Zelensky and Putin. The Russo-Ukrainian War.

IEE and LSI.

My initial thought for Zelensky was SEE, but I've come around to IEE. See no basis for EIE whatsoever. 

Zelensky and Putin could not be more different in how they process information. Putin probably doesn't even know what it means to say what you think. His whole life he has been concealing what he thinks. He receives curated briefings from those further down in his chain of command and has little desire to get direct access to unprocessed information "on the ground" or to feel out sentiment through direct contact with audiences. His own messages are formal, scheduled, and attended only by select individuals, contain almost no useful information, and are meant to convey strength, certainty, and security. He has built a fear-based power hierarchy ( + ) whose weak spot is its inability to convey accurate primary information up and down the chain of command.

Putin's notorious unpredictability is less a feature of his own personality than a result of not letting anyone know anything about what's going on.

All this points to extremely devalued .

Zelensky, in contrast, feels comfortable and natural engaging with different kinds of audiences informally and on a continual basis. He likes to make surprise appearances. He likes to get a sense of the situation on the ground, to see for himself and gather primary information. He tends to say what he thinks and feels. He doesn't emphasize his higher standing or create tense, formal settings where people will respect and fear him (devalued ). Though he appeals to emotions and common values, his language is simple rather than poetic or flowery. Zelensky sometimes has to talk about painful subjects, but he doesn't do much to dramatize them (heighten the emotion) like an EIE likely would (for an EIE this would be "low-hanging fruit"). My impression is that internally he brushes off unpleasant emotions quite easily; clearly he has preserved his sense of humor. If you review Zelensky's past as a multi-skilled comedic performer, you'll see plenty of this emotional "lightness."

Since Ukraine has gained the upper hand in the conflict, I don't see any clear weak areas in their war effort to comment on. Also, Zelensky has only been in power for a few years and hasn't had anything near the effect on Ukraine's power structure that Putin has had on Russia's. 

If you're interested in my opinion on the war, I am 100% on Ukraine's side and follow the war closely using information sources and analysis in English, Russian, and Ukrainian. I've lived in both countries for years and am in contact with hundreds of Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. A friend of mine was Zelensky's personal translator for six months.

Russia's cause is unequivocally unjust and they will continue to lose harder and harder because they have no plan and are gradually sliding into a checkmate situation. They will not succeed in cancelling post-WWII international law. The law is on Ukraine's side, and the West will not weaken support for Ukraine because this means giving up on its entire set of political values — an unacceptable proposition. On the contrary, the West has so much to gain by supporting Ukraine that it is absolutely bound to continue. For its relatively minor investment, it can revive Western political values, reap the rewards of fighting for a just cause — renewed national unity and purpose (particularly in countries neighboring Russia, where this sentiment is obviously strongest), gain a powerful new partner — Ukraine — which is loyal to the West's values, and update the international system of law and order after Russia is defeated.

The West's weak spot is its finances. High debt-to-GDP ratios are likely to create chaos in many countries around the world in the next decade, including sharp currency devaluations.

Putin's primary strategic blunder seems to be a direct result of systematically ignoring primary information sources for many years. He was led to believe by fearful, dishonest agents in his chain of command that Russia would actually find support in Ukraine. How he could've believed that is beyond me. He also totally miscalculated the West's response due to his perception of Western weakness when judging the West by his own measures of strength. Note also that he and other Russian leaders characterize Zelensky as not being a "serious" politician. 

Today's Russia is an empire in decline: demographics and GDP point to this clearly. The type of fascism the state is promoting isn't the youthful, optimistic fascism of Nazi Germany, but a kind of sickly death-focused fascism "for old times' sake." It's like the Roman Empire in decline, still under the influence of seductive ideas of greatness while no longer possessing the foundation thereof. Soldiers largely have to be tricked into service and don't know what they're fighting for or have adopted a flimsy and ever-changing explanation for their purpose in Ukraine. Their Ukrainian counterparts know exactly what they're fighting for and don't have to find new narratives every few weeks to generate outrage.

If Russia doesn't have a revolution or widespread public uprising along with its inevitable defeat in Ukraine, it is likely to turn inward, terrorize its own shrinking populace, and barriccade itself off from the outside world like North Korea. 

Jordan Peterson's Socionic Type

Against my better judgment, I'm going to do that ridiculous act where you attach a label to someone's body-mind after several hours of deliberation for no reason at all other than a kind of empty intellectual satisfaction.

Preface: I like JP and his ideas a lot. He's brilliant and riveting, even moving.

Jordan Peterson: EIE

My initial thought was IEE, but inconsistencies quickly emerged:

- persona not disarming enough; too dark for an IEE
- generates too much passionate devotion in online admirers
- too verbally fluid
- shamelessly and without caveats categorizes (labels) people and groups of people, particularly ideological opponents
- systematically, calculatingly participates in potentially combative situations and seems to feed off the tension
- doesn't pursue relaxation in the moment, comes across as tense and brooding
- prefers formal attire and, apparently, employment in reliable formal structures (e.g. university)

Let's flesh out the typing.

Somatotype: high ectomorphy, fairly high mesomorphy, very low endomorphy. Translation: a loner preoccupied with being true to himself, managing an overactive nervous system, and achieving desired outcomes through focused hard work.

Somewhat more extraverted than introverted (at least in the popular sense, and according to his own words). Expansive gestures and movements. Tends more to "overdo" than to "underdo" things.

Very high IQ. That means very big ideas, especially for an intuitive type.

Other observations: rather high-pitched voice with typical male compensation (overusing the lower end of his vocal range to sound deeper) and resulting frequent loss of vocal range and quality.

Why not a logical type?

- passionate, moving, and devotional
- apparent logicalness can be explained by intellect and ectomorphy
- tends not to talk about things that will have no emotional impact
- all interests tie into the humanities, particularly to human nature and how to best navigate it
- very deep insight into psychology, religion, and the psyche
- skillfully harnesses anger during debates, and doesn't just address opponents' faulty logic
- comments broadly and authoritatively on general life issues
- he really cares about issues, and you can sense it; he cares more than you do!

Random observations:

- defends the inherent purpose of hierarchies ("aristocratic" vs. "democratic" style, so Beta or Delta quadra)
- needs an enemy or opponent to perform best; likes to get a bit riled up

Lifestyle, Routines, and Creative Output

I've been writing now for 12 years, ever since I was 24 years old (before that I kept journals). Much or most of the writing has been done in bursts of up to several thousand words on a nearly daily basis for weeks at a time. Sometimes I've gone weeks and months without writing anything "productive" at all.

During my better periods the writing has gone into some larger project such as a website or a future book. During less productive periods I'll still continue to write, but in the form of essays or pieces that almost no one will read. It seems that during such periods I lack the will and purposefulness to work on large-scale endeavors and simply continue to write because thoughts and impressions build up in my mind.

Lately I've been building up a lot of momentum in life and seem to have begun a new highly productive phase where I'm working on projects that are going somewhere. It feels great to have overcome the doldrums and doubts of the past few years.

What's different this time around is that my lifestyle and routines are entirely self-crafted. I live alone and have no committed relationship that would require making compromises. It appears I've managed — finally — to find that odd combination of factors that keeps me in good spirits and allows for sustained high creative output. As I've mentioned in past posts, my particular formula includes nutrition, exercise, walking, and a variety of shared activities and often intense socializing.

Due to my high sensitivity, I also prefer to protect myself from sensory and information overload by limiting Internet access, shunning media entertainment, and spending large amounts of time alone. I find I (and probably other highly sensitive people) don't do very well in standard conditions, but flourish in special conditions.

Since my current lifestyle fills my needs well and is almost entirely immune to the most common types of external shakeups (relationship turmoil, job changes, addictive behaviors, etc.), I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue living this way for another 1, 5, 10, or 50 years. Indeed, there is a new sense of permanence that I haven't experienced for a long time, if ever.

Then I come across this book, Daily Rituals: How Artists Work. The book contains descriptions of the daily routines of over 150 well-known creative individuals who lived in during the past 400 years.

The typical creative person spends 2-4 hours a day engaging in the most important — and demanding — aspect of the creative process: writing, composing, drafting, or creating original work. This is usually done in complete isolation with no distractions. There are exceptions, but they are few. The creative work is usually done first thing in the day, before errands and socializing. If the creative person has a regular job, it is almost always something that doesn't tax the mind, leaving the person free to think their own thoughts.

Productive creative people also usually "self-medicate" in order to keep their mind in shape for their work. Tools used include: alcohol, nicotine, caffein, amphetamines, and sleeping pills. Other mechanisms include: exercise, meditation, long walks, and sex. I apparently am in a minority with my rejection of addictive substances, but I too do a number of things to influence my hormones and neurotransmitters in a particular way: I engage in near-daily varied exercise, I strip down and take sunbaths during the colder part of the year, and I swear by my fermented cod-liver oil with butter oil.

Another universal among productive creative people is that all of them have a lifestyle that satisfies their needs for communication and socializing on a daily basis. I've come to see this as perhaps the most crucial element of personal productivity. While socializing needs vary from person to person, there were almost no creative people who didn't need a hefty dose of interpersonal communication every single day.

Typically, to sustain creative output people need both someone to bounce ideas off of and share impressions with a regular basis (usually daily or on most days) and unstructured or unpredictable socializing (generally daily). This mirrors what I discovered from long-distance hiking: a good day includes conversation with a friend, a number of interactions with strangers or acquaintances, and at least some group interaction. It can all total up to as little as two hours. Productive artists have found ways to get these three components of communication in a high-quality form on a daily or near-daily basis.

For some more introverted types, it seems that some of this meaningful interaction can be had online. That definitely doesn't work for me or for most other people.

Recharged from an evening of socializing, boozing, card-playing, or whatever she finds relaxing, the productive artist goes to bed and wakes up the next day to continue the thing that their life revolves around — their creative work. They see it as their primary activity and move everything out of the way in order to engage in it.

It seems that creativity, like willpower, is a limited resource. In order to be highly creative in one part of life, one needs to automate other areas. This could mean taking a maid or a cook (yep, I've done that) or putting in the effort to learn those skills oneself and turn them into routines (I've done that, too). It could mean paying the bills through work that one doesn't have to think about much (my favorite was packing Pepsi-cola) or by doing work that is closely related to one's primary creative work.

Doing creative work requires a lot of planning and coordination of complex components, whether parts in a symphony, characters and plot in a novel, or elements of a building design. After straining his brain's executive functions for several hours, the artist may wish to let them rest for the remainder of the day. Having to plan, manage, coordinate, and execute logistics in one's everyday life almost always uses up energy that might have been spent on one's creative product. Developing near-fixed daily routines (i.e. planning once and then just following that plan) and outsourcing management are typical ways that artists maintain their productivity.

While there are a few basic commonalities in the lives of all productive artists, each has found a lifestyle formula that is well-suited to her personality and physical constitution. What works in one's youth may not work in one's maturity. In any case, the would-be artist must come to know himself and have the courage to craft a life that works for him.

Socionics in Public: Ukrainian Politics

An article just came out on a leading Ukrainian news site, Pravda.com.ua, called "Between SLE and ESI: a Socionic Portrait of the Leading Candidates" (article text provided in English through Google Translate; original is in Ukrainian).

Some readers may know that Ukraine just had its first round of presidential elections since the Orange Revolution of 2004-2005. This article talks about the types of the three main figures from the Orange Revolution. Yuschenko became president, Tymoshenko spent much of the past 5 years as Prime Minister, and Yanukovych was defeated in the past election and spent the 5 years as the head of the opposition. So, these three figures have been the most prominent politicians of recent Ukrainian history.

The article's author, the "head of a socionics academy" (my experience suggests this is an exaggeration; "socionics instructor" would likely be more accurate) proposes the types of SLE, ESI, and LIE for Tymoshenko, Yanukovych, and Yuschenko, respectively. Setting aside the issue of whether these types are correct (my opinions can be found on my wikisocion page), I want to look at the usefulness of this article in general.

First of all, do the descriptions provided fit the individuals? Yes -- they are perhaps 80-90% accurate, as least as far as the average reasonably informed viewer/reader is able to judge.

Were the type descriptions modified to be more relevant to the specific person being described? Yes, obviously so. For instance, as an LIE Yuschenko "craves freedom of speech and individual actions in society." With her EIE subtype Tymoshenko is able to "achieve her ends with military cunning and punish demonstratively." Obviously, these are "politicized" type portraits that would have much less relevance for your average representative of the type.

How are multi-faceted aspects of their personalities addressed? Using subtypes -- not one, but two. Tymoshenko's IEI subtype allows her to "portray a weak woman when needed." Her EIE subtype allows her to "sense and provide what her audience wants to hear." Yuschenko's ILE subtype allows him to "study ethnic characteristics and value and develop ethnic culture," etc.

Are non-Ego functions at all described? Yes. Some of these are addressed under the headings: "Sympathises with," "Needs," and "Is activated by."

Are intertype relations addressed? No. For instance, how does Yanukovych and Yuschenko's supposed dual relationship manifest itself, if at all?

What do you think of these kinds of socionic portrait appearing in mass media?

Introverted Ethics in Action - Rocky Balboa

Yesterday I watched Rocky Balboa, written and directed by Silvester Stallone, who also plays the main character. The final film of his Rocky series - which are among Stallone's most successful, Rocky Balboa is a personal movie that mirrors the author's own life and sentiments.

I have typed Stallone as SEE, but there is so much in the movie (along with ) that it makes an excellent demonstration of introverted ethics.

The dominant information aspect of the first quarter or so of the movie is . We are shown Rocky's grief and tender feelings for his deceased wife Adrian. We lament with Rocky that his son has strayed away from him despite Rocky's concern for him. We are sentimental with Rocky as he is reminded of places and events from his youth that held special meaning for him.

All of these things focus on feelings of like and attachment that the characters feel towards one another and towards events, things, and places. These feelings are hardly visible externally (in contrast to !) - except for a calm smile here and there - and are mainly conveyed on screen using sappy music that makes you sob and long, up-close facial shots. Here's a short clip that demonstrates what I'm talking about.

Note the use of slow, nostalgic string music with a simple piano melody in the background. This music conveys . Even more importantly, the cameras focus on Rocky's face, letting us see every twitch and sign of hidden feeling. Basically, they're forcing us to empathize with Rocky. Paulie, on the other hand, is shown from a distance, essentially making it impossible for us to empathize with him. Paulie gets mad at Rocky, and related yelling ensues, but then they settle back to a mood, and the camera's move closer to Paulie, letting us feel what he feels.

These tear-jerker techniques are a favorite of the American movie industry, but there are many countries where they are rarely, if ever used (Russian cinema, for one).

Scenes with Rocky and his son are also particularly poignant and use the same kinds of techniques to make the audience cry and empathize. Note that almost everywhere is mixed with (challenging each other, getting rough, telling each other what they want, etc.).

After the first quarter of the movie, the main emphasis shifts to , where the real point of the movie lies. Rocky's focus shifts to a difficult external obstacle (the upcoming boxing match, of course) that requires all his strength and concentration to tackle. Note that this emphasis reflects the spiritual philosophy I wrote about two posts ago.

Balancing the Internal and the External

As Jung explained, each person has both extraverted and introverted mechanisms, but betrays his dominant orientation under pressure and in times of stress. Each of us has a certain tendency to take one's own instrument a bit too far and ignore the other side of life, unconsciously expecting that "the socium" - i.e. society and the people around us - will take care of the rest for us. Often they do, baited by our valuable Ego-block "goods."

But other times, for various reasons, no one comes to the rescue. This is the chronically imbalanced (and often non-dualized) individual. Even dualization doesn't completely fix the problem of finding a balance between the internal and the external. With a dual nearby, one may find that, after an initial balancing-out where partners "soak up" each other's strengths and build up their own Super-id block, yet more energy is loosed to direct towards one's strengths, and the problem of keeping balance simply moves up to the next level of self-realization.

This is why, after the mechanisms of dualization have done their work and the hormone bath of passionate love is past, self-development requires will and effort. You need to consciously value the areas that balance you out and strive to maintain them and not let them go down the tubes as you coast down the road of least resistance.

For extratims, the path of least resistance is to be drawn into the external world with its chatter, competition, interchange, and rewards so much that you cease to maintain and develop your inner world or do the hard work of improving your skills and thoughts.

For introtims, the path of least resistance is to focus on developing and improving inner products and experiences that either have little or no real-world application, or you simply neglect the task of introducing people to them.

Examples of these are easy to find around us. However, successful people of extraverted and introverted types alike display competency in both the extraverted and introverted realms. Some examples:

Charles Darwin (ILI) was a pronounced introvert who almost spent too long of a time developing his ideas and could have missed his chance to be the first to publish them. However, he made the effort and carefully wrote a book that others would understand easily (and not only himself, which some ILIs are prone to do).

Vladimir Horowitz (ESE) was an extraverted performer who managed to take the time early on to submit himself to concentrated discipline and meticulously develop the piano skills necessary to achieve fame.

Garrison Keillor (IEI) is a rather quiet introvert who made the effort to take his rich inner experiences public and create a radio show that people would actually listen to.

Thomas Huxley (IEE), "Darwin's bulldog," was a master at exchanging ideas and engaging public discourse who took the time to become a specialist in his field (and not just chat about everything that is interesting as some IEEs are prone to do) and work on his understanding of different theories to the point that he could recognize Darwin's as being superior.

As we can see, great achievements involve a combination of internal and external effort. The internal component creates quality and depth, and the external is responsible for correctly assessing societal needs, expectations, and competition.

IQ and Socionic Type: The Smartest Man in the World

What socionic types would you expect to have the highest IQs?

How well does IQ reflect your ideas of intelligence?

What is intelligence?

These are some things to reflect upon when viewing this video about the smartest man in the world - Chris Langan - who has an IQ of around 195:
part 1 - part 2 - part 3 (around 10 minutes each)

I have an opinion about his type. What do you think? (please comment)

I will present my version of his type in exactly one week, on February 16th.
___________________________________________________________

VOTE COUNT (voting now closed!)

We have 8 votes here:
ILE
ESE
LSI - 2
SLE
LIE
ILI - 2
Visitors are pretty sure he is a logical type (7 out of 8) and are split 50-50 regarding rational/irrational, extratim/introtim, and sensing/intuition.

If we add votes from the thread at the16types, taking care not to count people's votes twice, we get the following combined statistics (counting only the clear votes where people gave one version):
ILE -2
ESE
LSI - 3
SLE
LIE
ILI - 3
LSE - 4
(also given as alternate options were EIE and SLI)
Now everyone is basically certain he is a logical type (14 out of 15), and a slight majority thinks he is extraverted (9 out of 15), rational (9 out of 15), and sensing (9 out of 15).
___________________________________________________________

AND MY VERSION IS...

First, let's work on formulating our observations from the videos and try to find some words and phrases we think would describe him well, and some that would describe him poorly.

Describe him well:
- tough
- controlled
- self-contained
- [potentially] controlling
- not easily intimidated
- physically confident
- demanding thinking style
- coherent thought processes
- highly verbally proficient
- highly confident of his own judgments
- prone to make harsh judgments
- even, matter-of-fact speaking style
- restrained smiles and laughter
- uses some crude comparisons
- prefers strong statements

DO NOT describe him well:
- meek
- mild
- emotional
- externally expressive
- fidgety
- flighty
- finicky
- easy-going
- light-hearted
- bubbly
- bursting with ideas
- tangential
- wishy-washy
- constantly on the move
- unconventional appearance
- distant
- absent-minded
- dreamy
- imaginative
- enjoys speculation
- unsure of himself physically

Note that most, but not all of these traits are closely related to socionic types and dichotomies. We are simply "flexing" our observation muscles and making sure we are able to generate accurate descriptions of the person we are studying, regardless of how we diagnose his type.

That being said, I am convinced he is an LSI.

In my opinion, Langan's most outstanding trait is his sense of controlledness of behavior and thought. He continually submits his thoughts and behavior to certain strict bounds, of which he is highly aware. This is an expression of . Every thought is carefully and confidently expressed. There is no room for doubt or vacillation (there may be in his worldview, but it is not a part of his dominant behavior). Thoughts are clearly delineated and judgments are well thought-out and often harsh and absolute. His movements are well-controlled and contained and convey a sense of restraint and confidence. No wonder he is a convincing bar bouncer.

Langan frequently demonstrates - not only via his "mobilized" physical state, but also in his speech. He makes frequent use of strong words and phrases like "I booted his ass out of the house" and "our country is led by a bunch of dunces." Such phrases and their accompanying intonation show agressiveness and a readiness to back up one's words with decisive action or force if necessary.

Here's Wikipedia's biography of Langan for additional insight.

Extraverted Ethics in Action - Robin Williams

Here's another extreme example of . Playing with sounds and voice modulations like Robin Williams does constantly (and has honed to an art) are expressions of .

In between antics, Robin Williams talks about "amazing" people. Interviewer Charlie Rose (possibly ESE himself) notes that Williams is someone is "celebrates friendships" - a common characterization of adult ESEs. Williams (and Rose) talk a lot about the "extraordinary" stories and experiences that different people have to share that are so wonderful to learn about and record. This passion for people and great stories are characteristic of people with strong .

Introverted Intuition in Action - Garrison Keillor

"Introverted intuition in action" is sort of an oxymoron, but there are plenty of situations where it can come to the forefront and display its unique point of view.

Garrison Keillor is a radio show host and writer whom I have typed as IEI (bottom of page). During part of his weekly show, "A Prairie Home Companion," he does a monologue called "Lake Wobegon" where he lets his completely loose. Here is a beautiful sample (sound only):

Part one (8.5 minutes)
Part two (4.5 minutes)

To get an idea of how Garrison Keillor looks and acts and what his show is like, view his interview with Charlie Rose (starting at 35:00).

In his monologue, Garrison Keillor covers literally all the semantic fields of covered below (link). There are the themes of bygone years and memory, of death and renewal, of legends, rites, and symbols, of the soul and one's inner experiences, words denoting states and mood, uncertainty, recollection...

Keillor's slow, drawn-out speaking style serves to induce a state of relaxed reflection in his audience. Images are convened that carry emotional weight and a sense of meaningfulness. His monologues effectively distract listeners from all their worldly cares and carry them elsewhere, creating a cleansing effect.

Extraverted Intuition in Action - David Deutsch

In this video, well-known physicist David Deutsch gives a lecture on the nature of the universe and gives a concentrated display of . Deutsch's speaking style is actually quite easy to understand. He uses the simplest possible means (comparisons, metaphors) to produce insight in the audience - in this case, an awareness of new possibilities in the outside world. I have typed David Deutsch as an ILE.

In his presentation, Deutsch conveys signals through all sorts of techniques that serve to intrigue and intellectually involve the listener:

1. using rising intonation on phrases like "in fact," "if," and many others in order to emphasize critical points and unexpected possibilities
2. using phrases like, "now let's imagine..." "let's say that..." that help the listener generate a mental image
3. the habit of constantly showing the bigger picture and emphasizing "the main thing"

Extraverted Sensing in Action - Mike Tyson

Here's another great example of a concentrated information signal, in this case . Here (video) Mike Tyson is interviewed after a fight and makes threatening comments towards future foe Lennox Louis.

The signals in this case are conveyed by the use of jerky, aggressive bursts of air for emphasis, along with similarly timed jerky head movements forward. The vigorous head movements from side to side along with a sneering facial expression also convey . All of this serves to convey a sense of readiness for confrontation, unpredictability of behavior (after this display of anger he abrubtly turns around and leaves the interview), and unbending desire.

(I have typed Mike Tyson as an SLE)

Extraverted Ethics in Action - Tom Cruise

Let's see if we can find concentrated expressions of the information aspects in situations that bring out these particular aspects. First, we'll start with .

Remember Tom Cruise's famous appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show? You can view it here.

The crowd's loud squealing is an expression of . Tom Cruise takes it in stride, as does Oprah Winfrey, who feeds on it herself. Tom's antics on stage (getting down on his knee, throwing his fist into the air, and jumping on the couch with glee) are all external expressions of an emotional state and are clear signals.

Note also how Cruise is comfortable making physical movements in front of everyone, how he grabs his fiancee confidently and leads her physically on stage, how he grabs Oprah and shakes her, etc. etc. This suggests confidence in sensing. Indeed, I have typed Cruise as an ESE.

Feel free to discuss this clip and your observations and insights.