual curiosity where they try to find out more about each other, and their strange way of viewing the world. As they get to know each other more, this may become disinterest or even antagonism, as the natural approach of one is seen by the other as something they usually are required to do by others, but are reluctant to do, and vice versa. As such, super-egos serve as a mirror of society's expectations that each type will begrudgingly need to slightly emulate to be successful. Super-egos may clash considerably when they encounter an area of disagreement, and may show each other up through their weak points. Despite such antagonism, super-egos are able to compromise and cooperate if necessary, and can produce a working relationship, all things considered. The super-ego relations are: ILE-SEE, SEI-ILI, ESE-LIE, LII-ESI, EIE-LSE, LSI-EII. SLE-IEE and IEI-SLI.

Conflict
For this relation, the two types are opposite in their strengths and weaknesses and their energy levels do not match, but work against each other when combined with their opposing values. Out of all the relations covered, these are the most dissimilar, sharing nothing in common. The great difference between these two types is often instantly noticeable, and conflictors will quickly observe this, seeing the other person as strange and off-putting. As such, conflictors tend to keep their distance from each other. In a way, this is a very helpful mechanism, as it means that conflictors rarely opt to spend time around each other and so are actually rare to get into major disputes of their own accord. However, in some instances, conflictors cannot avoid each other, perhaps due to family or work. In these situations, conflictors may find much stress in balancing their very different ways of viewing the world. Usually, they will become increasingly frustrated over their conflictor's perceived lack of regard for the areas they think are most important, and vice versa, leading to mutual animosity and no understanding. Furthermore, the difference in strengths and weaknesses allows them to attack each other's weaker points, leading to mutual pain and suffering mental health. Conflict may only be dispersed in such situations by conflictors learning to tolerate each other, building up a lifetime of understanding and being made aware that their differences are natural, rather than a result of extreme wrong-headedness. However, to truly stop aggravating each other requires each conflictor to compromise on expectations they may feel are fundamental; not an easy task. The conflicting relations are: ILE-ESI, SEI-LIE, ESE-ILI, LII-SEE, EIE-SLI, LSI-IEE, SLE-EII and IEI-LSE.
↧
↧

Socionics Relations #4: The 'Wonky' Ones

January 15, 2016, 9:56 pm
$
0
0
In Socionics, each type is thought to have a certain, set relation to each other type, resulting in 16 separate relations and 136 possible pairings to be had between people of specific types.

In the previous three articles on Socionics & Relations, we covered relations that were 'symmetric' in nature. This means that the relation was shared in the same way between both parties, each having the same attitude towards the other. In this fourth instalment, we look instead at the asymmetric, 'wonky' relations. These are where there is an element of imbalance, or something is unrequited. Frequently, participants in 'wonky' relations will relate to each other in different ways. Consequently, any difficulty in these relationships is one-sided, rather than felt mutually.

Unlike with symmetric relations, the interaction that one type has with another in 'wonky' relations is not returned in kind. Instead, the interaction is passed on to another, third type. From there, it is passed onto a fourth, and so on, until it reaches the type we started with. Consequently, 'wonky' relations are not represented in terms of a closed relationship between two types, but is instead a ring of four types. There are two main kinds of asymmetric relation, with their being four rings of four types for each.

Because of the 'wonky' relations existing in a ring, we must also consider the direction it is turning in. We can go round in a clockwise direction, with the relation being seen as active or superior: one type doing something to the other. Alternatively, we can go anti-clockwise, with the relation becoming passive or inferior type's: one type having something done to it. For this reason, we could say that there are two different relations happening at once. Two kinds of asymmetric relation exist each in two directions, making four.


Supervision

Supervision is the more simple of the 'wonky' relations. Most crudely, it can be described as similar to conflict, only that one side doesn't fight back. This is correct, in so far as supervision depends on the interaction between the Leading function of one type and the Vulnerable type of the other. In addition, these types are often of opposite temperaments, leading to very different levels of energy. However, the lack of mutuality makes this more complicated than conflict.  As mentioned before, each asymmetric relation exists in two parts. For this reason, we can divide supervision into an active and passive form, one type being the Supervisor, while the other type is the Supervisee.

The Supervisor forms the active half of supervision. Utilising the Leading function, Supervisors supervise with the areas they possess confidence, capability and certainty. Consequently, they are always on the stronger side of the relation and are the ones to decide the terms of what is right and wrong in it. However, their judgement of the relation can easily make them dissatisfied, seeing the Supervisee as having something fundamentally wrong with them, while at the same time, seemingly unwilling to improve themselves in the area of importance. Supervisors may often hang around out of benign concern for their Supervisees, although just as often, they might react with mild incredulity to the Supervisee's ineptness. Nevertheless, their adaptive Creative function will match the strong Leading function of the Supervisee, causing them to understand what their Supervisee is about and pity them more often than having disdain. Should they stay closer for longer, the supervisor will usually have to lapse their standards for the Supervisee and expect less of them, or continue to 'help' with increasing frustration from both sides.

The Supervisee forms the passive half of Supervision. Utilising the 'blind spot' Vulnerable function, Supervisees are left open to the criticisms of their Supervisors. Being naturally unable to adjust to, improve on, or even appreciate the area being supervised, the Supervisee may feel like a dunce around their Supervisor, not understanding why a fuss is being made over them, but getting the impression that they are perpetually on the verge of doing something wrong. To many, this may be an irritating drag that they will have to put up with or walk away from. To others, the constant disapproval from the Supervisor can make them feel unappreciated and unvalued. Furthermore, Supervisees may feel helpless in that they are unable to find fault with their Supervisors, as the Leading function of the former matches up with the flexible and capable Creative function of the latter.

The four rings of Supervision are as follows:

  1. ...-> ILE -> LSI -> SEE -> EII -> ILE...
  2. ...-> SEI -> EIE -> ILI -> LSE -> SEI...
  3. ...-> ESE -> SLI -> LIE -> IEI -> ESE...
  4. ...-> LII -> IEE -> ESI -> SLE -> LII...


Benefit


Between this and Supervision, Benefit is the more complicated 'wonky' relation of the two, and by far more complicated than any other in the Socion. It is perhaps most externally similar to a half-way Activity relation, with there being a partial similarity of values, and a partial difference in abilities, while possessing a similar competing energy. However, the asymmetry of this relation can quickly change such tendencies. Once again, the benefit relation can be divided into two parts, with the active, superior type in the relation being known as the Benefactor, while the passive, inferior type in the relation being known as the Beneficiary.

The Benefactor forms the active half of Benefit. In this case, the Benefactor usually begins by seeing the Beneficiary as someone quite familiar and similar to them. The Benefactor's strong Leading function will match with the Beneficiary's equally strong Demonstrative function, meaning that superficially, they will seem  to the Benefactor to be doing similar things, despite having very different reasons for doing so. Soon, the Benefactor will realise that their Beneficiary is actually a very needy person, and will ask or expect much assistance from the Benefactor's capable and flexible Creative function. However, much demand on this function can feel like a burden to the Benefactor, who is not accustomed to applying their Creative function in this proactive way, and would much rather do so with their dominant, Leading function. At the same time, the Benefactor will feel increasing sense of injustice with the relationship, as they find the Beneficiary completely unwilling to satisfy their needs in return. The Benefactor's needy Suggestive function goes neglected by the Beneficiary's 'blind spot' Vulnerable function, resulting in what feels like an unfair, one-sided relationship. This can worsen with the Benefactor becoming accustomed to being selfless and doting on their Beneficiary, or otherwise, breaking off the relation indignantly and leaving a highly dependent Beneficiary.

The Beneficiary forms the passive half of Benefit. Often the first impression Beneficiary has of the Benefactor is that they are slightly buffoonish, with the Beneficiary's strong and dominant Leading function finding the stubborn and overconfident Mobilising function of the Benefactor to be both silly and non-threatening. However, after spending time with their Benefactor, they will notice a subtler quality to them attracts deeper interest. The Suggestive function of the Beneficiary, needing a lot of care, becomes attracted to the flexible Creative function of the Benefactor, which at first is happy to oblige and help out. Despite this, the Suggestive function of the Beneficiary is never really satisfied, as the Creative function is too innocuous and flexible to give them the strong support they need. Furthermore, the little help given is often smothered in a dominant Leading function that feels wrong-headed and backward to the Beneficiary's Demonstrative function, making it very hard to satisfy the Suggestive function. This may cause the Beneficiary to ask for more and more help, becoming increasingly dependent, while the Benefactor becomes increasingly tired of providing what they need. Alternatively, all the Beneficiary needs is to see their Suggestive function met more effectively by someone else, and, feeling satisfied elsewhere, can break off the relation quite suddenly, leaving the Benefactor reeling at the waste of their effort.

The four rings of Benefit are as follows:




  1. ...-> ILE -> EIE -> SEE -> LSE -> ILE...
  2. ...-> SEI -> LSI -> ILI -> EII -> SEI...
  3. ...-> ESE -> IEE -> LIE -> SLE -> ESE...
  4. ...-> LII -> SLI -> ESI -> IEI -> LII...

This concludes the Socionics & Relations series.
↧

Christopher Hitchens (ESI) - An Analysis

February 5, 2016, 2:29 am
$
0
0
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens was noted for his intellectual scepticism. He made forthright and harsh critiques and had a very independent approach, not quite belonging in any camp but focusing much on his own views and tearing down populist, but inaccurate beliefs with the more negative facts of the case. This sort of approach is a strong indicator of Gamma values.

However, while even MBTI would note this independent, intellectual and sceptical nature of Hitchens (he's commonly typed INTJ), it is apparent that his focus in this field was not Intuitive-Logical, i.e. abstract and systematic issues, but Sensory-Ethical i.e. politics, personal issues and people.

It has been argued that as an intellectual he must have been Intuitive (and Logical). This is incorrect. He did indeed convey his visceral disgust in an intellectual setting, but this is not the same as intellectualising moral arguments. For someone who intellectualises moral arguments, I would contrast with Sam Harris (LIE), who takes matters to a general philosophical issue, rather than Hitchens' relatively concrete emphasis on what person X did and how depraved they are internally.

Although supported by facts that he had read, Hitchens regularly drew attention to the personal aspects of the topic being discussed. He was a writer of polemics, wilfully attacking individuals in his critiques that were abhorrent to his sensibilities and who had done things that were damaging to people. He focused on Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger for instance. In each case, he drew attention to their failings as people and the critical sentiment he felt towards them. As such, although intelligent/intellectual, he was particularly conscience and principle-driven. Harsh judgement (R+F) was, I think, the most apparent theme in his intellectual work.

In general, Hitchens would talk about whatever he felt was wrong to him (R), and declare with conviction (F2) what made it unethical. There was less of the focus on trends and past experience to create a picture of bad outcomes from stupid decisions, but much more the act itself (F) as part of a deficient moral character (R). This is why, in politics, his work focused on individuals and their wrongdoing itself e.g. greed, hypocrisy, etc. rather than that something was stupid/wrongheaded (P) because of what it will lead to (T). He emphasised the question "is he really a good person?" and proceeds to show what was done that actually was quite bad of them. In comparison, David Starkey (ILI) focuses more on the long term stupidity of our actions i.e. based on how similar decisions have gone badly in the past, this new decision is very stupid. Starkey emphasises these trends and outcomes (T), showing whether our chosen strategy will work well or not (P). This is not to say that neither will attempt the other's approach at times, but that each other's alternative approach is not preferred.

In addition, Hitchens, although confrontational, was able to manage the level of confrontation rather expertly. He would calmly air his disgust and create the right level of distance to his opponent. In comparison, Starkey is unabashed in his derision of stupidity, suddenly and rudely railing against people who have said something without having thought it through properly. In this regard, Hitchens utilised R+F with far greater nuance, being civil and frank until he met someone deserving of a ruthless dressing down, where an angry Starkey can be treated as having acted unfairly harsh, open to critique by others for his rude (E4), but unmeasured and thus unconvincing attack.

These qualities, I think, make ESI the most likely typing for Hitchens.


Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqjfGFHes0w - Clever Comebacks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lw3B8vjIC0 - Polemic against Henry Kissinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4 - Polemic against Mother Teresa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1D6Tfpo1RQ - David Starkey
↧

David Bowie (EIE) - An Analysis

February 5, 2016, 2:44 am
$
0
0
David Bowie
David Bowie was an English singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, painter, and actor. His career spanned five decades and his work especially known for its innovative design, as well as reoccurring themes of reinvention and visual representation. He had a great impact on popular music, continuously changing and redefining his style and image over the years, thus standing out for his originality. These changes were often so apparent and variant, that he has been called a 'musical chameleon'.

Interviews with David Bowie reveal a highly creative individual, but one that needed and thrived on the presence of conflict and turbulence in order to create. Bowie mentions his past of deliberately creating conflicts in the people around him, often to the negligence of their state of mind. From then, Bowie learned to observe the conflict in others and to draw inspiration from that. This is quite in line with someone from an E& F valuing quadra, which desires intensity of feeling and action in their work. In addition the ability and willingness to manipulate emotion in friends suggests a focus on and ability with E with little concern for R.

Bowie's motivations for going into music have also been expressed, with him being drawn to music as a 'revolution' of sorts. This shows from the beginning how he saw music as a medium to effect change, and that he was not so interested in the melodies in the music to begin with. We see in this, someone very much driven, not by their personal satisfaction or enjoyment of music, but by the effect that creativity can have on others and that great change can be enacted through such creativity. Similar themes exist in his discussion of other topics such as the internet. Bowie excitedly discussed the "feeling permeating music... and the internet", that something amazing would happen in "the construction between artist and audience", how the audience is becoming more important than the artist him/herself. His excitement about this lacked much cohesion, and he seemed much more able to convey how great such changes are, than define its make-up in any concrete terms. This approach shows clear Beta values, specifically towards profound, world-changing emotions (E+T) with an absence of clarity or definition, suggesting weak L.

An impression is also given of a highly addictive, chaotic man, who needed clear rules of abstention to avoid going off the deep end. Having suffered from alcoholism, he cited an absolute rule that he must never have alcohol again or it would have been the death of him. This was a man who had trouble monitoring his appetites and needed the help of his friends and strong boundaries to keep himself in check. In this regard, we see not only a great incontinence with S, but also a dependence on L to provide a stability he has difficulty providing for himself. This is quite in line with S4 and L5.

Additionally, Bowie drew on a wide range of influences in the creation of his music, and was an active instigator of a range of new, avante-garde ideas in the medium, as well as in other media, such as film and art. This is quite in line with someone who could expertly process the many possibilities open to them and utilise interesting and alternative avenues in their work, typical of very strong I. Given the clear Beta motivations, this fits very well for I8.

We thus see someone very typical of Beta revolutionary values with an Ego focus on E+T and likely S4 and L5. Finally, Bowie first emphasises the connection with the audience, effecting world change largely through how his artwork affects them, and second, emphasises himself being the active initiator of world-change, suggests E& F as Bold motivators. The relative absence of analytical prediction or setting out clearly how things will develop in the long term suggests that T& L are more Cautiously used. The long term revolution for Bowie seemed entirely to do with how he reached out to his audience and it seems completely unclear as to the motivation or ideology behind this change. This would strongly point to E1+T2 and F6+L5 for his valued functions.

One might argue that David Bowie's initial nervousness on stage, leading to his creation of the Ziggy Stardust persona, suggests a more 'Introverted' type. However, this is a misconception, as one's shyness has little to do with one's energy and whether they tend to Energise the environment and cause things to happen or Integrate and make it fit with one's needs and standards. It seems clear in that Bowie is the former. Furthermore, an EIE may often worry over how they might come across in a particular situation, disliking elements outside their control undermining the projects they are working on. Their F6 is Bold enough to get them into high pressure scenarios, but Weak enough to leave them feeling paralysed and needing support in unfamiliar situations. As such, it is not unusual for David to be an Energiser in Socionics and have hidden behind a persona when performing.

As such, the identification of E1, T2, S4, L5, F6 and I8 make EIE the most likely type for Bowie.


Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie - Wikipedia Article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiK7s_0tGsg - Interview
↧
↧

Augustus (LIE) - An Analysis

February 20, 2016, 10:33 am
$
0
0
Augustus Caesar was a visionary Emperor of Rome who helped expand the Roman Empire to unprecedented size. His action-orientated rule lead to great structural growth within the Roman Empire and his political dealings lead to a 200 year Pax Romana (Roman Peace) Golden Age.

Augustus abhorred inefficiency and put in place mass projects to improve the Roman Empire infrastructure. Augustus put it best in a famous quote: “I found Rome bricks and left it Marble.” Augustus had a very clear vision for the Roman Empire and had the drive and organizational skills to implement his ideas. From what conclusions that I have drawn from these observations point to the formulation of Augustus having P1, applying his knowledge towards practical projects and utilizing this prospect in a very effective manner. Additionally, Augustus was very concerned with the idea efficiency and optimization of Rome upon it's founding. 

His ability to gather information and see things from a global perspective allowed him to make strategic decisions that laid out the foundation for prosperity and peace. This was never more apparent than when Augustus Caesar declined to take on the dictatorship like his adoptive father Julius Caesar, even when the populace cried out for him to do so. His ability to remain independent and trust his own perception of the situation allowed him to come to a politically strategic stance in order to avoid a fate similar to Julius Caesar’s. These are very P and F themes, with a much greater range of confidence in P and T. F is more restrained with Augustus, his decision making often has a strong connection towards future development or T. From the aforementioned observations, I find T2 to be a likely for Augustus, because this would accurately describe Augustus's periodically detached contemplation about realistic future developments. It is clear that Augustus was primarily more concerned with big-picture thinking and long-term strategies as an Emperor. 

Augustus' behavior can best be summarized as very confident, calm and decisive. He also found it quite difficult to engage in social conversations and instead chose channel his creativity and insight into plans, opinions, and decisions, which they then communicate unmistakably. This contrast of public image versus internal preference is perfectly illustrated at the end of Augustus’s life when he famously states (on his deathbed): “Have I played the part well? Then applaud as I exit.” I believe this illustrates devalued E, perhaps in the case of E3 rather than being entirely neglectful of this type of information compared to E4. I think it is clear that Augustus was capable of adapting himself to the social atmosphere, however he was normally described as respectful and polite towards the interlocutor, yet he was emotionally unengaging.

He was also described as: "unusually handsome and exceedingly graceful at all periods of his life, though he cared nothing for personal adornment. He was so far from being particular about the dressing of his hair, that he would have several barbers working in a hurry at the same time, and as for his beard he now had it clipped and now shaved, while at the very same time he would either be reading or writing something." This illustrates devalued S4 as a "blind spot" for Augustus, being continuously ignored in favor for productive activity. 


It is also clear that Augustus' valued R, particularly this can be illustrated in specific qualities that he possessed. During Augustus' reign as emperor, he was drawn towards selecting a number of close acquaintances that he completely trusted. This sort of carefulness and uncertainty in selecting friendships with  individuals that Augustus trusted suggests R5, pertaining towards difficulty in augmenting the current state of affairs with the individuals around him. However, Augustus severely punished individuals, that regardless of closeness were seen to betray him. Evidently, what was previously mentioned and in context of this piece of information would make more sense for Augustus to have F6. He desired autonomy and control over his environment, but naturally being more cerebral in his leadership and having some degree of restraint in exercising his willpower. However, it should be noted that his past persona was of that of a mild and benevolent figure in his youth as a ruthless Octavian.


From what I've listed above already is consistent with P1, T2, E3, S4, R5 and F6. Consequently, I think that Augustus is a very good representative of the LIE type of information metabolism.


Sources: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hou9gFdbUnY - The Roman Empire 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm-Cboilbp0&spfreload=10 - The Hero of Rome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaCbHw-ZbZQ - Biography

Written by Anonymous: http://socionicsdatabase.blogspot.com/2016/02/augustus-caesar.html
↧

Immanuel Kant (LII) - An Analysis

February 28, 2016, 1:54 pm
$
0
0
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher whose comprehensive and systematic work in epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics greatly influenced all subsequent philosophy, especially the various schools of Kantianism and idealism.

He was born in 1724 in the Baltic city of Königsberg, which at that time was part of Prussia, and now belongs to Russia (renamed Kaliningrad). Kant’s parents were very modest; his father was a saddle maker. Kant never had much money – which he dealt with cheerfully by living very modestly. It wasn’t until he was in his fifties that he became a fully salaried professor and attained a moderate degree of prosperity. His family were deeply religious and very strict. Later in life, Kant did not have any conventional religious belief, but he was acutely aware of how much religion had contributed to his parents’ ability to cope with all the hardships of their existence – and how useful religion could be in fostering social cohesion and community.

This pervasive interest in social cohesion and universal inclusiveness never left Kant's mind and it persisted with him for many years. He was interested in religion from a very empirical perspective, how easily people were motivated and driven by faith and how preaching one's beliefs immediately maximized a group's identity. From this I believe Kant was L and E valuing. Kant was described as physically "very slight, frail and anything but good looking" Though he was very sociable and some of his colleagues used to criticise him for going to too many parties. When eventually, once he was able to entertain, he had rules about conversation. At the start of a dinner party, he decreed that people should swap stories about what had been happening recently. Then there should be a major phase of reflective discourse, in which those present attempted to clarify an important topic; and finally there should be a closing period of hilarity so that everyone left in a good mood. The following that I have mentioned about Kant best reflects how much he valued E. I believe that having E in the Super-Id block makes far more sense for Kant, as he found initial conversation difficult and needed someone to "spark" the emotional atmosphere. Consequently, E5 over E6 makes far more sense for Kant, as he did not actively try to act silly or nonsensical in order to satisfy his need to be emotionally uplifted, but rather set the rules and guidelines for a light-hearted discussion and appreciated the results. I would say this is very consistent with L1 and E5.

Kant was writing at a highly interesting period in history we now know as The Enlightenment. In an essay called What is Enlightenment (published in 1784), Kant proposed that the identifying feature of his age was its growing secularism. Intellectually, Kant welcomed the declining belief in Christianity, but in a practical sense, he was also alarmed by it. He was a pessimist about human character and believed that we are by nature intensely prone to corruption. It was this awareness that led him to what would be his life’s project: the desire to replace religious authority with the authority of reason; that is, human intelligence. I think it is clear that Kant does not appeal to personal obligations and bides to the enlightening forefront of reason itself. Kant approaches ethics very cautiously and writes about it exclusively from an objective rather from a subjective point of view. Additionally, Kant was pervasively polite with the individuals he met and was never known to be an assertive or domineering character. He understood the need to form pleasant relationships with other individuals and didn't mind spending time with the individuals he trusted, though never seemed to be harsh or aggressive with other people.

As a result, Kant still critiques through judgement of impersonal logic, rather than his deeply felt personal opinions about other people. As a result, this believes me to suggest that Kant had R3 and F4. Immanuel Kant believed that truth is the highest pinnacle of understanding and that the impersonal logical structure of crafting functional systems of rational thought was the best method towards investigating truth. One of Kant's famous works was the The Categorical Imperative, designed to shift our perspective: to get us to see our own behaviour in less immediately personal terms and thereby recognise some of its limitations. Interestingly enough, when Kant wrote the categorical imperative, he reduced all immoralities to contradictions in the ethical system he created. As most famously quoted: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Thus far what has been mentioned about Kant clearly points towards L1, R3, F4 and E5. In conclusion, I believe Kant is a very good representative of the LII type of information metabolism.
↧

Shorthand Notation for Model A

March 3, 2016, 5:37 am
$
0
0
It can be time-consuming when writing Socionics articles and saying "Leading Extroverted Ethics" every single time. For this reason, I have put together a shorthand system, as used by members of World Socionics Society.


Semantics

 Information Metabolism (IM) Elements (abbreviations by Augustinavičiūtė and popularised by Gulenko)
  • Extroverted Intuition = "Intueor" or "Ideas" = I
  • Introverted Intuition = "Tempus" or "Time" = T
  • Extroverted Sensation = "Factor" or "Force" = F
  • Introverted Sensation = "Sensus" or "Senses" = S
  • Extroverted Ethics = "Emoveo" or "Emotions" = E
  • Introverted Ethics = "Relatio" or "Relations" = R
  • Extroverted Logic = "Profiteor" or "Pragmatism" = P
  • Introverted Logic = "Lex" or "Laws" = L
Functions of Model A
  • Leading Function = 1
  • Creative Function = 2
  • Role Function = 3
  • Vulnerable Function (PoLR) = 4
  • Suggestive Function (DS) = 5
  • Mobilising Function (HA) = 6
  • Ignoring Function = 7
  • Demonstrative Function = 8

Syntax
  • An IM Element, x in a Function, y of Model A is represented in Shorthand Notation thus: xy
  • A series of Shorthand Notations can be represented thus: xy, xy, xy....

Examples
  • Introverted Logic in the Mobilising Function would be represented as L6.
  • Extroverted Intuition in the Creative Function would be represented as I2.
  • The complete Model A for an ILE would be I1, L2, F3, R4, S5, E6, T7, P8.
↧
Search

Mahatma Gandhi (IEI) - An Analysis

March 14, 2016, 5:05 pm
$
0
0
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, later known by the honorific 'Mahatma', led the movement for independence under British-controlled India of the early 20th century. Initially trained as a lawyer, he became involved in political demonstrations while expatriate in South Africa with the local Indian community there. Over time he became known as the 'father' of the Indian nation. He was most known for his consistent approach of non-violent civil disobedience.

There has been some debate over Gandhi's type. Many paint him as a gentle, highly conscience-driven man with his pacifism being interpreted as a sign he could not value F. However, I would offer an alternative opinion: Although Gandhi's principle of non-violence was of not physically hurting people, it was not a principle that prevented him from changing the world aggressively by any other means available to him. Gandhi believed that the occupation of India needed to be confronted and changed by radical means. Not only this, but he tried actively to be an enabler of such confrontation and impact on the world with his ideologies. He just happened to have been influenced by Eastern philosophies, so that he believed in not doing so via bloodshed. In this regard, his way of viewing the world was still much in line with F& T valuers. The absence of physical force is trivial compared to his world-confronting and world-changing world-view, which is often seen in the F-valuing Beta quadra.

Gandhi was a visionary nationalist who sought to bring about great change in India, possessing a great ideological mission. Throughout his life, he rejected the comforts and conveniences of the day to day, so that someday his mission could be achieved, wearing simple spun-clothes, and putting himself in painful or dangerous situations, or going on hunger strikes. This is very consistent with someone who focused primarily on T, with a rejection of S. Indeed, this would fit T1 and S3 rather well.

A quote from Gandhi : "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Gandhi believed this act of "collective suicide", in response to the Holocaust, "would have been heroism". What we see here is someone who very much saw the world in terms of the battling of forces against each other. However, he believed that the right way to manage this force was to bend to the butcher's knife, to submit to violence so that it would inspire thousands of others to act. Rather than someone who saw no value in authority, hierarchy, systems of power (F+L) etc., he saw it as crucial to bring about world change, by submitting to it. This fits very well with F5.

As for claims that morality led his actions, I would say that Gandhi was not someone who made decisions as to what was 'right' and 'wrong' based on personal conscience. His choices give little sign of someone who personally feels that something is bad or good. On the contrary, Gandhi was largely driven by religious, spiritual and political principles or ideologies that would remain a consistent, objective guide for him, rather than personal attitudes of morality. For instance, his pacifism was largely due to the influences of Jainism and the ideological preaching of Tolstoy. His desire for rebellion against British occupation came purely from an Indian nationalism, rather than a general dislike of coercion. This was clear, given his support of the British subjugation of the Zulus. In addition, he was obsessed with religious ideals of purity. For example, he would personally challenge himself to be more 'pure' by sleeping in the same bed as young girls and demonstrating that he could resist having sex with them. Also, his principles could be firm and unbending, when he allowed his wife to die of illness by forbidding that she be allowed to have penicillin, as it was against his principles. This shows a very clear reliance on the structure and ideology of L, rather than the more situational and personalised sentimental judgements of R. This makes it quite clear that Gandhi was a Beta type, valuing L alongside T.

At the same time Gandhi was clearly very capable of judging the mood of the people, and timing his actions perfectly to create a great, populist reaction that defied all common sense. Why would so many people go nuts over some salt? In going on the famous Dandi Salt March, Gandhi had the perfect balance of an illegal, but seemingly innocuous activity (collecting seawater to make salt), while presenting the act as a sort of religious pilgrimage that the British knew they would look bad to stop, all the while, securing as much media coverage as could be accomplished back then and managing to win over more and more people with each village he visited on the way. The subtle success of this March in rallying Indian people behind him, while not immediately angering the British and provoking their reaction, clearly shows someone who understood the mood of the people and how to manage it, albeit subtly. This is the hallmark of E2. At the same time, his firmness of L easily fits the weaker, but more overt L6. He may have followed principles zealously, but he did not show the same nuance in managing systems and frameworks that he did in managing the spirit of the people.

Gandhi knew that he commanded the love and admiration of many thousands of Indians, and he used this like a weapon. When he wanted something, he would go on a hunger strike, knowing that his opponents would bend under the desperation of his followers to keep him alive. This is once again, very much in line with valued F, but one that only surfaces through use of stronger T1& E2, therefore F5 (and throughout a complete rejection of P4& S3, he had no interest in daily conveniences, comforts or practicalities, and was more self-sacrificing than self-sufficient). This, combined with a rigid L6, makes IEI the most reasonable typing for Gandhi.
↧
↧

The IM Elements - Part 1: Perceptions

March 16, 2016, 11:12 am
$
0
0
The 8 Information Metabolism Elements, often shortened to 'IM' Elements or even 'IMEs', are the building blocks of the Socionics theory. They represent the processes by which a person approaches one of the 8 'Aspects'of reality, presented as information from the external world, as well as our internal thoughts and feelings, before metabolising it into our cognitions and behaviours, essentially personality.

In this Two-Part series, I will go over comprehensive definitions of these IM Elements, covering 1) the Aspect of information, i.e. the kind of information we interact with; 2) the process by which we metabolise this information into the output of our personality; 3) a description of how a 'Strong', capable usage of this IM Element manifests; and 4) a description of how one would 'Value' this IM Element, appreciating its presence and use.

IM Elements can be most broadly split into Perceptions (i.e. what X is/could be) and Judgements (i.e. how X ought to/should be). For Part 1, I will cover the 4 kinds of Perception, while looking at Judgements in Part 2.


Pre-amble (skip to the 'Descriptions of the 4 Perceptions' if you want a quicker introduction)

Perceptions can either be BOTH External (i.e. objective and explicit) and Involved (i.e. experienced vivaciously) OR BOTH Internal (i.e. subjective and implicit) and Detached (i.e. experienced without feeling). The former is known as Sensation, while the latter is known as Intuition.

Sensation and Intuition can each be further divided into two kinds based on attitude and approach to that sort of Perception. One could take take a Energising perspective, accumulating more and more perceptions expansively. This is done to perceptions in a Static manner, jumping from one thing to the next in a stop/start motion.

Alternatively, one could take an Integrating perspective, filtering out unwanted perceptions to leave those that are of the most desired or best quality. This is done to perceptions in a Dynamic manner, continuously refining and adapting the perception to be at its best.

This allows us to formulate 4 varieties of perception:

  • First, when applying an Energising & Static approach to Sensation, we get Force (F).
  • Applying an Integrating & Dynamic approach to Sensation gives us Senses (S). 
  • Similarly, applying an Energising & Static approach to Intuition gives us Ideas (I). 
  • Finally, applying an Integrating & Dynamic approach to Intuition results in Time (T).
These are the 4 Perceptions.


Descriptions of the 4 Perceptions


1. Force (F):

Aspect: Physical extension. By existing and thus taking up space, something physical necessarily pushes other objects out of their place. Two things cannot occupy the same space at once, and necessarily compete for that space, with those possessing greater density tending to win.

Metabolism: The individual engages in direct competition with other people and forces in their life, pushing against reality with one's will to win it over, claiming the spoils of the conflict and thus increasing power. It requires perception of what things are, the amount of power or resources people have, whether they are a threat to your standing, or you could be a threat to them. It also requires the person wilfully taking the initiative to challenge the other person and to exert one's available resources in order to win.

Strength: The person is good at perceiving the power and resources of themselves and the people in their immediate environment, knowing where to challenge and where to not challenge. They know from this the strengths to utilise and the weaknesses to exploit. They also know how much they must exert of themselves in order to succeed, controlling their actions, resources and surrounding space to their advantage. Consequently they are good at acting capably in the present and usually make things happen there and then the way they want.

Value: The person desires impact to be made on their surroundings in a real, confrontational sense. When something is wanted or needed, it needs to be taken decisively. Anything unwanted needs to be fought against and beaten. You decide, you act, there's no going back. The harshness of life is accepted and the person sees the forces of the world as things to be helped or actively resisted with contrary force. Actions and decisions are made with recognition of these forces, and how it is important to navigate them, steering clear or befriending the strong, while defending, ignoring or exploiting the weak.


2. Senses (S):

Aspect: Physical flow. Physical objects bear a relation to each other in terms of occupying a physical environment. This environment is where things happen, flowing from one state to another in the present moment. The flow is best in quality when smooth and allowed to happen naturally, removing blockages and sudden interruptions that feel painful or grind the gears.

Metabolism: The individual attunes themselves to the flow of events in the present moment, feeling the surroundings in detail with their five senses and helping to maintain its smooth, organic and healthy quality. Anything painful or unpleasant that causes stress or damage to the flow is brushed away, with the intention that things are allowed to happen in the way that is most natural and feels good for them. In this way, the present flow is refined in its feel and quality, creating relaxing, immersed experience of the day-to-day.

Strength: The person is good at noticing and recognising small changes and alterations to the flow of physical experience, being able to pick out each detail contributing to and hindering it, while understanding what needs to go to restore quality. They know from looking at things in the moment, that they are all right and good, not needing any intervention, and that they can simply relax, allowing things to continue. Consequently, the person knows how to savour and enjoy their experiences, without doing anything.

Value: The person desires flow in their present experience, trying to keep the sensations that feel best for them. They want things to be pleasant and unabrasive, for people to be allowed to do what they will and for past wrongs to be forgiven if no longer causing pain, and for their actions to be in peace and harmony with the life around them. The person tries not to disrupt things that are happening naturally, preferring to go with the flow and enjoy what happens. Similarly, they may withdraw from environments where they feel there is too much disruption to the flow.


3. Ideas (I): 

 Aspect: Imagined Possibilities: A possibility is an instance or scenario which has yet to be experienced, but which could happen under the right conditions. These can be events, or alternative explanations, ideas or opinions. Another angle to those already on offer. The range of possibilities available can often be huge, and can bring great intellectual, spiritual and material rewards if considered, but not if they are missed out on, or never thought of.

Metabolism: The individual keeps themselves open to a range of alternative possibilities to those currently being worked on, seeing what could happen and being able to switch to something else if things happening now no longer seem ideal or of interest. Any position has one or more alternative positions and the individual may hold all as potential places to move to depending on the circumstances. In this way, the person's intentions remain flexible, adapting to multiple circumstances.

Strength: The person possesses a good awareness of the different possibilities and alternatives available to them, seeing the potential in each, and is able to readily adapt to unexpected and unlikely changes without great disturbance. Their lives show breadth and variety. They are able to draw from a wide range of different interests and can bolster their activities with creative insight, trying out unconventional and untried ideas that grant an original edge or stand out from others for their novelty.

Value: The person desires a broadening of their horizons and the possibilities open to them, wanting the potential freedom to do whatever they feel like doing, and not wanting to miss out if they change their mind. They like open-mindedness, being willing to consider alternatives to their opinion and not rejecting things in case they might be wrong. They will be willing to try things out, see how things go, and be curious about the variety that life has to offer. Such people want to accept things, giving them a second chance, readily exploring and appreciating the unexpected.


4.Time (T):

Aspect: Visualised Trends: Events occur and reoccur throughout time in certain patterns or trends which can be noticed and picked out via abstraction and reflection. The strength of these trends point to eventual outcomes that are of greater salience and meaning than the noise of many other situations, and can be picked out as consequences to reach towards or to avoid.

Metabolism: The individual carefully reflects on past events, considering what has happened before and noticing salient trends. Mentally following the path of these trends, they visualise outcomes that are likely to happen and what would ensure or offset routes toward these outcomes. Picking out particular outcomes of importance limits the range of possible instances to those that are probably going to happen, allowing one to plan a path to follow in the long-term.

Strength: The person possesses a capacity for deep thought and reflection on the meaning behind mundane events. With great insight, they can think ahead and predict what will likely come to pass from daily actions, understanding from little concrete data the consequences of what we do. They will have a good idea of how to avoid probable future mishaps, while also being confident in where their life is heading and how to align their actions with a particular path or plan of importance.

Value: The person wishes to narrow the scope of possibilities in their lives to the few most important, wanting to form a clear path to follow in life with an outcome meaningful to them. They will want to carefully make decisions on their future, not wishing to turn back from the plan they have committed to. Distractions will be cut out, the daily lifestyle being pruned to fall in line with the path without distraction. They will also recognise the importance of the past, remembering previous instances to inform future actions.


Extra observations

One can be strong at both F & S, OR at both I & T. The former would make someone a 'Sensory'type, the latter, an 'Intuitive' type.

However, when it comes to valuing information, one can value F& T together OR S& I together. The former would be a type with 'World-Rejecting'values, while the latter would be a type with 'World-Accepting' values.
↧

Philip Zimbardo (EIE) - An Analysis

March 18, 2016, 5:26 pm
$
0
0

Philip Zimbardo is a psychologist, most famous for the Stanford Prison Experiment which sought to understand institutional influences on individuals, the creation and maintenance of psychological power (independent of recourse to any material weapons), and the extent of human sadism if left unconstrained. These are largely E& F themes.

It could be argued that Zimbardo's attempt to understand de-individuation via obedience to authority leaves open the possibility of Delta Humanitarian. However, the following almost entirely removes that option:

Zimbardo was notably blind to the negative impact of his experimentation on his human participants. Several of the participants had nervous breakdowns. Many of his colleagues tried to tell him that the trauma on the participants was too great and deeply questioned the ethics of the experiment. Zimbardo always responded that the use to society in understanding this phenomenon was far greater. That is a typical Beta"vision" in which the impact on individuals in the here and now (R& S) is ignored in favor of what is perceived as a broad-sweeping future good (E+T).

This leaves IEI and EIE as options. His obsessive focus on the experiment (he barely slept during the week-long period) and perseverance in gathering data, as well as his inclination to steam-roll dissenting opinions, is much more consistent with EIE (F6, P3).

Zimbardo only stopped the experiment after his girlfriend threatened to leave him. The study had far-reaching impact in many ways, not least in that it led to the creation of "ethical review boards" to which psychologists must submit their experimental protocol for review so as to ensure no harm to their participants.


Sources

The Stanford Prison Experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb4Q20z0T1Q
↧

Hayao Miyazaki (EII) - An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 8:13 am
$
0
0
Hayao Miyazaki is a Japanese film director, animator, manga artist, illustrator, producer, and screenwriter. Through a career that has spanned five decades, Miyazaki has attained international acclaim as a masterful storyteller and as a maker of anime feature films and, along with Isao Takahata, co-founded Studio Ghibli, a film and animation studio. He is considered one of the most popular and influential animators in cinema.

Miyazaki’s works are characterized by the recurrence of progressive themes, such as environmentalism, pacifism, feminism, and the absence of villains. His films are also frequently concerned with childhood transition and a marked preoccupation with flight. Miyazaki’s narratives are notable for not pitting a hero against an unsympathetic antagonist. In Spirited Away, Miyazaki states “the heroine is thrown into a place where the good and bad dwell together. She manages not because she has destroyed the ‘evil’, but because she has acquired the ability to survive.” Even though Miyazaki sometimes feels pessimistic about the world, he prefers to show children a positive world view instead, and rejects simplistic stereotypes of good and evil. This philosophy of searching for multiplicity to resolve humanitarian issues is very R+I, however I believe that it is clear that Miyazaki emphasizes R more so than I. Thus, I2 is better fit for Miyazaki.

Miyazaki’s films often emphasize environmentalism and the Earth’s fragility. In an interview with The New Yorker, Margaret Talbot stated that Miyazaki believes much of modern culture is “thin and shallow and fake”, and he “not entirely jokingly” looked forward to “a time when Tokyo is submerged by the ocean and the NTV tower becomes an island, when the human population plummets and there are no more high-rises.” Growing up in the Shōwa period was an unhappy time for him because “nature – the mountains and rivers – was being destroyed in the name of economic progress.” Miyazaki is critical of capitalism, globalization, and their impacts on modern life. Commenting on the 1954 'Animal Farm animated film, he has said that “exploitation is not only found in communism, capitalism is a system just like that. I believe a company is common property of the people that work there. But that is a socialistic idea.” Nonetheless, he suggests that adults should not“impose their vision of the world on children.” This is a very F and E devaluing philosophy, projected to the audience to reflect Miyazaki's frequent use of R.

Nausicaä, Princess Mononoke and Howl’s Moving Castle feature anti-war themes. In 2003, when Spirited Away won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, Miyazaki did not attend the awards show personally. He later explained that it was because he “didn’t want to visit a country that was bombing Iraq“. Hayao Miyazaki frequently makes evaluations based on good character and rejects the idea of even visiting a country that completely rejects the humanitarian values that Miyazaki wanted to teach in the first place. This solidifies the idea of Miyazaki having R1 and F4.


Miyazaki has been called a feminist by Studio Ghibli President Toshio Suzuki, in reference to his attitude to female workers. This is evident in the all-female factories of 'Porco Rosso' and 'Princess Mononoke', as well as the matriarchal bath-house of 'Spirited Away'. Many of Miyazaki’s films are populated by strong female protagonists that go against gender roles common in Japanese animation and fiction. There's also a common theme of self-reliance in his films, in which the protagonist starts off avoiding responsibilities, but over time begins to learn to manage things themselves without depending on others to do basic chores. This is a good indication of P+S values in the films that Hayao creates, as a reflection of what he wants to better inform the audience about. 

"When I have the time, I like to go up to a cabin I have in the mountains. Sometimes friends will come by to visit me, but I also like to spend time alone. It reinvigorates me, hiking those mountain trails. After working on a film, it usually takes half a year for me to recover my mental and physical balance. I have to set aside time to recuperate. I guess when you add it all up, I'm not really working that many hours." I believe this indicates, at the very least valued S and increased attention towards adapting oneself to their external environment, instead of the converse which is an F thing to do. This is most likely a preference of S6 over F4.

Hayao Miyazaki actively attempts to make each scene in the movie count as a symbol of his internal feelings. This frequent evaluation and deep connection to one's personal feelings about something indicates heavily emphasized and valued R. "But there are two scenes in Spirited Away that could be considered symbolic for the film. One is the first scene in the back of the car, where she is really a vulnerable little girl, and the other is the final scene, where she's full of life and has faced the whole world. Those are two portraits of Chihiro which show the development of her character." Additionally, Hayao Miyazaki continues to describe himself as a very internal person and poor at expressing himself around others. This would perhaps solidify the idea of R1 and E7. "I was a shy boy who was not very good at expressing himself." I also think this quote also expresses his indifference towards E and preference towards R in general."Entertaining a group of people is no better or worse than entertaining just one person and making that individual happy."

"Logic is using the front part of the brain, that's all. But you can't make a film with logic. Or if you look at it differently, everybody can make a film with logic. But my way is to not use logic. I try to dig deep into the well of my subconscious. At a certain moment in that process, the lid is opened and very different ideas and visions are liberated. With those I can start making a film. But maybe it's better that you don't open that lid completely, because if you release your subconscious it becomes really hard to live a social or family life." I also think is is clear that Hayao Miyazaki expresses his ardent dislike of E and F, disregarding the idea of imposing ideological beliefs and visions projected unto others. He shares his humanitarian insight of different societies and proposes the ideal good faith judgement and refrains from casting down upon others with harsh judgement. "I don't believe that adults should impose their vision of the world on children, children are very much capable of forming their own visions. There's no need to force our own visions onto them.""Pigs are creatures which might be loved, but they are never respected. They're synonymous with greed and debauchery. The word "pig" itself is used as an insult. I'm not an agnostic or anything, but I don't like a society that parades its righteousness."

The following that was mentioned about Miyazaki so far clearly illustrates R1, I2, F4, S6 and E7. Consequently, I think that Hayao Miyazaki is a very clear representative of an EII.

To learn more about the EII, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/eii-ethical-intuitive-integrator.html
↧

Walt Disney (ESE) - An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:38 pm
$
0
0
Walter Elias Disney was a cartoonist, animator, film producer, and entrepreneur. He was a pioneer in sound animated films, feature-length animated films (he was the creator of the very first, 'Snow White'), and wildlife documentaries. He was the first to think of the now common concept of a 'theme park' and the first movie studio boss to understand that television could be used to promote feature films rather than just compete with them. He can be considered the inventor of the modern multimedia corporation. His impact on US and world pop culture was immense, with his characters Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck being recognized virtually in the entire planet.

Walt Disney came from a family of modest background and he was largely self-taught in drawing, starting with cartoons for local newspapers and then discovering the field of animated short films. Certain traits were already visible in Disney's career from the start and they remained consistent to the very end: a fascination and enthusiasm for innovative concepts; a greater skill in spotting and developing those rather than as a hands-on artist (he stopped drawing, himself, at a rather early stage); varying the intensity of his personal involvement in specific projects according to how enthusiastic he himself was about them; and genuinely placing more value on realizing his projects according to how he wanted them than to their perceived profitability; he took huge financial risks and they didn't always pay off.

Throughout his career, Walt Disney worked together with his brother Roy, who was responsible for managing the studio, and then the corporation, on the business side. Walt always retained ultimate control on the creative and artistic side. That often led to conflict and resentment between the two brothers: Walt acknowledged his own inability to run a business profitably but disliked that he had to ask his brother for cash; Roy disliked that Walt saw him as just having to finance his pet projects while of course accepting that Walt's creative genius was what kept the company going. In the end they always understood that they needed each other.

The above already suggests that Walt Disney was of a type with low focus on P but probably not P4. His enthusiasm for new an innovative projects - which he then later often got relatively bored with - suggest considerable focus on I. He could spend huge energy and enthusiasm on a new technology or concept or TV series but then lose interest and focus on other new ideas, even if the previous idea remained successful (typical example: the hugely successful TV series 'Zorro', to which he devoted all his energies during the first season but then all but neglected during the second).

A similar pattern was seen in his approach to short animated films, feature length animated films, and then live animated films: he would be enthusiastic about them in the beginning, while he felt personally interested, but once they became 'routine', or just a form to generate income, he lost interest (although always maintaining script control). However, to the end of his life, he could suddenly involve himself deeply again in projects that interested him personally, like "Mary Poppins". Less well-known is his later-life fascination with miniature (but large enough to ride on) rail-roads.

The above traits already suggest a person of the Alpha quadra, combining E and I as values and little focus on P. Further Alpha characteristics are seen in his completely genuine devotion to movies and parks focused on creating a feel-good E+S atmosphere based on childhood themes of anthropomorphized animals, idyllic small towns and countryside, and happy endings. He himself said that what he aimed at was recreating his own (idealized) memories of his childhood in a farm near Marceline, Missouri, not for children but for everyone as he felt all would relate to such memories.

His most personal creation was Disneyland, which recreated a childhood utopian version of Marceline in its Main Street, from which you could choose to explore different "lands" in a safe, orderly, pretty and impeccably clean environment whose 'nuts and bolts' workings were hidden from sight: Disneyland can be seen as a concretization of the Alpha values of E, S and I, while "hiding"P. This may seem commonplace now but it was totally novel and unique when Disney first conceived of it. Disneyland remained Walt's own "perfect world" and he liked to spend weekends and evenings in his own private apartment there (second floor of the the Main Street Fire Station).

Interestingly, and consistent with the above mentioned trait, he showed no interest at all in the Florida version of Disneyland, the 'Magic Kingdom' in Disney World; his real interest there was in (the original concept of) EPCOT, which he saw as a real, functioning, experimental 'perfect city' in terms of orderliness and organization - the combined Alpha values of S and L.

As a person, according to those who worked closely with him, Walt was indeed largely the benevolent 'Uncle Walt' of his public image but also unpredictable in his moods (Donald Duck's personality was a caricature of Walt's); his nephew Roy said that 40 people who knew Walt slightly would give 40 different versions of what he was like. At the same time, he was obviously a charming person when he wanted to and was actually able to act out the expressions of his animated characters when telling the animators what he wanted. All of this suggests a person high in E, probably as an E1 or E2.

On the other hand, Walt Disney had an authoritarian, controlling streak which, combined with his moodiness, made his staff often terrified of him. This got worse at the studio after an animators' strike in 1941 where he felt betrayed; before that he was more like a benevolent yet paternalistic figure who wanted to treat his employees like a family (as long as it was clear that he was in charge). Walt's easy slip into authoritarianism in a way that could intimidate others, especially when taken by negative emotions, point to a rather strong F, consistent with F8.

What we have is a person of clear Alpha values with E and I the most visible ones; with a grudging recognition of the need to pay attention to P and with occasionally very visible F; with no visible L in terms of L+T ideology or vision but with a need for L+S order in his environment.

Everything fits ESE best as Walt Disney's type.

Recommended reading and sources: I have relied on Neal Gabler's 2007 biography, "Walt Disney". The entry in Wikipedia provides a list of useful links.

To learn more about the ESE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ese-ethical-sensory-energiser.html
↧
↧

Commodus (EIE) - An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:41 pm
$
0
0
We have information on the 18th Roman Emperor, Commodus, from the writings of ancient historians (one of whom, Cassius Dio, was a Senator and knew Commodus personally) and from extensive archaelogical evidence.

Commodus became sole emperor on the the death of his father, Marcus Aurelius, in 180 CE, at the age of 19. At least nominally he had already been co-emperor for a few years.

For the previous 40 years, the emperors, although in reality absolute monarchs, had behaved as aristocratic yet approachable rulers of impeccable personal morals, in a sort of Victorian fashion, while assuming the role of commander-in-chief when necessary and spending much time on actual administration.

Commodus changed radically the public and private role of the emperor, in ways that were unprecedented and completely baffled contemporaries. They were not a response to circumstances since his "innovations" were almost all reversed after his death. So they must be attributed to his personal psychology alone (no modern historian disputes this - the only discussion is on what was he thinking).

Commodus changed the role of the emperor in the following way, gradually:
  • withdrew from active personal involvement on actual governing, relying on appointed favorites, while retaining authority by sacking and/or executing them whenever he felt they might be a threat to his own position
  • radically changed the public image of the emperor: he started presenting himself as the living incarnation of Hercules, appearing in Hercules's lion skin in statues and coins, and even personally (all of which was totally unprecedented) and calling himself Hercules, also in coins
  • a superb athlete, he started appearing in the Colosseum killing (from a safe position) animals with javelins, arrows, etc, showing off his skills
  • Cassius Dio reports: "And here is another thing that he did to us senators which gave us every reason to look for our death. Having killed an ostrich and cut off his head, he came up to where we were sitting, holding the head in his left hand and in his right hand raising aloft his bloody sword; and though he spoke not a word, yet he wagged his head with a grin, indicating that he would treat us in the same way. And many would indeed have perished by the sword on the spot, for laughing at him (for it was laughter rather than indignation that overcame us), if I had not chewed some laurel leaves, which I got from my garland, myself, and persuaded the others who were sitting near me to do the same, so that in the steady movement of our jaws we might conceal the fact that we were laughing." 
  • also according to Dio (and confirmed by inscriptions): "whatever honours they had been wont to vote to his father out of affection they were now compelled out of fear and by direct command to assign also to the son. He actually ordered that Rome itself should be called Commodiana, the legions Commodian, and the day on which these measures were voted Commodiana. Upon himself he bestowed, in addition to a great many other names, that of Hercules. Rome he styled the "Immortal, Fortunate Colony of the Whole Earth"; for he wished it to be regarded as a settlement of his own. In his honour a gold statue was erected of a thousand pounds weight, representing him together with a bull and a cow. Finally, all the months were named after him, so that they were enumerated as follows: Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, Pius,Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius. For he himself assumed these several titles at different times, but "Amazonius" and "Exsuperatorius" he applied constantly to himself, to indicate that in every respect he surpassed absolutely all mankind superlatively; so superlatively mad had the abandoned wretch become. And to the senate he would send messages couched in these terms: "The Emperor Caesar Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Augustus Pius Felix Sarmaticus Germanicus Maximus Britannicus, Pacifier of the Whole Earth, Invincible, the Roman Hercules, Pontifex Maximus, Holder of the Tribunician Authority for the eighteenth time, Imperator for the eighth time, Consul for the seventh time, Father of his Country, to consuls, praetors, tribunes, and the fortunate Commodian senate, Greeting." Vast numbers of statues were erected representing him in the garb of Hercules. And it was voted that his age should be named the "Golden Age," and that this should be recorded in all the records without exception."
  • also without precedent: he changed the millennial slogan, SPQR, 'The Senate and the People of Rome', to PSQR, 'The People and the Senate of Rome'
Obviously Dio and others just thought Commodus was nuts. But from the point of view of Socionics:

Clearly one of his goals was to constantly remind the Senate, and those serving him, who was boss. He did that not only through actual use of power but also through public humiliation and self-promotion. That puts him firmly in a F quadra.

He also put huge focus in a total revamping of the emperor's image, as the incarnation of Hercules (the personification of F, by the way) not only by his own performances, but also through coins and inscriptions (the social media of the time). That, and actions such as his theatrical intimidation of the Senators, point to E, and E blocked with F.

That puts Commodus squarely in the Beta quadra. His overall theme of totally restructuring the concept of the emperorship is also a Beta theme.

Since his most visible actions were related to E and F, with some T symbolism, besides his active behavior, EIE and SLE are more likely than LSI or IEI. But it was noted that Commodus, although indeed a strong man and superb athlete, was more into staged performances than actual competitive use of F. The Senators who laughed at him - who had seen war themselves - obviously saw his actual personal F as silly, while fearing the F of his position.

All of that points to EIE as Commodus's type, with SLE possible but less likely.

Recommended reading and sources: the main primary sources on Commodus, the histories of Cassius Dio and Herodian, and the "Historia Augusta", can be found online. The recent book by John S. McHugh, "The Emperor Commodus: God and Gladiator", is very useful for its careful compilation of the available evidence, also archaeological. However, he bends over backwards to present Commodus in the best possible light. By contrast, Anthony Birley's "Septimius Severus: the African Emperor" includes a section on Commodus that is more mainstream. As with most other subjects, Wikipedia provides a decent summary as well as a list of useful links.

To learn more about EIE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/eie-ethical-intuitive-energiser.html
↧

Adolf Hitler (EIE): An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:43 pm
$
0
0
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-German politician who became at first chancellor (i.e. prime minister) of Germany through legal means, then became dictator of Germany as its 'Führer' (leader). He can be considered the individual chiefly responsible for the Second World War and the Holocaust.

Hitler's political career took off when he started participating in political debates in the Munich beer halls in the early days of the post-WWI period. At first he did so as a spy for the German army, but he soon developed a taste, and displayed talent, for intense political debates and speeches. That remained his essential strength as a politician, which led him to quickly become the leader of the tiny DAP party, precursor to the Nazi party.

The success of Hitler's speeches was based on focusing on a few simple points that many people believed in but few were saying openly (as Carl Jung observed at the time), with very little actual content but delivered in an atmosphere of highly energetic emotionality, enhanced by both his oral delivery and his gestures. That remained to the end his chief strength: that, and his use of symbols of powerful emotional impact on the public of the time: the swastika, Wagner, and planned, huge theatrical rallies, etc.

The power of his rhetorical skills, even improvised, was crucial during his trial in 1923 after his failed putsch attempt: he basically got the judge enough on his side to avoid deportation to Austria and even a harsh prison sentence.

Hitler also easily shifted between personalities according to his audience: in private, he could speak reasonably in a calm tone of voice (as demonstrated by a Finnish secret recording of 1942) and behave as a considerate boss to his secretaries and chosen favorites (like Albert Speer), as well as come across to other politicians as a reasonable man who wasn't as extreme as he sounded in public (hence his success in becoming Chancellor still in the Weimar Republic).

All of the above suggests a man natural in E, with huge confidence in it, certainly as a quadra value and probably as E1 or E2.

In the intense political atmosphere of the Weimar Republic, Hitler quickly adopted gangster tactics, surrounding himself by thugs such as Ernst Röhm and the SA. Although, at this time, as a former soldier, able to threaten others with a gun, he clearly did not see personal intimidation by willpower as his chief strength. Further, his 1923 attempt at a coup in Munich failed by poor organization and a huge miscalculation of his forces against those of the State of Bavaria. It was after that failed coup that he abandoned politics by violent revolution and focused on making speeches.

Even when already in power, but before WWII, Hitler repeatedly failed to intimidate or even impress major politicians in one-to-one meetings, like former US president Herbert Hoover, Francisco Franco, and even Mussolini (SLE) (who was impressed by German power, not by Hitler). Hitler himself admitted to having been fully unable to bully Franco and dreaded ever having to negotiate with him again.

All of that suggests a man who values F, would like to be better at it, but ultimately fails and prefers to use it indirectly, through others. Also, the men Hitler liked to have around him were either supposedly tough, like Röhm and later Göring, or with some claim of being cerebral, like Speer and Goebbels. This again suggests F as quadra value.

It is difficult to pin down Hitler's true ideology precisely, not only because he lied shamelessly about everything, but possibly because he himself wasn't fully sure. The constant feature is a clear belief in the value of strength and contempt for weakness. This again points to F as quadra value, and along with the previous paragraph, to L, although L as a weak function.

Hitler thought frequently about grandiose visions for the future victorious Germany, especially his rebuilding of Berlin with huge monuments. In order to test whether Berlin's ground was suitable for that, German engineers built a gigantic concrete cylinder to simulate the pressure on the ground (the cylinder still exists, the 'Schwerbelastungskörper'). Although the technical conclusion was that building gigantic structures there wasn't a good idea, Hitler decided to go ahead anyway. The same applies to his interventions in government and war, a man more in touch with his visions than with hard reality.

It is useful to compare Hitler with the other powerful dictator of the time, Stalin (LSI). Stalin rose to power as a shadowy bureaucrat, and as dictator remained a super-bureaucrat with full personal control of the government at all levels. Hitler rose through his rhetorical skills and even as dictator never really exercised full personal control of the government, preferring to express his wishes and let others carry it out somehow.

Finally, in the 'Table Talks', written down from dinner conversations, Hitler easily digresses on his views on history, religion, human nature, etc., but surprisingly not in a one-track way, which is consistent with I8.

All of the above points strongly to a person of the Beta quadra, with E far stronger than F, yet also inclined to use F himself but not so well; also with L varying from uncertain to fanatically certain, and with a focus on T visions and symbolism, as well as, for a Beta, considerable focus on I.

That is all consistent with E1, T2, P3, L5, F6 and I8. That is, an EIE.

To learn more about EIE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/eie-ethical-intuitive-energiser.html
↧
Search

John F. Kennedy (EIE) - An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:44 pm
$
0
0
The 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy is mainly remembered today (apart from his tragic death) for his unparalleled rhetorical skills and his charismatic personality. He probably embodies the image of the perfect president in the sense of an attractive, youthful yet tough, charming yet serious-minded man who was also an author of history books.

By all accounts, including his own, throughout his life he always found it natural and easy to charm those around him with his personality; his personal magnetism was extraordinary. This served him very well as a politician, especially when giving speeches and talking to the press.

His most memorable speeches as president combined the themes of a "twilight time" of threat from global communism and loss of will in the US with the optimistic vision that those were all challenges that could be faced. Interestingly, what people tend to remember from those speeches tends to be very different from their actual content, which tended to be hawkish in the context of the Cold War.

In that same context, Kennedy understood the power of an inspiring vision as a way to demonstrate strength and mobilise support - that was the fundamental thinking behind his launching of the Apollo project.

All of the above show a focus on, and comfort in, E with elements of F and T.

Although keen on projecting strength at global scale, Kennedy could be thrown off-balance, even intimidated, when facing at close range a ruthless adversary, as with Nikita Khrushchev in a Vienna meeting. That meeting left Kennedy shaken, and Khrushchev convinced that he could be bullied. This is consistent with F as a quadra value but not as ego function. Kennedy liked to appear strong but sheer pressure of will wasn't his main strength (F5 or F6).

Kennedy also went through great lengths to project the image of a strong, fit and healthy man. Yet, as is now known, he suffered from Addison's disease and of near-constant back pain, which he either ignored or neutralized with shots of painkillers and stimulants, despite their negative long-term effect on his health ("I don't care if it's horse's piss, it's the only thing that works"). This inclination to overrule his physical comfort and health in favour of his goals and image points to very low focus on S.

All of the above points to the Beta values of E, F, T, and subdued S.

As a politician, Kennedy wasn't known for clear ideologies or consistent visions, so a focus on L is not clear. On the other hand, he liked to surround himself with intellectuals or otherwise cerebral people, like Theodore Sorensen and Robert McNamara - he called the former his "intellectual blood bank". This points to L5.

So, a man with clear Beta values where the strongest are E, F, and T, with very low regard for S and with seeming L5. Everything points to EIE.

To learn more about EIE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/eie-ethical-intuitive-energiser.html
↧

Cenk Uygur (SLE): An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:47 pm
$
0
0
Cenk Kadir Uygur is the co-founder and lead host of the Youtube political commentary show 'The Young Turks', versions of which also appeared on TV channels at some point.

Uygur's shows alternate between fairly straightforward and factual discussions of current events (especially in the case of war or terrorism incidents) to highly opinionated analyses of the US political scene, to occasional comments on less-serious news (such as viral videos) to the "Final Judgment", where he lays down his (supposedly irrevocable) conclusions on a given subject.

Uygur shares the program with co-hosts who clearly share his core political, social and religious (i.e. atheist) views, debate or "dissent" mostly occurring around secondary points, and the shared assumptions serve as basis for jokes and indignation in an atmosphere of collective emotionality, in which he actively participates. That puts Uygur, who obviously sets the tone, squarely in a Merry quadra, that is, Alpha or Beta, with E and L as quadra values, probably with E stronger than E5.

Cenk himself is very comfortable digressing at length on when and how force and aggression should or not be used, both at individual and national level. That, and his obvious personal dominance of the others, strongly point to F as quadra value, i.e. to the Beta quadra, and as something that he feels very confident in, likely F1. Yet, Cenk's inclination to return to straightforward factual analyses (especially on his own) suggest P as comfortable for a Beta, as in P8.

Cenk Uygur's quadra values and visible functional ordering all point to SLE as his type.

Sources: this analysis was based exclusively on direct observations of his show, "The  Young Turks".

To learn more about SLE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/sle-sensory-logical-energiser.html
↧
↧

Marlon Brando (SLE): An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:48 pm
$
0
0
Marlon Brando, Jr. is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century, even as having 'revolutionised' acting with his breakthrough role, Stanley Kowalski in the original theatrical production of 'A Streetcar Named Desire'.

Despite stating repeatedly that acting was a 'craft' but not an 'art', Brando belonged to the school of acting where you emotionally 'become' the character - which is one manifestation of E and T. Yet, Brando said he found acting on stage enormously draining, precisely because of the toll it took on his emotions (whereas most actors feel energized by that). He said the same about his work in 'The Last Tango in Paris'. This suggests that E was a quadra value but not as a ego function (so E5 or E6) - yet, in person, he had easy personal charm and charisma (E6 more likely).

Brando was known as a 'bad boy' in movie sets when he felt his star power allowed him to overrule directors and behave as he pleased, most notably in "Mutiny of the Bounty" which led to him being sort of "blacklisted" in Hollywood. Yet, realizing his power had waned, he behaved perfectly well when filming "The Godfather".

The above points to an understanding, even mastery, of F, higher than that of E (suggests F1).

In his later career, Brando alternated between purely mercenary roles where he was paid a fortune for a few days' work ('Superman', 'Apocalypse Now', 'The Formula') and roles which he did almost for free if they matched his political views ('Roots', 'A Dry White Season'). He also sought a higher meaning in his life by going into political activism, as in for Native Americans, but such efforts were clumsy and hesitant, as if he didn't really know what he wanted to do (suggests T5).

Although a charming, charismatic and intelligent man, Brando had problems with stable long-term relationships, also with his own children (suggests R4).

Brando's functional ordering seems to fit F1, E6, T5, R4 most obviously, pointing strongly to SLE.

To learn more about SLE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/sle-sensory-logical-energiser.html
↧

Gore Vidal (ILI): An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:50 pm
$
0
0
Gore Vidal, born Eugene Louis Vidal, was an American writer, author of novels, plays, screenplays, essays, memoirs. Also occasional politician (Democratic candidate for Congress in upper New York in 1960, Democratic primary for California senator in 1982, both unsuccessful).

Gore Vidal also wrote two volumes of memoirs, and wrote and spoke about his life many times. In that, his focus is always very much on the people he knew, on four levels, with overlaps: his family, famous and/or powerful people he met; people he liked and loved; and people he hated and despised.

As example of overlaps: he was sort-of related to Jacqueline Kennedy, and during the Kennedy administration he often socialised with them. That is a period in his life he kept referring to, clearly proud of his proximity to them. Yet he and Bobby Kennedy hated each other, which led Mrs Kennedy to say once in public that she barely knew Vidal. That led him to cut ties with her, irrevocably.

He also cut ties with his mother, Nina and with the author Truman Capote, writing even after their deaths with nothing but contempt and hatred, yet calmly explaining, in his writings, precisely what he despised in them.

On the other hand, he kept throughout his entire life a very close circle of friends, especially his life partner/secretary Howard Austen and the couple Paul Newman-Joanne Woodward. He also treasured forever the memory of his perfect love, Jimmie Trimble, who died fighting in WWII.

The above, very consistent during his life, shows the Gamma values of R+F harsh judgement in relationships, but more specifically the all-or-nothing quality in ILIs and LIEs.

Gore Vidal enjoyed intellectual debates with people he despised, where he could attack them mercilessly, most famously William F. Buckley in 1968 (there is a documentary, 'Best of Enemies'). When Buckley died, his comment was, "RIP WFB - in Hell". Again an example of F as quadra value.

Most of his novels were either sophisticated, factual yet opinionated historical novels (as if fell to him, he said, to teach the correct history) or quirky novels about slightly "stoned" (my phrase) alternate universes, such as 'Messiah', 'Live from Golgotha', 'Duluth'. Later in life, he got increasingly opinionated about history in politics, in a know-it-all way, as if his own interpretations were the only non-stupid ones. This is perfectly consistent with the ILI'sT1, P2, and L8.

Despite calling himself "America's biographer", he spent decades living mostly in Italy: in Rome and then Ravello, on the Amalfi Coast. Yet it wasn't that he was attracted to the places as such; rather, he was attracted to their connection to the ancient world - yet another T focus.

Gore Vidal wrote the first US novel to portray homosexuality openly, in 1948, 'The City and the Pillar'. Although successful, it also damaged his career, something that surprised him - an indication of his obliviousness to E matters (possible E4).

All of that points very clearly to ILI as Gore Vidal's type.

Recommended sources and reading: Gore Vidal's two volumes of memoirs are "Palimpsest" and "Point to Point Navigation". Fred Kaplan's biography "Gore Vidal" is useful. 

To learn more about ILI, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/ili-intuitive-logical-integrator.html
↧

Al-Waleed bin Talal (LIE): An Analysis

March 20, 2016, 2:55 pm
$
0
0
As a general observation, I'd say that when typing people like Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud, it's as important to take a step back and look at him from a distance, to get a broad-brush view of him, as it is to observe him closely in videos and interviews.

The broad-brush view is this: this is a guy who, having been born in a very privileged social situation in a sort-of medieval society - you can hardly be more "privileged and medieval" than as a senior member of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia - yet decided to build up his own wealth and career himself. He obviously sees creating wealth, and showing off some of it, as big parts of his focus and his life. He likes to see himself, and that is probably largely true (even in his context) as a man for whom work and being productive is core. All of that suggests F as quadra value, and so far nobody suggested anything but Gamma or Beta for him, which I think is right.

There is the problem of differentiating what is 'real' and what is posturing, or cultural influence. That's always difficult, and I can add that it is obvious that some of his answers are very careful. For instance, in his interview, Fareed Zakaria asks the Prince directly about his chances of succeeding to the throne. He gives a general, technical, vague answer. But no analyst familiar with the House of Saud, I think, would say that Prince Al-Waleed has the slightest chance of ever becoming King. By blood he is close to the inner circle of the dynasty but not politically. His own 'career choice' of going into business, rather than to try to get into government, besides his present high profile as a (relatively) westernized and urbane promoter of moderate reform - all of that in effect isolates him politically even more. And that's no secret; yet he gives a no-answer.

His interviews show him talking at length about his own investments, his opinions on economic trends, his views on global situations, on foreign affairs, on oil price, and a bit on the situation of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. He gives his views as a knowledgeable expert and he seems at ease in that role. His delivery is friendly-dry without too much emotional expression. Most of that he says is P in content, as most have noted. So overall I think that the analyses pointing towards LIE are correct, it is indeed the most obvious typing and there is nothing really going against it. 

On other Gamma types such as ESI, the problem is that apart from his comments on "ethics" and on individuals, he hasn't really spontaneously gone into R related subjects. But then, his own position makes that more difficult. Of course it's not 'impossible' that he is an ESI; but the available evidence does not suggest it over LIE.

I want to comment on the possibility of EIE... What makes that unlikely, to me, is not so much his behavior, but a look at his career. For most of his career he was building up his wealth 'quietly', in the background - pretty much like Warren Buffet. The Prince only became a public figure after he had achieved a very high level of wealth. His 'claim to fame' today is also as the main shareholder of Citicorp. Compare that with the Beta tycoons such as Donald Trump or Steve Jobs. For the latter, the image, the brand, the vision, is from the beginning closely connected to how they build up their fortune. The Prince invests well in lots of businesses with no obvious connection to each other in order to get even richer, and that's pretty much it.

Finally, something I see more as 'confirming' a general intuitive-energiser type rather than a core argument for it: if you look at all his interviews, he moves and talks with a sort of 'nervous energy'. There is nothing calm or solid about him. This is a high-energy man who probably can't ever relax. This is secondary, but it fits LIE (or EIE) far more than LSI (or ESI).

To learn more about LIE, click here: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/lie-logical-intuitive-energiser.html
↧
Viewing all 137 articles
Browse latest View live
Search