"and weed"
I was leaning towards ESTP, too. I think DaveSuperPowers typed him as ENTJ (maybe @wolly.green can tell us more about that)
According to Dave, he is not a standard MBTI type. He has been typed as Se/Te. So he is a subtype of ESFP.
"and weed"
I was leaning towards ESTP, too. I think DaveSuperPowers typed him as ENTJ (maybe @wolly.green can tell us more about that)
According to Dave, he is not a standard MBTI type. He has been typed as Se/Te. So he is a subtype of ESFP.
Oh, right. I thought it was Te/Se. Interesting stuff! I’m a bit skeptical, though. Will have to check the video.
Regardless of their type, who do you prefer - Peterson or Harris?
Having listened their debates, I found Harris pretty dull. He was constantly nitpicking Peterson's arguments and used some micro-examples to undermine Peterson's broad theories. That's very easy and boring, and doesn't remind me of Ni dom at all. Reminds me more of underdeveloped INTP. So I have little to no interest in Harris.
Peterson is much superior to me. Although he's not accurate on all issues (espescially politically), I like his general message. He is very hard to type though, but my best judgement would be NTP. I find it very strange that some people think he's a sensor. Also, I simply cannot see him being a F type. He's so pragmatic and non-affiliative.
All i remember that his saviors are Se and Te.
his saviors are Se and Te.
Se and Te.
Regardless of their type, who do you prefer - Peterson or Harris?
Having listened their debates, I found Harris pretty dull. He was constantly nitpicking Peterson's arguments and used some micro-examples to undermine Peterson's broad theories. That's very easy and boring, and doesn't remind me of Ni dom at all. Reminds me more of underdeveloped INTP. So I have little to no interest in Harris.
Peterson is much superior to me. Although he's not accurate on all issues (espescially politically), I like his general message. He is very hard to type though, but my best judgement would be NTP. I find it very strange that some people think he's a sensor. Also, I simply cannot see him being a F type. He's so pragmatic and non-affiliative.
I prefer Harris. I like Peterson, but like Harris keeps nitpicking at, Peterson is notoriously imprecise. Worse still, he just expects everyone to just understand what hes saying.
LOL. Yeah. No doubt T.
Don't you think this is a bit condescending, John?There's something that's really bothering me about the way this thread is going, and it's the same with almost all threads that talk about feeling - they persist in getting emotion, 'niceness' and feeling judgement all mixed up and switch promiscuously between them quite unjustifiably. Maybe it's me that has got this wrong, but I feel that this sort of discussion simply adds to the ongoing distortion of understanding about what is feeling judgement.
Let me explain my position on this.There's something that's really bothering me about the way this thread is going, and it's the same with almost all threads that talk about feeling - they persist in getting emotion, 'niceness' and feeling judgement all mixed up and switch promiscuously between them quite unjustifiably. Maybe it's me that has got this wrong, but I feel that this sort of discussion simply adds to the ongoing distortion of understanding about what is feeling judgement.
@Infjente — I think that when it comes to historians and demographers talking about their work, the Si thing can be a bit tricky, because in a sense the methodology supporting their work has to be predicated on reliance on factual data. So you could easily think, "oh, that's Si at work". I think the tell-tale sign is more how they treat this data in their research. An Si-dom will likely take it as their purpose to give as faithful an account of what the data 'tells' them. But this is really not Todd's approach. He's typically interested in coming up with bold, against-the-grain theories based on the data he works with, usually with a predictive dimension that may or may not turn out to be confirmed.
What I can grant you is that this element doesn't really come across very strikingly in the video I shared. Perhaps this other video in English of young Emmanuel will be more convincing. Look at this dashing young man
Also this conference:
I think most empirical disciplines demand Si by nature, though just because we have to conform to this stipulation doesn't make us Si users. That would be like attempting to type people based upon how they wash dishes, and concluding that everybody is an Se dom.Here it looks like he is going through everything he found (concretely) and put together (intuitively), to make 'the unknown' obvious to others. The thoroughness and authenticity is perhaps what makes him look ISTJ to me.
The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.
I think most empirical disciplines demand Si by nature, though just because we have to conform to this stipulation doesn't make us Si users. That would be like attempting to type people based upon how they wash dishes, and concluding that everybody is an Se dom.
The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.
A good impression of a historian who doesn't really bother with Si (because he isn't institutionally compelled to do so) might be Michel Foucault.Definitely. With every new big book it seems like he's super energized by his new theory. It's sometimes more on the factual side of things that he falters a bit I think, despite what he might say.
Good point, and yeah you're absolutely right.Also, let's assume he is INFJ for a moment. As he ages he is going to naturally embody his shadow functions to a greater degree.
So it makes sense that his Ni appears on the surface to fade as time has gone on. But really, he's just gotten better at pulling up all of the functions.
Plus, academia is stressful (I use this term in an indifferent sense) so it will probably force you into that kind of growth.
I wonder if you could witness ISTJs getting caught up engaging in Ni to try and have an edge. Heh.
Lol, I reckon I've seen that.I wonder if you could witness ISTJs getting caught up engaging in Ni to try and have an edge.
Lol, I reckon I've seen that.
Giles Constable, the medieval historian, is a 'great compiler of facts', and yet he wrote a book entitled 'The Reformation of the Twelfth Century', implying a reformation in the twelfth century - i.e. a new macroscopic concept. When you start to read it, there's maybe two or three paragraphs in the introduction about the idea, and the rest of it is 'stuff I know about twelfth-century religious history'.
Well I mean he tried.
I think most empirical disciplines demand Si by nature, though just because we have to conform to this stipulation doesn't make us Si users. That would be like attempting to type people based upon how they wash dishes, and concluding that everybody is an Se dom.
The work demands a certain approach, and there are usually a lot of Si-types in your audience who you need to convince, too. My guess is, like you intimate about his younger self, that he's energised by the theory (Ni), but does the tedious empirical grunt work (Si) because he has to, to test his theories.
In what way?I don't feel understood.