Type This Guy!

[Mal12345]

I don't know how to get hold of a copy of the book. Maybe I should just ask him.

I found it on Amazon.

 

[BlackDog]

Have you considered the content of the writing yet? So far you've only mentioned its style, although very astutely.

Since I think he is giving us one moment, it's hard to say what the content says about him overall, because he could easily change depending on mood and who he is talking to. You described him as bipolar; I myself don't believe that is an actual problem, but only a description of a kind of personality which easily gets into problems in our modern world. They are not suited to the modern world. This fits well with everything else he says, although again, it's hard to say how constant any of this is because of the changeability.

However, in that moment he is viewing the world from a very deep kind of 'survivalist' perspective. He takes everything which happens and relates it to 'I'. He includes his family in the 'I', and he's not sure whether to include his mother-in-law, but since she 'proves' herself through 'deeds' she apparently gains a spot in his 'outer circle'. He identifies with his family as a part of himself, almost, but his mother-in-law doesn't merit such a position, yet. Apparently she did him some perceived wrong in the past, and therefore is on probation.

He sees the 'authorities' and 'child protective services' as a monolithic entity, or he writes about them this way. It's all very black and white. The person who harms the family structure in order to help an individual within it (the child) is a 'dark soul' because what he is defending is the collective 'I', the family which in his mind is the entity he is a part of and he owes loyalty to, not the child as an individual. In this sense, anyone who tries to destroy the collective 'I' is an enemy, not a concerned neighbor, or even a meddling fool. This is pretty typical for families, but I think his straightforward explanation of it in the black-and-white terms it operates in is interesting. He isn't seeing people as individuals, he is seeing them as characters who are good or bad or in the process of becoming good or bad.

He takes all of this very seriously. The language he uses to describe his efforts to clean with an injured back would be absolutely suited to a description of some medieval peasant who was going to thrown out of his hut children and all if he didn't start plowing the lord's land despite some horrific injury. In his mind, he is making a strong effort to ensure the survival of the collective 'I' against the evil forces in opposition. I don't know what is happening in reality from this, but at least in his mind he is striving mightily.

At the end, he goes into a harangue against his enemies, and concludes with a bit of writing about 'laws before men' that is probably a small segment of something which he has either written about before at great length, or spoken/argued about at great length. It isn't the first time he's said it; he's accessing a deeply held view which was formed because of his bad experiences with the law, in whatever shape it manifested itself. Alternatively, he has always had problems with authority because of his attitudes, and his attitudes gained him these bad experiences which reinforced his prior assumptions. It doesn't really matter which.

Because of the genre, it isn't entirely clear whether he really views the world in these black-and-white dualisms, or if it's just what happens when he puts on his 'fictional lenses'. He believes it at the moment, but I am not sure if he always believes it. I lean towards thinking he believes it whenever he writes, and when he argues and actively thinks about these things, but he probably thinks in a different modality in different circumstances. For example, if he got a job at a doughnut store he would likely not be thinking in these terms while on the job, but if he got fired he might reinterpret his experiences afterward in these terms.

It's quite interesting. I didn't really point out anything which wasn't obvious this time, but content is less informative than style.

 

[Mal12345]

Since I think he is giving us one moment, it's hard to say what the content says about him overall, because he could easily change depending on mood and who he is talking to. You described him as bipolar; I myself don't believe that is an actual problem, but only a description of a kind of personality which easily gets into problems in our modern world. They are not suited to the modern world. This fits well with everything else he says, although again, it's hard to say how constant any of this is because of the changeability.

However, in that moment he is viewing the world from a very deep kind of 'survivalist' perspective. He takes everything which happens and relates it to 'I'. He includes his family in the 'I', and he's not sure whether to include his mother-in-law, but since she 'proves' herself through 'deeds' she apparently gains a spot in his 'outer circle'. He identifies with his family as a part of himself, almost, but his mother-in-law doesn't merit such a position, yet. Apparently she did him some perceived wrong in the past, and therefore is on probation.

He sees the 'authorities' and 'child protective services' as a monolithic entity, or he writes about them this way. It's all very black and white. The person who harms the family structure in order to help an individual within it (the child) is a 'dark soul' because what he is defending is the collective 'I', the family which in his mind is the entity he is a part of and he owes loyalty to, not the child as an individual. In this sense, anyone who tries to destroy the collective 'I' is an enemy, not a concerned neighbor, or even a meddling fool. This is pretty typical for families, but I think his straightforward explanation of it in the black-and-white terms it operates in is interesting. He isn't seeing people as individuals, he is seeing them as characters who are good or bad or in the process of becoming good or bad.

He takes all of this very seriously. The language he uses to describe his efforts to clean with an injured back would be absolutely suited to a description of some medieval peasant who was going to thrown out of his hut children and all if he didn't start plowing the lord's land despite some horrific injury. In his mind, he is making a strong effort to ensure the survival of the collective 'I' against the evil forces in opposition. I don't know what is happening in reality from this, but at least in his mind he is striving mightily.

At the end, he goes into a harangue against his enemies, and concludes with a bit of writing about 'laws before men' that is probably a small segment of something which he has either written about before at great length, or spoken/argued about at great length. It isn't the first time he's said it; he's accessing a deeply held view which was formed because of his bad experiences with the law, in whatever shape it manifested itself. Alternatively, he has always had problems with authority because of his attitudes, and his attitudes gained him these bad experiences which reinforced his prior assumptions. It doesn't really matter which.

Because of the genre, it isn't entirely clear whether he really views the world in these black-and-white dualisms, or if it's just what happens when he puts on his 'fictional lenses'. He believes it at the moment, but I am not sure if he always believes it. I lean towards thinking he believes it whenever he writes, and when he argues and actively thinks about these things, but he probably thinks in a different modality in different circumstances. For example, if he got a job at a doughnut store he would likely not be thinking in these terms while on the job, but if he got fired he might reinterpret his experiences afterward in these terms.

It's quite interesting. I didn't really point out anything which wasn't obvious this time, but content is less informative than style.

It depends on what you're trying to get out of it. If you want to "type this guy," then which is more relevant, content or style?

I have a copy of his book, by the way.

 

[BlackDog]

It depends on what you're trying to get out of it. If you want to "type this guy," then which is more relevant, content or style?

I have a copy of his book, by the way.

Kudos to you for getting it.

Style is much more important than content.

 

[Mal12345]

Kudos to you for getting it.

Style is much more important than content.

I only got the book because you were curious about the continuity of the plot. So far all I can tell you is that humans play a minor role in this novel.

I'll say again, it depends on what you're after. Are you trying to type the author's personality?

 

[BlackDog]

I only got the book because you were curious about the continuity of the plot. So far all I can tell you is that humans play a minor role in this novel.

I'll say again, it depends on what you're after. Are you trying to type the author's personality?

Well, at first I was debating whether or not you were the guy in the video. But I've definitively decided against that; for sure you aren't him.

Now I guess I'm just responding to whatever you ask. I like to do literary analysis, and I pick up whatever I can from it.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, at first I was debating whether or not you were the guy in the video. But I've definitively decided against that; for sure you aren't him.

Now I guess I'm just responding to whatever you ask. I like to do literary analysis, and I pick up whatever I can from it.

All my drugs are legal ones. And even he doesn't do any of the "hard," manufactured street drugs like heroine or meth.

I think you need some tips on typing via text.

 

[BlackDog]

All my drugs are legal ones. And even he doesn't do any of the "hard," manufactured street drugs like heroine or meth.

I think you need some tips on typing via text.

What? I don't really believe it is possible to type via text. You can only make guesses, which is what I did. You need to have good personal knowledge of someone to reliably type them, in my opinion.

And the references to drugs . . . I don't get it.

 

[Mal12345]

What? I don't really believe it is possible to type via text. You can only make guesses, which is what I did. You need to have good personal knowledge of someone to reliably type them, in my opinion.

And the references to drugs . . . I don't get it.

Lots of users of this forum believe in typing via text and you're the first hold-out I've seen. I believe in it to the extent that the author was sincere. One person on this thread even came up with Si-dom. I can and have written from the viewpoint of another type.

The mushroom species cited by the videographer is technically definable as a drug, since he's using it to attain some kind of higher consciousness and not as a tasty addition to a salad or steak.

 

[BlackDog]

Lots of users of this forum believe in typing via text and you're the first hold-out I've seen. I believe in it to the extent that the author was sincere. One person on this thread even came up with Si-dom. I can and have written from the viewpoint of another type.

Well, I've yet to run across anyone in any class or in life who was as talented as me at interpreting text. Sorry to sound vain, but I have good reason to believe what I am telling you. I can be wrong, but I see a lot more than most people do.

I can tell you now that you cannot write from any perspective but your own. Now, you can create a shallow avatar of what another perspective sees, but it's quite fragile and doesn't stand up to inspection. Insincerity cannot exist except in small doses without becoming apparent. Trust me. The only way you can get close to another perspective is to immerse yourself in it. This is best done through reading. Even then, all you can really absorb is the existing attitudes plus the style of the author, and then meld this onto your own 'base'. You cannot get another 'base'.

Even if you do that, you still will not be able to be 'creative' and extend the views of the author like the author would have done. This is equally true of types. You are limited to imitative work.

The writing style of an individual is so unique that it can be used like a fingerprint. I am not good enough to differentiate people through writing like fingerprints, but I can see bits and pieces of the different elements, and I can infer some of the rest. If what you say doesn't fit with what you really are, then a dissonance is created which I think is highly detectable. If it's something small, then maybe not. If it's something big, then for sure I'll notice, and so probably would you.

Pretending to be another type is a big dissonance and cannot be done unless the person reading what you say is either not familiar with the types as they express themselves through writing. However, there are so many other things going on in someone's writing that I don't think a clear picture emerges. You may see the dissonance, but you won't know what exactly it is, and you for sure won't be able to tell them what type they actually are.

When you say that something in the text is 'Fe', like I did for example, it's highly conditional. Almost to the point of guesswork. Especially when you are dealing with someone who has introduced stuff like drugs into the mental equation.

Factors that make typing through text impossible to do with accuracy:

Education: Very important. What kind of English teachers did you have?

Dialect

Variables depending on what the author has been reading, lately and historically

Family and friends (class): If you are of a certain class, you will write much like you speak. If you are not, you may speak quite differently than you write

Mood: whether or not Uncle Bob just shouted at you

Personal beliefs, such as religion

Whether the person is hot or cold, hungry or thirsty

The weather

Age: very important. This can usually be seen in the text, and it makes a big difference. Anyone over forty has so much life experience behind them confusing the trail that it is nearly impossible to say things for certain.

View of oneself: For a simple example, suppose you have a pedantic personality that likes to explain 'learning' or 'wisdom' to friends. If they were mocked for this early on, and crushed by some stronger personality, then they may well have a defensive note to their online sharings of 'wisdom' about typology, for example. If they were generally listened to, they will likely be much more assuming and perhaps even obtrusive. Again, it's all highly variable and complex.

I have in the past been able to predict certain things with accuracy. For example, some years back I had a POLS professor whose syllabus, after I read it, convinced me that he was gay. He never stated it, or said anything about social movements; it was something about the way he asked us to follow the rules laid out in the syllabus. After I met him in person, I turned out to be right, but I never would have said that I 'knew it'. It was just a pattern I picked up in the text, but it could have been created by any number of other factors that I missed or could not have known.

We leave a ton of footprints, but they are confused.

The mushroom species cited by the videographer is technically definable as a drug, since he's using it to attain some kind of higher consciousness and not as a tasty addition to a salad or steak.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, I've yet to run across anyone in any class or in life who was as talented as me at interpreting text. Sorry to sound vain, but I have good reason to believe what I am telling you. I can be wrong, but I see a lot more than most people do.

I can tell you now that you cannot write from any perspective but your own. Now, you can create a shallow avatar of what another perspective sees, but it's quite fragile and doesn't stand up to inspection. Insincerity cannot exist except in small doses without becoming apparent. Trust me. The only way you can get close to another perspective is to immerse yourself in it. This is best done through reading. Even then, all you can really absorb is the existing attitudes plus the style of the author, and then meld this onto your own 'base'. You cannot get another 'base'.

Even if you do that, you still will not be able to be 'creative' and extend the views of the author like the author would have done. This is equally true of types. You are limited to imitative work.

The writing style of an individual is so unique that it can be used like a fingerprint. I am not good enough to differentiate people through writing like fingerprints, but I can see bits and pieces of the different elements, and I can infer some of the rest. If what you say doesn't fit with what you really are, then a dissonance is created which I think is highly detectable. If it's something small, then maybe not. If it's something big, then for sure I'll notice, and so probably would you.

Pretending to be another type is a big dissonance and cannot be done unless the person reading what you say is either not familiar with the types as they express themselves through writing. However, there are so many other things going on in someone's writing that I don't think a clear picture emerges. You may see the dissonance, but you won't know what exactly it is, and you for sure won't be able to tell them what type they actually are.

When you say that something in the text is 'Fe', like I did for example, it's highly conditional. Almost to the point of guesswork. Especially when you are dealing with someone who has introduced stuff like drugs into the mental equation.

Factors that make typing through text impossible to do with accuracy:

Education: Very important. What kind of English teachers did you have?

Dialect

Variables depending on what the author has been reading, lately and historically

Family and friends (class): If you are of a certain class, you will write much like you speak. If you are not, you may speak quite differently than you write

Mood: whether or not Uncle Bob just shouted at you

Personal beliefs, such as religion

Whether the person is hot or cold, hungry or thirsty

The weather

Age: very important. This can usually be seen in the text, and it makes a big difference. Anyone over forty has so much life experience behind them confusing the trail that it is nearly impossible to say things for certain.

View of oneself: For a simple example, suppose you have a pedantic personality that likes to explain 'learning' or 'wisdom' to friends. If they were mocked for this early on, and crushed by some stronger personality, then they may well have a defensive note to their online sharings of 'wisdom' about typology, for example. If they were generally listened to, they will likely be much more assuming and perhaps even obtrusive. Again, it's all highly variable and complex.

I have in the past been able to predict certain things with accuracy. For example, some years back I had a POLS professor whose syllabus, after I read it, convinced me that he was gay. He never stated it, or said anything about social movements; it was something about the way he asked us to follow the rules laid out in the syllabus. After I met him in person, I turned out to be right, but I never would have said that I 'knew it'. It was just a pattern I picked up in the text, but it could have been created by any number of other factors that I missed or could not have known.

We leave a ton of footprints, but they are confused.

You made enough out of it to write this, at least:

"I changed my mind on ESTP. No ESTP would write like that unless he was insane, and even then I dont' think he could do it. They write bluntly, simply, and to the point; they are 'cut to the chase' people who don't revel in emotional situations. If they are being emotional in public like that, it would be part of a break down, not a semi-carefully constructed post. The author of that is reveling in his situation; you have to have a natural sense of the dramatic to do that, I think."

What type or types have a natural sense of the dramatic?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

You made enough out of it to write this, at least:

"I changed my mind on ESTP. No ESTP would write like that unless he was insane, and even then I dont' think he could do it. They write bluntly, simply, and to the point; they are 'cut to the chase' people who don't revel in emotional situations. If they are being emotional in public like that, it would be part of a break down, not a semi-carefully constructed post. The author of that is reveling in his situation; you have to have a natural sense of the dramatic to do that, I think."

What type or types have a natural sense of the dramatic?

Fe dominants. Interestingly however, ExTPs inflate their tertiary Fe just as every other type inflates their tertiary, causing it to look overdramatic, immature, and even foolish. Socionics calls it the "pathetic" hidden agenda, which inflates to the power of the lead function but is underdeveloped, unconscious, and used without finesse or skill.

 

[Mal12345]

Fe dominants. Interestingly however, ExTPs inflate their tertiary Fe just as every other type inflates their tertiary, causing it to look overdramatic, immature, and even foolish. Socionics calls it the "pathetic" hidden agenda, which inflates to the power of the lead function but is underdeveloped, unconscious, and used without finesse or skill.

What about face-typing in this case? I realize the video is kind of blurry.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

What about face-typing in this case? I realize the video is kind of blurry.

Just viewed the video (partially) (I was offering commentary to your question quoted above). Pe dominance would be my guess through the assertive tone tempered somewhat by tert Fe. Seems rather wild-eyed.

 

[Mal12345]

Just viewed the video (partially) (I was offering commentary to your question quoted above). Pe dominance would be my guess through the assertive tone tempered somewhat by tert Fe. Seems rather wild-eyed.

Any guesses as to other typology types?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Any guesses as to other typology types?

Not really.

 

[Mal12345]

Not really.

6w7 so/sx.

 

[Mal12345]

I would guess his weakness as an author is in the plot, or the unity of the story. He lives life as a series of moments, or incidents, and this is reflected in his choice of words. He paints a vivid picture of details which are emotionally relevant, and gives us a vignette, or a little painting, of a moment in time. He might have trouble in linking the moments together well in a longer work, but I don't know for sure.

So far there is no plot, just a series of events linked together by the need to kill and loot.

 

[BlackDog]

You made enough out of it to write this, at least:

"I changed my mind on ESTP. No ESTP would write like that unless he was insane, and even then I dont' think he could do it. They write bluntly, simply, and to the point; they are 'cut to the chase' people who don't revel in emotional situations. If they are being emotional in public like that, it would be part of a break down, not a semi-carefully constructed post. The author of that is reveling in his situation; you have to have a natural sense of the dramatic to do that, I think."

What type or types have a natural sense of the dramatic?

I said that with the understanding that it was qualified. I could be wrong. But it would stun me.

Many types can have a natural sense of the emotionally dramatic. I couldn't point out any one as more likely, because I can imagine most types could be like this under certain circumstances.

ESTP would be near the bottom of the list for me on this, however. They get angry and emotional, sure, but not in a flowery way. They really mean it, and it comes like a storm. I suspect that it doesn't fit well with being an INTP either, no?

 

[BlackDog]

So far there is no plot, just a series of events linked together by the need to kill and loot.

So I was right, wasn't I? I was taking a bet on his literary weakness, and I could have been wrong. He writes in his novel much like he writes in that vignette.

By the way, you do write like an INTP, but I wouldn't be able to identify it if it wasn't labeled. I can see why you are an INTP in your writing style, but that's after-the-fact rationalization, and it is invalid for the purpose of prediction. You could turn out to actually be an INTJ, and I wouldn't be able to say from your writing: "He is an INTJ!".

See what I am saying? If it was so obvious, then a lot of the mistyped people would be called out immediately. Some of them we can easily see are not sounding like their type, but others are much harder to gauge.