Feb 23, 2007

The Man Who Can Move Anything

Wally Wallington is a man who can singlehandedly move very heavy objects - not with the aid of machinery or even brute strength,but rather using simple mechanical means.

Here is a 6-minute video showing him moving many-ton stones using techniques that he believes may have been used to build Stonehenge.

First, some non-socionic insights on the nature of invention.

What this man has done might not seem too incredible. Anyone might have come up with this if they had just thought about it long enough. In fact, most inventors would agree that "ingenious ideas" come simply after thinking about things long enough.

Some ideas come through reflection and concentrated thought. Others come only through activity and application. It may be a common Myers-Briggs stereotype that intuitive types are more inventive, but socionics basically accepts that people of all types can be equally inventive, but they tend to display it in different ways. More generally, people demonstrate inventiveness and competency in areas related to their strong functions and conservatism (and often incompetency) in their weak areas.

So, now on to the man's socionic type.

As I have said, we can't type the man based on his inventiveness alone or even on the field of his inventiveness. What he has shown in practice, someone else might have been able to describe in theory. However, the process by which he arrived at his invention suggests sensing. He had to have the persistence and patience to spend long hours doing essentially physical activities and obtain enjoyment from them. Everything in this video suggests that the day-to-day process of turning stones, building scaffolding, and shifting weights around in clever ways is an enjoyable "flow" experience for him. Since these things engage physical receptors and involve direct physical contact with objects, we can associate this with sensing.

If he were intuitive, we would expect him to have spent just enough time on practical applications to get the general idea and realize that this was possible. He would very likely have spent a greater proportion of his time, for example, on looking for information in books on ancient construction techniques.

The other dichotomy that is easy to observe is logic. Wallington is not at all emotionally expressive, but speaks in a plain, matter-of-fact style about what he is doing and the characteristics of the blocks. When the huge stone falls into place, his enthusiasm is incredibly restrained: an expressionless "looks good" is all he says about it while everyone claps.

Now, which "vertness" of these elements dominates? extraverted logic or introverted logic? extraverted sensing or introverted sensing?

Since he is concerned with the logic of objects themselves - and not systems or interrelations between objects - we can suppose that this is extraverted logic. This is supported by the fact that it is clearly extraverted ethics that Wallington "suppresses" - not introverted ethics. He keeps a lid on all displays of emotion and excitement.

Next, it seems that Wallington's focus is on introverted sensing rather than extraverted sensing. He is not out there to "conquer" or "subdue" the stones, but rather to enjoy himself. Erecting things is clearly a pastime that he is happy to enjoy in solitude. His general air is one of relaxation and not mobilization.

Now we are down to two options - LSE and SLI. Both are very credible, but SLI seems more likely due to his relaxedness and air of simplicity and down-to-earthness. However, these are also common characteristics of LSEs, so I can't rule that out until I read more about him.

4 comments:

Yi Liu said...

I would like to see someone with an introverted ethics PoLR.

Rick said...

I've shown two so far - an ILE and an SLE (find them through the post topics in the right hand column).

Anonymous said...

It works, but only at a very basic level. Stones can be seen and touch, but microchips can not. I wonder how sensing can be useful at all to discover microscopic things.

Rick said...

>> I wonder how sensing can be useful at all to discover microscopic things.

As long as there is visual data, form, and matter involved, sensing is easily applicable and relevant.