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.

Interviews - Wolf

In this video I interviewed Wolf. Wolf's interview is embedded below.

Some observations:

• Modest range of gesticulation
• Even-keeled, unstructured "go with the flow" nature, open-minded.

Some verbal themes:

• Conscious preoccupation between boredom and joy, not in terms of driving interests but in terms of immediately lived activity and surroundings. Ego preference to see the world as "nonboring."
• Dismisses restrictions imposed on the self. I interpret a rejection of restriction of self-expression. This theme comes up again and again and relates to the preference to see the world as nonboring. (Recall imagery of the "sterility" and perhaps "blindness" of modern society with its bureaucracy). Later he described himself offhand as "rebellious."
• Easily bored disposition, describes short attention span, easily "lonely." Broadly optimistic but also mildly "manic-depressive" disposition, which is understated and underrepresented by the ego narrative. Somewhat peripatetic attitude which doesn't always involve other people.
• Some pride over his success in productive, work life.
• "Theatrical" presentation, obviously situationally selective (related to "nonboring" expression of self).

I felt it was fairly easy to identify Wolf as an EIE. The key theme is the preference for freedom of self-expression (alternately, free expression, although he does not discuss judgment as clearly). But we can see he is an open-minded person who is stifled by a lack of openmindedness in others, which we can also interpret as judgment.

Wolf's emotional range is not overt, he is very sensitive to the interview context but also easily and willingly allows us a pretty broad window into his world. We can see subtle signs -- as in his commentary about his free-wheeling escapades and also about the correctness of fit of his theatrical approach to doing ghost tours. He also easily identifies himself as an extrovert.

Elsewhere he informs us that he is situationally quick to anger, although he denies that he is an "angry person". I would say that, the way I mean it, he is an "angry person" in the perhaps somewhat abstract sense of finding the world of physical limitations "boring" and mundane, which as I have written elsewhere is the way I see Si vulnerable in EIEs (and not as, clumsiness with respect to their immediate physical surroundings). His choice to see the himself as not an angry person this could be interpreted in several ways but I think it is an ego framing of these same observations, where we would not disagree over the observations themselves.

A few things we don't see -- we don't see any self-imposed limitation of Wolf's behavior based on his evaluations of the character of others. He mentions a lot about himself, his adventures, his idiosyncracies and his caprices, but he doesn't talk about the character of others virtually at all.

Another thing we don't see is constant fast-mindedness. We see an impulsive, but often thoughtful character. Not a character totally devoid of deliberateness.

The themes of rebellion and the idea that society is blind were alluded to more in passing and less explicitly, but these themes are exactly themes of the beta quadra.

The optimistically joyful, but essentially "rebellious" and itinerant disposition is also reminiscent of Geminatronix who we analyzed previously.

Sargon of Akkad

I discovered Sargon of Akkad from a recent discussion on World Socionics Society that presented Sargon of Akkad's introductory video (the first video here, "Who I am and what I do") as a putative embodiment of quadra values. I became moderately interested in Sargon of Akkad's views and continued watching two more videos, from which I stake my conclusions.

Now of course as readers of this blog may recall, I practice socionics by primarily conveying observations about the subjects, and not always paying as much effort to explicating how those objects fit into the socionics model quite so carefully. There are many reasons for this, including didactic reasons since in my experience, many beginning socionics have great difficulty formulating reasonable observations -- however, also, fundamentally the observations are more important than the conclusion.

There is a stark difference between making observations of a subject, and listening to the content of a subject's direct narrative; having the subject tell you, what they are and what they do. This is essentially what Sargon of Akkad does in the first video: he tells us, essentially, the following two main points (he also tells us various other things, which I will reinforce with my own observations; but these points represents themes which he tells us, and does not show us)

• I am an independently minded person. I subscribe to no group and to no ideology. It is important to me that my content remain independent.
• I am a flexibly minded person. It is important for me to receive feedback from others, and to be able to reevaluate my perspective when new information arises.

In addition, based on Sargon of Akkad's narrative, I would make the following observations:

•  Sargon of Akkad is a principled person, who takes the ethics of conveying correct information to his audience very seriously and takes the patronage of his audience very seriously. The elaboration of his principles show that he feels genuinely guilty, as he says he does, about taking money from his audience, particularly if he feels it is not well earned and particularly from individuals that couldn't really afford to patronize him for his content.
• Sargon of Akkad is a very controversial person who holds many unpopular points of view, as obviously he tries to convey to us with his introduction of various detractors. He holds these views because, as he tells us, he feels morally compelled to point out the errors in reasoning of those around him.

 Let's discuss these stated themes, and these observations. So far, I only consider information from the first video embedded above.

Part of the reason that it is important to recognize when someone is telling, and not showing, is that their internal narrative may be warped to their perspective, and actually inconsistent with the world. Sargon of Akkad tells us that he disdains ideologies in others, and insists on having all of the information available at any one time for himself, to constantly be able to reevaluate his worldview. But, if you remember from the introduction, one of Sargon of Akkad's nameless detractors, says the opposite, that "Sargon of Akkad is always unwilling to change his views on anything" (lightly paraphrased). So which of these is really true?

Sargon's comments that he holds no ideology merit careful skepticism because of the nature of ideological conflict in betas. Clearly, a lot of Sargon of Akkad's content is social or political in nature. This alone is enough reason to think of ideological conflict as a possibility for Sargon of Akkad's internal value structure. Beta types will sometimes have no difficulty identifying their ideological persuasions -- but other beta types who express a form of ideological conflict as a quadra values, nonetheless have a much more fluid self-identity, and may feel that their expression is limited by labeling themselves with any ideology, and therefore may have a resistance to doing so. (Kat Chapman, who I examined previously, would probably have such a self-concept).

The theme of updating views to reflect new information is presented in the WSS thread as a gamma theme, related to gamma independence. However, I think this theme is much less clear. The theme of gamma independence, in my view, relates to the stubborn unwillingness to generalize specific observed circumstances to well-defined rules in the absence of overwhelming evidence. The belief is that all things, and all agents, are independent: independently-minded, potentially rational beings to be evaluated on their own merits, and not subject to the contexts and surroundings that may have given shape to them.

The deep willingness to evaluate new information, is a characteristic of Te, which evaluates information unfiltered as it is. But is also a characteristic of Ne, and not Ni which is closed, by nature seeking to limit the possibilities in the world. Thus the characteristic of always being willing to reevaluate one's view, is really thematic fodder for the delta quadra, and not for the gamma quadra which values limiting possibilities, and attention to rapidly shifting worldly demands rather than expansive possibilities and the currently experienced harmony of the world's immediate lived circumstances.

If true, but not clearly true from the introductory video, in my view -- the need to be independent and have independent content, not influenced by others' interests -- does possibly suggest gamma independence.

In order to understand Sargon of Akkad better, I felt it was imperative to examine his content more closely -- to see what his content shows us about his way of thinking, rather than to take his word for it.

These are the two videos of Sargon of Akkad's that I watched to better convince myself of where he fits in socionics -- of course there are many, many other videos.

Here is what I observed from these videos:

• Sargon of Akkad has a certain snark in the way he describes those people whose views he is addressing. While he endeavors -- as he says in the video about Gamergate -- to comment on others' ideas, and not necessarily to slander their character, he also -- in both of these videos -- speaks about "bad people." These "bad people" tend to be synonymous with people who, in his eyes, make arguments which make no sense; examples include the person he argues with in the islamic video, and Anita Sarkeesian from Gamergate whose conclusions he views as tenuous. Even when there is some wiggle room, he sees these people for having these "absurd" conclusions as "bad people." Using exactly that language.
• There is no fear to take on controversial topics and tell the truth as he sees it. Indeed there is an impassioned willingness to get into any argument, regardless of its hopelessness, and a certain anger towards those who don't or can't see things his way.
• As before, there is a principled approach to debate. The search for evidence tends to be quite careful, and quite explicit, and the process of delivering sources taken seriously. As in the video about islam, where great care is taken to demonstrate from many different sources, what is the most common view of homosexuality in islam.

From these videos, but not before watching these videos, I am more inclined to agree that Sargon of Akkad is a "maverick", with little attention to ideology. But I would describe it differently; ideology does not seem to be a component at all of his thinking, instead he focuses on evidence, and principled, self-directed ethical standards (as in his exhortations to keep Gamergate content very carefully focused on journalistic integrity, and remove all other bullshit).

It is very clear that Sargon of Akkad has a "bite", that he has a principled idealism and supra-worldly orientation towards "weighty" matters that is characteristic of Se-valuing types.

It is also very likely to me that Sargon of Akkad, a very private person who doesn't show himself, and makes a living without much activity, on Youtube creating intellectual content, is an introvert. And the description of "bad people" and the unwillingness in Gamergate to generalize that all gamers or all feminists are "bad people" but rather the preference to blame most of the true evil on "third party trolls," do sound like the harsh judgment of gamma types.


I think the type which makes the most sense is ESI, and not ILI. The reason for this is subtle. When I was speaking about it to Jack earlier, he said "I could see why Sargon of Akkad is more involved than detached" and when pressed what that meant he said "Sargon of Akkad manifests subtly more anger than an ILI might."

I see it differently. Actually, I find it very difficult to evaluate whether or not I would expect ESIs or ILIs to differently manifest anger.

The reason in which I see ESI as more likely -- and of course ILI is a very similar type and seems plausible to me -- is because I see Sargon of Akkad as manifesting not more anger, but more *openness* than I would expect from an ILI. Another way to say, is that in colloquial language, and not the technical language of aspectonics, he appears less detached than ILIs might.

One might wonder how an ESI with vulnerable Ne is less open than the ILI. This comes to a subtle point in model A, about which other people will disagree. I view model A as four pairs of axes, the leading/ignoring axis, e.g. in ESIs, Fi/Fe; the mobilizing/demonstrative axis, and so on.

That is to say, the ignoring function and vulnerable functions are both blind spots, and the leading function and (typically, after adolescence) the mobilizing function are strong spots which suppress their alternate pole. My view is that the primary axis; the leading/ignoring axis, is the one with the greatest polarity. Put another way, my view is that the vulnerable function, despite being a blind spot, is actually stronger and more consciously attended, than the ignoring function. This is a very subtle observation and a very technical point, which I expect a lot of people would disagree with the model I present.

From an ILI, I would expect less energy in argument, less willingness to even engage with people who are seen as worthless, greater laziness in presenting arguments to other people (even though Sargon of Akkad in truth does skip over some of his reasoning steps which he considers obvious), and critically -- I would ILIs to have even slightly *less* receptivity to others' feedback and less tolerance of criticism, and less willingness to constantly reevaluate their views, because ILIs more than ESIs have limitedness as a central aspect of their worldview, and also because ESIs have sensitive, suggestive Te.

Other things, Sargon of Akkad has a willingness -- not as much as some dedicated ideologues of course -- to frame broad generalities about those people he dislikes, to assign and describe their points of view in general ideological terms "the social justice warriors are fundamentally authoritarians, not libertarians" (lightly paraphrasing). As I said earlier, this lightly contradicts his self-directed claim of having no ideology -- he has an ideological orientation and he is willing to label himself as the "libertarian" (in the narrow sense of being the opposite of social authoritarians a la the political compass). I actually think this is a bit odd for an ESI; it makes me wonder about LSI as well which would be broadly reasonable. But in either case, the willingness to occasionally make broad generalizations shows lesser detachment and lesser emphasis of independent-mindedness.

Truthfully, the most important reason that I think Sargon of Akkad is more likely the ESI, has to do with experience of reading this kind of character. The most relevant example which comes to mind, maybe others have thought of it also -- slightly imperfect but still very similar in attitude -- is, of course, the late Christopher Hitchens, also a deeply uncompromising and principled intellectual.