Interview Alice

I interviewed Alice.

Please note that there is a technical problem resulting in a brief discontinuity at 58:15. A few moments of Alice's commentary was lost.

Observations:

• Relaxed posture, posture shows affirmation and attention to my questions, extensive gesturing. Head back in "thinking" pose while answering questions, you can see the thinking process in the face.
• In response to "How would you describe yourself?" questions of identity are particularly central. One of the first things dsescribed was "I'm a musician" which turned out to be a hobby. The vocation "I'm a barista" was thrown in at the end of the answer, almost a comparative afterthought.

Themes:

• Alice's work life is bothering her for several reasons, mainly:

1. Her work as a barista is not sufficiently stable in hours, and thus pay.
2. Her work involves too much standing and is physically difficult.
3. Perhaps the most pressing issue, her work involves a lot of superficial interaction with rude customers.

However she doesn't seem to have a lot of ideas about how to improve her work situation. To the extent that she does have ideas about how to improve her work situation, they are relatively inchoate and indecisive. For example, Alice muses that she might prefer to work in an office, where she does not have to interact with customers -- but that doesn't narrow it down a lot nor actually speak to the type of work being done or the skills necessary to do it. We spent large portions of this interview talking about work life and types of work, beginning around 19:30-33:00 and then again at 37:00-50:00.

It seems to me, that the type of work that Alice enjoys doing, is helping other people. She does actually say that in her experience, she enjoys "helping people help themselves" (see 45:00) but makes a distinction between helping people outright or helping people be "self-sufficient." But it seems interesting, that when she discusses her experience of taking care of other people, she seems to be talking about helping them manage their emotions and relationships, rather than their physical surroundings (see 12:30, debatable?)

• Alice has a certain aversion to conflict, and repeatedly discusses a preference to maintain a good natured relationship with nearly everyone around her -- rude customers, unfriendly colleagues, and people in general. If she doesn't like a person around her, she says that she doesn't let them know about it. (see 30:00-37:00 )
• Alice has a history of inactivity and depression. It seems that inactivity makes her unhappy. She has intentionally made moves to balance her natural proclivity for inertia with some other things in her life. 19:20 "My activity level right now is the highest it's ever been and probably at the peak of my capacity for activity, but I have pushed the boundaries for my limits many times." This is a common story for many introverts who tend towards depression, including LII, SEI, IEI, ILI, EII, but there is also an element in the narrative of how important it is to concomitantly have gradual self-improvement, and, perhaps, also a sense of self-blame -- which are less common stories.

My view is that Alice is the EII. There are a lot of themes that match my view of this type. Alice seems to express good faith judgment, characteristic of EIIs with introverted ethics and extroverted intuition, like above where she claims to avoid having negative relationships with other people in almost all circumstances. There are a number of other instances in the video where Alice consciously tries to maintain a tenatively positive view of other people (see, 36:30, although in fairness preceding this discussion is a brief overview of Alice's experience's in therapy).

Clearer is Alice's embodiment of a concept I call, perhaps inexactly, "noncommitment." Noncommitment means, viewing the world for its' potential features, and having a difficulty with committing oneself to a particular path or plan, instead preferring to be able to pursue a multiplicity of paths or plans that might potentially occur. All four Ne ego types in some way have a disposition towards living in a world of theory rather than a world of practice, but this is especially true of the EII type in particular. Alice seems to have difficulty with putting plans into action, and especially with, figuring out what are the best circumstances to put herself in. For example, Alice told us that she has often intended to move on from her job as a barista, but instead has stayed in that vocation for over five years, and has thought about certain features of the circumstances she would like to find herself in, but perhaps too vaguely, with few concrete objectives and certainly without a detailed plan to improve her circumstances. That's not necessarily unusual for young people to have no concrete plan about what to do, but this indecisiveness seems to have been a particular issue for a long time in Alice's life, both during her schooling and working life. Remember also -- another sliced example -- that Alice first described herself at the very beginning of the interview as a musician, but she is not a professional musician; despite her enjoyment of music, she has taken few steps to pursue it in a more serious way, and essentially views music as a rather solitary hobby.

This difficulty doesn't seem to extend to being organized and stable. It seems that Alice may not have always been stable, but seems to lead a relatively stable life now, but perhaps without much drive for career advancement or excitement.

Alice further mentions self-sufficiency, another concept of mine referring to delta types, but Alice's view of self-sufficiency seems to mostly refer to other people's emotional well being, rather than direct oversight of resources seen in the SLI and LSE types. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Alice does not mention use of resources (other than in passing, the need to get paid on a consistent basis) or nature, or any kind of physical surroundings at all any point in the interview.

Greg

In this post I discuss the World Socionics Society interview with Greg, embedded below.

I was not able to get in touch with Greg who did not respond to my messages. I would prefer to have the permission of the people who I analyze in a detailed public fashion, but I found this particular interview so compelling that I decided to post about it anyway. While I would prefer to have Greg's approval, ultimately I consider it ethical to examine for public analysis a video that is shared publically.

Here is a selection of the notes I took about Greg while watching the video:

Lots of use of corporate, businesslike language. Very involved and identified with his profession.

Strange, energetically-driven comments, "I am fortunate to have the ability to see between the molecules, to have a greater comprehension of the human condition."

Shows somewhat limited emotional range although becomes much more comfortable in the later part of the interview

Idealistic commentary about his profession, a bit unusual in the context of a marketing job perhaps. Sees a portion of marketing as helping people and driving innovation.

Describes interesting "pre-instigating" -- taking the initiative before other people have a change to take the initiative whenever he senses that someone else is about to initiate

If these observations do not seem substantial to you, and/or you did not get a whole lot out of the interview to understand what sort of person Greg is, you are much like me, at least the first time watching through the interview. The interviewer's suggestion of ESE initially appeared reasonable to me, but I wondered about other types especially ILE and IEE; I did not have a good sense of what was going on.

The second time I watched the interview, I caught a lot more. The meat of the interview is subtle. Pay close attention to the language used. Here is a selection of comments:

"I am highly loyal with my friends [...] My friends and I are very open, we tell each other that we love each other [...] We're vulnerable around each other; there's an authenticity to our engagement"

"I am very touchy-feely in relationships; I have a high degree of emotional sensitivity and physical sensitivity, so I like to express myself physically and emotionally"

"I try to maintain relationships with my family that are authentic"

"My perception of the given emotion in that moment is that my whole life has felt that way, it's very extreme [...] I struggle with the desire to say what I feel in any given moment regardless whether it's appropriate or not"

"I'm a good channeler of otherworld energy"

"I'm in tune with the world's energy, which isn't always a good thing, I think I suffer a lot because of it, but I do feel honored that I have the ability to sense that, I'm on a wavelength that if I watch a news report, I'm there and feeling it the way that people there would be feeling it."

These comments are stated without much emotional energy, but I was drawn to the extremity of these comments, and especially of the somewhat bland telling our friends that we love each other. All of these comments are spoken softly, but their emotional depth is quite strong and a lot of types are not comfortable saying things like the things he says he says, with such open emotionality, especially towards strangers.

The comments about "between the molecules" and "otherworld energy" are particularly well described. This sort of language, reading the "energy" of other people or situations is something that is most often described by Fe ego types. Typically these are stated in vague ways such as e.g. "I am good at reading the energy of situations" which is vague and sounds metaphysically implausible. Greg's descriptions of this phenomenon, especially the description of watching news reports and feeling things, and his experience of observing riots in Belfast, do an excellent job of very precisely showing exactly what these comments are supposed to mean. That is, he expands on the vague statements like "I am a good channeler of otherworldly energy" and describes that what he really means by this is tapping into the emotional mood of the world around him, basically a picturesque example of Fe orientation towards the exterior emotional state.

It is also worth noting that a key component of Greg's emotionality is his *openness.* He has an altruistic idealism towards the world, a friendliness towards others and seems to be not at all judgmental, ideological, or heated. A typing of EIE wouldn't necessarily be extremely unreasonable from this video, but I interpret that alpha values are better.

A few other observations

Interesting comment, "I tell what is going on in each specific moment and then figure out what is the best thing to do at that moment, but I can't plan more than a few steps ahead"

But I can plan very meticulously somethnig that is self-contained, like a six-week vacation I can plan every part in advance.

These can be thought of as Si ego statements with Ni vulnerable. The argument that they are suggestive of Si immediate-moment attention is stronger than them being Ni vulnerable.

One of the reasons I wanted to post about this interview is because I felt that a lot of the informative content in this interview is very subtle and it took me a little while to realize it was there. However, the interviewer picks up on all of this subtlety and offers ESE as a typing very quickly -- as well as offering a sound explanation of the care with which Greg takes his image to explain why Greg's emotionality is so subdued in spite of this typing. Of the twenty-odd World Socionics Society interviews I have watched, most of them are pretty good, but still I identified some mistakes or choices that I found questionable in the interview methodology. This one is, as far as I can tell, virtually entirely free of executional flaws (apart perhaps from the interview questions). In no other WSS interview does the interviewer do a better job than in this one. Unlike some of the other interviews, the interviewer played his role in moving the discussion forward, generally did not make leading statements or speculate about motivations that were not stated in Greg's words, picked up on all of the subtle cues he was supposed to, and explicitly provided good explanations for why they were so subtle in his conclusion (which of course I think is correct). I can say without question that if I were interviewing Greg I would not have done as good a job.

Interview Rachel

Here I interviewed Rachel in the video which is embedded below:

Some observations and interpretations:

• Firstly, Rachel shared situations in which she seemed to fail to contemplate alternative paths. I got the impression that Rachel had difficulty with thinking of alternatives quickly in the interview from her discussion of being lost and unmotivated in psychology classes and discouraged from pursuit of clinical practice but neither contemplating an experimental psychology track nor having any actionable ideas of anything else that she might have wanted to do or study. Rachel's discussion of her experience floundering in college starts at 3:30-8:30 and my analysis describing the difficulty with contemplating alternatives follows right afterward at 8:30. We see some additional evidence that Rachel might not have contemplated alternatives in her description of social media activity, for instance in the story starting around 25:30 Rachel handled the people she was in conflict with on social media by removing them, without considering different technical or social engineering solutions, and further evidence of being especially inattentive to alternate ways of doing social engineering in the social media episodes described at 1:12:30. At multiple points in the interview, she describes that changes in her circumstances, both in work and family life (31:25), have removed the "guesswork", which allows her to focus better. 
• For much of the interview Rachel had a physically stationary posture. She moved her neck a great deal as she was thinking and communicating (for instance at the segment at 15:00). However there is very little motion when she stops talking and very little motion of the arms (e.g. for gesturing).
• Rachel has some mostly deep interests in physical subjects such as conditioning and animals, including birds (27:55), octopi (29:55), dance and martial arts (54:30), and physical therapy. Some of these interests are more fleeting or untapped, but some of them seem to have a lot of associated excitement and run rather deep.
• Rachel describes anecdotes that reveal a tendency to be very spontaneously and harshly critical of others, at times audacious critical. The situation described starting at 44:35 where Rachel had a confrontation with a supervisor could be considered audaciously critical. Rachel is critical of her colleagues starting at 20:50. She has critical comments about people on social media around 37:00. Rachel seemed especially critical of people who "don't shoot straight" as in her anecdotes about workplace gossip (23:00), and those who don't focus on their work (21:20, 22:00). It doesn't seem like Rachel is averse from conflict or confrontation.
• I mention this explicitly in the interview at points, but on the whole it seems like Rachel is a spiritually much more well developed person than she was in her youth.

Relatedly to the last observation it seems like Rachel is fulfilled by her life circumstances, and specifically by her responsibilities, by her ability to work with her mind, and by the lack of ambiguity that her current life's circumstances present to her. These three factors are my best interpretation of the things that seemed to matter for Rachel; they are debatable but they seemed to stand out in several ways. I thought it seemed uncanny that, having had a lengthy series of "just a job" jobs that Rachel described suitable fit and fulfillment from her job in the insurance industry, explaining insurance contracts and "putting down the law" on faulty insurance claims. Many people would find this job excruciatingly boring, detailed, or emotionally draining. Of course Rachel described that the best thing about the job was the compensation and benefits, and not the job description, but she also praised the job for various characteristics. I think the three characteristics I described above of regular, consistent responsibility, lack of ambiguity and emotional management, and the ability to work with the mind are all important aspects of why this job seems to be tolerable for Rachel.

My view is that Rachel is the LSI.

What is most clear from our interview is that she has Se values . She is readily confrontational, and appears to have had some deficits in planning in her life, especially in the realm of exploring different possibilities or different things to do.

When I first conducted the interview, I had not considered the LSI carefully, and thought more readily of Se dominant types, more likely the SLE. I think that there is some evidence to suggest the SLE typing, most notably the education and work history consisting of a sequence of short, odd jobs that Rachel held, with little long term direction or planning, and at times, little impulse control. .

When I reviewed the interview, taking it as a whole I was not inclined to see Rachel as impulsive. Instead I observed that was contemplative and had a stable amount of energy (including physically, with her posture). She also did not seem talkative; at many points after she was finished talking, and while I was writing notes or thinking, she did not proceed narrating, instead regarding the thought as concluded (she did continue her thought through the pauses sometimes; more often than not she didn't). These observations are debatable. It's true that Rachel has had a sequence of poorly planned events encompassing her entire life for a period of time. But she also seems to have gotten much better at planning and living intentionally, since then.

Rachel was very spontaneously demonstrative of her irritation or anger towards other people. This facet of Rachel is probably quite obvious even to the beginning observer. In her irritability there is a nervous energy, I think, which is a contradiction with the previous observation that her energy levels are stable. I think both are true.

Rachel mentioned very early on that she has a history of depression and at 31:45 that she has an "addictive personality." These are very common mental health difficulties and in my opinion, while different types of people have different mental health challenges that they are more susceptible to, it is difficult to say much more about how we can interpret this information with respect to quadra values and types. She has definitely progressed dramatically in terms of her spiritual progress, since her more acute mental health episodes. My point in bringing this up is not to make an "excuse" for data points that do not fit with my typing (such as impulsivity in work history), but rather to paint a richer picture of Rachel and to point out that the data points may not be inconsistent in any case.

In Model A, my opinion is that Rachel's difficulty with ambiguity better reflects Ne vulnerable than Ne role. She seems to have an affinity for work that involves working with impersonal information and applying a rule-based procedure, which in my view reflects a Ti ego type, likely Ti and Se. She does not like situations where she goes off-book from the protocol, and describes that she is uncomfortable with situations where things were not done correctly (see at 25:00) although this could be for multiple reasons).

Rachel seems to be an introvert in the colloquial sense of the term. She certainly does not describe herself as doing a lot of activities outside of a small world consisting of family and work. It seems most likely to me that her world really is just as small as that, as a stereotypical introvert.

As I discussed in the video (see dialogue beginning at 1:15:00), it seems that Rachel has at least some loss of focus towards the intentions and desires of other people, and especially other people that she isn't particularly close to. It's also interesting how she describes at multiple points (13:30, 1:00:40) that she doesn't want to sacrifice of herself in order to help people, or even seem particularly motivated to help other people (in a generalized way) at all. You could reasonably infer that Rachel's lack of focus on people is a total blind spot that better matches Fi vulnerable than Fi role, but I think it is not as clear, beyond saying that Fi is subdued in Rachel's psyche. Another possibility is that Rachel's lack of focus on people is a high level of selectivity associated with Fi valuing types, and that Rachel is a gamma type such as LIE or SEE. But a gamma extrovert seems to fit much less well with the overall observations, especially my view that she is an introvert.

Rachel does not seem very ideologically rigid, and is hesitant to generalize about other people. Although many LSIs are prone to categorical thinking, this type of intentional restraint from making categorical generalizations is also a reasonably common feature of LSIs.

The best alternative to LSI, I think, is the SLE. I have already discussed some reasons why it is or is not a good fit. So for many reasons I think the SLE typing is less likely, but I see where other people would find merits in that typing.

Interviews - Michael

I had the opportunity to interview Michael

Unfortunately my normal microphone equipment was not working correctly and the backup equipment apparently was nearly inaudible. Unfortunately my sound quality in the interview is awful. However, Michael's sound quality is fine, and the viewer can hear all of his answers, if not always my follow up questions. I apologize for the sound quality; I should have delayed the interview instead of conducting it on poor equipment.

Some observations of Michael:

• Straightforward, direct, terse answers; does not naturally or easily elaborate beyond the parameters of the question
• Defensiveness; there is a certain reluctance to part with information giving a privileged, close-up view of the self

Some themes that recur in Michael's answers:

• Preference for acting, rather than planning [45:40]
• Self-confidence, mainly in own ability to navigate the world (especially socially ["I don't need much life advice 30:30" ; "I get a lot of compliments about my sense of humor", pay close attention after around 23:40], also professionally [19:40]])
• Competition 
• Certain disinterest in "intellectualism" for its own sake [34:20]
• Extended focus on evaluating the character of others and, situationally, restricting the interaction of the self with others (definitely disputable)

My view is that Michael is the Se dominant type. The most important feature that stood out to me about Michael's narrative and experience was the relative lack of planning evident in his comments [see segment around 45:00 as background].

I feel that we learn the most about people, anyway the most accurate information about people, by making sense of the contradictions that describe them. Michael seems to be a very hardworking student with a situationally high degree of work ethic, who essentially flunked out of the architecture program at his school, and tells and shows us how also spends much time in the same body appearing "too laid back" to respond to the exigencies of life which other people sometimes expect of him. My view is that the common thread in this contradiction is inconsistency.

I think Michael is a poor self-observer. He prefers to describe himself with a narrative that he is successful in a wide range of areas of life -- social, relational, professional, intellectual. This narrative is not untrue, but there are a number of signs that Michael's life is much more variegated and less consistently successful than the narration makes it seem. Probably most clearly, we see that Michael's work ethic for schoolwork has not remained very consistent throughout his education.

The lack of planning is evident not only in the explicit description around 45:40, but also in the lack of elaboration for many of the real plans that Michael does enumerate (and the replacement of planning with sheer self-confidence). For instance, Michael mentions his interest in political science as a genuine desire to learn more about political stances, and describes himself as "having an instinctive understanding of geopolitics" (What aspects of geopolitics?) and working in politics, perhaps as some kind of political consultant. While of course Michael has plenty of time left, and experiences to encounter, before settling on his professional goals, these plans are fairly unelaborated.

Likewise, Michael describes to us that he has not planned at all about the circumstance from the interview question I borrow from Peter Bartl, "What would you do with your time if you had enough money to live comfortably".

In my view of socionics, the lack of planning -- in particular, genuine but inconsistent attempts to make careful plans, and the difficulty of planning being a sensitive pressure point of the psyche, is a good description of Ni suggestive.

Likewise, the sheer confidence, inconsistent lifestyle, competitiveness, and lack of spontaneous elaboration (or "storytelling") is much like the Se dominant. There is an element in the lack of spontaneous storytelling, as I allude to in the observations, of self-protection; I think Michael is sometimes less than fully cooperative in his depiction of himself (although, even this level of cooperation is still "mostly" cooperative, merely with some detail omitted). The meaning of this behavior is much less clear; this ego-protectiveness can occur with a variety of types for a variety of reasons. I think it exists sometimes in the Se dominant types, although more commonly in the SEE and in the other gamma extrovert, LIE. Worth noting, in many cases Se dominant types do not have this ego-protection, rather they have no filter on top of their spontaneity, which usually doesn't serve them well in life. I think that many representatives of these types learn early in life to police themselves for protection.


So I have described some reasons why I see Michael as the Se dominant type. I think it is much less clear whether Michael is the SLE or SEE, and I think this is very difficult to tell from the interview between these types. I was quite unsure between these types, and had a short, unrecorded follow-up session with Michael after the main interview to help disambiguate between them. This session is difficult to summarize convincingly; after all, it is unavailable to the reader, which is the opposite of what I attempt to do on this blog, I try to present everything to the reader, explain my own reasons, and let the reader find their own conclusions.

But it is important to say that I got some information from this session. I was more convinced after asking questions in this session that Michael 

1. is not obsessively concerned with the discrepancies in how he feels he "vibes" and how other people feel he "vibes"
2. is spontaneously tuned to evaluating the character of other individuals, at least some of the time
3. is emotionally present and probably rather more emotionally labile than he might seem, although I do not feel 100% sure of this.

As the reader may guess, I think Michael is the SEE, and not the SLE. The SEE is a Fi-valuing type which in my view has a spontaneous attention to the character of other people and sources (and can be expected to sometimes spontaneously discuss these topics). The SLE is an Fi vulnerable type with no attention whatsoever to the character of others and a great deal of attention to how they are perceived and whether they are fitting in the way they would like.

However, I think the interview really is insufficient evidence to make this distinction of Michael. I consider the SLE typing reasonable, and it is a very realistic alternative to my typing of SEE, and may nonetheless be correct.

Another contradiction present in Michael, I think, is that he tells us he is a nondiscriminating, friendly person who easily and without anxiety initiates new contacts, and also declined to carefully detail some of his most pressing personal conflicts. It is worth considering this comment skeptically for its accuracy, but taken at face value, this is similar to how I see the manifestation of harsh judgment in the SEE. Representatives of the SEE type, in my experience, usually do not easily identify themselves as having harsh judgment, because they prefer to be positive and upbeat and do not identify themselves as critical of others. However, the common theme of the SEE is their inconsistency, in their emotionality and in life. For the SEE, I describe that harsh judgment occurs "in the moment", indeed they might be the most volatile and critical type of the whole socion in particularly stressful circumstances.

I think there is some evidence to suggest an interest in the character of others in the interview, in the description of the "SLE" friend and the other "ESI" friend in the saga about the trip to Colorado that did not ensue, and various other designations of friends throughout the interview. But the character assessments are not made very clear in the interview, and there is a reasonable argument that these stories depict the opposite of character assessment; rather "chunking" of the concept of character into simplistic socionics boxes. Looking at everything, I don't think so (and in my experience in this interview context many types refer intrusively to socionics concepts; this is sloppy thinking regardless), but that argument is certainly a consistent interpretation.

Interviews - Patrick

I interviewed Patrick:

Observations:

• Quiet, careful, thoughtful demeanor. Easily receptive to formality of interview setting.
• Not prone to interruption or excess display of energy (debatable?)
• When asked to describe conflict - beginning at 1:25:15 (continuing to around 1:33:00) - there is a clear tendency to represent conflict from subjective, emotional point of view. Conflict is not described not as the causal history of objective external circumstances (e.g., "This is what I did, and the other person responded by doing such and such behavior, and I reacted like this"). The causal histories of conflicts are described in Patrick's responses in a somewhat neglected way. Instead what he appears to be focusing on pointing out by way of explanation, is the subjective response; the emotional charges, and ideological stances of the participants are the focus.
• Likewise, the conflicts discussed seem minor in scope -- it is noteworthy that Patrick chooses to even discuss (and, perhaps, engage in) such conflicts. Rather than, for example, a response similar to "I had a [distant] friend who said some really dumb things to me which I thought were ridiculous and/or cruel, so I essentially ignored that person and decided they weren't very smart [and it doesn't necessarily occur to me to discuss this unimportant dumb person at all.]"

Themes:

• Simplify, get to the point, only give me the information I need to know - the main point, the "basics".
• Limit scope of information acquired to reality, rather than speculation - 42:50 "I don't want to feel like I'm spending my time doing something that will turn out to be completely irrelevant to the job I'm getting; I know that if I work really hard on interviews, that is something that will literally happen [...] it's actually something that will happen in physical reality [...] so that's what I can spend my time on to get the maximum benefit." Also around 1:09:50, "I don't care because it's not going to happen."
• Little discomfort with initiative or taking action. Much less impulse to act. Limited impulsivity, but also inconsistent self-control (from standpoint of inner narrative). Inconsistency of motivation.
• Initiative limited by shame, fear of judgment. Literal stated preference for free expression.

I found this interview very difficult to interpret. Probably partly it is my fault, I focused on some of the wrong things and went on some unuseful conceptual digressions which wasted time (although which might be nonetheless interesting for my small readership here).

But perhaps the main reason the interview is hard to interpret is because, for the most part, Patrick is very even-keeled and doesn't show us much. He tells us more than he shows us; he is a dry, astute, studious, career-focused, and very verbal person. We are left to piece together his comments by context, and make what observations he can.


The most consistent unique theme from the interview, in my view, is it's emphasis on "reality" opposed to speculation, as in the observations explained above. The word choices Patrick uses are telling; he is concerned with "what will happen in physical reality" and not at all with speculative possibilities, which he dismantles articulately as, not relevant to his life. Even, perhaps, when those possibilities are not so unlikely. This focus on reality, and dismissal of speculative possibility, seems unlikely for an Ne valuing type, and instead suggests a type with a greater focus on limiting possibilities, perhaps an Ni valuing introvert. Although, the range of types that I thought about carefully certainly included the LIE and SLE as well.

It seems to me, as well, that Patrick is more correctly described by his rejection of what is uncertain, than by any positive possibility; that is, by any formative vision of what he might expect to become, e.g. a specific vision of what he would like to focus on in his career. But it is still difficult to rule out any of the Ni valuing introverts, based on such inferences.


Interestingly Patrick expresses around 1:16:50, a strong, a preference for environments of free expression "people might judge me harshly or look at me critically and I don't know how to respond to that". It's difficult to know exactly what to make of this; the preference is told and not really shown and Fi valuing types will also report that they prefer not to be judged than to be judged (for obvious reasons). Arguably, Patrick's comments are spontaneous and occupy a high pressure point in the psyche. This picture is consistent with his comments that he strongly prefers exterior emotional space environments of enjoyment, but does not always understand how to behave in order to (or have the confidence to) cultivate environments of good fun.

We are painting the picture of the LSI, of course, with Fe suggestive and Ne vulnerable, and Ti+Ni values, as the best fit for Patrick's type. But we should also consider the other types that might fit this same picture. 
The SLE is a somewhat reasonable fit, but my opinion is that Patrick lacks certain qualities that I would expect to accompany this type, including impulsivity, any history of erratic choices, managerial attitude towards other people

• The SLE is a somewhat reasonable fit, but my opinion is that Patrick lacks certain qualities that I would expect to accompany this type, including impulsivity, any history of erratic choices, managerial attitude towards other people (arguable that he does have this, but in my opinion not to the same degree). By way of comparison examine Ihor Pidruchny's interview done by Jack who is an extremely focused people mover, and others.
• The ILI is a fair fit -- but only if we dismiss Patrick's comments about free expression as told not shown and therefore not valid. This supposes that he prefers to interact with the interior emotional space than the exterior -- all of the language about "ingratiating" himself into environment of free expression seems to go against this. The best I can figure from this interview -- from the language, and the expression, is that the comments about preference for emotionally rich atmospheres is a strong pressure point like Patrick says.
• The IEI is a real possibility here which shouldn't be discounted. Like the LSI this type also has a strong preference for free expression, some difficulties with motivation, and can indeed appear quite studious and rational (especially male IEIs). As in the description above of Patrick's explanation of conflict, we see some (strong) reasons to describe Patrick as focused on emotional information (which could be "tapped" Fe suggestive). But we also find reason to see Patrick as perfectionistic and formal. We could also make some arguments that his "definiteness" and language in describing reality over fantasy, suggests Ne vulnerable and not Ne ignoring, although this is a very tenuous comparison.

Interviews - Abde

I interviewed Abde:

Some observations:

• Abde immediately describes himself in terms of his philosophical beliefs, his views in an intellectual, disembodied domain. He completely ignores, until prompted, describing himself in terms of any worldly activity
• Refers to himself as an abstract referent -- "One must have knowledge in order to deal with the world"
• No forethought to issues of practical life, but no lack of forethought in terms of understanding the condition of self. "Through those dreams [activities] you can understand more about yourself and what you want, but nothing really useful, practically" 29:55
• Lack of specificity "Details really annoy me and bore me to death"

Some verbal themes:

• Anticipation, doubt, worry
• Lost, searching, approach to colleagiate study shows little direction or commitment.
• Disembodiment, lack of connection to reality, interests reflect a preference for "out of reality", world-building, art, intellectual activities, video games.
• Searching for something "worth" living for, "I am kinda nihilistic, kinda rejecting when something is not worth"
• "I make friends with everyone"

My view is that Abde is the IEI.

The themes presented in Abde's interview are unambiguous. There are two general principles in these themes:

1. Abde lives a life, unattached to reality
2. Abde lacks realism and practical focus, has little sense of detail.

My theory is that Se valuing types have the attitude of world-rejection -- that is, they find the world around them not worthy of their attention and instead direct their attention towards themselves and their personal accomplishments, or towards fantasy worlds that seem to have greater detachment or enjoyability than the existing mundane world. This theory has not fully held up over time; Se ego types, particularly Se dominant types don't recognize themselves, and aren't, disinterested in the world around them. But Ni dominant types do correctly represent this theme of "rejection" -- a topic which Abde describes directly, and repeatedly in the interview, in the form of preference for world-building, physically inactive entertainment, and also in the conscious reflection on the part of life that seems too mundane, and insufficiently grand in scale to be meaningful.

I would say that Abde's world-rejection further takes another form: rejection of pragmatic constraints of the world, taking instead a preference for having a broader vision of what is possible, than what is pragmatially feasible right now. This type of world-rejection is specific to the beta quadra with Ni+Fe and not the gamma quadra with Ni+Te. We see it in Abde in what he describes as a lack of detail -- he shows a persistent unwillingness to attend to "useful skills" (as is discussed directly in the interview), a persistent lack of focus in his own activities and studies, and ultimately a persistent preference to communicate, and present himself, as a disembodied, unconstrained entity.

I interpret this lack of focus, as noted, as a sort of rejection of the constraints of the surrounding reality; an unconscious preference for the simplicity of fantasy, compared to the difficulties and anxieties of living. There is no lack of thought about the human condition -- but there is an instinctive tendency to make generalizations rather than specific ideas about the human condition, and there is likewise a lack of focus about how to navigate the tangible choices of life.


It is important to recognize that the anxiety about life, and the unwillingness to engage with it, paradoxically exist side by side. I don't directly have much to say about this in socionics terms. Note that one of the first and most repeated things Abde describes about himself, is that he is very anxious. That isn't the only way the IEI presents, but it isn't at all uncommon for this type. Many different types will be anxious, about different reasons, but the sort of existential anxiety Abde presents -- worrying about life on a grand scale, and the ability of individuals to craft themselves particular experiences and purposes of living -- I think, is something likely for Ni valuing introverts, though certainly possible with other types also. I would say Abde seems to have anxieties about living; that is, about the correct realization of the self and the correct place of the self in the world. By contrast we don't see much evidence that Abde has, for instance, anxiety in social situations. In the interview he mentions social situations relatively little, and at least at the present moment in time (at the time of the interview, a month and a half ago now at the time of writing) doesn't seem to be caught up by them.

I don't entirely know how to interpret Abde's comments that he easily "makes friends with everyone." During the interview, I was not in great doubt about what I was observing (and went into some detail about the spiritual progress of what I was observing), but I probably should have asked Abde to expand on this point. I wonder whether the ability to make friends with everyone, and keep at a peaceable distance from everyone, is a result of malleability of self, or a willingness to dynamically present the self to match the circumstances. But I did not probe this line of questions.

Interviews - Lovell

I conducted an interview with Lovell.

Lovell had several interviews; below I link the first interview, conducted by another interviewer in fall 2014, and another conducted by me in spring 2016. Lovell's camera was not working.

Full disclosure: because of the unique circumstances of having several videos, I had a strong opinion about Lovell's type before conducting this interview. My opinion was not changed at all, over the course of the interview, or afterwards.

A few observations:

• Lovell tends to speak slowly and deliberately, he often pauses to search for the proper words. He tends to speak "in circles", searching for the proper way to express his idea, frequently becoming sidetracked or lost in thought, giving very indirect, tangential answers.
• Many lengthy pauses in speech (and not only in my own questions).
• No emotional range in interview context (not the most informative context, but anyway)
• Spontaneously critical of people (main theme - people who don't or can't do their jobs, people who are incompetent) 

My view is that Lovell is the ILI.

The most pressing theme that I observed in Lovell's presentation is one that I pointed out explicitly in the video - Lovell is characteristically "minimalist"; he is largely not a participant in the activities that comprise his life. Instead he brings about with him a sort of sense of disembodiment and apathy, a broad lack of commitment towards achieving personal goals. His life seems almost directionless, as if he only partially and halfheartedly sets his mind to the life circumstances and places he finds itself, as though he is reasonably content to do what he does currently, and to be where is currently, but any other place or occupation would suit him just as well, or possibly better.

In response to my challenges, around 42:50, about why Lovell is not more of a participant in his life's circumstances -- Lovell maintains a measured response to my questions, appearing to find the questions "why not do more", logical in nature, but nonetheless responds completely blankly, revealing a characteristic failure of attention to the possibility of doing more to act, rather than think, about the circumstances around him.

Even the way Lovell relates to people, seems minimalist (at least outwardly). The people around Lovell's seem to lack detail from Lovell's point of view, almost as if they were interchangeable, useful for hanging out with and consuming substances, but what they mean to Lovell, if they carry a deeper meaning at all, is very unclear from the point of view of the observer.

Lovell has a clearly expressed sense of skepticism. This skepticism is not restricted to other people, although we can clearly see it in his conversations about work colleagues where it is specifically directed towards people, but he also shows an inclination is to doubt himself,  and the positions he takes. For instance, another point that I made explicitly in the interview, involves Lovell's skepticism, and his willingness, or perhaps lack of willingness, to dream. He responds to my question at 30:30 about what career paths he has considered for himself (this discussion dwindles and I address the theme again around 50:00), and my restatement of this question, with a complex explanation about some things that aren't done correctly at his job, but refuses to really divulge (or perhaps, refuses to make firm commitments about) his thoughts about his own future career. But clearly, we can see that he has thought about his future in the organization -- and the reason for that, in spite of his unsettled half-dissatisfaction with his job, is that he is not willing to "lie" to himself by speculating about possibilities which seem unrealistic. In spite of, as he says, his aspiration to do something "bigger" (54:00 appx)

A lot of these themes -- because I came into the interview with a good sense of who Lovell is -- are made more explicit throughout the course of the interview, with penetrating questions, designed to reveal exactly what aspects of life Lovell's trajectory might not be paying attention to. The reader can judge for themselves how precisely the discussion matches the qualities that in Lovell, might be missing, and where is the psychological pressure.

At the very end of the interview -- around 1:25:30, we hear a characteristic story, that I want to point out briefly, which has to do with the ridiculousness of other people, who pay little attention to what is to factually accurate and instead become offended -- from Lovell's point of view -- from the mildest forms of skeptical questioning, precipitating an unwelcome inevitable conflict which seems to make little logical sense. In my view, this is a very typical story from the point of view of gamma NTs with Ni and Te in the ego block, and Fe in the super-ego.