Edward Snowden

[Salomé]

You missed one.
Lincoln: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So, Snowden uses Ti Imagilogic, as opposed to introverted Intuiti-fact. Case closed.

 

[Kalach]

When you're a member and you have been for a while, and you look around the forum, you see things that may be disturbing. For instance, INTPs. Over the course of a normal life you might only see one or two of these... people. But when you see everything, every hair splitting pointless argument they do, you recognise that some of these things are actually characteristic patterns. Or, "abuses." And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of practice, people tend not to take them very seriously. They think no one can see characteristic patterns, there's no four letter code that tells you everything, and you just have to wait and see. But over time that awareness of fundamental naysaying, of that characteristic urge to stop action and tell people, no, you're not quite right because... sort of builds up, and you feel compelling to talk about it. But the more you talk about it, the more you're ignored, until later when they pile on to find new ways to say no. Eventually you realise that these things need to be determined by competent adults, not by some INTP who'll find a new way to say no before committing to action, even to the extent they sort of believe saying no is action.

INTPs are literally why we can't have nice things. They'll step up to say it's amusing you think it's nice, but here's a small part of what you said and how it adds up to something different, so the nice thing is some kind of joke on you, sorry.

 

[Salomé]

Preach it, Brother.

Or maybe add a poll, because, you know, you care what "the people" think, an shit like that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

When you're a member and you have been for a while, and you look around the forum, you see things that may be disturbing. For instance, INTPs. Over the course of a normal life you might only see one or two of these... people.

I read that in Daniel Plainview's voice. Thank you.

INTPs are literally why we can't have nice things. They'll step up to say it's amusing you think it's nice, but here's a small part of what you said and how it adds up to something different, so the nice thing is some kind of joke on you, sorry.

Sorry, you can't just call people idiots and then throw a temper-tantrum when they don't immediately agree with you, as though calling them idiots somehow made your statement more true. Well, I suppose you can, but most of them are still not going to end up agreeing with you. Some people might go along because they don't think it's important enough to argue about, and I guess that's some kind of victory.

Overall, though, it isn't a good way to actually win an argument, and that seems to be important to you somehow. Tip: developing Extraverted Thinking will help you win more arguments, perhaps even defeating us dastardly INTPs.

Also, I closed the case. He's an INTP. Period.

 

[Kalach]

Letters: CG Jung to Father Victor White, 1960-61

"Oh man, really? They said develop your functions? Harsh, bro. That's really harsh. Can you even come back from that?"

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I see you didn't address the fact the even non-INTPs think he is an INTP. Even other NTJs think he is an INTP. It's not just INTPs trying to make themselves feel good. It's INTJs and ENTJS, as well. We even have SPs with no horse in this race that think this. Case CLOSED.

Snowden is an INTP. Period.

 

[Kalach]

Letters: Father Victor White to CG Jung, 1960-61

"Yeah, the bitches. Then they took solace in numbers. Tell me you didn't tell them type was a social consensus."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Go ahead and ignore the mountains of evidence. Ultimately, you have nothing more to go on then your own feelings. And feelings won't help you win the argument. You can write all the weird creative exercises you want, this doesn't change the following fact:

Snowden is an INTP. Period.

 

[Kalach]

When you are subverting the power of moderation--and that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to forum integrity--and if you do that in secret, consistently, as the mod team does, when they want to benefit from some secret decision that they took, they kind of let one or another of their crew tell the user about this banning or that deletion, so the users are on their side. But they rarely if ever do that when an INTP occurs. That falls to individual users. But they're typically maligned. It becomes a thing of these people are against the forum, they're against development. But, I'm not. I'm not very different from everybody else, I do have special skills, but I'm also just another guy who sits there, day to day, in front of the computer, watches what's happening, and goes, this is something that's not their place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these dimwitted non-arguments are right or wrong. And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of these claims. I didn't changes 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.

 

[Kalach]

And you should too. You should decide whether we need to be doing this. None of you sound like him. You're all up there with the technicalities and the split hairs. I'm not even sure you know just how much you don't sound like him. Was it even clear to you I was using his speech to show just how easily it sounds like not you? No one has shown the presence of your kind of judgment in his kind of speech. No one has shown the presence of your kind of perception there either. What basis are you using for your type claims?

You, INTPs, you don't even know how to describe your own judgment style. You don't know how to distinguish it from others. Until you do, how are you making type calls?

 

[Totenkindly]

Snowden is an INTP. Period.

After watching the vid, I'm inclined to see him as INTP best fit. Yeah, no one is "perfect fit," we're simply talking best fit.

It's also pretty much speaking comfortable from the generalized concept argument, without having to resort to taking about very specific data points; he articulates himself flawlessly and doesn't "miss" points or assume the listener knows something, he explains conceptually and rationally how he gets from A to B and all in mind of the big picture question he's answering. He doesn't even need to time to parse it, he's obviously thought through all this so often that it's all right there available for him to explain.

he really did sit on this kind of thing a long time. He even hoped that policy would change under Obama and was disappointed when Bush's policies were continued and expanded. I think Salome mentioned at some point that he finally acted almost begrudgingly, because it was clear finally to him that nothing was going to change unless he did something; that's how I read him as well, he didn't "move quickly" but waited and observed and finally could no long justify not taking action. Once he did take action, it was all very clearly thought out, strategically, even to the point of his disclosing who he was (so that others would not be blamed, and also to build trust with the American public); he knew where he was going, when to leave, who to contact, etc.

He also did the typical "detachment" thing where he was simply one more variable in the equation; in order to get access to what he wanted to disclose, he switched jobs and took a hefty pay cut; and when he saw he needed to disclose his identity in order to accomplish his goal, despite the cost to himself, he didn't even really blink. He just did it because it made the most sense. He played it all out as a rational strategy, to maximize outcome, and he didn't exempt himself.

I don't see what he really could have done better. His plan seems to me like the obvious, most strategic way to proceed. And nothing really caught him off-guard. He comes across as very lucid, thought out, prepared, etc., even as he's adjusting in the moment to accommodate whatever is actually happening. Clear example of an Informing type as well. Again, he explains everything and all the linkages very naturally, so that the viewer can track the logic and it makes sense.

I never knew he lived in Ellicott City in MD here. That's about four miles from where I am sitting, typing, right this moment. What is it with Baltimore? Manning's trial took place at Ft. Meade, which isn't far from here either. (I'm still scanning Manning as INFP, btw.)

Seems like INPs are Public Enemy #1 -- at least to the US gov, anyway.

And you should too. You should decide whether we need to be doing this. None of you sound like him. You're all up there with the technicalities and the split hairs. I'm not even sure you know just how much you don't sound like him. Was it even clear to you I was using his speech to show just how easily it sounds like not you? No one has shown the presence of your kind of judgment in his kind of speech. No one has shown the presence of your kind of perception there either. What basis are you using for your type claims?

You, INTPs, you don't even know how to describe your own judgment style. You don't know how to distinguish it from others. Until you do, how are you making type calls?

You know, if I were you, I'd be concerned; maybe you should see a doctor to get those big wax plugs cleaned out of your ears before you go completely deaf.

 

[Kalach]

Yeah sure. A contractor didn't change a government institution overnight so not INTJ. Good call.

"And when you talk to people about them..."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You, INTPs, you don't even know how to describe your own judgment style. You don't know how to distinguish it from others. Until you do, how are you making type calls?

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] just did it above.

Case closed. You have been defeated. I may have to start keeping score.

 

[Kalach]

What an oddball group of thinkers you are. No wonder where the opportunity presents you'll claim no four letter code truly represent a a person. When one of your number "proves" a type fits, the whole proof could fit anyone. Can generalise, is detached, waits, chooses strategy, and in an interview where he's asked questions, he informs. Gold star.


And yet....

This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake

[...]

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom


That's the introverted thinker's characteristic, and it hides behind whatever is their other characteristic, their version of direct perception. And that is what you hear behind the words when Snowden speaks?


Because, by contrast, there's dominant extroverted thinking, which sounds like:

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental.

And if you slap a little of that over an introverted intuitive, you get:

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world?

And that's what I hear when Teh Snowden Speaketh.



And, thinkers, how about thinking, eh? For the majority to have decided the type accurately, the majority must generally perceive type adequately. And do they?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Finally, something approaching an explanation.

However:

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world?

He hasn't really made the definitive Ni conclusions on what it means, though. His approach is totally open-ended. He just isn't comfortable with keeping it secret.

He states the overview, short on detail, long on interpretation.

Gosh, INTJs never criticize INTPs for doing exactly this. Certainly not here.

INTP. Case closed.

 

[Kalach]

Finally, something approaching an explanation.

See (d)

However:

He hasn't really made the definitive Ni conclusions on what it means, though. His approach is totally open-ended. He just isn't comfortable with keeping it secret.

(a) "Ni conclusions"? You're an F now? By the way...

(b) You know that video you didn't watch?

"..and you recognise that some of these things are actually abuses. And when you talk to people about them, uh, in a place like this, where this is the normal state of business, people tend not to take them very seriously and, y'know, move on from them. But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up, and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you're ignored, the more you're told it's not a problem, until eventually you realise, these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody who was simply hired by the government." ​

So it's of interest that Jung goes on to say...

INTPs suck so much ass, and I should know, but It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.​

Gosh, INTJs never criticize INTPs for doing exactly this. Certainly not here.

(c) No, they never do. It's the walls of text that draw most ire.

INTP. Case closed.

(d) blow me

 

[Salomé]

But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.​

Heh. No one is suggesting you're not INTJ.

More key differences between you and Ed:
a) people listen to what he has to say, in part because:
b) he's intelligible

 

[Kalach]

Heh. No one is suggesting you're not INTJ.

More key differences between you and Ed:
a) people listen to what he has to say, in part because:
b) he's intelligible

Jung speaks of the types in their pronounced, perhaps extreme forms. For example, the introverted intuitive who does nothing effectively, does so because he "tends to rely exclusively upon his vision," and instead makes himself and his life symbolic. He does not find himself "unadapted to the actual present-day reality" because he hasn't thought of it. But others will find him so, and rightly.

However, we might imagine, were some introverted intuitive to begin his path already adapted to the actual present-day reality, he'd have to have been some other type to begin with. So, this length of time Snowden took before acting, this telling and important length of time, that indicates... what? The approach of a perceiver? Well, guess what.


There are many indications that Snowden may in fact be a real person. None of those indications seem peculiar to the INTP. Would you care to name one that is? Perhaps some quote that indicates frame of mind. Something to suggest style of perception or habits of judgment. Could he have had a messy desk, for instance? Anything that would indicate a type. Is there for instance some hint that "external facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking" at least in his own mind? Could he have at some time perhaps had some good, clear ideas and theories that were, while elegant, still not wholly adapted to immediate facts? Does he show a keen nose for future promise? Has he spent time grasping new possibilities and abandoning them in favour of newer possibilities?

I shall breath regularly and evenly.

 

[Salomé]

You, INTPs, you don't even know how to describe your own judgment style. You don't know how to distinguish it from others. Until you do, how are you making type calls?

If you're the only person who can't see something that is transparent to everyone else, you have to start wondering if the fault might lie with you. Humility leads to insight.

When you opened the thread, you apparently weren't sure yourself of his type. The only introverted thinker you wouldn't countenance is INTP, you wouldn't even put it on the table (despite your own intuitions that he might in fact be one).

Always policy. That bothered me in the Snowden videos because he uses the word several times. "Might he be one of them?" I wondered.

Why would it bother you if you were approaching this with an open mind?
The fact you were prepared to consider ISTP suggests that you had not ruled out a Ti Dom at that point, despite your subsequent insistence that he has no Ti. Honestly, reading you now it looks like the only reason you won't agree with the emerging consensus about his type is because you consider INTPs to be deficient, and you admire this fellow : ergo, he can't be INTP. Even if you had a hitherto-fore faultless rep for accurate type-readings, that logic isn't going to impress anyone.

All of your arguments stem from misunderstanding or prejudice.
INTPs can't have ideals.
INTPs can't be vague (with Ne aux, seriously?)

Well he's been called terrorist and traitor, why not INTP too.

I do not believe that INTP's function this way.

so what you believe about INTPs is more important than what INTPs know about themselves?

Where he does something INTPish that doesn't make sense to you, you just call him a liar:

If his stated reason for choosing Hong Kong was real, then the man is an idiot. But personally, I think he chose it because it offered a stage.

<-assumption
You know him better than he knows himself right? Because he thinks he's a P but you KNOW he's not.
If you are going to rely on intuitions and your own interpretation of events, rather than accept what he is saying on face value, you can twist anything to look like anything.

Yet in spite of your claimed affinity, you don't seem to understand the man/where he is coming from at all:

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.

<-assumption

how does he make that leap of logic?

What does that even mean, and why is he talking about himself in the plural third person?
​

Why is the public owed an explanation? What is it about the democratic model that places this obligation on him? He doesn't say.

This truth? Which one? Which damn truth? What truth is he revealing? If someone would actually ascribe to him the truth he is showing, we could get some sense of what typologically he's been doing.

In fact, the frustrations you feel about Snowden, mirror your frustrations with INTPs in general. You just can't Se it, because you LURVE him.

I said, he's paranoid, and doesn't do logic well. The missing part is, he's also right.
...
The details aren't there yet. He could be wrong.

Fine. Whatever. You're confused. We understand.

However, you did get something right:

I may project.