Famous Generals

[Valiant]

no... the ISTP assasins have all of the fun

I'm saying that you're being inflexible and close minded on people's abilities and functions... I've routinely beat xNTJs on Risk in the past

But you're an extraordinarily talented ESTP.
If you'd meet an extraordinarily talented ExTJ in a game of real battle, prepare to lose.
A game is always a game, and easier to comprehend.
And, don't forget, a game doesn't involve mass-death on your conscience, unless of course someone is really neurotic and starts mourning the fallen pieces or AI characters.

Another point of the ExxP types in ruthless-leader-positions...
You guys fuss, argue and discuss way too much. That's not a good trait.
Maybe in a reporter, or a lawyer, but not in a strong Machiavellian leader. :rolli:
This whole thread is full of it.


You might have a point about the ISTPs, though.
If there is any type at all that ever makes me feel inferior, it is the ISTP.
They just know stuff that other people won't ever be able to learn.
Like the "Fingerspitzengefühl" of some extraordinarily talented EXTJs when it comes to organizing war.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Bah, Risk has way too much luck involved. Try chess.

Risk is more based on ability to profit of opportunities that luck gives to you than on strategic planning like that boring game that is chess. So, of course STPs beat NTJs at that game.

You might have a point about the ISTPs, though.
If there is any type at all that ever makes me feel inferior, it is the ISTP.
They just know stuff that other people won't ever be able to learn.
Like the "Fingerspitzengefühl" of some extraordinarily talented EXTJs when it comes to organizing war.

Strangely, the INTJ type have always seems the more likely type to equal me at my own game. To equal me but not beat me, of course.

 

[Asterion]

But you're an extraordinarily talented ESTP.
If you'd meet an extraordinarily talented ExTJ in a game of real battle, prepare to lose.
A game is always a game, and easier to comprehend.
And, don't forget, a game doesn't involve mass-death on your conscience, unless of course someone is really neurotic and starts mourning the fallen pieces or AI characters.

Another point of the ExxP types in ruthless-leader-positions...
You guys fuss, argue and discuss way too much. That's not a good trait.
Maybe in a reporter, or a lawyer, but not in a strong Machiavellian leader. :rolli:
This whole thread is full of it.


You might have a point about the ISTPs, though.
If there is any type at all that ever makes me feel inferior, it is the ISTP.
They just know stuff that other people won't ever be able to learn.
Like the "Fingerspitzengefühl" of some extraordinarily talented EXTJs when it comes to organizing war.

nah

 

[Litvyak]

Bah, Risk has way too much luck involved. Try chess.

Life has too much luck involved. Try chess.

Sometimes I am truly mesmerized by the sheer brilliance of my type.

 

[Aleksei]

Which book are you referring to?

By the way, Keirsey gets a lot of typings wrong. (Bill Clinton as an S)

Clinton is very much an N, at least by the MBTI-system. (There are some minor discrepandencies between Keirsey and the MBTI.)

How is Clinton an N? He doesn't seem particularly abstract.

You can look up a lot of his stuff on his website.

Bill Clinton is an ESFP.
Although I do disagree with Keirsey's assertion of Obama being an INTJ. I think Obama is an F.

He's neither. Obama is an ENTJ, masquerading as an ENFJ for the public.

 

[Aleksei]

Alexander the Great: ENTP

Glad to find someone who agrees.

Genghis Khan - ENTP
William T. Sherman - ENTJ
Ulysses S. Grant - INTJ

 

[Franz]

He's neither. Obama is an ENTJ, masquerading as an ENFJ for the public.

ENTP, masquerading as an ENFJ for the public, IMO.

Because:

- Extreme introspection

- Ability to turn a phrase around

- Personal messiness

 

[Weber]

Life has too much luck involved. Try chess.

Sometimes I am truly mesmerized by the sheer brilliance of my type.

I was simply trying to point out that a game of Risk is hardly a meaningful measure of strategic ability. It's a bit like thinking you have a more strategic mind than your opponent because you beat them at Ludo.

Sometimes I am truly mesmerized by the immediate hostility and mind-numbingly annoying sarcasm of my type.

 

[ragashree]

I was simply trying to point out that a game of Risk is hardly a meaningful measure of strategic ability. It's a bit like thinking you have a more strategic mind than your opponent because you beat them at Ludo.

Sometimes I am truly mesmerized by the immediate hostility and mind-numbingly annoying sarcasm of my type.

Actually, a contest of words could be a more interesting measure of relative capabilites. There are more far more strategic possibilites, and less reliance on luck.

 

[highlander]

no... the ISTP assasins have all of the fun

lol

I'm saying that you're being inflexible and close minded on people's abilities and functions... I've routinely beat xNTJs on Risk in the past

this i believe!!

 

[Sniffles]

How about Karl von Clausewitz? Not a general, but a military theorist?


BTW YLJ, grand strategy is definately not boring. Personally I find that the most interesting aspect of long-term military planning.

 

[Valiant]

How about Karl von Clausewitz? Not a general, but a military theorist?


BTW YLJ, grand strategy is definately not boring. Personally I find that the most interesting aspect of long-term military planning.

I was just trying to deter them ENTPs, sire.

 

[Valiant]

How about Karl von Clausewitz? Not a general, but a military theorist?


BTW YLJ, grand strategy is definately not boring. Personally I find that the most interesting aspect of long-term military planning.

Hm...
Clausewitz seems like an INTP in the way that he writes.
The fact that his book wasn't finished because of careful consideration of each individual piece in it on the time of his death speaks volumes as well.
It's sort of a military philosophy as well, so i'll go with INTP.

Maybe not the greatest of generals, but definitely a great theorist.

 

[Sniffles]

I was just trying to deter them ENTPs, sire.

Ahhh I see. Dont fuck with Ni strategists!

 

[Sniffles]

Hm...
Clausewitz seems like an INTP in the way that he writes.
The fact that his book wasn't finished because of careful consideration of each individual piece in it on the time of his death speaks volumes as well.
It's sort of a military philosophy as well, so i'll go with INTP.

Maybe not the greatest of generals, but definitely a great theorist.

I largely was thinking the same, since INTPs are usually theorists in general. On War isn't just a simple manual of how to wage war, but goes into the multiple theoretical dimensions of war as well. He even incorporated elements of Kantian metaphysics, which at first sight doesn't seem to have much bearing on military matters. But remember Sun Tzu operated on Taoist premises, so the seperation of military theory from normal philosophy is impossible.


Alright - how about B.H. Liddell Hart? Another theorist.

 

[Valiant]

Alright - how about B.H. Liddell Hart? Another theorist.

I read a couple of his books last year...
The ones describing the war in detailed overview from beginning to end.
I'd say it's an equal chance on many different types.
xNxJ is what is says to me, at least a little.
But I could be wrong.

 

[Sniffles]

Talking about his book on WWII?

 

[Valiant]

Talking about his book on WWII?

Sorry, I just looked it up on Wikipedia a minute ago.
It's one book in English, but it was published in my native Swedish as two separate books, one about 39-41 and the other about 42-45.
My mistake

 

[Sniffles]

No worries, I was just wondering what book you were referring to.

I also have questions about Creveld, Keegan, and Holmes. Not generals, but military historians:

[youtube="iy1W8hAfGHc"]Martin Van Creveld[/youtube]

[youtube="zQEFTh-jUHg"]John Keegan[/youtube]

[youtube="ulcexsYHpNQ"]Richard Holmes[/youtube]

 

[Aleksei]

I'm saying that you're being inflexible and close minded on people's abilities and functions... I've routinely beat xNTJs on Risk in the past

You have to remember though, that by your own reckoning you have a very sharp Ne (Which I envy -- I prefer Ne, but I wish my Ne and Se were as sharp and balanced as yours).