Interviews - Chris

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

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

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

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

I think Chris is the LIE.

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

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

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


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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interviews - Xero

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

Some observations:

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

   Some themes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interviews - Wolf

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

Some observations:

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

Some verbal themes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sargon of Akkad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what I observed from these videos:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penn Jillette

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."

Teller might be ILI, I am not as sure.

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.