A debate with Jack Oliver Aaron on Model A Adherence, Socionics Methodology, Enneagram, and Bill Clinton
Varlawend:
My thoughts and plans, hopefully this isn't too much
I feel compelled to explain Model G due to all the questions, concerns, and confusions that abound regarding it. Perhaps Victor Gulenko has not expended much effort explaining his ideas to the much smaller American Socionics community (it is not his primary market). Moreover, Gulenko’s ideas involve a lot of complex interconnections and densely packed material that isn’t necessarily obvious or intuitive if you don’t understand the philosophical paradigm via which he approaches things. Another thing which captures my attention is that more and more people are waking up to the problem of plurality and different camps in the general typology community. This phenomenon is something that has fascinated and troubled me for years.
Looking at different typologies sounds great! I’ve reflected a lot on, and I have a lot to say, about brainstorming ways forward for the typology community, and I also have a variety of epistemological techniques to offer, with different techniques possibly appealing more to different people. There’s a lot to say and I don’t know how to condense it, so I’m probably going to have to start my own YouTube channel where I can freely and openly speak about these matters. The conflict weighs on me, causing me psychological pain every day, because I can see that so many different camps have things of value to offer and I can’t imagine they would have good reason to simply surrender to one way of doing things, based on my own experiences with them (I’ve been involved in physiognomic typology groups, associated with several Socionics schools, taken classes with Dave Super Powers and Katherine Fauvre, etc.).
As for the course of action that Jack proposes: it has my support. I do not have a strong preference about how to proceed from a logical standpoint, and his proposal seems more than adequate. Model G is my favorite model, but I realize that it is non-standard and not widely understood or accepted as “valid”, so I am willing to work with Model A because it is an adequate and more pragmatic and diplomatic option for us. However, I must say that I am not fond of a dogmatic attitude towards Model A which treats it as an inviolable axiom; I see Model A as one prospective scientific/philosophical model among others, hugely in need of experimentation, comparison, and criticism, albeit the most standard notation for Socionics and there isn’t a better starting point.
Something people often haven’t heard is that Model G is actually not contradictory to Model A, but complementary and interdependent within its own paradigm. Energy and information, the basis of these models, interact; in ShGS, TEM (diagnosed by Model G) and TIM (diagnosed by Model A) together are interdependent substructures of the Sociotype. It sounds to me like we wish more to discuss information processing than energy processing, which it sounds like most Western Socionists do at this point. In that case, it may be that Model A is even preferable for me.
My thoughts on the central role of deduction are mixed. Jack’s approach appeals to many people and this is for good reason. His earnest conservatism in making sure that his conclusions follow from the basic/plausible beliefs of himself and his associates, and the corresponding clarity and simplicity in his assessments and rationalizations of diagnostics are persuasive. They create trust and quality products, and they make sure that everything fits together so that an explanation can be readily offered. However, the history of math, science, philosophy and logic is mixed when it comes to the relationship between deduction/analysis/fragmentation, with its counterpart of induction/association/synthesis.
Jack and Beat allude to this dialectic in the hangout they held about Quadra tags; they spoke about the dialectic between Alpha NT and Gamma NT, in addition to first principles theorizing (Jack) versus more unrestrained but seeing-what-works theorizing (Beat). If my account of that is imprecise, feel free to correct or refine it. In my opinion, both sides should be regarded as equal partners in a wider social knowledge building and refining process, but people with certain temperaments will certainly specialize in specific aspects and this is useful. Jack seems to have a temperament that lends itself more to such deductive-centric thinking; I personally don’t have that deductive and conservative temperament, but I can see its value and respect it considerably.
Some examples of this general dialectic, to show what I mean:
-mutations inductively emerge in response to their biological environment, and they are deductively selected for and reinforced by natural selection
-the semi-cyclical process of science: empirical patterns are discovered and initial discoveries are made, and then the initial material is deductively refined into a paradigm where standard puzzle solving occurs, the paradigm is filled out but anomalies accumulate, and new paradigmatic syntheses or radical new discoveries create a paradigm shift and science goes back to its deductive problem solving stage and its accumulation of anomalies
-applied vs theoretical science: applied science is more responsive to synthesizing new understandings for the demands of practice but is also more localized, with more vocabulary that you have to learn to understand and efficiently interact with what goes in the field, whereas theoretical science is more focused on minimizing the grammar of the models involved into the tightest and most efficient and inclusive model of the whole science but is much further from the boundary conditions of experience where empirical discoveries are being accounted for and is slower and more stubborn in response to change than applied science
-In Artificial Intelligence, there have been a number of paradigms, some more deductive in nature, such as symbolic AI that uses languages like lisp, with loops and strict logic. However, AI took off in a rather empirical and entrepreneurial direction in 2012, where stochastic deep neural networks could finally be hosted on powerful enough hardware to exploit their properties, and they quickly overtook even human performance in some areas of computer vision. What’s tricky about deep neural networks is that they are like black-boxes to humans, and you have to experiment with model parameters and see how things go. There aren’t many deductive principles by which to understand how these models work so well; it’s a lot of statistical tinkering and fine-tuning where imagination is the limit. You simply have to pay attention to the best practical guidelines and experiment with multiple models until you get one that works best, so most AI research takes place in a business setting (AI labs of companies like Facebook and Google) rather than an academic one since neural networks are so difficult to study. They are kind of like Black Magic but they work. Needless to say, researchers feel remiss without more basic principles as a rudder and plenty of people at Stanford, DeepMind, etc. are brainstorming ways of making AI’s accessible to a more principled examination and developing more theories about how they work (Information Bottleneck Theory, TCAV, etc.)
The strengths of a deductive approach are that it is very rigorous, it is clear how conclusions are being derived from axioms, and it keeps things together which is reassuring. However, some disadvantages are scholasticism (your assessments become more of a circular artifact of the method of categorization than a fresh take on empirical patterns) and reductionism (fragmenting wholes into component parts, not taking into account things like interactions, more holistic understandings, epiphenomena, etc.). For example, the human body has parts that work in very mechanistic ways, but it would be near impossible to understand the human body deductively, because there is so much going on in the mutual interaction of its own many complex systems. You have to supplement basic principles with a more holistic approach.
However, typology also works with many fundamental categories of information and whatnot, and we can create very neat deductive models out of that which usefully simplifies things. However, these categories are also instantiated in HUMAN bodies and complex social systems with lots of mutual interaction going on, so it is also important to watch out for empirical patterns that might not be obvious only from some basic information axioms and what directly and obviously follows from them. What satisfies me is models being rigorously applied in their domain, in parallel with a willingness to question fundamental assumptions (though not being so quick to get rid of them either).
I suspect that humans will always host a variety of viewpoints on typology, because they can be rather stubborn about the systems they’ve already understood things in terms of, they have different experiences which they are making sense of relative to others, and they have different ways of making sense of things because they have different innate natures (which we as Socionists are well equipped to appreciate). In spite of this, these different frameworks and ways of analyzing people and information can benefit from interacting in more friendly and productive ways, debating at a first principles level and seeing what we can learn (like the intellectual dark web of Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, etc. which hosts many different viewpoints but people are drawn to it because of the willingness to question things at a first principles level and to really be open to unpacking viewpoints and changing minds). As different schools of typology debate and converse, positions will surely be made stronger and clearer, and good things could come out of it.
Wilber’s three integral principles might be useful for keeping in mind as well:
1) Nonexclusion: everyone is right, insofar as they make statements about their own enacted and disclosed phenomena, but not when they make statements about the existence of phenomena enacted by other paradigms
2) Enfoldment: some are more right than others, some views are more inclusive, more encompassing, deeper, more holistic, etc. But the fact that molecules are more inclusive than atoms doesn’t mean we can get rid of atoms.
3) Enactment: if you want to know this, do that… paradigm clashes seem incommensurable because people focus on phenomena rather than practices, and what appears to be conflicting phenomena often simply result from different experiences brought forth by different practices
What about Jack’s Enneagram type? I know you’ve said 7 before; that’s probably correct. Gut is probably 8 because you are comfortable with dominance and confrontation but aren’t overly keen on it for it to be a main type. I don’t see 9 or 1. For heart type, probably 3. 2 and 4 are more emotional, 3 is task focused and results focused and knows how to make the right impression in achieving whatever they set their minds too but you aren’t image focused or workaholic enough for it to be a main type. Overall, maybe 7w8 783? Not sure on the instinctual stack, because that’s a bit more intimate.
I thought a little about the coincidence between Socionics and Enneagram lately; that’s a good topic. I think there is a fair amount of variation since enneagram deals with psychological motivation whereas Socionics deals with more fundamental structural features of how we process energy and information, but there are definitely lots of correlations and certain combinations of Socionics and Enneagram types that seem very unlikely.
---
I don't think many who know me offline would think I'm an 8. I'm only a Rottweiler like this when it comes to typology.
Socionics deals with psychological motivation, because psychological motivation is a subclass of information processing.
I would be interested to know how information and energy metabolism complement, without simply overlapping and the use of the word 'energy' being just a gimmick. For instance, if I am I
*ILE-ing in terms of information, what am I doing that is fundamentally different in terms of my energy?
I remain sceptical also because Kepinski already referred to digestion of food as 'energy metabolism', which is straightforward enough, as energy is being metabolised when we digest, respire and egest. What is this 'energy' that 1) isn't to do with digesting food, that is 2) not the same as the information we are metabolising?
and if it is the case that these two systems are truly complementary, then they ought not to occupy the same space. To complement, it should be possible to be one type in Model A and an unrelated type in Model G. I see that @Varlawend has some very divergent opinions now on Sedecology typings, so the issues of the two theories not occupying very different spaces will present themselves more and more.
Yes, why on earth would information and energy, being two completely different things, be described with such uncannily similar categories? That's quite a coincidence
Kepinski's 'energy metabolism' uses quite different categories. The Energy Metabolism Elements are Proteins, Carbohydrates, Fats and various Vitamins/Minerals.
I would like to think Gulenko has a better purpose in this than simply finding a gimmick to give the Humanitarian school a competitive advantage in Kiev.
ooh! will take a look
"It is necessary to clearly understand the relationship between energy and informational metabolism , although the second is a reflection of the first, but at the same time they are both nothing more than the mechanisms of energy reproduction , only different energy. Energy metabolism - the reproduction of the physical energy of the body. Informational metabolism is the reproduction of psychic energy, which we divide into mental and vital." - well, there we go.
indeed
if it were that, I'd be expecting something like diet charts.
"SLEs need extra single-source complex proteins or they will tire out"
It is very debatable that psychological motivation is a subclass of information processing. Why is the information being processed? That said, I do find enneagram and Socionics difficult to mix, but interesting nonetheless.
As for my typings being divergent, in other Socionics communities that I participate in, a whole bunch of people think your typings are very divergent. WSS and its methods are far from the usual and establishment when it comes to Socionics as well. That's okay, but I'm hardly uniquely divergent here, just divergent from your way of thinking perhaps. Though there is plenty of agreement too. When I analyzed your typings next to Gulenko's, whose methods I use, there is about a 40%-45% convergence rate. That's plenty of agreement and disagreement. With more people it could be closer to 40% or slightly less though. I guess we'll see. And there differences are frequently systematic rather than random.
Regarding energy, I will have a lot to say about that. But I can give a little for starters:
"Historically, the concept of a sociotype is used in two different meanings — narrow, as an innate and unchanging structure, and broad, as the entire socionic substructure of the psyche (see subtypes). However, the type of information metabolism and the type of energy metabolism are usually associated with manifestations of a sociotype in a narrow interpretation, although, of course, the movable shell of a sociotype (subtype, profile, functional state) affects the processes of MI and EM. This influence is being studied, but nevertheless, there is a tradition to talk about a sociotype and its variations, and not TIM and TEM and their variations.
The difference between TIM and TEM. Humanitarian Socionics The type of information metabolism describes the processes of perceiving information, recognizing and interpreting meanings in it, making decisions and issuing information. However, each of these actions (not to mention the implementation of the solution) requires certain energy costs. In addition, each form of mental activity (ie, function) requires a certain level of activity, which means energy expenditure. It is the patterns and dynamics of these processes that describe the type of energy metabolism.
TIM and TEM are largely interdependent (roughly speaking, if there is not enough energy to launch the function P, then we will not get a business solution), since both of them are manifestations of the same essence - the sociotype. Therefore, the statement that some person has one TIM, and TEM has another, is a blunder. For the same reason, TIMEs, TEMs and their elements are denoted in the same way (ILE, LII, P, E, etc.)."
"The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we strive to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself takes place through the information exchange.
However, the study of the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the patterns of information metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and patterns of energy metabolism directly, and in many respects even without special tools (with our own eyes)."
Funnily enough, Gulenko does talk about the relationship of food to various functional states!
So there is something to your quip
How to develop the function of E - the ethics of emotions? Eat foods that tone and excite: spicy, salty, sour, bitter.
How to develop the function F - power sensory? Eat more meat, especially pork and beef. Drink more fluids.
How to develop the function I - intuition capabilities? Eat more eggs, germinated cereals, and other germ-containing foods.
How to develop the function of L - structural logic? Develop a balanced diet for the main components and strictly adhere to it.
How to develop the function P - business logic? Eat high-calorie foods with plenty of fluids. Avoid dry food and snacks while running.
How to develop the function of R - ethics of relationships? Eat more sweet and flour.
How to develop the function of S - sensory sensations? Eat only natural products. Eat moderately, but varied. Give up heavy meats (pork, beef). Replace them with a bird.
How to develop the function of T - the intuition of time? Deny yourself the excesses, sit on a strict diet. Eat plenty of plant and dairy foods.
But, it's much broader than that. Energy exists in the microtransactions within the cell, but also the overall behavior of the system and its efficiency of movement and information processing. There is micro energy dynamics, and macro energy dynamics, just as in physics. You could try to describe energy in terms of the interaction of many atoms, but usually you will just use the macro features of the system in mechanical engineering, for example.
Whenever your body is in some overall functional state (E/R/P/L/F/S/I/T), it is processing information and doing work which processes energy, and the behavior, the work done, that is what is visible, whereas the information is something which has to be inferred
The descriptions, which you guys mention, do reflect information processes of course, so that is why there isn't really a contradiction there
They are processing different information, but it describes how the type behaves in life in their different functional states, using energy relative to their typical constitution to process a certain kind of information
This is what Gulenko means by energy:
"How can a simple listener explain what the most fundamental concepts in socionics are - information and energy? What are the types of information and energy? I will try to formulate the necessary definitions.
Information is a product of the reflection of the psyche of the environment (or, if the psyche is highly developed, of itself). The result of this process is information, knowledge, skills. Energy , in contrast to information, is the ability of the psyche to influence, change the environment (or oneself)."
"Thus, one can know everything (maximum information), but remain inactive (minimum energy) or, on the contrary, be very influential (maximum energy), but do not delve into anything and remember nothing (minimum information).
There are two most important manifestations of psychic energy - motivation (readiness for action) and goal achievement (action itself). A bit like the difference between potential and kinetic energy in physics.
Similar differences can be made in the information. The first kind of information is the content (that is, the content) of the communicative object. The second kind of information is the level of organization (complexity) of the object itself.
The first kind of information is used to determine a sociotype from its texts or some other content. Information, understood as the complexity of the organization of the system, formed the basis of the concept of the dimensions of the socionic model. It is believed that the more complex an element of the model is, the greater the number of dimensions inherent in it."
Though there is far more if you want to get more into that
When a computer processes information, for example, it uses energy (so it is also an energy processor because energy is more encompassing than information, but that doesn't render information unimportant because information is abstract and systematic). It's not different for the psyche/body. Energy is more like Te/Fe, Information more like Ti
Also, on some of my typings, I'm agreeing with Gulenko's methods, but some are more guesses and unsure. So, some of it could just be me and I am open to changing my mind on a number of them.
You what, I decided I’d go through my typings now and see how they compare to yours @Echidna1000. I typed a lot of people really quickly, so there are some I might want to review/change, and we’ll see what the rate of agreement is and what patterns in disagreement there are. That might be useful.
@Echidna1000 our current agreement rate is 41.8%, 112/268 of people we have both typed
I will include typings where we disagreed in the same way more than once (IMO once could just be accident). My typing is first and yours is second.
Two disagreements: -Hillary Clinton (SLE/LSI), Recep Erdogan (SLE/LSI),
-Bruce Willis (LSI/SLE), James Cameron (LSI/SLE)
-Richard Dawkins (EIE/LSE), William Buckley (EIE/LSE)
-Confucius (EIE/EII), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (EIE/EII)
-Anne Hathaway (EIE/SEI), Bjork (EIE/SEI)
-Christopher Hitchens (EIE/ESI), Eminem (EIE/ESI)
-Alexander Grothendieck (LII/IEI), Carl Jung (LII/IEI)
-George RR Martin (ILI/ESI), Carl Benjamin (ILI/ESI)
-Richard Branson (LIE/ESE), Will Smith (LIE/ESE)
Three disagreements: -Ariana Grande (EIE/ESE), Meryl Streep (EIE/ESE), Walt Disney (EIE/ESE)
-Georg Hegel (EIE/ILI), Heraclitus (EIE/ILI), Jean-Paul Sartre (EIE/ILI)
-Chuck Norris (LSI/LSE), George H.W. Bush (LSI/LSE), Mitt Romney (LSI/LSE)
-Ann Coulter (LSI/SEE), Jean-Claude Van Damme (LSI/SEE), Sarah Palin (LSI/SEE)
-Laci Green (SEE/ESE), Nikita Khrushchev (SEE/ESE), Shakira (SEE/ESE)
-Cenk Uygur (SEE/SLE), Donald Trump (SEE/SLE), Winston Churchill (SEE/SLE)
-Alfred Hitchcock (ILI/SEI), George Lucas (ILI/SEI), Leonid Brezhnev (ILI/SEI)
-Camille Paglia (ILI/LIE), Milton Friedman (ILI/LIE), Warren Buffet (ILI/LIE)
-Kurt Godel (ILI/LII), Rene Descartes (ILI/LII), Woody Allen (ILI/LII)
Four disagreements: -Bill Clinton (LSI/EIE), Charlie Rose (LSI/EIE), John F. Kennedy (LSI/EIE), Marco Rubio (LSI/EIE)
-Erasmus (EIE/IEE), Friedrich Schelling (EIE/IEE), Helena Bonham Carter (EIE/IEE), William James (EIE/IEE)
-Albert Einstein (ILI/ILE), Daniel Dennett (ILI/ILE), Eric Weinstein (ILI/ILE), Jean Piaget (ILI/ILE)
Five disagreements: -Ben Shapiro (LSI/LIE), Paul Ryan (LSI/LIE), Sam Harris (LSI/LIE), Samuel Jackson (LSI/LIE), Simon Cowell (LSI/LIE)
-Aleister Crowley (EIE/SLE), Madonna (EIE/SLE), Marquis de Sade (EIE/SLE), Shia LaBeouf (EIE/SLE), Vladimir Lenin (EIE/SLE)
-Emma Watson (EIE/LII), Gautama Buddha (EIE/LII), John Calvin (EIE/LII), JRR Tolkien (EIE/LII), Nicole Kidman (EIE/LII)
Six disagreements: -Aristotle (EIE/LIE), Ayn Rand (EIE/LIE), Francis Bacon (EIE/LIE), Hypatia (EIE/LIE), Jordan Peterson (EIE/LIE), Yulia Tymoshenko (EIE/LIE)
-Clint Eastwood (LSI/ESI), George W. Bush (LSI/ESI), Judith Sheindlin (LSI/ESI), Margaret Thatcher (LSI/ESI), Richard Nixon (LSI/ESI), Robert De Niro (LSI/ESI)
Seven disagreements: -Alex Jones (EIE/SEE), Bruce Lee (EIE/SEE), Chester Bennington (EIE/SEE), Elvis Presley (EIE/SEE), Genghis Khan (EIE/SEE), Leonardo DiCaprio (EIE/SEE), Paris Hilton (EIE/SEE)
Eight disagreements: -Che Guevara (EIE/LSI), George Gurdjieff (EIE/LSI), Johann Fichte (EIE/LSI), Ludwig Wittgenstein (EIE/LSI), Malcolm X (EIE/LSI), Martin Luther (EIE/LSI), Michael Jordan (EIE/LSI), Sigmund Freud (EIE/LSI)
Ten disagreements: -Alan Watts (EIE/ILE), Bill Hicks (EIE/ILE), Boris Johnson (EIE/ILE), Carl Sagan (EIE/ILE), Cicero (EIE/ILE), Galileo Galilei (EIE/ILE), Jim Carrey (EIE/ILE), John Lennon (EIE/ILE), Nicolas Cage (EIE/ILE), Voltaire (EIE/ILE)
Twenty-One disagreements : -Barack Obama (EIE/IEI), C.S. Lewis (EIE/IEI), Emmanuel Macron (EIE/IEI), Friedrich Nietzsche (EIE/IEI), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (EIE/IEI), Karl Marx (EIE/IEI), Kurt Cobain (EIE/IEI), Mahatma Gandhi (EIE/IEI), Marilyn Monroe (EIE/IEI), Marina Abramovic (EIE/IEI), Mary Shelley (EIE/IEI), Maximilien de Robespierre (EIE/IEI), Michael Jackson (EIE/IEI), Mother Teresa (EIE/IEI), Natalie Portman (EIE/IEI), Osama bin Laden (EIE/IEI), Plato (EIE/IEI), Pythagoras (EIE/IEI), Rumi (EIE/IEI), Vincent van Gogh (EIE/IEI), William Wordsworth (EIE/IEI)
Jack Aaron:
I think it actually quite likely there's a 9 in my tritype. I don't like conflict and am usually quite eager to please.
I would be very happy to discuss typings with said bunch of people. I have yet to find any that can demonstrate a good understanding of the people they are typing.
Ok, so if the TIM and TEM don't match, would you predict someone with huge energy loss from their information metabolism? I know an SLE with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Could he be an IEI/EII TEM?
ok, so are you saying the TIM and TEM should align? If that's the case, then they should be part of the same thing we are meant to be looking at. You then say that TEM is more 'visible', I guess you are implying that only TEM shows in our behaviours while TIM does not. If that's the case, then we come to the pitfall of circumstances and how they inevitably contort our behaviours depending on what is viable. An ILE does not always act in the way stereotypical to an ILE. This leads me to the question: WHAT exactly are you looking at to find someone's TEM that is different to what we look at to type TIM? We also look at behaviour in terms of what underlying information metabolism we can infer from the behaviour, looking for patterns and themes. Do you just look at the behaviour? How is that then meaningfully different without making TEM a slave to circumstance rather than values or motivations?
This idea that you can boost different kinds of energy metabolism through eating various kinds of food seems superficially ridiculous. I doubt Gulenko has done any empirical research to make these claims, they are indeed predictive and not simply analytical. It sounds like something a medieval doctor would suggest.
You say energy is different to information in its ability to influence the environment. We already factor that in when typing someone's TIM. We don't treat information as some ghost in the machine that cannot interact with the outside world and influence it. We infer the underlying information, and the ability to metabolise it, as the cause of our ability to influence the outside world in various ways. After all, knowing how to apply something best is to do with information, just as much as the energy to carry it out.
I have yet to see the utility of an Energy Metabolism theory as separate (but interdependent) with an Information Metabolism theory, other than saying that weakened information metabolism is less energy efficient so mentally tires a person more than strong information metabolism. That doesn't require a whole new theory.
When you take information metabolism as the cycle from Looking to Assessing to Deciding to Acting, where is the room for energy metabolism to separately describe phenomena? Would you say information metabolism doesn't form this cycle? Is it limited to the assessing and deciding?
It sounds as though you have reduced information metabolism largely to Intuition and Logic, the abstract 'content' of something and its structure
and have reserved motivation and action, typically Ethical and Sensory kinds of information, for Energy metabolism. I feel that in creating this new theory, you are required to shatter the older theory into two.
Well, it seems here that the main pattern is you typing a lot more people Beta, especially EIE.
A smaller pattern is that a few people I type Alpha, you think Gamma. It would perhaps be most interesting to look at our EIE/LSI disagreements. What, for instance, causes you to type John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton, two notably charismatic politicians who were a lot less clear and consistent in their ideological positions, LSI over EIE? How is their energy manifesting in a way more L over E?
Indeed, TEM and TIM should align as part of the overall Sociotype. As for the focus on behavior: this is what scientists study in most fields. Of course, there is a vast range of behavior available to each Sociotype, including all 8 functional states, but in each case, they have a different relationship to the overall Sociotype. Taking as much as you can about the person into account, they should fit pretty clearly into a Sociotype by behavior. In any case, information metabolism would have to be somehow inferred through behavior anyways, since behavior is what we have access to. Of course, someone being rude does not make them Se-valuing, or being reflective Ni-valuing, or being systematic Ti-valuing. You get my drift.
There are lots of dichotomies through which the type is mutually inferable. Extroversion vs Introversion, Logic vs Ethics, Intuition vs Sensing, Rational vs Irrational, Static vs Dynamic, Process vs Result, Positivist vs Negativist, Central vs Peripheral, these are generally the most common to use in ShGS. They lead to very different appearances and behaviors on all four levels of the communicative space.
As for whether an ILE always acts stereotypically, that depends on your stereotype. They aren’t going be able to disguise being extroverted, logical, intuitive, irrational, static, process, positivist and peripheral for very long, while also disguising all 8 of their functional positions, at least if you know what you’re looking for. It won’t be disguisable in their behavior, but it might be disguising in their informational content, or philosophical writings, or their words in general, because words are used to lie and to self-deceive.
The difference is, instead of looking at abstract informational content often used to determine “quadra values” or TIM, you look at behavior directly and what it shows.
Carl Jung: “You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.”
Victor Gulenko:
“1. "All people are lying," says House in the first series. Do not rely on words. Content analysis, which information socionics are so fond of, is good for researching the style of speech, but not the in-depth type of person being studied. It is impossible to substitute the objective (stable structure of the psyche) with the subjective (verbal formulation, depending more likely on the environment, profession and upbringing).
2. Brainstorm with normalizing. They will give you information to form a hypothesis, but do not trust their conclusions completely. For the trees, they do not see the forest (go from the particular to the general, while the creative act the other way around - first they catch the general picture, and then check it in particular).
3. If the data is inconsistent, collect additional information. House workers even search the homes of patients. In socionic practice this is not possible, but the opinions of other disinterested people will no doubt help you to find out what is being held in silence due to reasons of image or simple negligence.
4. Trust more of the second intuition than the first. Without the first hypothesis can not do, but it only indicates the general direction. The second guess narrows the search to an acceptable scale.
6. Use the comparative method - compare competing hypotheses for key features. We even compile special comparison tables to help differentiate the types more clearly. I used one of them during a long discussion about the type of Tymoshenko (LIE or EIE?).
7. If the situation is critical, do not think, but act. If time does not fit, postpone the final conclusion, but use the breather to look at the situation in a new way. Especially important are analogies and hints from other areas.
8. Refuse cases when the patient has diagnosed himself. In the series, many episodes where House mocks unprofessional clever. In the first series, for example, this is an episode with a patient who spends too much time on the Internet.
This approach advocated by Gulenko is not distinct from values or motivations, but I wouldn’t really agree that values or motivations are best described as “information”. That is a rather abstract and grotesque way of describing them. We remain largely unconscious of our motivations, but our shadow doesn’t, which is why they still show up in behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1SUgrg7m5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAdqytOHSE0&feature=youtu.be
Actions tell you more than words, and studying someone’s biography tells you much more than abstractly trying to understand their words. Because through actions, the deep values and motivations come out, even those you can hide from yourself in your own shadow. However, I would regard this as studying energy, not information. You aren’t studying content, but rather studying actions and inferring motivations from those actions. I know that you largely do this, so you probably somewhat agree with me, and that’s one of the reasons we agree on so many typings in the first place. The one’s we don’t agree on aren’t just based on this methodological facet, but based on a different understanding of behavioral patterns, which can always be worked on.
As for food, that was a tiny part of Gulenko’s recommendations. The food alone won’t put you in a functional state, but it will reinforce it with the appropriate behavior. For some it is obvious: E would be fired by exciting and extreme tastes, F by heavy and powerful foods, L by a strict diet, P by foods that give lots of energy and fluids since they help with movement, S with natural products and moderate balance and lighter meats, and T with fasting and avoiding the heavy foods of the material world (religions all over the world do this). I don’t understand the I and R recommendations as much, but presumably he has some explanation behind it. Not sure what medieval has to do with it.
It is true that information can be important to carrying things out; you often need to know how to do something, but it is also possible to do things instinctually and subconsciously. But knowing how to carry something out (or being able to figure it out) is not the same as spending the energy to actually do that. You can know how to build a computer, but if you don’t have the energy to get the parts and put them together, then you’re not getting a computer. You can know how to treat people properly, but if you are angry or tired or a hypocrite, you might treat them like crap. This is very important, and is especially relevant to the Control function in Model G (Ignoring in Model A). This is a function where we know a lot, but we cannot act on it easily at all. We often use it to coach others.
Well, I haven’t really explained the energy paradigm very much yet; I’ve only given a few tidbits of it because my time is limited. I wouldn’t say ShGS is a whole new theory; it obviously has plenty of overlap and agreement with the previous, but I would say a stronger epistemological basis and a better understanding of patterns of behavior through many dichotomies and functions. But to put it very simply, when you observe someone’s behavior, you are observing energy metabolism, not information metabolism. So, it is actually more direct to focus on energy than information. It is also more scientific.
I would say energy is involved at every step of the process of looking, assessing, deciding and acting; while you are confused how there is room for energy, I am confused how any of it would be possible without energy. Looking requires energy (looking requires attentional mechanisms, getting you into a certain functional state to be able to process the world from the perspective of a certain function), assessing requires energy especially if it is a difficult assessment (just like it requires energy for your computer to do a calculation, some calculations can be done more efficiently on a CPU and some more efficiently on a GPU, etc.), deciding merely sounds like the end point of assessing, and acting is mostly energy because you have to actually perform work and affect something. Information doesn’t affect anything directly; it perhaps affects things indirectly by it being understood, but is inherently relative and relational (introverted). Energy is absolute (extroverted).
Energy is associated with Extroversion, Ethics, Sensing, Dynamic, Negativism, and Asking (and more if you want to get more complex). Information is associated with Introversion, Logic, Intuition, Static, Positivism, and Declaring (and more likewise). E is basically raw energy, and L is basically raw information. Information clearly applies better and more directly to something like L or T than something like E or F.
As for any personality typing, it is not as simple as “L over E” to make someone an LSI. Rather, L and E play a specific role with the type. John Kennedy I’m not as familiar with the personality of; LSI is only my impression from afar. I have him at low confidence (2), perhaps EIE would be the next most likely. I see why you think EIE based on your way of assessing and even according to mine, it would be a second guess. As for Bill Clinton, he is tricky because I agree that he’s pretty charismatic for an LSI, but I think it could work. Gulenko types Bill as a Harmonizing Inspector, and I trust his overall method, so I’m inclined to be sympathetic to his assessments, although I wouldn’t say I have an absolute knockdown argument or anything like that. He’s also at lower confidence (3), with EIE as a second option. How might we explain Bill?:
Role R+: “In public, he holds himself politely and appropriately. Can make himself be cheerful and sociable. Easily makes short-term, situational contacts. With his behavior evokes trust. Patiently listens to those who have approached him, sympathizes with them, demonstrates his disposition. Even though he comes into close contact with many people, he rejects excessive familiarity. Stern with family members. Loves to educate using terse statements. Reliable in his affections, although it can happen that he gets torn between two objects of his sympathies.”
That sounds a lot like how Bill is described here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-bill-clinton-like_b_1895326?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFiegLPkmHJtJgIdtUv0CadlqFfL-gANg_blTB8aEXDvfh_wbv8qPs5QG8lS6R7RzXw0IiYAs9bzqmi2Coc4Dr_LQo9zUGKTz1G4mFQKZ3qINRJC6NHaPaVNdTUBGmFXNjqcHLg91d0_eOfzttBgCfmb95qPlHdQiTBbMn_Vn56P
According to this: http://presidentialham.com/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-with-ham/
He has a “very true compass that doesn’t vary much with public opinion”. That strikes me as more introverted, if it’s true. That introversion is further supported by his tendency towards covertness, and how he is especially persuasive in small groups. His touchy-tactile nature, ability to maintain eye contact, and attraction to his local southern way of life indicates more comfort with and attachment to the material world. It’s more sensory and I haven’t seen much to indicate intuitive with him. Not inclined to abstract ideational topics in life or speech; grounded and pays close attention to people, not fired up over abstractions like an EIE. He was an outstanding student as well, another common trait of LSI, since LSI is the integral type of the education system; it is doubtful that he has much difficulty with Structural Logic. In closer settings, when he isn’t putting on a political show: “his English straightens a bit and he has a tendency to become both long-winded and mired in statistical detail”. His intelligence is very frequently remarked on by people interviewed about their experiences with Bill; he was a Rhodes Scholar.
His compromising tendency, while not as typical of LSI (or any Beta except IEI), seems from multiple accounts to be linked to his childhood experiences with an abusive step-father, socialization to other “races” and peoples (doubtlessly producing a Harmonizing subtype). But in interviews and other situations not as subject to the need for political expediency, he could lose his temper more, allow his Se aggression loose. He was shy around women as a kid, and “a total straight arrow”. Tends to state his point of view rather than being willing to explain it, another common trait of LSI.
Gulenko, from Logic of Changes: “Understanding the last polarity of Aushra and socionics echoing her never suited me. Interrogative or exclamatory intonations, which they consider to be the essence of this trait, are far from the most important manifestation of these intertype differences. Yes, it is experimentally not yet confirmed. The inspector, for example, is good at asking questions, although he is considered a quest. Otherwise he would not be an investigator! Answers are also given by evasive, streamlined ones, often just joking it off. ”
Gulenko, from “Clock of the Socion”: “Then comes the stabilizer of beta quadra - LSI, the Inspector. Under Marshall's rule do not expect stability ever. After everyone has calmed down and all the posts have been distributed, the organization has been formed and supported with resources, that is when the Inspector slowly but steadily builds up a kind of system under some order. This is done very carefully, beautifully, with great clarity. Reputation becomes very valued. Good reputation is created for this new organization that emerged from the less organized system of the Marshall. For LSI reputation is very important - his function is to act as a humanist, to be good, to say the right words, to look intelligent. This is followed by dogmatism - the system petrifies. On official level this is called over-bureaucratization. On this stage the mission of inspector is over and he shall remain here.”
Manner of communication of LSI: "The LSI easily comes into contact with other people, knows how to establish close personal distances. Catches the attention of others by his witty commentary or jokes, especially persons of opposite sex (for male LSIs). Often behaves like a gallant cavalier, exquisitely and politely considerately. Knowingly courts the ladies, plays well the role of a "hussar" (for sensory subtype). Often becomes the communicative center of a company. Gravitates to performance of romantic songs with a guitar in the spirit of the movie "Cruel Romance". At official level of communication, he appreciates accuracy very much. Pays great attention to numbers, indicators, factual material, concrete logic of objects. Any question or issue he considers thoroughly, considering and working through all the details. In judgments and assessments - he is a sober realist. Dislikes unsubstantiated speculations and reckless proposals. Believes that any issue needs thorough preparation. In his speech one can frequently hear basic truths and educational statements, which are appropriate to the moment. The LSI is characterized by a tendency to edification. Likes posters, wall prints, and other visual aids. In an informal atmosphere, in a tight circle of close friends, he is inclined to discuss and speculate on philosophical and moral topics. Sometimes he has a certain attraction to religion, mysticism, predictions, and other forms of manifestations of deep intuition. When someone comes to him with a question, doesn't turn the person down. Will always give advice where to go, whom to talk to, which order exists in some business or project."
This manner of communication of EIE sounds less like Bill than the above: "In communication EIE gravitates towards company where there are manifestations of positive emotions, witty jokes and anecdotes. He loves to laugh and emotionally discharge at the same time. His own emotions have a turbulent, dramatic character. He tries in every way to restrain himself, but quite unexpectedly for people around him can set off, jump forward, turn all the attention to himself. In conversation often warns other people about possible troubles and dangers. Inclined to dramatize events, to see the world in dark colors. His speech may be full of pathos, sometimes he speaks with a voice that is aspirating and trembling from awe. In conversation may be quite obtrusive, cling to people with his conversation, commenting about external events. Cannot hold back and not express his opinions and views. With excessive development of the ethical component, people of this type can have dialogues with themselves, deliver a speech in public transport. Usually possesses oratorical skill, knows how to speak sublimely. In statements of the intuitive subtype there are often notes of caustic humor, sarcasm or irony with a touch of malice. The EIE skillfully combines humor with tragedy, builds intense, captivating stories. Trusts only the information that was officially published somewhere, and distrusts any informal ideas and theories. Pays attention to social gossip, especially talk of "juicy" details of personal lives of others. Loves to fantasize, can talk about and develop the same topic for a long time. Knows how to convince people around of their his own rightness. Inclined to "make mountains out of molehills". Their projects are often global in nature, but start from small things."
The cherry-picking of data concerning Bill here is considerable. 'Straight-arrow'? He was actually impeached for his behaviour in the office and people only forget this because of his teflon-level charisma.
We should be looking at the IM Elements and whether they best fit the Model A. We shouldn't be cherry-picking facts about Bill and seeing how they match passages of Gulenko's descriptions, which in and of themselves should not be taken to be the fundamental way of identifying any type.
The compromising tendency is also far more EIE than any other Beta type. They are the type with the highest Intuition of Possibilities.
IEIs aren't 'compromisers', they are very stubborn on the things they believe in, but they skilfully give the impression they are bending when they aren't.
A few months ago, you were much better at this than you appear now. It seems to me that you disappeared to spend time with Gulenko, and came back with a severely reduced understanding of the types and how to apply Socionics for diagnostics.
Let this serve as a warning to others who think abandoning Model A will enrich their grasp of the theory.
Peter draws a good contrast between the two Clintons here:
" there is this interview of 1979, when she was about 32, and just recently after becoming Arkansas's first lady for the first time. The interview is mostly a series of "softballs", giving her a chance to give mostly politically and socially "neutral", even bland answers (like saying that Arkansas is the best place to be, etc.). Yet, at one point she gets more animated and digresses at some length, spontaneously, on the matter of the "image" the public, and people in general, may have of her and Bill, which will not be necessarily true, etc, but in the end it is something that is there and she has no control over it. In my view, this suggests that she acknowledges the public longer-term perception of someone, the "image", as something "real" and that she is aware of, even concerned about, but at the same time she feels sort of helpless about it as well. This is an indication of weak E+T, although probably valued, since she is aware and concerned about it. By comparison: I think an EIE, for instance, would either feel in control of her image and so not worry about it, or if worried, not mention it as a concern (as that would mean revealing too much). This would nevertheless point to the Beta quadra."
"That is interesting looking at this April 1992 interview i.e. during Bill's first campaign for president. This video includes snapshots of public perceptions of her at the time, which consisted of her being "aggressive" and "ambitious" and even "the power behind the scenes" with the implication that Bill Clinton would be more like a figurehead. This is also reinforced in this other video of the the same year: the press took for granted that Bill was the man who "softened the edges" when talking about any subject, and Hillary was the one who "used a jackhammer". This is of course easily confirmed by looking at the videos themselves (and I daresay it's pretty obvious to anyone who has observed the Clintons for any longer period). I would say that again points to Hillary having very weak E (certainly much weaker than her husband's) and an overall perception, I suggest justified, of having strong as well as valued F. "
"Without going into specific examples, I think this is obvious from her style when campaigning: she does not seem to enjoy the handshaking, ground work of campaigning in the sense of talking to individuals - compare that to more natural politicians like Bill Clinton himself, George W. Bush (ESI), Barack Obama to some extent, or John McCain (ESI): McCain started his primary campaign in 2008 with little money, campaigning almost alone, driving across New Hampshire in a bus and sleeping in cheap motels, "having some fun" as his campaign manager put it - and managing to build up momentum to win the nomination. I daresay that such a feat would be totally beyond Hillary's inclinations and ability as a politician. Again, I think that points to not only weak E but also not strong R.
On her apparent areas of confidence: Hillary Clinton is much more comfortable in other kinds of environment, even hostile ones, such as answering detailed technical questions on her original health care plan during the early years of her husband's presidency ("Hillarycare"), besides the fact that that was the role she chose for herself, with Bill's agreement, which points to having confidence on L and P. Likewise, in her 2008 primary debates against Barack Obama, it is clear that she saw her "heavy artillery" in argumentation as being a master of detail and spotter of supposed logical and factual inconsistencies, not trying to compete with Obama at the level of "passionate guide to a brighter future" (as Bill Clinton could easily do)."
Varlawend:
I only said that Bill Clinton was said to be a straight arrow as a kid, so actually you are strawmanning me there. Of course, I am aware of Bill’s scandals later in life; they are common knowledge. Is your point that only EIE's can get into scandals? I do not understand how it bears on the case without more details. I don't think people really do forget this about Bill, charisma notwithstanding. At no point have a tried to cherry pick anything; I simply looked up the most prominent articles I could find on Bill’s personality. Why is that cherry picking? Do you have supposedly “fairer” facts? If you have more data to present or to correct something I said, then I welcome it. Missing factual details isn't cherry picking if it's not intentional. Why should Gulenko’s descriptions not be a source for identifying type? Surely for his method they should, even if they don’t comport with your way of seeing things. We have to use some kind of description; should we use yours instead? I wouldn’t expect you to use Gulenko’s, but you can at least see the coherence in his method.
Model A itself is only a structure, and there are authors that use it to make a number of different interpretations attached to that structure, including yourself. The descriptions that you use don't just follow from the structural model, but also the associative interpretations that you ascribe to the different parts of the structure, which are far more debatable.
I do not see EIE as the more compromising Beta. Mainly because they are the Rational EJ temperament, among the most uncompromising and incontinent, attached the passionary Quadra values of Beta Quadra. I also don’t see a direct association between Ne and compromising. Granted, there is great variation within type as well, including EIE and LSI, so some can be more compromising, but the overall type is not inclined to it. In the system I favor, IEI’s are the corrector of Beta Quadra, and play a very different role from how you see them as fervent ideologues; they are a very diplomatic type. So, we clearly just have very different images of the types here, in the case of EIE and IEI more than any other type.
My interest in Gulenko’s theories has always been open and direct, so I did not do any disappearing relating to that. I’m a busy person and I don’t have time for facebook anymore; I’ll also be cutting down on my discord time as well as all social media. I actually wish I could spend time with Gulenko, because that would be really cool. However, I have neither the time or inclination to journey to Kiev just for that, and my beginners understanding of Russian is still insufficient to make much out of it. I do study his work though, among many other things. How to do Socionics diagnostics is a very debatable subject, and Gulenko also has a method that works very well for it, involving the two aspects of functional positions and combinatorial dichotomies. What you are viewing as reduced understanding on my part seems to simply be a greater divergence in views and methods from those used presently by you. Yet, surely even you’d admit that far more research and testing needs to be done on your methods.
I respect your insight into people, and I like to hear your cases and diagnostics and such. But this is not such a simple issue; it’s a very large one in Socionics, deciding which diagnostics methods to use and which methods work best, and it cannot be resolved by simply assuming that our view is the best and arguing only for that. The schools have never agreed on diagnostics, and yet, we still agree on a very large number of typings in spite of such different ways of viewing things. This is why I still dream with optimism about greater harmony between different schools of Socionics, because I think the subject clearly has such promise in spite of all its different perspectives.
I’m not sure what your warning about abandoning Model A is even about; you’ve hardly even begun to compare understandings with me. You seem to think you are just self-evidently correct (in no need to explanation or comparison) as compared to other Socionics schools, but I do not see the self-evidence. You seemed more open to considering your views before, even just a few posts ago in this conversation. What concerns me more is that you speak to me like I have abandoned some sort of orthodoxy, and you are warning people of the dangers of abandoning your views like some kind of priest. Your view strikes a fearful note, but I do not see what there is to be afraid of.
I view Socionics as a very promising but budding psychological theory, with great need of research, experimentation, and clarification, not some inviolable open-and-shut orthodox creed that we must take caution not to abandon. Closely examining alternative beliefs should be encouraged IMO, otherwise what happens is that views harden into dogmas; your views on Model A will always be something we can return to without so much worry. I know how to type the way that you do. I greatly value patience with the views of others at this point, because we might not be on the same page in our experiences, interpretations, fundamental way of thinking (especially important to Socionics!), etc. Do you not feel the same? If not, why not?
I’m happy to look more at Bill and Hillary. I have always found them challenging to assess, because there’s a lot of information floating around them, so make no mistake, I am open to reconsidering my assessments. Acknowledging one’s public image as real seems pretty much irrelevant to me; is there a Sociotype which inherently doesn’t see its public image as real? I do agree with Peter’s assessment that Hillary is Beta ST though (not EIE!), and that she felt more helpless about her own charisma and ability to smooth over rough edges than Bill. I mostly agree with paragraph 1 of Peter's that you cite.
The theme of “aggressive”, “ambitious” and “the power behind the scenes” is power, and I agree that Power Sensorics most characterizes Hillary. It suggests that she is the one who is really in control, and has less self-control, compared to Bill. She has more need to dominate, that is, and to discharge her aggression. Bill Clinton certainly does hold himself better on camera, due to superior charisma and self-control. The tendency of Bill Clinton to smooth over rough edges to me is very interesting, and we interpret it very differently. I see Bill’s tendency towards smooth lulling, making everyone around him comfortable, touchy-feely nature and hominess and eye contact, as classic comfort sensorics (Si). You seem to interpret it at E. And I find this odd, because you even said in a Q&A that EIE’s and LIE’s make people around them uncomfortable, unbalanced, unable to relax, because of their PoLR Si. Well, that’s certainly not Bill Clinton. He was great when it came to the daily maintenance of the presidency, loved to get involved with all the details. He was also famously leisurely in pace, sometimes making others wait for him.
On the other hand, we have Hillary’s jackhammer style. I don’t see this as a lack of E, because E can very much be used as a passionate jackhammer also; it can express a range of emotions but they are intense and affective (have you seen a passionate EIE religious or national leader talk?). However, a jackhammer style would most indicate the presence of F and P, but most powerful functions of the SLE. SLE’s also have a hard time with Si and Fi, which combined with their Se and logical authoritarian nature, would make them highly impatient with the mundane cutesy meet and greet crap of campaigning. LSI is significantly more comfortable with the groundwork of the campaign such as striking up informal relations with people, shaking hands, kissing babies, dealing with local implementation details, etc. (basically, S and R).
Hillary prefers hostile environments answering detailed technical questions: this is F + P + L, the strongest functions of the SLE, not of the LSI, so no surprise that Hillary is stronger there. But Bill was also known as very intelligent and detail oriented; let’s not forget that he was a Rhodes Scholar as well.
“Out on the stump, Clinton can be a folksy speaker, with a ready store of down-home phrases laced with the rich Arkansas accent of his youth. His defense of a citizen’s right to privacy, for example, can emerge as a call for the government “to give people a good lettin’ alone.” In more formal settings, however, his English straightens a bit and he has a tendency to become both long-winded and mired in statistical detail.”
Source: http://presidentialham.com/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-with-ham/
“And the videos showed that the president when he was campaigning spoke with a vision about what kind of country we could be. He was thematic and he was sort of lofty. And he talked about the problems facing us and the solutions facing us as a people. When he became president the conversation on the news was all about process, it was about this committee or that committee and "We've got a group working on this." It lost that sense of vision, that sense of what drew people to him. And I remember very well a meeting with him in which he complained, "I'm becoming the mechanic in chief and I don't want to be there. That's not who I got elected to be. You know, Ross Perot had that wonderful metaphor about looking under the hood of the car and figuring out what's wrong. The president is not supposed to be the guy under the hood of the car. The president is supposed to be the person in the driver's seat figuring out what the road map looks like and where you're going.
Why would an EIE get so mired in minutia and details? Be so comprehensive in everything they think about? Controlling every decision? Losing the forest for the trees? Analysis paralysis? That frankly seems classic LSI. This doesn’t seem accounted for in your analysis or Peter’s analysis, and yet it’s important. I don't think you are cherry picking, just that you didn't know this. The global passionate visionary Clinton seems like little more than a persona compared to his real style of leadership, which is pedantic micro-management. You were looking too much at media promoted persona characteristics, and not as much how Bill behaves in day to day life; the latter is more relevant to typing him.
---“Delegation to subordinates. OBAMA. As Summers explained, Obama would not interfere with the implementation of ideas proposed by Summers -- for example, he would leave it to Summers to decide how to finance a bailout he was recommending. By contrast, Clinton would dig into the policy thinking and details of an economic issue and leave Summers feeling that Clinton was teaching Summers how to do his job better. “
---“Adding new ideas. CLINTON. This last area is where Clinton massively distinguishes himself from Obama. As Summers pointed out, Clinton would have read from a variety of respected economic research journals and sources of ground-breaking economic thought and bring those ideas to the meeting. By contrast, Obama would ask a few questions "to kick the tires," talk about how the policy fit with his vision, and end the meeting.”
Yet again, Clinton is more the sensor and Obama the intuitive. Clinton is thorough and controlling, gets into all the structural details of economic issues (even reading top economics journals), policy decisions, etc. Obama just kicks the tires around a bit, keeps things globally on track. The contrast is enormous, Clinton is the more pedantic details heavy management guy. He did not leave the implementation to others.
Hillary is said to be a master of detail and spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies, when going up against Obama, according to Peter. Again, this sounds like a delicate balance between L and P, which the SLE is arguably stronger in than the LSI. Plus, I don’t see SLE as such a charismatic type; I think statements like this fit them better:
---“SLE experiences difficulty establishing personal relations in informal situations. Often too intolerant and uncompromising, predisposed to dictate their own way in relations. Intolerant when someone else places demands of personal commitment from him.”
Hilary was NOT charismatic, not a good at the tactful back and forth between people because she needs to dominate. She comes across as formal and plastic instead. Flexibly changes her opinion towards her own benefit, which makes her come across as untrustworthy. Her reputation was “crooked Hillary”, the calculating centrist that always sides with who is winning, because she cares about power more than structural logic.
---“The main problem of your life - the lack of tact and diplomacy in dealing with people. Sometimes you openly demonstrate intolerance of other people's shortcomings and weaknesses. To achieve your goals sometimes you can step over the interests of other people, which can evoke negative evaluations and moral judgment of others in your address.”
She was known as being ruthless, not charismatic. She clearly looks down on people from her elitist high horse, and is disconnected from their everyday lives (Si). She is viewed with respect and fear by people, not trust, comfort or inspiration (Si, Fi, Fe, all pretty weak for SLE).
---“More often reflect on the possible consequences of your actions. Never shift the responsibility for mistakes onto shoulders of other people - it can affect your reputation in the future. Try to keep track of situations that go beyond formal communication.”
This is very good advice for Hillary, who has especially weak R and can’t communicate well informally because she doesn’t easily understand informal ties between people. Blaming her mistakes on Russia and other people, when she campaigned poorly against Trump.
---
Jack Aaron:
Why mention that he was seen as a straight arrow as a kid and use that as a noteworthy part of his character if you also accept that he was a scoundrel while the President? Either it's a remarkable stand-out point of his personality or it isn't.
What is there to having Extroverted Bold functions and Rational Accepting functions that should make a person any less likely to compromise? The rationale that EJs are somehow more likely to be non-compromising is baseless in Socionics and is just rehashed classical temperaments. What is a compromise? It's being open to alternatives to the outcome you want, it's being willing to not go for a full victory at others' expense. It's also somewhat to do with things not being perfect, but practical and workable, and also something that keeps people happy. There's I there, some E too, but also a bit of P. There's much less F and L. Which type in Beta best fits that? The research and testing is important, but you're not going to get that from Gulenko. He's not trying to demonstrate the canon of socionics, but instead trying to reinvent the wheel. This 'divergence' is just a movement from the foundational to the baseless, and it's coming out in how you argue now. Instead of setting out a clear argument in Model A, you are putting in some classical temperaments, some of Gulenko's profile descriptions, maybe some subtypes too just to give the argument some flavour. The integral substance is gone. The choice to include these peripheral sprinklings of theory or not to is entirely arbitrary.
Bill Clinton has a thoroughly polished manner of appearing in public. The 'smoothing' effect is that refinement and once the cameras are down, the reports show a far more frenetic and aggressive individual. He was not an individual who maintained a consistent state of energy, but he was certainly able to appear like that when he needed to . He is able to create the image that suits the occasion, expertly. It is his charismatic genius. You talk about his soothing, but you leave out his electrifying speeches, where he brings the crowd to a frenzy. The cherry-picking is taking that mere appearance of 'S', which if a consistent character trait of an individual would surely be S+E, and try to interpret it as a type that is high in S but low in E. The LSI isn't a 'soother'. They come across as quite severe. Their S' is E-less. They will be hard and gaunt in character, yet be the most inclined of Betas to settle into peaceful retirement.
You're cherry-picking... in that very article you linked me to, you missed out this: ""I'm becoming the mechanic in chief and I don't want to be there. That's not who I got elected to be."" Bill was not a guy who enjoyed getting involved in detail. As soon as he realised this was what was happening, he stepped back. He liked to get very involved with decisions, but did not want to be involved in the trivial, day-to-day decisions. This is an inconsistent pushing of F (cycling between overactivity and self-doubt), with a rejection of S. As for being the 'master of detail' and 'spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies', this isn't particularly F, THIS is L and S. If your only argument for her being low S is that she "is disconnected from their everyday lives", then you're not going to convince anyone. For what it's worth, being closed to other perspectives beyond your own would be weak I if anything. If an LSI does not live the 'everyday life', has no direct experience of , why would try to connect to it? You say Hillary was NOT charismatic, good. Why should you then try and say an LSI, whose access to E is even less than the SLE, be the charismatic Bill? It makes no sense.
here's a really good article, it shows clearly how Bill's main focus was his charisma, but that Hillary brought the consistency of reason to the relationship: https://reason.com/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think/Reason.comCan the President Think?
The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency reflect the chaos and paralysis of Bill Clinton's mind—and he is not going to change. it's a clear example of EIE / LSI duality
---
Varlawend:
Jack says: “What is there to having Extroverted Bold functions and Rational Accepting functions that should make a person any less likely to compromise? The rationale that EJs are somehow more likely to be non-compromising is baseless in Socionics and is just rehashed classical temperaments.”
-1st of all, that depends on your definition of bold extroverted and accepting rational functions. If you have boldly expansive extroverted functions and are more demanding in the evaluative, relatively inflexible rational elements, then that sound like it would set out more difficulties in compromising to me. Bold extroverted functions presumably means that you will readily be expansive into the space of others without as much worry about reigning yourself in, combined the inflexibility of demanding rationality. But that’s just a rather artificial way of “logically formulating” distinctions that can be observed. -What you are calling “Classical Temperaments” (and this is probably a misnomer) actually have much more statistical backing than does anything in Socionics (outside of maybe Talanov’s work which also doesn’t agree with you). For this aspect of his practice, Gulenko draws from the psychologist Hans Eysenck and his EPI/EPQ questionnaires (which means extroversion/introversion and stability/neuroticism), in addition to Pavlov’s equilibrium. It is slightly modified and fit to the actual practice of the GS, but the ideas used have a substantive history in modern psychology. Given that this actually has a basis in scientific psychology, how could it be fair to just exclude it in favor of some abstract metaphysical divisions that you or Aushra posited?
Jack says: “What is a compromise? It's being open to alternatives to the outcome you want, it's being willing to not go for a full victory at others' expense. It's also somewhat to do with things not being perfect, but practical and workable, and also something that keeps people happy. There's I there, some E too, but also a bit of P. There's much less F and L.”
-Perhaps E, P and I can be useful in a compromise. However, all of those functions can also be very uncompromising. In a state of subjective emotional arousal, a person is less able to control their actions and usually becomes more unreasonable, which is not going to be very helpful for compromising. In a state of business logic, a person is going to be pragmatic and trying to achieve some goals. The first could help somewhat with compromising, but the latter can lead to uncompromising behavior, especially if those goals are motivated by something other than just the business logic which is very common. In a state of extroverted intuition, a person can synthesize seemingly disparate perspectives into one or come up with alternatives, which can be useful in a compromise. However, they may just as well insist on their synthesis over others (Jack is ironically a very good example of this), or insist on their alternative, or take unconventional, risky behaviors associated with new ideas and the desire to be free of constraints. So, it doesn’t seem to me that any of these functions unambiguously contribute to a compromise; it depends far more on how they are used.
-Your hypothesis has the additional implication that ILE, IEE, ESE, EIE, and somewhat LIE and LSE are the most compromising types on average. Yet, I have never seen another Socionist claim this, except you, right now. Now, THAT sounds like an unorthodox theory that was just pulled out of a hat. Not that unorthodoxy matters, because orthodoxy is not directly related to correctness, but I also gave other reasons that this theory is overly one-sided in its consideration of the functions that it employs. I would also say that compromise is associated with agreeability, and types like SEI, EII and IEI are usually considered more pliable and diplomatic for this reason. In terms of your preference to reduce everything to functions, they can use soft functions like S, R and T very easily, are inclined to create a friendly environment, have a lot of flexibility rather than a tendency to push agendas, etc. Of course, other types can be diplomatic, but high-powered central extroverts, 4d Extroverted Sensing types, and even ILE are not usually considered so agreeable (that is to say, it would be rarer for them to be high in trait agreeableness than most other types). It’s still possible for those types to be agreeable nonetheless, because there are also vast intratype differences and even variation of states within a single person. -We certainly see that kind of variation with Bill Clinton: sometimes being quite agreeable and warm, and sometimes being quite aggressive, cold and disagreeable. Therefore, perhaps our mutual categorization of him as “compromising” was lacking in nuance. He is compromising when it politically suits him in many cases, because he can realistically assess what he’ll need to do to gain power, authority, and approval that he is looking for. In private, however, and when hounded by the press, he is sometimes a lot more disagreeable. Our private knowledge of him is also limited.
Jack says: “The research and testing is important, but you're not going to get that from Gulenko. He's not trying to demonstrate the canon of socionics, but instead trying to reinvent the wheel. This 'divergence' is just a movement from the foundational to the baseless, and it's coming out in how you argue now. Instead of setting out a clear argument in Model A, you are putting in some classical temperaments, some of Gulenko's profile descriptions, maybe some subtypes too just to give the argument some flavour. The integral substance is gone. The choice to include these peripheral sprinklings of theory or not to is entirely arbitrary.”
-This is where Jack’s response really goes off the rails for me, and I have a lot to say about it. Firstly, it doesn’t look like you comprehended the point I made about research and testing. I’m not talking about whether Gulenko has done this, though he actually has to some degree, but I certainly think he should do more, as should we all, and he claims to want to in interviews. I’m not talking about mindlessly buying into Gulenko or anyone, but whether ALL OF US are willing to do further research and test our views as a high priority, including you. When asked this general question, you take it as an opportunity to besmirch Gulenko even though you have never substantively talked to him about his research or studied his work, which is an irresponsible thing to do. That also deflects away from the lack of research that has gone into your own views. Criticizing Gulenko, soundly or unsoundly, doesn’t exonerate you treating your own views about Model A as some foundational tool that is beyond question or challenge. You never answer the following questions:
-How do you know that the way you justify your own typings is more accurate than that of other Socionics researchers? (even though you don’t hesitate to boast about it)
-How do your abstract theories preclude the differing empirical observations of people like Victor Gulenko, Victor Talanov, and other Socionists who are not in agreement with you?
-Do you think these questions require no answer because: the people on your Socionics team agree with you? Because your theories have internal consistency, up to a certain point that you’ve checked at least? That’s a start, but it’s not anywhere near enough for you to go about acting like everyone else must type like you do, else they are some unreformed heretic, at least if you want them to take you seriously.
-This is also strange: your arguments defending your way of thinking in Model A are largely circular. That’s to say, they exemplify the logical fallacy “petitio principii”, or begging the question. You can’t defend your fundamental assumptions about typing and your model as foundational by saying that people who don’t type the same way are baseless: not when the very thing we’re discussing is what typing methods are most capable of being foundational. Alternatively, you could argue that there can be no discussion comparing typing methods because your methods are inherently better and more correct, but that also begs the question. Now, I don’t think this error is due to not grasping that this circular logic is flawed. It is more likely that a sleepy, inattentive overconfidence has set in to such a degree that it doesn’t even occur to you that your methods are questionable, might not be ideal, might have flaws, or that there even could be empirical surprises not predicted by the assumptions that you currently operate under.
-It’s not possible to preclude (using some a priori logic already in use to categorize things) that some version of temperaments, of Gulenko’s profile descriptions, or intratype differences, might be tracking some kind of truth in reality. The only way to refute that would be to deal with the ideas on their own terms, checking their coherence, correspondence to empirical reality, and their pragmatic effectiveness. As it stands, this is more like an unsuccessful attempt at communication between us than an argument. You are mostly pointing out that I’m typing using a different method than what you use, as if ipso facto disagreement with your best interpretation of Model A makes me wrong. The only thing that could justify something like that is circular reasoning, and we must have higher standards for our arguments than that to make any progress. We cannot treat our views, whether about Model A, Model G, functions, temperaments, subtypes, dichotomies, whatever, as beyond the need for scrutiny and beyond the possibility of alternatives or surprises. Otherwise, we just succumb to our own hubris, and we fail to reason honestly. That surely happens to everyone in the heat of defending their point of view that they are trying to communicate the value of, but we have to notice it to avoid goring ourselves on our own carelessness.
-This gets into what I mean when I talk about hypnosis and its relationship to adherents of Model A that believe no other models or empirical patterns outside of one Model A purview could ever be worth paying attention to (in Socionics, at least). Robert Anton Wilson (http://www.whale.to/b/wilson_law.html): “If you are arguing for racial equality with a man who keeps using the word "nigger," you will eventually discover that you are not making headway and that some barrier prevents clear communication. If you are discussing censorship laws with a lady who keeps using the word "smut," you will experience that same sense of banging your head against a brick wall. If you attempt to reason with a Marxist, the word "bourgeoise" will eventually be invoked to banish any coherence or logic in what you have been saying.”
-We can say something observably similar about dogmatic Model A adherents: If you have been arguing with a dogmatic adherent of Model A (not any adherent mind you, there are plenty of unhypnotized users of the model), the word “Model A” will eventually be invoked to banish any coherence or logic in what you have been saying.
-“It is a truism in social science that human beings can be defined as the language-using class of life. Buddhists, semanticists and hypnotists know that we not only use words but are also easily mesmerized by them. Hypnotists in real life seldom have to use glittering jewels or shining mirrors as they do in films; the ordinary domesticated primate can be hypnotized quite quickly and easily with words alone, spoken in proper cadence and with abundant repetition. Advertisers try to hypnotize us all the time, and judging by the fees they collect from satisfied clients, they are doing very well at it. Having used hypnosis in my psychological seminars for nearly 20 years now, I am-quite prepared to agree with G.I. Gurdjieff and Colin Wilson that most people can be said to be hypnotized most of the time, and that the professional hypnotist only switches them from their habitual trance to a different trance... If you have to deal with neurotics regularly, you will eventually observe that most of them say aloud once or twice a week something to the effect, "They won't give us a chance," "You can't win," "The smart boys have it all sewed up," etc. The odds are that such a neurotic is silently repeating these sentences sub-vocally — in the "interior monologue" of ordinary consciousness — many, many times a day. This form of self-hypnosis is known as a Loser Script in the language of Transactional Analysis. Other people hypnotize themselves into other reality-tunnels by endless repetition of such mantras as "I like everybody, and everybody likes me" (the successful Salesman script), "All niggers are treacherous" (the Racist script), "All men are bastards" (the reverse sexist or Radical Lesbian script), "I deserve a drink after a morning like that" (the apprentice Alcoholic script), "I can't control my temper" (the Go Directly to Jail Do Not Collect $200 script), "Cancer is only mortal mind. Divine mind has no cancer. I am Divine Mind" (the Christian Science script), etc.”
-We can easily come up with a Model A Script just like the self-hypnosis scripts above: Everything in Socionics must be explained in terms of Model A. (Someone disagrees) This tells me we need to go back to Model A. (Someone comes up with a new idea in Socionics or finds an unexpected empirical pattern) The problem is that he doesn’t connect it back to Model A. (Someone diverges) Your divergence is just a move from the foundational (Model A) to the baseless (Socionics that MIGHT not be presently explained by Model A). The canon of Socionics is Model A. As long as we deduce it from Model A, we have nothing to worry about. (someone leaves the fold of dogmatic Model A adherents) Nooooooooo…… you used to be good at this. Believe Model A again. Bad boy.
-In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnLWnQudLcY), Jordan Peterson talks about just this sort of thing. The fact that you can turn dogmatic Model A adherence into a script like this and predict the cliché reactions of people who hold such views so accurately shows that you don’t even need to listen to people in that state. You’re just hearing ideological chatter, expressing itself through its trance grip on these people (which you can read about on your own time), instead of a conversation among two real people bonding over their real vulnerabilities.
-“The universe may not contain "right" and "wrong" answers to everything just because Ideologists want to have "right" and "wrong" answers in all cases, anymore than it provides hot and cold running water before humans start tinkering with it. I feel sure that, for those awakened from hypnosis, every hour of every day presents choices that are just as puzzling (although fortunately not as monstrous) as this parable. That is why it appears a terrible burden to be aware of who you are, where you are, and what is going on around you, and why most people would prefer to retreat into Ideology, abstraction, myth and self-hypnosis.”
-If you are someone looking for a clue as to why circular reasoning and intractably opposed ideological camps are so common in typology, you don’t have to look any further than this. What happens is that some people axiomatically preclude any value to the views of their opponents, and then inculcate their assumptions deep into their daily semi-conscious trance by repetition, internal dialogue, limited social consensus, echochambers, and behavioral conditioning techniques such as reward and punishment (warmth and good treatment towards people who share views, pressure and worse treatment towards people who disagree). This happens so naturally in the minds of humans and in social circles that it easily coasts by without any special notice. Humans are animals, and once such faulty assumptions sneak their way into the mind from the outset, they easily ossify personally and socially into hardened ideologies which in turn cause hostile and dismissive treatment of “dissenters”. Opposed to the kind and curious treatment of someone with different views that is required for real conversation, it is no wonder that schizophrenic typology continues to fracture into more and more camps that can’t mutually communicate.
-You can see this in action right here with the idea that Gulenko isn’t doing research because he isn’t trying to demonstrate “the canon of Socionics”, by which I presume Jack’s views on Model A are meant. That is to say, in Jack’s opinion, the research conclusions and future subject matter should be decided in advance of the research, and the research is really just a formality. It is a prop to add to our already sound canons of Socionics, which do not need testing or reexamination. This is not far removed from Christian fundamentalists who set out to do research to “prove” that evolution isn’t real, or that we live on a young earth… conclusions that they decided on in advance of the “research”. Once you set out to “demonstrate” something where you have already decided in advance what the conclusion in going to be (e.g. the canon of Socionics), you aren’t doing research anymore. You have set out a whole host of incentives for intellectual dishonesty and cognitive bias. In science, you can’t decide the conclusion of a research project before you do it; that completely violates both the letter and the spirit of scientific research. Instead, we have hypotheses, which is all any views on Model A, Model G, or whatever, are, and then we test the hypotheses. Then we check the results which we cannot assume beforehand otherwise there would be no point in testing them (our views would already be assured after all, which is how they are treated in the minds of some supporters of Model A). Once you have become so attached to a theory that you see research as secondary to holding certain views, you aren’t doing science anymore. You are instead doing ideology and belief. -Let me make some something very clear: I’m not interested in being sold an ideology to believe in. I’m interested in ruthlessly researching and questioning everything to reach the truth to the best of my ability and see what is truly strong, and this Model A adherence mindset is a direct obstacle to that. My problem isn’t with rigorous deductions, by the way: that can be a useful critical thinking tool, and as I mentioned, I respect it. What I don’t respect is avoidance of, resistance to, and sleepiness regarding criticism of fundamental assumptions, because that’s not rigor; it’s fundamentalism, which is going to set you up to simply ignore every reality and pattern that doesn’t fit into the pre-conceived box that you say everything should fall into. It will set you up for an inability to compromise, which is an endemic problem standing in the way of creating a more realistic, global and integral typology, and it will set you up for failure to make any further fundamental progress (because you’re already assuming that there can’t be any, when the truth is that us mere mortals couldn’t possibly know such a thing with certainty). It takes strength of character to resist these calls for orthodoxy, ideology, and fundamentalism, and that strength of character has usually been what has been needed to make real progress in the history of science. You need a delicate balance between ruthless willingness to question global assumptions and psychological bias, and an open policy of testing towards even seemingly unorthodox views and experiences under which everything might fit together better (for now).
Jack says: “Why mention that he was seen as a straight arrow as a kid and use that as a noteworthy part of his character if you also accept that he was a scoundrel while the President? Either it's a remarkable stand-out point of his personality or it isn't.”
-This alerts me to the fact that we have very different priorities, which I probably should have already noticed. I will go ahead and agree right away that the point about Bill Clinton’s “straight as an arrow” childhood is not a particularly strong justification for any type. If I was making a polished argument, you are right that it should not be included. However, I wasn’t trying to make a polished argument at that point, and you still went ahead and accused me of being unethical (cherry-picking). I was simply including something that seemed like it might be interesting fact to me, from an article that I read by people who knew Bill Clinton when he was younger.
-The different priorities are: you are out to make the most convincing argument you can to the people who share your views on Model A, whereas my priorities are focused less on justification but discovery, making sure that the views we hold are accurate and that we aren’t leaving anything out or that this isn’t something new to discover. I think that convincing people is important at one point, but as I’ve already indicated, I’m not able to hold the confidence in Model A that you seem to have. What increases my confidence in my views is testing as many alternative views as I can and observing how strong they are through experience and testing. Through this vetting process, I can eventually come to more confidence in my views, but without this, I am not able to honestly hold onto an ideological viewpoint for long. I apply this process to the WSS Model A views, but also to Model G, and Model T, and all other typologies. So, when I make an argument about Bill Clinton, I actually don’t yet fully understand why Gulenko types Bill Clinton as LSI. However, his views have held up well for me in general, so I’m inclined to come up with an experimental argument to see if I can make sense of his way of typing. So far, that has gone well, and LSI is making a lot of sense to me, but it is only fair to juxtapose this with attempting to justify an EIE typing. At that point, the pros and cons of each side will become clearer in Bill Clinton’s case. For me, this is an EXPLORATION as much as it is an attempt to make the most polished argument I can, though I can polish up my argument later.
-My priorities originate with, among other things, what I have learned from Jordan Peterson. One quote exemplifies this very well: “Stop trying to use your speech to get what you want. You don’t necessarily know what you want. Instead, try to articulate what you believe to be true as carefully as possible. Then, accept the outcome.” So, when I make a varieity of cases for Bill Clinton, it is my attempt to articulate what I believe to be true as carefully as possible, NOT to convince as many people as possible and get them on my side. However, once I’ve reached more confidence, I am comfortable making a firmer and more polished argument.
-This video on The Art of Argument that Peterson made in collaboration with Big Think also exemplifies my process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXaQLT8V638. “You’re probably wrong in some important way.” “One of the things you want to remember if you’re discussing things with people, even if they’re out to defeat you, let’s say, is that there is some glimmering of the possibility that you could walk out of there with more knowledge than you walked in with, and that can be worth paying quite a price for.” “If you’re discussing a contentious issue with someone you love and that you have to live with and put up with, you want to listen to them. Because what you really want to do is establish a lasting peace, and you might even have to make their arguments for them. You might have to help your partner formulate their arguments so that you can really get to grips with what it is that they’re trying to say. So that you can alter the way that you’re constructing your own narrative and your joint narrative, so that you’re not butting heads unnecessarily as you move forward through life.” “It’s better to listen, to flesh out the argument on both sides, and to see if you can come to a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement. And that’s the case in most encounters in life if you can manage that. But it’s easy to want to win.” “It’s extraordinarily useful to arbitrarily assign positions to people. And what that does is it vastly widens people’s conceptualizations of the argumentative space. Because most really contentious issues – gun control, abortion, those sorts of things – there is a lot to be said on both sides. They wouldn’t be contentious issues otherwise. They’re issues that don’t go away because they’re so complex.” “Most people’s arguments are unbelievably shallow. They’re not arguments, they’re just perceptual biases. And if you get people to delineate out the space in any rigorous manner then their attitudes shift.”
-Now, Gulenko might be a harder sell for you and some others, because his views are complex compared to the forthright Model A arguments that you offer. To grasp his arguments for typings is going to require more effort and training. Is that intrinsically wrong or bad? I don’t see how. I can understand why it isn’t obviously better though.
-So, what is the strongest case we can make for Bill Clinton being EIE? We don’t have much details on this case; we have a few general paragraphs from Peter Bartl and Jack Aaron. However, I once thought Bill Clinton EIE myself, and I can really see why it could be a compelling typing. The case seems to be: Bill Clinton is very charismatic, he has a wide array of interests, he can make fiery speeches which stir crowds, he is politically capable of considerable compromise, he desires power and approval, he struggled to maintain order, discipline and decisiveness as a president, and he may have lacked clear or consistent ideological positions. If you are typing someone based on broad, abstract life patterns, the way that one does in Jack’s version of Model A, and you have the associations that he does, I can see why EIE is categorization for Bill Clinton that holds a lot of weight.
-Jack says: “Bill Clinton has a thoroughly polished manner of appearing in public. The 'smoothing' effect is that refinement and once the cameras are down, the reports show a far more frenetic and aggressive individual.”
-I agree that Bill has a thoroughly polished manner of appearing in public, though in the way I use to type, that’s not much of an indication of whether he is EIE or LSI. Do you believe that such a polished manner can only be indicative of Ethics of Emotion in the highest position? To me, it even sounds more like Role Ethics of Relations. His smoothing effect is partly “in public”, but even more so, it is in small groups and his one-on-one encounters. He touches the person, makes good eye contact with them, makes them comfortable and listens very well to them. I don’t see how we avoid Comfort Sensorics in such a case. Bill is especially known as a good one-on-one communicator, and a decent speech maker as well, but there are said to be better orators than him (Obama is one, but Obama is more stiff and distant about the Comfort Sensorics actions, it is noticeably less natural for him like what I would regard as an EIE).
-Would frenetic and aggressive individuals when the cameras are down indicate EIE or LSI? First of all, in any of the models that we are using, Force Sensorics is more powerful for the LSI. In the system that I particularly favor, Force Sensorics is a more informal internality for the LSI, and a more formal externality for the EIE. So, I would expect that EIE to be easily stimulated and aroused by aggression against themselves, dear one’s, or things they hold to be important, but not necessarily to display so much aggression in private. On the contrary, LSI especially lets out its aggression on its own territory, at close range with its familiars. So, maybe this difference is why we are disagreeing here.
Jack says: “He was not an individual who maintained a consistent state of energy, but he was certainly able to appear like that when he needed to . He is able to create the image that suits the occasion, expertly. It is his charismatic genius.”
-I also agree that Bill’s energy levels were not consistent. However, I do not see how this is clearly connected to a type, since the energy levels of most types can fluctuate. Can this be explained?
-I think that Bill is often able to create an excellent image to suit the occasion. However, I interpret this as a socially adaptive act, most indicative of the Role function. Functions like the Program function or Creative function, by contrast, are not so interested in adapting to the expectations of others, but are capable of leading, not even needing to make such concessions to the expectations of others. But, we probably view things differently here.
Jack says: “You talk about his soothing, but you leave out his electrifying speeches, where he brings the crowd to a frenzy. The cherry-picking is taking that mere appearance of 'S', which if a consistent character trait of an individual would surely be S+E, and try to interpret it as a type that is high in S but low in E. The LSI isn't a 'soother'. They come across as quite severe. Their S' is E-less. They will be hard and gaunt in character, yet be the most inclined of Betas to settle into peaceful retirement.”
-It is true that Bill Clinton has made some good speeches, and this doubtlessly required the skillful use of ethics of emotion. However, this is one area where Model A and Model G differ. S and E are both high energy functions of the LSI, Energo-Optimum, which can be excellent for problem solving and easily maintained in the right scenario. Unfortunately, this might be the area that our views differ most greatly for now, but that could be something to discuss our underlying reasons for. Whereas you view LSI as “E-less”, I view the LSI (and any type) as being able to use E, and the LSI in particular can use it consistently with gusto.
-While I think LSI’s can come across as quite severe, I do not think that such a one-dimensional, robotic image can realistically be applied to the type. Because Si and Fe are Energo-Optimum, Automatic Tool functions in Model G, I view the LSI as often someone who would prefer to give comfort and warmth to people, but they are cautious about it (they have a lot of logical requirements) and, if their logical requirements are disobeyed, then they will usually become more stern, aggressive, and severe. So, in my view, the LSI can be a soother, but they can also be quite severe. People adapt a lot to situations. One of my best friends is LSI, and I know several others, and I see them in both states.
-As for LSI being the most inclined to settle into peaceful retirement, it sounds like you treat the functions as though they are broad life patterns which manifest with deterministic consistency, rather than different states that a person can be in. This is another difference in our views.
Jack says: “You're cherry-picking... in that very article you linked me to, you missed out this: ""I'm becoming the mechanic in chief and I don't want to be there. That's not who I got elected to be."" Bill was not a guy who enjoyed getting involved in detail. As soon as he realised this was what was happening, he stepped back.”
-Before I even get into how much is wrong with this, it can be empirically proven that this quote has no relevance whatsoever. I myself wish that I was more socially adept, had better mastery of my emotions, and didn’t feel the need to spend so much time on my own recently. Other people also wish I had more energy, had more relationships with people, engaged with people more, and could get more accomplished. I’m not where I want to be. But, it’s not so easy to become who we want to be, and to overcome our flaws; otherwise, why would we even have ideals? In the very article you posted, there were all kinds of kinds of things Bill was saying he was going to do, or should do, or wanted to do, and he never did them. His self-image was also rather dependent upon his recognition by others, so many of his desires also stem from their expectations of him, not necessarily what he would do alone on an island. A much better explanation of the data is that he was divided between his own promises and the expectations of others, and his own real behavioral tendencies to get lost in the details. Despite Bill not wanting to be the mechanic in chief, that’s who he was, and he continued to be based on every article I can find on the subject. I never found anything suggesting that he ever lost his extreme orientation to detail and minutia, as you suggest here; you just made that up yourself.
-And I’m yet again faced with an accusation of cherry picking, when the truth is that Jack and I are typing people by different criteria and that we have different criteria for weighing evidence. Naturally I prefer my criteria, but if you’re going to accuse me of cherry picking, it is worth paying close attention to what it is that I’m trying to say. Otherwise what you will get is gratuitous litigation which does nothing but weigh down any attempt at effective communication, for the purpose of pushing an agenda.
-One important difference in how I weigh evidence for Socionics diagnostics compared to Jack is that I weigh actions higher than words. I explained this previously in this conversation already, and the excessive focus on words is a problem that I believe haunts the broader typology community. If you’ve read enough depth psychology of a deep thinker like Carl Jung or Jordan Peterson, or you’ve studied the psychology of lying, self-deception and cognitive bias, or you’ve listened to pick up artists, then you know that words are an incredibly fragile, and often deceptive, representation of a person. We use words to deceive ourselves because it would be too painful not to, we use words to smooth over social interactions and relationships, we use words to hide unpleasant aspects of ourselves from ourselves and other people, we say one thing and think another and do a third thing, we say one thing to one person and its opposite to another, we say one thing in one mood or life period and another thing in another mood or life period, and sometimes, sometimes, we use words to speak deep undivided truth that strikes us in our deepest core. In this quote by Bill Clinton, we have very little assurance in which way he is using words here, however, there is evidence in Bill Clinton’s actual actions that speaking deep undivided truth isn’t what’s happening.
-Actions are not vulnerable in the way that words are. Certainly, people can throw others off in their actions, so it is still important to understand actions with a broader scope. However, we have far less arbitrary abstract representational control over our actions, as compared to our words. Our actions also have to include our whole selves, including our shadow, the parts of ourselves that we don’t consciously acknowledge. As Jordan Peterson says, if you are truly in pain, especially intense pain and strain, you can tell people all kinds of things (I’m okay, I have it all under control, etc.), but everything about your actions will indicate that you believe you are in pain. In any case, if you want to understand men, women, whoever, it is safer to orient yourself by their actions than by their words, given all the vulnerabilities that I already pointed out about words which are not vulnerabilities in actions. Your actions are singularly revealing, one way or another, and especially revealing are your behavioral tendencies.
-That is why this typing by cherry picked quotes, a method you use often, is not a reliable method for determining the Sociotype of a person. It is too shallow to understand the person, because we have no idea why they’re saying certain things, unless we connect to everything else they say and, even more importantly, what they actually do. Granted, the media is partly responsible for cherry picking the quotes, not you. But it’s a general problem in this typing process regardless. This method is too shallow to be of real use in understanding people to any depth. -Another bizarre assumption in your argument is that it would make sense for an EIE ever to get stuck in the details to the extent that kept happening to Bill Clinton, only later to pull back once they realized they had. How many other presidents had this problem? Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are the only two I’ve seen it mentioned for; if you find more let me know. However, I would argue that what we would expect for EIE presidents is to never get as stuck in the details and minutia to the degree that Bill Clinton regularly did, not to lose their orientation to their global image and sense of perspective. It makes more sense for an LSI to not have an intuitive and obvious sense that they are getting lost in details and minutia, and have to realize this through themselves and other people, in order to pull back.
Jack says: “He liked to get very involved with decisions, but did not want to be involved in the trivial, day-to-day decisions. This is an inconsistent pushing of F (cycling between overactivity and self-doubt), with a rejection of S.”
-The data on Bill Clinton simply does not support your assertion that he did not want to, or to tend to get involved with, the trivial day-to-day decisions. In fact, that’s precisely one of the criticisms of Bill levied in the very article you posted; he constantly got involved in trivialities and had great difficulty maintaining a sense of perspective. The fact is that he was going all over the place, getting involved helping out with all kinds of trivial things, and he could not help this tendency. This sounds like difficulty with T, not F.
-Secondly, overactivity and self-doubt is a false polarity, and its relationship to F is not so clear. It is possible to be overactive and self-doubting, overactive and self-confident, normally active and self-doubting, and normally active and self-confident. While I can see a relationship between F and self-confidence, and I don’t see as much of a relationship between F and activity levels. If you think this relationship exists, I’d like to see it clarified. I’ve never heard anything credible stating that SLE and SEE are the most active types in the Socion; the most volitional does not mean the highest activity levels.
Jack says: “As for being the 'master of detail' and 'spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies', this isn't particularly F, THIS is L and S.”
-This is an example of selective hearing, because you leave out the F themes in what Peter said, unless you disagree with Peter’s characterization of Hillary and think that only “master of detail” and “spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies” are important now. Peter characterized Hillary as “aggressive”, “ambitious”, “the power behind the scenes”, having a “jackhammer style”: the theme here is Power Sensorics and Business Logic, the wheelhouse of the SLE, not so much of the LSI. There was the bit about how she prefers hostile environments answering detailed technical questions: that is F, P, and L IMO, because the technical questions are handled by the logic, and the hostile environment by the F.
-However, spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies seems to me to be what you usually see as a balance of L and P. That slightly fits SLE better than LSI, but isn’t a super strong point either way. Master of detail slightly fits LSI better, however, that describes Bill Clinton even more than Hillary based on the article you kindly provided to us in addition to the articles I already brought forth, and additionally, is not inconsistent with SLE, who in has Control Si that monitors the environment in the Model I favor. But that last part will probably sound like nonsense to you: that’s okay, you can skip it.
Jack says: “If your only argument for her being low S is that she "is disconnected from their everyday lives", then you're not going to convince anyone. For what it's worth, being closed to other perspectives beyond your own would be weak I if anything. If an LSI does not live the 'everyday life', has no direct experience of , why would try to connect to it? You say Hillary was NOT charismatic, good. Why should you then try and say an LSI, whose access to E is even less than the SLE, be the charismatic Bill? It makes no sense.”
-Yeah, I agree that would be a pretty shallow argument on its own. To an extent, I think Hillary as an SLE has decent S, when it comes to monitoring the environment (say, for factual inconsistencies, or something). But, when it comes to acting on it, she’s weak. She comes across as phony and artificial in trying to connect to people’s everyday sensing needs in comparison to Bill Clinton. LSI, on the other hand, is quite good at connecting to people in that way, with their Creative S and Role R, at least in Model G. For SLE, S and R are the two most problematic functions, Control and Brake. On its own, this is a pretty abstract point though, and I wouldn’t expect it to be so moving. It’s true that an LSI who is more retiring or elitist might also avoid connecting to people in this way, but they have much more ability to do this should they decide to. SLE’s don’t have this ability at high levels, even after a whole life spent in politics, in my understanding. However, this point may not transfer over well.
-Again, the access to E point is an unfortunate difference between models. SLE is more mobilized by E in Model G, since it is the Launcher, and it is also harder for them to stop their momentum on this function since it has Low Brakes, but it is low energy. It’s hard for SLE to generate much charisma themselves. LSI E, is Manipulative, so it is effective more on its own territory, but once that territory has been staked out, it is a High Energy function and High Brakes as well, so it has powerful handling. This is one reason that Bill Clinton is especially known for a being a good one-on-one communicator. His speeches are decent, but that’s partly because he does a great job getting around connecting to people and getting to know them, partly because he has accentuated E that makes him quite entertaining, and partly because his speeches actually have a strong amount of detail. -This gets into the Clinton as an orator point. He’s a good orator among presidents (who are not always that charismatic mind you), but I don’t think he’s usually considered the best. Obama, for example, is sometimes remarked as being an especially good Orator. If you type Obama as IEI, then why would he be as good or better of an orator than Bill Clinton, when Bill Clinton would have higher Fe as an EIE? If that’s true, then clearly Fe ranking is not the decisive factor in Oration skill (though it may be an influential one). In any case, with training, the ethics of the lead Logical types like LSI, LII, LSE and LIE can become quite well-developed, IMO, and so LSI especially (of those 4 options) can make a good orator or public speaker. I do not see how it is absurd in my point of view, but if you view the LSI as inherently having poor access to E, then I can see why you’d disagree.
-One reporter said he was one of the most outer directed people she’d ever met. That would support EIE more, but based on reports by other articles (http://presidentialham.com/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-with-ham/) and his contradictory character as listed in this very essay, there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of that report. His desire for approval overall fits EIE better, but LSI’s can also be very sensitive to the opinions of others in my experience, so that point doesn’t decide much for me. Both Betas can be very hard workers.
“Another journalistic worshiper, Phil McCombs, writing in The Washington Post, holds a mirror up to Clinton as he is absorbing that love: "To watch this president connect with people emotionally is an awesome thing. It's a raw, needy, palpable, electrifying thing that happens … It's as if he's soaking up the people like he's soaking up the sun, with the warmth pouring deep and direct into his political soul and recharging him, refilling him somehow once again with his own humanity and some sense of his role in the destiny of his country."”
“Clinton has the power to seduce others, to get them to submit to his will. And when they do, they give him in turn the vision he seeks. What Clinton sees in the faces of the adoring crowds is the reflected face of the Sun King. Only those adoring crowds can give this Narcissus the ineffable joy of adoring himself.”
-He has a way in soaking up the warmth of people; wouldn’t that apply to the Suggestive function? Isn’t that exactly what we do: absorb the suggestive function like the sun, recharging and enlivening us? It can’t be denied, however, that he is good at connecting with people emotionally. If you view the suggestive function as so weak, then I can definitely see why EIE would be persuasive. I, however, think Bill Clinton’s warmth fits the Self-affirmation block: Bill as a Narcissus learning to adore himself, getting people do adore him and get them to submit to his will. It’s not to produce any real social change, and his charisma is more entertaining than serious, unlike the more formal, socially directed charisma of the EIE.
“In Shadows of Hope, Sam Smith gives his reasons for doubting Clinton's sincerity: "Clinton often seems a political Don Juan, whose serial affairs with economic and social programs share only the transitory passion he exhibits on their behalf."
Smith is right. The programs, the "issues," are America's obligatory means of political courtship. But for a Sun King, these are means to his end. And his only real end is seduction. That is what Clinton stands for.
Sam Smith's language tells the reader that he is aware of this. Newsweek's Joe Klein, in "The Politics of Promiscuity," (May 9, 1994) seems for an instant to have suspected it. Christopher Hitchens of The Nation has been in a cold rage about it. These men have strikingly different political views. The realization that Clinton is most fundamentally a political seduction machine is not dependent on ideology but on sensibility, and on the intelligence to look past his liberal-altruistic language and to question Clinton's personal values.”
-Clinton only wants to seduce: he doesn’t care about any issues… how do we know that? We can’t see inside his mind; he might care about some issues. But the fact that his charisma lacks real seriousness in this way, and is more a form of narcissistic glorification than caring about real, formal issues, is not a sign of EIE. He’s not a real revolutionary. EIE is the real revolutionary for whom Fe is important, not merely a means to entertainment. Even Vladimir Vincent calls it thus. EIE is charismatic, but not to adapt people to some comfortable reality, but to ground real change towards a world not yet created, and to tune people for real conflicts. At the very least, that isn’t Clinton.
“A few examples will do: At the end of Clinton's first year in office, David Broder of The Washington Post was worrying about Clinton's habit of launching too many policy initiatives at once, many more than he could handle, and his tendency to go rushing around in all directions. Hedrick Smith of PBS was disturbed by a related issue—Clinton's inability to set priorities. And Fred I. Greenstein, professor of politics at Princeton University and author of two classic books on the American presidency, was praising Clinton's "verbal intelligence" but wanted to know whether Clinton had an "analytical intelligence." This was an unusual question. The Princeton scholar was actually saying, Clinton can talk, but can he think?
To an inordinate degree Hillary Clinton thinks for Bill Clinton.
Specifically, she is Bill Clinton's access to the laws of logic, without which no thinking is possible. Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic has discussed Clinton's blindness to logic on a number of occasions. On February 1, 1993, he wrote, "The most disturbing quality about Clinton is his indifference to contradiction. Not excluding the political middle by not excluding the logical middle, that appears to be Clinton's strategy. And so he can hold in his mind simultaneously, and sincerely, notions that cannot really be held together." And, again in the July 19-26, 1993 issue: "He lives without the law of contradiction."
Hillary Clinton provides Clinton with certain narrow logical skills of which he is singularly bereft. This does not imply that she is Aristotle, any more than a seeing-eye dog is a cartographer. It implies only that as compared to Clinton, the blazing Bubba, Mrs. Clinton is on speaking terms with logic, and he cannot function without her.”
-As for Clinton’s cognitive competence, if you look at his actual behavior as president, his Rhodes scholarship, his grasp of statistics, his childhood, his intelligence, then it is beyond ridiculous to question. I think he likes for people to underestimate him and see him as some lovestruck fool, which he most certainly isn’t. Clinton is probably one of the most logically intelligent presidents in the history of the country, but he was also quite movable emotionally. How about someone like John Nash? He had all kinds of so-called cognitive difficulties, but is clearly a logician. Also, I’ve hardly come across a politician that is honest when it comes to all the contradictions in their platform because their goal is get people on their side, not to display the most honest thoughts of their mind. This point is clearly loaded journalism. If Bill Clinton lacks analytical intelligence, then how did he become a Rhodes scholar, a master of detail, and someone who knows as much about the expertise of specialized economists as they do?
-The idea that Bill lives without logic is plainly absurd; this contradicts all other reports about him. Now, that could be results of people not understanding his political plans, or of him doing political maneuvering which contains performative contradictions; the LSI, like any type, can be two faced and is one of the types more prone to this. The whole idea that Bill can’t do logic without Hillary just sounds like a fun story about their over-idealized relationship, the reality of which is more of a political partnership, because Bill Clinton has cheated on Hillary so many times that we’d probably have trouble counting them. He needed her more as an ally than a dual. They aren’t a fairy tale dual couple, in fact, they aren’t even much of a couple at all. Hillary keeps Bill focused, helps him make decisions, and resolves some of his conflicts. This is natural for a power sensor to do, especially a Dominant one like Hillary. From the article, it doesn’t so much seem that she is fundamentally more capable than Bill at using logic, but that she is more grounded, goal-oriented and decisive than him.
“Some White House reporters have gradually discovered this dependence. Initially they saw Hillary as a helpful adjunct to presidential decision making. Just after the election, Eleanor Clift and Mark Miller said in Newsweek, "Hillary is Bill's Daytimer, the gentle lash who keeps him focused, who doesn't mind making decisions and refereeing disputes when Clinton would rather stall." This description is a bit too soft. Take out the "gentle" and the "doesn't mind," and you have a clearer picture of a Hillary who keeps Bill's mind focused, who makes his decisions, and who resolves his conflicts.”
-I constantly see the emphasis on how much more assertive Hillary is than Bill. That doesn’t fit EIE vs LSI as well, but for Hillary being SLE it fits very well.
“And nine months later, in March 1994 as the sex and money scandals were exploding over the Clintons' heads, Time published an article called "The Trials of Hillary." It was written by Nancy Gibbs, and all impulse to soften Hillary had vanished. Rather, with the first lady under fire, it was necessary to make her importance clear. Gibbs cited people close to the Clintons as the source for a crisp description of the essence of Bill Clinton's dependency on Hillary: "Their friends observed that he needs her brains, her logic, her focus."
That is undoubtedly true. But it cannot be the whole truth. One can readily purchase brains, logic, and focus in the marketplace. One does not have to marry them. For Clinton, a wife with brains, logic, and focus serves a deeper need. In a particular and important way, Bill Clinton is cognitively disabled.
There is nothing obvious about that disability, although its superficial manifestations strike many people immediately: If one concentrates on what Clinton says, not on his facial expressions and the motions of his poetic hands, one discovers that he is a phenomenal bore. He is so monumentally boring that thoughtful people feel compelled to discuss it.” -The reason Bill had to marry Hillary is because he is cognitively disabled??? What? Lol. And because he is boring? Not only does that not even make sense: why would boring indicate EIE? Granted, any type could probably be boring, but you’d think LSI would be even more inclined to. Hardly a decisive point in any case for crying out loud, but lordy.
-So, Bill Clinton is boring because he is a detailer. He is lacking drama and poetry, tedious, lacking spark (I see what these remarkers on Bill mean, reading his speeches is like a bouquet of life details, there is very little that is abstract). This is totally inconsistent with having such weak L and S as an EIE. “Detail has mastered him as much as he has mastered detail”. He is ambitious and pedantic. Pedantic is a trait of LSI more than any other type, and he has a photographic memory for details. He is “spiritually thin”, focused on details, the total opposite of an EIE. His memory for details is a SUBSTITUTE for an actual intellectual life!!! How is this intuitive? True, he has many interests, but it seems like it’s not so much the ideas, but the details that he absorbs. Memorizes leading economic indicators since the 20’s. The contrast with actual intuitives is truly immense. And Jack says earlier that Bill Clinton wanted to pull back from details. It looks like Jack didn’t actually read the article he posted, because it makes the case that details and minutia was the greatest ability that Bill Clinton had!
“Finally, Charles Allen and Jonathan Portis in The Comeback Kid describe the Clinton of the presidential campaign: "Clinton became known as a 'policy wonk,' a politician who could spout data and statistics nonstop, a man with a quick answer for every question. Members of the national press were amazed at his ability to formulate answers to complicated questions, seemingly without thinking." It is not "seemingly" without thinking. Very often, it is actually without thinking. Clinton can memorize as he breathes. But he finds thinking—analysis, evaluation, reaching conclusions—intensely difficult. And that is the essence of Bill Clinton's cognitive disability, and the reason for his dependence on his wife. In The Agenda, Woodward shows that dependence in action. He describes Clinton as candidate, surrounded by high powered advisers. "Everyone," writes Woodward, "was throwing ideas at the candidate, who had no system to evaluate or decide among them." It was Hillary who rescued Clinton, and in doing so, explained what he actually did with the information being hurled at him. He had to "come to it in his own way," she said. Woodward continued: "Hillary insisted he had to 'internalize' the message and the ideas. He needed in-depth exposure to the alternatives and lively debate, pushed even to the point of confusion. 'He has to come to this in his own way,' she repeated." What Clinton needed, she said, was the time to rest and "internalize."”
-And yes, introverted logic is extremely careful. It is not the easiest function to quickly reach conclusions, because it needs to think a lot before doing so. He needed to “internalize”, like an introvert, it had to make sense to him and his vast logic and fount of information. Whereas a type like SLE can come in and reach conclusions very quickly, coming up with a quick and decisive and holistic solution that works, due to greater groundedness, holographic thinking, and tool logic. It is very debatable that Bill “wasn’t thinking” though. What actually seems to have happened is that Hillary rescued Bill from the analysis paralysis that he was prone to. He is a very thorough thinker, someone who is making sure his system is perfect before they want to come to a firm conclusion; he doesn’t want to give someone a system that his pedantic grasp for details isn’t satisfied with. But the inability to immediately have a solution would be more characteristic of an introvert than an extrovert. EIE’s do not need to process the logic of things so deeply, and they do not need to internalize it. They can be more satisfied with something which works well enough for them.
“In effect, Clinton dumps everything into his subconscious, engulfs it, digests it, and waits to see what will happen. Many people do this at certain stages of creative work, which is dependent on subconscious operations. But at some point, the mental superstructure must take control and process the results with logic. It is the stage that requires the conscious use of logic that Clinton finds difficult, or impossible, to reach. To an extraordinary degree, Clinton functions directly from his subconscious. It is his almost-photographic memory that allows him to do so. But he pays a terrible penalty. When ideas are "thrown" at him, which happens ceaselessly, he "has no system to evaluate or decide among them." He is paralyzed—until his subconscious finally processes them in one way or another, and tells him what to think. And if it doesn't, his wife does. That one cannot buy in the marketplace.”
-For LSI, Ti and Si is an “automatic”, evaluative function in Humanitarian Socionics. That precisely fits what is said about Bill Clinton here. For SLE, Ti is a much more conscious, demonstrative function, which fits what is said about Hillary. On the contrary, decisiveness and coming up with something that works is natural and automatic to the SLE, whereas LSI’s have a much harder time with that. They are extremely cautious and deliberative in making assessments. Hillary isn’t telling Bill what to think in the depths of his subconscious like he’s some kind of nitwit; she is giving him a working plan of action.
"Even now, after all these years, I still sometimes work hard instead of smart. I'm a workaholic, I'm always churning and doing things, and sometimes I lose the forest for the trees. Sometimes you can do so many things that you don't do enough… [P]eople may not know exactly what I want to do as president, because I've got so many ideas. My mind is always churning, you know, and I think I need to learn to focus my comments better so I can learn to communicate with people who don't know me very well. And I need to always learn that you have so little time, there is so precious little time, that you have to really be like a laser beam with your words and your actions. You've got to really focus and have that kind of mental discipline that sometimes my workaholic tendencies don't permit me to have … I think sometimes I always think that everything can be worked out, too, you know. Sometimes you can't work everything out. You've just got to cut it. And you've got to know when to cut it and when to work things out. That's something I've done a lot of work on, trying to make sure I overcome that weakness."
—Bill Clinton to Arsenio Hall, June 1992
A small part of Clinton's incoherent description pertains to his doing "too much, too fast." The rest, if one strips away the murky verbiage, is an earnest description of Clinton's difficulty in thinking. His mind races, ideas rush in on him with great speed; he fails to distinguish between having an idea and taking an action, between thinking and doing; he gets lost in details, so he cannot retain his abstract purposes; and he has great difficulty in reaching conclusions or making decisions. He even avoids using such terms: He talks of "cutting it" or of "working things out." This is not the analysis of a thinker or of one who thinks about thinking. It is the Clinton subconscious blurting out his difficulties as he experiences them from within.
-Yet again, Bill admits to a tendency to lose the forest for the trees. One of the stronger signs of LSI. He’s too much of a perfectionist to move on with things when he has to, and he has to learn that you can’t work everything out. But then article says that “thinkers don’t work things out”… what? And again, why would an EIE concern themselves with such endless debate and perfectionism over logic? It seems irrelevant to them. Doesn’t fit any EIE I’ve ever known; they can be satisfied with more superficially accurate conclusions, not some paralyzing, ponderous process of thinking. The EIE would probably be helpful for taking Bill Clinton out of such a trance, forcing him to make a decision, helping him grow, instead of having a more decisive logician like Hillary make decisions for him because they ran out of time. It seems like his tendency to get involved with too many things comes from his need for analysis, to get lost in the details and need to perfect everything, getting lost in the process (again, a Process type, something a Holographic type like Hillary helped him with, able to make quick and holistic decisions)
“Clinton has a short phrase to describe only the speeded-up process: It is doing "too much, too fast." He has no descriptive phrase for the blocking process, so I'll give him one: It's "I can't move." He presses his speeded-up problem on everyone he talks to at any length, so it is widely known. He allows others to discover the blockage problem all by themselves. But, of course, that problem is widely known too. The press discovered it soon after he was elected president. In fact, to a considerable degree, Clinton's relationship with reporters has been an attempt to seduce them by stressing "I do too much, too fast" while they hav e tormented him by chasing angrily after his "I can't move." To visit Clinton's mind, one must take these aspects of his mental processes one at a time.”
-It is unusual to interpret his inability to move due to reflection to an extroverted type. The stereotype for analysis paralysis is not a type like EIE at all, but the introverted thinking types. The reason that he didn’t know when to stop his Structural Logic is because it is not a flexible, instrumental function for him, the way it is for Hillary. It is the essence of what his sociotype is focused on. To ask someone to limit a function like their Program is very hard; people cannot do this without soul shuddering effort. He is a thinker more than a doer.
“And, once elected, Clinton not only wanted to show Americans that he could do everything at once—he wanted to show them that he could think about everything at once. He held the famous economic "summit" where, surrounded by television cameras and legions of properly respectful economists, policy specialists, and business executives, Clinton demonstrated that he knew as much about each of their specializations as they did. He had learned and spat out a fragment of each. The public was impressed. The press was impressed. Hillary was impressed. She took notes.”
-His grasp of detail is so prodigious, that he knew as much about the specialization of the economists, policy specialists, and business executives as they did… this doesn’t seem like the superficial erudition of the EIE so much, but a result of deep and thorough study to which Bill Clinton is so prone. He was basically too much of an egghead to be a maximally effective leader. He would make a better advisor than he would a decisive leader. And Hillary is supposed to be the master of details? Hillary isn’t even in Bill Clinton’s league when it comes to details, and she knows that. He does too much too fast partly because he has very poor ability to maintain a broad perspective, and partly because he is a Creative subtype. He is actually not Harmonizing; I had mistakenly remembered that. Creative also fits his charisma much better.
-It is constantly a process (process type), plus he is lost specifically in thought/introversion, not action… he couldn’t distinguish between thinking and doing because for him thinking is the prime form of doing, as a type which focuses on structural logic most of all. A type like LSI is less designed to be such a front line leader as a type like EIE or SLE, an extrovert.
-Both LSI and EIE can get angry, so I don’t know what to make of that. His anger is described as cold.
-Again, it is remarked that Bill Clinton is a policy wonk and a lover of detail. How does this make sense for EIE? It doesn’t make any sense to me. It is classic LSI. And you attribute Hillary’s love of detail to L and S, yet it seems from the account of this article that Bill Clinton loved detail more than she did.
-Indecisiveness is mostly a lack of force sensorics and business logic. While LSI has strong force sensorics (and Bill had strong anger and determination when it was summoned), it is cautious. EIE has bold force sensorics. Why would they be so cautious with it? On the other hand, Bill has such bold structural logic and intuition of time and introverted sensorics reflections that they supplanted taking any action. He was not able to bring himself to caution on his introverted functions.
“Clinton possesses a perfectionism that interferes with the completion of his projects because his standards are never met. According to Woodward, Clinton always wants to produce a solid piece of work. The sight of aides knocking out a document at high speed frightens Clinton because he knows it will not produce intellectually serious work. He wants each aspect of a project to be checked, he wants to consult people he deems to be authoritative sources, and he wants to consider a very broad range of opinion and debate.”
-Clinton component 1: he possesses a perfectionism that interferes with the completion of his projects because his standards are never met. Classic LSI, not EIE. Absolutely neurotic and stubborn and pedantic L.
“Clinton is preoccupied with details to the extent that the major point of his activity is lost. This is precisely what Clinton means when he says he often can't "see the forest for the trees." It is what everyone means when he uses that expression. It means he cannot arrive at or retain the abstract purpose of a project because he is so immersed in the details.”
-Clinton component 2: he is preoccupied with details to the extent that the major point of his activity is lost. This is L and S, at the expense of functions like T, P, etc. Certainly sensing, rather than intuitive. Comparing this to the clearly intuitive presidents, and the contrast is enormous. He is constantly losing contact with his abstract purposes: a real EIE would be very helpful to him, motivating him properly and keeping his pedantic detail loving head on track. He lets the abstractions float away while he gets preoccupied with the “most trivial of details”
Clinton is unable to set priorities among his projects. Indeed, journalists and scholars have clamored incessantly that Clinton cannot set priorities. Asked Princeton scholar Fred Greenstein in Political Science Quarterly, "Why does an intelligent, politically aware leader who knows in his heart that he should 'focus like a laser' begin his presidency in a fashion more reminiscent of a cluster bomb?" Or, as Judy Woodruff put it anxiously to Vice President Al Gore, "Why can't he prioritize?"
-Clinton component 3: he is unable to set priorities among his projects. “To know one’s priorities, one must know their relationship to one’s abstract and overarching purposes.” He sticks with his many projects, and loses the overall purpose. He loses T, intuition of time, becomes leisurely, can’t do things in time, and can’t connect all the details into the bigger picture and stick with it, despite his astonishingly brilliant and effortless grasp of the details (beyond Hillary even). “It is a remarkable fact that the political consultants to President Clinton think far more abstractly than he does and can easily explain his priorities to him. But to Clinton, only the concrete is real, abstractions have no reality…”
Clinton's decision making is avoided, postponed, or protracted. This is the phenomenon that draws the journalistic crowds. But as we have seen, the press has been primarily concerned with the end of the drama—the last two or three days, even the last two or three weeks, of vacillation and indecisiveness.
-Clinton component 4: his decision making is avoided, postponed, or protracted. I see this as him being more of thinker than a doer, having bold introverted functions and overly cautious extroverted functions. I do not understand how this could indicate an extroverted type for Bill, types that are much quicker and bolder to activity, who are not inclined to split hairs over things.
Clinton's time is poorly allocated: The most important tasks are left to the last moment. You have surely read two dozen descriptions of Clinton's wild last-minute rush to decision and action when the clock or the calendar will tolerate no delay.
-Clinton component 5: his time was poorly allocated. He was leisurely, often late and holding other people up, poorly managing time and leaving things to the last minute. This is the antithesis of having strong intuition of time, who can much better understand how to manage it; Bill Clinton was incapable of this.
Clinton insists that others submit to exactly his way of doing things, and is reluctant to allow others to do things because of the conviction they will not do them correctly. In the first month of Clinton's administration, the press learned that Clinton refused to delegate authority. David Broder analyzed Clinton's first appointments and quoted "Clinton insiders" who observed, delicately, that the choices revealed "Clinton's intent to keep the policy reins firmly in his own hands."
-Clinton component 6: insist that others submit to exactly his way of doing things, and is reluctant to allow others to do things because of the conviction they will not do them correctly. That sounds like a very good description of stubborn L and P, in a very strong position, in addition to being strong enough with Force Sensorics to assert his will. He would not compromise on his standards, even though he would appear to compromise with his constituents on the campaign trail. So much for compromising Clinton; I guess that’s only half the story after all. This pedantic micromanagement is a far cry from how an EIE operates. It sounds more like an ISTJ bean counter in MBTI. This is the CLASSIC central management of an LSI, I don’t know how to make it clearer than that, unless we pick and choose what to look at. He refused to delegate authority; an EIE is hardly even capable of that because while force sensorics is a strong motivation for them it is weak, they have to delegate it to some degree or they won’t achieve anything on their own. That’s why they are the archetypal mastermind who sends everyone on errands, sends everyone to defend their views for them, etc. By contrast, “Bill Clinton hates planning or strategic thinking…” or so it is said. That sounds a little biased, so take that reporting with a grain of salt, but it sure isn’t compatible with a T ego type who thrive on strategy.
-Hillary, an involutionary sensing extrovert with her logic more balanced and more grounded in deeds, and with the extra discipline, drivenness and drive to win due to her Dominant variant, was not doubt very helpful to Bill, in addition to George Stephanopoulos. What they helped Bill Clinton with was not even close to detailed logic (Bill Clinton was the superior to both Hillary and George at that), but with perspective, keeping his lazer sharp thinking focused on getting things accomplished, on winning and achievement rather than hair-splitting perfectionism (this is a very common struggle of the LSI).
-Bill Clinton’s chaos, Dave Power’s IJ chaos tidal waves; he was so focused on keeping order in the most pedantic and productive ways, that he produced chaos, because he lost the forest for the trees. He lacked the decisiveness and big picture thinking needed to run his White House as well as it could have been.
-In a situation of such a gap in power and decisiveness, what is most natural is for a Power Sensorics type to take over, because that is their most natural role in the group; the one who can execute the volitional pressure to make the necessary decisions in an extreme situation, put everyone in their proper places, pierce through all the chaos and bullcrap, and take charge when it is necessary. And that’s exactly what Hillary was able to do, because her Power Sensorics isn’t cautious, it’s bold as can be. She’s the queen on the chess board, and master of power and maneuvering, flexible mobile temperament, someone who is well-known for changing her positions to achieve victory, rather than a relatively inflexible introverted rational type. She was not so neurotic about the precise order that things were in; she could make it work. She was a master of business logic, of making things work well enough, of coordinating, of engaging in concrete organizing.
-She’s an extrovert and a natural conqueror and change agent and someone who broadly knows what is going on and can keep track of everything, whereas Bill is a natural thinker and policy expert, someone who is going to get every last detail right like some perspectiveless pedant even if it keeps the whole white house waiting, who also happens to be very charismatic. Considering Bill cognitively crimpled is absurd given the feats outlined in the article; it is more accurate to say that he was not cognitively suited to his very high pressure leadership position. As an introverted thinker, he’d do much better than Hillary, has far more brilliance and thoroughness and erudition, but that wouldn’t satisfy his ambition. Would you put a scholar, a statistician, or a logician in charge of the White House? Of course not! They’d go into analysis paralysis, just like Bill Clinton. You need someone who can be quick and decisive and effectively manage, not “a brain”. Why attribute all success to intelligence? Maybe operative intelligence, not IQ; Bill’s IQ is almost certainly higher than Hillary’s, probably something like 160-170 in his case. An egghead like Bill Clinton is far from an ideal commander.
-It’s not that Clinton is a bad epistemologist. Decision making is excruciating for careful thinkers like myself, I can relate to Bill, because you have to come out of your overly careful thinking and make risky and unsure decisions in the real world. You don’t elect an epistemologist to be president; they are better as advisors. You elect a decisive, self-confident person who can visibly get things accomplished that you want accomplished, and who can lead and manage while keeping an eye on the big picture. The article says in one place that he doesn’t trust his own mind, and in another part states that he doesn’t trust anyone else to do anything correctly. Which is it; his mind or theirs? I completely disagree that he doesn’t trust his own mind; a better and more consistent analysis of the facts is that he doesn’t know what to do having to make so many decisions that aren’t able to meet his unrealistic perfectionistic standards, that he is overwhelmed by the pressures of leadership. Now, that can happen to a lot of people, for different reasons, due to different neuroses. But, it hardly indicates EIE over LSI, and I’d argue more indicates the latter for the specific reasons that Bill has that problem. Why would an EIE have such analysis paralysis and pedantry? That makes no sense, and it’s repeated in almost every source I can find that goes into detail about Bill. It would be like saying an ILI or IEI cannot stop being so aggressive and taking charge all the time, or an ILE or IEE is so stuck in their rut of sensory comfort that they won’t try anything new. The types most likely to get stuck in pedantry is LSI. It is a compulsive issue for them, because it orients their whole psyche.
-He can hold himself politely in public because of his lovely L and R, but in private, F, P and E come out in full force, and unleash the built up frustration from his own inability to accomplish the goals that have been set for him, and from his great self-control in the public spotlight. To be honest though, I can hardly imagine the corruptions that he and his wife Hillary are involved in. I’m not sure I even want to get into that, because there are so many rumors that are difficult to confirm or deny. There is a good chance that they are severe criminals, which adds way more stress than is being talked about in the article.
-His huggy, weepy emotionalism is noteworthy for EIE. But, that sounds like it would just as well be weak emotion to me. The image is not of a powerful EIE ideological leader, but of some pathetically dissipated power mongerer. It is not an image that is inspiring of strength or devotion when it comes to ethics. These are pathetic, weak, easily manipulated emotions. And it only comes out in private: Bill is very cautious with his weepy emotionalism, only letting some people see it.
-The article also makes the case that Bill Clinton has obsessive-compulsive disorder. Interference with task completion because the person’s overly strict standards are not met, preoccupation with details to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost, unreasonable reluctance to allow others to do things because of a conviction that they will not do them correctly, excessive devotion to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships, indecisiveness: too much ruminating about priorities. Overall, that is WAY more LSI than EIE. If you asked people, which type would more likely have obsessive-compulsive disorder, EIE or LSI, which do you think they’d say? Granted, there is this one site that attributes OCD to EIE: https://www.the16types.info/info/types/ENFJ.htm However, if you actually read it, it’s a bunch of LSI stuff. Control, perfection, order, systems, rules, details, criticalness, perfectionism, “the right thing”, perseverance, accumulation, etc. Maybe an EIE could be like that if they had a lot of emphasis on Te and Ti. But overall, the compulsion is obviously way more LSI, by any description I’ve ever seen. So, maybe you don’t want to consider this point decisive, and that’s reasonable enough, but to put it in favor of EIE would take a great deal of bias.
-As for talking in general, I would say that EIE is on average more talkative than LSI (the EJ temperament is without a doubt the most talkative), and Bill is very talkative by all accounts. The one odd thing about it though, is that he is oddly insensitive to other people and their feelings in all his talking (boring people around him to death, telephoning people when they are asleep or going asleep, etc.). While EIE’s talk a lot, that level of obtuseness would be unusual for them, because they have a natural grasp of appropriateness and people’s sensibilities in comparison with an LSI (though they might choose to willingly violate it, but they usually have some reason other than wanting to talk to people). At the very least, however, we do have to acknowledge high E usage from Bill, his impulsiveness and lack of common sense in dealing with people notwithstanding.
-It is also odd that they say Bill Clinton can’t shut his mouth or pay attention, because the reports that I could find of his constituents suggest that he is a remarkable listener towards people. Maybe his listening and lack of paying attention is somewhat schizophrenic, different for different people; I, for one, relate to that. At home I rarely listen to my family, because I am lost in the things I am thinking about or doing, but if I need to, I can pay very close attention to people, though I am easily distracted by events or what is going on in my head. Likewise, I have a tendency to flit between the various things I am working on, shifting my attention to one thing and then another, because it helps me concentrate a lot on what I am focused on at the moment. Perhaps that’s what Bill is going, something that naturally characterizes the Harmonizers, and it is now a technique that used in some tutoring systems for children and teenagers (such as IQuest), and it has its origins in the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. While Bill Clinton is extreme in some ways, sometimes people seem like they are just trying to find something to sensationalize about the president, which is unfortunately common for journalists. Cognitive impairment, they say? And they think most people could do better in his position? Seems more like lack of cognitive suitability to me. Yeah, he’s neurotic too, but he’d still surely do better than most people in his position, but you wouldn’t guess that from sensationalist journalism. He’s not even remembered as a terrible president, which you’d wouldn’t guess from this article. That said, it is a pretty thorough and interesting read, and I’m glad that you brought it for discussion.
My thoughts and plans, hopefully this isn't too much
I feel compelled to explain Model G due to all the questions, concerns, and confusions that abound regarding it. Perhaps Victor Gulenko has not expended much effort explaining his ideas to the much smaller American Socionics community (it is not his primary market). Moreover, Gulenko’s ideas involve a lot of complex interconnections and densely packed material that isn’t necessarily obvious or intuitive if you don’t understand the philosophical paradigm via which he approaches things. Another thing which captures my attention is that more and more people are waking up to the problem of plurality and different camps in the general typology community. This phenomenon is something that has fascinated and troubled me for years.
Looking at different typologies sounds great! I’ve reflected a lot on, and I have a lot to say, about brainstorming ways forward for the typology community, and I also have a variety of epistemological techniques to offer, with different techniques possibly appealing more to different people. There’s a lot to say and I don’t know how to condense it, so I’m probably going to have to start my own YouTube channel where I can freely and openly speak about these matters. The conflict weighs on me, causing me psychological pain every day, because I can see that so many different camps have things of value to offer and I can’t imagine they would have good reason to simply surrender to one way of doing things, based on my own experiences with them (I’ve been involved in physiognomic typology groups, associated with several Socionics schools, taken classes with Dave Super Powers and Katherine Fauvre, etc.).
As for the course of action that Jack proposes: it has my support. I do not have a strong preference about how to proceed from a logical standpoint, and his proposal seems more than adequate. Model G is my favorite model, but I realize that it is non-standard and not widely understood or accepted as “valid”, so I am willing to work with Model A because it is an adequate and more pragmatic and diplomatic option for us. However, I must say that I am not fond of a dogmatic attitude towards Model A which treats it as an inviolable axiom; I see Model A as one prospective scientific/philosophical model among others, hugely in need of experimentation, comparison, and criticism, albeit the most standard notation for Socionics and there isn’t a better starting point.
Something people often haven’t heard is that Model G is actually not contradictory to Model A, but complementary and interdependent within its own paradigm. Energy and information, the basis of these models, interact; in ShGS, TEM (diagnosed by Model G) and TIM (diagnosed by Model A) together are interdependent substructures of the Sociotype. It sounds to me like we wish more to discuss information processing than energy processing, which it sounds like most Western Socionists do at this point. In that case, it may be that Model A is even preferable for me.
My thoughts on the central role of deduction are mixed. Jack’s approach appeals to many people and this is for good reason. His earnest conservatism in making sure that his conclusions follow from the basic/plausible beliefs of himself and his associates, and the corresponding clarity and simplicity in his assessments and rationalizations of diagnostics are persuasive. They create trust and quality products, and they make sure that everything fits together so that an explanation can be readily offered. However, the history of math, science, philosophy and logic is mixed when it comes to the relationship between deduction/analysis/fragmentation, with its counterpart of induction/association/synthesis.
Jack and Beat allude to this dialectic in the hangout they held about Quadra tags; they spoke about the dialectic between Alpha NT and Gamma NT, in addition to first principles theorizing (Jack) versus more unrestrained but seeing-what-works theorizing (Beat). If my account of that is imprecise, feel free to correct or refine it. In my opinion, both sides should be regarded as equal partners in a wider social knowledge building and refining process, but people with certain temperaments will certainly specialize in specific aspects and this is useful. Jack seems to have a temperament that lends itself more to such deductive-centric thinking; I personally don’t have that deductive and conservative temperament, but I can see its value and respect it considerably.
Some examples of this general dialectic, to show what I mean:
-mutations inductively emerge in response to their biological environment, and they are deductively selected for and reinforced by natural selection
-the semi-cyclical process of science: empirical patterns are discovered and initial discoveries are made, and then the initial material is deductively refined into a paradigm where standard puzzle solving occurs, the paradigm is filled out but anomalies accumulate, and new paradigmatic syntheses or radical new discoveries create a paradigm shift and science goes back to its deductive problem solving stage and its accumulation of anomalies
-applied vs theoretical science: applied science is more responsive to synthesizing new understandings for the demands of practice but is also more localized, with more vocabulary that you have to learn to understand and efficiently interact with what goes in the field, whereas theoretical science is more focused on minimizing the grammar of the models involved into the tightest and most efficient and inclusive model of the whole science but is much further from the boundary conditions of experience where empirical discoveries are being accounted for and is slower and more stubborn in response to change than applied science
-In Artificial Intelligence, there have been a number of paradigms, some more deductive in nature, such as symbolic AI that uses languages like lisp, with loops and strict logic. However, AI took off in a rather empirical and entrepreneurial direction in 2012, where stochastic deep neural networks could finally be hosted on powerful enough hardware to exploit their properties, and they quickly overtook even human performance in some areas of computer vision. What’s tricky about deep neural networks is that they are like black-boxes to humans, and you have to experiment with model parameters and see how things go. There aren’t many deductive principles by which to understand how these models work so well; it’s a lot of statistical tinkering and fine-tuning where imagination is the limit. You simply have to pay attention to the best practical guidelines and experiment with multiple models until you get one that works best, so most AI research takes place in a business setting (AI labs of companies like Facebook and Google) rather than an academic one since neural networks are so difficult to study. They are kind of like Black Magic but they work. Needless to say, researchers feel remiss without more basic principles as a rudder and plenty of people at Stanford, DeepMind, etc. are brainstorming ways of making AI’s accessible to a more principled examination and developing more theories about how they work (Information Bottleneck Theory, TCAV, etc.)
The strengths of a deductive approach are that it is very rigorous, it is clear how conclusions are being derived from axioms, and it keeps things together which is reassuring. However, some disadvantages are scholasticism (your assessments become more of a circular artifact of the method of categorization than a fresh take on empirical patterns) and reductionism (fragmenting wholes into component parts, not taking into account things like interactions, more holistic understandings, epiphenomena, etc.). For example, the human body has parts that work in very mechanistic ways, but it would be near impossible to understand the human body deductively, because there is so much going on in the mutual interaction of its own many complex systems. You have to supplement basic principles with a more holistic approach.
However, typology also works with many fundamental categories of information and whatnot, and we can create very neat deductive models out of that which usefully simplifies things. However, these categories are also instantiated in HUMAN bodies and complex social systems with lots of mutual interaction going on, so it is also important to watch out for empirical patterns that might not be obvious only from some basic information axioms and what directly and obviously follows from them. What satisfies me is models being rigorously applied in their domain, in parallel with a willingness to question fundamental assumptions (though not being so quick to get rid of them either).
I suspect that humans will always host a variety of viewpoints on typology, because they can be rather stubborn about the systems they’ve already understood things in terms of, they have different experiences which they are making sense of relative to others, and they have different ways of making sense of things because they have different innate natures (which we as Socionists are well equipped to appreciate). In spite of this, these different frameworks and ways of analyzing people and information can benefit from interacting in more friendly and productive ways, debating at a first principles level and seeing what we can learn (like the intellectual dark web of Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, etc. which hosts many different viewpoints but people are drawn to it because of the willingness to question things at a first principles level and to really be open to unpacking viewpoints and changing minds). As different schools of typology debate and converse, positions will surely be made stronger and clearer, and good things could come out of it.
Wilber’s three integral principles might be useful for keeping in mind as well:
1) Nonexclusion: everyone is right, insofar as they make statements about their own enacted and disclosed phenomena, but not when they make statements about the existence of phenomena enacted by other paradigms
2) Enfoldment: some are more right than others, some views are more inclusive, more encompassing, deeper, more holistic, etc. But the fact that molecules are more inclusive than atoms doesn’t mean we can get rid of atoms.
3) Enactment: if you want to know this, do that… paradigm clashes seem incommensurable because people focus on phenomena rather than practices, and what appears to be conflicting phenomena often simply result from different experiences brought forth by different practices
What about Jack’s Enneagram type? I know you’ve said 7 before; that’s probably correct. Gut is probably 8 because you are comfortable with dominance and confrontation but aren’t overly keen on it for it to be a main type. I don’t see 9 or 1. For heart type, probably 3. 2 and 4 are more emotional, 3 is task focused and results focused and knows how to make the right impression in achieving whatever they set their minds too but you aren’t image focused or workaholic enough for it to be a main type. Overall, maybe 7w8 783? Not sure on the instinctual stack, because that’s a bit more intimate.
I thought a little about the coincidence between Socionics and Enneagram lately; that’s a good topic. I think there is a fair amount of variation since enneagram deals with psychological motivation whereas Socionics deals with more fundamental structural features of how we process energy and information, but there are definitely lots of correlations and certain combinations of Socionics and Enneagram types that seem very unlikely.
---
Jack Aaron:
Socionics deals with psychological motivation, because psychological motivation is a subclass of information processing.
I would be interested to know how information and energy metabolism complement, without simply overlapping and the use of the word 'energy' being just a gimmick. For instance, if I am I
*ILE-ing in terms of information, what am I doing that is fundamentally different in terms of my energy?
I remain sceptical also because Kepinski already referred to digestion of food as 'energy metabolism', which is straightforward enough, as energy is being metabolised when we digest, respire and egest. What is this 'energy' that 1) isn't to do with digesting food, that is 2) not the same as the information we are metabolising?
and if it is the case that these two systems are truly complementary, then they ought not to occupy the same space. To complement, it should be possible to be one type in Model A and an unrelated type in Model G. I see that @Varlawend has some very divergent opinions now on Sedecology typings, so the issues of the two theories not occupying very different spaces will present themselves more and more.
Yes, why on earth would information and energy, being two completely different things, be described with such uncannily similar categories? That's quite a coincidence
Kepinski's 'energy metabolism' uses quite different categories. The Energy Metabolism Elements are Proteins, Carbohydrates, Fats and various Vitamins/Minerals.
I would like to think Gulenko has a better purpose in this than simply finding a gimmick to give the Humanitarian school a competitive advantage in Kiev.
ooh! will take a look
"It is necessary to clearly understand the relationship between energy and informational metabolism , although the second is a reflection of the first, but at the same time they are both nothing more than the mechanisms of energy reproduction , only different energy. Energy metabolism - the reproduction of the physical energy of the body. Informational metabolism is the reproduction of psychic energy, which we divide into mental and vital." - well, there we go.
indeed
if it were that, I'd be expecting something like diet charts.
"SLEs need extra single-source complex proteins or they will tire out"
---
Varlawend:
Okay, it is true I don't know you offline Jack. Maybe 739? That's believable. I agree that 8 doesn't fit you, but out of the gut types it seemed best. Certainly not 1, lol. But maybe 9 fits. I might have been too quick to dismiss it. And maybe you have 7w8.
It is very debatable that psychological motivation is a subclass of information processing. Why is the information being processed? That said, I do find enneagram and Socionics difficult to mix, but interesting nonetheless.
As for my typings being divergent, in other Socionics communities that I participate in, a whole bunch of people think your typings are very divergent. WSS and its methods are far from the usual and establishment when it comes to Socionics as well. That's okay, but I'm hardly uniquely divergent here, just divergent from your way of thinking perhaps. Though there is plenty of agreement too. When I analyzed your typings next to Gulenko's, whose methods I use, there is about a 40%-45% convergence rate. That's plenty of agreement and disagreement. With more people it could be closer to 40% or slightly less though. I guess we'll see. And there differences are frequently systematic rather than random.
Regarding energy, I will have a lot to say about that. But I can give a little for starters:
"Historically, the concept of a sociotype is used in two different meanings — narrow, as an innate and unchanging structure, and broad, as the entire socionic substructure of the psyche (see subtypes). However, the type of information metabolism and the type of energy metabolism are usually associated with manifestations of a sociotype in a narrow interpretation, although, of course, the movable shell of a sociotype (subtype, profile, functional state) affects the processes of MI and EM. This influence is being studied, but nevertheless, there is a tradition to talk about a sociotype and its variations, and not TIM and TEM and their variations.
The difference between TIM and TEM. Humanitarian Socionics The type of information metabolism describes the processes of perceiving information, recognizing and interpreting meanings in it, making decisions and issuing information. However, each of these actions (not to mention the implementation of the solution) requires certain energy costs. In addition, each form of mental activity (ie, function) requires a certain level of activity, which means energy expenditure. It is the patterns and dynamics of these processes that describe the type of energy metabolism.
TIM and TEM are largely interdependent (roughly speaking, if there is not enough energy to launch the function P, then we will not get a business solution), since both of them are manifestations of the same essence - the sociotype. Therefore, the statement that some person has one TIM, and TEM has another, is a blunder. For the same reason, TIMEs, TEMs and their elements are denoted in the same way (ILE, LII, P, E, etc.)."
"The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we strive to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself takes place through the information exchange.
However, the study of the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the patterns of information metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and patterns of energy metabolism directly, and in many respects even without special tools (with our own eyes)."
Funnily enough, Gulenko does talk about the relationship of food to various functional states!
So there is something to your quip
How to develop the function of E - the ethics of emotions? Eat foods that tone and excite: spicy, salty, sour, bitter.
How to develop the function F - power sensory? Eat more meat, especially pork and beef. Drink more fluids.
How to develop the function I - intuition capabilities? Eat more eggs, germinated cereals, and other germ-containing foods.
How to develop the function of L - structural logic? Develop a balanced diet for the main components and strictly adhere to it.
How to develop the function P - business logic? Eat high-calorie foods with plenty of fluids. Avoid dry food and snacks while running.
How to develop the function of R - ethics of relationships? Eat more sweet and flour.
How to develop the function of S - sensory sensations? Eat only natural products. Eat moderately, but varied. Give up heavy meats (pork, beef). Replace them with a bird.
How to develop the function of T - the intuition of time? Deny yourself the excesses, sit on a strict diet. Eat plenty of plant and dairy foods.
But, it's much broader than that. Energy exists in the microtransactions within the cell, but also the overall behavior of the system and its efficiency of movement and information processing. There is micro energy dynamics, and macro energy dynamics, just as in physics. You could try to describe energy in terms of the interaction of many atoms, but usually you will just use the macro features of the system in mechanical engineering, for example.
Whenever your body is in some overall functional state (E/R/P/L/F/S/I/T), it is processing information and doing work which processes energy, and the behavior, the work done, that is what is visible, whereas the information is something which has to be inferred
The descriptions, which you guys mention, do reflect information processes of course, so that is why there isn't really a contradiction there
They are processing different information, but it describes how the type behaves in life in their different functional states, using energy relative to their typical constitution to process a certain kind of information
This is what Gulenko means by energy:
"How can a simple listener explain what the most fundamental concepts in socionics are - information and energy? What are the types of information and energy? I will try to formulate the necessary definitions.
Information is a product of the reflection of the psyche of the environment (or, if the psyche is highly developed, of itself). The result of this process is information, knowledge, skills. Energy , in contrast to information, is the ability of the psyche to influence, change the environment (or oneself)."
"Thus, one can know everything (maximum information), but remain inactive (minimum energy) or, on the contrary, be very influential (maximum energy), but do not delve into anything and remember nothing (minimum information).
There are two most important manifestations of psychic energy - motivation (readiness for action) and goal achievement (action itself). A bit like the difference between potential and kinetic energy in physics.
Similar differences can be made in the information. The first kind of information is the content (that is, the content) of the communicative object. The second kind of information is the level of organization (complexity) of the object itself.
The first kind of information is used to determine a sociotype from its texts or some other content. Information, understood as the complexity of the organization of the system, formed the basis of the concept of the dimensions of the socionic model. It is believed that the more complex an element of the model is, the greater the number of dimensions inherent in it."
Though there is far more if you want to get more into that
When a computer processes information, for example, it uses energy (so it is also an energy processor because energy is more encompassing than information, but that doesn't render information unimportant because information is abstract and systematic). It's not different for the psyche/body. Energy is more like Te/Fe, Information more like Ti
Also, on some of my typings, I'm agreeing with Gulenko's methods, but some are more guesses and unsure. So, some of it could just be me and I am open to changing my mind on a number of them.
You what, I decided I’d go through my typings now and see how they compare to yours @Echidna1000. I typed a lot of people really quickly, so there are some I might want to review/change, and we’ll see what the rate of agreement is and what patterns in disagreement there are. That might be useful.
@Echidna1000 our current agreement rate is 41.8%, 112/268 of people we have both typed
I will include typings where we disagreed in the same way more than once (IMO once could just be accident). My typing is first and yours is second.
Two disagreements: -Hillary Clinton (SLE/LSI), Recep Erdogan (SLE/LSI),
-Bruce Willis (LSI/SLE), James Cameron (LSI/SLE)
-Richard Dawkins (EIE/LSE), William Buckley (EIE/LSE)
-Confucius (EIE/EII), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (EIE/EII)
-Anne Hathaway (EIE/SEI), Bjork (EIE/SEI)
-Christopher Hitchens (EIE/ESI), Eminem (EIE/ESI)
-Alexander Grothendieck (LII/IEI), Carl Jung (LII/IEI)
-George RR Martin (ILI/ESI), Carl Benjamin (ILI/ESI)
-Richard Branson (LIE/ESE), Will Smith (LIE/ESE)
Three disagreements: -Ariana Grande (EIE/ESE), Meryl Streep (EIE/ESE), Walt Disney (EIE/ESE)
-Georg Hegel (EIE/ILI), Heraclitus (EIE/ILI), Jean-Paul Sartre (EIE/ILI)
-Chuck Norris (LSI/LSE), George H.W. Bush (LSI/LSE), Mitt Romney (LSI/LSE)
-Ann Coulter (LSI/SEE), Jean-Claude Van Damme (LSI/SEE), Sarah Palin (LSI/SEE)
-Laci Green (SEE/ESE), Nikita Khrushchev (SEE/ESE), Shakira (SEE/ESE)
-Cenk Uygur (SEE/SLE), Donald Trump (SEE/SLE), Winston Churchill (SEE/SLE)
-Alfred Hitchcock (ILI/SEI), George Lucas (ILI/SEI), Leonid Brezhnev (ILI/SEI)
-Camille Paglia (ILI/LIE), Milton Friedman (ILI/LIE), Warren Buffet (ILI/LIE)
-Kurt Godel (ILI/LII), Rene Descartes (ILI/LII), Woody Allen (ILI/LII)
Four disagreements: -Bill Clinton (LSI/EIE), Charlie Rose (LSI/EIE), John F. Kennedy (LSI/EIE), Marco Rubio (LSI/EIE)
-Erasmus (EIE/IEE), Friedrich Schelling (EIE/IEE), Helena Bonham Carter (EIE/IEE), William James (EIE/IEE)
-Albert Einstein (ILI/ILE), Daniel Dennett (ILI/ILE), Eric Weinstein (ILI/ILE), Jean Piaget (ILI/ILE)
Five disagreements: -Ben Shapiro (LSI/LIE), Paul Ryan (LSI/LIE), Sam Harris (LSI/LIE), Samuel Jackson (LSI/LIE), Simon Cowell (LSI/LIE)
-Aleister Crowley (EIE/SLE), Madonna (EIE/SLE), Marquis de Sade (EIE/SLE), Shia LaBeouf (EIE/SLE), Vladimir Lenin (EIE/SLE)
-Emma Watson (EIE/LII), Gautama Buddha (EIE/LII), John Calvin (EIE/LII), JRR Tolkien (EIE/LII), Nicole Kidman (EIE/LII)
Six disagreements: -Aristotle (EIE/LIE), Ayn Rand (EIE/LIE), Francis Bacon (EIE/LIE), Hypatia (EIE/LIE), Jordan Peterson (EIE/LIE), Yulia Tymoshenko (EIE/LIE)
-Clint Eastwood (LSI/ESI), George W. Bush (LSI/ESI), Judith Sheindlin (LSI/ESI), Margaret Thatcher (LSI/ESI), Richard Nixon (LSI/ESI), Robert De Niro (LSI/ESI)
Seven disagreements: -Alex Jones (EIE/SEE), Bruce Lee (EIE/SEE), Chester Bennington (EIE/SEE), Elvis Presley (EIE/SEE), Genghis Khan (EIE/SEE), Leonardo DiCaprio (EIE/SEE), Paris Hilton (EIE/SEE)
Eight disagreements: -Che Guevara (EIE/LSI), George Gurdjieff (EIE/LSI), Johann Fichte (EIE/LSI), Ludwig Wittgenstein (EIE/LSI), Malcolm X (EIE/LSI), Martin Luther (EIE/LSI), Michael Jordan (EIE/LSI), Sigmund Freud (EIE/LSI)
Ten disagreements: -Alan Watts (EIE/ILE), Bill Hicks (EIE/ILE), Boris Johnson (EIE/ILE), Carl Sagan (EIE/ILE), Cicero (EIE/ILE), Galileo Galilei (EIE/ILE), Jim Carrey (EIE/ILE), John Lennon (EIE/ILE), Nicolas Cage (EIE/ILE), Voltaire (EIE/ILE)
Twenty-One disagreements : -Barack Obama (EIE/IEI), C.S. Lewis (EIE/IEI), Emmanuel Macron (EIE/IEI), Friedrich Nietzsche (EIE/IEI), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (EIE/IEI), Karl Marx (EIE/IEI), Kurt Cobain (EIE/IEI), Mahatma Gandhi (EIE/IEI), Marilyn Monroe (EIE/IEI), Marina Abramovic (EIE/IEI), Mary Shelley (EIE/IEI), Maximilien de Robespierre (EIE/IEI), Michael Jackson (EIE/IEI), Mother Teresa (EIE/IEI), Natalie Portman (EIE/IEI), Osama bin Laden (EIE/IEI), Plato (EIE/IEI), Pythagoras (EIE/IEI), Rumi (EIE/IEI), Vincent van Gogh (EIE/IEI), William Wordsworth (EIE/IEI)
---
Jack Aaron:
I think it actually quite likely there's a 9 in my tritype. I don't like conflict and am usually quite eager to please.
I would be very happy to discuss typings with said bunch of people. I have yet to find any that can demonstrate a good understanding of the people they are typing.
Ok, so if the TIM and TEM don't match, would you predict someone with huge energy loss from their information metabolism? I know an SLE with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Could he be an IEI/EII TEM?
ok, so are you saying the TIM and TEM should align? If that's the case, then they should be part of the same thing we are meant to be looking at. You then say that TEM is more 'visible', I guess you are implying that only TEM shows in our behaviours while TIM does not. If that's the case, then we come to the pitfall of circumstances and how they inevitably contort our behaviours depending on what is viable. An ILE does not always act in the way stereotypical to an ILE. This leads me to the question: WHAT exactly are you looking at to find someone's TEM that is different to what we look at to type TIM? We also look at behaviour in terms of what underlying information metabolism we can infer from the behaviour, looking for patterns and themes. Do you just look at the behaviour? How is that then meaningfully different without making TEM a slave to circumstance rather than values or motivations?
This idea that you can boost different kinds of energy metabolism through eating various kinds of food seems superficially ridiculous. I doubt Gulenko has done any empirical research to make these claims, they are indeed predictive and not simply analytical. It sounds like something a medieval doctor would suggest.
You say energy is different to information in its ability to influence the environment. We already factor that in when typing someone's TIM. We don't treat information as some ghost in the machine that cannot interact with the outside world and influence it. We infer the underlying information, and the ability to metabolise it, as the cause of our ability to influence the outside world in various ways. After all, knowing how to apply something best is to do with information, just as much as the energy to carry it out.
I have yet to see the utility of an Energy Metabolism theory as separate (but interdependent) with an Information Metabolism theory, other than saying that weakened information metabolism is less energy efficient so mentally tires a person more than strong information metabolism. That doesn't require a whole new theory.
When you take information metabolism as the cycle from Looking to Assessing to Deciding to Acting, where is the room for energy metabolism to separately describe phenomena? Would you say information metabolism doesn't form this cycle? Is it limited to the assessing and deciding?
It sounds as though you have reduced information metabolism largely to Intuition and Logic, the abstract 'content' of something and its structure
and have reserved motivation and action, typically Ethical and Sensory kinds of information, for Energy metabolism. I feel that in creating this new theory, you are required to shatter the older theory into two.
Well, it seems here that the main pattern is you typing a lot more people Beta, especially EIE.
A smaller pattern is that a few people I type Alpha, you think Gamma. It would perhaps be most interesting to look at our EIE/LSI disagreements. What, for instance, causes you to type John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton, two notably charismatic politicians who were a lot less clear and consistent in their ideological positions, LSI over EIE? How is their energy manifesting in a way more L over E?
---
Varlawend:
Indeed, TEM and TIM should align as part of the overall Sociotype. As for the focus on behavior: this is what scientists study in most fields. Of course, there is a vast range of behavior available to each Sociotype, including all 8 functional states, but in each case, they have a different relationship to the overall Sociotype. Taking as much as you can about the person into account, they should fit pretty clearly into a Sociotype by behavior. In any case, information metabolism would have to be somehow inferred through behavior anyways, since behavior is what we have access to. Of course, someone being rude does not make them Se-valuing, or being reflective Ni-valuing, or being systematic Ti-valuing. You get my drift.
There are lots of dichotomies through which the type is mutually inferable. Extroversion vs Introversion, Logic vs Ethics, Intuition vs Sensing, Rational vs Irrational, Static vs Dynamic, Process vs Result, Positivist vs Negativist, Central vs Peripheral, these are generally the most common to use in ShGS. They lead to very different appearances and behaviors on all four levels of the communicative space.
As for whether an ILE always acts stereotypically, that depends on your stereotype. They aren’t going be able to disguise being extroverted, logical, intuitive, irrational, static, process, positivist and peripheral for very long, while also disguising all 8 of their functional positions, at least if you know what you’re looking for. It won’t be disguisable in their behavior, but it might be disguising in their informational content, or philosophical writings, or their words in general, because words are used to lie and to self-deceive.
The difference is, instead of looking at abstract informational content often used to determine “quadra values” or TIM, you look at behavior directly and what it shows.
Carl Jung: “You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.”
Victor Gulenko:
“1. "All people are lying," says House in the first series. Do not rely on words. Content analysis, which information socionics are so fond of, is good for researching the style of speech, but not the in-depth type of person being studied. It is impossible to substitute the objective (stable structure of the psyche) with the subjective (verbal formulation, depending more likely on the environment, profession and upbringing).
2. Brainstorm with normalizing. They will give you information to form a hypothesis, but do not trust their conclusions completely. For the trees, they do not see the forest (go from the particular to the general, while the creative act the other way around - first they catch the general picture, and then check it in particular).
3. If the data is inconsistent, collect additional information. House workers even search the homes of patients. In socionic practice this is not possible, but the opinions of other disinterested people will no doubt help you to find out what is being held in silence due to reasons of image or simple negligence.
4. Trust more of the second intuition than the first. Without the first hypothesis can not do, but it only indicates the general direction. The second guess narrows the search to an acceptable scale.
5. Visualize (inside - in your imagination or outside, drawing on the board).
6. Use the comparative method - compare competing hypotheses for key features. We even compile special comparison tables to help differentiate the types more clearly. I used one of them during a long discussion about the type of Tymoshenko (LIE or EIE?).
7. If the situation is critical, do not think, but act. If time does not fit, postpone the final conclusion, but use the breather to look at the situation in a new way. Especially important are analogies and hints from other areas.
8. Refuse cases when the patient has diagnosed himself. In the series, many episodes where House mocks unprofessional clever. In the first series, for example, this is an episode with a patient who spends too much time on the Internet.
This approach advocated by Gulenko is not distinct from values or motivations, but I wouldn’t really agree that values or motivations are best described as “information”. That is a rather abstract and grotesque way of describing them. We remain largely unconscious of our motivations, but our shadow doesn’t, which is why they still show up in behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1SUgrg7m5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAdqytOHSE0&feature=youtu.be
Actions tell you more than words, and studying someone’s biography tells you much more than abstractly trying to understand their words. Because through actions, the deep values and motivations come out, even those you can hide from yourself in your own shadow. However, I would regard this as studying energy, not information. You aren’t studying content, but rather studying actions and inferring motivations from those actions. I know that you largely do this, so you probably somewhat agree with me, and that’s one of the reasons we agree on so many typings in the first place. The one’s we don’t agree on aren’t just based on this methodological facet, but based on a different understanding of behavioral patterns, which can always be worked on.
As for food, that was a tiny part of Gulenko’s recommendations. The food alone won’t put you in a functional state, but it will reinforce it with the appropriate behavior. For some it is obvious: E would be fired by exciting and extreme tastes, F by heavy and powerful foods, L by a strict diet, P by foods that give lots of energy and fluids since they help with movement, S with natural products and moderate balance and lighter meats, and T with fasting and avoiding the heavy foods of the material world (religions all over the world do this). I don’t understand the I and R recommendations as much, but presumably he has some explanation behind it. Not sure what medieval has to do with it.
It is true that information can be important to carrying things out; you often need to know how to do something, but it is also possible to do things instinctually and subconsciously. But knowing how to carry something out (or being able to figure it out) is not the same as spending the energy to actually do that. You can know how to build a computer, but if you don’t have the energy to get the parts and put them together, then you’re not getting a computer. You can know how to treat people properly, but if you are angry or tired or a hypocrite, you might treat them like crap. This is very important, and is especially relevant to the Control function in Model G (Ignoring in Model A). This is a function where we know a lot, but we cannot act on it easily at all. We often use it to coach others.
Well, I haven’t really explained the energy paradigm very much yet; I’ve only given a few tidbits of it because my time is limited. I wouldn’t say ShGS is a whole new theory; it obviously has plenty of overlap and agreement with the previous, but I would say a stronger epistemological basis and a better understanding of patterns of behavior through many dichotomies and functions. But to put it very simply, when you observe someone’s behavior, you are observing energy metabolism, not information metabolism. So, it is actually more direct to focus on energy than information. It is also more scientific.
I would say energy is involved at every step of the process of looking, assessing, deciding and acting; while you are confused how there is room for energy, I am confused how any of it would be possible without energy. Looking requires energy (looking requires attentional mechanisms, getting you into a certain functional state to be able to process the world from the perspective of a certain function), assessing requires energy especially if it is a difficult assessment (just like it requires energy for your computer to do a calculation, some calculations can be done more efficiently on a CPU and some more efficiently on a GPU, etc.), deciding merely sounds like the end point of assessing, and acting is mostly energy because you have to actually perform work and affect something. Information doesn’t affect anything directly; it perhaps affects things indirectly by it being understood, but is inherently relative and relational (introverted). Energy is absolute (extroverted).
Energy is associated with Extroversion, Ethics, Sensing, Dynamic, Negativism, and Asking (and more if you want to get more complex). Information is associated with Introversion, Logic, Intuition, Static, Positivism, and Declaring (and more likewise). E is basically raw energy, and L is basically raw information. Information clearly applies better and more directly to something like L or T than something like E or F.
As for any personality typing, it is not as simple as “L over E” to make someone an LSI. Rather, L and E play a specific role with the type. John Kennedy I’m not as familiar with the personality of; LSI is only my impression from afar. I have him at low confidence (2), perhaps EIE would be the next most likely. I see why you think EIE based on your way of assessing and even according to mine, it would be a second guess. As for Bill Clinton, he is tricky because I agree that he’s pretty charismatic for an LSI, but I think it could work. Gulenko types Bill as a Harmonizing Inspector, and I trust his overall method, so I’m inclined to be sympathetic to his assessments, although I wouldn’t say I have an absolute knockdown argument or anything like that. He’s also at lower confidence (3), with EIE as a second option. How might we explain Bill?:
Role R+: “In public, he holds himself politely and appropriately. Can make himself be cheerful and sociable. Easily makes short-term, situational contacts. With his behavior evokes trust. Patiently listens to those who have approached him, sympathizes with them, demonstrates his disposition. Even though he comes into close contact with many people, he rejects excessive familiarity. Stern with family members. Loves to educate using terse statements. Reliable in his affections, although it can happen that he gets torn between two objects of his sympathies.”
That sounds a lot like how Bill is described here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-bill-clinton-like_b_1895326?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFiegLPkmHJtJgIdtUv0CadlqFfL-gANg_blTB8aEXDvfh_wbv8qPs5QG8lS6R7RzXw0IiYAs9bzqmi2Coc4Dr_LQo9zUGKTz1G4mFQKZ3qINRJC6NHaPaVNdTUBGmFXNjqcHLg91d0_eOfzttBgCfmb95qPlHdQiTBbMn_Vn56P
According to this: http://presidentialham.com/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-with-ham/
He has a “very true compass that doesn’t vary much with public opinion”. That strikes me as more introverted, if it’s true. That introversion is further supported by his tendency towards covertness, and how he is especially persuasive in small groups. His touchy-tactile nature, ability to maintain eye contact, and attraction to his local southern way of life indicates more comfort with and attachment to the material world. It’s more sensory and I haven’t seen much to indicate intuitive with him. Not inclined to abstract ideational topics in life or speech; grounded and pays close attention to people, not fired up over abstractions like an EIE. He was an outstanding student as well, another common trait of LSI, since LSI is the integral type of the education system; it is doubtful that he has much difficulty with Structural Logic. In closer settings, when he isn’t putting on a political show: “his English straightens a bit and he has a tendency to become both long-winded and mired in statistical detail”. His intelligence is very frequently remarked on by people interviewed about their experiences with Bill; he was a Rhodes Scholar.
His compromising tendency, while not as typical of LSI (or any Beta except IEI), seems from multiple accounts to be linked to his childhood experiences with an abusive step-father, socialization to other “races” and peoples (doubtlessly producing a Harmonizing subtype). But in interviews and other situations not as subject to the need for political expediency, he could lose his temper more, allow his Se aggression loose. He was shy around women as a kid, and “a total straight arrow”. Tends to state his point of view rather than being willing to explain it, another common trait of LSI.
Gulenko, from Logic of Changes: “Understanding the last polarity of Aushra and socionics echoing her never suited me. Interrogative or exclamatory intonations, which they consider to be the essence of this trait, are far from the most important manifestation of these intertype differences. Yes, it is experimentally not yet confirmed. The inspector, for example, is good at asking questions, although he is considered a quest. Otherwise he would not be an investigator! Answers are also given by evasive, streamlined ones, often just joking it off. ”
Gulenko, from “Clock of the Socion”: “Then comes the stabilizer of beta quadra - LSI, the Inspector. Under Marshall's rule do not expect stability ever. After everyone has calmed down and all the posts have been distributed, the organization has been formed and supported with resources, that is when the Inspector slowly but steadily builds up a kind of system under some order. This is done very carefully, beautifully, with great clarity. Reputation becomes very valued. Good reputation is created for this new organization that emerged from the less organized system of the Marshall. For LSI reputation is very important - his function is to act as a humanist, to be good, to say the right words, to look intelligent. This is followed by dogmatism - the system petrifies. On official level this is called over-bureaucratization. On this stage the mission of inspector is over and he shall remain here.”
Manner of communication of LSI: "The LSI easily comes into contact with other people, knows how to establish close personal distances. Catches the attention of others by his witty commentary or jokes, especially persons of opposite sex (for male LSIs). Often behaves like a gallant cavalier, exquisitely and politely considerately. Knowingly courts the ladies, plays well the role of a "hussar" (for sensory subtype). Often becomes the communicative center of a company. Gravitates to performance of romantic songs with a guitar in the spirit of the movie "Cruel Romance". At official level of communication, he appreciates accuracy very much. Pays great attention to numbers, indicators, factual material, concrete logic of objects. Any question or issue he considers thoroughly, considering and working through all the details. In judgments and assessments - he is a sober realist. Dislikes unsubstantiated speculations and reckless proposals. Believes that any issue needs thorough preparation. In his speech one can frequently hear basic truths and educational statements, which are appropriate to the moment. The LSI is characterized by a tendency to edification. Likes posters, wall prints, and other visual aids. In an informal atmosphere, in a tight circle of close friends, he is inclined to discuss and speculate on philosophical and moral topics. Sometimes he has a certain attraction to religion, mysticism, predictions, and other forms of manifestations of deep intuition. When someone comes to him with a question, doesn't turn the person down. Will always give advice where to go, whom to talk to, which order exists in some business or project."
This manner of communication of EIE sounds less like Bill than the above: "In communication EIE gravitates towards company where there are manifestations of positive emotions, witty jokes and anecdotes. He loves to laugh and emotionally discharge at the same time. His own emotions have a turbulent, dramatic character. He tries in every way to restrain himself, but quite unexpectedly for people around him can set off, jump forward, turn all the attention to himself. In conversation often warns other people about possible troubles and dangers. Inclined to dramatize events, to see the world in dark colors. His speech may be full of pathos, sometimes he speaks with a voice that is aspirating and trembling from awe. In conversation may be quite obtrusive, cling to people with his conversation, commenting about external events. Cannot hold back and not express his opinions and views. With excessive development of the ethical component, people of this type can have dialogues with themselves, deliver a speech in public transport. Usually possesses oratorical skill, knows how to speak sublimely. In statements of the intuitive subtype there are often notes of caustic humor, sarcasm or irony with a touch of malice. The EIE skillfully combines humor with tragedy, builds intense, captivating stories. Trusts only the information that was officially published somewhere, and distrusts any informal ideas and theories. Pays attention to social gossip, especially talk of "juicy" details of personal lives of others. Loves to fantasize, can talk about and develop the same topic for a long time. Knows how to convince people around of their his own rightness. Inclined to "make mountains out of molehills". Their projects are often global in nature, but start from small things."
---
Jack Aaron:
We should be looking at the IM Elements and whether they best fit the Model A. We shouldn't be cherry-picking facts about Bill and seeing how they match passages of Gulenko's descriptions, which in and of themselves should not be taken to be the fundamental way of identifying any type.
The compromising tendency is also far more EIE than any other Beta type. They are the type with the highest Intuition of Possibilities.
IEIs aren't 'compromisers', they are very stubborn on the things they believe in, but they skilfully give the impression they are bending when they aren't.
A few months ago, you were much better at this than you appear now. It seems to me that you disappeared to spend time with Gulenko, and came back with a severely reduced understanding of the types and how to apply Socionics for diagnostics.
Let this serve as a warning to others who think abandoning Model A will enrich their grasp of the theory.
Peter draws a good contrast between the two Clintons here:
" there is this interview of 1979, when she was about 32, and just recently after becoming Arkansas's first lady for the first time. The interview is mostly a series of "softballs", giving her a chance to give mostly politically and socially "neutral", even bland answers (like saying that Arkansas is the best place to be, etc.). Yet, at one point she gets more animated and digresses at some length, spontaneously, on the matter of the "image" the public, and people in general, may have of her and Bill, which will not be necessarily true, etc, but in the end it is something that is there and she has no control over it. In my view, this suggests that she acknowledges the public longer-term perception of someone, the "image", as something "real" and that she is aware of, even concerned about, but at the same time she feels sort of helpless about it as well. This is an indication of weak E+T, although probably valued, since she is aware and concerned about it. By comparison: I think an EIE, for instance, would either feel in control of her image and so not worry about it, or if worried, not mention it as a concern (as that would mean revealing too much). This would nevertheless point to the Beta quadra."
"That is interesting looking at this April 1992 interview i.e. during Bill's first campaign for president. This video includes snapshots of public perceptions of her at the time, which consisted of her being "aggressive" and "ambitious" and even "the power behind the scenes" with the implication that Bill Clinton would be more like a figurehead. This is also reinforced in this other video of the the same year: the press took for granted that Bill was the man who "softened the edges" when talking about any subject, and Hillary was the one who "used a jackhammer". This is of course easily confirmed by looking at the videos themselves (and I daresay it's pretty obvious to anyone who has observed the Clintons for any longer period). I would say that again points to Hillary having very weak E (certainly much weaker than her husband's) and an overall perception, I suggest justified, of having strong as well as valued F. "
"Without going into specific examples, I think this is obvious from her style when campaigning: she does not seem to enjoy the handshaking, ground work of campaigning in the sense of talking to individuals - compare that to more natural politicians like Bill Clinton himself, George W. Bush (ESI), Barack Obama to some extent, or John McCain (ESI): McCain started his primary campaign in 2008 with little money, campaigning almost alone, driving across New Hampshire in a bus and sleeping in cheap motels, "having some fun" as his campaign manager put it - and managing to build up momentum to win the nomination. I daresay that such a feat would be totally beyond Hillary's inclinations and ability as a politician. Again, I think that points to not only weak E but also not strong R.
On her apparent areas of confidence: Hillary Clinton is much more comfortable in other kinds of environment, even hostile ones, such as answering detailed technical questions on her original health care plan during the early years of her husband's presidency ("Hillarycare"), besides the fact that that was the role she chose for herself, with Bill's agreement, which points to having confidence on L and P. Likewise, in her 2008 primary debates against Barack Obama, it is clear that she saw her "heavy artillery" in argumentation as being a master of detail and spotter of supposed logical and factual inconsistencies, not trying to compete with Obama at the level of "passionate guide to a brighter future" (as Bill Clinton could easily do)."
---
Varlawend:
I only said that Bill Clinton was said to be a straight arrow as a kid, so actually you are strawmanning me there. Of course, I am aware of Bill’s scandals later in life; they are common knowledge. Is your point that only EIE's can get into scandals? I do not understand how it bears on the case without more details. I don't think people really do forget this about Bill, charisma notwithstanding. At no point have a tried to cherry pick anything; I simply looked up the most prominent articles I could find on Bill’s personality. Why is that cherry picking? Do you have supposedly “fairer” facts? If you have more data to present or to correct something I said, then I welcome it. Missing factual details isn't cherry picking if it's not intentional. Why should Gulenko’s descriptions not be a source for identifying type? Surely for his method they should, even if they don’t comport with your way of seeing things. We have to use some kind of description; should we use yours instead? I wouldn’t expect you to use Gulenko’s, but you can at least see the coherence in his method.
Model A itself is only a structure, and there are authors that use it to make a number of different interpretations attached to that structure, including yourself. The descriptions that you use don't just follow from the structural model, but also the associative interpretations that you ascribe to the different parts of the structure, which are far more debatable.
I do not see EIE as the more compromising Beta. Mainly because they are the Rational EJ temperament, among the most uncompromising and incontinent, attached the passionary Quadra values of Beta Quadra. I also don’t see a direct association between Ne and compromising. Granted, there is great variation within type as well, including EIE and LSI, so some can be more compromising, but the overall type is not inclined to it. In the system I favor, IEI’s are the corrector of Beta Quadra, and play a very different role from how you see them as fervent ideologues; they are a very diplomatic type. So, we clearly just have very different images of the types here, in the case of EIE and IEI more than any other type.
My interest in Gulenko’s theories has always been open and direct, so I did not do any disappearing relating to that. I’m a busy person and I don’t have time for facebook anymore; I’ll also be cutting down on my discord time as well as all social media. I actually wish I could spend time with Gulenko, because that would be really cool. However, I have neither the time or inclination to journey to Kiev just for that, and my beginners understanding of Russian is still insufficient to make much out of it. I do study his work though, among many other things. How to do Socionics diagnostics is a very debatable subject, and Gulenko also has a method that works very well for it, involving the two aspects of functional positions and combinatorial dichotomies. What you are viewing as reduced understanding on my part seems to simply be a greater divergence in views and methods from those used presently by you. Yet, surely even you’d admit that far more research and testing needs to be done on your methods.
I respect your insight into people, and I like to hear your cases and diagnostics and such. But this is not such a simple issue; it’s a very large one in Socionics, deciding which diagnostics methods to use and which methods work best, and it cannot be resolved by simply assuming that our view is the best and arguing only for that. The schools have never agreed on diagnostics, and yet, we still agree on a very large number of typings in spite of such different ways of viewing things. This is why I still dream with optimism about greater harmony between different schools of Socionics, because I think the subject clearly has such promise in spite of all its different perspectives.
I’m not sure what your warning about abandoning Model A is even about; you’ve hardly even begun to compare understandings with me. You seem to think you are just self-evidently correct (in no need to explanation or comparison) as compared to other Socionics schools, but I do not see the self-evidence. You seemed more open to considering your views before, even just a few posts ago in this conversation. What concerns me more is that you speak to me like I have abandoned some sort of orthodoxy, and you are warning people of the dangers of abandoning your views like some kind of priest. Your view strikes a fearful note, but I do not see what there is to be afraid of.
I view Socionics as a very promising but budding psychological theory, with great need of research, experimentation, and clarification, not some inviolable open-and-shut orthodox creed that we must take caution not to abandon. Closely examining alternative beliefs should be encouraged IMO, otherwise what happens is that views harden into dogmas; your views on Model A will always be something we can return to without so much worry. I know how to type the way that you do. I greatly value patience with the views of others at this point, because we might not be on the same page in our experiences, interpretations, fundamental way of thinking (especially important to Socionics!), etc. Do you not feel the same? If not, why not?
I’m happy to look more at Bill and Hillary. I have always found them challenging to assess, because there’s a lot of information floating around them, so make no mistake, I am open to reconsidering my assessments. Acknowledging one’s public image as real seems pretty much irrelevant to me; is there a Sociotype which inherently doesn’t see its public image as real? I do agree with Peter’s assessment that Hillary is Beta ST though (not EIE!), and that she felt more helpless about her own charisma and ability to smooth over rough edges than Bill. I mostly agree with paragraph 1 of Peter's that you cite.
The theme of “aggressive”, “ambitious” and “the power behind the scenes” is power, and I agree that Power Sensorics most characterizes Hillary. It suggests that she is the one who is really in control, and has less self-control, compared to Bill. She has more need to dominate, that is, and to discharge her aggression. Bill Clinton certainly does hold himself better on camera, due to superior charisma and self-control. The tendency of Bill Clinton to smooth over rough edges to me is very interesting, and we interpret it very differently. I see Bill’s tendency towards smooth lulling, making everyone around him comfortable, touchy-feely nature and hominess and eye contact, as classic comfort sensorics (Si). You seem to interpret it at E. And I find this odd, because you even said in a Q&A that EIE’s and LIE’s make people around them uncomfortable, unbalanced, unable to relax, because of their PoLR Si. Well, that’s certainly not Bill Clinton. He was great when it came to the daily maintenance of the presidency, loved to get involved with all the details. He was also famously leisurely in pace, sometimes making others wait for him.
On the other hand, we have Hillary’s jackhammer style. I don’t see this as a lack of E, because E can very much be used as a passionate jackhammer also; it can express a range of emotions but they are intense and affective (have you seen a passionate EIE religious or national leader talk?). However, a jackhammer style would most indicate the presence of F and P, but most powerful functions of the SLE. SLE’s also have a hard time with Si and Fi, which combined with their Se and logical authoritarian nature, would make them highly impatient with the mundane cutesy meet and greet crap of campaigning. LSI is significantly more comfortable with the groundwork of the campaign such as striking up informal relations with people, shaking hands, kissing babies, dealing with local implementation details, etc. (basically, S and R).
Hillary prefers hostile environments answering detailed technical questions: this is F + P + L, the strongest functions of the SLE, not of the LSI, so no surprise that Hillary is stronger there. But Bill was also known as very intelligent and detail oriented; let’s not forget that he was a Rhodes Scholar as well.
“Out on the stump, Clinton can be a folksy speaker, with a ready store of down-home phrases laced with the rich Arkansas accent of his youth. His defense of a citizen’s right to privacy, for example, can emerge as a call for the government “to give people a good lettin’ alone.” In more formal settings, however, his English straightens a bit and he has a tendency to become both long-winded and mired in statistical detail.”
Source: http://presidentialham.com/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-with-ham/
“And the videos showed that the president when he was campaigning spoke with a vision about what kind of country we could be. He was thematic and he was sort of lofty. And he talked about the problems facing us and the solutions facing us as a people. When he became president the conversation on the news was all about process, it was about this committee or that committee and "We've got a group working on this." It lost that sense of vision, that sense of what drew people to him. And I remember very well a meeting with him in which he complained, "I'm becoming the mechanic in chief and I don't want to be there. That's not who I got elected to be. You know, Ross Perot had that wonderful metaphor about looking under the hood of the car and figuring out what's wrong. The president is not supposed to be the guy under the hood of the car. The president is supposed to be the person in the driver's seat figuring out what the road map looks like and where you're going.
---Was part of it Clinton's fault? He was known to be hands-on, he wanted to be in every decision. In fact, people have told us that he couldn't stand not being in decisions and discussions."
Bill Clinton, because his mind is so quick and because he's so comprehensive in what he thinks about, he did want to be in every decision. I think he realized after a while he was getting lost in the trees and couldn't see the forest and he needed to sort of pull back from that he could not only think in, in a different way but he could present to the country a different sense of what his presidency was all about. He'd never got quite into the detailed hands-on relationship that say, Jimmy Carter did. Remember Carter got into the point where he was actually approving who would play on the White House tennis court and he would look at the schedule. Clinton never got that far. But what instead was happening was that on policy issues, he would dive in and get deeper and deeper and deeper and he could get mired down in the details, and it was really hard. There is such a thing in government as paralysis by analysis.”
Bill Clinton, because his mind is so quick and because he's so comprehensive in what he thinks about, he did want to be in every decision. I think he realized after a while he was getting lost in the trees and couldn't see the forest and he needed to sort of pull back from that he could not only think in, in a different way but he could present to the country a different sense of what his presidency was all about. He'd never got quite into the detailed hands-on relationship that say, Jimmy Carter did. Remember Carter got into the point where he was actually approving who would play on the White House tennis court and he would look at the schedule. Clinton never got that far. But what instead was happening was that on policy issues, he would dive in and get deeper and deeper and deeper and he could get mired down in the details, and it was really hard. There is such a thing in government as paralysis by analysis.”
Why would an EIE get so mired in minutia and details? Be so comprehensive in everything they think about? Controlling every decision? Losing the forest for the trees? Analysis paralysis? That frankly seems classic LSI. This doesn’t seem accounted for in your analysis or Peter’s analysis, and yet it’s important. I don't think you are cherry picking, just that you didn't know this. The global passionate visionary Clinton seems like little more than a persona compared to his real style of leadership, which is pedantic micro-management. You were looking too much at media promoted persona characteristics, and not as much how Bill behaves in day to day life; the latter is more relevant to typing him.
---“Delegation to subordinates. OBAMA. As Summers explained, Obama would not interfere with the implementation of ideas proposed by Summers -- for example, he would leave it to Summers to decide how to finance a bailout he was recommending. By contrast, Clinton would dig into the policy thinking and details of an economic issue and leave Summers feeling that Clinton was teaching Summers how to do his job better. “
---“Adding new ideas. CLINTON. This last area is where Clinton massively distinguishes himself from Obama. As Summers pointed out, Clinton would have read from a variety of respected economic research journals and sources of ground-breaking economic thought and bring those ideas to the meeting. By contrast, Obama would ask a few questions "to kick the tires," talk about how the policy fit with his vision, and end the meeting.”
Yet again, Clinton is more the sensor and Obama the intuitive. Clinton is thorough and controlling, gets into all the structural details of economic issues (even reading top economics journals), policy decisions, etc. Obama just kicks the tires around a bit, keeps things globally on track. The contrast is enormous, Clinton is the more pedantic details heavy management guy. He did not leave the implementation to others.
Hillary is said to be a master of detail and spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies, when going up against Obama, according to Peter. Again, this sounds like a delicate balance between L and P, which the SLE is arguably stronger in than the LSI. Plus, I don’t see SLE as such a charismatic type; I think statements like this fit them better:
---“SLE experiences difficulty establishing personal relations in informal situations. Often too intolerant and uncompromising, predisposed to dictate their own way in relations. Intolerant when someone else places demands of personal commitment from him.”
Hilary was NOT charismatic, not a good at the tactful back and forth between people because she needs to dominate. She comes across as formal and plastic instead. Flexibly changes her opinion towards her own benefit, which makes her come across as untrustworthy. Her reputation was “crooked Hillary”, the calculating centrist that always sides with who is winning, because she cares about power more than structural logic.
---“The main problem of your life - the lack of tact and diplomacy in dealing with people. Sometimes you openly demonstrate intolerance of other people's shortcomings and weaknesses. To achieve your goals sometimes you can step over the interests of other people, which can evoke negative evaluations and moral judgment of others in your address.”
She was known as being ruthless, not charismatic. She clearly looks down on people from her elitist high horse, and is disconnected from their everyday lives (Si). She is viewed with respect and fear by people, not trust, comfort or inspiration (Si, Fi, Fe, all pretty weak for SLE).
---“More often reflect on the possible consequences of your actions. Never shift the responsibility for mistakes onto shoulders of other people - it can affect your reputation in the future. Try to keep track of situations that go beyond formal communication.”
This is very good advice for Hillary, who has especially weak R and can’t communicate well informally because she doesn’t easily understand informal ties between people. Blaming her mistakes on Russia and other people, when she campaigned poorly against Trump.
---
Jack Aaron:
Why mention that he was seen as a straight arrow as a kid and use that as a noteworthy part of his character if you also accept that he was a scoundrel while the President? Either it's a remarkable stand-out point of his personality or it isn't.
What is there to having Extroverted Bold functions and Rational Accepting functions that should make a person any less likely to compromise? The rationale that EJs are somehow more likely to be non-compromising is baseless in Socionics and is just rehashed classical temperaments. What is a compromise? It's being open to alternatives to the outcome you want, it's being willing to not go for a full victory at others' expense. It's also somewhat to do with things not being perfect, but practical and workable, and also something that keeps people happy. There's I there, some E too, but also a bit of P. There's much less F and L. Which type in Beta best fits that? The research and testing is important, but you're not going to get that from Gulenko. He's not trying to demonstrate the canon of socionics, but instead trying to reinvent the wheel. This 'divergence' is just a movement from the foundational to the baseless, and it's coming out in how you argue now. Instead of setting out a clear argument in Model A, you are putting in some classical temperaments, some of Gulenko's profile descriptions, maybe some subtypes too just to give the argument some flavour. The integral substance is gone. The choice to include these peripheral sprinklings of theory or not to is entirely arbitrary.
Bill Clinton has a thoroughly polished manner of appearing in public. The 'smoothing' effect is that refinement and once the cameras are down, the reports show a far more frenetic and aggressive individual. He was not an individual who maintained a consistent state of energy, but he was certainly able to appear like that when he needed to . He is able to create the image that suits the occasion, expertly. It is his charismatic genius. You talk about his soothing, but you leave out his electrifying speeches, where he brings the crowd to a frenzy. The cherry-picking is taking that mere appearance of 'S', which if a consistent character trait of an individual would surely be S+E, and try to interpret it as a type that is high in S but low in E. The LSI isn't a 'soother'. They come across as quite severe. Their S' is E-less. They will be hard and gaunt in character, yet be the most inclined of Betas to settle into peaceful retirement.
You're cherry-picking... in that very article you linked me to, you missed out this: ""I'm becoming the mechanic in chief and I don't want to be there. That's not who I got elected to be."" Bill was not a guy who enjoyed getting involved in detail. As soon as he realised this was what was happening, he stepped back. He liked to get very involved with decisions, but did not want to be involved in the trivial, day-to-day decisions. This is an inconsistent pushing of F (cycling between overactivity and self-doubt), with a rejection of S. As for being the 'master of detail' and 'spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies', this isn't particularly F, THIS is L and S. If your only argument for her being low S is that she "is disconnected from their everyday lives", then you're not going to convince anyone. For what it's worth, being closed to other perspectives beyond your own would be weak I if anything. If an LSI does not live the 'everyday life', has no direct experience of , why would try to connect to it? You say Hillary was NOT charismatic, good. Why should you then try and say an LSI, whose access to E is even less than the SLE, be the charismatic Bill? It makes no sense.
here's a really good article, it shows clearly how Bill's main focus was his charisma, but that Hillary brought the consistency of reason to the relationship: https://reason.com/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think/Reason.comCan the President Think?
The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency reflect the chaos and paralysis of Bill Clinton's mind—and he is not going to change. it's a clear example of EIE / LSI duality
---
Varlawend:
Jack says: “What is there to having Extroverted Bold functions and Rational Accepting functions that should make a person any less likely to compromise? The rationale that EJs are somehow more likely to be non-compromising is baseless in Socionics and is just rehashed classical temperaments.”
-1st of all, that depends on your definition of bold extroverted and accepting rational functions. If you have boldly expansive extroverted functions and are more demanding in the evaluative, relatively inflexible rational elements, then that sound like it would set out more difficulties in compromising to me. Bold extroverted functions presumably means that you will readily be expansive into the space of others without as much worry about reigning yourself in, combined the inflexibility of demanding rationality. But that’s just a rather artificial way of “logically formulating” distinctions that can be observed. -What you are calling “Classical Temperaments” (and this is probably a misnomer) actually have much more statistical backing than does anything in Socionics (outside of maybe Talanov’s work which also doesn’t agree with you). For this aspect of his practice, Gulenko draws from the psychologist Hans Eysenck and his EPI/EPQ questionnaires (which means extroversion/introversion and stability/neuroticism), in addition to Pavlov’s equilibrium. It is slightly modified and fit to the actual practice of the GS, but the ideas used have a substantive history in modern psychology. Given that this actually has a basis in scientific psychology, how could it be fair to just exclude it in favor of some abstract metaphysical divisions that you or Aushra posited?
Jack says: “What is a compromise? It's being open to alternatives to the outcome you want, it's being willing to not go for a full victory at others' expense. It's also somewhat to do with things not being perfect, but practical and workable, and also something that keeps people happy. There's I there, some E too, but also a bit of P. There's much less F and L.”
-Perhaps E, P and I can be useful in a compromise. However, all of those functions can also be very uncompromising. In a state of subjective emotional arousal, a person is less able to control their actions and usually becomes more unreasonable, which is not going to be very helpful for compromising. In a state of business logic, a person is going to be pragmatic and trying to achieve some goals. The first could help somewhat with compromising, but the latter can lead to uncompromising behavior, especially if those goals are motivated by something other than just the business logic which is very common. In a state of extroverted intuition, a person can synthesize seemingly disparate perspectives into one or come up with alternatives, which can be useful in a compromise. However, they may just as well insist on their synthesis over others (Jack is ironically a very good example of this), or insist on their alternative, or take unconventional, risky behaviors associated with new ideas and the desire to be free of constraints. So, it doesn’t seem to me that any of these functions unambiguously contribute to a compromise; it depends far more on how they are used.
-Your hypothesis has the additional implication that ILE, IEE, ESE, EIE, and somewhat LIE and LSE are the most compromising types on average. Yet, I have never seen another Socionist claim this, except you, right now. Now, THAT sounds like an unorthodox theory that was just pulled out of a hat. Not that unorthodoxy matters, because orthodoxy is not directly related to correctness, but I also gave other reasons that this theory is overly one-sided in its consideration of the functions that it employs. I would also say that compromise is associated with agreeability, and types like SEI, EII and IEI are usually considered more pliable and diplomatic for this reason. In terms of your preference to reduce everything to functions, they can use soft functions like S, R and T very easily, are inclined to create a friendly environment, have a lot of flexibility rather than a tendency to push agendas, etc. Of course, other types can be diplomatic, but high-powered central extroverts, 4d Extroverted Sensing types, and even ILE are not usually considered so agreeable (that is to say, it would be rarer for them to be high in trait agreeableness than most other types). It’s still possible for those types to be agreeable nonetheless, because there are also vast intratype differences and even variation of states within a single person. -We certainly see that kind of variation with Bill Clinton: sometimes being quite agreeable and warm, and sometimes being quite aggressive, cold and disagreeable. Therefore, perhaps our mutual categorization of him as “compromising” was lacking in nuance. He is compromising when it politically suits him in many cases, because he can realistically assess what he’ll need to do to gain power, authority, and approval that he is looking for. In private, however, and when hounded by the press, he is sometimes a lot more disagreeable. Our private knowledge of him is also limited.
Jack says: “The research and testing is important, but you're not going to get that from Gulenko. He's not trying to demonstrate the canon of socionics, but instead trying to reinvent the wheel. This 'divergence' is just a movement from the foundational to the baseless, and it's coming out in how you argue now. Instead of setting out a clear argument in Model A, you are putting in some classical temperaments, some of Gulenko's profile descriptions, maybe some subtypes too just to give the argument some flavour. The integral substance is gone. The choice to include these peripheral sprinklings of theory or not to is entirely arbitrary.”
-This is where Jack’s response really goes off the rails for me, and I have a lot to say about it. Firstly, it doesn’t look like you comprehended the point I made about research and testing. I’m not talking about whether Gulenko has done this, though he actually has to some degree, but I certainly think he should do more, as should we all, and he claims to want to in interviews. I’m not talking about mindlessly buying into Gulenko or anyone, but whether ALL OF US are willing to do further research and test our views as a high priority, including you. When asked this general question, you take it as an opportunity to besmirch Gulenko even though you have never substantively talked to him about his research or studied his work, which is an irresponsible thing to do. That also deflects away from the lack of research that has gone into your own views. Criticizing Gulenko, soundly or unsoundly, doesn’t exonerate you treating your own views about Model A as some foundational tool that is beyond question or challenge. You never answer the following questions:
-How do you know that the way you justify your own typings is more accurate than that of other Socionics researchers? (even though you don’t hesitate to boast about it)
-How do your abstract theories preclude the differing empirical observations of people like Victor Gulenko, Victor Talanov, and other Socionists who are not in agreement with you?
-Do you think these questions require no answer because: the people on your Socionics team agree with you? Because your theories have internal consistency, up to a certain point that you’ve checked at least? That’s a start, but it’s not anywhere near enough for you to go about acting like everyone else must type like you do, else they are some unreformed heretic, at least if you want them to take you seriously.
-This is also strange: your arguments defending your way of thinking in Model A are largely circular. That’s to say, they exemplify the logical fallacy “petitio principii”, or begging the question. You can’t defend your fundamental assumptions about typing and your model as foundational by saying that people who don’t type the same way are baseless: not when the very thing we’re discussing is what typing methods are most capable of being foundational. Alternatively, you could argue that there can be no discussion comparing typing methods because your methods are inherently better and more correct, but that also begs the question. Now, I don’t think this error is due to not grasping that this circular logic is flawed. It is more likely that a sleepy, inattentive overconfidence has set in to such a degree that it doesn’t even occur to you that your methods are questionable, might not be ideal, might have flaws, or that there even could be empirical surprises not predicted by the assumptions that you currently operate under.
-It’s not possible to preclude (using some a priori logic already in use to categorize things) that some version of temperaments, of Gulenko’s profile descriptions, or intratype differences, might be tracking some kind of truth in reality. The only way to refute that would be to deal with the ideas on their own terms, checking their coherence, correspondence to empirical reality, and their pragmatic effectiveness. As it stands, this is more like an unsuccessful attempt at communication between us than an argument. You are mostly pointing out that I’m typing using a different method than what you use, as if ipso facto disagreement with your best interpretation of Model A makes me wrong. The only thing that could justify something like that is circular reasoning, and we must have higher standards for our arguments than that to make any progress. We cannot treat our views, whether about Model A, Model G, functions, temperaments, subtypes, dichotomies, whatever, as beyond the need for scrutiny and beyond the possibility of alternatives or surprises. Otherwise, we just succumb to our own hubris, and we fail to reason honestly. That surely happens to everyone in the heat of defending their point of view that they are trying to communicate the value of, but we have to notice it to avoid goring ourselves on our own carelessness.
-This gets into what I mean when I talk about hypnosis and its relationship to adherents of Model A that believe no other models or empirical patterns outside of one Model A purview could ever be worth paying attention to (in Socionics, at least). Robert Anton Wilson (http://www.whale.to/b/wilson_law.html): “If you are arguing for racial equality with a man who keeps using the word "nigger," you will eventually discover that you are not making headway and that some barrier prevents clear communication. If you are discussing censorship laws with a lady who keeps using the word "smut," you will experience that same sense of banging your head against a brick wall. If you attempt to reason with a Marxist, the word "bourgeoise" will eventually be invoked to banish any coherence or logic in what you have been saying.”
-We can say something observably similar about dogmatic Model A adherents: If you have been arguing with a dogmatic adherent of Model A (not any adherent mind you, there are plenty of unhypnotized users of the model), the word “Model A” will eventually be invoked to banish any coherence or logic in what you have been saying.
-“It is a truism in social science that human beings can be defined as the language-using class of life. Buddhists, semanticists and hypnotists know that we not only use words but are also easily mesmerized by them. Hypnotists in real life seldom have to use glittering jewels or shining mirrors as they do in films; the ordinary domesticated primate can be hypnotized quite quickly and easily with words alone, spoken in proper cadence and with abundant repetition. Advertisers try to hypnotize us all the time, and judging by the fees they collect from satisfied clients, they are doing very well at it. Having used hypnosis in my psychological seminars for nearly 20 years now, I am-quite prepared to agree with G.I. Gurdjieff and Colin Wilson that most people can be said to be hypnotized most of the time, and that the professional hypnotist only switches them from their habitual trance to a different trance... If you have to deal with neurotics regularly, you will eventually observe that most of them say aloud once or twice a week something to the effect, "They won't give us a chance," "You can't win," "The smart boys have it all sewed up," etc. The odds are that such a neurotic is silently repeating these sentences sub-vocally — in the "interior monologue" of ordinary consciousness — many, many times a day. This form of self-hypnosis is known as a Loser Script in the language of Transactional Analysis. Other people hypnotize themselves into other reality-tunnels by endless repetition of such mantras as "I like everybody, and everybody likes me" (the successful Salesman script), "All niggers are treacherous" (the Racist script), "All men are bastards" (the reverse sexist or Radical Lesbian script), "I deserve a drink after a morning like that" (the apprentice Alcoholic script), "I can't control my temper" (the Go Directly to Jail Do Not Collect $200 script), "Cancer is only mortal mind. Divine mind has no cancer. I am Divine Mind" (the Christian Science script), etc.”
-We can easily come up with a Model A Script just like the self-hypnosis scripts above: Everything in Socionics must be explained in terms of Model A. (Someone disagrees) This tells me we need to go back to Model A. (Someone comes up with a new idea in Socionics or finds an unexpected empirical pattern) The problem is that he doesn’t connect it back to Model A. (Someone diverges) Your divergence is just a move from the foundational (Model A) to the baseless (Socionics that MIGHT not be presently explained by Model A). The canon of Socionics is Model A. As long as we deduce it from Model A, we have nothing to worry about. (someone leaves the fold of dogmatic Model A adherents) Nooooooooo…… you used to be good at this. Believe Model A again. Bad boy.
-In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnLWnQudLcY), Jordan Peterson talks about just this sort of thing. The fact that you can turn dogmatic Model A adherence into a script like this and predict the cliché reactions of people who hold such views so accurately shows that you don’t even need to listen to people in that state. You’re just hearing ideological chatter, expressing itself through its trance grip on these people (which you can read about on your own time), instead of a conversation among two real people bonding over their real vulnerabilities.
-“The universe may not contain "right" and "wrong" answers to everything just because Ideologists want to have "right" and "wrong" answers in all cases, anymore than it provides hot and cold running water before humans start tinkering with it. I feel sure that, for those awakened from hypnosis, every hour of every day presents choices that are just as puzzling (although fortunately not as monstrous) as this parable. That is why it appears a terrible burden to be aware of who you are, where you are, and what is going on around you, and why most people would prefer to retreat into Ideology, abstraction, myth and self-hypnosis.”
-If you are someone looking for a clue as to why circular reasoning and intractably opposed ideological camps are so common in typology, you don’t have to look any further than this. What happens is that some people axiomatically preclude any value to the views of their opponents, and then inculcate their assumptions deep into their daily semi-conscious trance by repetition, internal dialogue, limited social consensus, echochambers, and behavioral conditioning techniques such as reward and punishment (warmth and good treatment towards people who share views, pressure and worse treatment towards people who disagree). This happens so naturally in the minds of humans and in social circles that it easily coasts by without any special notice. Humans are animals, and once such faulty assumptions sneak their way into the mind from the outset, they easily ossify personally and socially into hardened ideologies which in turn cause hostile and dismissive treatment of “dissenters”. Opposed to the kind and curious treatment of someone with different views that is required for real conversation, it is no wonder that schizophrenic typology continues to fracture into more and more camps that can’t mutually communicate.
-You can see this in action right here with the idea that Gulenko isn’t doing research because he isn’t trying to demonstrate “the canon of Socionics”, by which I presume Jack’s views on Model A are meant. That is to say, in Jack’s opinion, the research conclusions and future subject matter should be decided in advance of the research, and the research is really just a formality. It is a prop to add to our already sound canons of Socionics, which do not need testing or reexamination. This is not far removed from Christian fundamentalists who set out to do research to “prove” that evolution isn’t real, or that we live on a young earth… conclusions that they decided on in advance of the “research”. Once you set out to “demonstrate” something where you have already decided in advance what the conclusion in going to be (e.g. the canon of Socionics), you aren’t doing research anymore. You have set out a whole host of incentives for intellectual dishonesty and cognitive bias. In science, you can’t decide the conclusion of a research project before you do it; that completely violates both the letter and the spirit of scientific research. Instead, we have hypotheses, which is all any views on Model A, Model G, or whatever, are, and then we test the hypotheses. Then we check the results which we cannot assume beforehand otherwise there would be no point in testing them (our views would already be assured after all, which is how they are treated in the minds of some supporters of Model A). Once you have become so attached to a theory that you see research as secondary to holding certain views, you aren’t doing science anymore. You are instead doing ideology and belief. -Let me make some something very clear: I’m not interested in being sold an ideology to believe in. I’m interested in ruthlessly researching and questioning everything to reach the truth to the best of my ability and see what is truly strong, and this Model A adherence mindset is a direct obstacle to that. My problem isn’t with rigorous deductions, by the way: that can be a useful critical thinking tool, and as I mentioned, I respect it. What I don’t respect is avoidance of, resistance to, and sleepiness regarding criticism of fundamental assumptions, because that’s not rigor; it’s fundamentalism, which is going to set you up to simply ignore every reality and pattern that doesn’t fit into the pre-conceived box that you say everything should fall into. It will set you up for an inability to compromise, which is an endemic problem standing in the way of creating a more realistic, global and integral typology, and it will set you up for failure to make any further fundamental progress (because you’re already assuming that there can’t be any, when the truth is that us mere mortals couldn’t possibly know such a thing with certainty). It takes strength of character to resist these calls for orthodoxy, ideology, and fundamentalism, and that strength of character has usually been what has been needed to make real progress in the history of science. You need a delicate balance between ruthless willingness to question global assumptions and psychological bias, and an open policy of testing towards even seemingly unorthodox views and experiences under which everything might fit together better (for now).
Jack says: “Why mention that he was seen as a straight arrow as a kid and use that as a noteworthy part of his character if you also accept that he was a scoundrel while the President? Either it's a remarkable stand-out point of his personality or it isn't.”
-This alerts me to the fact that we have very different priorities, which I probably should have already noticed. I will go ahead and agree right away that the point about Bill Clinton’s “straight as an arrow” childhood is not a particularly strong justification for any type. If I was making a polished argument, you are right that it should not be included. However, I wasn’t trying to make a polished argument at that point, and you still went ahead and accused me of being unethical (cherry-picking). I was simply including something that seemed like it might be interesting fact to me, from an article that I read by people who knew Bill Clinton when he was younger.
-The different priorities are: you are out to make the most convincing argument you can to the people who share your views on Model A, whereas my priorities are focused less on justification but discovery, making sure that the views we hold are accurate and that we aren’t leaving anything out or that this isn’t something new to discover. I think that convincing people is important at one point, but as I’ve already indicated, I’m not able to hold the confidence in Model A that you seem to have. What increases my confidence in my views is testing as many alternative views as I can and observing how strong they are through experience and testing. Through this vetting process, I can eventually come to more confidence in my views, but without this, I am not able to honestly hold onto an ideological viewpoint for long. I apply this process to the WSS Model A views, but also to Model G, and Model T, and all other typologies. So, when I make an argument about Bill Clinton, I actually don’t yet fully understand why Gulenko types Bill Clinton as LSI. However, his views have held up well for me in general, so I’m inclined to come up with an experimental argument to see if I can make sense of his way of typing. So far, that has gone well, and LSI is making a lot of sense to me, but it is only fair to juxtapose this with attempting to justify an EIE typing. At that point, the pros and cons of each side will become clearer in Bill Clinton’s case. For me, this is an EXPLORATION as much as it is an attempt to make the most polished argument I can, though I can polish up my argument later.
-My priorities originate with, among other things, what I have learned from Jordan Peterson. One quote exemplifies this very well: “Stop trying to use your speech to get what you want. You don’t necessarily know what you want. Instead, try to articulate what you believe to be true as carefully as possible. Then, accept the outcome.” So, when I make a varieity of cases for Bill Clinton, it is my attempt to articulate what I believe to be true as carefully as possible, NOT to convince as many people as possible and get them on my side. However, once I’ve reached more confidence, I am comfortable making a firmer and more polished argument.
-This video on The Art of Argument that Peterson made in collaboration with Big Think also exemplifies my process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXaQLT8V638. “You’re probably wrong in some important way.” “One of the things you want to remember if you’re discussing things with people, even if they’re out to defeat you, let’s say, is that there is some glimmering of the possibility that you could walk out of there with more knowledge than you walked in with, and that can be worth paying quite a price for.” “If you’re discussing a contentious issue with someone you love and that you have to live with and put up with, you want to listen to them. Because what you really want to do is establish a lasting peace, and you might even have to make their arguments for them. You might have to help your partner formulate their arguments so that you can really get to grips with what it is that they’re trying to say. So that you can alter the way that you’re constructing your own narrative and your joint narrative, so that you’re not butting heads unnecessarily as you move forward through life.” “It’s better to listen, to flesh out the argument on both sides, and to see if you can come to a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement. And that’s the case in most encounters in life if you can manage that. But it’s easy to want to win.” “It’s extraordinarily useful to arbitrarily assign positions to people. And what that does is it vastly widens people’s conceptualizations of the argumentative space. Because most really contentious issues – gun control, abortion, those sorts of things – there is a lot to be said on both sides. They wouldn’t be contentious issues otherwise. They’re issues that don’t go away because they’re so complex.” “Most people’s arguments are unbelievably shallow. They’re not arguments, they’re just perceptual biases. And if you get people to delineate out the space in any rigorous manner then their attitudes shift.”
-Now, Gulenko might be a harder sell for you and some others, because his views are complex compared to the forthright Model A arguments that you offer. To grasp his arguments for typings is going to require more effort and training. Is that intrinsically wrong or bad? I don’t see how. I can understand why it isn’t obviously better though.
-So, what is the strongest case we can make for Bill Clinton being EIE? We don’t have much details on this case; we have a few general paragraphs from Peter Bartl and Jack Aaron. However, I once thought Bill Clinton EIE myself, and I can really see why it could be a compelling typing. The case seems to be: Bill Clinton is very charismatic, he has a wide array of interests, he can make fiery speeches which stir crowds, he is politically capable of considerable compromise, he desires power and approval, he struggled to maintain order, discipline and decisiveness as a president, and he may have lacked clear or consistent ideological positions. If you are typing someone based on broad, abstract life patterns, the way that one does in Jack’s version of Model A, and you have the associations that he does, I can see why EIE is categorization for Bill Clinton that holds a lot of weight.
-Jack says: “Bill Clinton has a thoroughly polished manner of appearing in public. The 'smoothing' effect is that refinement and once the cameras are down, the reports show a far more frenetic and aggressive individual.”
-I agree that Bill has a thoroughly polished manner of appearing in public, though in the way I use to type, that’s not much of an indication of whether he is EIE or LSI. Do you believe that such a polished manner can only be indicative of Ethics of Emotion in the highest position? To me, it even sounds more like Role Ethics of Relations. His smoothing effect is partly “in public”, but even more so, it is in small groups and his one-on-one encounters. He touches the person, makes good eye contact with them, makes them comfortable and listens very well to them. I don’t see how we avoid Comfort Sensorics in such a case. Bill is especially known as a good one-on-one communicator, and a decent speech maker as well, but there are said to be better orators than him (Obama is one, but Obama is more stiff and distant about the Comfort Sensorics actions, it is noticeably less natural for him like what I would regard as an EIE).
-Would frenetic and aggressive individuals when the cameras are down indicate EIE or LSI? First of all, in any of the models that we are using, Force Sensorics is more powerful for the LSI. In the system that I particularly favor, Force Sensorics is a more informal internality for the LSI, and a more formal externality for the EIE. So, I would expect that EIE to be easily stimulated and aroused by aggression against themselves, dear one’s, or things they hold to be important, but not necessarily to display so much aggression in private. On the contrary, LSI especially lets out its aggression on its own territory, at close range with its familiars. So, maybe this difference is why we are disagreeing here.
Jack says: “He was not an individual who maintained a consistent state of energy, but he was certainly able to appear like that when he needed to . He is able to create the image that suits the occasion, expertly. It is his charismatic genius.”
-I also agree that Bill’s energy levels were not consistent. However, I do not see how this is clearly connected to a type, since the energy levels of most types can fluctuate. Can this be explained?
-I think that Bill is often able to create an excellent image to suit the occasion. However, I interpret this as a socially adaptive act, most indicative of the Role function. Functions like the Program function or Creative function, by contrast, are not so interested in adapting to the expectations of others, but are capable of leading, not even needing to make such concessions to the expectations of others. But, we probably view things differently here.
Jack says: “You talk about his soothing, but you leave out his electrifying speeches, where he brings the crowd to a frenzy. The cherry-picking is taking that mere appearance of 'S', which if a consistent character trait of an individual would surely be S+E, and try to interpret it as a type that is high in S but low in E. The LSI isn't a 'soother'. They come across as quite severe. Their S' is E-less. They will be hard and gaunt in character, yet be the most inclined of Betas to settle into peaceful retirement.”
-It is true that Bill Clinton has made some good speeches, and this doubtlessly required the skillful use of ethics of emotion. However, this is one area where Model A and Model G differ. S and E are both high energy functions of the LSI, Energo-Optimum, which can be excellent for problem solving and easily maintained in the right scenario. Unfortunately, this might be the area that our views differ most greatly for now, but that could be something to discuss our underlying reasons for. Whereas you view LSI as “E-less”, I view the LSI (and any type) as being able to use E, and the LSI in particular can use it consistently with gusto.
-While I think LSI’s can come across as quite severe, I do not think that such a one-dimensional, robotic image can realistically be applied to the type. Because Si and Fe are Energo-Optimum, Automatic Tool functions in Model G, I view the LSI as often someone who would prefer to give comfort and warmth to people, but they are cautious about it (they have a lot of logical requirements) and, if their logical requirements are disobeyed, then they will usually become more stern, aggressive, and severe. So, in my view, the LSI can be a soother, but they can also be quite severe. People adapt a lot to situations. One of my best friends is LSI, and I know several others, and I see them in both states.
-As for LSI being the most inclined to settle into peaceful retirement, it sounds like you treat the functions as though they are broad life patterns which manifest with deterministic consistency, rather than different states that a person can be in. This is another difference in our views.
Jack says: “You're cherry-picking... in that very article you linked me to, you missed out this: ""I'm becoming the mechanic in chief and I don't want to be there. That's not who I got elected to be."" Bill was not a guy who enjoyed getting involved in detail. As soon as he realised this was what was happening, he stepped back.”
-Before I even get into how much is wrong with this, it can be empirically proven that this quote has no relevance whatsoever. I myself wish that I was more socially adept, had better mastery of my emotions, and didn’t feel the need to spend so much time on my own recently. Other people also wish I had more energy, had more relationships with people, engaged with people more, and could get more accomplished. I’m not where I want to be. But, it’s not so easy to become who we want to be, and to overcome our flaws; otherwise, why would we even have ideals? In the very article you posted, there were all kinds of kinds of things Bill was saying he was going to do, or should do, or wanted to do, and he never did them. His self-image was also rather dependent upon his recognition by others, so many of his desires also stem from their expectations of him, not necessarily what he would do alone on an island. A much better explanation of the data is that he was divided between his own promises and the expectations of others, and his own real behavioral tendencies to get lost in the details. Despite Bill not wanting to be the mechanic in chief, that’s who he was, and he continued to be based on every article I can find on the subject. I never found anything suggesting that he ever lost his extreme orientation to detail and minutia, as you suggest here; you just made that up yourself.
-And I’m yet again faced with an accusation of cherry picking, when the truth is that Jack and I are typing people by different criteria and that we have different criteria for weighing evidence. Naturally I prefer my criteria, but if you’re going to accuse me of cherry picking, it is worth paying close attention to what it is that I’m trying to say. Otherwise what you will get is gratuitous litigation which does nothing but weigh down any attempt at effective communication, for the purpose of pushing an agenda.
-One important difference in how I weigh evidence for Socionics diagnostics compared to Jack is that I weigh actions higher than words. I explained this previously in this conversation already, and the excessive focus on words is a problem that I believe haunts the broader typology community. If you’ve read enough depth psychology of a deep thinker like Carl Jung or Jordan Peterson, or you’ve studied the psychology of lying, self-deception and cognitive bias, or you’ve listened to pick up artists, then you know that words are an incredibly fragile, and often deceptive, representation of a person. We use words to deceive ourselves because it would be too painful not to, we use words to smooth over social interactions and relationships, we use words to hide unpleasant aspects of ourselves from ourselves and other people, we say one thing and think another and do a third thing, we say one thing to one person and its opposite to another, we say one thing in one mood or life period and another thing in another mood or life period, and sometimes, sometimes, we use words to speak deep undivided truth that strikes us in our deepest core. In this quote by Bill Clinton, we have very little assurance in which way he is using words here, however, there is evidence in Bill Clinton’s actual actions that speaking deep undivided truth isn’t what’s happening.
-Actions are not vulnerable in the way that words are. Certainly, people can throw others off in their actions, so it is still important to understand actions with a broader scope. However, we have far less arbitrary abstract representational control over our actions, as compared to our words. Our actions also have to include our whole selves, including our shadow, the parts of ourselves that we don’t consciously acknowledge. As Jordan Peterson says, if you are truly in pain, especially intense pain and strain, you can tell people all kinds of things (I’m okay, I have it all under control, etc.), but everything about your actions will indicate that you believe you are in pain. In any case, if you want to understand men, women, whoever, it is safer to orient yourself by their actions than by their words, given all the vulnerabilities that I already pointed out about words which are not vulnerabilities in actions. Your actions are singularly revealing, one way or another, and especially revealing are your behavioral tendencies.
-That is why this typing by cherry picked quotes, a method you use often, is not a reliable method for determining the Sociotype of a person. It is too shallow to understand the person, because we have no idea why they’re saying certain things, unless we connect to everything else they say and, even more importantly, what they actually do. Granted, the media is partly responsible for cherry picking the quotes, not you. But it’s a general problem in this typing process regardless. This method is too shallow to be of real use in understanding people to any depth. -Another bizarre assumption in your argument is that it would make sense for an EIE ever to get stuck in the details to the extent that kept happening to Bill Clinton, only later to pull back once they realized they had. How many other presidents had this problem? Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are the only two I’ve seen it mentioned for; if you find more let me know. However, I would argue that what we would expect for EIE presidents is to never get as stuck in the details and minutia to the degree that Bill Clinton regularly did, not to lose their orientation to their global image and sense of perspective. It makes more sense for an LSI to not have an intuitive and obvious sense that they are getting lost in details and minutia, and have to realize this through themselves and other people, in order to pull back.
Jack says: “He liked to get very involved with decisions, but did not want to be involved in the trivial, day-to-day decisions. This is an inconsistent pushing of F (cycling between overactivity and self-doubt), with a rejection of S.”
-The data on Bill Clinton simply does not support your assertion that he did not want to, or to tend to get involved with, the trivial day-to-day decisions. In fact, that’s precisely one of the criticisms of Bill levied in the very article you posted; he constantly got involved in trivialities and had great difficulty maintaining a sense of perspective. The fact is that he was going all over the place, getting involved helping out with all kinds of trivial things, and he could not help this tendency. This sounds like difficulty with T, not F.
-Secondly, overactivity and self-doubt is a false polarity, and its relationship to F is not so clear. It is possible to be overactive and self-doubting, overactive and self-confident, normally active and self-doubting, and normally active and self-confident. While I can see a relationship between F and self-confidence, and I don’t see as much of a relationship between F and activity levels. If you think this relationship exists, I’d like to see it clarified. I’ve never heard anything credible stating that SLE and SEE are the most active types in the Socion; the most volitional does not mean the highest activity levels.
Jack says: “As for being the 'master of detail' and 'spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies', this isn't particularly F, THIS is L and S.”
-This is an example of selective hearing, because you leave out the F themes in what Peter said, unless you disagree with Peter’s characterization of Hillary and think that only “master of detail” and “spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies” are important now. Peter characterized Hillary as “aggressive”, “ambitious”, “the power behind the scenes”, having a “jackhammer style”: the theme here is Power Sensorics and Business Logic, the wheelhouse of the SLE, not so much of the LSI. There was the bit about how she prefers hostile environments answering detailed technical questions: that is F, P, and L IMO, because the technical questions are handled by the logic, and the hostile environment by the F.
-However, spotter of logical and factual inconsistencies seems to me to be what you usually see as a balance of L and P. That slightly fits SLE better than LSI, but isn’t a super strong point either way. Master of detail slightly fits LSI better, however, that describes Bill Clinton even more than Hillary based on the article you kindly provided to us in addition to the articles I already brought forth, and additionally, is not inconsistent with SLE, who in has Control Si that monitors the environment in the Model I favor. But that last part will probably sound like nonsense to you: that’s okay, you can skip it.
-Yeah, I agree that would be a pretty shallow argument on its own. To an extent, I think Hillary as an SLE has decent S, when it comes to monitoring the environment (say, for factual inconsistencies, or something). But, when it comes to acting on it, she’s weak. She comes across as phony and artificial in trying to connect to people’s everyday sensing needs in comparison to Bill Clinton. LSI, on the other hand, is quite good at connecting to people in that way, with their Creative S and Role R, at least in Model G. For SLE, S and R are the two most problematic functions, Control and Brake. On its own, this is a pretty abstract point though, and I wouldn’t expect it to be so moving. It’s true that an LSI who is more retiring or elitist might also avoid connecting to people in this way, but they have much more ability to do this should they decide to. SLE’s don’t have this ability at high levels, even after a whole life spent in politics, in my understanding. However, this point may not transfer over well.
-Again, the access to E point is an unfortunate difference between models. SLE is more mobilized by E in Model G, since it is the Launcher, and it is also harder for them to stop their momentum on this function since it has Low Brakes, but it is low energy. It’s hard for SLE to generate much charisma themselves. LSI E, is Manipulative, so it is effective more on its own territory, but once that territory has been staked out, it is a High Energy function and High Brakes as well, so it has powerful handling. This is one reason that Bill Clinton is especially known for a being a good one-on-one communicator. His speeches are decent, but that’s partly because he does a great job getting around connecting to people and getting to know them, partly because he has accentuated E that makes him quite entertaining, and partly because his speeches actually have a strong amount of detail. -This gets into the Clinton as an orator point. He’s a good orator among presidents (who are not always that charismatic mind you), but I don’t think he’s usually considered the best. Obama, for example, is sometimes remarked as being an especially good Orator. If you type Obama as IEI, then why would he be as good or better of an orator than Bill Clinton, when Bill Clinton would have higher Fe as an EIE? If that’s true, then clearly Fe ranking is not the decisive factor in Oration skill (though it may be an influential one). In any case, with training, the ethics of the lead Logical types like LSI, LII, LSE and LIE can become quite well-developed, IMO, and so LSI especially (of those 4 options) can make a good orator or public speaker. I do not see how it is absurd in my point of view, but if you view the LSI as inherently having poor access to E, then I can see why you’d disagree.
Finally, the article that Jack posted is a gem. It goes into great detail about Bill Clinton
and makes many of the points I’ve been trying to far better than I was able to
with the limited information I had access to.
It makes me more confident in my assessment of Bill’s type.
Jack’s Clinton article: https://reason.com/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think/
“Such descriptions are fascinating to read, but they leave one as baffled about Clinton after reading them as before. Other journalists have taken the next disturbing step: They've looked behind the self-contradictory mosaic and reached the grim conclusion that Clinton has no "self." In his book, Strange Bedfellows, which describes the coverage of the presidential campaign of 1992, Rosenstiel writes: "Like many politicians Bill Clinton is a man of unfinished and contradictory character—scholarly and shallow, outgoing and shy, principled and craven, the mood depending on the motive. He possesses extraordinary talent and a fierce thirst for knowledge and insight, but above all approval. One reporter who spent time with him in New Hampshire found him one of the most outwardly directed people she had ever met—as if he had little inner sense of self at all." (Emphasis added.)”
-One reporter said he was one of the most outer directed people she’d ever met. That would support EIE more, but based on reports by other articles (http://presidentialham.com/u-s-presidents/bill-clinton-with-ham/) and his contradictory character as listed in this very essay, there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of that report. His desire for approval overall fits EIE better, but LSI’s can also be very sensitive to the opinions of others in my experience, so that point doesn’t decide much for me. Both Betas can be very hard workers.
“Another journalistic worshiper, Phil McCombs, writing in The Washington Post, holds a mirror up to Clinton as he is absorbing that love: "To watch this president connect with people emotionally is an awesome thing. It's a raw, needy, palpable, electrifying thing that happens … It's as if he's soaking up the people like he's soaking up the sun, with the warmth pouring deep and direct into his political soul and recharging him, refilling him somehow once again with his own humanity and some sense of his role in the destiny of his country."”
“Clinton has the power to seduce others, to get them to submit to his will. And when they do, they give him in turn the vision he seeks. What Clinton sees in the faces of the adoring crowds is the reflected face of the Sun King. Only those adoring crowds can give this Narcissus the ineffable joy of adoring himself.”
-He has a way in soaking up the warmth of people; wouldn’t that apply to the Suggestive function? Isn’t that exactly what we do: absorb the suggestive function like the sun, recharging and enlivening us? It can’t be denied, however, that he is good at connecting with people emotionally. If you view the suggestive function as so weak, then I can definitely see why EIE would be persuasive. I, however, think Bill Clinton’s warmth fits the Self-affirmation block: Bill as a Narcissus learning to adore himself, getting people do adore him and get them to submit to his will. It’s not to produce any real social change, and his charisma is more entertaining than serious, unlike the more formal, socially directed charisma of the EIE.
“In Shadows of Hope, Sam Smith gives his reasons for doubting Clinton's sincerity: "Clinton often seems a political Don Juan, whose serial affairs with economic and social programs share only the transitory passion he exhibits on their behalf."
Smith is right. The programs, the "issues," are America's obligatory means of political courtship. But for a Sun King, these are means to his end. And his only real end is seduction. That is what Clinton stands for.
Sam Smith's language tells the reader that he is aware of this. Newsweek's Joe Klein, in "The Politics of Promiscuity," (May 9, 1994) seems for an instant to have suspected it. Christopher Hitchens of The Nation has been in a cold rage about it. These men have strikingly different political views. The realization that Clinton is most fundamentally a political seduction machine is not dependent on ideology but on sensibility, and on the intelligence to look past his liberal-altruistic language and to question Clinton's personal values.”
-Clinton only wants to seduce: he doesn’t care about any issues… how do we know that? We can’t see inside his mind; he might care about some issues. But the fact that his charisma lacks real seriousness in this way, and is more a form of narcissistic glorification than caring about real, formal issues, is not a sign of EIE. He’s not a real revolutionary. EIE is the real revolutionary for whom Fe is important, not merely a means to entertainment. Even Vladimir Vincent calls it thus. EIE is charismatic, but not to adapt people to some comfortable reality, but to ground real change towards a world not yet created, and to tune people for real conflicts. At the very least, that isn’t Clinton.
“A few examples will do: At the end of Clinton's first year in office, David Broder of The Washington Post was worrying about Clinton's habit of launching too many policy initiatives at once, many more than he could handle, and his tendency to go rushing around in all directions. Hedrick Smith of PBS was disturbed by a related issue—Clinton's inability to set priorities. And Fred I. Greenstein, professor of politics at Princeton University and author of two classic books on the American presidency, was praising Clinton's "verbal intelligence" but wanted to know whether Clinton had an "analytical intelligence." This was an unusual question. The Princeton scholar was actually saying, Clinton can talk, but can he think?
To an inordinate degree Hillary Clinton thinks for Bill Clinton.
Specifically, she is Bill Clinton's access to the laws of logic, without which no thinking is possible. Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic has discussed Clinton's blindness to logic on a number of occasions. On February 1, 1993, he wrote, "The most disturbing quality about Clinton is his indifference to contradiction. Not excluding the political middle by not excluding the logical middle, that appears to be Clinton's strategy. And so he can hold in his mind simultaneously, and sincerely, notions that cannot really be held together." And, again in the July 19-26, 1993 issue: "He lives without the law of contradiction."
Hillary Clinton provides Clinton with certain narrow logical skills of which he is singularly bereft. This does not imply that she is Aristotle, any more than a seeing-eye dog is a cartographer. It implies only that as compared to Clinton, the blazing Bubba, Mrs. Clinton is on speaking terms with logic, and he cannot function without her.”
-As for Clinton’s cognitive competence, if you look at his actual behavior as president, his Rhodes scholarship, his grasp of statistics, his childhood, his intelligence, then it is beyond ridiculous to question. I think he likes for people to underestimate him and see him as some lovestruck fool, which he most certainly isn’t. Clinton is probably one of the most logically intelligent presidents in the history of the country, but he was also quite movable emotionally. How about someone like John Nash? He had all kinds of so-called cognitive difficulties, but is clearly a logician. Also, I’ve hardly come across a politician that is honest when it comes to all the contradictions in their platform because their goal is get people on their side, not to display the most honest thoughts of their mind. This point is clearly loaded journalism. If Bill Clinton lacks analytical intelligence, then how did he become a Rhodes scholar, a master of detail, and someone who knows as much about the expertise of specialized economists as they do?
-The idea that Bill lives without logic is plainly absurd; this contradicts all other reports about him. Now, that could be results of people not understanding his political plans, or of him doing political maneuvering which contains performative contradictions; the LSI, like any type, can be two faced and is one of the types more prone to this. The whole idea that Bill can’t do logic without Hillary just sounds like a fun story about their over-idealized relationship, the reality of which is more of a political partnership, because Bill Clinton has cheated on Hillary so many times that we’d probably have trouble counting them. He needed her more as an ally than a dual. They aren’t a fairy tale dual couple, in fact, they aren’t even much of a couple at all. Hillary keeps Bill focused, helps him make decisions, and resolves some of his conflicts. This is natural for a power sensor to do, especially a Dominant one like Hillary. From the article, it doesn’t so much seem that she is fundamentally more capable than Bill at using logic, but that she is more grounded, goal-oriented and decisive than him.
“Some White House reporters have gradually discovered this dependence. Initially they saw Hillary as a helpful adjunct to presidential decision making. Just after the election, Eleanor Clift and Mark Miller said in Newsweek, "Hillary is Bill's Daytimer, the gentle lash who keeps him focused, who doesn't mind making decisions and refereeing disputes when Clinton would rather stall." This description is a bit too soft. Take out the "gentle" and the "doesn't mind," and you have a clearer picture of a Hillary who keeps Bill's mind focused, who makes his decisions, and who resolves his conflicts.”
-I constantly see the emphasis on how much more assertive Hillary is than Bill. That doesn’t fit EIE vs LSI as well, but for Hillary being SLE it fits very well.
“And nine months later, in March 1994 as the sex and money scandals were exploding over the Clintons' heads, Time published an article called "The Trials of Hillary." It was written by Nancy Gibbs, and all impulse to soften Hillary had vanished. Rather, with the first lady under fire, it was necessary to make her importance clear. Gibbs cited people close to the Clintons as the source for a crisp description of the essence of Bill Clinton's dependency on Hillary: "Their friends observed that he needs her brains, her logic, her focus."
That is undoubtedly true. But it cannot be the whole truth. One can readily purchase brains, logic, and focus in the marketplace. One does not have to marry them. For Clinton, a wife with brains, logic, and focus serves a deeper need. In a particular and important way, Bill Clinton is cognitively disabled.
There is nothing obvious about that disability, although its superficial manifestations strike many people immediately: If one concentrates on what Clinton says, not on his facial expressions and the motions of his poetic hands, one discovers that he is a phenomenal bore. He is so monumentally boring that thoughtful people feel compelled to discuss it.” -The reason Bill had to marry Hillary is because he is cognitively disabled??? What? Lol. And because he is boring? Not only does that not even make sense: why would boring indicate EIE? Granted, any type could probably be boring, but you’d think LSI would be even more inclined to. Hardly a decisive point in any case for crying out loud, but lordy.
“Tom Rosenstiel of the Los Angeles Times writes in Strange Bedfellows that he considers Clinton an intellectual and a "scholar" but finds his oratory flat and lacking in drama and poetry. Historian James MacGregor Burns says, "Clinton's rhetoric is absolutely lacking in spark and, well, in style. So much of it is banal." Time's Hugh Sidey says that Clinton is "tedious to a fault, thorough, bright, highly educated but excruciatingly dull at times." And The New Republic's Leon Wieseltier explains why: "His seriousness seems to consist…in a combination of ambition and pedantry. There is something spiritually thin about Clinton. Finally, his constant talk—at last we have a president who speaks in sentences, but all the time—leaves only an impression of articulateness. Detail has mastered him as much as he has mastered detail." That is the clue to Clinton's cognitive disability. There is only one thing that will produce this detail-saturated effect, enlivened by no thinking or creative impulse, and that is the memorization one frantically engages in before an exam if one is the bright kind who studies for As. Is Clinton a memorizer? Yes, indeed he is. And a very unusual one, the type who could get a job in the circus as a Hans the Talking Horse. He has a photographic memory, and witnesses to that skill come from every period of his life. When David Gallen, armed with a tape recorder, interviewed a few dozen Arkansas journalists, politicians, and friends and associates of Bill, they all talked their heads off about his amazing memory for the faces, names, family members, and illnesses of what seems to be half of Arkansas. And, apparently, he forgets nothing. In January 1994 David Maraniss of The Washington Post wrote: "Clinton has a nearly photographic memory—he recently stunned a friend visiting the White House by saying, 'Let's call your parents!' and then recited a number he hadn't dialed in more than a decade." Before he was elected president, Clinton himself liked to show off his remarkable memory. According to Charles Allen and Jonathan Portis in The Comeback Kid, Clinton recited 100 lines from Macbeth that he had learned in high school to a high school class in the small town of Vilonia, Arkansas: "I hadn't [recited] it in 20-something years," Clinton said. "And I started reeling it off, and these kids, their eyes got as big as dollars. I recited the whole soliloquy." But this skill is more than a complicated parlor trick. It has played an important role in Clinton's intellectual life. Clinton has always been extremely bright, a good student and a voracious reader. But his memory has greatly supplemented, amplified, and very often substituted for an intellectual life. His memory is a theme that runs throughout people's conversations about him. Arkansas journalist Meredith Oakley, who repeatedly refers to Clinton's photographic memory throughout her book On the Make: The Rise of Bill Clinton, says of Clinton, "He was not studious by nature and though he made exceptional grades—he eventually won a Phi Beta Kappa key—he did so by routinely cramming for exams and relying on a photographic memory." Clinton's classmate at Yale, William P. Coleman, calls Clinton "the classic quick study." He studied little, went to few classes. Then before exams he borrowed the class notes of others and memorized. Clinton's high school friend David Leopoulos visited Clinton when he was at Oxford and found that Clinton had suddenly become a fount of information about painting. Leopoulos told a reporter, "He is interested in everything and wants to consume everything. He is almost a fanatic about information. He gathers and retains it better than anyone I've ever known." Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post jokes, "That's Clinton: well-versed in every subject, has memorized the leading economic indicators for every quarter since the '20s, knows how to say 'fungibility' in Farsi."
-So, Bill Clinton is boring because he is a detailer. He is lacking drama and poetry, tedious, lacking spark (I see what these remarkers on Bill mean, reading his speeches is like a bouquet of life details, there is very little that is abstract). This is totally inconsistent with having such weak L and S as an EIE. “Detail has mastered him as much as he has mastered detail”. He is ambitious and pedantic. Pedantic is a trait of LSI more than any other type, and he has a photographic memory for details. He is “spiritually thin”, focused on details, the total opposite of an EIE. His memory for details is a SUBSTITUTE for an actual intellectual life!!! How is this intuitive? True, he has many interests, but it seems like it’s not so much the ideas, but the details that he absorbs. Memorizes leading economic indicators since the 20’s. The contrast with actual intuitives is truly immense. And Jack says earlier that Bill Clinton wanted to pull back from details. It looks like Jack didn’t actually read the article he posted, because it makes the case that details and minutia was the greatest ability that Bill Clinton had!
“Finally, Charles Allen and Jonathan Portis in The Comeback Kid describe the Clinton of the presidential campaign: "Clinton became known as a 'policy wonk,' a politician who could spout data and statistics nonstop, a man with a quick answer for every question. Members of the national press were amazed at his ability to formulate answers to complicated questions, seemingly without thinking." It is not "seemingly" without thinking. Very often, it is actually without thinking. Clinton can memorize as he breathes. But he finds thinking—analysis, evaluation, reaching conclusions—intensely difficult. And that is the essence of Bill Clinton's cognitive disability, and the reason for his dependence on his wife. In The Agenda, Woodward shows that dependence in action. He describes Clinton as candidate, surrounded by high powered advisers. "Everyone," writes Woodward, "was throwing ideas at the candidate, who had no system to evaluate or decide among them." It was Hillary who rescued Clinton, and in doing so, explained what he actually did with the information being hurled at him. He had to "come to it in his own way," she said. Woodward continued: "Hillary insisted he had to 'internalize' the message and the ideas. He needed in-depth exposure to the alternatives and lively debate, pushed even to the point of confusion. 'He has to come to this in his own way,' she repeated." What Clinton needed, she said, was the time to rest and "internalize."”
-And yes, introverted logic is extremely careful. It is not the easiest function to quickly reach conclusions, because it needs to think a lot before doing so. He needed to “internalize”, like an introvert, it had to make sense to him and his vast logic and fount of information. Whereas a type like SLE can come in and reach conclusions very quickly, coming up with a quick and decisive and holistic solution that works, due to greater groundedness, holographic thinking, and tool logic. It is very debatable that Bill “wasn’t thinking” though. What actually seems to have happened is that Hillary rescued Bill from the analysis paralysis that he was prone to. He is a very thorough thinker, someone who is making sure his system is perfect before they want to come to a firm conclusion; he doesn’t want to give someone a system that his pedantic grasp for details isn’t satisfied with. But the inability to immediately have a solution would be more characteristic of an introvert than an extrovert. EIE’s do not need to process the logic of things so deeply, and they do not need to internalize it. They can be more satisfied with something which works well enough for them.
“In effect, Clinton dumps everything into his subconscious, engulfs it, digests it, and waits to see what will happen. Many people do this at certain stages of creative work, which is dependent on subconscious operations. But at some point, the mental superstructure must take control and process the results with logic. It is the stage that requires the conscious use of logic that Clinton finds difficult, or impossible, to reach. To an extraordinary degree, Clinton functions directly from his subconscious. It is his almost-photographic memory that allows him to do so. But he pays a terrible penalty. When ideas are "thrown" at him, which happens ceaselessly, he "has no system to evaluate or decide among them." He is paralyzed—until his subconscious finally processes them in one way or another, and tells him what to think. And if it doesn't, his wife does. That one cannot buy in the marketplace.”
-For LSI, Ti and Si is an “automatic”, evaluative function in Humanitarian Socionics. That precisely fits what is said about Bill Clinton here. For SLE, Ti is a much more conscious, demonstrative function, which fits what is said about Hillary. On the contrary, decisiveness and coming up with something that works is natural and automatic to the SLE, whereas LSI’s have a much harder time with that. They are extremely cautious and deliberative in making assessments. Hillary isn’t telling Bill what to think in the depths of his subconscious like he’s some kind of nitwit; she is giving him a working plan of action.
"Even now, after all these years, I still sometimes work hard instead of smart. I'm a workaholic, I'm always churning and doing things, and sometimes I lose the forest for the trees. Sometimes you can do so many things that you don't do enough… [P]eople may not know exactly what I want to do as president, because I've got so many ideas. My mind is always churning, you know, and I think I need to learn to focus my comments better so I can learn to communicate with people who don't know me very well. And I need to always learn that you have so little time, there is so precious little time, that you have to really be like a laser beam with your words and your actions. You've got to really focus and have that kind of mental discipline that sometimes my workaholic tendencies don't permit me to have … I think sometimes I always think that everything can be worked out, too, you know. Sometimes you can't work everything out. You've just got to cut it. And you've got to know when to cut it and when to work things out. That's something I've done a lot of work on, trying to make sure I overcome that weakness."
—Bill Clinton to Arsenio Hall, June 1992
A small part of Clinton's incoherent description pertains to his doing "too much, too fast." The rest, if one strips away the murky verbiage, is an earnest description of Clinton's difficulty in thinking. His mind races, ideas rush in on him with great speed; he fails to distinguish between having an idea and taking an action, between thinking and doing; he gets lost in details, so he cannot retain his abstract purposes; and he has great difficulty in reaching conclusions or making decisions. He even avoids using such terms: He talks of "cutting it" or of "working things out." This is not the analysis of a thinker or of one who thinks about thinking. It is the Clinton subconscious blurting out his difficulties as he experiences them from within.
-Yet again, Bill admits to a tendency to lose the forest for the trees. One of the stronger signs of LSI. He’s too much of a perfectionist to move on with things when he has to, and he has to learn that you can’t work everything out. But then article says that “thinkers don’t work things out”… what? And again, why would an EIE concern themselves with such endless debate and perfectionism over logic? It seems irrelevant to them. Doesn’t fit any EIE I’ve ever known; they can be satisfied with more superficially accurate conclusions, not some paralyzing, ponderous process of thinking. The EIE would probably be helpful for taking Bill Clinton out of such a trance, forcing him to make a decision, helping him grow, instead of having a more decisive logician like Hillary make decisions for him because they ran out of time. It seems like his tendency to get involved with too many things comes from his need for analysis, to get lost in the details and need to perfect everything, getting lost in the process (again, a Process type, something a Holographic type like Hillary helped him with, able to make quick and holistic decisions)
“Clinton has a short phrase to describe only the speeded-up process: It is doing "too much, too fast." He has no descriptive phrase for the blocking process, so I'll give him one: It's "I can't move." He presses his speeded-up problem on everyone he talks to at any length, so it is widely known. He allows others to discover the blockage problem all by themselves. But, of course, that problem is widely known too. The press discovered it soon after he was elected president. In fact, to a considerable degree, Clinton's relationship with reporters has been an attempt to seduce them by stressing "I do too much, too fast" while they hav e tormented him by chasing angrily after his "I can't move." To visit Clinton's mind, one must take these aspects of his mental processes one at a time.”
-It is unusual to interpret his inability to move due to reflection to an extroverted type. The stereotype for analysis paralysis is not a type like EIE at all, but the introverted thinking types. The reason that he didn’t know when to stop his Structural Logic is because it is not a flexible, instrumental function for him, the way it is for Hillary. It is the essence of what his sociotype is focused on. To ask someone to limit a function like their Program is very hard; people cannot do this without soul shuddering effort. He is a thinker more than a doer.
“And, once elected, Clinton not only wanted to show Americans that he could do everything at once—he wanted to show them that he could think about everything at once. He held the famous economic "summit" where, surrounded by television cameras and legions of properly respectful economists, policy specialists, and business executives, Clinton demonstrated that he knew as much about each of their specializations as they did. He had learned and spat out a fragment of each. The public was impressed. The press was impressed. Hillary was impressed. She took notes.”
-His grasp of detail is so prodigious, that he knew as much about the specialization of the economists, policy specialists, and business executives as they did… this doesn’t seem like the superficial erudition of the EIE so much, but a result of deep and thorough study to which Bill Clinton is so prone. He was basically too much of an egghead to be a maximally effective leader. He would make a better advisor than he would a decisive leader. And Hillary is supposed to be the master of details? Hillary isn’t even in Bill Clinton’s league when it comes to details, and she knows that. He does too much too fast partly because he has very poor ability to maintain a broad perspective, and partly because he is a Creative subtype. He is actually not Harmonizing; I had mistakenly remembered that. Creative also fits his charisma much better.
-It is constantly a process (process type), plus he is lost specifically in thought/introversion, not action… he couldn’t distinguish between thinking and doing because for him thinking is the prime form of doing, as a type which focuses on structural logic most of all. A type like LSI is less designed to be such a front line leader as a type like EIE or SLE, an extrovert.
-Both LSI and EIE can get angry, so I don’t know what to make of that. His anger is described as cold.
-Again, it is remarked that Bill Clinton is a policy wonk and a lover of detail. How does this make sense for EIE? It doesn’t make any sense to me. It is classic LSI. And you attribute Hillary’s love of detail to L and S, yet it seems from the account of this article that Bill Clinton loved detail more than she did.
-Indecisiveness is mostly a lack of force sensorics and business logic. While LSI has strong force sensorics (and Bill had strong anger and determination when it was summoned), it is cautious. EIE has bold force sensorics. Why would they be so cautious with it? On the other hand, Bill has such bold structural logic and intuition of time and introverted sensorics reflections that they supplanted taking any action. He was not able to bring himself to caution on his introverted functions.
“Clinton possesses a perfectionism that interferes with the completion of his projects because his standards are never met. According to Woodward, Clinton always wants to produce a solid piece of work. The sight of aides knocking out a document at high speed frightens Clinton because he knows it will not produce intellectually serious work. He wants each aspect of a project to be checked, he wants to consult people he deems to be authoritative sources, and he wants to consider a very broad range of opinion and debate.”
-Clinton component 1: he possesses a perfectionism that interferes with the completion of his projects because his standards are never met. Classic LSI, not EIE. Absolutely neurotic and stubborn and pedantic L.
“Clinton is preoccupied with details to the extent that the major point of his activity is lost. This is precisely what Clinton means when he says he often can't "see the forest for the trees." It is what everyone means when he uses that expression. It means he cannot arrive at or retain the abstract purpose of a project because he is so immersed in the details.”
-Clinton component 2: he is preoccupied with details to the extent that the major point of his activity is lost. This is L and S, at the expense of functions like T, P, etc. Certainly sensing, rather than intuitive. Comparing this to the clearly intuitive presidents, and the contrast is enormous. He is constantly losing contact with his abstract purposes: a real EIE would be very helpful to him, motivating him properly and keeping his pedantic detail loving head on track. He lets the abstractions float away while he gets preoccupied with the “most trivial of details”
Clinton is unable to set priorities among his projects. Indeed, journalists and scholars have clamored incessantly that Clinton cannot set priorities. Asked Princeton scholar Fred Greenstein in Political Science Quarterly, "Why does an intelligent, politically aware leader who knows in his heart that he should 'focus like a laser' begin his presidency in a fashion more reminiscent of a cluster bomb?" Or, as Judy Woodruff put it anxiously to Vice President Al Gore, "Why can't he prioritize?"
-Clinton component 3: he is unable to set priorities among his projects. “To know one’s priorities, one must know their relationship to one’s abstract and overarching purposes.” He sticks with his many projects, and loses the overall purpose. He loses T, intuition of time, becomes leisurely, can’t do things in time, and can’t connect all the details into the bigger picture and stick with it, despite his astonishingly brilliant and effortless grasp of the details (beyond Hillary even). “It is a remarkable fact that the political consultants to President Clinton think far more abstractly than he does and can easily explain his priorities to him. But to Clinton, only the concrete is real, abstractions have no reality…”
Clinton's decision making is avoided, postponed, or protracted. This is the phenomenon that draws the journalistic crowds. But as we have seen, the press has been primarily concerned with the end of the drama—the last two or three days, even the last two or three weeks, of vacillation and indecisiveness.
-Clinton component 4: his decision making is avoided, postponed, or protracted. I see this as him being more of thinker than a doer, having bold introverted functions and overly cautious extroverted functions. I do not understand how this could indicate an extroverted type for Bill, types that are much quicker and bolder to activity, who are not inclined to split hairs over things.
Clinton's time is poorly allocated: The most important tasks are left to the last moment. You have surely read two dozen descriptions of Clinton's wild last-minute rush to decision and action when the clock or the calendar will tolerate no delay.
-Clinton component 5: his time was poorly allocated. He was leisurely, often late and holding other people up, poorly managing time and leaving things to the last minute. This is the antithesis of having strong intuition of time, who can much better understand how to manage it; Bill Clinton was incapable of this.
Clinton insists that others submit to exactly his way of doing things, and is reluctant to allow others to do things because of the conviction they will not do them correctly. In the first month of Clinton's administration, the press learned that Clinton refused to delegate authority. David Broder analyzed Clinton's first appointments and quoted "Clinton insiders" who observed, delicately, that the choices revealed "Clinton's intent to keep the policy reins firmly in his own hands."
-Clinton component 6: insist that others submit to exactly his way of doing things, and is reluctant to allow others to do things because of the conviction they will not do them correctly. That sounds like a very good description of stubborn L and P, in a very strong position, in addition to being strong enough with Force Sensorics to assert his will. He would not compromise on his standards, even though he would appear to compromise with his constituents on the campaign trail. So much for compromising Clinton; I guess that’s only half the story after all. This pedantic micromanagement is a far cry from how an EIE operates. It sounds more like an ISTJ bean counter in MBTI. This is the CLASSIC central management of an LSI, I don’t know how to make it clearer than that, unless we pick and choose what to look at. He refused to delegate authority; an EIE is hardly even capable of that because while force sensorics is a strong motivation for them it is weak, they have to delegate it to some degree or they won’t achieve anything on their own. That’s why they are the archetypal mastermind who sends everyone on errands, sends everyone to defend their views for them, etc. By contrast, “Bill Clinton hates planning or strategic thinking…” or so it is said. That sounds a little biased, so take that reporting with a grain of salt, but it sure isn’t compatible with a T ego type who thrive on strategy.
-Hillary, an involutionary sensing extrovert with her logic more balanced and more grounded in deeds, and with the extra discipline, drivenness and drive to win due to her Dominant variant, was not doubt very helpful to Bill, in addition to George Stephanopoulos. What they helped Bill Clinton with was not even close to detailed logic (Bill Clinton was the superior to both Hillary and George at that), but with perspective, keeping his lazer sharp thinking focused on getting things accomplished, on winning and achievement rather than hair-splitting perfectionism (this is a very common struggle of the LSI).
-Bill Clinton’s chaos, Dave Power’s IJ chaos tidal waves; he was so focused on keeping order in the most pedantic and productive ways, that he produced chaos, because he lost the forest for the trees. He lacked the decisiveness and big picture thinking needed to run his White House as well as it could have been.
-In a situation of such a gap in power and decisiveness, what is most natural is for a Power Sensorics type to take over, because that is their most natural role in the group; the one who can execute the volitional pressure to make the necessary decisions in an extreme situation, put everyone in their proper places, pierce through all the chaos and bullcrap, and take charge when it is necessary. And that’s exactly what Hillary was able to do, because her Power Sensorics isn’t cautious, it’s bold as can be. She’s the queen on the chess board, and master of power and maneuvering, flexible mobile temperament, someone who is well-known for changing her positions to achieve victory, rather than a relatively inflexible introverted rational type. She was not so neurotic about the precise order that things were in; she could make it work. She was a master of business logic, of making things work well enough, of coordinating, of engaging in concrete organizing.
-She’s an extrovert and a natural conqueror and change agent and someone who broadly knows what is going on and can keep track of everything, whereas Bill is a natural thinker and policy expert, someone who is going to get every last detail right like some perspectiveless pedant even if it keeps the whole white house waiting, who also happens to be very charismatic. Considering Bill cognitively crimpled is absurd given the feats outlined in the article; it is more accurate to say that he was not cognitively suited to his very high pressure leadership position. As an introverted thinker, he’d do much better than Hillary, has far more brilliance and thoroughness and erudition, but that wouldn’t satisfy his ambition. Would you put a scholar, a statistician, or a logician in charge of the White House? Of course not! They’d go into analysis paralysis, just like Bill Clinton. You need someone who can be quick and decisive and effectively manage, not “a brain”. Why attribute all success to intelligence? Maybe operative intelligence, not IQ; Bill’s IQ is almost certainly higher than Hillary’s, probably something like 160-170 in his case. An egghead like Bill Clinton is far from an ideal commander.
-It’s not that Clinton is a bad epistemologist. Decision making is excruciating for careful thinkers like myself, I can relate to Bill, because you have to come out of your overly careful thinking and make risky and unsure decisions in the real world. You don’t elect an epistemologist to be president; they are better as advisors. You elect a decisive, self-confident person who can visibly get things accomplished that you want accomplished, and who can lead and manage while keeping an eye on the big picture. The article says in one place that he doesn’t trust his own mind, and in another part states that he doesn’t trust anyone else to do anything correctly. Which is it; his mind or theirs? I completely disagree that he doesn’t trust his own mind; a better and more consistent analysis of the facts is that he doesn’t know what to do having to make so many decisions that aren’t able to meet his unrealistic perfectionistic standards, that he is overwhelmed by the pressures of leadership. Now, that can happen to a lot of people, for different reasons, due to different neuroses. But, it hardly indicates EIE over LSI, and I’d argue more indicates the latter for the specific reasons that Bill has that problem. Why would an EIE have such analysis paralysis and pedantry? That makes no sense, and it’s repeated in almost every source I can find that goes into detail about Bill. It would be like saying an ILI or IEI cannot stop being so aggressive and taking charge all the time, or an ILE or IEE is so stuck in their rut of sensory comfort that they won’t try anything new. The types most likely to get stuck in pedantry is LSI. It is a compulsive issue for them, because it orients their whole psyche.
-He can hold himself politely in public because of his lovely L and R, but in private, F, P and E come out in full force, and unleash the built up frustration from his own inability to accomplish the goals that have been set for him, and from his great self-control in the public spotlight. To be honest though, I can hardly imagine the corruptions that he and his wife Hillary are involved in. I’m not sure I even want to get into that, because there are so many rumors that are difficult to confirm or deny. There is a good chance that they are severe criminals, which adds way more stress than is being talked about in the article.
-His huggy, weepy emotionalism is noteworthy for EIE. But, that sounds like it would just as well be weak emotion to me. The image is not of a powerful EIE ideological leader, but of some pathetically dissipated power mongerer. It is not an image that is inspiring of strength or devotion when it comes to ethics. These are pathetic, weak, easily manipulated emotions. And it only comes out in private: Bill is very cautious with his weepy emotionalism, only letting some people see it.
-The article also makes the case that Bill Clinton has obsessive-compulsive disorder. Interference with task completion because the person’s overly strict standards are not met, preoccupation with details to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost, unreasonable reluctance to allow others to do things because of a conviction that they will not do them correctly, excessive devotion to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships, indecisiveness: too much ruminating about priorities. Overall, that is WAY more LSI than EIE. If you asked people, which type would more likely have obsessive-compulsive disorder, EIE or LSI, which do you think they’d say? Granted, there is this one site that attributes OCD to EIE: https://www.the16types.info/info/types/ENFJ.htm However, if you actually read it, it’s a bunch of LSI stuff. Control, perfection, order, systems, rules, details, criticalness, perfectionism, “the right thing”, perseverance, accumulation, etc. Maybe an EIE could be like that if they had a lot of emphasis on Te and Ti. But overall, the compulsion is obviously way more LSI, by any description I’ve ever seen. So, maybe you don’t want to consider this point decisive, and that’s reasonable enough, but to put it in favor of EIE would take a great deal of bias.
-As for talking in general, I would say that EIE is on average more talkative than LSI (the EJ temperament is without a doubt the most talkative), and Bill is very talkative by all accounts. The one odd thing about it though, is that he is oddly insensitive to other people and their feelings in all his talking (boring people around him to death, telephoning people when they are asleep or going asleep, etc.). While EIE’s talk a lot, that level of obtuseness would be unusual for them, because they have a natural grasp of appropriateness and people’s sensibilities in comparison with an LSI (though they might choose to willingly violate it, but they usually have some reason other than wanting to talk to people). At the very least, however, we do have to acknowledge high E usage from Bill, his impulsiveness and lack of common sense in dealing with people notwithstanding.
-It is also odd that they say Bill Clinton can’t shut his mouth or pay attention, because the reports that I could find of his constituents suggest that he is a remarkable listener towards people. Maybe his listening and lack of paying attention is somewhat schizophrenic, different for different people; I, for one, relate to that. At home I rarely listen to my family, because I am lost in the things I am thinking about or doing, but if I need to, I can pay very close attention to people, though I am easily distracted by events or what is going on in my head. Likewise, I have a tendency to flit between the various things I am working on, shifting my attention to one thing and then another, because it helps me concentrate a lot on what I am focused on at the moment. Perhaps that’s what Bill is going, something that naturally characterizes the Harmonizers, and it is now a technique that used in some tutoring systems for children and teenagers (such as IQuest), and it has its origins in the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. While Bill Clinton is extreme in some ways, sometimes people seem like they are just trying to find something to sensationalize about the president, which is unfortunately common for journalists. Cognitive impairment, they say? And they think most people could do better in his position? Seems more like lack of cognitive suitability to me. Yeah, he’s neurotic too, but he’d still surely do better than most people in his position, but you wouldn’t guess that from sensationalist journalism. He’s not even remembered as a terrible president, which you’d wouldn’t guess from this article. That said, it is a pretty thorough and interesting read, and I’m glad that you brought it for discussion.
Wow! Per usual, there is a great deal to unpack here, worthy of several readings really. I found this discussion and your analysis to be equal parts exciting and fascinating. To say that it has peaked my interest would be an understatement. You mentioned that Gulenko and SHS frequently come up with seemingly unorthodox typings relative to some other schools. This provided some excellent practical examples of said point.
ReplyDeleteI was, admittedly, shocked by several of your typings. Bill Clinton, JFK, Michael Jordan,and to a lesser extent, Ayn Rand were surprising to me. I never would have guessed LSI for Bill Clinton, but you did an excellent job of making your case. Likewise with Hilary. I had always typed her as LSI, but you have won me over with your interpretation. I think I assumed LSI because of her restrained, cold, and severe public demeanor. Also, I think that I was somewhat biased in seeing SLE as a masculine type. Noticing it more in female athletes or dancers, not that those two categories are mutually exclusive. Obviously, this is a silly and superficial bias, but I believe that it might have factored into my typing her as LSI rather than SLE. Not that I am at all shocked by SLE for her.
Bill, on the hand, was quite shocking to me. I had frequently wondered if he might be a very logically/intellectually gifted ESE, but usually just kind of assumed that the general consensus EIE was likely correct. As stated above, you make your case well. But my mind is a little blow here, in a good way though. Hence my excitement! I am not certain if I will come around to LSI for Bill or not, but I certainly enjoy the idea of it. I think that it is very hopeful, in that it adds a great deal of nuance, richness, and flexibility to the expression of one's personality type. Which makes sense given how complex and multi-faceted we all are, particularly when one considers personality from the understanding that we are interacting within the incredibly complex network of systems which is external reality. That we are not isolated islands all to ourselves, rather that we are complex data points interconnected in the vast network of experience. This issue brings to mind your earlier point that my typing might surprise me, despite my relative confidence in being an LII. Fair point, I understood it then, but this brings it back down into my consciousness. It does nothing to change my mind, but the possibility to delve deeper within myself and discover something new is quite exciting, even a little bit encouraging. So, i would be surprised to be typed other than LII, but I would not in any way be discouraged by said surprise.
Yes, I understand the surprise at the typings. Victor's school is quite far in type images from other versions of Socionics but I think it makes a great deal of sense in a self-contained way. I also always though LSI for Hillary and EIE for Bill before, but I learned that there is some stuff (including non-verbal signals) that really strongly indicates LSI for Bill (and LSI-C can be quite charismatic to the opposite sex and major womanizers since LSI is sort of the standard masculine archetype in SHS, like what is expected a normal polite and dashing male) and Hillary does have business logic aspects and SLEs can also present as quite severe if they have a terminal subtype as we see with her. SLEs are indeed a classic masculine archetype as well, but maybe a little excessively to be "standard".
DeleteAs to MJ and Rand, I was, again, quite surprised, especially by Mj's typing. I have always seen Jordan as an SLE, or just maybe an LSI. I am having a hard time not attributing Se to his ego block. But I can kind of see Fi as his controlling function. E is interesting for the program function. I cannot say that I am wholly aversive to it. I would be curios to hear you expound further on this typing. I had typed Rand as being ILI, or if not ILI, then LIE maybe. While I would not consider Ayn to be smooth, she was a fierce debater. She was hard to shake when in the throws of epistemological battle. Again, my unconscious bias prevented me from considering LSI here, maybe a little unfairly. LSIs can certainly be cool under pressure in some situations, and it was not as if Ayn was lacking in familiarity with her philosophy. She takes a pretty cold systematic approach to her system as well as its implementation. I certainly fell in love with her works as a teenager. I am still a fan in many ways, although she never seemed like a very kind person to me, if I am being honest. The amphetamine consumption probably does not help with typing her either. Truthfully, I feel a little bit embarrassed that I never considered LSI for before. granted, I am not convinced that you are correct here, but I can definitely see it as a possibility. All of the LSIs in my life as well as the typical profiles likely biased me here. One that bother me with LIE diagnosis is that her writing is incredibly redundant. I have a very difficult time imaging an LIE bludgeoning a point to death like that, whereas I can definitely see some ILIs and LSIs doing exactly that. In conclusion, I must think you for a mind opening exploration here. The work on the Clinton's was quite fascinating, as well as useful to me. I will likely never see the LSI type quite the same way. Which is ironic and a little odd, because I did not actually learn anything new about the type yet I perceive them in a slightly different way somehow! Cheers!
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for the numerous typos in the above paragraphs. I should have given them a once over before publishing them, but I got a little carried away. All the same, they would have been slightly easier to read had I proofed them before hand, as opposed to afterwards, mea culpa.
DeleteHonestly, I'm not 100% of Michael Jordan, though on Rand I have no doubts (and for Rand I think she is likely EIE honestly). EIE's aren't the most common type among famous athletes by any means, but when they have a dominant subtype maybe you will see them in team sports like Basketball and Football and sports that involve a lot of speed and agility (power sensors like LSI and SLE don't actually have speed or agility as much of a strength, dynamic types are probably better there). I have heard from my LSI friend that Michael is actually quite a drama queen and likes people to cheer for him and stand in waiting at the hallways of hotels he attends. Also, he was a great leader for his basketball teams that motivated his team to victory, which is exactly the role of EIE in Beta quadra (quadra leader and ethical extrovert motivator). Perhaps Scottie Pippen is LSI. As for Rand, the types of major superstar "personality" philosophers are often EIE, though occasionally you may see other types. For an EIE she has a very terminal subtype and thus is quite dry, but was basically automatically this charismatic cult leader for her followers that is quite typically Beta quadra and definitely also has the quadra values of romantic heroism and power. She tends to appeal to youth a lot as well due to her daring and charisma, and the logical aspect of her philosophy was done more after the fact and she had a rather mystical view of the power and infallibility of strict logical reasoning that some EIE fall into (like Jack Aaron, for example). Because she based her views on reasoning, it was basically religiously forbidden for her followers to disagree with her conclusions.
DeleteWhat you say about Rand makes sense. She definitely developed a cult like following. Her sometimes brittle dogmatism is one of her least palatable aspects, in my opinion. I take your point regarding her strict logical reasoning taking on a religious note. Would you say something a little similar for Richard Dawkins in some ways? Different fields, but they do remind me one another in some ways. Pippen could very well be LSI. This is my typing of him. I have also considered ESI for him, but I like LSI a little more. Your comment about power sensors is interesting. I will have to give that some thought. However, most of my experience with considering type in relation to professional athletes has been in relation to NBA basketball, so my interpretation is likely biased by this fact. I am not against EIE for MJ, but it will take some further consideration on my part. I will have to set aside my bias of viewing the combination of a ruthlessness in competition, an incredible drive to win, and freakish athletic ability as being a very F sort of triad. there is an incredible intensity about it as well. Often times it is very disruptive to the team unless the player is unusually gifted, even for an NBA player. I am thinking MJ, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Garnet as some examples. Not saying that this invalidates them as being other than a power sensing type, just that I will have to set my bias aside. Thank you for taking the time to humor me; I appreciate it. I will attempt to take some classes at the SHS whenever I can. Hopefully, I can get typed and work on some personal issues as well. I just have to come up with the funds to do so.
DeleteAny thoughts on Joe Rogan's personality type? I have never been able to make up my mind for Joe.
ReplyDeleteHe is probably an SLE. At the very least, he seems like a power sensing type, and seems more tough and straightforward (based also a lot on his martial arts background which is very Beta) as compared to a more charming and performative SEE. His subtype at this point is likely Harmonizing or Creative, since his role seems to be entertaining lots of new ideas and guests and smoothing over rough edges even though he is a good interviewer that asks tough questions.
DeleteYes, this makes perfect sense.
DeleteQuestion, do you not find Enneagram's instinctual variants to carry much weight? I've read that it's the other half of the Enneagram but, though you bring it up slightly in this debate, you never seem to talk about it throughout your blog. I'm Sx/Sp and find it makes a huge difference. Or have you maybe found the behaviors better represented in Socionics and so don't think it's worth talking about?
ReplyDeleteThis debate was so long ago that I hardly even remember what I said or whether it reflects my current views or not. That being said, in the enneagram variants I currently tend to use (e.g. Katherine Fauvre's, Enneagrammar's, and a few more), instinctual variants are indeed quite important. I do not discourage their usage, so if you find them to be valuable and important then I see nothing wrong with that.
DeleteOooo, Enneagrammer, I can never seem to get their system. I guess you have better luck than me as I find myself fitting in into so many of their instinctual stacking descriptions. Thanks for getting back to me.
Delete