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.
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
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 themCan 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.
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.
Great interview Jack, you seem to get to the truth.
ReplyDeleteHi Steven Parker, thanks for checking out my blog. I think you are a bit confused as I am not Jack and I disagree with him about Paul's type. If you are still confused I encourage you to reread the post which explains why I think this.
ReplyDeleteI have seen the whole interview now. I glanced through your argumentation last month; I don't remember much now, I do note that you typed Paul as IEI. I will first just analyse the video on my own terms, then I will re-read your argumentation and say specifically where I disagree. I think the disagreement will consist of different degrees of importance attributed to evidence from the video, and different conceptions of what Beta and Delta NFs are like.
ReplyDeletePaul's insecurities, which he talked about at length and consistently, had to do with evaluating the quality of his work and evaluating his level of knowledge. They also had to do with environments with an atmosphere of competition, aggression, pressure. He also mentioned that at work he finds it difficult to focus on the here-and-now needed for work. In talking about plans for his new career, he said that his difficulty is in the whole fact-finding about careers, studies, etc. On the other hand, he is confident in being a caring person who tries to helps his friends and that's how people see him.
The above, and other remarks, already give an impression of an intuitive and ethical person - or in other words, someone whose insecurities are in the area of Se, Te, possibly Si, and whose areas of confidence are in the areas of Fi and possibly Fe. So - no surprises here - I think that we can say with confidence that Paul is an intuitive and ethical person.
By the way (I say this for the benefit of whoever else may read this) I don't always type in this manner: sometimes it's easier to spot broadly the quadra values, or the ego functions. In this case I found it easier to spot the obvious insecurities, although it's also clear that he has a lot of focus on Ne and Ni. So this time it's easier to spot that he's some kind of NF. What's less clear is whether he's a Delta or Beta.
So in order to solve that issue, I focus on two points. First, Paul made it very clear that he dislikes the most environments of a rough atmosphere and where people impose their will on others, he also dislikes competitive environments. He also said that he doesn't really thinks in terms of having concrete goals that he wants to achieve. One reason for that is that he is always thinking of several possibilities at the same time so he finds it difficult - and undesirable - to focus on just one.
The second point has to do with his approach to relationships. Paul said that while he is able to do small polite talk, he finds it pointless, in this sense: what's the point of talking to you if no long-term relationship is going to come out of this - or if the conversation isn't at least interesting. He also said that he prefers environments with a small circle of close friends.
The above suggests that Se is not part of his quadra values and that Fi, rather than Fe, is part of his quadra values. So to me, it all fits with Paul as Delta NF, and more specifically, EII rather than IEE.
- to be continued - (Expat)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete- continuing -
ReplyDeleteSomething that was sort of "missing" from EII was any focus on Si. Paul mentions Si matters - at least directly - very briefly, when he says he likes to keep fit and go to the gym. More visible is his low focus on Si. He does talk more readily not only about his dislike for Se-charged environments but also about his difficulty in evaluating his factual knowledge or the quality of his work, even in evaluating what he's good at, and that he'd rather that someone else did it. To me that completes the picture in seeing him as an EII rather than IEE. Generally speaking, when talking about their weak points, people find it easier to discuss their 4th and 5th functions than their 6th function, unless the subject is actively raised. The 6th function is what we wish we were good at but know, or fear, we're not. The 4th and 5th functions are what we think should rather be dealt with by someone else. So, given Paul's extensive comments about his weak Te and Se, and very little about Si, I think this completes the picture for him as EII rather than IEE.
There were a couple of difficulties. Paul mentioned how he dislikes what he called "empiricism" and "materialism", and how ideas are more valuable than empirical reality - and how external reality is a source of stress. When I first heard the above, I wondered if that was not evidence for IEI. But based on Paul's later comments about factual knowledge, I think that what he meant by "empiricism" is actually the Se view of reality, rather than the Te knowledge of it.
Some of that came later when he described his "ideal world" as one of people floating around and connected by their minds, with no physical surroundings. This, too, could be seen as a sort of Ni-focused IEI reality. But, then, EIIs also think in Ni terms, and his further description that those bodies would be connected, exchanging ideas, suggests Fi. So this is consistent with EII but also, arguably, with IEI. I'm inclined to think, however, that IEIs tend to describe their ideal world in more concrete terms, precisely because of the Se seeking.
- to be continued - (Expat)
- continuing -
ReplyDeleteI have now re-read your analysis. I think one major point of disagreement is the relative weight to what we both see as sort of problematic, which is Paul's apparent attitudes to Se and Ni. As I mentioned, I also thought that his references to an ideal of non-physical reality seem Ni, in the sense of Ni-valuing, at first. I think that the other evidence I outlined for Delta outweighs that, but it does remain something that needs further discussion.
There is something more fundamental, which relates to what you called "good faith judgement". You said,
" 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 "
And you asked Paul, "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"
You see, my views of how EIIs "tick" is different. I agree with much of your analysis but not with the eventual conclusion, and I understand what Paul means.
I see the Delta Ne as indeed seeing the hidden potential in individuals - as if it was a sort of x-ray vision that would see the "true" or "better" person hidden beneath the surface, where they would see, for instance, LSIs or ESIs as just seeing the surface. But - and that is important - it does not follow from that that they would actively try to develop the other person. That might be an imposition, a form of Se or Fe pressure. It is different when they are asked directly for help - as in psychotherapy, which Paul described as his preferred career. That is obviously all about helping people to reach their true potential.
On this, I have one anecdotal evidence. I have been now in a relationship with an EII for a year. Of course, this example is only valid if you accept that I have typed her correctly! There is a parallel with Paul in the sense that she moved from a career she disliked - accounting - to psychology as a therapist (but in the sense of people who have issues such as depression etc). She is extremely careful in addressing the potential of others - precisely for the reasons Paul mentioned, that is, because it's not of her business. But she does try to get *me* to change or "improve"- almost exclusively in Si matters. The difference is, she feels that I - and her patients - are "her business", and others aren't.
I think the disagreement - unless I've misunderstood - is not that EIIs see the "true potential" in others, they do. It's rather on whether they will actually think about it if it is not their direct concern.
- to be continued - (Expat)
- continuing -
ReplyDeleteI want to add some thoughts about IEIs (since our disagreement seems to be about EII vs IEI).
I think IEIs are attracted to environments where things can done, active, even "rough" environments with competition - which the IEI may join or not, or just observe. They do like Se+Fe charged environments. They tend to have a larger goal - maybe an "ideal world" which they would like to see implemented, by force if necessary - that would be the SLE's job. In more mundane affairs, they would have a series of short-term goals which however they may have difficulty in finding the means or the will to actually achieve on their own. But they have less difficulty in deciding between several possibilities.
In this context, IEIs are in a way, always watchful for the potential of people who might be helpful - or useful - to them in achieving their goals, that is, their source of Se. They will not just look for "visible" Se but might find some "hidden Se" in someone (which may or not be there) in a way that is similar to what EIIs do. And if IEIs are convinced - also because of the Ni+Ti pairing - that they have discovered some hidden Se, or hidden Se+Ti in someone, they may try to change this person towards their "true" potential by using Fe mobilisation. So, I think that IEIs will actually often act in the way that you seemed to be expecting EIIs to act - but for other purposes, that is, for finding "hidden Se". Of course, if the IEI makes a serious mistake and the person is "beyond help and hope", eventually they will be disappointed. But until then, they may well be looking for the hidden potential (for Se) in someone, in a way that seems analogous to Delta's but is actually different, especially in motivation and "methods" - as they are actually more likely to use Ni than Ne.
EIEs will be different because they may may well be seeing the hidden potential in someone whilst thinking that they are seeing the "real person".
That's it for the moment (Expat)
Thanks for your comments as usual.
ReplyDeleteI am uncomfortable publically describing in detail the ways that I think Paul is and is not, so I will briefly reiterate what observations I thought were clear from Paul's interview and then focus on responding to some of your theoretical comments.
You mentioned that of Paul it wasn't as easy to spot the quadra values than the insecurities. In my opinion, this is less helpful than spotting the quadra values -- most fundamentally, when I look for information, I am thinking about the quadra values. In Paul's case, I think that the most obvious point is Ni values, which you allude to occasionally in your comments.
The reason I think this is that my fundamental interpretation of Paul is that he is world-rejecting, which I think is related to Ni/Se values. From material I wrote on wswiki to describe this characterization: "Whereas Ne types are open to the new experiences in the world around them, in Ni there is an overt resistance to the experiences that the world has to offer. Expanding on this resistance, Ni types come to reject worldliness; instead, they disembody themselves from their worldly experience (which is seen as limited, mundane, unimportant) and mentalize about the supra-worldly, creating an imaginary separate world in their head and seeking out the universal meaning in their experience that is broader than the basic sensations they feel. For instance, meaning must come from understanding the nature of the universe, rather than from the magical experience of e.g. this delicious cheesecake."
I am not the only one to understand Paul in this way -- in another video, I believe it was Dylan Coleman's interview, Jack made a comparison between Dylan and Paul, saying that "Dealing with any kind of reality is difficult for Paul," an interpretation with which I agree though of course Jack interpreted it differently. In my opinion, this sort of attitude would be quite uncharacteristic of EIIs who value Si and Ne.
The other comments about Paul that you mentioned -- including his dislike of competitive environments and especially his orientation on relationships (which are things that he says and does not show) -- seem much weaker evidence to me.
Some of the theoretical material you have written I disagree with. Much of it, I do not disagree with, though I feel it does not apply easily to Paul.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, you wrote that the estimative function is more difficult to verbalize than the vulnerable or suggestive functions. I don't really agree and I found that comment strange; I think the estimative function is usually quite easy to verbalize (though perhaps done sloppily or exaggeratedly).
Regarding EIIs, I agree with your comments that EIIs do not always "actively" use their insights into the potential character of others to try to change others. Instead, in my view EIIs have a noncommital and sometimes avoidant attitude towards others -- they view other people's character and "automatically" assess their potential, but there is a disconnect between the way they think and the way they interact (which is true to an extent of all Ne types I think). And in contrast, this disconnect is less pronounced in Ne dominant types, so that IEEs *do* try to apply their insights about others potential more aggressively than EIIs do (though they do so noncommitally). And also, I agree that IEIs and EIEs can appear to have similar behavior, but for quite different reasons.
So I agree with your comment that Paul's words about not seeing others' affairs as his business is consistent with EII. But I am not so sure that Paul indeed does automatically evaluate the character of others -- as in the extended facebook PM where I asked him if he was thought much about the character of others, and he said that he did not, and was instead more self-centered. Certainly he did not spontaneously talk about that topic at all until I brought it up specifically, and it goes unmentioned in the interview. Really in truth Paul talks about other people very little in the interview, and instead talks about himself and how self-critical he is (and I agree that EIIs are often self-critical in the way he describes).
As an aside, in your explanation about IEIs, who see others as potentially helpful in achieving their goals -- I think your explanation of someone who looks for "hidden Se" to help them achieve their goals sounds more like EIEs. Rather than IEIs, who as Ni dominants prototypically have a substantial focus on what their goals (visions) might look like, but an innate resistance towards actually pursuing them. Now I don't disagree with the gist of your explanation that IEIs can sometimes try to "change" others in the way you describe, but I think it is worth pointing out -- I think this is true, anyway -- that they have a much broader range of possible manifestations than some other types.
For now at least I will just make a correction. In PM, we did not discuss whether I evaluate people's character, but whether I think a lot about the development of their character. And what Expat says applies perfectly: I will only concern myself with that if it is in some way made my business to do so.
ReplyDeleteI understood where you're coming from. In principle, I agree that the quadra values are more important, but in this particular case I thought that the Se-aversion was so clear that I thought it deserved focus. You see as relatively weak evidence.I think that in this case far more evidence would be necessary to settle the issue (or, in my case, to make me prefer IEI to EII).
ReplyDeleteI would like to address this:
"For instance, you wrote that the estimative function is more difficult to verbalize than the vulnerable or suggestive functions. I don't really agree and I found that comment strange; I think the estimative function is usually quite easy to verbalize (though perhaps done sloppily or exaggeratedly)."
Maybe there is more of a misunderstanding than a disagreement, so let me elaborate on that. I agree it is easy to verbalize the 6th function. But I find that is often something that one does not talk about spontaneously. For instance, in my own interview, I talked a lot about issues related to Fi, Fe, Si (awkwardly) but not that much about Se - although I could have talked about it fairly easily if Jack had asked specifically about it. The reason is that the 6th function is the "self-esteem" function (as Reinin called it), and it is where we feel vulnerable in the sense of, I should really be better at this than I am, and maybe I'm not so good as I think. So the 6th is something that we often avoid talking about when talking spontaneously, although we can discuss it if asked specifically about it. That is what I meant in the sense of Paul not talking much about Si.
Having said that, I must say that the above may take it too far. I have myself made the point, in the past, that sometimes we focus too much on the 6th function and therefore seem "pathetic". We also know that SG exaggerated its importance with his "hidden agenda" concept which I think caused a great deal of confusion - not least with the people promoting, well, "model X".
But I think that at the end of the day the 6th function is something that is more visible by observing the person's behavior, especially in the longer term, than as something that people talk about spontaneously - so there is something to the nickname "hidden agenda", which however is "hidden", a point sometimes missed.
I probably over-generalized in my comment above. It is not that I think that we always find it difficult to talk about the 6th, it is more that it is not unusual that we avoid raising the subject if we can. I don't see that as evidence for EII for Paul; I was rather explaining why I don't find it surprising that he didn't mention it much.
PS: on IEIs, I have this view of their 6th. Some IEIs have such a self-image (or want to project this image) of being "logical" that they mistype themselves for ILIs in socionics or INTP in MBTI - sometimes it leads them to being mistyped (at least online) for LIIs if their Ti is noticed. But may be due to still-common gender roles, I have seen the above much more often with IEI men than women. So I guess that what I'm saying is that the 6th can go either way in terms of how people talk about it, which I know that for this particular exercise is not useful.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete