Bitcoin and Socionics

Over the past 1–2 years I've learned a lot about Bitcoin. Here I'm going to briefly share a few typings and socionics-related observations about Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community. 

It's not surprising that most vocal advocates for Bitcoin are intuitive types. Bitcoin is intangible and promises to transform the world over time. There are probably more sensing types among miners; cryptocurrency mining is, at the moment, the most tangible aspect of the network and produces immediate real-world rewards.

Among intuitive types, there seems to be a predominance of  types, particularly ILE. Bitcoin is a synthesis of ideas, a conceptual framework, a revolutionary monetary technology, the most thermodynamically sound money known to man. Bitcoin advocates who speak the conceptual language of  seem to enjoy the most attention at this stage in Bitcoin's development.

The best example is perhaps Michael Saylor (ILE, 80% certainty), head of MicroStrategy, the first company to convert its balance sheet to bitcoin in the summer of 2020. Saylor's numerous interviews display unassailable logic, big-picture, first-principles thinking, and a penchant for contrarianism.

From my exposure to Satoshi Nakamoto's writings (the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin), I would surmise that his type was also ILE (50% certainty). He demonstrated a high-level grasp of numerous relevant fields and superb systems thinking and often presented thought experiments.

Bitcoin's most obvious blind spot is . It's all well and good that Bitcoin is the most technically superior form of money and occupies a logical place in the broad arc of history, but what of the state's ability to coerce people into using fiat currency, upon which the centralized state has derived much of its power for over a century? Bitcoiners' arguments tend to look weak in this area. More astute advocates appeal to game theory—a sort of theory of power games or "intuitivized" —to demonstrate how Bitcoin comes to dominate over time despite the fact that it potentially undermines the power of the state.

There also seem to be plenty of  and  types in the Bitcoin community, for example, Saifedean Ammous (LIE, 60% certainty), author of The Bitcoin Standard, arguably the best book on Bitcoin. LIEs tend to be less interested in conceptual frameworks and more focused on how exactly the superior technology works and how it changes economic incentives, as well as historical antecedents. Another prominent figure is Adam Back (ILI, 60% certainty).

Bitcoin has plenty of detractors. I would divide them into 4 camps:

1. Those who are simply not intelligent or informed enough to understand how Bitcoin works and thus write the whole thing off using deeply flawed arguments.

2. Those who are capable of understanding Bitcoin, but have been indoctrinated with ideas incompatible with a deep understanding of Bitcoin, such as: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), statism, socialism, political populism, leftist environmentalism, social idealism, and conspiracy thinking.

3. Those who more or less understand Bitcoin, but have a deep-seated intellectual realism () and appreciation of power and are skeptical that power structures will cave in to the logic of sound money. 

4. Those who are capable of understanding Bitcoin, but have been seduced by altcoins and haven't taken the time to understand the theory of money.

From my list you can see that the only anti-Bitcoin ideas I have any respect for are those rooted in —how states exert power and control and how concerted state action could slow or stop Bitcoin adoption. For instance, Nassim Taleb (SLE, 40% certainty) is one of very few people who have switched from being pro to anti-Bitcoin, I think because of a perceived naivete of many bitcoiners about the role of power and coercion. 

Deserving of special attention is Craig Wright (SEE, 50% certainty), who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and has become a pariah in the Bitcoin community, using brute-force litigation to harass prominent bitcoiners for personal gain. A textual and particularly socionic analysis of Wright's and Nakamoto's writing should make it clear that the two have very different thought patterns and ethoses. 

Among friends and family, I find  types to be very receptive to Bitcoin. They need very little encouragement to make an investment and tend to apply the simplest heuristics ("this is like buying Apple or Facebook stock 10 years ago") while not taking on high levels of risk.  types typically need to see the big picture first. LIEs also seem highly receptive, and SLEs moderately receptive. 

The only types I've gotten pushback from have been SEE and ILI—the SEE because of the intangible nature of Bitcoin and the ILI for one of two reasons: either because of a deep-seated bias against anything that sounds like evangelism (anti- bias?) or resistance to doing something before first understanding it fully. I know other SEEs who are into Bitcoin and cryptos in general, but their focus seems to be more on short-term gains rather than Bitcoin as a transformative idea.

What's interesting about Bitcoin is its non-partisan nature. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives among prominent advocates, though conservatives seem to dominate somewhat (60-40?). That said, there is a subset of bitcoiners among so-called "Bitcoin maximalists," or "maxis," who have a distinctly us-versus-them mentality. There seem to be a lot of  and  in this camp, with some outright online bullying of altcoiners and no-coiners. This is where much of the "intolerant minority" resides that Nassim Taleb writes about in Skin in the Game. Maxis could, over time, evolve into a Bitcoin-centric political force that prioritizes principles above profit and unity above individual experimentation.

In summary, Bitcoin is an intellectual feast with a very deep rabbit hole that will make you rethink your views on politics, technology, economics, and psychology. If the  guys are right, the sooner individuals, companies, and countries adopt Bitcoin as their reserve asset, the more they stand to profit.