User talk:Admin/LIE

From Wikisocion

[edit] Brzezinski

I agree on the type of Brzezinski himself; not sure how relevant for socionics his comments on the presidents are. On Carter, well, he owes Carter the zenith of his public life, when he was National Security Advisor. Since Brzezinski helped shape Carter's foreign policy, he could hardly be very critical of it. Also, the whole idea of "human rights" was more Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's thing than Brzezinski's; towards the end of Carter's presidency, Vance's influence decreased and Brzezinski's increased. Vance was the typical "negotiation over conflict" guy, which was the opposite stance to Brzezinski's. I think Vance had to be a     type, and it seems odd that an EII would end up taking the     side. Anyway, my point is that I'm not sure that Brzezinski's comments on Carter's foreign policy necessarily reflect their intertype relationship. But I don't have more useful comments than these at the moment. Expat 10:18, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Well, in an obviously     situation, any type will be compelled to take the     course of action. I thought Brzezinski's comments on the presidents contained enough personal sentiment (between the lines, perhaps) that they could be type-related. For instance, he makes it clear that any type of hyped-up, melodramatic rhetoric (such as Reagan's or Bush II's) is distasteful to him; of course, he cloaks his reasons in professional rather than psychological language. He is against exaggerated (and thus untruthful and misleading), polarizing rhetoric. Even though he mentions that in Reagan's case it was partly effective, he still believes Reagan took things in a bad direction. He seems to view Carter as a "wise" person and respects his non-polarizing focus on human rights, probably because it didn't require foisting hype and false truths on the public, and was a real issue rather than a contrived one. Bush I he respects strongly for his professionalism and "quality work" — a clear    -related respect. Clinton he has mixed views towards, acknowledging his intelligence and a certain pragmatism (at least he didn't have any messianic delusions) while criticizing his overly sunny optimism/naivete. Of course, Bush II he totally rips apart, as he is something of an epitome of everything distasteful to Brzezinski and clearly was the stimulus to write the book in the first place.

Now, granted, everyone rips Bush II apart these days, so that alone is not type-related. But B. seems to reject altogether any type of messianic or "it's us versus them" rhetoric in general. He acknowledges that politics involves national interests, pressure, and tough talk, but he does not accept tough talk cloathed in melodrama and emotional appeal, which is what he criticizes both Reagan and Bush II for. It seems like a politician's worst sin in B's eyes is to propogate delusions. B's ideal leader is a professional, pragmatic person like Bush I, but with a greater sense of strategy and global understanding of how a decision or movement in one area will reverberate in another. Therefore, his ideal leader is... well, himself — the         :-)

By the way, of any LIE I have studied, you remind me most of Brzezinski :) --Admin 15:04, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Interesting :) I have to buy the book sometime. I see nothing to disagree on your points, they all make sense. But I still have a problem with Carter as EII, for reasons related not only to his own traits but also to some other relationships. Carter "the human rights guy" is just one part of his carefully constructed image; if you look at his career as a whole, there is a lot more. As I mentioned elsewhere, the then German chancellor Helmut Schmidt had nothing but contempt for Carter, both personally and politically. Now this is relevant because I type Schmidt as LSE, and his close friend and political ally Giscard d'Estaing (who shares his views of Carter) as LIE. Anyway this is really a discussion of Carter's rather than Brzezinski's type. Expat 16:20, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

As a personal observation on Brzezinski. Around 1987 or thereabouts, Reader's Digest asked Brzezinski, Kissinger, Nixon, Ford, and Carter to write a paragraph or two on their views on Gorbachev's chances of succeeding with perestroika, and even of surviving. Except for Brzezinski, all of them said variations of "he will somehow survive and succeed", although Nixon commented that the slow pace in economic reform would reduce the USSR's power. Brzezinski was the only one to get it right - he said that Gorbachev would lose control of the political liberalization and that the USSR would not be kept together. His concluding words were (from memory), "Gorbachev's legacy will be a Soviet Union in protracted turmoil". He said that at a time when the flattery of Gorbachev in the west just a little less intense than of Obama today. Expat 16:46, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Carter discussion moved to User talk:Admin/EII#Carter'

[edit] Richard Feynman

This is interesting. I tentatively typed him ILE based on what I recalled from a book or two of his that I read several years ago. What are your reasons for LIE? Ritella 09:33, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

I probably read the same book. My typing is based primarily on interviews, particulary this one. --Admin 18:21, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Hugh Hefner

Is gross. Do you really think he could have Fi DS (AND weak Se)? You should check out Holly Madison. She's one of his 3 gf's- though now they are separated- featured in the show "Girls Next Door." From watching the show, I think they're either duals or something else very favourable. He said she was the "love of his life;" they split up recently only because he wouldn't marry and (couldn't) impregnate her. Ritella 02:06, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

Rick, as with BHO, I suspect we have some fundamental differences of opinion regarding LIEs :) ! Expat 08:17, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

What are your opinions of his type? LIE is my best guess based on video interviews. I'm open to other possibilities. Also, what do you think Holly Madison's type is? --Admin 18:13, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

I think he's EIE. No idea whatsoever about Holly Madison. Expat 19:44, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

I think he's a Beta Extrovert, though I would have said SLE > EIE. I think Holly could be SEI. If not that, then another Fe-ego type, I think. Ritella 21:20, 29 October 2008 (GMT)

Rick, I think my disagreement with you regarding the "LIE or EIE" question is that you seem to look for the "EIE     dramatism"; when you don't see it, if the person seems more, hmm, restrained, then your inclination is to go for LIE. My problem with that is that in my experience, and opinion, a very common kind of EIE is the "yuppie successful politician or corporate professional", which is the stereotype Ennegram 3 "achiever". Those guys "become" their own self-perceived image of a successful professional, which may include being "serious" when the occasion calls for it - just like JFK. In those cases, I think that a closer look is necessary. In Hefner's case, it is hard to see the     suggestive function as Ritella said - and things like his hedonist lifestyle as per the Playboy mansion are much more typical of the EIE kind of weak     than the LIE's (we discusssed that at some length in Duesseldorf). In BHO's case, what I have problem seeing is that he'd actually have stronger     than    . To me he's using     to appear    -ish, just like Tony Blair trying to appear    -ish. Expat 10:29, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Yes. I completely agree with this. I think anything but Beta for Hefner is out of the question. Also, I'm fairly positive that he plays little to no part in the business/entrepenurial aspect of the company, which he leaves to his daughter; his key role is crafting an image of a marketable dream lifestyle. About BHO: In every video appearance he seems incredibly controlling of his image. Yes, it might be one of a more serious, business type- or LIE, if you will- but he's undoubtedly a mastermind at manipulating the atmosphere. This is a small detail, but his comment to his daughters, "you've earned the puppy that is coming with us to the white house," struck me as incredibly showy and similar to the sort of public- as opposed to private- displays of affection that my EIE mother would do (and that I always considered insincere, as a child). Does he really need to be publicly broadcasting that? In general, all of the EIE's I know are of this more serious/subdued and intellectual type. In fact, I don't know any who I would classify as dramatic. My ILI father looks more     dramatic than my EIE mother, who has virtually no sense of humor. And Expat's yuppie comment is very true. If the EIE went to an Ivy League school and/or grew up in the more affluent or "old money" areas of the Northeast, they tend to personify this image a lot. Ritella 12:23, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

I do think some EIEs can classify as "dramatic", but in many cases that is seen in private rather than in public (since their public image is so important). I have a problem with the concept of LIEs being the kind of "charismatic politician" of the Obama of JFK sort - I mean individuals who base all of their political success on their charisma. Nicolas Sarkozy, whom I type as LIE, is anything but charismatic, in fact, he is loathed to a large degree and often "loses control" of his public image. Yulia Tymoshenko and Tony Blair, also LIEs in my opinion, go through a great effort to "become" charismatic, but in their cases it seems artificial. A good illustration of this was in the movie The Queen, showing some people cringe at Blair's "call me Tony" persona. I was in the UK when Blair became prime minister, and his "fake    " was the point of lots of cartoons and sketches about him. Expat 13:06, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

I have known a few of the "EIE yuppy type" myself. However, each of them was melodramatic; they would become very impassioned and earnest, especially about negative phenomena. They had an ability to infect other people with their attitudes and create a sense of vision or alarm. I think we're using the word "dramatic" in different ways here. I don't mean "sense of humor" or effusiveness. I think perhaps the better word is "melodramatic." Whether an EIE is effusive or restrained, they are so in an exaggerated way, in order to make a point or create an effect, to stand out in their demeanor from the crowd.

As for Hefner and Obama, I'm open to EIE for either of them, as these typings are not set in stone. --Admin 14:37, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Okay. If you watch the final few episodes of his reality show "Girls Next Door" and read some of the recent statements made by his 3 girlfriends, the socionics types become fairly obvious. Because all 3 girls are now leaving him and the show, more truthful depictions have been allowed to emerge from the superficial facade and tone that the producers have successfully created. My typings are: Kendra (SLE), Bridget (SEI), Holly (ESI), Hef (EIE). Each of the girls' relationship to Hef is fairly consistent with their socionics relationships, IMO.

Kendra is by far the most unapologetically honest about just being his gf for the perks. She also recently released a candid statement about their sex life and later apologized for unintentionally hurting Hef and his image, saying that "hef understands me and how i meant it." I think that both of these things can be considered manifestations of her Fi-PoLR. Hef and Kendra seem to find each other the most amusing, but have the least "relationship," so activity works.

SEI for Bridget is really the only option... She also always gave me the impression of being the one most romantically "out of the loop"/ sexually out of sync. This makes sense if she is the only caregiver, while the other 2 gf's are agressors and Hef is a victim.

Holly is the only gf who actually considers herself in a "relationship" with Hef. She shares a bed with Hef and frequently comments that she wants to marry and have children with him. While the other girls, and Hef, restrict their emotions to a general Fe-atmosphere of group antics, Holly is frequently seen confessing her feelings and being vulnerable. Albeit an obviously weird relationship, mirage- IMO- fits perfectly. It's not hard to see that they're very comfortable with each other: they have called each other "soul mates," or something to that effect. And, consistent with my impression of mirage relations, Holly and Hef each dabble in their ignoring functions, when in the other's presence. Ritella

[edit] Pinker

He is dating Rebecca Goldstein, who I think is EII. here is a cute interview. Ritella 21:23, 17 November 2008 (GMT)

Thanks, interesting. --Admin 21:45, 17 November 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Brad Pitt

I don't really see SLE as an option; my guess is EIE. A few good interviews:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP5LXOD0tnE
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oENbrrbssIU&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFw3Ed-cQxc&feature=related

Thehotelambush 21:53, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Thanks. I see some arguments against LIE, too. One is his sort of affected coy demeanor in interviews. I can't yet put my finger on what that's all about. --Admin 15:06, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

What stands out to me is how much he talks about people and social/moral issues, no     to speak of. I would also consider IEI or possibly even Delta NF. However his movie roles seem more typically    -motivated (exciting, cool, and not always terribly deep). Also Fight Club, one of his more iconic movies, is totally about     (albeit realized in an     fashion). Thehotelambush 04:36, 18 January 2009 (GMT)

[edit] Joanne Woodward

(moved from IEI talk page)

(:Okay, so at least we agree that she and Paul Newman were duals! Expat 16:49, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, I think that is highly likely — not so much because they were together for 50 years, but because of their statements about their marriage, and because they often appeared together. --Admin 18:22, 23 October 2008 (BST)