Interviews - Michael

I had the opportunity to interview Michael

Unfortunately my normal microphone equipment was not working correctly and the backup equipment apparently was nearly inaudible. Unfortunately my sound quality in the interview is awful. However, Michael's sound quality is fine, and the viewer can hear all of his answers, if not always my follow up questions. I apologize for the sound quality; I should have delayed the interview instead of conducting it on poor equipment.

Some observations of Michael:

• Straightforward, direct, terse answers; does not naturally or easily elaborate beyond the parameters of the question
• Defensiveness; there is a certain reluctance to part with information giving a privileged, close-up view of the self

Some themes that recur in Michael's answers:

• Preference for acting, rather than planning [45:40]
• Self-confidence, mainly in own ability to navigate the world (especially socially ["I don't need much life advice 30:30" ; "I get a lot of compliments about my sense of humor", pay close attention after around 23:40], also professionally [19:40]])
• Competition 
• Certain disinterest in "intellectualism" for its own sake [34:20]
• Extended focus on evaluating the character of others and, situationally, restricting the interaction of the self with others (definitely disputable)

My view is that Michael is the Se dominant type. The most important feature that stood out to me about Michael's narrative and experience was the relative lack of planning evident in his comments [see segment around 45:00 as background].

I feel that we learn the most about people, anyway the most accurate information about people, by making sense of the contradictions that describe them. Michael seems to be a very hardworking student with a situationally high degree of work ethic, who essentially flunked out of the architecture program at his school, and tells and shows us how also spends much time in the same body appearing "too laid back" to respond to the exigencies of life which other people sometimes expect of him. My view is that the common thread in this contradiction is inconsistency.

I think Michael is a poor self-observer. He prefers to describe himself with a narrative that he is successful in a wide range of areas of life -- social, relational, professional, intellectual. This narrative is not untrue, but there are a number of signs that Michael's life is much more variegated and less consistently successful than the narration makes it seem. Probably most clearly, we see that Michael's work ethic for schoolwork has not remained very consistent throughout his education.

The lack of planning is evident not only in the explicit description around 45:40, but also in the lack of elaboration for many of the real plans that Michael does enumerate (and the replacement of planning with sheer self-confidence). For instance, Michael mentions his interest in political science as a genuine desire to learn more about political stances, and describes himself as "having an instinctive understanding of geopolitics" (What aspects of geopolitics?) and working in politics, perhaps as some kind of political consultant. While of course Michael has plenty of time left, and experiences to encounter, before settling on his professional goals, these plans are fairly unelaborated.

Likewise, Michael describes to us that he has not planned at all about the circumstance from the interview question I borrow from Peter Bartl, "What would you do with your time if you had enough money to live comfortably".

In my view of socionics, the lack of planning -- in particular, genuine but inconsistent attempts to make careful plans, and the difficulty of planning being a sensitive pressure point of the psyche, is a good description of Ni suggestive.

Likewise, the sheer confidence, inconsistent lifestyle, competitiveness, and lack of spontaneous elaboration (or "storytelling") is much like the Se dominant. There is an element in the lack of spontaneous storytelling, as I allude to in the observations, of self-protection; I think Michael is sometimes less than fully cooperative in his depiction of himself (although, even this level of cooperation is still "mostly" cooperative, merely with some detail omitted). The meaning of this behavior is much less clear; this ego-protectiveness can occur with a variety of types for a variety of reasons. I think it exists sometimes in the Se dominant types, although more commonly in the SEE and in the other gamma extrovert, LIE. Worth noting, in many cases Se dominant types do not have this ego-protection, rather they have no filter on top of their spontaneity, which usually doesn't serve them well in life. I think that many representatives of these types learn early in life to police themselves for protection.


So I have described some reasons why I see Michael as the Se dominant type. I think it is much less clear whether Michael is the SLE or SEE, and I think this is very difficult to tell from the interview between these types. I was quite unsure between these types, and had a short, unrecorded follow-up session with Michael after the main interview to help disambiguate between them. This session is difficult to summarize convincingly; after all, it is unavailable to the reader, which is the opposite of what I attempt to do on this blog, I try to present everything to the reader, explain my own reasons, and let the reader find their own conclusions.

But it is important to say that I got some information from this session. I was more convinced after asking questions in this session that Michael 

1. is not obsessively concerned with the discrepancies in how he feels he "vibes" and how other people feel he "vibes"
2. is spontaneously tuned to evaluating the character of other individuals, at least some of the time
3. is emotionally present and probably rather more emotionally labile than he might seem, although I do not feel 100% sure of this.

As the reader may guess, I think Michael is the SEE, and not the SLE. The SEE is a Fi-valuing type which in my view has a spontaneous attention to the character of other people and sources (and can be expected to sometimes spontaneously discuss these topics). The SLE is an Fi vulnerable type with no attention whatsoever to the character of others and a great deal of attention to how they are perceived and whether they are fitting in the way they would like.

However, I think the interview really is insufficient evidence to make this distinction of Michael. I consider the SLE typing reasonable, and it is a very realistic alternative to my typing of SEE, and may nonetheless be correct.

Another contradiction present in Michael, I think, is that he tells us he is a nondiscriminating, friendly person who easily and without anxiety initiates new contacts, and also declined to carefully detail some of his most pressing personal conflicts. It is worth considering this comment skeptically for its accuracy, but taken at face value, this is similar to how I see the manifestation of harsh judgment in the SEE. Representatives of the SEE type, in my experience, usually do not easily identify themselves as having harsh judgment, because they prefer to be positive and upbeat and do not identify themselves as critical of others. However, the common theme of the SEE is their inconsistency, in their emotionality and in life. For the SEE, I describe that harsh judgment occurs "in the moment", indeed they might be the most volatile and critical type of the whole socion in particularly stressful circumstances.

I think there is some evidence to suggest an interest in the character of others in the interview, in the description of the "SLE" friend and the other "ESI" friend in the saga about the trip to Colorado that did not ensue, and various other designations of friends throughout the interview. But the character assessments are not made very clear in the interview, and there is a reasonable argument that these stories depict the opposite of character assessment; rather "chunking" of the concept of character into simplistic socionics boxes. Looking at everything, I don't think so (and in my experience in this interview context many types refer intrusively to socionics concepts; this is sloppy thinking regardless), but that argument is certainly a consistent interpretation.

Interviews - Patrick

I interviewed Patrick:

Observations:

• Quiet, careful, thoughtful demeanor. Easily receptive to formality of interview setting.
• Not prone to interruption or excess display of energy (debatable?)
• When asked to describe conflict - beginning at 1:25:15 (continuing to around 1:33:00) - there is a clear tendency to represent conflict from subjective, emotional point of view. Conflict is not described not as the causal history of objective external circumstances (e.g., "This is what I did, and the other person responded by doing such and such behavior, and I reacted like this"). The causal histories of conflicts are described in Patrick's responses in a somewhat neglected way. Instead what he appears to be focusing on pointing out by way of explanation, is the subjective response; the emotional charges, and ideological stances of the participants are the focus.
• Likewise, the conflicts discussed seem minor in scope -- it is noteworthy that Patrick chooses to even discuss (and, perhaps, engage in) such conflicts. Rather than, for example, a response similar to "I had a [distant] friend who said some really dumb things to me which I thought were ridiculous and/or cruel, so I essentially ignored that person and decided they weren't very smart [and it doesn't necessarily occur to me to discuss this unimportant dumb person at all.]"

Themes:

• Simplify, get to the point, only give me the information I need to know - the main point, the "basics".
• Limit scope of information acquired to reality, rather than speculation - 42:50 "I don't want to feel like I'm spending my time doing something that will turn out to be completely irrelevant to the job I'm getting; I know that if I work really hard on interviews, that is something that will literally happen [...] it's actually something that will happen in physical reality [...] so that's what I can spend my time on to get the maximum benefit." Also around 1:09:50, "I don't care because it's not going to happen."
• Little discomfort with initiative or taking action. Much less impulse to act. Limited impulsivity, but also inconsistent self-control (from standpoint of inner narrative). Inconsistency of motivation.
• Initiative limited by shame, fear of judgment. Literal stated preference for free expression.

I found this interview very difficult to interpret. Probably partly it is my fault, I focused on some of the wrong things and went on some unuseful conceptual digressions which wasted time (although which might be nonetheless interesting for my small readership here).

But perhaps the main reason the interview is hard to interpret is because, for the most part, Patrick is very even-keeled and doesn't show us much. He tells us more than he shows us; he is a dry, astute, studious, career-focused, and very verbal person. We are left to piece together his comments by context, and make what observations he can.


The most consistent unique theme from the interview, in my view, is it's emphasis on "reality" opposed to speculation, as in the observations explained above. The word choices Patrick uses are telling; he is concerned with "what will happen in physical reality" and not at all with speculative possibilities, which he dismantles articulately as, not relevant to his life. Even, perhaps, when those possibilities are not so unlikely. This focus on reality, and dismissal of speculative possibility, seems unlikely for an Ne valuing type, and instead suggests a type with a greater focus on limiting possibilities, perhaps an Ni valuing introvert. Although, the range of types that I thought about carefully certainly included the LIE and SLE as well.

It seems to me, as well, that Patrick is more correctly described by his rejection of what is uncertain, than by any positive possibility; that is, by any formative vision of what he might expect to become, e.g. a specific vision of what he would like to focus on in his career. But it is still difficult to rule out any of the Ni valuing introverts, based on such inferences.


Interestingly Patrick expresses around 1:16:50, a strong, a preference for environments of free expression "people might judge me harshly or look at me critically and I don't know how to respond to that". It's difficult to know exactly what to make of this; the preference is told and not really shown and Fi valuing types will also report that they prefer not to be judged than to be judged (for obvious reasons). Arguably, Patrick's comments are spontaneous and occupy a high pressure point in the psyche. This picture is consistent with his comments that he strongly prefers exterior emotional space environments of enjoyment, but does not always understand how to behave in order to (or have the confidence to) cultivate environments of good fun.

We are painting the picture of the LSI, of course, with Fe suggestive and Ne vulnerable, and Ti+Ni values, as the best fit for Patrick's type. But we should also consider the other types that might fit this same picture. 
The SLE is a somewhat reasonable fit, but my opinion is that Patrick lacks certain qualities that I would expect to accompany this type, including impulsivity, any history of erratic choices, managerial attitude towards other people

• The SLE is a somewhat reasonable fit, but my opinion is that Patrick lacks certain qualities that I would expect to accompany this type, including impulsivity, any history of erratic choices, managerial attitude towards other people (arguable that he does have this, but in my opinion not to the same degree). By way of comparison examine Ihor Pidruchny's interview done by Jack who is an extremely focused people mover, and others.
• The ILI is a fair fit -- but only if we dismiss Patrick's comments about free expression as told not shown and therefore not valid. This supposes that he prefers to interact with the interior emotional space than the exterior -- all of the language about "ingratiating" himself into environment of free expression seems to go against this. The best I can figure from this interview -- from the language, and the expression, is that the comments about preference for emotionally rich atmospheres is a strong pressure point like Patrick says.
• The IEI is a real possibility here which shouldn't be discounted. Like the LSI this type also has a strong preference for free expression, some difficulties with motivation, and can indeed appear quite studious and rational (especially male IEIs). As in the description above of Patrick's explanation of conflict, we see some (strong) reasons to describe Patrick as focused on emotional information (which could be "tapped" Fe suggestive). But we also find reason to see Patrick as perfectionistic and formal. We could also make some arguments that his "definiteness" and language in describing reality over fantasy, suggests Ne vulnerable and not Ne ignoring, although this is a very tenuous comparison.

Interviews - Abde

I interviewed Abde:

Some observations:

• Abde immediately describes himself in terms of his philosophical beliefs, his views in an intellectual, disembodied domain. He completely ignores, until prompted, describing himself in terms of any worldly activity
• Refers to himself as an abstract referent -- "One must have knowledge in order to deal with the world"
• No forethought to issues of practical life, but no lack of forethought in terms of understanding the condition of self. "Through those dreams [activities] you can understand more about yourself and what you want, but nothing really useful, practically" 29:55
• Lack of specificity "Details really annoy me and bore me to death"

Some verbal themes:

• Anticipation, doubt, worry
• Lost, searching, approach to colleagiate study shows little direction or commitment.
• Disembodiment, lack of connection to reality, interests reflect a preference for "out of reality", world-building, art, intellectual activities, video games.
• Searching for something "worth" living for, "I am kinda nihilistic, kinda rejecting when something is not worth"
• "I make friends with everyone"

My view is that Abde is the IEI.

The themes presented in Abde's interview are unambiguous. There are two general principles in these themes:

1. Abde lives a life, unattached to reality
2. Abde lacks realism and practical focus, has little sense of detail.

My theory is that Se valuing types have the attitude of world-rejection -- that is, they find the world around them not worthy of their attention and instead direct their attention towards themselves and their personal accomplishments, or towards fantasy worlds that seem to have greater detachment or enjoyability than the existing mundane world. This theory has not fully held up over time; Se ego types, particularly Se dominant types don't recognize themselves, and aren't, disinterested in the world around them. But Ni dominant types do correctly represent this theme of "rejection" -- a topic which Abde describes directly, and repeatedly in the interview, in the form of preference for world-building, physically inactive entertainment, and also in the conscious reflection on the part of life that seems too mundane, and insufficiently grand in scale to be meaningful.

I would say that Abde's world-rejection further takes another form: rejection of pragmatic constraints of the world, taking instead a preference for having a broader vision of what is possible, than what is pragmatially feasible right now. This type of world-rejection is specific to the beta quadra with Ni+Fe and not the gamma quadra with Ni+Te. We see it in Abde in what he describes as a lack of detail -- he shows a persistent unwillingness to attend to "useful skills" (as is discussed directly in the interview), a persistent lack of focus in his own activities and studies, and ultimately a persistent preference to communicate, and present himself, as a disembodied, unconstrained entity.

I interpret this lack of focus, as noted, as a sort of rejection of the constraints of the surrounding reality; an unconscious preference for the simplicity of fantasy, compared to the difficulties and anxieties of living. There is no lack of thought about the human condition -- but there is an instinctive tendency to make generalizations rather than specific ideas about the human condition, and there is likewise a lack of focus about how to navigate the tangible choices of life.


It is important to recognize that the anxiety about life, and the unwillingness to engage with it, paradoxically exist side by side. I don't directly have much to say about this in socionics terms. Note that one of the first and most repeated things Abde describes about himself, is that he is very anxious. That isn't the only way the IEI presents, but it isn't at all uncommon for this type. Many different types will be anxious, about different reasons, but the sort of existential anxiety Abde presents -- worrying about life on a grand scale, and the ability of individuals to craft themselves particular experiences and purposes of living -- I think, is something likely for Ni valuing introverts, though certainly possible with other types also. I would say Abde seems to have anxieties about living; that is, about the correct realization of the self and the correct place of the self in the world. By contrast we don't see much evidence that Abde has, for instance, anxiety in social situations. In the interview he mentions social situations relatively little, and at least at the present moment in time (at the time of the interview, a month and a half ago now at the time of writing) doesn't seem to be caught up by them.

I don't entirely know how to interpret Abde's comments that he easily "makes friends with everyone." During the interview, I was not in great doubt about what I was observing (and went into some detail about the spiritual progress of what I was observing), but I probably should have asked Abde to expand on this point. I wonder whether the ability to make friends with everyone, and keep at a peaceable distance from everyone, is a result of malleability of self, or a willingness to dynamically present the self to match the circumstances. But I did not probe this line of questions.

Interviews - Lovell

I conducted an interview with Lovell.

Lovell had several interviews; below I link the first interview, conducted by another interviewer in fall 2014, and another conducted by me in spring 2016. Lovell's camera was not working.

Full disclosure: because of the unique circumstances of having several videos, I had a strong opinion about Lovell's type before conducting this interview. My opinion was not changed at all, over the course of the interview, or afterwards.

A few observations:

• Lovell tends to speak slowly and deliberately, he often pauses to search for the proper words. He tends to speak "in circles", searching for the proper way to express his idea, frequently becoming sidetracked or lost in thought, giving very indirect, tangential answers.
• Many lengthy pauses in speech (and not only in my own questions).
• No emotional range in interview context (not the most informative context, but anyway)
• Spontaneously critical of people (main theme - people who don't or can't do their jobs, people who are incompetent) 

My view is that Lovell is the ILI.

The most pressing theme that I observed in Lovell's presentation is one that I pointed out explicitly in the video - Lovell is characteristically "minimalist"; he is largely not a participant in the activities that comprise his life. Instead he brings about with him a sort of sense of disembodiment and apathy, a broad lack of commitment towards achieving personal goals. His life seems almost directionless, as if he only partially and halfheartedly sets his mind to the life circumstances and places he finds itself, as though he is reasonably content to do what he does currently, and to be where is currently, but any other place or occupation would suit him just as well, or possibly better.

In response to my challenges, around 42:50, about why Lovell is not more of a participant in his life's circumstances -- Lovell maintains a measured response to my questions, appearing to find the questions "why not do more", logical in nature, but nonetheless responds completely blankly, revealing a characteristic failure of attention to the possibility of doing more to act, rather than think, about the circumstances around him.

Even the way Lovell relates to people, seems minimalist (at least outwardly). The people around Lovell's seem to lack detail from Lovell's point of view, almost as if they were interchangeable, useful for hanging out with and consuming substances, but what they mean to Lovell, if they carry a deeper meaning at all, is very unclear from the point of view of the observer.

Lovell has a clearly expressed sense of skepticism. This skepticism is not restricted to other people, although we can clearly see it in his conversations about work colleagues where it is specifically directed towards people, but he also shows an inclination is to doubt himself,  and the positions he takes. For instance, another point that I made explicitly in the interview, involves Lovell's skepticism, and his willingness, or perhaps lack of willingness, to dream. He responds to my question at 30:30 about what career paths he has considered for himself (this discussion dwindles and I address the theme again around 50:00), and my restatement of this question, with a complex explanation about some things that aren't done correctly at his job, but refuses to really divulge (or perhaps, refuses to make firm commitments about) his thoughts about his own future career. But clearly, we can see that he has thought about his future in the organization -- and the reason for that, in spite of his unsettled half-dissatisfaction with his job, is that he is not willing to "lie" to himself by speculating about possibilities which seem unrealistic. In spite of, as he says, his aspiration to do something "bigger" (54:00 appx)

A lot of these themes -- because I came into the interview with a good sense of who Lovell is -- are made more explicit throughout the course of the interview, with penetrating questions, designed to reveal exactly what aspects of life Lovell's trajectory might not be paying attention to. The reader can judge for themselves how precisely the discussion matches the qualities that in Lovell, might be missing, and where is the psychological pressure.

At the very end of the interview -- around 1:25:30, we hear a characteristic story, that I want to point out briefly, which has to do with the ridiculousness of other people, who pay little attention to what is to factually accurate and instead become offended -- from Lovell's point of view -- from the mildest forms of skeptical questioning, precipitating an unwelcome inevitable conflict which seems to make little logical sense. In my view, this is a very typical story from the point of view of gamma NTs with Ni and Te in the ego block, and Fe in the super-ego.

Interviews - Chris

I interviewed Chris a few weeks ago. His interview is embedded here below.

Some thematic observations (i.e., here I briefly allude to some of the very raw observations and more immediately examine the meaning of the self-presentation):

• Work. Observable from immediately the start of the interview, there is an almost single-minded focus on work. To be more exact, in Chris there is a single-minded focus on both presenting himself and navigating/communicating to the world, through the lens of working accomplishments.
• Approach - proactive, formal. Nonfearful. That is, the approach to the interview context is similar to Chris' approach to any new situation.
• Formality - There is an open, ambiguous, question in the presentation about Chris' attitude towards formality. Clearly, his approach and conversational style are formal, most of the time. Yet, there is a conscious preference, which we can detect in body language (look at the thumbnail for the youtube video, which I didn't choose by the way) and well as words, to relate in an informal way.
• Ambition - repeatedly, through the course of the conversation, themes of ambition recur; the need for financial independence, the need to accomplish something which leaves a mark on the world. We also see the attitude that anything is possible, and that life is what you make of it.

I found it easy to observe many insights about Chris' character, but I did not find it immediately straightforward to position that character in the socion. I gave it a bit thought, as well as soliciting some feedback on the interview from other people in WSS diagnostic team (much of which I disagreed with, but it was still generally helpful).

I think Chris is the LIE.

All of the themed observations above, point us in this direction. The issue of formality suggests to us an Fi suggestive type, seeking semi-consciously -- or, perhaps, in Chris' case, with overwhelming conscious effort -- to communicate with close connections, but who habitually interacts with the world in a very formalistic way.

The question of ambition -- more specifically, the magnitude of the psychological pressure associated with "leaving a mark" that Chris seems to tap into, and the belief that life is what you make of it -- suggests an Se-valuing, world-rejecting type.

It is important to recognize in this conversation, what we can see, and what we cannot. I think, observing carefully, we can see that in spite of my probing questions, Chris was not fully forthright (that is -- the interview is a very personal conversation, and he was not uniformly open to discussing all of the details of his personal life). For instance, we can see this clearly at the segment at 46:00 where he declined to elaborate about relationships with people. An inner resistance to divulging publically, one's inner sentiments, seems typical of Te ego types with Fi in the super-id block. By contrast it is a relatively unlikely behavior for certain types such as Fe valuing extroverts, or SEE/IEE. It also leads the observer to ask -- what else is not being stated openly?


To be clear, I was thinking LIE, and dismissing other suggestions, at the beginning, but I was not initially sure. As the interviewer, I have a slightly privileged view, and Chris and I chatted about the interview somewhat afterwards. I wish to share just a snippet of this conversation, informative to the topic of "what else is not being stated openly":

"Well I don't think I lied. But I did make up my narrative for the most part as I went. I wanted to represent myself competently so I went with a job interview kind of style, plus I'm applying for jobs so it's uppermost in my mind. Plus it's very hard for me to be certain about lots of things. I try to get around that by sticking to facts. I can and have spun multiple different narratives about myself, all of which are unverifiable. So I concluded the subjective isn't something I can pin down.

[...]

I've just been floating since I concluded my specific rigid metaphysical worldview was worthless. I have spun several different narratives to my therapist, and she always believed them apparently, so I concluded that subjective narratives are worthless. Because who is to say which is right? So I'll make a simple one, that is I'm an adventurer on the make, and stick with that."

Hard to interpret -- how does one "spin" a narrative by "sticking to facts"?

My preference is to see these comments, in context, as a dismissal of the importance of thinking about subjective questions. Meaning, not that he does not have an inner emotional world, or subjective perceptions, hunches, which he experiences -- he does, but he has no idea how to, or is uncertain about the point of talking about them, at least in this context.

But alternately, these comments could be seen as acknowledgment of lack of self-grounding as a result of conscious manipulation over outward masks. I grant it is a bit open to interpretation.



There is a major difficulty with seeing Chris as the LIE, which is that on numerous occasions he presents a lack of detailed interest. This point deserves a much deeper treatment.

The gamma type, especially the gamma NT, expresses the sense of skeptical independence. That is to say, they are skeptical of what other people have to say, they are skeptical of other ideas that seem to lack convincing and specific evidence, and generally they are confident (correctly or incorrectly) about their own capacity to evaluate the available evidence. This is not specific to any particular expertise -- they may not know about some particular thing, but they are, in general, confident in their ability to think critically, and to learn, in detail.

Chris appears not to lack for boldness (one example; his willingness, over time, to contradict his family's religious position despite a religious upbringing). But he does seem to lack an element of the canonical skepticism and in particular, the canonical detail of this type.

As a general observation that might be easily visible -- Chris lacks an orientation to the technical; indeed he shows a certain aversion to the technical. As an example, he discussed the situation when his organization attempt to organize a conference where people would pay to learn python. But he failed to contemplate acquiring this skill -- which other people would putatively find valuable enough to pay for -- for himself. As another example, when he was speaking about his responsibilities in his teaching role, he focused on the position of his organization, but failed to elaborate in much detail, even when asked pointedly, about the actual task of teaching. Another example, when discussing what he would do if able to live comfortable, he discussed the possibility of managing a controlling interest in a company (such as FedEx) without contemplating the specific work that managing such a company would involve, or why it would be impactful.

My opinion, making sense of Chris' presentation and resolving this contradiction is not straightforward. It involves examining, and disambiguating all the possibilities. Is it easier to see Chris as an EIE or SEE who is single-mindedly focused on work and happens also to have difficulties relating to others? Perhaps his formality is an act of some kind?

I felt that the explanation with the least amount of inconsistency is this: the formality and distance with which he approaches and communicated with the world, is not an act. Instead I think in examining the narrative it is easier to see him as the LIE, from sheltered circumstances that afforded him relatively few opportunities, and relatively little direction -- who did in some way try to make initial forays into "entrepreneurship" at college, which did not work.

If that is correct, to what extent might we expect the details of his thinking to change over the course of his life?

Interviews - Xero

I interviewed Xero (Joseph). His interview is embedded below.

Some observations:

• Xero has a natural propensity to look at the world as a glass half full. 
• Likewise, Xero presents himself to others in a "glass half full" way, telling stories in a spontaneous way that emphasize his future prospects, his self-image as an "upstanding citizen", and his positive qualities.
• Very inattentive towards vital resources (time, money, energy). 
• Very inclined to abstract, spiritual, and descriptions of "energy" in his explanations for his character and surrounding lived circumstances. 
• Emphasizes in his own narrative, repeatedly and emphatically, his mentorship and developmental attitude towards others. 
• Inclined to somewhat lengthy, uninterrupted personal explanations, maybe even in a slightly defensive way, as if to say outwardly "I am a more reputable and more compassionate person than my actions might suggest".

   Some themes:

• Emotional warmth and support for others
• Lack of boundaries; "unconditional" regard for others

My view is that Xero is the ESE. My second choice would be the EIE, but I am fairly comfortable with the first choice.

The interview contains elements that are subtle, but largely consists of much less subtlety. To a certain extent, it's very easy to interpret Xero's words literally; he opens the interview discussing his warm-heartedness and his openness towards other people.

What is perhaps more subtle, and very important to recognize is his sensitivity to the interview context, and in particular, his sensitivity to a situation that is unambiguously formal, or at least, comparable in formality Xero's formal, working life, compared to his informal life. I think the exact degree to which we can observe how different Xero's formal and informal lives are from this video, is something of an open question. But it's clear there is a disparity in how Xero acts in an interview -- an interview for a job, or apparently an interview for a typology enthusiast -- compared to how he might act at a party.

Xero has a preference for presenting himself in a positive way that emphasizes his future prospects. He emphasizes for instance his helpfulness towards others despite the negative aspects of their surroundings, while almost completely omitting the details of his personal hardship and suffering (e.g., "That period was a very rocky time in my life, but what I did afterwards was X", which he then spends five minutes talking about). Even when asked thoughtfully and somewhat directly about negative experiences, ("Have you encountered failure stories where you couldn't get through to people you were trying to help") he answered the question without really acknowledging that he had failed to help people, or indeed perhaps in a deeper way acknowledging the implication of a negative outcome inherent in the question.

There was one isolated thing that I thought was very peculiar, and which I pointed out in the interview but which I think is also worthwhile to point out here. There was a long anecdote about working in Louisiana and walking a considerable distance of 11 miles to get to work every day. Instead of contemplating the resources involved in this state of affairs, and finding a cost-effective solution, Xero contemplated the effort of walking this distance as simply, the necessary constraints of his situation. He described that he did not think of the possibility of improving this really bad situation himself, but that it was somebody else who suggested to him that a secondhand bicycle would be a good solution.

More generally, some themes that are more subtle, but still influential:
First of all, Xero seemed to me to have a deficit of thinking of his own resources and energy, and generally, his needs, compared to how he affects others or contemplates others' needs. He described a number of occasions in which he was forced to more carefully consider his own needs in order to get things done, but these times tended to be out of sheer exhaustion, after days of not sleeping well enough having other people make too many demands on his time, and so on. He also described, when asked indirectly, that he didn't feel that his instances of material generosity had been taken advantage of.

Finally, and perhaps most open for discussion; I felt that Xero was very inclined to speaking dryly (especially in the interview context) and was intellectually receptive or even deferential. To me, it felt as though he wished to present himself as an upstanding, kind person, but not at all as an intellectual. Instead he seemed very open -- not only to my analysis of him -- but also in general, to explanation of how the world works.