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.
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.
Penn Jillette is an interesting person. For nearly forty years he has run a magic show with Raymond Teller. Penn is notable for being the talking half of this duo, and of the two is really the larger public voice for the act.
Penn is a gracious person. One of the primary visible sets of youtube videos I used to describe Penn as "gracious" is the TV show Fool Us, which aired in Britain. In that show, Penn and Teller watch as amateur magicians perform tricks, once, and try to figure out how it is done. We can see that while both Penn and Teller are mechanically skilled, Teller is a bit "brainier" and Penn, being the speaking part of the two, has developed a grace in talking and formally dealing with the amateurs, even when their tricks were really bad and so on.
(Fool Us is not so socionically relevant -- I recommend to watch just a couple of clips on youtube -- but it is interesting. Also, unfortunately, a lot of the Fool Us clips have been removed, but there are still many to get a sense of the show).
Nonetheless to say that Penn is a "gracious" person in general is inaccurate. If you watch him in interviews, or in his magic act in other ways, he engages in a lot of slapstick, grotesque, off-the-cuff comedy replete with blow-job jokes and so on. Indeed the Penn and Teller act is renowned for, in addition to its mechanical skill in performing magic, its humor and attempt to portray shock value (you can see this in various magic clips between the two of them).
And then, more interestingly, if you watch more interviews, you will quickly come to Penn's views on politics, including things like religion (Penn is an outspoken atheist). In this arena we see another side of Penn as well -- there is a very pronounced, exacting morality which Penn articulates in his views and in all his actions, to go along with his slapstick sense of comedy.
I think the interview with Penn and Teller at the James Randi society (embedded above), perhaps long, points out all of these features and goes on while Penn describes in great detail, and shows very clearly most of these qualities, but the most interesting one is the preciseness of Penn's morality (which also informs his political views and broadly controls the way he interprets the world around him).
Penn's morality, from his words, seems to be centered around respecting individuals and reasoning with them earnestly and in such a way that respects their right to their own individuality. He is distressed by collectivism (both in his politics and in his morality) precisely because of its incompatibility with his preference to see people as individuals, and most of all seems to dislike deception, an unwillingness to play with others' emotions.
There are two typings I could interpret for Penn Jillette - LIE and SEE. Of these, I strongly prefer LIE. In my opinion, Penn has a very clear expression of the gamma theme of independence -- in his intellect, he has a requirement to see all people as individuals with distinct motivations, and perhaps a difficulty in conceptualizing individuals in any way other than as independent entities, or accepting worlds where others argue that this is true. The exacting morality, and the belief that one has "solved" moral conundrums -- and a corresponding stubbornness and skepticism when dealing with anyone who disagrees -- is a reflection of the independence of all individuals and in my opinion is characteristic of gamma NT and especially of LIEs (for instance, compare Penn's behavior to the precision of the moral compass of Sam Harris, a scientist who is most well known for his outspoken atheism).
Penn's harsh judgment is much less pronounced -- which suggests a gamma extrovert rather than a gamma introvert. In fact, the comments about "I have a higher tolerance for bullshit than just about anyone" might suggest something other than harsh judgment, but I think in a subtle way it actually is harsh judgment -- merely, independence predominates and harsh judgment is not often above the surface. But still we should see it clearly -- as in Penn's contempt for much of what is satirized on the skeptical TV show "Bullshit."
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.
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.
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.)
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):
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.
