Interviews -- Geminatronix

Geminatronix' interview is linked below:

Observations:

• Very energetic, enthusiastic
• Describes "not being bored easily." "I could have fun in a paper bag." "My cup is always full."
• Assiduous. Collects information on "what is happening" that might be useful in the future -- call university to ask about any interesting courses this year as part of a highly unstructured degree program.
• Cause-oriented. Wants to work in eastern DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), to educate, alleviate rape culture. Quickly and easily thinks of and remembers llimany things that should be changed.
• Describes a certain conflict of viewpoint in educating her daughter, prefers to let her daughter simply be without becoming argumentative, at other times feels a need to impose more order and education.Wants to educate her daughter about "how your actions impact another person." Although shortly added afterwards, sometimes, "she just needs the rules." Mostly her educational concerns deal with emotional well-being.
• At few points in video describes emotional attitudes very openly: "I have a lot of love for my friends and am also very fiercely loyal"
• Some interesting isolated comments, "Other people say I am a strong person", "I give myself a hard time about some things"
• Describes that conflict in relationships is sometimes beneficial: "That's a really interesting thing someone told me, about how one of the key factors is conflict resolution, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't have conflict; you should have conflict, because often that's an important talk to get to the resolution stage [...] [Without conflict] it just kind of builds resentment, it kind of gets buried"

A lot of my observations in this video are not behaviors that are shown to us but rather observations of thematic content and language that Geminatronix uses. Some of these:

• "Rebellious", "inquisitive." Repeatedly describes herself as rebellious. Early in the video describes disliking hierarchies which are seen as arbitrary -- describes herself as asking "why" and having a rebellious, inquisitive attitude towards school. Provides imagery early on in the video, metaphorically domineering teachers standing at their desk while the students are sitting in a physically submissive position.
• "I do like structure though, I like a framework but I generally rebel against it."
• "But sometimes I'd like the discipline, but then I naturally rebel against it so it's a bit of a vicious cycle." "Interviewer: Maybe you need the right kind of discipline." "Yes I do!"  

Also, here are some extended quotes that I think give a good context of Geminatronix' worldview, describing abstract imagery and a socially interconnected utopia:

So my utopia tends to be more of a fantasy-based land, I suppose, you know I'm thinking of sort of a place in the clouds, you know what I think of, I think of something like Avatar, where there's a kind of a tribalism but there's also something uniquely futuristic where we are so kind of at one with our environment and so at harmony with each other, and our communications are on a different level. And sometimes I think that is what the world needs, is just to go back to basics, but with the intelligence and the progression, with our newfound knowledge to then strip away the fake and the plastic. But you know, I'm not naive enough to think that's really easy.

[...]

I like the idea of using intelligence to communicate not only with each other, but also with our environment [...] Everyone is [connected] but they're just not aware of it. I certainly believe, I mean I just imagine that there's kind of like thousands and millions of invisible strings that kind of connect everyone up in some way. But no one's aware of them. It's not like a half-baked tin foil theory, it's just an idea that there is something. I believe that there is something that binds us.

Gemina also has an orientation towards the malleable emotional character of the world, towards social causes, and towards idealistic supra-worldly change:

There's a great sadness about the world we live in, because -- you know sometimes you have these kind of pivotal moments in your life where something really profoundly affects you and its kind of like a real kind of an awakening, an awareness to the state of the way things are. [...] Something that really profoundly shakes you, everything that you thought you knew, you still know, but there's this whole other world as well.

And that's quite disheartening as well, because you kinda had this ideal and thought everything was rosy and wonderful but someone goes 'Oh look there's this whole black area over here'

The way the world is, well, there's a very stark divide in the way the world is, and of course there's variation within it but the main divide is the Western world and the third world.

In one respect if I look at the world as the world, without the race, you know without humans, without all of these things it's just the most amazing wonderful beautiful place and nature is just awesome, literally, leaves you in awe, and then you've got space and the beyond, which is a whole another thing altogether which is even more beautiful and fascinating, and that's just sort of the world and the universe as is, and we're pretty insignificant by comparison.

My interpretation of this evidence is that Geminatronix is very clearly a beta quadra type, and likely EIE.

This last extended quote reveals an idealistic attitude common to beta quadra types. In particular, it describes the world as a beautiful place, but a place whose beauty can change quickly based on fleeting emotional awareness and profound experiences that alter the substance of people inside. It characterizes the world as a place in need of change, literally supra-worldly change as the conversation veers from describing the awe of the world to the awe of the cosmos.

Throughout the interview it is reasonable to characterize Geminatronix' comments thematically as having the same themes: perceiving an idealistic world that must be changed for the better. Much of this idealism is oriented towards other people's emotional well-being and  Gemina's comments often focus on supra-worldly goals -- that is, her orientation towards improving the world starts with high goals that are broad in scope (literally, greater in scope than the world itself). A marked orientation towards idealism and charitable causes and causing change oneself is somewhat common in beta NF types in my opinion.

Geminatronix use of abstract imagery that makes little sense in the world is most common in Ni ego types. The imagery of "many strings connecting people" is similar to the abstract imagery described by Paul A. in another blog post, who I believe is IEI. The imagery also has an orientation towards authenticity -- the connections between people pass through "masks" that people put on in order to guard themselves. This authenticity is a core issue of Fe-oriented types who are oriented towards changing emotions and have dynamically evolving views of the self.


Throughout the interview, Geminatronix repeatedly characterizes herself as rebellious. She even mentions V for Vendetta at the end of the interview, one of the canonical examples of a beta-oriented film. V for Vendetta focuses on rebellion, overcoming challenges in order to change one's own viewpoint and see the truth, and effecting supra-worldly social change, although in the context of the movie in a highly fantastical and not particularly realistic way. This rebelliousness is generally described as "rebelling against structure." However, while she describes disliking structure, she also has a number of comments about the "vicious cycle" that beta types sometimes show, of enjoying structure but also rebelling against it. In this sense, beta types, particularly EIEs, do not actually dislike structure in their environment; rather they dislike the way their environment precludes their self-expression or something else about their environment. This is well reflected in some of Geminatronix' examples of, for instance, how she was an inquisitive young student in high school, who talked back to her teachers and asked why the environment was structured in such a way that symbolized the teachers having power while the students sat submissively at their desks.

The interchange "Maybe you just need the right kind of discipline" "Yes I do!" perfectly sums up the topic.

For Geminatronix, the topic of educating others is not a highly individual pursuit, it seems more like a pursuit of helping many people and changing the world in a much broader way.

Geminatronix' comments about conflict are also characteristic of the beta quadra. She described the philosophy that conflict is good because it allows for emotions to be fully expressed and let out on the table. This is exactly the philosophy shared by beta quadra types, with Fe+Se. Many delta NFs are more conflict avoidant.

 

Interviews -- Kat Chapman

Kat's interview is embedded Below:

Some observations of Kat:

• Speaks with confident, certain language. Many statements have a tone of finality.
• Shifts easily into being pointed and judgmental. Has some barbed commentary for various people or groups of people that she dislikes ("In ten years the same stupid hippies complaining about the water quality will be complaining about the plastic bottles"). As Kat correctly pointed out to me, she does not particularly single out groups -- this observation is intended to identify Kat's ease in railing against people or things.
• Describes issue with needing greater intimacy and authenticity in relationships ("How many times has somebody committed suicide and you didn't even know they were sad?")
• Describes masking herself, difficulty with being vulnerable to people.
• Describes repeatedly that other people are largely a mystery. "I didn't realize that you could look at the inside of people for some time in my life."
• Describes on several occasions the discrepancy between being seen as confident by others, but seeing herself as unconfident. Sees herself as "meticulous and slow." Dislikes uncertainty, crisis management, etc., but is seen as very good at this by others.
• Duty-oriented "put my kids first if they are sick", etc. Dedicated and aware of and often railing against worldly interactants. Does not detach from or worldly circumstances.
• "If someone doesn't have a good relationship with me, I can't be around them at all. I can't ignore it or pretend. [...] It took me a long time to realize that I can't be around people that don't like me."
• "Who the hell needs proof, can't ya see it, it's just so obvious"
• Language using analogy and motion "society ebbs and flows; all about balance."
• "Always teacher's pet." 
• Preference for linearity and lack of ambiguity. Would prefer "if life were like a linear platform game where you get the little star and then move on to the next level." Has a job "ticking boxes" which provides clarity and structure.
• Displays a complete Northern US vowel shift. Most prominent dialectal feature is extreme raising and palatalization of /æ/ following nasals e.g. /mʲe̝əɾɚ/, characteristic of West New York.

At first, I thought from these observations that Kat was ESI. Most of the observations and language Kat uses fits very nicely with this type. She comes across as very confident, organized and dutiful, and especially individualistic and focused on her relationships with close family members.

The interviewer's suggestion of ILI by contrast, I thought, seemed reasonable and close to ESI. However the interviewer also seems to make some leading observations and ask leading questions about Kat's intellect. A typing of ESI explains the intellect, and the Ni-oriented language "Nature ebbs and flows" as Ni mobilizing, while also accounting for Kat's confidence, dislike of ambiguity, and vigilant demeanor that is present in nearly every one of the observations above. By contrast, Kat seems entirely to lack the detachment, apathy, and passivity of Ni dominant types (especially ILIs).


I was content with a typing of ESI but a week or two later I noticed some comments from Kat which, for reasons I wouldn't be able to explain, caused me to come back to this video and rethink the perspective of some of Kat's comments. I realized there were various clues favoring a nearby but different type.

I now think Kat is likely LSI, with clear Se values, Ni mobilizing, and also Fe suggestive. The most prominent observation of which I was reminded was the degree to which Kat mentions not understanding people, and especially not understanding until late in life what is inside them. Yet she seems to have made it a major goal of hers to further her understanding of others in this way. A very subtle distinction can be seen in the way that rather than emphasizing her sentiments towards the people around her specifically, Kat emphasizes a) her *duties/obligations* towards the people around her and b) the need for authenticity and purity in her close relations. I can see this emphasis as like the suggestive Fe of LSIs, although I can understand why anyone who sees Kat as ESI would disagree.


The other main observation is that Kat's description of herself -- as "not knowing what is inside herself" and describing the discrepancy between how others see her as a confident, reliable person whereas she sees herself as hectically disorganized and uncertain -- is something I am able to see among LSIs, especially older LSIs with developed Fe. Another person who has this set of characteristics is this lady. The common theme with Kat is "Pretty much what people see is what they get... except A B and C." In Kat's there is a similar sense of directness, with a concomitant discrepancy between Kat's inner world and external brittleness.

There are various other small hints in the language surrounding Ti values and an orientation towards rule structures, including Kat's descriptions of how she was always the "square" in the school yet ended up socializing with "the drunks," and the somewhat iconic quote "Who needs proof, can't ya see it?"

Again, a typing of ESI would be very reasonable here and you could argue that in many ways the ESI has a similar dynamic to the small hints I have pointed out. Arguing convincingly against ESI is probably not something I can do. But I think ESIs with Fi+Ni are a little less uncertain about what goes on in their inner worlds and would less easily make statements like "I did not realize for a long time that you could see the inside of people."

Interviews -- Miia

Miia's interview is embedded below:


Observations:

• Very quiet, thoughtful. Takes a long time to thoughtfully answer questions. Unsure about how to answer many of the questions posed to her.
• Particular unwillingness/difficulty to answer questions on certain topics. In particular seems to have difficulty making broad generalizations ("What is a problem with society today?"). Also has a difficulty with being critical ("What should people do less of", "What are social situations that you dislike", and so on).
• Describes a dislike of "marketing" oneself.
• Describes materialism as a moral issue.
• "Just do it" described as unhelpful. Seems not to lack for motivation but more for proactivity.
• Describes an aspiration to self-sufficiency
• Emotionality throughout the interview is very subdued (and this is referenced very explicitly -- Miia seems like a very good self-observer). Emotionality is shown verbally and contained in interior space. Formal demeanor.
• Describes no distinction of intimacy between friendship and romance. Intimacy occurs naturally and not forcibly.
• "Never had a light relationship" -- sees no point in frivolous relationships or playing "games" romantically at least for herself.
• Describes preoccupation with conflict avoidance.
• Extensive good faith in answers -- for instance, with preoccupation with frivolous relationships or playing hard-to-get, tries to offer explanation of why people are motivated to do that and avoids saying that it is wrong, merely that it is not her preference.
• Described orientation to situational influences: "I don't think I really process my emotions by bursting out in some kind of emotional expression, more like if the situation is making me feel negatively then the situation has to change."
• Describes dwelling on negative emotions in particular.

These observations of Miia could not be more characteristic of EIIs in my opinion. The formal, distant, and said-not-shown emotionality (with an interior locus) that Miia displays throughout the entire video is characteristic of Fi-valuing types and especially of Fi dominant types. Miia tells us and shows us that she has many stormy emotions inside her, but she does not do that by showing us those emotions directly -- she holds herself at a distance. The viewer is left to infer the meaning that her "hidden" sentiments have to her somewhat indirectly.

Her behavior as described in other ways -- taking relationships very seriously and never being in a fling or frivolous relationship and seeing the development of intimacy as a natural process but not something to be done forcibly or even intentionally, and seeing others as often not being open to greater intimacy (and feeling uncomfortable when others overstep these boundaries) -- are further evidence of a "formal" and direct approach to managing her emotions in the outside world, and a sort of "robotic straightforwardness" that is often present in Fi and Te dominant types.

Miia's descriptions of people often show good faith and resist being critical -- she describes others as having different viewpoints and behaviors than she does, but she takes effort to nonjudgmentally describe their motivations and acknowledge a range of factors that may make them different. She never gives off the attitude that she is being critical of others and indeed describes herself as very conflict avoidant. She describes herself as precipitating interpersonal discomfort in a somewhat formal but emotionally direct way in the service of pressing and irreconcilable disagreement.

The comments about dwelling on negative emotions, and about self-sufficiency are also characteristic of EIIs in my opinion. EIIs tend to be quite noncommital (which I see from Miia's difficulty speaking about herself and difficulty making strong statements about herself or the people she interacts with) and also in my observations are often somewhat depressive. Furthermore, self-sufficiency is often an issue for delta introverts who are individualistic in values but also focused on the resources available in their immediate surroundings (Fi+Si). These are both very minor points and not strong evidence in the context of this interview as Miia does not describe either of these issues in much depth, but they are subtle clues and in my opinion are entirely consistent with my other observations.

Similarly she describes orienting herself to the underlying conditions and situations influencing her life and emotional states -- describing that she is more inclined to make small adjustments to the situations than to try to push other people by means of emotional outbursts (or charisma, or emotional guilt/pressure) as Fe dominant types might. Instead her focus on the underlying causes and situations leading to unfavorable circumstances is more typical of Ne+Fi valuing types, who are oriented to the potential of character, and how certain situations and conditions might improve or realize it.

Miia offers a very interesting contrast to Paul A., who I blogged about previously. Miia and Paul are superficially similar -- they are both quiet, thoughtful, relaxed, and sensitive -- but their interviews reveal considerable differences in emphasis. Whereas in Paul's interview, there is some extensive discussion of philosophy and metaphysics, with the general theme that the physical world is a nuisance, and considerable discussion of Paul's attitudes towards the society around him. There is no discussion of philosophical or intellectual topics at all in Miia's interview and and she has great difficulty making sweeping comments about society. Instead she spends most of her time discussing themes the character of other people and her relationships towards them, which Paul barely discusses at all. Another interesting difference is that while Paul describes the expenditure of energy as a pressing issue for him (Comments very similar to "I feel that if I am not establishing a relationship with someone, then I am wasting my limited supply of energy"), Miia does not show or describe any difficulties with directing her vitality; instead she describes that people who tell her to "just do" something are being quite unhelpful, and that she really has more difficulty with "how to do" something. I interpret Miia's and Paul's interviews as very different in emphasis, contrasting introverted ethics and introverted intuition.

Interviews -- Dylan Coleman

Dylan Coleman's interview is embedded below:

Here are some observations about Dylan:

• Very jovial demeanor, chuckles very frequently.
• Shows a range of motion while speaking.
• Dylan continues to add clarification without being prompted, the thoughts seem to continue on.
• Repeatedly describes and emphasizes *places.* Sometimes saying things like "I didn't like the place where I was living" without feeling much of a need to explain reasons why. Most emphasis on places seem to describe companionship rather than culture explicitly.
• Unreserved emotional language. "I love my brothers very much", "I am usually the one to rebuild or make up", "Have been living very intimately." Very openly describes emotional states. Language does not show much emotional reserve.
• States a mixed, uncertain self-efficacy of aptitude in working with own hands.
• "Relaxed" attitude described and also shown. Describes enjoying the relaxation and not-incredibly-stressful job at a bookstore. Some language about being lazy, uncertain and unconcerned about what to do next, and in a phase of life to sit back and enjoy current surroundings (including many pets).
• Interesting although isolated comments about "unforeseen problems", for instance describing potential career path as a massage therapist. Dylan described his interest in doing a massage therapy career, but others pointed out possible problems and that men aren't usually successful in this business. Instead others' provided the unforeseen problems and gave different vocational suggestions more suited to Dylan's circumstances and temperament.
• Use of words like "profitable", "lucrative." Also shows understanding of nonscientific nature of typology: "I am not really taking a serious interest in typology but I do wonder if there is valid science there."
• Several isolated comments about philosophy: "Very interested in unraveling the secrets of the universe." Stands out slightly from the rest of the interview which does not devote a lot of time to explaining philosophical or intellectual pursuits overall.
• Describes himself as variously approachable, polite but somewhat curt when bothered at work, sometimes a bit blunt. Somewhat mixed amicability.
• Describes relationships as not necessarily close but easily able to pick up at a moment and be friendly and casual.
• Describes a somewhat limited, insular social circle.
• Describes dislike of competitive environments.
• A resident of Florida who actually pronounces the word "Florida" in the uncommon way still used in the New York area and perhaps sparingly elsewhere in the northeastern US with the merged but unrounded /ɑɹ/ vowel instead of /ɔɹ/. At least some/most of the time.

My typing of Dylan follows quite directly from the observations. The primary observations are Dylan's relaxed demeanor, joviality, and straightforwardness. Broadly I think Dylan's responses and behavior are very much like the accepting, relaxed attitudes of Si dominant types.

The comments about unforeseen difficulties with being a massage therapist, and after more consideration and persuasion the choice to pursue a different path, is also very much like Si-leading and Ne suggestive. It is telling that other people pointed out the possible problems and made other suggestions that are appropriate to Dylan's set of skills (more abstractly, his potential).

I think the interview offers very mixed evidence to differentiate between SEI ad SLI. There are some hints that seem to suggest SEI, such as the jovial demeanor, emotional language and also the very open emotional language. There is also pretty considerable use of business language more commonly seen extroverted logical types, and some descriptions of being blunt and a bit gruff (although the latter evidence is a bit ambiguous in my opinion).

The observation above describing some isolated almost awkwardly out of place comments about philosophy and "the mysteries of the universe" in a very general way is one of the better hints in my opinion. An orientation towards the philosophical -- often in a somewhat general way -- is in my opinion somewhat common to the ego structure of SEIs with Ti estimative. By contrast I think SLIs' philosophical musings are often a bit more verbose and often socially oriented (for instance, Thoreau's essays on nonconformism or Aldo Leopold's concept of "land ethic"). Of course this is a subtle point that does not directly contradict a typing of SLI but I think it fits SEI somewhat better.

SLI is certainly a reasonable suggestion and I agree with some of the interviewer's suggestions about how SLI better resolves some observations, especially about businesslike language (although the observations of being a little but "curt" or gruff at times and sometimes dealing with unwanted people do not seem out of place for SEI in my opinion). But overall I think Dylan's behavior is a little bit more parsimoniously explained by seeing him as SEI with a positive attitude, Ti values, and somewhat colorful emotionality, who has also developed some businesslike language.

Interviews -- Clemens Lode

Clemens' interview is linked below:

Here are some observations I made about Clemens:

• In the first ten seconds of the interview. Clemens immediately takes initiative and eagerly starts talking, getting things moving and saying hello.
• Seems relatively undeterred by being alone and makes several comments to this effect (iconcally provided the example of not caring about the world cup final, instead taking the time to "stroll in the city").
• Seems also to have few problems with taking initiative and interacting with people especially in small groups (provides anecdote about disliking loud music and preferring to talk outside quietly to people). Doesn't describe shyness or difficulty with interacting, only dislike of bothering others and dislike of loud environments. "I need a reason to talk to people" but seems unfettered when such a reason exists.
• Describes himself as approachable.
• When asked "Do you consider all your words so carefully", does not really comment on question very directly but instead talks about process of writing and developing syncretic set of ideas. Describes a wide range of interests.
• Describes emphasis for diplomacy in communication and emphasizes mutual understanding rather than acceptance of finished conclusions.
• Repeatedly describes an idealistic, other-directed optimism. Iconic comments "Instead of building up real values like building connections to people or working on their own dream or on their career or creating their own ideal life, many people have given up on that and that's a little bit sad. I would like to see more of a spirit, an optimistic spirit, that they can change their life in the future." Describes that people have a lack of direction for "discovering new things or building connections and entrepreneurship."
• Uses words like "vision", "dream", "spirit"
• Mixed, somewhat conflicted and somewhat trusting views on the vague concept of "authority" -- describes self as hypochondriac and sometimes trusting of authority figures.
• Seems to have difficulty with writing and formulating ideas/arguments. Has "formal" approach to epistemology, reads many books and studied formal theory of logical fallacies. Describes need for evidence and need to evaluate claims independently and think about them (including of the interview's concluded type). Almost no focus on ideological conformance, whether positive or negative (also no orientation to "authenticity") or on understanding systems -- most of his ideas are highly varied.
• Interesting anecdote about book, finds the idea of someone else editing his ideas somehow "too restrictive" so that he formed his own publishing company. More below.
• Has no clue to interpret interview question "How do you deal with obstacles?"
• Somewhat equivocal answer to dealing with emotions and flat dismissal of suggestion that he needs help expressing his feelings. Instead he describes needing help with bringing these feelings into action. 
• One observation not present in the video but which is quite apparent viewing a small amount of Clemens' communal interaction is his cheerfulness and constant playful use of emoticons.

I broadly found these observations (some observations of omission are also thrown in) to be very interesting and pretty conclusive. But one piece of evidence that has barly even been touched on is Clemens' book which he mentions briefly but does not really explain in great depth. It turns out that this project is a series of several books about philsophy (https://www.lode.de/)

This project is very, very interesting because it is Clemens' response to an inner need to communicate something channeled over a period of years. The book is described as a "reflection of my values" in the interview but really seems to be something more scattered, a varied array of philosophical topics that are taken together as a whole somewhat loosely. And as above, it is very interesting that Clemens decided to start a publishing company in order to express these philosophical views with fewer restrictions.

This typing is plausible but I think Clemens may be an ILE instead. - 3/23/15

Synthesizing these observations, I think Clemens is IEE. Clemens identifies as an introvert but seems not to be in my opinion; he has no shyness nor difficulty taking the initiative where there is a clear reason or he possesses motivation to do so (and indeed seems to often describe taking initiative in building interpersonal connections even though he says he does not do much of this). Instead I interpret that Clemens is very driven by motivation and interest -- when he is unmotivated, he has great difficulty making himself move, but in circumstances or projects that he is motivated and enthusiastic about he is quite active. Of course I see this high reliance on motivational state as representative of Ne dominance.


Clemens extensively discusses themes of good faith judgment, the idea that others are imperfect and have the potential to improve themselves and their surroundings. I interpret this message as canonical of the Fi+Ne values of the delta quadra. By contrast, not once in the interview does he question the authenticity of others, which in my opinion is something Fe types (especially beta types) often do. Instead he seems not to be very critical of others and is much more interested in the ways in which people might live ideally.


Most of the other observations in my opinion also suggest delta values. The emphasis on drawing a conclusion based on presented evidence, rather than emphasizing the conclusion is characteristic of Te values, an orientation towards "unfettered" information. The formality with which Clemens views argumentation and the investigation of logical fallacies is also a characteristic trait of Te mobilizing -- where Clemens feels that he must "be good at" fact collecting and that this can and should be done somewhat formally. Clemens describes that in situations where he does not have great expertise or certain knowledge he is quite reticent to contradicting the conclusions of others, instead preferring to listen and investigate more facts for himself later (listen to his discussion of medical advice).

The bit about Clemens forming his own publishing company because he felt that other people editing his work is "too restrictive" (in my words, not his) reminded me of Rick DeLong's professional lifestyle as well. Rick has basically been self-employed for years, describing not that he has difficulty with being productive but that he feels that working for someone else is inevitably "too restrictive" and that freelance work suits his peripatetic lifestyle much better. And it is also amusing that in Clemens' case these restrictions essentially refer to what seems to be a magnum opus project, which really just consists of a collection of syncretic, perhaps disconnected ideas about philosophy.



One thing which I noticed, and found very odd, was that Clemens described his principal philosophical influence in writing his book as Ayn Rand, who I believe is LSI. This is one of several signs sprinkled throughout the interview that the IEE typing might be missing something. Another is, as mentioned in the observations, the use of Ni-themed words like "vision" and "spirit" and especially "hero." However, for the latter point, it seems that Clemens really does value and speaks extensively about "fostering individual connections with people" and that what he means by these words is an Ne+Fi-oriented goal, and not an Ni-oriented one. Similarly, with Ayn Rand, he seems to draw Rand's idea that people should change themselves, but does not concomitantly (look at the test on his publishing website) agree with much of what Ayn Rand has to say. For instance, while Rand rejected the idea of altruistic motivations and emotional guidance as contradictory to the path of rational self-interest, Clemens does not seem to find these elements (i.e., rational self-interest and emotional guidance) contradictory at all (I had a brief chat with Clemens in which we discussed these topics somewhat circuitously.)

Nonetheless these points still give me pause. And perhaps there is perhaps some merit to certain Ti-valuing typings like IEI or EIE, but overall I would have great difficulty seeing how they could paint a better picture of Clemens than the IEE typing described here.


The interviewer here concludes that Clemens is LII because of, among other reasons, his orientation towards "rules" and need to use rules to navigate the world around him and engage people. I find this comment confusing as it seems to me that Clemens barely mentions rules (rigid principles of interaction to be followed) but rather repeatedly emphasizes various other topics including good faith judgment and seems to have little difficulty being open to other people in the appropriate situations. Of course, several of the interviewer's other comments about open-mindedness and interest in history and philosophy relating to extroverted intuition are still consistent with IEE.

Interviews -- Paul A.

We will examine a series of interviews of community members.

Compared to similar projects (e.g., this collection of braintypes videos on vimeo) the interviews are of phenomenally higher quality and very notably have somewhat standardized structure and are quite extensive -- an hour is a much better timeframe to get a strong picture of a person than say, five minutes. That does not mean the interview methodology used here is perfect, but I find it quite interesting as a sample of a range of different types (albeit all being individuals from the internet with an interest in personality).

Analyzing the socionics content of some of these videos is an exercise I did for fun -- as of this writing I have watched almost all the interviews currently available. In this blog I will discuss my observations for certain selected interviewees, who agree to be futher dissected.

In this post we will discuss Paul A.'s interview, embedded below.

Here is a selection of notes that I made while watching Paul's video.

• Quiet, passive, conscientious
• Speaks repeatedly about intermingling of humans as "energy" with no physical restrictions
• Speaks repeatedly about having no interest in competitive or aggressive environments. Prefers "mellow" socializing like in Irish bars in Ireland as opposed to California
• Noncommital, relaxed, nonjudgmental
• Self-dismissive, unconfident. Difficulty stated with productive organization. resigned and dismissive attitude.
• Expresses philosophical distaste for empiricism, prefers fantastical/mystical experiences.
• Continuously says things like "Trying not to give away the answer."

You may notice that a number of these notes are "speaks repeatedly about." This is a downside of the interview format and specifically of the questions provided, which tend to ask people to speak about themselves in the abstract across a variety of situations, rather than sharing individual anecdotes. Thus often rather than making observations, the observer is left to do something less valuable, which is taking note of themes which consistently pop up. This is what my notes are for, keeping track of themes that I think may be informative to drawing a conclusion.

As for the specific content and observations and themes, I think they point to a clear type (or at least range of values) that are quite different from EII -- Paul's self-typing and the interviewer's conclusion -- in various ways.

Early in the video Paul begins talking about philosophy and abstract imagery, the basic idea being the arbitrariness of the physical world and preferring that people could interact as "energy" unfettered by physical form. This is not actually an outlandish or uncommon viewpoint, it is often produced by IEIs in my experience. Ni-valuing types are world-rejecting and especially in the case of Ni dominant types are dismissive of their physical experiences as having no relevance to the mental world in which they live. By contrast Ne-valuing types -- EIIs having Si mobilizing -- are very concerned about their physical being. The interviewer describes Paul's answer as reflecting Se vulnerable -- a dislike of having one's potential limited by the constraints of the physical world. However Ne-valuing types are not worried about the constraints of the physical world -- they are actually very attentive to the constraints of the physical world in order to innovate and develop their experience within it. Instead they are frustrated by the constraints of inflexible agents, rules, and power structures that exist in the pragmatic world, which limit their ability for free pursuit of interests, and free discourse about ideas (Richard Dawkins who I posted about last week and who I think is LSE with "stubborn" Ne mobilizing has these sorts of views).

I take this abstract imagery as quite strong evidence of world-rejecting Ni values.

Another interesting observation I made about the video is that it lacked discussion about good faith judgments -- a thematic element of the delta quadra exemplified by EIIs of evaluating the character of others as potential character, subject to development and improvement. These themes are really not discussed by Paul at all. Instead he is much more focused on talking about himself.


I was curious as to whether maybe these themes were absent because of the interview format -- so I messaged Paul on Facebook to ask if he would mind answering a few questions on good faith judgment. This is what he said.

I don't think about development of other people's character a lot.

I suppose I see it as none of my business.

OTOH, I see myself as being in constant need of ethical purification and improvement.

I do not wish to take his comments out of context, so I will post more parts of the conversation. The whole conversation is not reproduced fully because we talked about socionics methods and other interviews and I gave him my conclusions about his type. Only then did we continue talking about delta values and he had more relevant comments. I am only posting the relevant parts that I feel may be seen as contradicting my conclusion. My comments are right adjusted and in blue

Good faith judgment is an orientation towards evaluating the character of others "in good faith" or according to the hidden potential of their character 

Like whereas the gamma Quadra evaluates people as bad and moves away from the bad people (and Fe quadras evaluate people as driven by transient emotions and thus somewhat more unstable) 

The delta Quadra sees individuals that do bad things as poorly adapted to their circumstances

With Ne the focus is on potential character, rather than actual currently measured character

This quality which I was asking about just now was not really present in your interview

Well, I'd say that's definitely something I do. Though I don't see the potential as hidden. There is always the chance that someone could change, or bring out another side to themselves, or maybe I just need ot look at them from a different angle, etc.

Are you saying it looked more like Gamma Fi?

But you said a few minutes ago that you do not really think of the development of the character of others when you relate to them

Can you explain how what you do is different?

Sure. Precisely because I feel it's not my place to judge, when there are so many different ways to look at a situation etc., I'm unwilling to say "this person is at a low level of development and needs to improve." That's none of my business; it would be too certain and too imposing.

I see

I consider the lack of good faith judgment or focus on development to be strong evidence against delta values, and probably instead more suggestive of Ni values.

There are several other things to mention from my set of observations. The "philosophically expressed dislike for empiricism" that I noted is also evidence of both world-rejectingness (as it relates mostly to mysticism) and also of Te vulnerable, as a disinterest of things that are measurable (I consider this as a very weak piece of evidence that I would easily overlook in the proper context).

The repeated references to "not giving away my socionics type" are also possibly informative although I will take care to say that these are not things I can directly observe and can only be indirect evidence (and I prefer direct evidence where available). Sometimes, I see people who use terminology from socionics or other systems repeatedly when referring to themselves -- to the point where their identity as a specific type becomes an overwhelming component of how they see themselves, they have little other inner guidance, and have great difficulty talking about anything without referencing their type in a sea of poorly navigable terminology soup that makes little sense. Obviously Paul is not anything like that. But I think that speaking about socionics type as a guidepost to describe socionics type is a suggestion -- very minor in this case -- that some type of self-identification may be going on. This type of self-identification -- or in the extreme case of severe delusion -- is possible in all types but most common in Fe types whose ego identities are variable and driven by constantly changing emotions.

There is one observation that is not typical or expected of IEI at all. Which is the dislike of "aggressive" environments and specifically, the concomitant description of "mellow and relaxed" environments instead as more preferable. Indeed IEIs have a range of responses to this but emphasizing mellow and relaxed environments is not one of them (a much more typical response is the antagonistic preference of environments where there are no people, because people are annoying). But this piece of evidence is, in my opinion, clearly not enough to override the rest of the evidence, which suggests clearly that IEI is a better fit than EII, or if not then at least Paul holds Ni values and might be a type like ILI or ESI.



Update 7/15/15: I am considering that it may be more likely that Paul is the ESI, as I suggested here previously might be worth considering. I think to interpret this conclusion from the video alone, would be nearly impossible.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is in my news feed again, for saying "date rape may be better than stranger rape, but that is not an endorsement of date rape."

This is basically what is getting him in the most trouble. First, my response: it is not at all clear that date rape is better or worse than stranger rape, at least to my internal ethical compass. He acknowledges this in one of his responses, saying "maybe you think the other thing is true, that date rape is traumatizing and stranger rape is more acceptable because you don't subsequently have to interact with the stranger." So basically shame on him for trying to make a logical argument about "It is possible to say X is better than Y without endorsing X" and then using such a terrible example.

That said, I empathize with Dawkins in many ways for precisely the behavior of telling people the unfiltered truth and then suffering the unintended consequences of having them misrepresent your point. I think many scientists would empathize with such a scenario, only that with Dawkins this is true on quite a grand scale.


Some years ago probably in late 2007, expat and rick had an extensive discussion about Richard Dawkins which was unfortunately lost when Wikisocion crashed (if anyone knows where it is, I would love to see it). At the time I was a stupid kid and did not know anything about Dawkins so I was not involved. Initially expat saw Dawkins as LSE, rick saw Dawkins as ILE, and they somehow ended up meeting in the middle and settling on ESE. I did read the comments in the discussion before it was lost, and I remember never really understanding the ESE typing.

Some of Rick's initial observations are preserved in this forum thread. Some observations include that Dawkins is highly conceptual (although in another work relied heavily on providing examples), and rarely tells personal stories. Unfortunately the videos linked here are also broken.


My view of Richard Dawkins is somewhat more broad, trying to decipher the focus he might have by summarily examining his work over a period of years and his reactions to public reception of his work.

In a sentence or two: "Dawkins is a highly public figure who has tirelessly and for years told people the truth, in an unfiltered and apparently unpleasant way. In doing so he has demonstrated an extraordinary propensity to repeatedly say the wrong thing, use awkward examples, have large numbers of people misunderstand his comments, and basically piss off lots of people. But his failures in doing so seem to have made him only more prickly."

Dawkins sees himself as a modest defender who is "passionate about" reason, rationality, science, atheism, the challenging of cultural taboos and the freedom of open discussion of ideas. This is to say nothing of his followers who are sometimes accused of worshiping scientific reason as gospel (which by definition it is not). But I think this has little to do with Dawkins, who appears mostly to be committed to the goals of rationality.

One thing that I think is interesting in Dawkins' propensity to say the wrong thing is his lack of sense of subtlety (and relatedly I'm not sure I agree with Rick's observation that Dawkins explains the "main concept" well, although to be fair that observation is years old). As in the "rape is rape" controversy, Dawkins focuses himself entirely on explaining that he was illustrating merely a logical concept, and that we should not be afraid of making logical statements about rape just because it is a sensitive subject. All of which are well and good (and true and worth saying!) but it is incomprehensible to me how Dawkins does not take painstaking care to point out and frame that this is his point. Instead he defends his example as a fair example, whereas in truth it was a terrible example and does nothing but confuse his audience.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an interesting clip of interacting with Dawkins at some scientists forum, in which he criticizes Dawkins for failing to live up to his potential in "persuasion." (This clip also doubles as an example, albeit very minor, of Dawkins sharing a personal anecdote in contrast to Rick's observation in 2007 that he never does this). Dawkins "gratefully accepts the rebuke" here, but his response and perhaps his conduct outside of this discussion seem to suggest that effective persuasion is not really his point of focus. Dawkins' lone-wolf, barbed style stands out compared to Tyson, who has discussed extensively the art and importance of preparing science for public consumption. I have been inclined to interpret Dawkins' apparent disinterest in persuasion as a disinterest in extroverted ethics; instead he prefers to tell the truth regardless of how barbed it may seem and how many people misconstrue him. Yet he is also conflicted, involved in but not committed to persuasion in political and religious spheres, while really perhaps being more interested in science and research.


All of this information considered (and if you disagree with my summary or observations please feel free to comment and tell me why!), I have a great deal of difficulty seeing Dawkins as ESE, the "compromise" type reached by rick and expat some time ago. ESEs are not particularly apathetic to persuasion nor are they typically in the public sphere as prickly as Dawkins. Nor is Dawkins' obviously outwardly very warm, animated, etc. (although Rick made observations to this effect in his defense of Dawkins which wikisocion ate, but I never understood them).

I think Dawkins' behavior is best explained by thinking of him as LSE, expat's original suggestion. The idea of plainly "telling the truth" without great regard for its reception is consistent with an extroverted logical moral compass and, developmentally, I think that Dawkins' rhetoric and prickliness has increased over time with his fatigue -- that is, he is quite personable in many ways and his "edge" is somewhat a defensive response to the vitriol he receives. Yet he maintains a more publically influential presence than I would expect from Te creatives. The defensiveness of the freedom of ideas and attachment to rationalism is also perhaps an extension of "stubborn" estimative extroverted intuition (although I agree this interpretation may be a little twisted).

If not LSE, I might see Dawkins as LIE -- another type that can be prone to heavily moralizing but that is not as conflicted and withdrawn about being in the public eye. I do not have strong arguments against this typing. But I am inclined to read Dawkins' lack of subtlety, use of confusing metaphors, and generally his overstatement of the "danger" faced by freethinking rationalists, as somewhat shallow "hunch" evidence against this. I would expect an LIE to verbalize their doubts and the contradictory, confusing points of their arguments more fully than I have seen in Dawkins, and to see themselves less as participants responsible for taking a role in the society around them. Whereas Dawkins is somewhat more conflicted in this sense.

Some other typings -- maybe LII with a sore spot instead of super-ego spot in the arena of public interaction, persuasion, and emotional approachability -- might also merit consideration. But that typing has other issues. Overall LSE is not without issues either but it is the best fit that I have interpreted yet.


I encourage anyone with a competing view -- especially if you concretely disagree with my observations and can provide alternative evidence -- to comment.