Christopher Langan (LSI): Personality Type Analysis

Christopher Michael Langan rose to fame due to media attention concerning his unusually high intelligence, being dubbed "The Smartest Man in the World". He has worked a number of day jobs, including bouncer, construction worker, farmhand, and cowboy, but his main focus is on developing his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU), which he classifies as "reality theory", a discipline involving philosophy, logic, mathematics, and some general aspects of science.

Langan's major goal with CTMU is to logically resolve the paradoxes that have plagued the philosophy of science and empiricism. To this end, Langan repeatedly invokes logical consistency as the overriding criterion for what makes a good theory. Yet, many have read his work and found it disappointing -- his theories give very little in the way of extra observable information about the world, but rather help to reorganize and explain facts that are already known (why language works so well to describe the world, why anything exists, etc.). Langan has nothing against empirical research, yet he is not really interested in working on it himself. All this is a strong indication of subdued P, and both strong and valued L. And unlike L2 types, for Langan theorical understanding and mental order is an end in itself - its conclusions to be disturbed only when absolutely necessary. Langan strongly emphasizes the use of binary logic: yes or no, this or that. He sees the unknown and ambiguity as essentially problematic -- distracting things to be eliminated if at all possible -- rather than being fascinated by them and desiring to explore them. This is an indication of I4. He also almost invariably regards his conclusions as being obviously correct, and only has limited patience for discussing alternative viewpoints, or explaining them to dummies who just don't get it, yet continue to ask lots of annoying questions. This demonstrates a reluctance to use both E and I.

Langan is also known in the high IQ community for aggressively promoting his logical views in the face of opposition, and seeking material influence in high-IQ organizations like the "Mega Society" -- not necessarily for the sake of power, but to fix them and change them for the better. This shows that he is easily able to use F (blocked with L), and his desire to communicate his views to others demonstrates valued E. However, he often alienates people rather than converting them to his viewpoint (weak E). In recent years however, he has withdrawn from the public sphere -- where the response to CTMU has mostly been hostile and skeptical of its value -- and started a small, exclusive organization which has the sole purpose of discussing and developing his theory, with him being the one who is clearly in charge (again, strong and valued F).

Langan's interest in the abstract might be seen as an indication of strong intuition rather than sensing. However, he is not content to just sit back and theorize; he would much prefer that his theories would have some kind of real-world impact. In the Errol Morris documentary about his life (see links below), he alludes to having aspirations to be a sort of enlightened world dictator. And, beyond the purely descriptive content of his theories, Langan also believes that they have implications for the correct spiritual direction of life, both individual and communal, which demonstrates valued T. Langan further demonstrates his ability and willingness to use force, both physical and mental, in countless ways, including his choice of highly physical occupations, as well as standing up to his abusive stepfather (also mentioned in the documentary). All of this adds up to a strong case that Langan is LSI.

To learn more about LSI, click here.

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

Sources:
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/
http://www.polymath-systems.com/langlang/langan.html
http://megasociety.org/noesis/44/newcomb.html
http://socionist.blogspot.sn/2007/02/iq-and-socionic-type-smartest-man-in.html

Errol Morris documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0 (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0 (part 3)

Noam Chomsky (LII): Personality Type Analysis

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, social critic and political activist. An Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Chomsky's main contributions lie in the field of linguistics, with his revolutionary ideas on 'Universal Grammar', 'Transformational Generative Grammar', the 'Chomsky Hierarchy' and more recently, the 'Minimalist Program'. Secondly, he has contributed in political activism, widely publicising his ideas and critiques within a libertarian socialist and anarcho-syndicalist paradigm. Chomsky's academic success has only been matched by the controversy of his anti-establishment political views.

First, we should look at Chomsky's contributions to Linguistics. His contributions focused largely on 'biolinguistics', i.e. where the basic structures of language are thought to occur innately within all human beings. This is the basis of his 'Universal Grammar' (UG) theory, where he posits that people of all cultures and groups around the world possess a universal grammar that allows them to make sense of languages they are exposed to at a young age. At its core is the assumption that all languages worldwide are based on a finite set of universal rules, a.k.a. grammar and that it is through this shared grammar that a small child is able to rapidly piece together language they are exposed to. Similarly, with the 'Chomsky Hierarchy', Chomsky expands on his idea of UG, by setting out how all grammar fits into a single set, within which there are different subsets that can across contexts. In this way, Chomsky shows a tendency most common with the worldview of Alpha, the view that a system of finite principles and laws (L) can be formulated that applies across all scenarios and contexts (I), i.e. that a grand theory can make sense of everything.

A bi-product of this attitude is certain rejection of the viewpoint that theoretical structures are subject to empirical falsification. Indeed, UG makes a bold claim in saying that all languages hold to the same basic structure, despite there evidently being large amounts of variation. It is notable that little in the way of concrete specifics have been given for his theory, making his position hard to falsify. The one statement he did make was that recursion, i.e. the nestling of phrases within phrases, was the single most important part of UG. Challenges have been made to Chomsky's claim, with Everett drawing attention to the Pirahã language, which is thought to lack the recursion thought to be universal. It is worth noting that Chomsky has dismissed this claim out of hand, despite lacking the means to properly investigate it. In addition, when faced with the possibility that his claim about recursion could be falsified, he says this:

"Universal Grammar permits such exceptions. There is no problem. As Pesetsky puts it: "There's nothing that says languages without subordinate clauses can't exist.""

What this suggests is someone who is inclined to avoid the falsification of their positions, and argue that their structure holds, even when the evidence does not neatly fit the system. While L seeks to maintain a consistent understanding based on a unifying structure, P focuses on continuously updating one's knowledge in order to have an understanding that best reflects available evidence. Chomsky's response to the possibility of exceptions to his rule is quite typical of P7, trying to make his structure harder to falsify or to dismiss the gravity of exceptions to his rule, rather than intending to change the structure itself in line with factual evidence.

With 'Transformational Generative Grammar' (TGG), Chomsky makes distinctions in our language between 'surface structure', i.e. our spoken utterances, and 'deep structure', i.e. underlying relations between words and conceptual meaning. Chomsky posits that TGG is the means by which the 'deep structure' is converted into the 'surface structure'. In this way, Chomsky builds a basic framework for language use. Again, we see a ready attempt to explain language through sorting it into distinct parts of categories, once again a regular use of L. Furthermore, these categories are consistently abstract and conceptual in nature, again suggesting L+I.

It is notable that Chomsky's ideas are regarded as 'revolutionary' and 'paradigm-shifting' in the field of linguistics, taking it forward to scientific recognition. In this regard, we can see that the Chomsky's use of system-building, in the form of L+I is very strong. Knowing that L+I is also valued in Alpha, one can assign it to an Ego usage. With an already identified P7, we can deduce L1 and I2.

Regarding politics, Chomsky is known for the consistency of his views, which have not changed over time. They are also consistently of a certain school of thought, namely anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist. This lends further credence to the hypothesis that he is L1, as consistent and confident fidelity to ideology is common for these types. 

Most apparent in Chomsky's politics is the consistent criticism of force or coercion by governments on people. In contrast to Mahatma Gandhi (IEI) who recognised submission to the force of others as means of nationalist revolution, Chomsky speaks out against force and power inequalities from any and all sources for which he feels there is sufficient evidence, condemning violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Turkish oppression of Kurds, supporting Tamil self-determination and being an outspoken opponent of the death penalty as a lawful punishment. In his view, any use of force is tantamount to 'terrorism' and as such, western capitalist countries can be seen as the greatest terrorists. Similarly, Chomsky is critical of violent revolution, seeing it as only as a means of avoiding 'greater terrorism'. As such, he has been similarly critical of other left-wing ideologies, such as Stalinism. In this regard we see a blanket rejection of any use of force, with little attention to nuance and circumstance; a world-view quite consistent with the pacifistic F4. This is supported by Chomsky's own tendency to criticise even people who could be a danger to his well-being, making powerful foes. His regular criticism of American foreign policy even led to the Nixon administration placing him on their 'list of enemies'. This lack of ability to assess what people could do to him if he criticises them suggests yet more weakness in F.

Chomsky also possesses a general antipathy towards capitalism, seeing it as the selfish pursuit of material enhancement. Instead, his writings tend to place in a positive light the work of collectives to protect the liberties of all. This focus on community as the source of liberty suggests someone who values inter-dependence in society, rather then independence, suggesting valued E. In addition, Chomsky tends to appreciate his peers based on whether they agree with his views or not, with Stephen Pinker noting his tendency to see those who disagree with him as 'stupid' or 'evil'. In this regard, Chomsky clearly identifies with people based on their logical positions, rather than on judgements of their personal character, suggesting the valuing of E & L, rather than R.

However, Chomsky is known for being a rather dry, monotonous speaker, lacking due focus on making his speeches entertaining to listen to. In addition, his manner of addressing his critics frequently lack attention to making his words palatable, resulting in him rubbing many people the wrong way. In this regard, it is safe to say that his E is very weak. Consequently, E5 fits.

To conclude, we can see clear Alpha values in Noam Chomsky, of which E is most absent. His approach to analysis of linguistic structures and politics strongly suggests L1, I2, F4, E5 and P7, making LII the most likely type for him.

To read more about LII, click here.

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


Sources:

Wikipedia article

Angry Words - Chomsky vs. Everett

Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun (EII): Personality Type Analysis

Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun was a French painter, active from the late 18th to the first half of the 19th century, mainly in her native France but also in Russia, Italy, Prussia and England. She left a legacy of over 800 works, mostly portraits. Her best-known works are perhaps her portraits of Queen Marie Antoinette. She left a detailed description of her life and career in her memoirs, which she wrote in the 1830s, and which provide plenty of evidence with which to type her.

Louise Élisabeth showed an aptitude for drawing and painting already in her childhood, which was encouraged by her father, himself a painter. As a teenager she was already painting portraits professionally, increasingly  attracting attention in Paris and eventually being commissioned by the Queen, Marie Antoinette, to paint several portraits of her and of her children. Although herself of a family of relatively modest means, her easy access to the Versailles court and the favor she received from the king and queen led her to flee France in 1789, afraid of being seen as a high-profile royalist (already receiving threats on the street, as she described).

She had (reluctantly, as she said) married Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Le Brun, an artist and art dealer, with whom she had a daughter, Julie. She fled France with Julie while her husband remained behind.

Louise Élisabeth moved first to Rome, then to Vienna, and then to the court of Catherine the Great in St Petersburg, remaining in Russia throughout the short reign of her son Paul and the beginning of the reign of Alexander I. By then, in 1801, after the Terror and in the more stable early years of Napoleon Bonaparte's government, she finally felt that it was safe to return to France.

She was fortunate in being able to move easily between countries, at that time, since her fame, talent, and connections always assured her a warm welcome, protection, and employment as a painter, whenever she went. That was important especially as she left France in 1789 with very little money.

Not feeling quite at home in Paris, any more after returning from Russia, and pained by the memory of several acquaintances who had been guillotined during the Terror, she spent a few years in England and Switzerland, before returning definitely to France where she remained until her death at 86.

Vigée Le Brun stated at the start of her memoirs that she was writing them at the request of a friend, but that she'd also find it easy since her memories of all the people she had known (and who were now dead) were always around her and that such memories kept her company, so to speak. Her memoirs are a straightforward narration of the events in her life in strict chronological order, but centered on the individuals she knew and the relationships she had with them. From the memoirs, her main way of looking at the world, and her life, was very clearly through her relationships with individuals. That already points to R as a very strong function.

Although a key eyewitness to important historical events, like the beginning of the French Revolution and events surrounding the murder of the Tsar Paul, Louise Élisabeth was not interested in them as historical events, even as she described how she experienced them. Indeed, she describes that when she first heard in Italy the news of the deaths of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, she immediately refused to hear or read anything about the circumstances leading to such events, a stance she kept for decades. She was obviously a royalist in the sense that she missed pre-revolutionary France and was appalled by the Terror, but at no point does she focus on the larger events or trends in those periods. It is difficult, or rather impossible, to perceive any kind of ideology or political analysis in her views of historical events apart from how they affected her personally and individuals she was attached to. That suggests R as much stronger than L.

When describing individuals, she focuses not only on their characters and her relationships but on their physical appearance. After that, her main focus in her memoirs is in physical descriptions of the places she was visiting and of details of the daily life there. This is to be expected from a painter but in any case it shows a focus on S and perhaps blocked with P.

Also when describing individuals, she - mostly - tries to focus on those of whom she has pleasant memories and tries to avoid digressing at length people whom she disliked or who gave her painful or ambiguous feelings. For instance, she gives very little information on her husband, whom she - as she said - married reluctantly. From the little she says about him, it is clear that although he could be protective of her during crises and was by no means cruel or violent to her, he also spent pretty much all the money she earned through her work, either investing it unwisely or in gambling. So, not being able to say much good about him but obviously not thinking that she could or should bash him too much, she says little, even as she - very obviously - clearly preferred to have married someone who was wiser and fairer in financial matters. She is far more willing to say negative things about her stepfather, whom she "detested" and found "odious", but, again, she mentions him only when she has to.

This already suggests a more Delta (R+I) approach to relationships than Gamma (R+F). She refuses to pretend to have a good opinion of individuals when she clearly does not'; but, overwhelmingly, her preferred stance is to focus on people positively if possible. For instance, she observed closely Tsar Paul of Russia. She reports how everyone in St. Petersburg was terrified of him, including herself, due to his tyrannical behaviour, but she also points out how he was always kind and courteous to her personally.

A subject that is mostly missing in her memoirs is the "nuts and bolts" of her life, especially her financial situation. She mentions how, in France, her husband would pocket (and spend) most of what she earned, but, at the same time, she admits that that - mostly - did not bother her as her own tastes and lifestyle were extremely low-cost and she knew she could always earn money through her work, even if that meant moving between countries. Except when she was getting older and starting to worry about retirement, throughout her life she showed little concern with accumulating wealth. That shows, again, the more Delta approach to P and S matters rather than the P and F Gamma approach. There is overall very little focus on P in her memoirs, except in the sense that she tries to describe what was really happening separately from how she felt about it.

Finally, Louise Élisabeth was in the unique position of a person who moved easily among individuals of the highest social status and wealth, including royalty, while herself being of a rather modest social status. She seemed to be mostly unaware of, or unconcerned with that, although sometimes afraid of monarchs themselves. Only once does she remark how an aristocratic lady sitting near her decided to completely ignore her. This suggests a very low focus on F.

Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun shows the Delta values of R, I, S and P while showing little inclination for F and L. The most obvious element in her memoirs is R coupled with I, followed by S. Everything fits R1, I2, S6, F4 and P5. That is, an EII.

Recommended reading and sources: her memoirs are available online, also in (possibly incomplete) English translation.

To learn more about EII, click here.

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

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (ILI): Personality Type Analysis

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the Shah of Iran during 1941 to 1979. He was eventually overthrown by the events of the Iranian Revolution, and was the last monarch of the House of Pahlavi.

As a young boy, Mohammad was described by family and royal members as quiet, reserved and fearful. Primed very early by his father to take the throne, signs of Mohammad’s apparent inadequacy to take the position for the country was reinforced by his father’s lack of confidence. One of the Shah’s biographers, Marvin Zonis speaks of how Mohammad was viewed in the documentary 'The Last Shah':

“He was a frightened young boy who was always belittled by his father…Reza Shah always said - my son can’t carry on after me, he’s not tough enough to do this. He needs to be more like me to hold this country together – so the boy always felt inadequate in regards to this giant figure".

Even with these apparent differences between father and son, Mohammad was primed to be the successor of the throne. He was educated primarily in Switzerland, with a modern and progressive European upbringing.

As Mohammad took the throne at age 21, he used his time and resources trying to free up land for farmers and local people, increase military reserves, and focus on ways to modernize Iran in an attempt to push the country to a state of wealth. In addition, he was supportive of women’s suffrage movements and transforming Iran so that it could be distinguishable from its Arabic neighbors.
However, Western involvement in Iran’s oil industry also spawned resentment towards the Shah from the masses, which led to nationalistic and communistic groups. During a riot with anti-western organizations, the Shah fled the country with his family. During this event, and several others like this where the Shah left Iran due to pressure, the people of Iran nick named him 'the suitcase king'. These themes led to the degradation of Mohammad's reign.

When trying to legitimize his position and appeal to the population, the Shah organized a national pride ceremony to commemorate the ancient Persians of the past (namely the Achaemenid kings, like Cyrus the Great). The ceremony was linked to the anniversary of the first Achaemenids in an extravagant show of wealth and appreciation for Persian history. Although the ceremony was meant to invoke pride and inspire the Iranian people, they were completely excluded from this patriotic pageant. The general population was not allowed to see the exclusive ceremony and were told to watch it from television. Anger flared over the event, and riots broke out. The Shah retreated with his family, in another fleeing event, and temporarily stepped down.

Despite resentment among the Iranian citizens, the Shah further tried to modernize and progress – using economic and political means, primarily with the aid of western nations like the United States and Britain. This contributed to anti-western sentiments and  an unheard and ignored Persian population. Ayatollah Khomeini, who had considerable backing – called for the overthrow of the monarchy – supporting a strictly Shiite Republic for Iran where the needs of the people would be met. The Shah, in an attempt to quell Khomeini’s group, exiled him to Iraq where Khomeini silently rallied troops from the borders. Khomeini and his supporters eventually integrated power in the Iranian population, and over 14 years of collection - successfully overthrew the Shah in 1979. 

I think there are some consistent themes to Mohammad’s strengths and weaknesses, notably shown in the events of his time on the throne. First and foremost, Mohammad was well-known by many to be a focused and visionary king, with plans of attaining a wealthy, independent and affluent Iran that would be unlike any other middle eastern country. His primary goals to make Iran prosperous while echoing the achievements of its ancient Persian history, is in my opinion more in line with the Gamma quadra, with strengths in T and P.  The Shah’s effort to make the country an independent empire, while simultaneously using progressive elements made Iran at the time – one of the most liberal and rich countries in the middle east. A stark difference to what it is today.

It is noted by many ambassadors and biographers that Mohammad lacked assertiveness throughout his life - which in turn led to multiple events that kept him ready to step down at a moment’s notice. Although he lacked this element of action, he valued the lessons of more forceful and assertive leaders, like that of his father and the warring Achaemenid Kings. I believe this to be Weak but Valued F.

Lastly, Mohammad’s more prominent weakness was his blindness to be connected with the Iranian population. With a growing lower class, poverty and irritation towards western involvement, Mohammad failed to understand the state of his people’s sentiments, and continued to focus on making Iran an independent nation. This area of blindness in my opinion, makes very good sense for E4.

Overall, I think Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was ILI. His apparent visionary nature to progress Iran, while trying to reconnect the achievements of the past to the future, I think make sense for T1 and P2. In addition to this, his inconsistent attempt at assertiveness and force, while still maintaining an admiration for this strength in others, seems fitting for F5. Lastly, his overall blindness for the sentiments of the population point to E4.

To learn more about ILI, click here.

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


Sources

The Last Shah - BBC Documentary

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (IEI): Personality Type Analysis

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Francophone Genevan scholar and essayist of the Age of Enlightenment. His Political Philosophy, especially his definition of social contract hypothesis, unequivocally impacted the French Revolution and the advancement of the Liberal, Conservative and Socialist hypothesis. A splendid, undisciplined and flighty scholar all through his vivid life, his perspectives on Philosophy of Education and on religion were just as disputable yet by and by powerful. He is considered to have imagined present day self-portrayal and his novel 'Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse' was one of the top of the line anecdotal works of the eighteenth Century and was vital to the improvement of Romanticism. He additionally made essential commitments to music, both as a scholar and as an author.

One day in 1742, Jean-Jacques Rousseau read a copy of the local newsletter, 'The Metro DeVos'. It contained an essay on whether recent advances in the arts and sciences had contributed to what was called the "purification of morals" - which would could also be referred to as an inquiry on whether the world was getting better or not. Rousseau experienced an epiphany, it struck him that civilization and progress had not improved people. Instead, this progress had exacted a destructive influence on the morality of human beings who had once been morally prosperous. Rousseau took this insight and turned it into the central thesis to what became his celebrated discourse the Arts and Sciences. His argument was simple - individuals had once been good and happy, though once people emerged from their social state and joined society, they eventually become plagued by vice and sin. In this work and it's twin discourse On the Origins and Foundations of Inequality, Rousseau went on to sketch what it might have been like at the beginning of history - an idyllic period which he called 'the state of nature'. Long ago, when men and women lived in forests and never entered a shop or read a newspaper, the philosopher pictured people independently stating their own minds and being drawn towards the essentials of a satisfied life. A love for family, a respect for nature, an awe at the beauty of the universe and a taste for music or simple entertainment. This 'state of nature' was moral and guided by spontaneous pity, empathy for others and their suffering. The following about Rousseau's work indicate a demonstrative need for assessing his connections, patterns and implications of human nature through imaginative insight. This is often the case of T1 types who are especially drawn to abstract and spiritual work and the world-rejectingness of being able to declare that the current state of the world that we live in is flawed - desperately needing to be improved, in Rousseau's mind.

Rousseau glorified the idea of human beings in their natural state, it followed in the novels that he wrote, he constantly celebrated intense feeling rather than great deeds or social events. In his novel, 'Julie' written in 1761, Rousseau depicted the excitement and anguish of an upper-class woman caught in a love triangle between her sensitive tutor and boring aristocratic man. Rousseau's contemporaries might have seen Julie as unwise in her feelings as a passing fancy, but Rousseau painted her love in a much higher light. He developed the depth, honor and grandeur of romantic love in his novels - regardless of the confusion of polyamorous relationships at the time. Throughout his life, Rousseau was similarly romantic and or perhaps derogatorily referred to as self-absorbed. In his famous 'Confessions', one of the first ever autobiographies, Rousseau spent pages exploring his inner life. It contained how he found shopping so frustrating, the feeling of tenderness for his ex's new partner and the joys of gardening. To him, these weren't trivial or self-absorbed topics, they were a part of an important task - to show what living is like on the inside. This proves to be excellent evidence for Rousseau to have Strong and Valued E2, in that he felt the need to express the nature of his T1 centered musings in a very thoughtful and introspective demeanor - to better support his deeply moral causes by getting others emotionally invested.

To clarify, this brings to light what exactly about civilization that Rousseau thought corrupted people and led to moral degeneracy. Rousseau claimed that the march towards civilization awakened in people an unhealthy form of 'amour propre' or self-love. He identified it as something artificial was centred around pride, jealously and vanity - it became clear to me that Rousseau greatly favored authenticity as a virtuous trait. Rousseau argued that this destructive form of self-love had emerged as people had moved into cities and there had begun to compare themselves to others, thus creating their own identities solely by reference to their neighbors. Civilized people had stopped thinking about what they wanted and they felt, instead imitating other people by entering into competitions for status and money - losing sight of their own sensations. Rousseau was generally unconcerned with how to improve or optimize his criticisms of society with constructive pragmatism, behaving ambivalent towards the more factual approach to solving the problems of society. This mentality of preferring to do morally good things with the goal of making us feel good rather than accepting this as the most logical solution does fit the description of weak and subdued P4.

Rousseau is forever associated with the term, 'noble savage' because it was his work that described the innocence and morality of our ancestors and contrasted it with modern decadence. At the time that Rousseau was writing, European society was fascinated by the plight of the North American tribes. Reports of Indian society drawn up in the 16th century had once described Indians as materially simple, yet psychologically rich and interesting. Rousseau fantasized over these interesting societies with close-knit, egalitarian, religious and martial. However, in a few decades after the arrival of the Europeans - the status system of Indian society had been revolutionized through contact with technology and luxury of European industry. Indians had now longed for guns, alcohol, beads and mirrors. Rates of suicide and alcoholism had risen and the originally prosperous communities/factions were crumbling. Modern society the lives of people who had once lived happily in the state of nature. Rousseau uses these examples to demonstrate how immoral modern society is, by forming these logical categories to fit his worldview. However, he was very prone to irrelevant tangents and unclear illustrations in his novels, often failing to address the intended point completely. The following does in fact, give us a clear example of someone with bold and weak L6.
Rousseau's interest in natural goodness made him interested in the idea (not quite the reality) of children. In 1762, he wrote 'Emile' or 'On Education' which was perhaps one of the most successful books ever written about how to raise children. Rousseau had suggested that all children were born naturally good and that the key to raising them was to always prevent their corruption by society. This idea became widely influential, parents before this time had seen their children as wicked or as blank-slates. They had now viewed them as fountains of wisdom and tried to give them a childhood full of play and visits to forests and lakes. Even aside from this, Rousseau is quite clearly capable at using E and R, but shows a natural preference for E in his musings. An unmistakable nonconformist who was preoccupied with the equity of autonomy and individual self-determination is a better fit for someone with R8.

The following of what has been mentioned about Jean-Jacques Rousseau clearly points towards T1, E2, P4, L6, and R8. In conclusion, I believe Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a superb representative of the IEI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about IEI, click here.

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

Isaac Newton (ILI): Personality Type Analysis

Sir Isaac Newton, PRS was an influential physicist and mathematician and is credited as one of the considerable personalities of the seventeenth century 'Scientific Revolution'. With revelations in optics, movement and arithmetic, Newton built up the standards of cutting edge material science. In 1687, he distributed his most acclaimed work, 'Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' - which has been known as the an absolute timeless book on material science. Newton has been viewed for very nearly 300 years as the establishing model of present day physical science, his accomplishments in test examination being as inventive as those in numerical exploration. With equivalent, if not more noteworthy, vitality and innovation he additionally dove into science, the early history of Western human advancement, and philosophy; among his extraordinary studies was an examination of structure and measurements. 

Particularly in his youth, Newton was profoundly thoughtful and reflective in his musings. On various accounts of his biographies describe him as spending extensive amounts of time buried within his thoughts and detaching from events irrelevant to advancing his scientific career. Isaac Newton was primarily attuned to abstract concepts of scientific thought, deeply researching and gathering important evidence from sources that he trusted and limited any sort of structured information that held of no relevance to his individual research. His perceptions of the universe were often esoteric and otherworldly, despite his pragmatic and factual approach to solving concrete mathematical investigations. Isaac was generally seen as reclusive and perceptive by those who admired him, yet ill-tempered and critical towards those who he scrutinized. The papers that he published were rather highly abstract and intellectual, generally being primarily centered around his interpretation of a subject - utilizing the useful contributions of some scientists and rejecting the contributions of other scientists who were 'ignorant' or 'misguided' in his view. From what is aforementioned about Isaac Newton gives of a the initial impression of a T1 type - being highly contemplative and secretive as a scholar, who had a very conceptual and selective interpretation of the physical sciences. 

The most essential confirmation of Newton's improvement during his youth and adulthood was supplied by the arrangements of costs he kept from 1659-1669 in the 'Fitzwilliam Notebook' (now known as the 'Trinity' notebook). This source mollifies the picture of an unsmiling, self-consumed and serious man who felt a constant sense of doubt that impeded his ability to communicate himself professionally. Additionally, this source also outlines the advancement of Isaac Newton's scholarly hobbies. He later became more empowered to devise and direct trials unassisted to fabricate the vast majority of his experiments. In this sense, Isaac was a perfectionist at heart - often to the point of eliminating entire paragraphs of speculative reasoning if the thesis or sources of information were outright wrong or absurd. He was not only critical of his own work, but exceptionally skeptical of the ideas of other scientists claiming that their works were completely correct - to which Isaac would often irritably rebuke to why, how and most importantly how these ideas lacked efficiency. All of this information points to an individual with a clear strength and valuing of P, in how he was clearly attentive to the factual content and relevancy of other's works and being able to devise a clear response as to why and how the content of this paper is inaccurate. However, Isaac was clearly attuned to his own solitary recollection of the sciences and naturally preferred to propose that his ideas held precedence over the ideas of others - yet was naturally more flexible when applying these concepts to empirical reasoning. This suggests a cautiousness rather than boldness, making P2 a better fit.

Some information that was recovered during Isaac's undergraduate years, he eventually got out now and then to go to the bar and every so often played cards with his fellow classmates. Despite his involvement in social gatherings with people he deemed as trustworthy, he did not possess even the slightest enthusiasm towards these advancements of constructing a universally inclusive atmosphere. This contributes to the fact that Newton was profoundly defensively critical and harsh when addressing others - very often condescendingly - to the point of it affecting it harming his social reputation, which he didn't care about at all. Indeed, even in his development of becoming rich, well-known and becoming universally acclaimed as one of the world's premier scholars - he was profoundly frail and desolate. He remained prisoner to bouts of sadness and upheavals of fierce temper in an unyielding quest to lampoon anybody who felt him debilitated. The most celebrated of this case was his organized battle to pulverize the notoriety of Gottfried Leibniz, who he accepted has stolen the disclosure of calculus from him. The following suggests very weak and devalued E, being very neglectful towards his emotional states and purposefully withdrawing from the social environments where he simply had no interest in what others thought of him. This applies to the incessant nature of E4, in that Isaac was harsh and critical towards others he deemed as moronic or unenlightened, yet did not even attempt to 'sugar-coat' his criticism in a constructive way - deeming that alone would be too much for them to comprehend.

Examining other sources of Newton's life, by a wide margin the most imperative of these is the rundown paper he worked out in 1662 of the considerable number of sins he could have conferred, which he stayed up with the latest for indeterminate (yet genuine) brief period from the 'Fitzwilliam Notebook'. It gives us a captivating look into Newton's isolated and small voice, the most striking element of this is how misinformed it is on the large portion of transgressions that appear about how accurately he is described. The offenses that Newton committed are far less shocking compared to those recorded in Samuel Pepy's journal - who clearly pokes fun at his lack of F in his indecisive and apathetic behavior in carrying out his vengeance. His hermetic nature to develop his works independently and outside of group discussion was Newton's primary attitude towards his career and remained that way in later years. As such, it would be reasonable to see Newton as an F5 type, being very poorly suited towards interacting with the outside world and generally saw limitations to superficial ambitions that amassed wealth and prestige, rather searching for something that still fulfilled his long-term ambitions that were career and research oriented - fabricating an omnipotent and intimidating persona for himself.

In mid 1693, he incidentally lost all grasp on reality and convinced himself that his companions Locke and Pepys were plotting against him. He later admitted to Locke that amid this emergency, "when one let me know you were wiped out, I addressed twere better off chance that you were dead". Whether or not this is clear that Newton truly told anyone this or simply envisioned that he had, it does inform us that Isaac Newton did have a harsh and vindictive nature towards those he personally despised. However, Newton held great anxiety towards forming relationships with others - not only became a problem of shyness, but a problem of ethics as well. The idea that Newton strongly emphasized relationships as a definitive factor that dictated how minimally developed (despite still feeling quite concerned about) on R matters. All of what has been previously stated in earlier paragraphs along with this one emphasizes a repetitive focus on R+F, trusting sources of information, people, ideas and holding a great importance to these values when formulating the T aspects of his work. Despite holding this trait endearingly in Isaac's life, he was constantly perceived from others as unfriendly and antagonistic - supporting the claim that Isaac has valued, bold and unfathomably weak R6.

Thus far what has been mentioned about Isaac Newton clearly points towards T1, P2, E4, F5 and R6. In conclusion, I believe Isaac Newton is a timeless representative of the ILI type of information metabolism.

To learn more about ILI, click here.

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

Stephen Hawking (ILE): Personality Type Analysis

Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA is the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge and author of 'A Brief History of Time', which was an international bestseller. Stephen Hawking's scientific investigations have shed light on the origins of the cosmos, the nature of time and the ultimate fate of the universe. His bestselling books for the general audience have given an appreciation of physics to millions. Stephen Hawking is regarded as one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists since Albert Einstein (ILE).

In Stephen Hawking's pursuit of optimizing theoretical cosmology in helping non-scientists understand fundamental questions of physics and our existence, he very frequently presents the reader with theories and alternatives developed over the years by various scientists. Stephen Hawking perceives unlimited potential within each concept, readily adapting and calculating the impending results of alternative considerations within the field, without great disturbance. He covers a very wide range of scientific interests in his research, articulating these interests with immense creative insight, especially in experimenting with the unconventional ideas that fit together into a grand framework of interrelated concepts to achieve intellectual awakening in how we perceive the world. 

Additionally, Stephen Hawking was also very inquisitive in his youth, reading up on any subject he found interesting and always brought a sense of intellectual play in the concepts he explained to others. This suggests that Hawking had strong and valued I, in the sense of constantly broadening his horizons and keeping an open-mind about ambiguity within his field of research. His orientation towards thinking in terms of the 'big picture' and becoming frequently involved in the latest idea or research project his curiosity takes him to, makes the most sense in the case of I1. What I think is very clear in Hawking's work, is his desire to convey the logical consistency of the theories that he wants to communicate to others. Stephen Hawking interprets the specific qualities of each concept, discarding the measurable facts that have no place in theoretical systems and using rhetoric to better explain the hows and whys of scientific phenomenon. In his work, Stephen Hawking derives principles, models and mathematical certainties, fragmenting the essential parts of a concept and reconstructing new ideas in favor of optimizing the newest theory or field of study he engages himself in writing about. Stephen Hawking is far more interested explaining various phenomena using general terms and is much less seriously invested in the properties and categories of scientific theories. Stephen often treats the importance of logical structure as a form of entertainment and novelty in how various ideas can be deconstructed and rebuilt into something completely different, yet still internally consistent. This solidifies the suggestion of L2 that systematizes the relationships and connections between seemingly unusual concepts.

In his youth, Stephen Hawking was quite the jokester who once placed a bet with a colleague over the existence of a black hole, simply to get an emotional reaction out of them for being proven wrong. He was very witty and goofy student when around peers and immediately opened up to others when his colleagues and teachers loved him and praised him. He went to efforts to perform to a crowd of people and felt comfortable expressing himself emotionally when the atmosphere was initially set. In the various interviews that I've seen Hawking respond in, he had no problem within humorous interviews in which he had to contribute to the positive emotional atmosphere and appeared to be very excitable when exposed to novel and satirical humor. However, Stephen Hawking is a very emotionally stable individual and can often come across as reserved or submerged in his thoughts, not coming across as very emotionally vibrant. His natural pensiveness in emotional expression and immediate shift towards positive emotions when the atmosphere is set a good argument in favor of E6.

In addition, Stephen Hawking was very capable of establishing a very dry and factual exchange with the other individual - often posing profound questions with embedded solutions of pragmatism. This would often occur whenever Hawking deemed that it would be necessary to stray from an exploratory topic of conversation to further advance to something more factual. At any rate, Hawking clearly had a knack for figuring out how things worked and was apt to rapidly making sense of the physical sciences - even if a theory seemed preposterous given the limited amount of information about the subject at the time. 

Nevertheless, Stephen was easily able to substantiate objective information in favor of proving the multiple books that he had written to help contribute to further learning in the scientific community. This illustrates an individual with strong L and P - despite naturally preferring L - in improving his resourceful and inventive P8. Thus far what has been mentioned about Stephen Hawking clearly points towards I1, L2, E6 and P8. In conclusion, I believe Stephen Hawking is a good representative of the ILE type of information metabolism.

To learn more about ILE, click here.

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





Editor's Note: Why Stephen Hawking is NOT 'INTJ' in MBTI

Many MBTI sites, including CelebrityTypes.com have typed Stephen Hawking as INTJ. However, this conveys a strong misunderstanding about this type, which, like ILI, is composed of T+P (or Ni+Te). While MBTI and Socionics can have their differences, it is important that both systems maintain a clear difference in the cognitive approaches of their different types, i.e. ENTP and INTP with L and I (Ne and Ti) should have the opposite approach to Intuition and Logic, when compared to ENTJ and INTJ.  The NT types are often to be found in their element, dealing with the abstract side of how the world works, such as in theoretical physics, philosophy, mathematics, etc. However, there is a clear split between how the xNTPs and the xNTJs approach these subjects:

• For xNTPs, Ti and Ne would be the focus. This means someone who wants a framework (Ti) that can be applied across a vast array of different possible contexts and situations (Ne). In essence, the xNTP wants a 'Theory of Everything'. They are willing to try out lots of different ideas, attempting to find something which fits together intuitively and elegantly. In this way, they are motivated by intellectual sense-making, rather than a fundamental scepticism. Classic system builders like Albert Einstein, Immanuel Kant, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz etc. would all fit this way of thinking. 

• For xNTJs, Ni and Te would be the focus. This means someone who wants to reduce the number of possibilities we consider (Ni), based on testing of what actually works (Te). Popper's 'Falsification Principle' is a very good example of this, where anything that cannot possibly be shown to be false must be invalid. This is the point of these types, they are sceptical by nature. They do not think that the theory can apply to all instances, and they look for evidence to say that the theory does not work. They seek to rule things out, rather than find more things that fit the theory. In this way, when xNTJs do finally formulate a theory on how things work, it is only because they have managed to eliminate all the alternatives, and this theory is the only one to stand up to their hard scepticism.

It is quite clear from Stephen Hawking that he would fit into the former xNTP camp. The film based off of his life was even called 'The Theory of Everything'. He is motivated to find theories to explain events on a cosmic scale. While an INTJ would spend time trying to falsify knowledge claims, Hawking comes up with new theories, that others try to debunk. Although Hawking can make use of empirical data, debunking is not his chief motivation. He has chiefly been a conceptual optimist, looking to find that perfect theory. This is why he was the first to propose a theory unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics and why he can be so keen to support the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. An INTJ would rather look to support an explanation only once they have ruled out all the other explanations.

For these reasons, INTJ would NOT be a good typing for Stephen Hawking.