Alex Jones (SEE): Personality Type Analysis

Alexander Emric Jones (born 11 February 1974) is the owner of the Infowars platform and host of The Alex Jones Show which reports current events and provides news commentary with a conspiratorial bent. Alex states that he was introduced to the "New World Order" conspiracy as a youth, hearing adult relatives and friends of the family mentioning it and related topics, though he claims he initially dismissed much of what he heard at the time. He began his own forays into the subject after reading the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, and subsequently began consuming large amounts of history books and literature pertaining to global conspiracies.

Now widely known for his own promulgation of conspiracy theories, and a bombastic, over-the-top style of presentation, Jones began his broadcast career in Austin, TX during the mid 1990s. Alex’s first show was a live, call-in format public-access cable program on topics that were relatively tame compared to what he began covering in later years. In fact, during a 2014 interview he stated:

“My first five years on air, I was like a Ron Paul, let’s-audit-the-fed, let’s-lower-taxes, mainline, Libertarian-Republican, and then my listeners educated me. And then I’d laugh at ’em—there’s no black helicopters; fluoride isn’t bad for you; my dad’s a dentist; GMO’s good for ya—that’s a bunch of leftists that don’t wanna feed the world—until I got educated. And the last fifteen years has been just over the top.”

Since then, he's gained notoriety via his publicly stated views on all manner of controversial subjects like the Oklahoma City bombing, the 911 attacks, and his famously memed rant about atrazine runoff “turning the frogs gay". He's also published multiple books and numerous documentaries on the NWO, false flag operations, & other conspiracy topics.

Alex Jones spent most of his early years growing up in the suburbs of Dallas, and later played football as a lineman at Anderson High School in Austin, where he graduated in 1993. Jones has often described himself as being a “hellion” during his teenage years, constantly getting into violent brawls -- typically against larger and/or more numerous opponents -- and engaging in promiscuous behavior with older females. Unsurprisingly, this often resulted in him getting his “a** beat” (though he proudly states that he'd managed to hospitalize his attackers on multiple occasions), and numerous unwanted pregnancies that he pressured the mothers to terminate (something that he says he now regrets). For a period of time after high school, Jones got heavily into weight lifting & bodybuilding. 

His pugnacious tendencies are still apparent in his physically overbearing, in-your-face manner when publicly confronting opponents -- a prime example of which can be seen in Jones’s gun debate with Piers Morgan. Even the title of his news organization “Infowars” illustrates his combative mindset, which only heightened as his operation came under intensifying legal and financial attack following the 2016 presidential race when he began his outspoken support for Donald Trump (SLE). In his own words, he describes his operation as “the tip of the spear” in a global information war, and implores his viewers/listeners to actively participate in “the animating contest of liberty”. Given Alex's overwhelmingly prominent emphasis on Force, it's readily apparent that he not only values it, but it's his base element (F1).

Another of Alex’s noteworthy traits is his consistently informal manner, interacting with and relating to others in direct, personal terms -- often greeting show guests as “brother”, explicitly relying on “gut” feelings when making judgments, criticizing public opponents based on perceived character deficiencies, or identifying with members of his crew as friends rather than mere professional colleagues (R). For instance, when David Knight (one of the news anchors on the Infowars platform) suffered a heart attack, Alex kept his viewers up-to-date on Knight's condition and how his family was faring -- being as how he often visited their home. Despite David Knight's segment being very popular with Infowars viewers, and his eagerness to return to work soon after leaving hospital, Jones stated that he threatened to fire Knight if he didn't take the time off recommended by his doctor. Jones recounted a prior experience he had of losing a close relative who insisted on resuming an active work life shortly after suffering a heart attack, and expressed fear of losing Knight in the same way.

Another example of Alex Jones's forceful usage of R can be seen in his recent public feud with Joe Rogan (SEE). Jones’s multi-decade friendship with Joe became strained after Rogan began publicly distancing himself from Alex's stances on certain subjects, and chose not to re-invite him onto the JRE podcast following pressure from major platforms to disassociate with Jones. Jones took Rogan's repeating of “Soros talking points” and failure to speak in his defense while he was subject to mass deplatforming as a personal -- rather than ideological -- betrayal. In response, Alex decried Joe Rogan as a “coward”, “backstabber”, and “sellout” in 'call out' videos attacking his character. After making some initial attempts to mend relations between himself and Rogan in the early months of their conflict, it seemed Jones then decided to cut his losses in typical Gamma fashion, disassociating himself from someone who he perceived as being untrustworthy. Since then, it appears the two have finally managed to mend fences, with Rogan re-inviting Alex onto his podcast. Over the years, Jones has repeatedly shown a propensity to go on vengeful, personal tirades against those whom he feels have betrayed, or otherwise slighted him in some way.

While it's been suggested by some that Alex Jones's meme status tirades are purely insincere affectations, there's a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Those who know AJ personally -- including his ex-wife -- attest to the fact that he has a tendency to be just as intense in his day-to-day interactions. Jones has stated on numerous occasions that when he goes off the rails, he's simply disinhibiting himself and acting out what he actually feels; based on the consistency of his manner over the years, both on and off air, it seems he's speaking truthfully on this. Based on the accounts of those close to him and his behavior when off the set of his show, it would appear that AJ is consumed with the subject matter he talks about on air -- even in his personal life. By every indication, he sincerely believes what he's been putting forward on his platform.

Despite his strong emotional expressivity, Jones is unapologetically uncouth, undisciplined, and intellectually unrefined in how he articulates himself -- nor does it appear that he particularly cares to change this. His harsh, confrontational style of communication can clearly be seen in the way he confronted politicians like Marco Rubio, and other prominent public figures, during Congressional hearings. At one point, while amongst other members of the press, AJ chased Silicon Valley CEO Sundar Pichai down the halls of Congress and into the hearing, shouting “Google is Evil” all the while. He became so disruptive that a police officer eventually threatened him with arrest if he didn't control himself. Alex's general lack of social decorum, and apparent indifference to such things, shows that E is unvalued for him. This, along with the other bombastic rants he's known for, further indicates a very strong -- likely demonstrative -- usage of E in the service of expressing R attitudes.

Jones voraciously consumes news media on a daily basis like an alcoholic taking drink, but shows little-to-no interest in integrating all that data into a coherent, theoretical framework. This lack of logical structure, combined with his aforementioned unrefined, over-the-top style of communication is very off-putting to many, and makes it easier for those who dislike his dire reporting to dismiss him as raving kook -- even when he has solid data to substantiate his claims. While Alex is best known for his conspiracy show, the Infowars operation is funded primarily through his sales of nutraceutical products and survival paraphernalia -- an enterprise that he runs with the same reckless gusto that he exhibits in his news program & on-the-ground reporting. Among the business tactics he uses is selling popular items at loss-leader prices to severely undercut competitors and aggressively take market shares (though Alex often shoots himself in the foot by getting so caught up in the day's news topics that he often forgets to plug his own products). What's more, Jones has a habit of over-sharing mundane -- sometimes very personal -- factual details, even when it's not particularly appropriate or paints himself/others in an unflattering light. Given the way he enthusiastically approaches fact data -- in his voracious consumption, impromptu business uses, and somewhat messy expression of it -- along with his conspicuously weak & unvalued L, it would be reasonable to conclude that Alex Jones is a P6. Naturally, this entails a "vulnerable" L4.

In addition to his insatiable interest in researching current events, Jones is also obsessed with historical knowledge, frequently going on unprompted rants about the species’ ancestral struggle to survive into present day and the future prospects of humanity. He particularly prides himself on predicting contemporary geopolitical developments in his reporting of documentation years before. Jones has even gone so far as to make “Tomorrow's news today” an official Infowars tagline. He's also shown a great interest in having trends forecasters like Gerald Celente on his show as recurring guests. Despite this, throughout his life Alex has often made impulsive, short-sighted decisions that've gotten him into unnecessary trouble. Taking this into account, it appears that Jones probably has T as his “suggestive” function, given that he values it so highly yet shows great difficulty applying it in aspects of his day-to-day life.

While I can't think of any public examples demonstrating the functional strength/weakness of S for Alex Jones (aside from his apparent taste for rich foods contributing to his precipitous weight gains in the past) it's clearly not a value to him, since he's so consumed with his work that even when he takes a rare vacation, he still calls into his show to host segments in absentia. So, with an overwhelmingly prominent F1, visible creative uses of R even in professional settings, hyperbolic levels of often disruptive E8 demonstrations, a near contemptuous disregard for an obviously weak L, enthusiastic yet haphazard uses of a likely “mobilizing” P, an oft neglected -- likely “ignoring” -- S, and a high personal demand for T information sources all point to Alexander Emric Jones being an SEE.

To learn more about SEE, click here.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Tony Robbins (SEE): Personality Type Analysis

Tony Robbins, born Anthony Robbins, is an American Philanthropist, Businessman, Motivational Speaker, and Life Coach, that claims that he has never lost anyone during his entire professional career.

Tony, in his own words, had a fairly abusive home-life and was quickly on his own at 17 years old. Although he left on his own accord, he still provided for his family working as a handyman until he began his professional career under the tutelage of Personal Development Guru, Jim Rohn. Rohn taught him about happiness and success further propelling Tony’s desire to help others do the same.

The most obvious and present theme in Tony’s life from then to now is about breaking personal barriers with a strong emphasis on “pushing through obstacles.” Not only is this his prime message, but it’s also how he naturally displays himself on stage, in his seminars, and even during intermissions. It is as if this theme is ever present in his life. The following quotes further exhibit this attitude toward the world:

• “The path to success is to take massive, determined action.” 
• “If you can’t, you must. If you must, you can.”
• “A real decision is measured by the fact that you’ve taken new action. If there’s no action, you haven’t truly decided.”
• “Knowing is not enough! You must take action!”

By these few examples it is very clear that Tony values getting things done through determined physical action - even over one’s own knowledge. It is important to note that most of his methods assume that this amount of willpower is inside of everyone - almost as if he isn’t aware that not everyone can muster this type of energy into whatever it is they want to do. Tony’s singular action focused attitude strongly suggests that Tony best fits in an F valuing World-Rejecting quadra over a S, World Accepting quadra. With these examples, it would be safe to assume that he’s an F-Ego type in the World-Rejecting Quadras (SEE, SLE, LSI, ESI).

Unlike his natural ability to take massive action, he spends a lot of time teaching others how to find their vision and direction - which he positions as central to finding “fulfilment” in life. However, he demonstrates a lack of flexibility to instruct others on specifically how to do this as it pertains to their situation, preferring to teach others to do this in the same manner he did, which was surrounding himself with people who provided him with this meaning behind such determined action. This possibly indicates Super-Id for this particular piece of information. He stated that the best place to get your vision or purpose is from your role-model, as if one cannot produce this on their own and must rely on others to acquire such purpose or vision. This inflexible, lackluster curriculum of “just hand it off” supports possible experiential information metabolism (1D) of T. All of this suggests T being in the Super-Id Block, and 1-Dimensional, therefore T5.

When given a strong vision you can create change, but according to Tony, change is short lived without strong, meaningful relationships. He has spent an incredible amount of time navigating the connection between couples and helping them ignite the same early-relationship passion in their later years. He rests most of his advanced content around the bonds between oneself and other people and he stresses the importance of nourishing such bonds. This strongly supports that he values R. Furthermore, the following quote may reveal more about Tony’s type:

“The quality of your life is the quality of your relationships.”

Tony stresses that the ability to keep working on your relationships and yourself is a means to gaining personal power. He strongly believes that all the answers to life lie within one’s own strength. In other words, getting better at being you makes everything else come together. This points in the direction of beliefs that are about the power of the individual. Such beliefs most strongly represent Gamma-Quadra values versus a more collective rallying, world-changing Beta-Quadra set of values. 

He is easily able to read the emotional states of others and affect them long enough to get them to listen to him. He uses vast amounts of high-energy emotions on a wide spectrum to infuse a crowd with excitement, passion, and enthusiasm -- and seems to never fail at doing this. This may indicate high dimensionality for E. However, he shows no real need to teach people how to generate excitement, nor does he place any stress or importance on influencing any collective assembly at all. For him, it is best depicted as something he is good at and takes for granted. He easily brushes his strength in this area aside and places emphasis on developing a sense of personal power - and becoming the “Giant Within". In fact, he has admitted that he goes into client sessions as a “Trojan Horse", allowing them think he’s going to give them what they want, but he instead gives them “what they need to grow". That supports his value of R+F over E. That being said, his ability to control the mood of a crowd effortlessly, appears to be 4-Dimensional, subdued E (E8). 

Knowledge is not enough for him, he clearly wants to see evidence that you actually know what you’re talking about through empirical proof (P). Simply to know is not enough! Knowledge is not beyond it’s application; this indicates subdued L, as he isn’t keen on using these ideas to navigate and crush opposition, but simply to disregard them until they’ve proven proper utility and real-world application. This attitude toward theoretical knowledge would also explain that his method for coaching, which is a mixed combination of “practical things” he’s learned over the years. In his book Mastering the Money Game he sought the advice from not just one Billionaire, but many! He used multiple sources of information attempting to get at the underlying idea of what actually works in the financial world. They taught him how to acquire financial success in the stock market and how to prevent personal financial downturns when the market changes. Interestingly enough, instead of spending an incredible amount of time tweaking this advice and/or formulating a system of his own, he simply defers his authority to these experts with some spin of his own. This further suggests P being in the Super-Id block, but valued. More importantly, although using the advice of people he sees as experts, he attempts at mastering this “by his own will” by projecting his own independent authority on it. In other words, he simply doesn’t hand it off like he does with T information, but would rather take a shot at it himself. This suggests P6.

As a life coach, he is still not able to get nationally recognized with his current coaching model. It is not because of his lack of performance or results, but his natural resistance of any standardized coaching model, as every case is situational. His alternative to these international coaching standards is called “Strategic Intervention” which is not based on anything directly, but rather years of combining techniques to see what has worked in real life. Strategic Intervention is a model that is based on keen observation and flexible adapting rather than a strict structure, allowing the coach to be much more supple in his approach. Especially when compared to more rigid personal coaching models. He has said that his system delivers more results for less effort, indicating a preference for results-oriented efficiency (P). However, he had challenges putting this in a packaged system that was easy to sell without the help of Cloe Madanes, who had experience in developing therapy models. His consistent rebuking of “rigid” models and challenges packing his system suggests L4. 

He has admitted that he does not go into coaching sessions with a series of canned techniques, but he delivers specifically what that case requires. When dealing with an uncertainty, he will begin to explore possible hidden motivations behind behaviors. Once these hidden motivations are identified, his exploration ends and his practical, face the problem head-on approach begins. This is standard behavior of what you’d expect with someone who has Extraverted Irrationality in the Leading and Role functions, more specifically the off/on relationships that is demonstrated with F and I. Tony shows the ability to read body language and the emotions with the metabolism of I and E elements. However, once he’s assessed the situation, he quickly resumes control of the coaching session. This outlines his rather short, quick usage of I, then returning to F.  All of this supports I3.

Lastly, his recent Netflix Documentary labeled “I Am Not Your Guru” is a way for him to free himself of hierarchy, even his own status above others. This theme of independence saturates Tony’s entire disposition. In other words, he is simply empowering others to lead their own lives, not having some “leader” that people can follow. 

Concluding with F1, R2, I3, L4, T5, P6, and E8, a strong preference of Gamma quadra values, and his F+R approach of teaching others how to be free, living through action and devoted relationships, I strongly support his TIM being nothing other than SEE. 

To learn more about SEE, click here.

If you are confused by our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Ken Combs - Diagnostic Report (LSI)

After a diagnostic interview, an analysis of Ken’s answers suggests the 8 IM Elements may best be assigned to the functions of Model A in the following order, making his best fit type the ‘Logical Sensory Integrator’ or ‘LSI’.

Leading Function - Laws (L1)

One of the most dominant themes to come out when interviewing Ken was his pursuit of logical clarity, even over the meanings of particular words used during the interview process, finding ‘value’ to be “kind of a difficult word”. Similarly, on multiple occasions, Ken would be dissatisfied with an answer he had given, saying that he felt it was “too vague” and needed a better way of being described. In this way, we can see that Ken feels it is important that information, both when acquired by him and when presented to others, should be clearly defined and explained, reducing any ambiguity in the scope of their interpretation, while allowing himself and the interlocutor to understand the matter with definitional precision. To do this, he attempts to break down and lay out the information presented to him in a way that is “consistent”, formulating it into “some kind of structure” with reasons to support their placement. Furthermore, it seems that Ken has “confidence and assurance” in a role where he could spend the day presenting his structured understanding to other people in a way that provides them some benefit. This all suggests that rigorous sense-making is a process in which Ken is confident, readily takes ownership of with others and feels to be a necessity, regularly and continuously trying to bring clarity to his understanding of the phenomena around him. This would best fit the Leading function.

Creative Function - Force (F2)

In differentiating the meanings of different words and concepts, Ken looks for “some kind of concrete action or appearance” and feels that the sensory world brings him a “sense of gnosis”, i.e. personal knowledge. Working as a bartender’s assistant, Ken occasionally takes on the role of bouncer and, assuming that he has the authority to do so from more senior colleagues, Ken will be able to make “quick decisions” and act with volition, preventing drunk people from driving and being prepared to turf out the disorderly, if need be. In these ways, Ken shows a capability and an orientation towards concrete information and the use of Force, although in each case, it is subordinated to his understanding of Laws. He will not act forcefully in his role unless he has the backing from the co-workers he is “supposed to be representing when applying this force”, while his turning to concrete appearance is a means by which he can better differentiate between concepts in his head. Ken feels most confident when he is able to enter what he calls a “physical flow”, where what he has to do is “narrow[ed]” by an understanding that he is “doing the right thing”, allowing him to push through obstacles with a “forward tilt”. One desire of Ken’s is to narrow his path of action amidst a series of potentially deadly consequences, such as someday taking up motorcycling and doing backflips, where false moves are not an option. In practise for Ken, achieving this flow can mean pushing the limits of how much he is able to carry in his role as a bartender, taking the maximum number of glasses and risking letting them fall. From this, it is clear that Ken sees himself at his best when conducting purposeful action and places himself in situations where he is able to act more decisively. At the same time, his success in these areas is subordinate to his pursuit of complete clarity in any situation, and frequently becomes the medium through which his logical clarity is realised. This makes the application of Force capable and valued, but cautious and subordinate to Laws, and as such, is a prime candidate for the Creative function.

Role Function - Relations (R3)

Ken frequently struggled with terms when they were of a personal, ethical nature, such as “friends” and “values”, seeing these as needing careful definition. At least in terms of defining what a ‘friend’ is, Ken relied on a slightly stilted paradigm, where he is yet to find anyone who qualifies. Such a person would need to have a “vested interest” in his bodily and psychological health, who would “take a bullet” for him, while provoking a mutual need for action in him. Due to this high bar, Ken privately reserves the word ‘acquaintance’ for everyone else. Similarly, for values, which Ken defines as “something occurring psychologically”, he struggles to find a clear example of relying on them, much preferring to do that which he identifies more impersonally as a “moral standard”. What we see from this is that Ken’s use of Relations is rather weak and frequently curtailed by his stronger, more dominant pursuit of Laws. At the same time, he seems to recognise this area of focus with some degree of seriousness, rather than treating it as a complete blind spot. As such, it makes a good candidate for the Role function.

Vulnerable Function - Ideas (I4)

Ken participates in a limited number of hobbies, and any new ones he may consider taking on, such as motorbiking, have a clear sensory quality to them. Although spending a lot of time trying to be reflective and carefully reaching an understanding of phenomena around him, there was no sign of Ken seeking out new ways of thinking or unusual interests to explore. Furthermore, when asked questions that push for speculation, Ken came up short, saying for instance that in 10 years’ time he would like to be “hopefully not dead. I might end up somewhere, I might end up somewhere totally different.” What we see here is a weakness in Ideas. At the same time, from other answers we can see a deliberateness from Ken in reducing the scope of possibility, rather than increasing it, with Ken seeking clarity through the nullification of any ambiguity in his understanding of words, trying to root out any vagueness. Similarly, his way of achieving the desired ‘flow’ is to put himself in situations where there is no viable course of action other than the ‘right’ action. From these points of data, we can reasonably infer that Ken is not only very weak in Ideas, but actively works against it in his psyche, making it a good candidate for the Vulnerable function.

Suggestive Function - Emotions (E5)

It is notable that, throughout the interview, Ken spoke in a deadpan, almost monotonous voice, with content that, despite being clear to read and understand when written down, did not easily direct attention and guide interest when being spoken. It suggests that Ken lacks an innate ability to present or express himself in a way that is tailored for impact and grabs attention. At the same time, we see a desire in Ken to be part of a circle of people where there is some emotive interaction, enjoying activities like Dungeons and Dragons which carry a “communal element” and where people collaborate on stories that “play around with certain emotions”. It is clear though that Ken does not see himself as the driver of such community and does not like having to “herd or corral”, instead preferring to facilitate so that this can be achieved by others. At the same time, rather than putting himself in the centre of any community, Ken remains sort of a lone figure, “disappear[ing] for months on end and just com[ing] back”. The evidence of this suggests that Ken appreciates environments rich with emotional expression and enjoys communal belonging but is very weak at expressing Emotions himself. He has difficulty acting to maintain that belonging in the group for an extended period of time, preferring others to galvanise the collective towards an activity. The best function to describe such use of Emotions would be the Suggestive function.

Mobilising Function - Time (T6)

As well as the pursuit of logical clarity, a second key motivator for Ken seems to be the pursuit of greater reflection and the divination of the images and “ruminations” that flash from his subconscious, with Ken spending a lot of time paying attention to what is going on in his head and trying to “scribble” down what comes to him, with seemingly quite elaborate pictures being created. He likes to keep these drawings pinned on his wall. Some visions may seem more complex and even feel quite real, like Ken imagining he was having a conversation with Carl Jung about Sam Harris, only to realise that was impossible because the former died a few years before the latter was born. However, it does not seem that reflection is a point of confidence and success for Ken, but rather, a place where he is still learning to find his feet. It can sometimes feel like a “TV being flipped rapidly between stations… not always being clear where the daydreams are going” and his inability with Ideas makes him unable to navigate this “fractal” lack of “linear[ity]”. At other times, he may feel trapped in a “loop” of the past, thinking over and over what he may have done wrong without finding something new from this reflection. Additionally, reconsidering nostalgic counterfactuals of past events can be a source of great satisfaction. Ken’s reasoning for traversing this seemingly perilous, internal landscape of quagmires and disorientation, but also some reward, is the pursuit of something that “resonates with [him[ internally… being able to put it out there and communicate it and making something meaningful for someone else.” Without that sense of meaning, Ken feels that communicating to others will be little more than “making sounds” and “a voice crying in the wilderness”. We can see from this that Ken regularly takes risks with Time as a point of personal development, in a way that ultimately can serve satisfaction to his desire for greater expression of Emotions. This idea of a bold and valued, but weak, risky and ultimately developing function, that operates in service of his Suggestive function, would best fit the Mobilising function.

Ignoring Function - Pragmatism (P7)

Ken is largely focused on creating conceptual clarity and deriving meaning from his insights to better communicate the clarity of his understanding. As such, there is little in the way of motivation for something more practical or working on improving his skills in areas that would bring about some financial or useful merit. However, he does show some awareness of practical needs. For instance, he jokingly remarks that a good reason he shouldn’t start a church anytime soon is that he would need to first work out what the doctrine is. At the same time, although giving no sign of being motivated by efficiency of process, he does derive enjoyment from finding ‘flow’ in his actions when forcing himself to act in reckless physical circumstances, which does suggest a capable understanding of Pragmatism and how things work in setting up situations for this to happen. This understanding of Pragmatism, combined with it being used minimally in the service of more motivating functions, best suits the Ignoring function.

Demonstrative Function - Senses (S8)

Although mostly inexpressive, Ken’s demeanour also radiates the calm collectedness of someone with a stable energy level and confidence in their immediate physical surroundings. Although he likes to create situations of high-stakes intensity, Ken is quite comfortable in physical jobs that are “repetitive and logistical, allowing [him] to achieve something technically, with flow of physical energy”. Ken’s physical interests can be just as easy-going as intense, from a desire to go motorbiking to hiking, and he has a relaxed approach to those which are less dangerous, where he tends to “wing it” in terms of preparation, being happy to find a different activity should the weather be bad. In a way, the achievement of flow for Ken is the perfect synergy of both Force-oriented action, and a harmony and oneness with the physical moment, with Ken

“get[ting] to be an animal for a while, all the human concerns drop[ping] away”. With his deep, mental wanderings, Ken will also throw in physical language, noting the “conceptually aesthetic” nature of those insights he wants to “scribble” down. Furthermore, when Ken is most likely to grow irritated, it will be over experiences of physical or emotional “discomfort”, such as people getting in his space, yelling or disrupting his sleep. He describes a period of hypersensitivity in his sleep where “there are pins and needles in [his] skin, where the act of breathing seems offensive.” In such situations, Ken can choose to “suffer”, but may otherwise “fidget” with the air conditioner and change his blankets. What we see from all this is someone who has a very strong orientation towards Senses, where an awareness of the physical stimuli in his immediate surroundings holds a particular sway, but where there is nonetheless an absence of it being spoken of as a motivator for action, but instead more of a hygiene factor that he is sensitive to and has to sort out. Furthermore, in creating flow, Senses plays a key role in tandem with Force, balancing harmony with intensity. Such a powerful, ever-present, nuanced but ultimately unmotivating nature for Senses can best be described by the Demonstrative function.

If you would like a diagnostic interview, please email worldsocionics@hotmail.com.