User Tag List

Poll: What Personality Type is Edward Snowden?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 306

Thread: Edward Snowden

  1. #41
    lurking Array Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,895

    Default



    That was beautiful.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  2. #42
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post

    Again: it's an exposé, not a conspiracy theory. He isn't hiding anything; he's leaking it. He isn't blowing up his part and lecturing with the grandiose pomposity of the average INTJ, he's just stating the facts. Obviously, he has an opinion, he's just not arrogant enough to believe it's the only one that counts.
    That seems... not quite congruent with his actions. By, y'know, just a little bit. Once out in public he is, according to himself, the normal, average guy, just like everyone else, who saw things that worried him (even though he uses the present tense to describe them). Yet, the reason this normal, average guy is in public at all is--what? He didn't decide the institutional NSA has it all wrong? That no Congressman could help? He didn't decide that his opinion of what he saw was sufficient unto itself that he would be right to usurp the power and authority of the US government? And after that, he goes about it by just stating the facts? Not in any video I saw. He states the overview, short on detail, long on interpretation.

    Also, so it's an exposé? So what? Any person can expose. Every person can. But why is he working on this one? I say, this particular "conspiracy" he has outed looks like the normal grist for any INTJ's mill--power, abuses, hidden action, grand authorities, and simple mistakes made by people who just don't understand what part they're playing in the bigger structure behind everything they do.

    Come now. You know it makes sense. You're infatuated with an INTP. It happens.
    We are kind of wonderful.
    Well, sure. But I've read marketing books written by INTPs. A favorite and re-occuring imperative is "comprehensive analysis". Action comes after comprehensive analysis. And choices for action derive from policy. Always policy. That bothered me in the Snowden videos because he uses the word several times. "Might he be one of them?" I wondered. But I wasn't sure. It's not clear if he dislikes policy or embraces it. Sometimes he talks of policy as his own solution and other times he talks of it as inadequate to the task of leading choice.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #43
    Alchemist of life Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    14,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    "I don't want to live in a society that does these sorts of things"

    It's common for INTPs to be more certain about what they don't want/ aren't prepared to tolerate, than what they do. He knows that he doesn't want to live in a society full of hypocrites and slaves, but he doesn't necessarily have an overarching vision for some sublime Utopia either. Or put another way, he defines Utopia by what it doesn't contain, rather that what it does.
    The INTJ stipulates the world he wants to live in; the INTP the world he does not.
    An interesting way to explain the distinction. I see this in my SO as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    He recognises that the NSA's method of snooping is both "the most efficient" and an "abuse". Isn't that like, an oxymoron for an INTJ? Je is all about ends justifying means.
    It is not a contradiction if the INTJ does not agree with the ends in question. In such a case the ends then become the abuse, and the means used to reach them simply a waste of resources that otherwise could have been spent reaching truly worthwhile goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Snowden doesn't trust authority - not even his own. The fact that he was authorised to spy on the President on the flimsiest of pretexts, frightened him. Whoever said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - I'm thinking it wasn't an NTJ.


    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    The INTP is as reluctant to impose his will on others as he is to have others impose their will on him. Both attitudes inform Snowden's actions. He can simultaneously believe/fear that his actions will have no lasting legacy, yet still be convinced it's the right thing to do: ends are largely irrelevant.

    He doesn't press his vision upon the world, because he recognises that his is only one perspective (Pe) all the while being convinced of its subjective rightness (Ji). He distinguishes between moral absolutes and technical facts. He collects and presents those facts and allows others to draw their own conclusions without trying to get in the way of that process any more than is necessary (also known as Informative vs Directive). His own conclusions coupled with his disposition create a moral imperative which has dictated the course of the rest of his life, but he doesn't actively intervene to destroy the system he despises (as you suggest an INTJ would). He does however, subvert it. He allows a more informed public to decide their own fate, while his lack of faith in human nature guarantees his retreat, rather than than trust his own fate to others.
    All this, especially the highlighted, argues for INTP.
    In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard. -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

  4. #44
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Where the Snowman speaks, and "we" don't listen:

    ...until eventually you realise that, uh, these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody who was simply hired by the government.

    He says that "you" realise this because anyone else you can talk to--anyone he could talk to--wasn't handling the existence of "abuses" adequately. So, how does he make that leap of logic? I hear no "And it's a principle of democracy that..."


    "...they, uh, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them, and it analyses them, and it measures them, and it stores them for periods of time, simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends."

    Why does he list those qualities--easiest, most efficient, most valuable? It's hardly efficient, it's not easy, and why is it valuable? But for making NSA lives easier, it is. (Although exactly why "valuable" is in there is still mysterious.) So, he's describing mechanisms judged according to subjective value, not objective efficacy.


    "I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model."

    What does that even mean, and why is he talking about himself in the plural third person? It's mechanisms again. Not objective people, but objective mechanisms.


    "And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them, and say, I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this."

    And there you go, sportsfans, there's the end of the INTP story. Because viola, truth is proven by people standing up and saying this is the truth, this is what's happening. Truth is Authenticity. It is determined not by objective considerations, but by subjective effect.



    Etc and so on.

    I haven't seen anyone show where he uses INTP processes or values. I've seen you show where he could be using them. And now we know he doesn't because someone actually listened to the words. You should all be ashamed.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #45
    Away with the fairies Array Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Yeah, I would go with INTJ.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  6. #46
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Where the Snowman speaks, and "we" don't listen:

    ...until eventually you realise that, uh, these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody who was simply hired by the government.

    He says that "you" realise this because anyone else you can talk to--anyone he could talk to--wasn't handling the existence of "abuses" adequately. So, how does he make that leap of logic? I hear no "And it's a principle of democracy that..."


    "...they, uh, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them, and it analyses them, and it measures them, and it stores them for periods of time, simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends."

    Why does he list those qualities--easiest, most efficient, most valuable? It's hardly efficient, it's not easy, and why is it valuable? But for making NSA lives easier, it is. (Although exactly why "valuable" is in there is still mysterious.) So, he's describing mechanisms judged according to subjective value, not objective efficacy.


    "I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model."

    What does that even mean, and why is he talking about himself in the plural third person? It's mechanisms again. Not objective people, but objective mechanisms.


    "And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them, and say, I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this."

    And there you go, sportsfans, there's the end of the INTP story. Because viola, truth is proven by people standing up and saying this is the truth, this is what's happening. Truth is Authenticity. It is determined not by objective considerations, but by subjective effect.



    Etc and so on.

    I haven't seen anyone show where he uses INTP processes or values. I've seen you show where he could be using them. And now we know he doesn't because someone actually listened to the words. You should all be ashamed.
    The bold clinches it for me in favor of INTJ as well.

  7. #47
    Habitual Fi LineStepper Array JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    The bold clinches it for me in favor of INTJ as well.
    Really? That seemed like the most ITP part. Believing that access to pure, unaltered Truth creates out of its own existence action and change in the minds of people who experience it is about the most characteristic ideal of Ti you can get. Snowden believes all he has to do is release that essential piece of information and that information will do all of the work for him, independent of what he personally feels should be done with it. That's not for him to say, his quest begins and ends at Truth.

    Anyways. This whole realization drove me nuts. I suppose I always sort of knew this was happening, but even the lack of real response caught me by surprise. Turkey freaks the fuck out over a park being paved; our government basically spies on every single on of its citizens but we're too busy to do anything but wait for 4 hours in line for a cronut. Yes I'm bitter. 4 hours for a fucking cronut.



  8. #48
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Really? That seemed like the most ITP part. Believing that access to pure, unaltered Truth creates out of its own existence action and change in the minds of people who experience it is about the most characteristic ideal of Ti you can get. Snowden believes all he has to do is release that essential piece of information and that information will do all of the work for him, independent of what he personally feels should be done with it. That's not for him to say, his quest begins and ends at Truth.
    He said also that he has to be part of the disclosure process because otherwise it wouldn't work. He said, leaking exists and the government approves of it where it gets them positive results, but that whistleblowers are "typically maligned, y'know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they're against government." His quest does not begin and end with truth. He's "come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies." And he goes on to say:

    "But, at the same time, you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living, uh, living unfreely, but comfortably is something you're willing to accept--and I think many of us are, it's, it's the human nature--uh, you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your, your large paycheck, for relatively little work, uh, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows, but... if you realise that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, uh, you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk, and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."

    He doesn't say what freedom is, nor what is oppression. With only the things we know so far, then for him surveillance is oppression. Which seems an odd position. But he's speaking in terms of generations. He doesn't say generations of what. It may just be generations of leaders. And for American presidents that's four years, right? But he's talking as if the terms are larger and place further into the future. From that perspective, it's actually kind of weak to finish up on, oh well, better let the public decide. But on that point he said a weird thing earlier.

    "When you are subverting the power of government, that, that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy, and, if you do that in secret consistently, y'know, as the government does, uh, when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it'll kind of give its officials a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side, but they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs, that falls to individual citizens. But, they're typically maligned...."

    Now, he says that right after saying the public is owed an explanation for the motivations of people who make disclosures. So, when he goes on to talk about subverting the power of government, who is he talking about? Who is the subversive? Is he talking about himself? A few words later he stresses "as the government does", suggesting a change in sentence subject. As in, now he's talking about the government. But here's the other thing. He says subverting the power of government is fundamentally dangerous to democracy. What does he mean? Subverting an elected government's mandate to decide for the governed?

    His quest centers around visions of the future and how those visions come true.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #49
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Any INTP willing to come forward and claim that degree of vagueness in language and obscurity of reference as characteristic, feel free.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #50
    Habitual Fi LineStepper Array JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    He said also that he has to be part of the disclosure process because otherwise it wouldn't work. He said, leaking exists and the government approves of it where it gets them positive results, but that whistleblowers are "typically maligned, y'know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they're against government." His quest does not begin and end with truth. He's "come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies."

    "But, at the same time, you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living, uh, living unfreely, but comfortably is something you're willing to accept--and I think many of us are, it's, it's the human nature--uh, you can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your, your large paycheck, for relatively little work, uh, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows, but... if you realise that that's the world you helped create and it's gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, uh, you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk, and it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied."
    Right, but he's not saying "he" is an intrinsically important element to the truth, but that coming out with the Truth in the way that he has renders his information less corruptible by the government that wants to simply label him as a traitor as a way to discredit his information. The guy stuck his face on every newspaper and ruined his life so NOBAMA and Pals couldn't just say "disgruntled employee/liar/baby sodomizer;" it's simply context to understand the importance of his information, nothing more. I'm not sure why you think this part is typologically relevant anyways, unless you described it some posts above and I missed it.

    He doesn't say what freedom is, nor what is oppression. With only the things we know so far, then for him surveillance is oppression. Which seems an odd position. But he's speaking in terms of generations. He doesn't say generations of what. It may just be generations of leaders. And for American presidents that's four years, right? But he's talking as if the terms are larger and place further into the future. From that perspective, it's actually kind of weak to finish up on, oh well, better let the public decide. But on that point he said a weird thing earlier.

    "When you are subverting the power of government, that, that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy, and, if you do that in secret consistently, y'know, as the government does, uh, when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it'll kind of give its officials a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side, but they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs, that falls to individual citizens. But, they're typically maligned...."

    Now, he says that right after saying the public is owed an explanation for the motivations of people who make disclosures. So, when he goes on to talk about subverting the power of government, who is he talking about? Who is the subversive? Is he talking about himself? A few words later he stresses "as the government does", suggesting a change in sentence subject. As in, now he's talking about the government. But here's the other thing. He says subverting the power of government is fundamentally dangerous to democracy. What does he mean? Subverting an elected government's mandate to decide for the governed?

    His quest centers around visions of the future and how those visions come true.
    He's observing the present status quo and taking it to its logical conclusion to a nebulous time "down the road." Ti users do this all time and it's one characteristic that makes them so self defeating.

    *next time I should probably watch the source material*
    It does seem like he switched directions/subject mid thought. So basically, he rambled, and got back to his main point that individuals who leak in secret are maligned and their findings tarnished, so he feels he needs to be visible in order to protect his claims from being discredited. As Blue says, it's not an appeal to authority tactic, it's one of sticking his neck out to protect the real focus.

    For what it's worth, I think he's ISTP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Any INTP willing to come forward and claim that degree of vagueness in language and obscurity of reference as characteristic, feel free.

    They probably don't find him vague.



Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Edward Norton's type
    By Economica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 04-28-2013, 01:01 AM
  2. Edward de Bono
    By Lotr246 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 02:28 AM
  3. John Edwards On WTC Building 7
    By FranG in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 07:11 PM
  4. Well, looks like John Edwards is done. . .
    By pure_mercury in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 01:34 AM
  5. Jonathan Edwards: Life Resolutions
    By Usehername in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2007, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •