Ben Shapiro ~ Sakinorva Databank

Ben Shapiro

Political Commentator

Government, Politics, and Law

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

ESTJ 12

ENTJ 3

3wb 9

1w2 7

1w9 1

6w5 1

so/sp 6

LSE 14

ESE 1

LIE 1

LSI 1

VFEL 3

LFVE 1

FLVE 1

total votes 90

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2019/11/27 (Wed) 11:10:26 #7472
	In response to post #7462. I don't really have anything to say. I laid out some ideas that I thought you'd fill in well for me, but it didn't really work out that way. It shouldn't matter that "I don't want to argue" is a fallacy... what matters much more to me is how you would interpret that in the grand scheme of things, and it doesn't look like you would entertain that discussions aren't (and shouldn't be) driven by the premises that what is being shared can be scrutinized all the way to a point where something is judged on a scale of "most incorrect" to "most correct."

Editing post #7472 by strawberry crisis <p>I don't really have anything to say. I laid out some ideas that I thought you'd fill in well for me, but it didn't really work out that way. It shouldn't matter that "I don't want to argue" is a fallacy... what matters much more to me is how you would interpret that in the grand scheme of things, and it doesn't look like you would entertain that discussions aren't (and shouldn't be) driven by the premises that what is being shared can be scrutinized all the way to a point where something is judged on a scale of "most incorrect" to "most correct."</p>
Replying to post #7472 by strawberry crisis

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/11/25 (Mon) 19:48:46 #7464
	The fact that you can't see that maybe it actually isn't worth people's time to type up a full reply to your page-length comments just shows how dense and autistic you are. If you put that much stock into your supposed abilities as a typist, I reccommend you take a step back and focus on something actually of significance. You are neither as good nor as impressive as you think you are.

Editing post #7464 by Jacobus <p>The fact that you can't see that maybe it actually isn't worth people's time to type up a full reply to your page-length comments just shows how dense and autistic you are. If you put that much stock into your supposed abilities as a typist, I reccommend you take a step back and focus on something actually of significance. You are neither as good nor as impressive as you think you are.</p>
Replying to post #7464 by Jacobus

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2019/11/25 (Mon) 00:28:13 #7461
	In response to post #7451. casual reminder that when someone goes like "I don't want to argue" it is just a fancy way of saying "I cannot argue and thus I have lost" + "some form of trash excuse". I was going to say "this simply isn't true," but that would be the wrong approach to rebuking the bigger issue—the framework you recognize and within which you form that judgment. Maybe it's true that some people say "I don't want to argue" as code for "I can't argue [because I don't have an argument to counter what you said]" but the problem is more so that people who do see arguing as winning and losing (like a battle of ideas or something) will only engage with someone on the basis that they will "win." I think you would recognize this, but then the broader perspective should also come into play: what about people who don't think about winning or losing when engaging in a discussion? What if people don't start with the idea that they're right? Sometimes when people say "I don't want to argue," they recognize that they're being invited to play a game that they don't want to play... where the propensity to be right and stick to it would take priority over simply having a conversation to discuss ideas. I think the biggest arguments tend to happen when there's a misalignment of values at play—where somebody is so completely wrong to someone else because their ideas are based on a mindset or a worldview that clashes with their own at a fundamental level ("are you suggesting 1+1 doesn't equal 2?")—but this could also work in the opposite way; it could be the crux of what "I don't want to argue" is based upon. Sometimes people do recognize that arguing with someone would be a waste of time because there are things that they wouldn't understand with one combative argument or as a defender of some particular idea, and I think you should ultimately be very careful of categorizing under "losing" in your head. It's essentially the game people like Ben Shapiro want you to be caught up in—who are the winners and losers in a debate? Who came out on top? Who was able to sound more correct [whether or not what they were saying was actually valid or not]? And discussions are so much more complex than that! Things aren't always "right" or "wrong," and it's very important to see everything else involved, too. Even this comment could be a good example—what if I got carried away with the first thought and decided to tell you off? I feel like that's very tunnel-visiony, and your casual reminder comes off as reminiscent of what can get us trapped in the wrong worlds. By the way, I think outright disagreeing with somebody (very especially someone you know well) can be really jarring and almost always closes people off. I would be lying if I said I didn’t recognize that there’s a bit of that in my comment! I think when talking to strangers (very especially online), it can be easy to get caught up in just the arguing before seeing the person behind it... which is sort of why I refrain from it as much as I can (sometimes it’s really hard! because some people are so wrong and I’m so right and I feel like I can connect with them somehow to make them see why they’re so wrong). Things that are so much closer to us than they seem as words on a screen are bound to be more sensitive a thing than what can be sorted out through a mechanical exchange of ideas where thoughts and information are considered by the parties involved... then assessed, evaluated, yadda yadda yadda.

Editing post #7461 by strawberry crisis <p><em>casual reminder that when someone goes like "I don't want to argue" it is just a fancy way of saying "I cannot argue and thus I have lost" + "some form of trash excuse".</em></p> <p>I was going to say "this simply isn't true," but that would be the wrong approach to rebuking the bigger issue—the framework you recognize and within which you form that judgment. Maybe it's true that <em>some</em> people say "I don't want to argue" as code for "I can't argue [because I don't have an argument to counter what you said]" but the problem is more so that people who <em>do</em> see arguing as winning and losing (like a battle of ideas or something) will only engage with someone on the basis that they will "win." I think you would recognize this, but then the broader perspective should also come into play: what about people who don't think about winning or losing when engaging in a discussion? What if people <em>don't</em> start with the idea that they're right? Sometimes when people say "I don't want to argue," they recognize that they're being invited to play a game that they don't want to play... where the propensity to be right and stick to it would take priority over simply having a conversation to discuss ideas. I think the biggest arguments tend to happen when there's a misalignment of values at play—where somebody is so completely wrong to someone else because their ideas are based on a mindset or a worldview that clashes with their own at a fundamental level ("are you suggesting 1+1 doesn't equal 2?")—but this could also work in the opposite way; it could be the crux of what "I don't want to argue" is based upon. Sometimes people <em>do</em> recognize that arguing with someone would be a waste of time because there are things that they wouldn't understand with one combative argument or as a defender of some particular idea, and I think you should ultimately be very careful of categorizing under "losing" in your head.</p> <p>It's essentially the game people like Ben Shapiro <em>want</em> you to be caught up in—who are the winners and losers in a debate? Who came out on top? Who was able to <em>sound more correct</em> [whether or not what they were saying was actually valid or not]? And discussions are so much more complex than that! Things aren't always "right" or "wrong," and it's very important to see everything else involved, too. Even this comment could be a good example—what if I got carried away with the first thought and decided to tell you off? I feel like that's very tunnel-visiony, and your casual reminder comes off as reminiscent of what can get us trapped in the wrong worlds.</p> <p>By the way, I think outright disagreeing with somebody (very especially someone you know well) can be really jarring and almost always closes people off. I would be lying if I said I didn’t recognize that there’s a bit of that in my comment! I think when talking to strangers (very especially online), it can be easy to get caught up in just the arguing before seeing the person behind it... which is sort of why I refrain from it as much as I can (sometimes it’s really hard! because some people are so wrong and I’m so right and I feel like I can connect with them somehow to make them see why they’re so wrong). Things that are so much closer to us than they seem as words on a screen are bound to be more sensitive a thing than what can be sorted out through a mechanical exchange of ideas where thoughts and information are considered by the parties involved... then assessed, evaluated, yadda yadda yadda. </p>
Replying to post #7461 by strawberry crisis

	fsninetwo eNTP 5w4 548 sx/sp ILx 2019/11/22 (Fri) 07:00:57 #7449
	In response to post #7445. The fake personality is my mistake but he is still completly pretentious and over exaggerated to the point what I can't watch or listen him more than 5 minutes. And comparing with 3w2 people he is more geniuine. Consider how you want, but i don't wnat to argue about him because it's useless. And if you consider me stupid so why the fuck you give the same votes right after me on some personalities on this site?

Editing post #7449 by fsninetwo <p>The fake personality is my mistake but he is still completly pretentious and over exaggerated to the point what I can't watch or listen him more than 5 minutes. And comparing with 3w2 people he is more geniuine. Consider how you want, but i don't wnat to argue about him because it's useless. And if you consider me stupid so why the fuck you give the same votes right after me on some personalities on this site?</p>
Replying to post #7449 by fsninetwo

	fsninetwo eNTP 5w4 548 sx/sp ILx 2019/11/22 (Fri) 04:26:49 #7444
	In response to post #7443. Lol, the thing what i voted slightly differently is already makes people crazy, that's something new. OK, i know what balanced wings means and I use when I can't find any wing inffluences or when they inffluences equally the core type but shapiro is clearly thinks and takes indentity about being some kind like a professional who knows what to do (and thats why i considers why w4 is more correct then wb or w2, but i can be wrong at this) even where in reality he appears to be fake and hypocrite at his personality. I see your point and where it comes but i disagree with it.

Editing post #7444 by fsninetwo <p>Lol, the thing what i voted slightly differently is already makes people crazy, that's something new. OK, i know what balanced wings means and I use when I can't find any wing inffluences or when they inffluences equally the core type but shapiro is clearly thinks and takes indentity about being some kind like a professional who knows what to do (and thats why i considers why w4 is more correct then wb or w2, but i can be wrong at this) even where in reality he appears to be fake and hypocrite at his personality. I see your point and where it comes but i disagree with it.</p>
Replying to post #7444 by fsninetwo

	fsninetwo eNTP 5w4 548 sx/sp ILx 2019/11/17 (Sun) 12:10:39 #7440
	In response to post #7435. Well, i'm okay with what he embodies 3 and i don't argue with that, but 1 definitly has in his tritype and it strongly inffluence with his character to the point where people sees him as 1, even if it not absolutly correct with 1 description. Thats where tritype theory actually helps, because he is a clearly an image type, where anger is on second place (but very close). And phsc, i don't see a Charmer(3w2 wing) description at him where Professional(3w4 wing) is more obvious even when he doesn't use a 4 wing.

Editing post #7440 by fsninetwo <p>Well, i'm okay with what he embodies 3 and i don't argue with that, but 1 definitly has in his tritype and it strongly inffluence with his character to the point where people sees him as 1, even if it not absolutly correct with 1 description. Thats where tritype theory actually helps, because he is a clearly an image type, where anger is on second place (but very close).</p> <p> </p> <p>And phsc, i don't see a Charmer(3w2 wing) description at him where Professional(3w4 wing) is more obvious even when he doesn't use a 4 wing.</p>
Replying to post #7440 by fsninetwo

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2019/11/17 (Sun) 11:06:25 #7435
	In response to post #7419. It's wrong in the sense that it couldn't possibly have to do with the archetype he best embodies (as the Enneagram is best interpreted as a collection of archetypes in which underlying fears intrinsically are connected to the traits that they show [because the Enneagram assumes that a set of predefined motivations drive all personalities]) but I would be open to the idea of him having 1 in a tritype because he utilizes the worldview created by type 1 in a way that the Enneagram could see as connected to his core. I don't like Riso and Hudson's "everyone has all the types but one is dominant" idea because it enables a trait-centric approach to the Enneagram that betrays its entire archetypes but if it were articulated in a way that described how people appear to use many modes that can be connected back in some way to their entire archetypes rather than just the observable traits associated with them, it could be used to prop up ideas like Tritype theory (as poorly constructed as it is). And in that sense, Shapiro (to my knowledge--I admittedly am not super familiar with everything about him and I don't wish to be) uses the 1 mode of principled moralism to assert that there is a conservative order to the world that must be maintained, and that mode would be very 1 regardless of how Shapiro interacts with the fear itself; the fact that he'd use that framework in a way that could be reflected in behaviors like those you describe (stubborn to principles, or being defensive and holding out on such principles). But I wouldn't think for a second that this could really be connected to a driving fear of sorts--within the Tritype theory framework, types 1, 8, and 9 are pitted against one another such that would allow for this mode to reflect the modes I'm referring to here. He utilizes equal-footed principles as OPPOSED to a framework of strength and power dynamics and as OPPOSED to passive open-minded and understanding--and in a way that I think is reflected by his "involuntary" behavior i.e. blind spots, or reflexive traits. So I think you could effectively argue for 1 when it's constrained within a framework where it would have to come out... but does it really work for core Enneagram? Trait-centric interpretations of the Enneagram will take no issue with what you're saying, but I'm not fond of those interpretations because they erase that idea of type and the archetype, both of which essentially define what typology is.

Editing post #7435 by strawberry crisis <p>It's wrong in the sense that it couldn't possibly have to do with the archetype he best embodies (as the Enneagram is best interpreted as a collection of archetypes in which underlying fears intrinsically are connected to the traits that they show [because the Enneagram assumes that a set of predefined motivations drive all personalities]) but I would be open to the idea of him having 1 in a tritype because he utilizes the worldview created by type 1 in a way that the Enneagram <em>could******</em> see as connected to his core. I don't like Riso and Hudson's "everyone has all the types but one is dominant" idea because it enables a trait-centric approach to the Enneagram that betrays its entire archetypes but if it were articulated in a way that described how people appear to use many modes that can be connected back in some way to their entire archetypes rather than just the observable traits associated with them, it <em>could </em>be used to prop up ideas like Tritype theory (as poorly constructed as it is). And in that sense, Shapiro (to my knowledge--I admittedly am not super familiar with everything about him and I don't wish to be) uses the 1 mode of principled moralism to assert that there is a conservative order to the world that must be maintained, and that <em>mode</em> would be very 1 regardless of how Shapiro interacts with the fear itself; the fact that he'd use that framework in a way that could be reflected in behaviors like those you describe (stubborn to principles, or being defensive and holding out on such principles). But I wouldn't think for a second that this could really be connected to a driving fear of sorts--within the Tritype theory framework, types 1, 8, and 9 are pitted against one another such that would allow for this mode to reflect the modes I'm referring to here. He utilizes equal-footed principles as OPPOSED to a framework of strength and power dynamics and as OPPOSED to passive open-minded and understanding--and in a way that I think is reflected by his "involuntary" behavior i.e. blind spots, or reflexive traits. So I think you could effectively argue for 1 when it's constrained within a framework where it would have to come out... but does it really work for core Enneagram? Trait-centric interpretations of the Enneagram will take no issue with what you're saying, but I'm not fond of those interpretations because they erase that idea of <em>type</em> and the archetype, both of which essentially define what typology is.</p>
Replying to post #7435 by strawberry crisis

	fsninetwo eNTP 5w4 548 sx/sp ILx 2019/11/17 (Sun) 07:20:09 #7419
	In response to post #7417. strawberry crisis, the problem with Shapiro is that what he both strong at 1 and 3. For one side i agree what he created image of being a destroyer, but for other side he stubborn with his believes to the point of massive hipocrisy. For example on debating with people who know how to do it or when someone attacks his sacred cows he quickly become defensive and aggressive to oponent like 1 who's being challenged. I agree what 3 is more correct io him, but 1 is also not wrong.

Editing post #7419 by fsninetwo strawberry crisis, the problem with Shapiro is that what he both strong at 1 and 3. For one side i agree what he created image of being a destroyer, but for other side he stubborn with his believes to the point of massive hipocrisy. For example on debating with people who know how to do it or when someone attacks his sacred cows he quickly become defensive and aggressive to oponent like 1 who's being challenged. I agree what 3 is more correct io him, but 1 is also not wrong.
Replying to post #7419 by fsninetwo

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/11/16 (Sat) 19:38:30 #7418
	tman, none of what you stated is incompatible with FLVE. VLFE is a very powerful personality that doesn't take well to debate; not because he is inscure, but because he views his beliefs as being unquestionable on some level. With Shapiro, I see him more as an individual who wants to be seen as an eminent orator and logician, but in reality shrinks back at any legitimate counterargument. Lenin himself just bulldozed through counterarguments and tried to make dissenters in the party submit to his line of thinking.

Editing post #7418 by Jacobus <p>tman, none of what you stated is incompatible with FLVE. VLFE is a very powerful personality that doesn't take well to debate; not because he is inscure, but because he views his beliefs as being unquestionable on some level. With Shapiro, I see him more as an individual who wants to be seen as an eminent orator and logician, but in reality shrinks back at any legitimate counterargument. Lenin himself just bulldozed through counterarguments and tried to make dissenters in the party submit to his line of thinking.</p>
Replying to post #7418 by Jacobus

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2019/11/16 (Sat) 19:16:47 #7417
	Lol it's sort of funny how all these people are getting dichotomized along 1 and 3 in accordance with whether or not they "believe what they are saying" or "are just fooling everyone into believing what they are saying." Weirdly indicative of what image they're cultivating, isn't it? I think approaching it as though it were a conscious orientation isn't going to lead anywhere--it's better to ask the question of what we're seeing and why we're seeing it presented this way. It isn't actually a question of whether or not Shapiro is thinking "What should I do to dodge the question and put them in a bad spot?" or "How do I educate this stupid liberal?" Shapiro doesn't care about the discussion. He doesn't care about listening to other ideas or other interpretations—he only has his role to take care of, and that role is to win debates. He recognizes that debates aren't about coming to a mutual understanding of complicated questions but rather to form audiences around sides and build social power. What exactly is the motivation behind doing that, though? Where does he want that power to be directed to? This is probably where you can completely erase the idea of him being a 1 (or a 6? Where does that come from?)—there is no baseline consistency behind WHAT ideas he uses to win debates other than that these ideas all serve to counter a supposed "liberal narrative" and work to cultivate an image of him being The Liberal Destroyer. The framework he creates is what matters, because it is extremely deliberate and serves one very important purpose: it props up both his role and his image, and as long as he can maintain that, he wouldn't need to even consider whether or not what he's doing is right. It's not part of the picture. Shapiro is a 3.

Editing post #7417 by strawberry crisis <p>Lol it's sort of funny how all these people are getting dichotomized along 1 and 3 in accordance with whether or not they "believe what they are saying" or "are just fooling everyone into believing what they are saying." Weirdly indicative of what image they're cultivating, isn't it? I think approaching it as though it were a conscious orientation isn't going to lead anywhere--it's better to ask the question of what we're seeing and why we're seeing it presented this way. It isn't actually a question of whether or not Shapiro is thinking "What should I do to dodge the question and put them in a bad spot?" or "How do I educate this stupid liberal?" Shapiro doesn't care about the discussion. He doesn't care about listening to other ideas or other interpretations—he only has his role to take care of, and that role is to win debates. He recognizes that debates aren't about coming to a mutual understanding of complicated questions but rather to form audiences around sides and build social power. What exactly is the motivation behind doing that, though? Where does he want that power to be directed to? This is probably where you can completely erase the idea of him being a 1 (or a 6? Where does that come from?)—there is no baseline consistency behind WHAT ideas he uses to win debates other than that these ideas all serve to counter a supposed "liberal narrative" and work to cultivate an image of him being The Liberal Destroyer. The framework he creates is what matters, because it is extremely deliberate and serves one very important purpose: it props up both his role and his image, and as long as he can maintain that, he wouldn't need to even consider whether or not what he's doing is right. It's not part of the picture. Shapiro is a 3.</p>
Replying to post #7417 by strawberry crisis

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2019/11/16 (Sat) 18:16:58 #7416
	FLVE doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He doesn't strike me as someone overwhelmingly concerned with self interest, which isn't to say he's unselfish, just that he focuses more on the maintenance of self image. I think on some level, Shapiro really dose believe that what he's doing is right, at least to start out with he did. You could argue it's all a pose, but I think the reason why he's able to pull of the image of the "objective skeptic" so well is because on some level he really thinks of himself as almost completely imparshal and objective.

Editing post #7416 by Tman <p>FLVE doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He doesn't strike me as someone overwhelmingly concerned with self interest, which isn't to say he's unselfish, just that he focuses more on the maintenance of self image. I think on some level, Shapiro really dose believe that what he's doing is right, at least to start out with he did. You could argue it's all a pose, but I think the reason why he's able to pull of the image of the "objective skeptic" so well is because on some level he really thinks of himself as almost completely imparshal and objective. </p>
Replying to post #7416 by Tman

	tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2019/07/13 (Sat) 17:31:46 #6639
	He's not realy a "stratgist" as much as an anlzer. He takes in data and trys to fit it into a framwork. In terms of letters, it could go either way, in terms of fuctions, he undooublty has Si-Ne. Haveing a masive database of facts and statistics in his head, which he then uses to consider larger posiblitlys, and fit the wolrd into a larger framework.

Editing post #6639 by tman <p>He's not realy a "stratgist" as much as an anlzer. He takes in data and trys to fit it into a framwork. In terms of letters, it could go either way, in terms of fuctions, he undooublty has Si-Ne. Haveing a masive database of facts and statistics in his head, which he then uses to consider larger posiblitlys, and fit the wolrd into a larger framework.</p>
Replying to post #6639 by tman

	Taco110 Ni-Se you'll see ST 2019/04/25 (Thu) 17:12:00 #5837
	A vast majority of people who vote him S are doing so because it's stereotypical for S-types, especially SJs to be conservative. Behind his bullshit mask of being this morally-upright and intellectual conservative, the man is clearly N given his proclivity for strategy and calculation especially as it pertains to said image. He's in all likelihood an ENTJ. In fact, I could even see arguments for ENFJ, but the former is much more likely.

Editing post #5837 by Taco110 <p>A vast majority of people who vote him S are doing so because it's stereotypical for S-types, especially SJs to be conservative. Behind his bullshit mask of being this morally-upright and intellectual conservative, the man is clearly N given his proclivity for strategy and calculation especially as it pertains to said image. He's in all likelihood an ENTJ. In fact, I could even see arguments for ENFJ, but the former is much more likely.</p>
Replying to post #5837 by Taco110

Teru Mikami 2019/04/25 (Thu) 15:56:32 #5836
hey im gonna present an idea here might seem kinda extreme but idk: commenting on someone's page doesn't mean i want to suck their circumcised cock or like those people, dont know how many times I've said this off this site: shapiro is a clown, just not an entertaining one, you couldn't even walk when I was born and try to be a lot more edgy and contrarian, stop w/ the strawmans

Editing post #5836 by Teru Mikami <p>hey im gonna present an idea here might seem kinda extreme but idk: commenting on someone's page doesn't mean i want to suck their circumcised cock or like those people, dont know how many times I've said this off this site: shapiro is a clown, just not an entertaining one, you couldn't even walk when I was born and try to be a lot more edgy and contrarian, stop w/ the strawmans</p>
Replying to post #5836 by Teru Mikami

	fg xxTJ 6w5 Beta ST 2019/04/25 (Thu) 14:56:57 #5835
	Teru Mikami i will sound extremly infantalizing and arrogant to you but i think you might think about this if you have grown up in few years. Ben Shapiro like most known conservative polemist is just a showman and certainly not a thinker in anyway. if you look carefully at his words in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmxZ6AG_k6k , you can see a lot of abusive generalisation, caricature of an ennemy who is a catalyst of one liner, his comparison are obviously bullshit. he behave like an humorist but lack of rigor. for example his comparison between gay mariage and buisness don't work, there is a case with a strong difference of strengh rapport in one and a real mutual consent in another case. a comparison between a "heart" who would be leftist and a "head" who would be rightist is a childish reasoning who is a clear manipulation to make you think that it's a reasoning that came from reason while it is a reasoning that come from a negative affects, but that remain an affect, actually the far Right work on the internet because this public is full of teen like you who want to look more mature and edgy but are unable to discern negative affect and reason. P.M those use of people's paranoia and convincing of the public that they are becoming more adult while being manipulated is the same way that use neo-feminist when they want to "open the eyes" of women with demagogic matrix comparison .

Editing post #5835 by fg <p>Teru Mikami i will sound extremly infantalizing and arrogant to you but i think you might think about this if you have grown up in few years. Ben Shapiro like most known conservative polemist is just a showman and certainly not a thinker in anyway. if you look carefully at his words in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmxZ6AG_k6k , you can see a lot of abusive generalisation, caricature of an ennemy who is a catalyst of one liner, his comparison are obviously bullshit. he behave like an humorist but lack of rigor. for example his comparison between gay mariage and buisness don't work, there is a case with a strong difference of strengh rapport in one and a real mutual consent in another case. a comparison between a "heart" who would be leftist and a "head" who would be rightist is a childish reasoning who is a clear manipulation to make you think that it's a reasoning that came from reason while it is a reasoning that come from a negative affects, but that remain an affect, actually the far Right work on the internet because this public is full of teen like you who want to look more mature and edgy but are unable to discern negative affect and reason.</p> <p>P.M those use of people's paranoia and convincing of the public that they are becoming more adult while being manipulated is the same way that use neo-feminist when they want to "open the eyes" of women with demagogic matrix comparison .</p>
Replying to post #5835 by fg

Teru Mikami 2019/04/25 (Thu) 13:55:45 #5833
I know socionists used societal roles to present the types, but there is documentation around ways of thinking and their preferences that I don't want to ignore because they don't fit his particular "role". Even using that point of view, I think the way he collects statistics and facts and presents himself as a walking encyclopedia of counter-arguments is very different from e.g. the "entertaining front" of Milo, who uses his sexuality, humour and wit for the same ends, trying to piss people off and rarely entering a genuine argument when the spotlight's aimed at him. Any popular, mainstream figure is bound to adopt some kind of entertaining role, and while Ben has definitely pushed that over the years, I don't think he centers himself around humour or "his wits" often enough to make a case for that. When both Alex Jones and PJW are trying to do the same thing to an even greater extent, I think being funny on the internet is more of an effort to secure an audience than a genuine preference for an entertaining environment.

Editing post #5833 by Teru Mikami <p>I know socionists used societal roles to present the types, but there is documentation around ways of thinking and their preferences that I don't want to ignore because they don't fit his particular "role". Even using that point of view, I think the way he collects statistics and facts and presents himself as a walking encyclopedia of counter-arguments is very different from e.g. the "entertaining front" of Milo, who uses his sexuality, humour and wit for the same ends, trying to piss people off and rarely entering a genuine argument when the spotlight's aimed at him. Any popular, mainstream figure is bound to adopt some kind of entertaining role, and while Ben has definitely pushed that over the years, I don't think he centers himself around humour or "his wits" often enough to make a case for that. When both Alex Jones and PJW are trying to do the same thing to an even greater extent, I think being funny on the internet is more of an effort to secure an audience than a genuine preference for an entertaining environment. </p>
Replying to post #5833 by Teru Mikami

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2019/04/25 (Thu) 03:14:04 #5832
	Okay... why should he be a 1? And an S? I read through the replies here and I really like the ESE argument... the way lvna characterizes him is painfully accurate, and he should belong under ESE for those reasons. LSE is just... off. That’s like playing into his facade. Shapiro isn’t about the facts, but about the narrative. His “debating” isn’t about exposing people or debunking their ideas, but about looking like he’s winning—it’s about getting people to see him and his reactionary nonsense as correct, not actually being correct. Maybe from some perspective this may look like “left-wing bias” distorting the character of an honorable man speaking the truth that they don’t want you to hear, but Shapiro knows exactly what he’s doing, and so goes for many other similar conservative commentators. I guess he wouldn’t seem like an intuitive if you took what he said at face value, but his modus operandi is just not very S to begin with. The specific tactics he uses to convince people are really covert in a way that I could not see a senser using comfortably. And everything surrounding that as well—it’s all very smart and deliberate. This argument is really misled: You can argue "he's just an entertaining front" for the modern right but pasting that on a sociotype is some serious elitism and has absolutely no grounding in reality. It has a lot of grounding in reality, especially when you look at how socionists have historically used and continue to use Socionics. There’s an entire culture surrounding Socionics that is predicated upon typing people by the roles they assume in society, and it happens to be the original, Russian way of looking at it. The new culture surrounding sociotype largely ignores the basis for what makes it such a unique (and interesting) typology system and is unfortunately influenced heavily by people wanting to fit what they are already familiar with into something that simultaneously happens to be anything unlike what they are already familiar with.

Editing post #5832 by strawberry crisis <p>Okay... why should he be a 1? And an S? I read through the replies here and I really like the ESE argument... the way lvna characterizes him is painfully accurate, and he should belong under ESE for those reasons. LSE is just... off. That’s like playing into his facade. Shapiro isn’t about the facts, but about the narrative. His “debating” isn’t about exposing people or debunking their ideas, but about looking like he’s winning—it’s about getting people to see him and his reactionary nonsense as correct, not actually <em>being</em> correct. Maybe from some perspective this may look like “left-wing bias” distorting the character of an honorable man speaking the truth that they don’t want you to hear, but Shapiro knows exactly what he’s doing, and so goes for many other similar conservative commentators.</p> <p>I guess he wouldn’t seem like an intuitive if you took what he said at face value, but his modus operandi is just not very S to begin with. The specific tactics he uses to convince people are really covert in a way that I could not see a senser using comfortably. And everything surrounding that as well—it’s all very smart and deliberate.</p> <p>This argument is really misled: You can argue "he's just an entertaining front" for the modern right but pasting that on a sociotype is some serious elitism and has absolutely no grounding in reality.</p> <p>It has a lot of grounding in reality, especially when you look at how socionists have historically used and continue to use Socionics. There’s an entire culture surrounding Socionics that is predicated upon typing people by the roles they assume in society, and it happens to be the original, Russian way of looking at it. The new culture surrounding sociotype largely ignores the basis for what makes it such a unique (and interesting) typology system and is unfortunately influenced heavily by people wanting to fit what they are already familiar with into something that simultaneously happens to be anything unlike what they are already familiar with.</p>
Replying to post #5832 by strawberry crisis

	Dr. Klemphoff 5w6 LII 2018/09/14 (Fri) 18:20:10 #3286
	It appears Mr Mikami has been unable to relinquish his unfounded bias against logical positions and has succumbed to petty appeals to Se. Let me be the first, Teru, to assume the assumed position you hold of the one I hold of the one LUVA hold's of the one you hold is ASSUMED. Therefore your assumption of the assumed position of LVNA having any brain scans cannot be relevant, nor would any physical evidence be needed in such a deduction to claim it as observable. If you can't yourself handle a slight disconnection from reality, don't try to fight it. Stay on the ground where your logic can look at the dirt as proof you have any standing to base your claims on.

Editing post #3286 by Dr. Klemphoff <p>It appears Mr Mikami has been unable to relinquish his unfounded bias against logical positions and has succumbed to petty appeals to Se. Let me be the first, Teru, to assume the assumed position you hold of the one I hold of the one LUVA hold's of the one you hold is ASSUMED. Therefore your assumption of the assumed position of LVNA having any brain scans cannot be relevant, nor would any physical evidence be needed in such a deduction to claim it as observable. <br /> <br /> If you can't yourself handle a slight disconnection from reality, don't try to fight it. Stay on the ground where your logic can look at the dirt as proof you have any standing to base your claims on.</p>
Replying to post #3286 by Dr. Klemphoff

Teru Mikami 2018/09/14 (Fri) 17:59:04 #3285
Since you're so adament on orbiting the acclaimed genius Stratiyevskaya, I found a little something you might not be very found of reading (literally the only thing relevant to his type on this entire page) Anyways, is it just me or are you assuming positions I don't even hold (let me guess, because of my quadra?) and trying to make yourself as abstract as possible simply to piss me off? I mean how is globalism relevant? What do I care about genetics or brain scans? Do you have Shapiro's brain scans? Did I ever say I don't think there's a genetic or observable basis to personality(??)? How can you tell so surely what he does and why he does it when you claim to not even be sticking to evidence? Do you even know this dude? I guess I'm just wrong because I make sense (????)

Editing post #3285 by Teru Mikami <p>Since you're so adament on orbiting the acclaimed genius Stratiyevskaya, <a href="http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=ESE_by_Stratiyevskaya">I found a little something you might not be very found of reading</a> (literally the only thing relevant to his type on this entire page)</p> <p> </p> <p>Anyways, is it just me or are you assuming positions I don't even hold (let me guess, because of my quadra?) and trying to make yourself as abstract as possible simply to piss me off? I mean how is globalism relevant? What do I care about genetics or brain scans? Do you have Shapiro's brain scans? Did I ever say I don't think there's a genetic or observable basis to personality(??)? How can you tell so surely what he does and why he does it when you claim to not even be sticking to evidence? Do you even know this dude? I guess I'm just wrong because I make sense (????)</p>
Replying to post #3285 by Teru Mikami

	LVNA 2018/09/14 (Fri) 15:10:26 #3284
	"According to almost every profile and description the ESE's base Fe caters to emotional needs and the surrounding atmosphere, tries to have as many relationships with people as possible and looks for vivid emotional expression and exchange." Do you really think (or MAYBE you feel) I care about what the idiotic American masses have done to the Neo-Hegelian - Jungian theory of functions? In fact this is just a vile demonstration of a BEHAVIORIST perspective that weaponizes the archetypal by claiming it can only be abstracted AFTER dichotomistic and empirical analyses of someone's behavioral response to situations is performed by means of an online test. In fact, however, the spiritual significance of socionics is that it goes to the level of the empirical only after defining well the abstract paradigms of thought that categorize INDELIBLE archetypes who represent a culmination of the European spirit of Gods, first through thought in which they could not be spoken directly of, then through Christian theologizing, and finally representing themselves in new abstracted forms which are the Jungian Cognitive Functions. Therefore, PLEASE NoTe that if you have a lustful temptation to go by means of empirical analysis for functions, you are destroying the concept of COgnitive Functions from the outset. This is comparable to speaking to a grandmother of Native American heritage using a European language and expecting her to conform, and then additionally not even realizing she responds with an alienated emotion because you have so much succumbed to the perspective bequeathed unto you by your native tongue. To continue with my points... What Quadra represents is a spirit (essential) culmination of opposites within the human psyche and therefore the images it engenders must be ones that are like paintings in one's mind. However, it must be noted that these paintings are more like melting wax paintings, as towards the edges of each quadra the next quadra arises and as such there can be some grey zones. When we look into Alpha quadra and think of the unification of these opposites the images that resound through the darkness are: freedom of the individual, a strong mind who focuses uncompromisingly on principles, a will unto the possibility of defining human life in reference to human truth that casually and calmly gives way to more freedom. If you do not see this culmination of spirit within Shapiro, I really can't help you...but do you really think you would salivate at the mouth to someone who does not occupy your Quadra TerúMika? The fact of the matter is it is very likely that within you there have been engendered specific brain patterns correlated with functions...did you know once upon a time none other than Carl Jung made a magnificent discovery: there were many cultures who had correlated these intuitional functions with cardinal directions in the world. Based on this occurence it's not difficult to understand that a principle of nature is that the external mirrors the internal. One of the greatest socionists of today, Vera Stratievskaya, has done marvellous work on demonstrating that functions may represent themselves within the brain of a person. In a sense, this means that even if there is no genetic basis for a person's type (something a behaviorist like yourself might love to argue), that patterns of thought which exist in opposites are unavoidably going to be greased each time the one is used. Ben Shapiro is no exception to this fact...as stated above, by going from the level of the Fe-Ti archetypal relation, we can see that this thought pattern is one that is greased within his brain...so the more that he pays homage to the one side, the more the other will rise up within his psyche. This is really a non-negotiable FACT (REMEMBER THE QUOTE YOU POSTED EARLIER??). The sad thing, though, is that simply because socionics presents this perspective where we are able to understand the ways that these cardinal opoosites get summed into the world of the idealistic and spiritual of humanity, we currently live in an era in which it is simply impossible to not be psychologically disturbed. In the old days it was very easy to simply pray to an opposing deity, and the result of this would be a psychological unification, but as we see the functions expressed in many different cultures, we can understand the legacy of European thought and globalism is one that has destroyed the mystical and therefore left us with the most generalized aspect of spirit to be encountered in humanity. And unfortunately society's rampant individualism therefore leads someone to bow to the alters of the functions within same quadra individuals, resulting in Duality. With Shapiro we see this quite obviously. His adoring of Ti dominant figures represents his desire to unify himself with the Ti thought pattern that is so strong within his mind, but that ultimately is underdeveloped because of his dominant Extroverted Ethics. The sad thing is that it is likely this individualistic philosophy, in which dichotomy's are attempted to be united within the individual that has led to his horrendous introverted thinking GRIP. A perfect example of this espoused by Jung himself can be seen with none other than Sigmund Freud, who spent his entire life in an extroverted thinking grip. And here is where we return to these descriptions of Fe. ... The description you mention is perhaps the ideal extroverted ethics user. This is someone who has accepted their dominant function and has found introverted thinking elsewhere to confirm the idealism of the Alpha quadra which seeks to slowly unfurl its expansion of the generalized, globalized human spirit (Hegel for example was LII, Jung was LII, all of this should be quite obvious therefore). This is where the Hegelian Spirit meets the Tarkovskyian Spirit within typology...because the Hegelian socionics shows us the way to peace within ourselves. I am incredibly confident that if Shapiro did not waste his time trying to become such a Ti individual and to fixate on socionics Ti he would live a happy and peaceful existence where he shared in delightful emotions with others. But he is a product of the time, and because of that he fixates on the Ti opinions of others as Bertrand from the16types mentioned. I really see no other possibility than ESE here...if you did fMRI studies on him I'm sure the same thing would be revealed in regards to the Te-Fi axis. Below I have linked some reading for you: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/461-The-Laws-of-Quadra-Succession-by-Vera-Stratiyevskaya (This is the must read of socionics today). https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2012/12/jung-identified-freud-as-both-estj-and-infp/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgnzY_63Tw Thank you.

Editing post #3284 by LVNA <p>"According to almost every profile and description the ESE's base Fe caters to emotional needs and the surrounding atmosphere, tries to have as many relationships with people as possible and looks for vivid emotional expression and exchange." Do you <em>really think (or MAYBE you feel)</em> I care about what the idiotic American masses have done to the Neo-Hegelian - Jungian theory of functions? In fact this is just a <em><strong>vile</strong></em> demonstration of a BEHAVIORIST perspective that weaponizes the archetypal by claiming it can only be abstracted AFTER dichotomistic and empirical analyses of someone's behavioral response to situations is performed by means of an online test. In fact, however, the <strong>spiritual significance</strong> of socionics is that it goes to the level of the empirical only after defining well the abstract paradigms of thought that categorize <em>INDELIBLE archetypes</em> who represent a culmination of the European spirit of Gods, first through thought in which they could not be spoken directly of, then through Christian theologizing, and finally representing themselves in new abstracted forms which are the Jungian Cognitive Functions. Therefore, PLEASE NoTe that if you have a lustful temptation to go by means of empirical analysis for functions, you are <strong>destroying the concept of COgnitive Functions from the outset</strong>. This is comparable to speaking to a grandmother of Native American heritage using a European language and expecting her to conform, and then additionally not even realizing she responds with an alienated emotion because you have so much succumbed to the perspective bequeathed unto you by your native tongue. To continue with my points...</p> <p>What Quadra represents is a <em>spirit (essential)</em> culmination of opposites within the human psyche and therefore the images it engenders must be ones that are like paintings in one's mind. However, it must be noted that these paintings are more like melting wax paintings, as towards the edges of each quadra the next quadra arises and as such there can be some grey zones. When we look into Alpha quadra and think of the unification of these opposites the images that resound through the darkness are: freedom of the individual, a strong mind who focuses uncompromisingly on principles, a will unto the possibility of defining human life in reference to human truth that casually and calmly gives way to more freedom. If you do not see this culmination of spirit within Shapiro, I really can't help you...but do you really think you would salivate at the mouth to someone who does not occupy your Quadra TerúMika? The fact of the matter is it is very likely that within you there have been engendered specific brain patterns correlated with functions...did you know once upon a time none other than Carl Jung made a magnificent discovery: there were many cultures who had correlated these intuitional functions with cardinal directions in the world. </p> <p>Based on this occurence it's not difficult to understand that a principle of nature is that <em><strong>the external mirrors the internal</strong></em>. One of the greatest socionists of today, Vera Stratievskaya, has done marvellous work on demonstrating that functions may represent themselves <em>within the brain of a person</em>. In a sense, this means that even if there is no genetic basis for a person's type (something a behaviorist like yourself might love to argue), that patterns of thought which exist in opposites are unavoidably going to be greased each time the one is used. Ben Shapiro is no exception to this fact...as stated above, by going from the level of the Fe-Ti archetypal relation, we can see that this thought pattern is one that is greased within his brain...so the more that he pays homage to the one side, the more the other will rise up within his psyche. This is really a <strong>non-negotiable FACT</strong><strong> (REMEMBER THE QUOTE YOU POSTED EARLIER??)</strong>.</p> <p>The sad thing, though, is that simply because socionics presents this perspective where we are able to understand the ways that these cardinal opoosites get summed into the world of the idealistic and spiritual of humanity, we currently live in an era in which it is simply <em>impossible to not be psychologically disturbed</em>. In the old days it was very easy to simply pray to an opposing deity, and the result of this would be a psychological unification, but as we see the functions expressed in many different cultures, we can understand the legacy of European thought and globalism is one that has <em>destroyed the mystical</em> and therefore left us with the most <em>generalized aspect of spirit</em> to be encountered in humanity. And unfortunately society's rampant individualism therefore leads someone to bow to the alters of the functions within same quadra individuals, resulting in <strong>Duality</strong>. With Shapiro we see this quite obviously. His adoring of Ti dominant figures represents his desire to unify himself with the Ti thought pattern that is so strong within his mind, but that ultimately is underdeveloped because of his dominant Extroverted Ethics. The sad thing is that it is likely this <em>individualistic philosophy</em>, in which dichotomy's are attempted to be united within the individual that has led to his horrendous introverted thinking GRIP. A perfect example of this espoused by Jung himself can be seen with none other than Sigmund Freud, who spent his entire life in an extroverted thinking grip. And here is where we return to these descriptions of Fe. </p> <p>...</p> <p>The description you mention is perhaps the ideal extroverted ethics user. This is someone who has accepted their dominant function and has found introverted thinking elsewhere to confirm the idealism of the Alpha quadra which seeks to slowly unfurl its expansion of the generalized, globalized human spirit (Hegel for example was LII, Jung was LII, all of this should be quite obvious therefore). This is where the Hegelian Spirit meets the Tarkovskyian Spirit within typology...because the Hegelian socionics shows us <em>the way to peace within ourselves. </em>I am incredibly confident that if Shapiro did not waste his time trying to become such a Ti individual and to fixate on socionics Ti he would live a happy and peaceful existence where he shared in delightful emotions with others. But he is a product of the time, and because of that he fixates on the Ti opinions of others as Bertrand from the16types mentioned. I really see no other possibility than ESE here...if you did fMRI studies on him I'm sure the same thing would be revealed in regards to the Te-Fi axis. Below I have linked some reading for you: <br /> <br /> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/461-The-Laws-of-Quadra-Succession-by-Vera-Stratiyevskaya (This is the must read of socionics today). </p> <p>https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2012/12/jung-identified-freud-as-both-estj-and-infp/</p> <p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgnzY_63Tw</p> <p> </p> <p>Thank you. <3</p>
Replying to post #3284 by LVNA

Teru Mikami 2018/09/14 (Fri) 11:47:41 #3283
According to almost every profile and description the ESE's base Fe caters to emotional needs and the surrounding atmosphere, tries to have as many relationships with people as possible and looks for vivid emotional expression and exchange. Say what you want but none of that fits Ben, in fact his career is founded against the premise of catering to people's feelings. You can argue "he's just an entertaining front" for the modern right but pasting that on a sociotype is some serious elitism and has absolutely no grounding in reality. Whoever you quoted didn't "sum it up" at all and if you've spent any time in the typology community you should know that these people will do anything as long as it deviates from what's actually written and means they can misrepresent people and types they don't like with their own mental gymnastics and that's the only thing that argument did. The entire premise is that ESEs are spineless, manipulative circus monkeys who can't think for themselves, how do you take these people seriously? Forgetting all the bias that's going on, how Ben presents himself is in complete conflict with what Fe is about at its core, and that really isn't hard to notice.

Editing post #3283 by Teru Mikami <p>According to almost every profile and description the ESE's base Fe caters to emotional needs and the surrounding atmosphere, tries to have as many relationships with people as possible and looks for vivid emotional expression and exchange. Say what you want but none of that fits Ben, in fact his career is founded <em>against</em> the premise of catering to people's feelings. You can argue "he's just an entertaining front" for the modern right but pasting that on a sociotype is some serious elitism and has absolutely no grounding in reality. Whoever you quoted didn't "sum it up" at all and if you've spent any time in the typology community you should know that these people will do anything as long as it deviates from what's actually written and means they can misrepresent people and types they don't like with their own mental gymnastics and that's the only thing that argument did. The entire premise is that ESEs are spineless, manipulative circus monkeys who can't think for themselves, how do you take these people seriously?</p> <p> </p> <p>Forgetting all the bias that's going on, how Ben presents himself is in complete conflict with what Fe is about at its core, and that really isn't hard to notice. </p>
Replying to post #3283 by Teru Mikami

	LVNA 2018/09/14 (Fri) 11:10:13 #3282
	I don't really have the stamina to cater to this, so I found a quote on the16types that sums it up. But honestly nice logical manipulation...causally, I definitely distort my perception of his ideas because I dislike him, not vice versa. Great point. "This is exactly right; he doesn’t have an original thought in his body; rather, he’s an ideological spokesperson for the whatever-you-want-to-call-whatever-movement-this-is. He’s like the human version of those dinosaurs that can puff out those colorful frills and then you realize they’re tiny and have nothing to actually say. He’s like what Tom Cruise is to L. Ron, except his L. Ron is whatever conservative political figure he encountered at the formative age of 13 when he realized he could impress people, and thereby feel a sense of contribution, via his forceful parroting of the cause. You can tell this an alpha form of Fe because of its obvious character of holding “public executions.” Its his way of enforcing and taking on the offense the underlying Ti constructions generated by the relatively invisible and retiring LIIs and ILEs who provided for him all his underlying premises (which were likely in turn generated by beta far upstream). Because of their general cloisteredness, especially in comparison to such a self-promoting figure, people make the mistake of thinking these thoughts are his own. Generally ESEs are most productive in entertainment, so it would be tempting to think maybe he’s wasting his talent. Then you realize the youtube/foxnews/facebook/podcast sphere of political discourse is precisely that. Its “politics” in the sense that its “political debate,” which is really just theatre, served up to reinforce psychological perspectives by restating what everyone already believes (+Fe), but in a way that obscures the fundamentally unoriginal, and empty, character of the thing (Ni polr) and emphasizes convincing delivery (+Fe -Si) in response to the collective discomfort such perspectives have recently had to endure, so as to promote comfort in their cultural bubble His entire spiel is just a gish gallop of talking points in a forum where such a thing has maximum impact and minimal chance of recalcitrance on the merits, which would require a slow and careful analysis rooted in intellectual charity and rigor and not what essentially amounts to a circus… bread and circuses"

Editing post #3282 by LVNA <p>I don't really have the stamina to cater to this, so I found a quote on the16types that sums it up. But honestly nice logical manipulation...causally, I definitely <em>distort</em> my perception of his ideas because I dislike <em>him, </em>not vice versa. Great point. </p> <p> </p> <p>"This is exactly right; he doesn’t have an original thought in his body; rather, he’s an ideological spokesperson for the whatever-you-want-to-call-whatever-movement-this-is. He’s like the human version of those dinosaurs that can puff out those colorful frills and then you realize they’re tiny and have nothing to actually say. He’s like what Tom Cruise is to L. Ron, except his L. Ron is whatever conservative political figure he encountered at the formative age of 13 when he realized he could impress people, and thereby feel a sense of contribution, via his forceful parroting of the cause.<br /> <br /> You can tell this an alpha form of Fe because of its obvious character of holding “public executions.” Its his way of enforcing and taking on the offense the underlying Ti constructions generated by the relatively invisible and retiring LIIs and ILEs who provided for him all his underlying premises (which were likely in turn generated by beta far upstream). Because of their general cloisteredness, especially in comparison to such a self-promoting figure, people make the mistake of thinking these thoughts are his own. <br /> <br /> Generally ESEs are most productive in entertainment, so it would be tempting to think maybe he’s wasting his talent. Then you realize the youtube/foxnews/facebook/podcast sphere of political discourse is precisely that. Its “politics” in the sense that its “political debate,” which is really just <strong>theatre</strong>, served up to reinforce psychological perspectives by restating what everyone already believes (+Fe), but in a way that obscures the fundamentally unoriginal, and empty, character of the thing (Ni polr) and emphasizes convincing delivery (+Fe -Si) in response to the collective discomfort such perspectives have recently had to endure, so as to promote comfort in their cultural bubble <br /> <br /> His entire spiel is just a gish gallop of talking points in a forum where such a thing has maximum impact and minimal chance of recalcitrance on the merits, which would require a slow and careful analysis rooted in intellectual charity and rigor and not what essentially amounts to a circus… bread and circuses"</p> <p> </p>
Replying to post #3282 by LVNA

Teru Mikami 2018/09/14 (Fri) 10:36:03 #3280
yeah okay, get off your conceptual high horse and explain how he's Fe outside of the fact that you obviously don't like him (weren't you the kid who was going on about how he's a 3 because he DISTORTS FACTS which obviously has everything to do with being a 3 and is not your own emotional rhetoric meant to paint him as every negative trait you can get your hands on), you're distorting him to be something he's absolutely not

Editing post #3280 by Teru Mikami <p>yeah okay, get off your conceptual high horse and explain how he's Fe outside of the fact that you obviously don't like him (weren't you the kid who was going on about how he's a 3 because he DISTORTS FACTS which obviously has everything to do with being a 3 and is not your own emotional rhetoric meant to paint him as every negative trait you can get your hands on), you're distorting him to be something he's absolutely not</p>
Replying to post #3280 by Teru Mikami

	LVNA 2018/09/13 (Thu) 21:29:25 #3271
	"Delta quadra af." There's really nothing socionics Te about this guy. He is whiny and motivates individuals through emotional rhetoric. His ideas are actually bound up in a sort of Alpha idealism where he is guided by certain "American Principles" if you really want to get into quadra. He isn't focused on down to earth, small comunity matters where his actions show him to be a champion of the people, which is really what the LSE stereotype is a la Mitt Romney. ESE for sure.

Editing post #3271 by LVNA <p>"Delta quadra af." There's really nothing socionics Te about this guy. He is whiny and motivates individuals through emotional rhetoric. His ideas are actually bound up in a sort of Alpha idealism where he is guided by certain "American Principles" if you really want to get into quadra. He isn't focused on down to earth, small comunity matters where his actions show him to be a champion of the people, which is really what the LSE stereotype is a la Mitt Romney. ESE for sure. </p>
Replying to post #3271 by LVNA

date	username	vote
21/05/09 01:15	snowcones7867	ESTJ
21/04/27 08:38	devilgirl666	ESTJ
21/01/05 17:54	spaceynyc	ESTJ
20/12/07 17:34	kashifirfanbhatti	ESTJ
20/12/05 15:58	Darkstar	ESTJ
20/03/22 14:04	Thyssen	ESTJ
19/06/25 04:01	fg	ESTJ
19/06/23 04:46	typometrics.tumblr	ESTJ
19/05/10 02:44	INTJ-2698	ESTJ
19/04/07 04:14	fsninetwo	ESTJ
18/12/30 01:02	thormns	ESTJ
18/11/24 18:07	twinpinks	ESTJ
18/11/16 11:53	Tch	ESTJ
20/03/20 12:51	Tman	ESTJ
18/08/19 08:48	kawaii	ExTJ
18/07/10 04:19	scumfuc	ESTJ
18/07/10 11:43	diobono	ESTJ
18/05/15 04:41	edza	ENTJ
18/05/15 12:56	lvna	ESTJ
19/04/25 17:25	Taco110	ENTJ
18/05/12 05:41	Nyx	ESTJ
18/05/12 05:36	the heart marksman	ISFP
18/05/12 05:29	teru mikami	ENTJ

date	username	vote
22/03/08 00:04	Woll Smoth	ESTJ
21/04/27 08:38	devilgirl666	ESTJ
20/12/07 17:34	kashifirfanbhatti	ESTJ
20/12/05 15:58	Darkstar	ESTJ
20/10/16 01:04	Flower-like	ESTJ
20/03/22 14:04	Thyssen	ESTJ
19/06/25 04:01	fg	ESTJ
19/06/23 04:46	typometrics.tumblr	ESTJ
19/05/10 02:44	INTJ-2698	ESTJ
19/04/07 04:14	fsninetwo	ESTJ
19/11/16 23:51	tch	ESTJ
18/12/11 18:36	Taco110	ENTJ
18/11/27 21:22	tman	ESTJ
18/09/15 06:33	Teru Mikami	ENTJ

date	username	vote
21/05/09 01:15	snowcones7867	1w2
21/04/27 08:38	devilgirl666	1w2
20/12/07 17:34	kashifirfanbhatti	3wb
20/12/05 15:58	Darkstar	1w2
20/03/22 14:04	Thyssen	3wb
19/11/17 07:05	fg	3wb
19/11/17 01:58	strawberry crisis	3wb
19/11/22 09:02	fsninetwo	3wb
19/11/17 14:00	Lol	3wb
19/05/10 02:44	INTJ-2698	1w2
20/03/22 14:10	Tman	3wb
18/08/14 12:47	kawaii	1w2
18/07/10 04:19	scumfuc	1w2
19/11/25 00:38	LVNA	3wb
21/02/27 21:39	Taco110	3wb
18/05/12 05:29	teru mikami	1w2

date	username	vote
20/12/05 15:58	Darkstar	so/sp
20/03/22 14:04	Thyssen	so/sp
19/04/07 04:14	fsninetwo	so/sp
19/02/27 22:06	tman	so/sp
18/07/10 04:12	Taco110	so/sp

date	username	vote
20/12/07 17:34	kashifirfanbhatti	316
20/12/05 15:58	Darkstar	136
20/03/22 14:10	Tman	361
20/03/22 14:04	Thyssen	316
19/11/17 02:25	fsninetwo	316
19/06/23 04:09	typometrics.tumblr	136
19/01/23 20:19	ResoluteSoul	351
18/12/11 18:37	Taco110	361
18/09/14 09:21	Teru Mikami	135

date	username	vote
25/07/17 10:32	nicotineseries	LSE
25/07/08 00:34	Woll Smoth	LSE
21/04/27 08:38	devilgirl666	LSE
21/01/05 17:54	spaceynyc	LSE
20/12/07 17:34	kashifirfanbhatti	LSE
21/04/22 00:48	Darkstar	LSI
20/03/22 14:04	Thyssen	LSE
20/02/01 19:52	Zazu	LIE
19/10/14 17:50	Lol	LSE
19/06/25 03:01	tman	LSE
19/06/23 04:23	typometrics.tumblr	LSE
19/05/10 02:44	INTJ-2698	LSE
18/09/14 09:19	Teru Mikami	LSE
18/08/14 10:10	switchblades	LSE
18/07/10 04:20	scumfuc	LSE
18/05/15 12:57	lvna	ESE
19/04/25 17:25	Taco110	LSE

date	username	vote
20/12/07 17:34	kashifirfanbhatti	VFEL
20/02/04 15:45	Taco110	VFEL
20/02/01 21:28	Thyssen	VFEL
19/11/16 18:05	Jacobus	FLVE
21/03/15 19:25	Tman	LFVE

date	username	vote
20/08/10 13:52	Thyssen	HEXACO

	Thyssen ILI 2019/11/25 (Mon) 21:01:39 #7467
	Finally! I've been waiting for episode 3.

Editing post #7467 by Thyssen <p>Finally! I've been waiting for episode 3.</p>
Replying to post #7467 by Thyssen

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2019/11/25 (Mon) 20:35:11 #7466
	Kids, I swear to God, I will turn this car around!

Editing post #7466 by Tman <p>Kids, I swear to God, I will turn this car around!</p>
Replying to post #7466 by Tman

	fsninetwo eNTP 5w4 548 sx/sp ILx 2019/11/22 (Fri) 09:02:42 #7450
	Update: OK, I admit I was wrong, because i wasn't well thought about him. He definitely doesn't have a 4 wing and 3wb is most correct vote to him.

Editing post #7450 by fsninetwo <p>Update: OK, I admit I was wrong, because i wasn't well thought about him. He definitely doesn't have a 4 wing and 3wb is most correct vote to him.</p>
Replying to post #7450 by fsninetwo

Teru Mikami 2019/04/25 (Thu) 14:04:00 #5834
to add to that: anyone in debate uses rhetoric to some extent, doesn't matter if he's "so obviously wrong" and "knows what he's doing", using "facts and logic" is a lot more subtle [and boring] than milo saying he can't be wrong cause he's gay and has black boyfriends

Editing post #5834 by Teru Mikami <p>to add to that: anyone in debate uses rhetoric to some extent, doesn't matter if he's "so obviously wrong" and "knows what he's doing", using "facts and logic" is a <em>lot </em>more subtle [and boring] than milo saying he can't be wrong cause he's gay and has black boyfriends</p>
Replying to post #5834 by Teru Mikami

	Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys INTP 5w4 2018/11/26 (Mon) 00:41:38 #4152
	[Laughs in Jewish]

Editing post #4152 by Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys <p>[Laughs in Jewish]</p>
Replying to post #4152 by Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys

	HashBIT ISFJ 2018/11/24 (Sat) 18:31:12 #4151
	ah-HaR ah-HaR ah-HaaaaaaaaaaR

Editing post #4151 by HashBIT <p>ah-HaR ah-HaR ah-HaaaaaaaaaaR</p>
Replying to post #4151 by HashBIT

	Lol Gemini 6w9 sx/sx Your dual ;) 2018/11/24 (Sat) 17:58:40 #4150
	Ben “my wife’s a doctor” Shapiro.

Editing post #4150 by Lol <p>Ben “my wife’s a doctor” Shapiro.</p>
Replying to post #4150 by Lol

	Turi INFP 2018/09/15 (Sat) 05:55:57 #3299
	Wrong once again Mr. Mikami. You can now exit the stage.

Editing post #3299 by Turi <p>Wrong once again Mr. Mikami. You can now exit the stage.</p>
Replying to post #3299 by Turi

Teru Mikami 2018/09/15 (Sat) 01:55:45 #3289
you people think you're funny or something

Editing post #3289 by Teru Mikami <p>you people think you're funny or something</p>
Replying to post #3289 by Teru Mikami

	LVNA 2018/09/14 (Fri) 10:07:52 #3278
	Thank you. What a great encapsulation of emotionally charged rhetoric geared at stirring the masses up that has absolutely no meaning behind it, or if it does have one, is a principle the speaker doesn’t even obey. In socionics terms it’s really quite clear he’s Fe-Ti and that was a great quote.

Editing post #3278 by LVNA <p>Thank you. What a great encapsulation of emotionally charged rhetoric geared at stirring the masses up that has absolutely no meaning behind it, or if it does have one, is a principle the speaker doesn’t even obey. In socionics terms it’s really quite clear he’s Fe-Ti and that was a great quote. </p>
Replying to post #3278 by LVNA

Teru Mikami 2018/09/14 (Fri) 07:59:47 #3276
yeah definitely feeling ESE for Ben "Facts don't care about your feelings" Shapiro, typing by quadras is a great method

Editing post #3276 by Teru Mikami <p>yeah definitely feeling ESE for Ben "Facts don't care about your feelings" Shapiro, typing by quadras is a great method</p>
Replying to post #3276 by Teru Mikami

	switchblades INFP delete 2018/08/14 (Tue) 10:10:39 #2818
	delta quadra af

Editing post #2818 by switchblades <p>delta quadra af</p>
Replying to post #2818 by switchblades

	the heart marksman FiSe 8w9 sx/so SEE 2018/05/15 (Tue) 13:22:38 #539
	lol

Editing post #539 by the heart marksman <p>lol</p>
Replying to post #539 by the heart marksman