I did fill in, I just disagree, it does matter that "I don't want to argue" is fallacy WITHIN the grand scheme of things - there is a very difference betwen one who wants a thing to be true and is unable to achieve such conclusions and someone who is literally unable to do that by a thing he does not control or a very acceptable thing - just think Jacobus as a whole vs tman saying I am ISTP and wanting a break, but here is the thing, you really have no argument? you just tried to say that there is more to it than true and false and that falls into a contradiction that, is that premise true or false or is there more to it? why should we not take things from most correct to less correct as a whole? that is how we separate what is false from what is true in literally everything, the results of such mentality might be small in a typology community - such can go big is most people adhere to it - but the problem is that, ideas have much power, and in a general way, a thing that keeps being accepted and not criticized while wrong and also while achieving ridiculous results (fallacies can end up being applied to things such as actual scientific fields!) will be more and more accepted, it is like flat-earth, and a lot of people on the side agaisn't it are also wrong because many times people probably did not bother trying to change the minds of such "stupid" people, this is kind of a very exagerated example, but here is my biggest question, what is the point of a discussion if it is not putting things on a scale of most incorrect to most correct, and why is that general idea correct or incorrect? simple as that.

0

I don't really have anything to say. I laid out some ideas that I thought you'd fill in well for me, but it didn't really work out that way. It shouldn't matter that "I don't want to argue" is a fallacy... what matters much more to me is how you would interpret that in the grand scheme of things, and it doesn't look like you would entertain that discussions aren't (and shouldn't be) driven by the premises that what is being shared can be scrutinized all the way to a point where something is judged on a scale of "most incorrect" to "most correct."

0

Finally! I've been waiting for episode 3.

0

Kids, I swear to God, I will turn this car around!

1

The fact that you can't see that maybe you are wrong and you are completely delusional and you have the self awareness of a spoiled 5 year old just shows how stupid and actually autistic you are. If you put that much stock into your supposed abilities as... well you aren't good at anything, I recommend you to not take a step back and commit suicide! You are neither as... well you truly do suck at everything, literally, I cannot think of a single thing you are good at or one skill you have...

0

The fact that you can't see that maybe it actually isn't worth people's time to type up a full reply to your page-length comments just shows how dense and autistic you are. If you put that much stock into your supposed abilities as a typist, I reccommend you take a step back and focus on something actually of significance. You are neither as good nor as impressive as you think you are.

0

Putting it as a reply is something I forgot, but then straw probably checks comments but just for the sake of it, I still feel like I am forgetting something else.

0

You know what is funny, I actually was typing my reply for you and power went out for a while, and I lost everything I wrote, and it was a lot of content, and really there wasn't much I could've done, I didn't consider such possibility to be relevant because it is so rare and ridiculous for such service in modern times, but I actually, just to show that those who truly do value truth are the ones who do bother replying and showing how others are wrong and beating them in epic r/iamverysmart battles, will try to put such arguments here again (fun fact, Jacobus once used something similar as this to try to come off right in a discussion in the Beethoven poll, I will use him a lot as an example in this comment).

First is that, I don't really care if someone says a thing without proof and so you did good by explaining your thinking here, I do mostly disagree with you and I will show why, maybe you are able to show how me trying to show you as wrong is wrong and then well I guess I either try again or give up and say that you are not worth of my time I mean ugh that you "won", well, a thing I am unsure if you are trying to imply here is that, maybe you believe I see these things as win or lose situations, and it is not that, there is only one common goal which is achieving truth, some form of it, that is in this case whatever Ben Shapiro fits the best for, achieving that is the win, now showing how others are wrong, one can show how others are wrong and not be right too, I could refute and argument but not bring a good argument for his type, etc, did the one who beat the other win? no, he just did not lose, and it is not like you lose, you lose a battle but not the war, yes the metaphors will be very bad.

The first thing I said in my other comment was that, how is one - mostly one who uses a wrong framework or similar - supposed to know he is wrong when he does not see that? it reminds me of the cave allegory, the guy who got out could've easily changed the others minds if he somehow messed up with the fire, the main source of intellectual safety for the other people inside of the cave, he could have even used it as the general source of his argument, manipulating it, but he did not, I can say the earth is flat, is it flat? well you believe not, what if I try to show you it is flat? very unlikely because you probably can show how ridiculous such theory is, a lot of people believe in it, a lot of them are very stubborn with big biases towards believing the earth is indeed flat, I would still walk up to them and show how they are wrong, hell, maybe I am and they know some magical thing? extremely unlikely, basically impossible, but it is possible, and well I am one to change my mind, unsure if you have seen that but I do change my votes when shown wrong, that is not very common but this poll itself is a good example, I did think of 3 for Shapiro but when I made my vote I did not know much about his story and saw 1 over 3, when even that is wrong considering how he does things and his general motivations and all - your argument as a whole - I still had not lost and you still had not been the winner, because we agree 3wb is right and not 3w4, see? is there a real winner here? I lost, you lost, everybody else lost, unless someone had never voted on his poll, but then in our situations before maybe he would have, see? was this a battle?

But then you are not completely wrong, I do come off as very not willing to change my mind and even I guess aggressive at times, if I were in a debate versus me, I would actually like that, because it would trigger a feeling which I do not know if there is a translation to english, "brio", which is "honor, self-righteousness, self-worth, braveness", but not in how you are thinking, more like showing that what is wrong is wrong and how that guy is such a big loser, you probably would not like that because you probably disagree with me, but it is actually a good motivation, people who act like that are very often internally insecure because really there is no reason to act like an asshole for no reason, I mean you take a look at disorders and things such as NPD, it comes from very low feelings of internal self-worth, at least according to the DSM-V or whatever, and such traumatic experience might, of course, hurt the person, maybe that is fair? maybe if one who hurts others in some form which is not very easy to know should be hurt back? fairness or something? which is what I would do, but then this is just like socionics Ti or whatever, really depends on the person and after all it is quite arbitrary.

Turns out that, one of the reasons I act like that is to trigger people into replying to me, Teru and fg have shown that, I've even seen Diobono do that in Galaxy chat, but then it brings up the point, losing, those who cannot accept that they are wrong and won't change their mind, will use cheap tricks such as fallacies to win, that is very common, Galaxy kicking me from his server because he is racist, Jacobus saying I am not worth his time to be refuted and then him leaving the website and even tman with the godlike function sorcery saying I am ISTP with Ne blindness or whatever and that by that I cannot understand that I am wrong or view things in a different way or something which is a very nice form of kafkatrapping! and then I did try to change their minds, Jacobus I kind of lost hope in him with the "accept whatever I say is my type and we can be friends!" because that is very cheap and very not valuing of actual truth, tman kept ignoring many things I mentioned and asked (such as his function definitions and sources to maybe try to change his framework or something!) and of course the many ignored arguments.

But well, let's say I find the cure for cancer, does it matter if I don't tell anyone about it? etc, you need to expose ideas for them to be validated by others because well, you are limited as a human by your own single view, and some people will not change their minds, they are still worth a try, if that does not work, at least think of this, other people (at least in this case) can see what you did and not fall for that, but back to the winning and losing thing, I do not always think I am right by default, I just do that when I think I can show that, when I am not I am quiet and try to achieve such state, it is like having a bad weapon and going agaisn't someone who has a better weapon, but ideas are not limited by scarcity, there is no quantity or limits, maybe memory and all but I won't go that far, what happens is that, I can just take his weapon as mine, or try to make another one, most people stop there, but those who truly do make the difference are the ones who do not, now, does that matter if you are the only one who knows about such a weapon? it is like a fight where, you have nothing and the other has something, when you do not tell them what you think or why or how or whatever.

And most people do only act when they think about winning, but with me, that is mostly because I really do not have anything to add to it, if I do not know a thing, well, who cares? I am just some loser or a failure or just useless as a whole, and I think a lot of people think like that, some of course don't, but now to the multiple options and tunnel-vision and all, first there is a major flaw in what you say, you say that there is much more to discussions than right and wrong, well, if such proposition is right, then it is wrong, it falls for the problem of skepticism, if things are not always right or wrong, then such proposition can also be wrong, if we need to wait for possibilities, maybe there is a possibility we should not, etc, I think you have heard that before, and well it works very well in this case.

But back to the start, I think that when frameworks are vastly different and people really disagree, it is mostly because of the assumptions behind the ideas, things such as definitions and all, most of the function magic discussions come from different sources or definitions or concepts or general knowledge about someone, or view about someone, or general views on typing (do I believe what people tell me or do I go by their behaviour? etc), and in such cases I do agree that well, who knows? but then bringing up points to show the possibilities is very good, even though it can come off in a close minded way or whatever, but then, here is the thing I was thinking, if one thinks that such person is so close minded, isn't he close minded in thinking that the other will be close minded? another thing is, cannot that be projection or empathy? "I in your place would not change my mind so I will not try to change it", that is also a possibility, and there are many and many, also is not it very close minded to think that those who act in ways that might make them look close minded or see discussions as battles as in they will not act because that is what makes the most sense if someone comes from such ideas but maybe that person can be reacting, trying to fit in, or whatever, there are just so many possibilities.

But as a whole, the "I don't want to argue" is just a fallacy, I don't remember the name but to an extent it is a non causae ut causae (false proclamation of victory), but there is a fallacy that fits better which I do not remember the name of, and well, it is true that it is a cheap play, but even if the person does not want to escape from the intellectual battlefield (ffs) it does not make the other wrong, a theory is true while it explains what it has to explain with no flaws or when there is no better option, but back to the main topic, yes, Shapiro does use that as a form of method of making him looking right and that is just very 3ish of him, also there is no such thing as sounding correct, just those who are too foolish and fall for such things, which is very common, is it bad? I think that running from discussion is much worse than being wrong, and as much as it can make one look foolish, long-term that makes one able to maybe even go further than one who is slighty smarter, just by taking what others say and adapting to it, I am not saying that you should just adapt to everything constantly and not criticize such things, after all, try to refute ideas! and even your own, if not even mostly! but nobody is a god and what matters are ideas and not people, which is what annoys me the most, fallacies which are related to people, I mean someone who has been constantly wrong very likely will be wrong, but maybe such person can also be right! which is why I still ask Jacobus for his arguments and also discuss with some people most would not find it worth to, such as fg or tman, and I am one of the few who does that, but one could just say "it is not worth my time" as a cheap excuse.

Another thing is that, with the format sakinorva follows, that being, comments and longer stuff in bigger periods of time, it is easier to come off as "I am right and you are wrong" mostly because people have time to set their views and think of arguments and even planning if they do not seek truth or whatever, and of course there is the research aspect and all, which is why I've seen that people are much more friendly when typing or arguing when they do not know about a thing or are learning about it, at least considering my experiences with it, take Teru, Diobono, even you, etc, and I think in these situations it was much more about trying to achieve truth than it seems like here.

I am feeling that I forgot something very major here? this somehow also seems longer than the other comment I made but I guess I am just bad at writing?

0

casual reminder that when someone goes like "I don't want to argue" it is just a fancy way of saying "I cannot argue and thus I have lost" + "some form of trash excuse".

I was going to say "this simply isn't true," but that would be the wrong approach to rebuking the bigger issue—the framework you recognize and within which you form that judgment. Maybe it's true that some people say "I don't want to argue" as code for "I can't argue [because I don't have an argument to counter what you said]" but the problem is more so that people who do see arguing as winning and losing (like a battle of ideas or something) will only engage with someone on the basis that they will "win." I think you would recognize this, but then the broader perspective should also come into play: what about people who don't think about winning or losing when engaging in a discussion? What if people don't start with the idea that they're right? Sometimes when people say "I don't want to argue," they recognize that they're being invited to play a game that they don't want to play... where the propensity to be right and stick to it would take priority over simply having a conversation to discuss ideas. I think the biggest arguments tend to happen when there's a misalignment of values at play—where somebody is so completely wrong to someone else because their ideas are based on a mindset or a worldview that clashes with their own at a fundamental level ("are you suggesting 1+1 doesn't equal 2?")—but this could also work in the opposite way; it could be the crux of what "I don't want to argue" is based upon. Sometimes people do recognize that arguing with someone would be a waste of time because there are things that they wouldn't understand with one combative argument or as a defender of some particular idea, and I think you should ultimately be very careful of categorizing under "losing" in your head.

It's essentially the game people like Ben Shapiro want you to be caught up in—who are the winners and losers in a debate? Who came out on top? Who was able to sound more correct [whether or not what they were saying was actually valid or not]? And discussions are so much more complex than that! Things aren't always "right" or "wrong," and it's very important to see everything else involved, too. Even this comment could be a good example—what if I got carried away with the first thought and decided to tell you off? I feel like that's very tunnel-visiony, and your casual reminder comes off as reminiscent of what can get us trapped in the wrong worlds.

By the way, I think outright disagreeing with somebody (very especially someone you know well) can be really jarring and almost always closes people off. I would be lying if I said I didn’t recognize that there’s a bit of that in my comment! I think when talking to strangers (very especially online), it can be easy to get caught up in just the arguing before seeing the person behind it... which is sort of why I refrain from it as much as I can (sometimes it’s really hard! because some people are so wrong and I’m so right and I feel like I can connect with them somehow to make them see why they’re so wrong). Things that are so much closer to us than they seem as words on a screen are bound to be more sensitive a thing than what can be sorted out through a mechanical exchange of ideas where thoughts and information are considered by the parties involved... then assessed, evaluated, yadda yadda yadda.

0

As much as you did admit you are wrong, what 3w2 people were you thinking? I also cannot watch him for long periods of time and I am pretty sure most people also fit that (I believe in a conversation with straw she mentioned something similar), also casual reminder that when someone goes like "I don't want to argue" it is just a fancy way of saying "I cannot argue and thus I have lost" + "some form of trash excuse".

But what really takes the cake here is this: "And if you consider me stupid so why the fuck you give the same votes right after me on some personalities on this site?"

This really amazes me, you really have great self importance my dude, first there are many cases where we disagree, second, JUST BECAUSE I AM EXPOSED TO A THING AFTER YOU AND VOTE THE SAME THING DOES NOT MEAN THE METHODS OR THE FORM OF THINKING USED ARE THE SAME OR THAT YOU DID INFLUENCE ME IN ANY FORM, most of your votes are not wrong but considering what you commented your method seems to be vastly different from mine which is what I care more, yes typing people right is the goal but if you use a wrong method you will casually achieve wrong results (you casually do! such as right here!), the thing is, most of the votes I agree with you are very obvious typings and I do that with everybody, unsure if you realized, someone more stupid than you such as Jacobus or tman bringing up some poll with their votes and I vote what I believe makes sense in the case, compared to both of them you are a god but compared to someone I consider great at typing (such as strawberry crisis) you really suck (as much as she had a 3w4 vote she was able to change my mind on 3w2 and go to what I considered the best fit originally which was 3wb, while she mentioned 3 first and I had a 1 vote), and even with tman and Jacobus there are cases I do the exact same thing with them, typology as a whole is really not a very complicated thing and then you have no socionics votes which is probably the most complicated system (to an extent functions could also be but since it depends on the author and everything goes on the same vote - at least for now - some authors with more well developed systems such as Beebe will be considered the same thing as IDRlabs or just random tumblr stuff which makes it lower on average complexity), but then you also do the same thing with me and I could take that as a form of saying "you are a good typist" so I guess thanks.

But then actually such cases are more about "when I originally made my vote I was unsure about an specific aspect of ones personality, eg variants, and could not achieve a type, but looking at it in this specific moment after being probably exposed to more information or just thinking again I am able to achieve a type which might fit what you voted", also things such as tritype were broken for longs period of time so what is why sometimes I vote tritype after, but really, that is such a ridiculous argument, but upon a surface look I was not even able to find cases that fit that (I remember such situations but could not find the specific cases, which I don't remember), so could you englithen me with a few cases?

0

Update: OK, I admit I was wrong, because i wasn't well thought about him. He definitely doesn't have a 4 wing and 3wb is most correct vote to him.

1

The fake personality is my mistake but he is still completly pretentious and over exaggerated to the point what I can't watch or listen him more than 5 minutes. And comparing with 3w2 people he is more geniuine. Consider how you want, but i don't wnat to argue about him because it's useless. And if you consider me stupid so why the fuck you give the same votes right after me on some personalities on this site?

0

Are you stupid or what? yes the fact you voted different makes people "crazy" because some people are annoyed by things that are wrong or don't make sense, what the fuck does being professional have to do with enneagram it is just some trash terrible name given to the type by some random faggot author or something, he has no 4 aspects and almost no 2 aspects, it is such a fucking stupid way of thinking it is like "in socionics LII is Robespierre thus Robespierre is LII" or something like that, do you fucking even think? and even then if he is fake about his personality is not that agaisn't the general essence of 4? my point is right and yours is wrong, I don't care if you disagree with it, you are just stupid if you do, I guess.

0

Lol, the thing what i voted slightly differently is already makes people crazy, that's something new. OK, i know what balanced wings means and I use when I can't find any wing inffluences or when they inffluences equally the core type but shapiro is clearly thinks and takes indentity about being some kind like a professional who knows what to do (and thats why i considers why w4 is more correct then wb or w2, but i can be wrong at this) even where in reality he appears to be fake and hypocrite at his personality. I see your point and where it comes but i disagree with it.

0

So you take out the general concept of the type, that is 3 with a bit of 4, and go by some description which I have no idea of where it is from, which might take in consideration other aspects related to typology as in building the description which might not be correlated with the pure 3w4 3w2 or 3wb type? unsure if you know but voting 3wb means "3 with balanced wings" which is either for when someone is 4ish and 2ish or when someone is 3ish but not 2 nor 4.

0

Well, i'm okay with what he embodies 3 and i don't argue with that, but 1 definitly has in his tritype and it strongly inffluence with his character to the point where people sees him as 1, even if it not absolutly correct with 1 description. Thats where tritype theory actually helps, because he is a clearly an image type, where anger is on second place (but very close).

And phsc, i don't see a Charmer(3w2 wing) description at him where Professional(3w4 wing) is more obvious even when he doesn't use a 4 wing.

0

It's wrong in the sense that it couldn't possibly have to do with the archetype he best embodies (as the Enneagram is best interpreted as a collection of archetypes in which underlying fears intrinsically are connected to the traits that they show [because the Enneagram assumes that a set of predefined motivations drive all personalities]) but I would be open to the idea of him having 1 in a tritype because he utilizes the worldview created by type 1 in a way that the Enneagram could****** see as connected to his core. I don't like Riso and Hudson's "everyone has all the types but one is dominant" idea because it enables a trait-centric approach to the Enneagram that betrays its entire archetypes but if it were articulated in a way that described how people appear to use many modes that can be connected back in some way to their entire archetypes rather than just the observable traits associated with them, it could be used to prop up ideas like Tritype theory (as poorly constructed as it is). And in that sense, Shapiro (to my knowledge--I admittedly am not super familiar with everything about him and I don't wish to be) uses the 1 mode of principled moralism to assert that there is a conservative order to the world that must be maintained, and that mode would be very 1 regardless of how Shapiro interacts with the fear itself; the fact that he'd use that framework in a way that could be reflected in behaviors like those you describe (stubborn to principles, or being defensive and holding out on such principles). But I wouldn't think for a second that this could really be connected to a driving fear of sorts--within the Tritype theory framework, types 1, 8, and 9 are pitted against one another such that would allow for this mode to reflect the modes I'm referring to here. He utilizes equal-footed principles as OPPOSED to a framework of strength and power dynamics and as OPPOSED to passive open-minded and understanding--and in a way that I think is reflected by his "involuntary" behavior i.e. blind spots, or reflexive traits. So I think you could effectively argue for 1 when it's constrained within a framework where it would have to come out... but does it really work for core Enneagram? Trait-centric interpretations of the Enneagram will take no issue with what you're saying, but I'm not fond of those interpretations because they erase that idea of type and the archetype, both of which essentially define what typology is.

0

And that is why you use tritypes and/or wings!

Also there is nothing 4 about him, if not even anti-4, I would also say 2 > 4 but then he is also still not very 2ish.

0

tman, none of what you stated is incompatible with FLVE. VLFE is a very powerful personality that doesn't take well to debate; not because he is inscure, but because he views his beliefs as being unquestionable on some level. With Shapiro, I see him more as an individual who wants to be seen as an eminent orator and logician, but in reality shrinks back at any legitimate counterargument. Lenin himself just bulldozed through counterarguments and tried to make dissenters in the party submit to his line of thinking.

0

Lol it's sort of funny how all these people are getting dichotomized along 1 and 3 in accordance with whether or not they "believe what they are saying" or "are just fooling everyone into believing what they are saying." Weirdly indicative of what image they're cultivating, isn't it? I think approaching it as though it were a conscious orientation isn't going to lead anywhere--it's better to ask the question of what we're seeing and why we're seeing it presented this way. It isn't actually a question of whether or not Shapiro is thinking "What should I do to dodge the question and put them in a bad spot?" or "How do I educate this stupid liberal?" Shapiro doesn't care about the discussion. He doesn't care about listening to other ideas or other interpretations—he only has his role to take care of, and that role is to win debates. He recognizes that debates aren't about coming to a mutual understanding of complicated questions but rather to form audiences around sides and build social power. What exactly is the motivation behind doing that, though? Where does he want that power to be directed to? This is probably where you can completely erase the idea of him being a 1 (or a 6? Where does that come from?)—there is no baseline consistency behind WHAT ideas he uses to win debates other than that these ideas all serve to counter a supposed "liberal narrative" and work to cultivate an image of him being The Liberal Destroyer. The framework he creates is what matters, because it is extremely deliberate and serves one very important purpose: it props up both his role and his image, and as long as he can maintain that, he wouldn't need to even consider whether or not what he's doing is right. It's not part of the picture. Shapiro is a 3.

1

FLVE doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He doesn't strike me as someone overwhelmingly concerned with self interest, which isn't to say he's unselfish, just that he focuses more on the maintenance of self image. I think on some level, Shapiro really dose believe that what he's doing is right, at least to start out with he did. You could argue it's all a pose, but I think the reason why he's able to pull of the image of the "objective skeptic" so well is because on some level he really thinks of himself as almost completely imparshal and objective. 

0

He's not realy a "stratgist" as much as an anlzer. He takes in data and trys to fit it into a framwork. In terms of letters, it could go either way, in terms of fuctions, he undooublty has Si-Ne. Haveing a masive database of facts and statistics in his head, which he then uses to consider larger posiblitlys, and fit the wolrd into a larger framework.

0

A vast majority of people who vote him S are doing so because it's stereotypical for S-types, especially SJs to be conservative.  Behind his bullshit mask of being this morally-upright and intellectual conservative, the man is clearly N given his proclivity for strategy and calculation especially as it pertains to said image.  He's in all likelihood an ENTJ.  In fact, I could even see arguments for ENFJ, but the former is much more likely.

0

hey im gonna present an idea here might seem kinda extreme but idk: commenting on someone's page doesn't mean i want to suck their circumcised cock or like those people, dont know how many times I've said this off this site: shapiro is a clown, just not an entertaining one, you couldn't even walk when I was born and try to be a lot more edgy and contrarian, stop w/ the strawmans

0

Teru Mikami i will sound extremly infantalizing and arrogant to you but i think you might think about this if you have grown up in few years. Ben Shapiro like most known conservative polemist is just a showman and certainly not a thinker in anyway. if you look carefully at his words in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmxZ6AG_k6k , you can see a lot of abusive generalisation, caricature of an ennemy who is a catalyst of one liner, his comparison are obviously bullshit. he behave like an humorist but lack of rigor. for example his comparison between gay mariage and buisness don't work, there is a case with a strong difference of strengh rapport in one and a real mutual consent in another case. a comparison between a "heart" who would be leftist and a "head" who would be rightist is a childish reasoning who is a clear manipulation to make you think that it's a reasoning that came from reason while it is a reasoning that come from a negative affects, but that remain an affect, actually the far Right work on the internet because this public is full of teen like you who want to look more mature and edgy but are unable to discern negative affect and reason.

P.M those use of people's paranoia and convincing of the public that they are becoming more adult while being manipulated is the same way that use neo-feminist when they want to "open the eyes" of women with  demagogic matrix comparison .

0

to add to that: anyone in debate uses rhetoric to some extent, doesn't matter if he's "so obviously wrong" and "knows what he's doing", using "facts and logic" is a lot more subtle [and boring] than milo saying he can't be wrong cause he's gay and has black boyfriends

0

I know socionists used societal roles to present the types, but there is documentation around ways of thinking and their preferences that I don't want to ignore because they don't fit his particular "role". Even using that point of view, I think the way he collects statistics and facts and presents himself as a walking encyclopedia of counter-arguments is very different from e.g. the "entertaining front" of Milo, who uses his sexuality, humour and wit for the same ends, trying to piss people off and rarely entering a genuine argument when the spotlight's aimed at him. Any popular, mainstream figure is bound to adopt some kind of entertaining role, and while Ben has definitely pushed that over the years, I don't think he centers himself around humour or "his wits" often enough to make a case for that. When both Alex Jones and PJW are trying to do the same thing to an even greater extent, I think being funny on the internet is more of an effort to secure an audience than a genuine preference for an entertaining environment. 

0

Okay... why should he be a 1? And an S? I read through the replies here and I really like the ESE argument... the way lvna characterizes him is painfully accurate, and he should belong under ESE for those reasons. LSE is just... off. That’s like playing into his facade. Shapiro isn’t about the facts, but about the narrative. His “debating” isn’t about exposing people or debunking their ideas, but about looking like he’s winning—it’s about getting people to see him and his reactionary nonsense as correct, not actually being correct. Maybe from some perspective this may look like “left-wing bias” distorting the character of an honorable man speaking the truth that they don’t want you to hear, but Shapiro knows exactly what he’s doing, and so goes for many other similar conservative commentators.

I guess he wouldn’t seem like an intuitive if you took what he said at face value, but his modus operandi is just not very S to begin with. The specific tactics he uses to convince people are really covert in a way that I could not see a senser using comfortably. And everything surrounding that as well—it’s all very smart and deliberate.

This argument is really misled: You can argue "he's just an entertaining front" for the modern right but pasting that on a sociotype is some serious elitism and has absolutely no grounding in reality.

It has a lot of grounding in reality, especially when you look at how socionists have historically used and continue to use Socionics. There’s an entire culture surrounding Socionics that is predicated upon typing people by the roles they assume in society, and it happens to be the original, Russian way of looking at it. The new culture surrounding sociotype largely ignores the basis for what makes it such a unique (and interesting) typology system and is unfortunately influenced heavily by people wanting to fit what they are already familiar with into something that simultaneously happens to be anything unlike what they are already familiar with.

0

[Laughs in Jewish]

1

ah-HaR ah-HaR  ah-HaaaaaaaaaaR

0

Ben “my wife’s a doctor” Shapiro.

1

Wrong once again Mr. Mikami. You can now exit the stage.

0

you people think you're funny or something

0

It appears Mr Mikami has been unable to relinquish his unfounded bias against logical positions and has succumbed to petty appeals to Se.  Let me be the first, Teru, to assume the assumed position you hold of the one I hold of the one LUVA hold's of the one you hold is ASSUMED.  Therefore your assumption of the assumed position of LVNA having any brain scans cannot be relevant, nor would any physical evidence be needed in such a deduction to claim it as observable. 

If you can't yourself handle a slight disconnection from reality, don't try to fight it.  Stay on the ground where your logic can look at the dirt as proof you have any standing to base your claims on.

1

Since you're so adament on orbiting the acclaimed genius Stratiyevskaya, I found a little something you might not be very found of reading (literally the only thing relevant to his type on this entire page)

Anyways, is it just me or are you assuming positions I don't even hold (let me guess, because of my quadra?) and trying to make yourself as abstract as possible simply to piss me off? I mean how is globalism relevant? What do I care about genetics or brain scans? Do you have Shapiro's brain scans? Did I ever say I don't think there's a genetic or observable basis to personality(??)? How can you tell so surely what he does and why he does it when you claim to not even be sticking to evidence? Do you even know this dude? I guess I'm just wrong because I make sense (????)

0

"According to almost every profile and description the ESE's base Fe caters to emotional needs and the surrounding atmosphere, tries to have as many relationships with people as possible and looks for vivid emotional expression and exchange." Do you really think (or MAYBE you feel) I care about what the idiotic American masses have done to the Neo-Hegelian - Jungian theory of functions? In fact this is just a vile demonstration of a BEHAVIORIST perspective that weaponizes the archetypal by claiming it can only be abstracted AFTER dichotomistic and empirical analyses of someone's behavioral response to situations is performed by means of an online test.  In fact, however, the spiritual significance of socionics is that it goes to the level of the empirical only after defining well the abstract paradigms of thought that categorize INDELIBLE archetypes who represent a culmination of the European spirit of Gods, first through thought in which they could not be spoken directly of, then through Christian theologizing, and finally representing themselves in new abstracted forms which are the Jungian Cognitive Functions.  Therefore, PLEASE NoTe that if you have a lustful temptation to go by means of empirical analysis for functions, you are destroying the concept of COgnitive Functions from the outset.  This is comparable to speaking to a grandmother of Native American heritage using a European language and expecting her to conform, and then additionally not even realizing she responds with an alienated emotion because you have so much succumbed to the perspective bequeathed unto you by your native tongue.  To continue with my points...

What Quadra represents is a spirit (essential) culmination of opposites within the human psyche and therefore the images it engenders must be ones that are like paintings in one's mind.  However, it must be noted that these paintings are more like melting wax paintings, as towards the edges of each quadra the next quadra arises and as such there can be some grey zones.  When we look into Alpha quadra and think of the unification of these opposites the images that resound through the darkness are: freedom of the individual, a strong mind who focuses uncompromisingly on principles, a will unto the possibility of defining human life in reference to human truth that casually and calmly gives way to more freedom.  If you do not see this culmination of spirit within Shapiro, I really can't help you...but do you really think you would salivate at the mouth to someone who does not occupy your Quadra TerúMika? The fact of the matter is it is very likely that within you there have been engendered specific brain patterns correlated with functions...did you know once upon a time none other than Carl Jung made a magnificent discovery: there were many cultures who had correlated these intuitional functions with cardinal directions in the world.  

Based on this occurence it's not difficult to understand that a principle of nature is that the external mirrors the internal.  One of the greatest socionists of today, Vera Stratievskaya, has done marvellous work on demonstrating that functions may represent themselves within the brain of a person.  In a sense, this means that even if there is no genetic basis for a person's type (something a behaviorist like yourself might love to argue), that patterns of thought which exist in opposites are unavoidably going to be greased each time the one is used.  Ben Shapiro is no exception to this fact...as stated above, by going from the level of the Fe-Ti archetypal relation, we can see that this thought pattern is one that is greased within his brain...so the more that he pays homage to the one side, the more the other will rise up within his psyche.  This is really a non-negotiable FACT (REMEMBER THE QUOTE YOU POSTED EARLIER??).

The sad thing, though, is that simply because socionics presents this perspective where we are able to understand the ways that these cardinal opoosites get summed into the world of the idealistic and spiritual of humanity, we currently live in an era in which it is simply impossible to not be psychologically disturbed.  In the old days it was very easy to simply pray to an opposing deity, and the result of this would be a psychological unification, but as we see the functions expressed in many different cultures, we can understand the legacy of European thought and globalism is one that has destroyed the mystical and therefore left us with the most generalized aspect of spirit to be encountered in humanity.  And unfortunately society's rampant individualism therefore leads someone to bow to the alters of the functions within same quadra individuals, resulting in Duality.  With Shapiro we see this quite obviously. His adoring of Ti dominant figures represents his desire to unify himself with the Ti thought pattern that is so strong within his mind, but that ultimately is underdeveloped because of his dominant Extroverted Ethics.  The sad thing is that it is likely this individualistic philosophy, in which dichotomy's are attempted to be united within the individual that has led to his horrendous introverted thinking GRIP.  A perfect example of this espoused by Jung himself can be seen with none other than Sigmund Freud, who spent his entire life in an extroverted thinking grip. And here is where we return to these descriptions of Fe. 

...

The description you mention is perhaps the ideal extroverted ethics user.  This is someone who has accepted their dominant function and has found introverted thinking elsewhere to confirm the idealism of the Alpha quadra which seeks to slowly unfurl its expansion of the generalized, globalized human spirit (Hegel for example was LII, Jung was LII, all of this should be quite obvious therefore).  This is where the Hegelian Spirit meets the Tarkovskyian Spirit within typology...because the Hegelian socionics shows us the way to peace within ourselves. I am incredibly confident that if Shapiro did not waste his time trying to become such a Ti individual and to fixate on socionics Ti he would live a happy and peaceful existence where he shared in delightful emotions with others.  But he is a product of the time, and because of that he fixates on the Ti opinions of others as Bertrand from the16types mentioned.  I really see no other possibility than ESE here...if you did fMRI studies on him I'm sure the same thing would be revealed in regards to the Te-Fi axis.  Below I have linked some reading for you: 

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/461-The-Laws-of-Quadra-Succession-by-Vera-Stratiyevskaya (This is the must read of socionics today). 

https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2012/12/jung-identified-freud-as-both-estj-and-infp/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgnzY_63Tw

Thank you. <3

1

According to almost every profile and description the ESE's base Fe caters to emotional needs and the surrounding atmosphere, tries to have as many relationships with people as possible and looks for vivid emotional expression and exchange. Say what you want but none of that fits Ben, in fact his career is founded against the premise of catering to people's feelings. You can argue "he's just an entertaining front" for the modern right but pasting that on a sociotype is some serious elitism and has absolutely no grounding in reality. Whoever you quoted didn't "sum it up" at all and if you've spent any time in the typology community you should know that these people will do anything as long as it deviates from what's actually written and means they can misrepresent people and types they don't like with their own mental gymnastics and that's the only thing that argument did. The entire premise is that ESEs are spineless, manipulative circus monkeys who can't think for themselves, how do you take these people seriously?

Forgetting all the bias that's going on, how Ben presents himself is in complete conflict with what Fe is about at its core, and that really isn't hard to notice. 

0

I don't really have the stamina to cater to this, so I found a quote on the16types that sums it up. But honestly nice logical manipulation...causally, I definitely distort my perception of his ideas because I dislike him, not vice versa. Great point. 

"This is exactly right; he doesn’t have an original thought in his body; rather, he’s an ideological spokesperson for the whatever-you-want-to-call-whatever-movement-this-is. He’s like the human version of those dinosaurs that can puff out those colorful frills and then you realize they’re tiny and have nothing to actually say. He’s like what Tom Cruise is to L. Ron, except his L. Ron is whatever conservative political figure he encountered at the formative age of 13 when he realized he could impress people, and thereby feel a sense of contribution, via his forceful parroting of the cause.

You can tell this an alpha form of Fe because of its obvious character of holding “public executions.” Its his way of enforcing and taking on the offense the underlying Ti constructions generated by the relatively invisible and retiring LIIs and ILEs who provided for him all his underlying premises (which were likely in turn generated by beta far upstream). Because of their general cloisteredness, especially in comparison to such a self-promoting figure, people make the mistake of thinking these thoughts are his own.  

Generally ESEs are most productive in entertainment, so it would be tempting to think maybe he’s wasting his talent. Then you realize the youtube/foxnews/facebook/podcast sphere of political discourse is precisely that. Its “politics” in the sense that its “political debate,” which is really just theatre, served up to reinforce psychological perspectives by restating what everyone already believes (+Fe), but in a way that obscures the fundamentally unoriginal, and empty, character of the thing (Ni polr) and emphasizes convincing delivery (+Fe -Si) in response to the collective discomfort such perspectives have recently had to endure, so as to promote comfort in their cultural bubble 

His entire spiel is just a gish gallop of talking points in a forum where such a thing has maximum impact and minimal chance of recalcitrance on the merits, which would require a slow and careful analysis rooted in intellectual charity and rigor and not what essentially amounts to a circus… bread and circuses"

0

yeah okay, get off your conceptual high horse and explain how he's Fe outside of the fact that you obviously don't like him (weren't you the kid who was going on about how he's a 3 because he DISTORTS FACTS which obviously has everything to do with being a 3 and is not your own emotional rhetoric meant to paint him as every negative trait you can get your hands on), you're distorting him to be something he's absolutely not

0

Thank you. What a great encapsulation of emotionally charged rhetoric geared at stirring the masses up that has absolutely no meaning behind it, or if it does have one, is a principle the speaker doesn’t even obey. In socionics terms it’s really quite clear he’s Fe-Ti and that was a great quote.  

0

yeah definitely feeling ESE for Ben "Facts don't care about your feelings" Shapiro, typing by quadras is a great method

0

"Delta quadra af." There's really nothing socionics Te about this guy.  He is whiny and motivates individuals through emotional rhetoric.  His ideas are actually bound up in a sort of Alpha idealism where he is guided by certain "American Principles" if you really want to get into quadra. He isn't focused on down to earth, small comunity matters where his actions show him to be a champion of the people, which is really what the LSE stereotype is a la Mitt Romney. ESE for sure. 

0

delta quadra af

0

lol

2