Interviews -- Jian-Wei Gan Lim

I confess I do not know how to interpret this name but as I understand it this person goes by "Gan." I assume only because the interviewer refers to him with this name. Gan's interview is embedded below.

Observations:

• Preciseness of syntax. From 0:10 "I am doing splendidly, how about you." Yes I understand he is not a native speaker.
• Stiff, focused demeanor. Not a lot of motion. Somewhat stern, attentive gaze, even while thinking. Continuously returns to the same posture.

A selection of notes (i.e., most of them) I made taking the video:

• 3:00  Describing why psychology is interesting, makes use of considerable generality
• 5:20 Studied english literature to study allusions made by "exaggerated reality"
• 6:20 Describes enjoying literature and psychology because of "deciphering", need to make mental leaps to decipher the unsaid.
• 8:50 Social "brashness" a learned skill
• 9:40 "I like to refer to myself in the third person, in a very regal manner.
• 10:30 Enjoys messing with people
• 11-12 Describes considerable ambition without much forethought (wants to be professor of english literature, doesn't know specialization, has no plans for current time, etc.) This ambition is a "greedy" on life rather than the passivity of Ni dominant types.
• 18:30 "Narrative fiction dominates my life"
• 19:00 Going to the gym "Pumped to get that healthy body" at first but interest wanes quickly.
• 22:30 Adjust to match interaction, continues to describe interactions in a "strategic" way
• 25:55 Part of the attraction from women is that I make things "challenging". Very frank discussion of attraction. Describes intentionally minsinterpeting others to mess with them and so on.
• 28:15 Assents to inconsistency in sometimes taking initiative, and sometimes hanging back. Which is reasonable for IEI but not so expected.
• 29:25 Passes from a question about perspective taking to this completely unrelated generalization about evil in the world
• 31:30 Fatalistic view about unspecified psychological illnesses "There is not necessarily anything I could do about that." Not indicative but interesting.
• 33:15 "For all the hot air and occasional depravity, I have morals that I stick firmly to." Very general statement of morals: "One of my big convictions is having loyalty to people. Loyalty to yourself as well; A man should never betray himself in the sense that he betrays the beliefs or standards that he has for himself." Someone who has no convictions at all, those are the people I find a little bit difficult to understand. "The kind of people that would betray their own beliefs just for the sake of a moment."
• 39:20 People that I admire most are the ones that are the least judgmental
• 41:45 My ideal world would be somewhere ruled by the spirit of acceptance
• 43:35 What would the ideal world look like? I haven't really given it that much thought.
• 46:00 Again describes a dislike of judgment
• 47:20 "When I go to a karaoke bar, I feel uplifted, particularly if I am singing a song that has meaning to me"
• 48:45 Expressing messages to the world, I don't necessarily find them gospel that needs to be expressed, I find more joy in the act of expressing them.
• 51:40 I have optimism for the world in general, because I believe we are good in general. I believe the world is in balance, it finds a way to balance.

My typing of Gan is LSI, and not IEI as the interviewer suggests, which of course is a very close type to LSI. There are a number of inconsistencies in the interview that serve to nicely document Gan's character (as we can learn a lot from looking at a person's inconsistencies), many of which are touched on in the notes above.

First of all, there is an uncertainty as to social settings. In this interview, Gan is serious, and stiff. But he tells us -- and probably many people of Gan's type would not realize about themselves -- quite openly about his tendency in social settings to be "brash", to mess with people, and so on.

Gan repeatedly describes his desire for free expression -- for environments where he can be free of judgment and where the "spirit of acceptance" predominates. All Fe-valuing types prefer such environments, but it is an issue for Ti ego types with Fe in the super-id. It is easier to see the repeated, insistent emphasis of free expression as a characteristic of Fe super-id than as Fe ego. The same is true of comments like "I am uplifted by the energy of singing songs in the karaoke bar," it is of course possible but the entire presentation is a bit over the top for Fe ego types to say such things. It's also worth pointing out the note at 6:00 about "deciphering" -- in this case the statement is less clear in that it would be reasonable for an IEI to say something similar, but it is very common for Ti dominant types to be enchanted at their own ability to "decipher" hidden motivations.

Gan has a certain self-presentation of regal formality, present in his language (which as I note at 0:10 is very precise, there are other examples of specific usage of complex syntax which I concede may be a language issue). He presents himself in a measured way even when talking about quite personal issues, and does not try to come across as overly intellectual.

Relatedly, he is willing to speak about many topics, including ethics and psychology, by summarizing them with broadly general overview statements. In my opinion -- again not straightforward to prove -- Gan's style of generalizing is characteristic of the logical chunking (i.e., compressing data into one neatly formulated concept) usually expressed by Ti dominant types. This type of chunking is offered repeatedly on a range of topics, and in my opinion, while I think IEIs do sometimes offer this sort of chunking, in my opinion in Ti types, and especially LSIs, it as central to the way they generate explanations as it is with Gan here.

Interviews -- Matthew Knight

Matthew's interview is embedded below:

First, a brief disclosure. All of the other interviews that I have analyzed publically on this blog to date (and all of the other ones that I am working on) are not interviews with people that I have had any prior contact with outside of the World Socionics Society facebook group. Other people from the socionics community have interviews, but I have avoided analyzing them in public. There are several reasons for this but the most important reason is pedagogical: This blog is meant to be pedagogical and my previous typings were based virtually on the interview alone. Now of course, this has drawbacks as well as benefits -- it is certainly possible to make mistakes in interpreting someone when all you know about them is a one hour interview -- but at the same time it is useful to make observations drawn from sources that are immediately visible to any viewers, so that intrepid viewers may watch them and make different conclusions.

This is to say, I met Matthew in person a few months before this interview to discuss socionics and we have talked virtually and in person a few times since then. My knowledge of Matthew therefore precedes my watching this interview, as does my opinion of his type, and my personal conversations with Matthew have served to strengthen this opinion. I will focus primarily on the content of his interview here, and if this interview were not excellent I would not be analyzing it given that I have personally met Matthew.

I can say with some confidence that it is likely I would draw the same conclusion of Matthew's type from just this interview. But: the strength and confidence of my opinion would certainly not be as high as it is from the interview alone. And perhaps, although I will go on to criticize the interviewer's analysis a little bit, my perspective has something to do with that criticism.


Some observations follow.

• Long-winded -- gives many long and descriptive expositions of his view of people and scenarios he encounters 
• Shows a pretty dynamic range of gesticulations and always doing something with his hands, occasional "head-in-clouds" thoughtful expression.
• Interview is littered with many long tangents. Easily talks for considerable lengths of times without necessarily soliciting external input. As a consequence he really puts quite a lot of himself in the interview.
• Fairly neutral tone with little voice modulation including on emotionally charged topics: "its a show on these people who are basically pedophiles, basically hearing what they have to say", "Thankfully out of college, it was a miserable experience I'd rather not talk about it"

Overview of thematic content.

• Describes a disconnect with the poetry, abstract identification of the population of INFPglobal, finds no value in William Shakespeare's works, and especially found no value in the not-obvious abstract symbolism of most poetry.
• Shows glimpses of an attitude of "openness" -- "I would need to go back to poetry to see if I can find anything in it", "I found it interesting to try to figure out why these people would engage in these compulsive behaviors even while they have a family and kids and so on"
• Describes the ideal job of designing industrial products which combine artistic transmission and function. Emphasizes the importance of design, personal creativity, and aesthetic.
• Talks a lot about products and services and his professional career and his career choices. Focuses on a lot of specific details of his experience and requirements of his work.
• Does not talk about other people or personal relationships at all except where asked directly, and his comments are terse and mostly discussing difficulties in dealing with people at a close distance.
• Focus on self improvement and structured exercise regimen

My typing of Matt is LSE. I agree with the interviewer that Matt's main focus is on Te -- discussing products and services, discussing his work life, and discussing the specific aspects of nearly anything else. The other observations and themes also play to this typing -- a characteristic dislike of material that is too abstract and doesn't have any concrete meaning, the "ideal job" combining design aesthetics and building practical products, the description of openness, and so on. Matt's emphasis is on Te+Si+Ne, delta values.

There is also a certain conservatism (not political) present as a minor undercurrent in Matt's discourse -- he describes the usefulness of his own pursuits as well as the usefulness of the pursuits of others, and the ethics of, for instance, designing video games that would exacerbate others' addictions as well rather than helping them foster a more useful craft. The occasional discussions of the importance of self-improvement and self-directed organization is also a reflection of this dynamic. An orientation to self-improvement is somewhat common in LSEs, and usually absent in SLIs.

Given that I think Matt is LSE, and the interviewer thinks he is SLI, there is only so much that I can criticize the interviewer's observations. In particular, I agree with his identification of Te+Si values, and that Matt's main focus is on Te. We can also see that Matt has a great deal of energy and industry, and that his main weakness is in the area of interpersonal relations which he avoids discussing to any extent in the interview.

However, the interviewer makes some (in my opinion) bizarre comments to poorly justify the typing of SLI instead of LSE, which I want to touch on briefly -- I discuss this at length in many places, but I think the reason is a stereotypical and poor view of delta STs, and especially LSEs. In particular, the interviewer describes Matt as hands-off, lacking a forceful orientation and willingness to organize groups of people characteristic of LSEs. This is an erroneous characteristic of LSEs in my opinion. By contrast, with Fi suggestive and unvalued Se, I think that LSEs are hesitant to be "bossy" and demanding in the way the interviewer describes. Instead, Matt's hands-off attitude coupled with the very light conservatism and belief in practical crafts, and perhaps seeing other people as misguided and wasting their time *not* learning practical crafts -- is the prototypical LSE behavior. In contrast the behavior the interviewer is describing is more characteristic of Se ego types, and perhaps Se estimative types.

Interviews -- Susan Harris-Gamard

Susan's interview is unlisted but is embedded below with permission:

In addition, here is another older typing video answering the same questions which I found interesting.

Unfortunately this video is lost - 2020


Susan tells us a great deal and shows us very little. Most of my observations of Susan have to do with her words and not with her demeanor at all:

• Has somewhat limited emotionality. Chuckles a lot, has limited voice modulation.
• Constantly describes herself as assiduous, driven, motivated, "always working", busy, but also as indecisive, poor at getting what she wants and accomplishing things, etc. These contradictions in terms are a common theme in Susan's self-descriptions.
• Very focused on career. Yet has a scattered approach to her own education. Describes herself as obsessed with her own self-directed work; quit stable job as a hospital technician because the work was not sufficiently self-directed.
• Highly organized, structured lifestyle. This organization comes across clearly in Susan's speech. Even in the second video linked where less preparation was done (presumably intentionally), there were little notes made to remember things.
• Describes preferring to work alone.
• Describes herself as sensitive, passionate, chameleon, patient, and accommodating. Yet also "sees other people as objects," and describes herself as simultaneously private and individualistic.
• Describes missing the "energy" of city cafes.
• Occasionally uses sappy, emotional language ("I love my mom")

In addition, here are two extended quotes, from the end of the first and second videos, respectively.

I am not that hopeful anymore to be honest. The only thing I am seeing these days is too much power in too few hands, corruption, dishonesty, people not speaking out enough, people too willing to follow the trends, the crowd, others' ideas. This I find to be the most dangerous. Maybe it is because everything is too open these days, so now we see it with the internet and everything. But really it just depresses me the state that society is in. I'm tired of the sheep mentality; people don't realize that they are being manipulated and controlled by the media and pop culture; people not willing to hear and to listen to what is not being said. I feel that many people are sleeping even when they are in fact speaking out on issues, they don't realize that issues are brought to the forefront that don't actually matter in the wider scope of things. People in power [unintelligible] the media and information generation and dissemination, and no piece of information should ever be trusted at face value. There is always a motive behind everything. I would just like to just go around and wake everyone up out of their trance. I'm hoping that maybe by being a writer and/or educator I might play some sort of a role in this, so I do see a of glimmer of hope; I always see a glimmer of hope that I could play a role in making that a little bit.

I am hot and cold with friends. A lot of times, some people want to get really close to me, and I'm more of when I'm with friends I want to do something, I want to have fun. I don't want to sit and have intimate conversations, if I'm going to have a conversation it's going to be an intellectual conversation, and some people don't enjoy those, they would rather talk about their relationships and things like that and just I will talk, I will listen, but I would rather talk about things that are important that can be changed, something important in the world, and my husband and I do a lot of talking like that, and that's what really keeps us together, keeps us a good couple, because we share that.

[...]

My ideal place is somewhere where I can be honest, I can be open, and I trust everyone. People are not afraid to put things on the table; to argue, to really get down to agreement and understanding each other. I have trouble when people refuse to agree and refuse to see things from another person's perspective. [The place that makes me feel insecure], I figured it out, for me it is when someone is judgmental. And I grew up with a very judgmental father who judged everyone, who was very racially judgmental, everything was a judgment, and it was very stressful for me, made me who I am I know that, but it's one environment I can't be in and if I find myself anywhere like that I will either lash out or I will leave.

[...]

I think for me it was a combination of my dad and the fact that I've never been someone who fits in. So I've always been subject to people's negative judgments of me, that I am different, that I can't conform, that I don't think like everybody else, that I don't act like everybody else and I refuse to act like everybody else to fit in, so when I hear a judgment it brings up all these bad past experience of mine, of the judging eye on me all the time, my clothes, my dress. I was always a little different, always rebellious, always, I liked to make a statement in everything, whether my appearance, how I act, what I say, I want to get things out and get them out in the open, and if someone comes along and blasts me with a judgment, I'm like "Okay so what am I supposed to do with that?" They're not giving me a chance to interact and get a dialogue going, and that's problematic for me. When people put up a wall, you know you need that dialogue to keep going, you need to create harmony and get people to work together, because if we don't work together, we can't do anything, we can't do anything as individuals, we have to do things as a group, as humans, as people who have common interests, common needs, this common drive to survive and be happy and love each other. It comes right down to that.

These quotes are without a doubt cherry-picked portions of her videos, and I recommend watching the full videos. However broadly I do not feel that they are taken out of context.

Of course, themes from these quotes include more contradictory ideas: while describing herself as individualistic and highly oriented only towards her own work, Susan also describes here this highly collectivistic imagery, with a preference for freely expressive (nonjudgmental) environments in which she can "make a statement" and express herself without restriction.

And additionally, she speaks about the importance of being present, of detecting "hidden motivations" in the way people act, and of "waking people up" from the sheep mentality and of discussing weighty subjects of societal importance and which can be changed and improved.



I am caught between two types to describe these observations of Susan: LIE and EIE. Of these, I think EIE is more likely, but LIE is not necessarily a bad typing (and especially Susan's enigmatic self-presentation and perhaps lack of awareness of what is inside her leaves some ambiguity in how to interpret the observations).

Susan's use of extroverted ethics is not overt in her behavior. She is not overly emotional, does not talk a great deal about her emotions or about situations involving other people. Instead she talks a lot more about her career and career history. However, in my opinion her use of extroverted logic is not particularly overt either -- she is an extremely structured, organized person who is very focused on career topics but does not overly emphasize her productive work in doing so (at several points in the first video, the interviewer emphasizes her organization as reflecting a "need for efficiency" for her, to which she assents, but this is not generally reflected in her own words).

Although it is not at all unreasonable for LIEs, an Fi suggestive type, to be "sensitive" as Susan describes and also as unable to see what is inside themselves or how they relate to others. But some of Susan's other descriptions, such as needing to preserve harmony among people, seem a bit out of place for LIEs who have the harsh judgment of gamma types.

By contrast in some of the extended quotes picked out, the Fe+Ni attitudes of the beta quadra seem to stand out quite a bit more clearly. It is telling that Susan sees other people as having the "sheep mentality" and who are "blind to the unstated motivations of others" and that "no information should ever be taken at face value." At face value (no pun intended), this is clearly opposed to the attitude of Te dominant types who value unadulterated information from trustworthy sources.

Moreover the attitudes of rebelliousness, of needing to express oneself in environments of nonjudgment, the collectivistic mentality of people working together, and of "hope" for the future world which, while being emotionally blackened in some ways, can be changed via supra-worldly alterations, are all characteristic of the beta quadra.


From Susan's comments, what is most clear is that she should be an Se-valuing extrovert. The most obvious qualities of Susan are her ambition, drive, and organized lifestyle. Another somewhat present quality is her somewhat "scattered" character, of doing and keeping track of many things vocationally and describing herself as a chameleon that behaves in many contradictory ways. This often underlies a somewhat limited capacity to introspect and notice what is inside herself (a problem which all of the Se-valuing extroverts -- who collectively lack Ti, Fi, and Ni -- can have, as well as some other extroverts such as ESEs).

But beyond the assessment of an Se-valuing extrovert it is somewhat difficult for me to make clear distinctions, about whether Te or Fe is valued -- my certainty of my typing of Susan as EIE compared to especially LIE is probably lower than all of the other interviews I have yet analyzed. To be more confident of my typing I would like to see more clear expressions of emotionality, or know Susan more fully to understand the specific way in which her emotionality is translated into focusing on her career. But based on the evidence and interviews available, I would assess that Fe dominants (who can be quite oriented towards their careers) is the most likely of these suggestions and that many of Susan's comments about collectivism, free expression, and the importance of detecting hidden motivations would be quite odd for gamma extroverts.





(The interviewer mentions that Susan's self-typing is ILI. To me this typing seems highly unrealistic for Susan. To be brief -- as this blog is intended to be didactic and I think most readers will not find very didactic an exposition of possibilities that seem clearly wrong -- I agree with the interviewer's reasons for disagreeing with this typing; ILIs are extremely less driven and organized than Susan appears to be.)

Ayn Rand

You see my main interest and purpose both in literature and in philosophy is to provide an image of an ideal man. A specific, concrete image of what man can be and ought to be.

Regarding Ayn Rand, expat had this to say on a facebook comment on World Socionics Society on May 7:

I've already mentioned Ayn Rand - I don't think she was a LSI, I think she was a LIE. Among other things, her personal life was messed up in Fi areas, although she longed for Fi closeness. Anyway I can write a lot about her as I've read a lot by her and about her. But no, I don't see myself as an "objectivist" But note that she very consistently said that her main goal in fiction was to describe "the ideal man" - not the ideal society or the ideal system or the ideal philosophy. That's it for now.

I previously looked into this typing several years ago and I understand the idea of the LIE typing much better than I did when I last thought about this typing years ago. I might even be convinced by it at some point later.

I am moderately willing to see Rand as LIE but not convinced. I have a number of objections to this typing, which I will try to outline here.

Ayn Rand's personal life and relationships were indeed "very messed up in Fi areas." Indeed in Rand's personal life she fell quickly and hard for men, vastly messing up her relationships and ultimately showing great jealousy, unrealistic expectations and a great lack of emotional awareness (which also pervades into her philosophical views). A few videos about Ayn Rand's personal life, particularly centered around her relationship with Nathaniel Branden, an extramarital lover with whom Rand had an affair between 1954 and 1957 and who has written and talked quite a lot about Rand (as has his ex-wife Barbara):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2LJY6LrHGQ
http://vimeo.com/38724174 (has many parts about Ayn Rand but also quite a bit of disorganized other stuff about politics in the 1990s largely having to do with Alan Greenspan, a disciple of Rand's. Some of the more important quotes are reproduced below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqk0tdncek

She was attempting to portray an affair between [herself and Nathaniel Branden] as totally rationally justified. She said that it was nobody's business and we were sworn to absolute secrecy, but she said that since they were such unusual people and it was inevitable that they feel what they felt, that there could be no objection to an affair. I also felt, I was very aware of how little Ayn Rand had from the outside, from other people.

[...]

[After Nathaniel Branden fell in love with another younger woman] she then launched into a tirade against him that was so shocking, accusing him of utter irrationality, of betraying objectivism, betraying her, it went on and on indefinitely, and it ended with her saying if he had an ounce of morality left, he would be impotent for the next ten years, and then slapped him across the face three times and said "Get out."

-- Barbara Branden, first wife of Nathaniel Branden

The way that I have always interpreted Ayn Rand's somewhat chaotic personal life is the same as I have interpreted her philosophy as a true excess of rigidity in viewpoint and character, and with concomitant failure to recognize her own emotions which caused her to lash out aggressively and irrationally. I viewed the "tantrums" and jealousy of her personal life as characteristic of LSIs with Se values and suggestive Fe. I might be able to reconcile it as LIE with Se and suggestive Fi instead which is not how I thought of it -- although I think that in LIEs compared to LSIs there is more propensity to introspect and acknowledge one's emotional impulses (and how they mislead them) than Rand ever showed in her life, and that LIEs tend to be more subtle and standoffish in their emotionality and less outwardly explosive.

With respect to philosophy, Rand saw herself as a champion of reason and truth, but had no awareness of emotions nor the importance of emotional guidance. Instead she described that altruism was irrational and unacceptable for agents ("heroes") following rationalism and reason. In her words, altruism was defined as taking other people's happiness to be more important than the happiness of the self, but also it is clear that she thought that most people who failed to pursue their own goals had no value or virtue (to put it another way, she could not conceive of the potential value of others).






Just as Rand's philosophy can be seen as a reflection of her unfailing stubbornness and unfailing dedication to emotional repression, so too can her reaction to critical appraisal of her work which in the public sphere was largely negative. Barbara Branden has some interesting comments in the last video linked above about how Rand became disillusioned, stubborn, and rejecting primarily after her work was not heralded by, in Branden's words, "even one" of her peers as a groundbreaking achievement, and like Freud fell into a habit of constantly excommunicating people from her social circle (although of course Freud enjoyed much more success and recognition while he was alive). I think that this is part of a repressive attitude that Ti dominants who become completely consumed with their work sometimes have (I think Freud is LII who I will post about at some later time. I might be able to see IEI though, it is a mystery to me why the discussion around Freud has historically centered around EIE and ILE instead).

It is also not true as expat says that Ayn Rand described the "ideal man" rather than the ideal society. Well, to be precise maybe it is true to some extent in her fiction which I have not actually read, but in Ayn Rand's words (as in the youtube documentary "Ayn Rand in her own words" and also in her interview with Mike Wallace) she is very precise about the composition and character of her ideal society, which is one of rational self-interest in which there exists a minimal state with no breadth into society beyond law enforcement and in which transactions between individuals predominate (and my understanding not having read these books is that they depict at least many facets of these societies as well as the "ideal man"). She is not however clear at all on how to implement such a government or what moral contract would compel such a government to fulfill their end of the bargain; instead this society lives in an idealistic world with little thought to its implementation. These views are all very similar to the ideal world thought of by libertarians today, which I see as a Ti-focused domain (as is much of theoretical economics): the logical pattern of how transactions would occur and what are the basic principles and human rights that must be enforced in such a society taken to their logical extremes, with no or thought to implementation and practical problems (and consider individuals like Ron Paul and probably also Rand Paul, Jan Helfeld, etc, Ti dominants in my view).

Power didn't interest her and money didn't interest her; that may shock a lot of people, but she lived like a most [ascetic], otherworldly person, she lived very very modestly, she had no interest in material acquisition, she had no interest in material luxury, she lived personally a very spiritually existence, very much a life of the mind. And she probably wouldn't have had a very good opinion of people who were overly interested in material acquisition. What she really admired were people who were interested in creative work. She thought and I would say that what exists is this world and this life, and one should honor it and do the best with it, and not endure suffering passively on the assumption that at some time in some other dimension, or some other life, then you will be happy. But if that you honor your own life, if you want happiness and a place to fight for, that is here on Earth.

--Nathaniel Branden

I can understand why one would look at Ayn Rand's comments about America as a place which she passionately loved for its commitment to the individual, and towards her philosophy of individualism and individual accomplishment, and see these things as like LIEs. But she also seems to be influenced and moved by symbolism in various ways, being moved at a young age by film and its depiction of tall buildings in New York as well as strong, independent men.

But I think it is easier to accept that Ayn Rand could have been an LSI who happened to be very moved by individualism, and whose career objectives were the establishment of a lifestyle and philosophy that was basically the natural logical extension -- to the extreme -- of these principles. Who was opposed to the contributions of emotional guidance in guiding one's judgments and especially vehemently opposed to the idea that people could have value (or "potential") that was not explicitly realized in their behavior, essentially delta good faith judgment.


If you disagree with my comments or observations, I encourage you to comment.

Interviews -- Geminatronix

Geminatronix' interview is linked below:

Observations:

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

Interviews -- Kat Chapman

Kat's interview is embedded Below:

Some observations of Kat:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Interviews -- Miia

Miia's interview is embedded below:


Observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interviews -- Dylan Coleman

Dylan Coleman's interview is embedded below:

Here are some observations about Dylan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interviews -- Clemens Lode

Clemens' interview is linked below:

Here are some observations I made about Clemens:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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



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

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


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

Interviews -- Paul A.

We will examine a series of interviews of community members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I suppose I see it as none of my business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you saying it looked more like Gamma Fi?

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

Can you explain how what you do is different?

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

I see

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

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

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

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



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

Richard Dawkins

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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