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":
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?
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."
[...]
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?
