Talk:Abraham Lincoln
From Wikisocion
I uploaded a picture from Wikipedia to Wikisocion -- "Abraham_Lincoln.jpg". I think we should include a picture of each person on their page (presumably from Wikipedia), but I don't know how to shrink pictures to thumbnail size and align them in neat boxes to the right of the text. (Admin 02:43, 23 June 2007 (CDT))
- "Lincoln was an expert at making a very clear, logical case based on the facts. In debates and detailed speeches, he pinpointed the exact facts that made his points and demonstrated that his opponents' arguments were factually flawed. This possibly demonstrates strong rather than merely dual-seeking Te." --Jonathan 23 January 2008 (GMT)
- This requires elaboration. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:44, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
- Just some clarification: I put in a number of new comments "against EII," not because I think he necessarily wasn't EII, but rather because I think some discussion/clarification of these points is warranted. What I was thinking about regarding him possibly having strong is his Cooper Union Address. I understand that even there, one might also see evidence for him being EII. The link I just found says that it took him a lot of effort to write that. And, with the emotional close, the emphasis on duty and all that, it could be viewed as -oriented. Still, I can't help but be impressed with his skills in linking well-researched facts to the core issues of the debate...If it's not strong , what is it? Is this typical for EIIs, or do we simply say here that Lincoln was an atypical EII? Is there anything in this speech (besides the emotionally powerful themes about duty, etc.) that would point to being weak-valued rather than strong-valued? Could anyone see him as possibly ILI, and if not, why not? --Jonathan 00:06, 23 January 2008 (GMT)
- I don't understand you. You keep arguing that one should not see "competency" as "strong", and now you say that his skills in connecting facts to core issues suggests "strong " - I wish you'd make up your mind. That is precisely the kind of thing Richard Nixon (seen as ESI, also by me) did or try to do in his speeches, which he also took very long to write, with a lot of effort (by his own account). I see it as valuing but not having it as a ego function. Expat 11:06, 23 January 2008 (GMT)
- Just some clarification: I put in a number of new comments "against EII," not because I think he necessarily wasn't EII, but rather because I think some discussion/clarification of these points is warranted. What I was thinking about regarding him possibly having strong is his Cooper Union Address. I understand that even there, one might also see evidence for him being EII. The link I just found says that it took him a lot of effort to write that. And, with the emotional close, the emphasis on duty and all that, it could be viewed as -oriented. Still, I can't help but be impressed with his skills in linking well-researched facts to the core issues of the debate...If it's not strong , what is it? Is this typical for EIIs, or do we simply say here that Lincoln was an atypical EII? Is there anything in this speech (besides the emotionally powerful themes about duty, etc.) that would point to being weak-valued rather than strong-valued? Could anyone see him as possibly ILI, and if not, why not? --Jonathan 00:06, 23 January 2008 (GMT)
- You raise a valid point. I suggested the "evidence of strong " argument as just one possibility, playing devil's advocate. But you're correct that I mentioned points related to competency of rather than restricting my comments to talking only about confidence in . It seems to me that he used both competently and confidently, but I'm not really convinced that he wasn'tEII, and perhaps I should have made a clearer distinction. If one wanted to split hairs, one could argue that ego-block functions are typically characterized by confidence, and also competence proportional to a person's overall competence and ability...and that dual-seeking functions are typically characterized primarily by a tendency to seek help from others in that particular area. However, Lincoln was not a typical person, and therefore it is quite possible to see him as an EII who greatly excelled in . --Jonathan 00:58, 28 January 2008 (GMT)
- Jonathan, your "against EII" arguments are more aimed at the "for EII" arguments rather than look for original arguments against EII. It's the kind of thing machintruc does. It's not helpful because then the argumentation is moved from socionics to history, which may be better addressed here. For instance, I don't think that Lincoln "wisely let the generals do their jobs" because he kept replacing them and was exasperated by them, especially McClellan. I don't think Lincoln was "I should let them do their job" but rather "I think they are doing a rotten job, but I'm not sure" until the point reached when he would replace them -- it can be argued that he was "looking" for a Te general all the time, until the found Grant (if he was SLI). If he felt it was "wise to let them to their jobs", why the second-guessing and frequent replacements? So, if you want to question the argumentation from the historical PoV, I suggest we do it here. Expat 11:02, 23 January 2008 (GMT)
- This is also a valid point. I see the "for EII" arguments as greatly in need of revision. Probably if I were to look at the "for" arguments in other historical typing pages, I would have a similar reaction. The comments simply do not make a solid case for EII, but rather make broad generalizations that suggest that only Deltas would advocate reconciliation, only people with weak would be hesitant to overrule more experienced military personnel on military matters, only someone with PoLR would be viewed as indecisive, and so forth. However, you're quite right that most of my comments probably would have been better here on the discussion page. Perhaps I'll move them. --Jonathan 01:06, 28 January 2008 (GMT)
- I don't understand this "only someone with fill-in-the-blank would be viewed as fill-in-the-blank" thing. For instance, the point is not really that "only someone with PoLR would be seen as indecisive"; the point is that he was seen as indecisive, even - or especially - by his own cabinet, and that strongly suggests low - not necessarily as PoLR, but it is one of several things pointing towards EII, or at least a similar type. Grant, in his memoirs, also says that everyone who knew Lincoln personally saw him as extremely kind-hearted. And so on and so forth. How else shall we argue for historial typings then? Do you want me to write a doctoral thesis in each case? Expat 06:10, 28 January 2008 (GMT)
- This is also a valid point. I see the "for EII" arguments as greatly in need of revision. Probably if I were to look at the "for" arguments in other historical typing pages, I would have a similar reaction. The comments simply do not make a solid case for EII, but rather make broad generalizations that suggest that only Deltas would advocate reconciliation, only people with weak would be hesitant to overrule more experienced military personnel on military matters, only someone with PoLR would be viewed as indecisive, and so forth. However, you're quite right that most of my comments probably would have been better here on the discussion page. Perhaps I'll move them. --Jonathan 01:06, 28 January 2008 (GMT)
- Perhaps I'm being too harsh in citing all those cases. It was just the wording that gave me the impression that the "for" arguments overstate the case that certain positions automatically point to specific types. In particular: "...was of reconciliation and of treating the defeated states as equals as soon as possible. This suggests a general Delta approach." When I read that ("this suggests..."), it just seems to overstate the connection between reconciliation and Delta. Maybe it's the way I'm reading it. I believe any type might take a reconciliatory approach. Pointing out that Lincoln was unusually convincing and natural in the way he voiced a conciliatory position might be a stronger argument for EII, in my opinion. I understand the limitations inherent in the fact that nobody has unlimited time to perfect each of these descriptions. But I think I'm still entitled to point out the problems I see in them. --Jonathan 03:31, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
- Fair enough, but in the context of the time, reconciliation wasn't the political consensus at all - so much so that after Lincoln's assassination Andrew Johnson couldn't do it, despite being from the South himself, or perhaps precisely because of that. So Lincoln was personally very persuaded of that, when it wasn't "obvious", and this does strenghten the case towards Delta. Now, in order to make a stronger case, we'd have to look at how he actually argued for it, which I will do at some point. Expat 09:08, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
- Perhaps I'm being too harsh in citing all those cases. It was just the wording that gave me the impression that the "for" arguments overstate the case that certain positions automatically point to specific types. In particular: "...was of reconciliation and of treating the defeated states as equals as soon as possible. This suggests a general Delta approach." When I read that ("this suggests..."), it just seems to overstate the connection between reconciliation and Delta. Maybe it's the way I'm reading it. I believe any type might take a reconciliatory approach. Pointing out that Lincoln was unusually convincing and natural in the way he voiced a conciliatory position might be a stronger argument for EII, in my opinion. I understand the limitations inherent in the fact that nobody has unlimited time to perfect each of these descriptions. But I think I'm still entitled to point out the problems I see in them. --Jonathan 03:31, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
[edit] Problems with the "For EII" arguments
I moved the following points off the main page as they're mainly criticism of the "For EII" arguments:
His reading up on military matters but still deferring to his generals may have simply indicated that he wasn't particularly knowledgeable about military matters or that he wisely let the military experts do their jobs instead of micromanaging them, rather than meaning that he had weak .
Similarly, EII, IEI, LII, and ILI could all be seen as somewhat indecisive at times, especially compared to people with strong . Therefore, any indication of indecision or weak does not necessarily point to EII.
As to whether his reconciliatory, non-punitive approach to the aftermath of the war points to Delta, it is very likely that for any policy decision, people of all 16 types can probably found favoring each of the major options. In particular, it would be simplistic to claim that people in -valuing quadras would necessarily all favor some sort of punitive, revenge-oriented policy. While effectively and consistently articulating reconciliation-oriented messages may point to EII, simply favoring a conciliatory policy in a specific instance doesn't point to or rule out any type. It should further be noted that his earlier decisions were less conciliatory (e.g., he didn't favor compromising with the South over the expansion of slavery or negotiating a quick end to the conflict by allowing the southern states to secede. So pointing to his conciliatory approach at the end of the war as being conclusive about type could be seen as cherry-picking the data to support a particular conclusion).
Outwardly demonstrating could possibly be read as consistent with the activation function, and therefore does not conclusively point to base-function .--Jonathan 01:11, 28 January 2008 (GMT)
