Talk:Adolf Hitler

From Wikisocion

"His life as a failed student of art and architecture before fighting in WWI had a "go-with-the-flow" flavour, in pursuit of specific dreams, which seem to fit more IEI rather than EIE." - EIE and IEI resemble each other, you could be very dreamy and EIE rather than IEI, and Hitler seemed more relevant to EJ than IP. Machintruc 06:23, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

As it is, the argument "for EIE" does not state why EIE should be preferable to IEI. Expat 20:11, 24 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] On use of Reinin dichotomies for historical typing

I would caution about reliance on Reinin dichotomies (as in the section on "for IEE") in these for/against sections on historical figures. First, since Reinin dichotomies are controversial in themselves, and there is no consensus on their use as a historical typing technique, a certain lack of clarity between levels results. Basically, that section is both "for IEE" and "for Reinin dichotomies as a method of historical typing."

I think it would actually be much better to have a section devoted to Reinin as a historical typing technique, and then within that section one could type a bunch of people; or one could have a section on Reinin-based typings at the bottom of the historical figures. But at any rate it shouldn't be parallel to the other for/against arguments.

I would also caution against the tendency for "meaning drift" which is common when people use Reinin. Basically, there is good reason to believe that there is some sort of consistent structural commonality in each Reinin-defined group. But then one goes from that to the language that was used to explain what that might be (almost never discussed or dissected at length). And then one goes from that to one's own interpretation of what those words might mean....so it becomes sort of like a game of telephone (in my opinion) in which it is not clear if the original meaning in the Reinin dichotomy has anything to do with the final outcome. --Jonathan 03:29, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Socionics is as controversial as are Reinin traits themselves, and there are no rules expressly prohibiting their usage (indeed Reinin is accepted enough to have been used on pages all over wikisocion). The arguments for the other NFs that have been made are even more unambiguous than the ones that I gave (and are totally irrelevant since they don't describe Hitler personally using appropriately credible sources which I did), but apparently Expat was the only one who was even bothered by this. If you do choose to overlook the 11 Reinin traits then you can still evaluate the original 4 Jungian dichotomies which have also been accommodated; however, you cannot dictate that the Reinin traits are unacceptable for inclusion until you have disproved them conclusively, and even then you should take it up on the Reinin pages themselves before you try to take on the rest of wikisocion. The problems that you have mentioned with interpretation can be applied to anything in socionics or any other field, but fortunately I have provided legitimate examples to clarify what I mean so that is not an issue in this case (and if you don't know what the Reinin traits are then you can hardly dispute them...based on your argument below I might suggest that you learn them first). IMO it would be nice if the other typings offered some type of factual support as well.
--Meganeura 04:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Well, I didn't mean to suggest that exploring Reinin as a typing tool shouldn't be tried or is out of bounds; it's just that a complete reliance on it just seemed unbalanced with the other the other for/against suggestions. As you mention, the lack of balance may also be due to the lack of factual support in the other sections. --Jonathan 21:06, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I'm impressed with the long and careful analysis of Hitler from a Reinin perspective, even more with the fact that someone feels they have made sense of the dichotomies sufficiently to use them for typing, and that information elements would at the same time be seen as difficult for typing purposes. I can't refute the IEE argument on the basis of Reinin dichotomies, but I will write up a response against IEE using information elements. It is true that in Russian papers on famous people's types, it is common to appeal to a few Reinin dichotomies in the course of an argument. There are a few people or schools who use all of them and claim understanding. So it is natural that the ongoing debate between a model approach and a dichotomy approach would spill over onto the English language Wikisocion. Also, Meganeura's fundamentally     approach demands an     response for a proper debate. --Admin 19:24, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Thanks. I look forward to it --Meganeura 05:57, 6 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Examples of problems with Reinin dichotomies in the for-IEE section

Particularly problemmatic is the interpretation of the fact that he had certain "rules of thumb" that he kept as being evidence of being a "static type" (and hence IEE over EIE). The examples given could just as easily be seen as Ti-related (which would support EIE over IEE). In fact, they make no sense as examples of being a "static" type unless one can show that they are evidence of Ne or Fi. This is a common pitfall of using Reinin dichotomies improperly. If one saw Fi or Ne, then one might point out the "static" qualities that would give further confirmation of those IM elements. But independently of considering any IM elements, vague indications of being "static" mean little or nothing.

There are other problems with the Reinin traits here that similarly seem like misunderstandings, but I won't go into them at the moment. --Jonathan 03:43, 5 October 2008 (BST)

For future reference, Ti is a static IM element, but not the one that is valued by Deltas and I gave explicit evidence negating the preference for Ti in the 'feeling' and 'serious' sections, among others. As you have indicated that you are unclear on the definition of 'static', it includes both Ti and Fi as well as Ne and Se, so your argument is invalid. That my arguments might support Ti because they support the most general aspects of static temperaments is possible, but I have given the arguments against Ti (in the appropriate sections) which leaves Fi (which is also static). I personally think that the discussion of 'extroverted judging functions' on your userpage suffers from a severe lack of understanding of the dynamic temperaments and their interaction, and as far as I can tell the arguments that I gave (directly from the witness accounts in Hitler's comprehensive psychological profile) for static temperament in the form of such axiomatic ethical principles as never allow the public to cool off, never admit a fault or wrong, never concede that there may be some good in your enemy... in themselves distinctly indicate Fi more than any other static IM element.
--Meganeura 04:14, 5 October 2008 (BST)

My only point about the static section is that it didn't explicitly state why you think the examples are Fi and not Ti. Yes, I know that the static elements are Fi, Ti, Ne, and Se. In this Talk discussion, you've mentioned why you think this is Fi and not Ti, but I think it would be useful in the article itself, and when using static vs. dynamic as a typing argument generally.

Ultimately, the question is whether the rules you mention (never allow the public to cool off, never admit a fault or wrong, never concede that there may be some good in your enemy) are examples of Fi (because they're applied to the field of interpersonal situations) or Ti as used in an Fe context (because they're stated in the form of clear, distinct rules). I guess that would be the more fruitful avenue of discussion rather than us getting caught in a silly argument of how stupid the other person is. As to your criticism on the experimental formulation (the alternate way of looking at things section) on my user page, perhaps you can explain that in the talk for that page. I agree that that idea I put on my page doesn't explicitly make clear the relation of those elements to dynamic vs. static, although I think it is compatible with that dichotomy. --Jonathan 21:17, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Perhaps, but I thought that the article was rather long as it was. As for your definition, I was not sure at the time that you had accounted for the Dynamic temperament, which I believe is fundamental to the expression of those elements. Other than that it is not in any way incorrect.
--Meganeura 21:38, 5 October 2008 (BST)

By the way, I looked for references in your for-EII section to reasons why Hitler valued Fi rather than Ti. I guess you're probably referring to the section on him fitting the "serious" dichotomy, where the main argument seems to be that he was personally very serious about things and preferred to call people by proper titles, and hence must be in a Te/Fi quadra. Is that basically the idea? --Jonathan 21:23, 5 October 2008 (BST)

That is one example, there is also the point that he abhorred theoretical logic and prided himself on giving practical solutions.
--Meganeura 21:38, 5 October 2008 (BST)

As to other problems I had with this section, I guess the use of "autocratic" instead of the "aristocratic" Reinin trait seemed wrong to me. We all know that Hitler was autocratic. But I don't think ST/NFs are necessarily autocratic in that way. Maybe it should be changed to say "aristocratic"? --Jonathan 21:23, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I have heard both designations used, but if you prefer I will change the Heading to Aristocratic.
--Meganeura 21:38, 5 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Serious Reinin Trait as applied here

I guess another question I have with this analysis concerns the use of the merry/serious dichotomy. This part sounds legitimately like objective/serious to me because it seems to indicate a preference for Te: "Unencumbered with abstract theories or traditional points of view and prejudices he is able to look at complex problems in a rather naive way and pick out the most salient and significant elements and apply them to the present situation in a fairly simple and workable manner." (Even there, one must be careful in applying this concept, since a preference to applying something to the situation (the object) as opposed to the theory (the relations between concepts) may also be a sign of extraversion.)

However, I wonder about the part about taking himself seriously and not having a good sense of humor. I know there are a lot of people who have been considered Delta or Gamma who have a great sense of humor, or are self-deprecating, or both. Although some Fe types are known for telling jokes as a way of influencing the emotional atmosphere, I cannot see any reason why lacking a sense of humor or taking oneself too seriously would indicate Te/Fi quadras.

This is one of those cases that gave me at least the initial impression that it is the fact that someone chose the word "serious" to name this particular Reinin trait that led to this Reinin trait as being interpreted as meaning that the person takes him/herself very seriously and is generally humorless.

In my initial comments, perhaps I was a bit hasty in suggesting that the analysis here didn't or couldn't make sense, but here would be at least one question I would pose, which also pertains to the appropriate use of Reinin traits. --Jonathan 04:19, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I would like to add that I don't think that the Du/Sie thing means much one way or the other. I know Germany and Germans, and the German language, very well. Even today, you may well spend years, decades, in a fairly cordial professional relationship that can be even "intimate", and yet never make the transition to "Du". For people of Hitler's generation I'd expect that to be even more often the case. As for his sense of humor, the Table Talk does contain examples of him mildly poking fun at himself. It has also been reported that he watched, in private, a smuggled copy of Chaplin's The Great Dictator - twice. Also, even in Mein Kampf he jokes about his father Alois having been called Schicklgruber from birth and Hitler being the name of Alois's stepfather, so that he, Adolf Hitler, could easily have ended up being named "Adolf Schicklgruber" and that a career in politics would have been much more difficult - I think that some of his associates (Goebbels?) even joked in his presence that thankfully they didn't have to say "Heil Schicklgruber". My point is that Hitler's problem may have had to do more with disliking being ridiculed in public, especially in a way that could undermine him, rather than lacking any sense of humor at all - which is perfectly consistent with a Beta typing. Expat 11:27, 10 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Against IEE

This does not constitute a rebuttal of the other arguments nor does it provide an independent claim to support the premise that Hitler was not IEE. No one has refuted the 'Against IEI' claim though it contains only a premise founded on the negativist Reinin trait and another on the extroverted Jungian trait, and the correlations of the vague impressions and circumstantial anecdotes used in the other typings to Hitler's information metabolism are dubious at best, even if the facts themselves are true and the incomprehensibly associated information elements are more commonly accepted for typing. Once again, if the dichotomies themselves are to be contested at all then they should be contested on the correct page, not here.
--Meganeura 06:50, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I think anyone with a brain should be able to see that your argument is nonsensical reinin-babble, but: The dichotomies are contested at Reinin_dichotomies#Criticism. Referencing the ongoing criticism towards Reinin dichotomies is entirely appropriate for this topic. What is or is not said in the Against IEI box is not pertinent to the Against IEE box. End of story. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 07:06, 5 October 2008 (BST)