# Visual typing: Malcolm X vs Martin Luther King Jr



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Arturo said:


> Well I don't really know. I don't know how many of his ideas came from himself, or whether some of his economic visions came from other thinkers, and his social criticism could have also come from other thinkers.
> 
> I guess the only thing I can tell from him is that he is a very charismatic speaker, and that he also tends to hit below the belt a lot in arguments and debates. He is stubborn, evades, and is picky on definitions. I wonder if he's a 6, the way he follows an ideology and also very much follows specific religious leaders, and focuses on group identities and power dynamics. *shrugs* I've seen that Fe is supposed to be characterized by a wide smile, and he doesn't have the little snarly smile that Fi is supposed to show. (I had to edit that last sentence because I confused Ne for Fi etc...when it is associated with feeling and not intuition vs. sensing).
> 
> One thing is that I would imagine a Ti dom to focus more on the integrity of their argument, not the emotive persuasiveness of it. I would have thought that was more of a feeler/Te thing. But I don't really know. If someone is a "doer" then I suppose they might focus on getting the job done, regardless of Ti or Fi truth casualties in a debate (so I think maybe he is either a Se or Ne dom...but not an Fi or Ti dom). But I don't know ESTPs or very much about that type.


 @FearAndTrembling

After watching this video I would say he is a Te dom, or at the least, a user of it. His reliance on external facts seems so apparent. All of his knowledge seems to derive from an external source, this "messenger" person that he keeps referring to, as if he is borrowing a formula that works or he is confident it will work, it highly represents what Jung says about Te users:




> . Thinking in general is fed on the one hand from subjective and in the last resort unconscious sources, and on the other hand from objective data transmitted by sense-perception. Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by the latter than by the former. *Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one*, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned. *Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education*.





> It has the appearance of being captivated by the object, as though without the external orientation it simply could not exist. *It almost seems as though it were a mere sequela of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when flowing into some general idea. It seems to be constantly affected by the objective data and to draw conclusions only with their consent*.





> . When objective data predominate over thinking to any great extent, thinking is sterilized, *becoming a mere appendage of the object and no longer capable of abstracting itself into an independent concept. It is then reduced to a kind of “after-thought,” by which I do not mean “reflection” but a purely imitative thinking which affirms nothing beyond what was visibly and immediately present in the objective data in the first place. This thinking naturally leads directly back to the object, but never beyond it, not even to a linking of experience with an objective idea.* Conversely, when it has an idea for an object, it is quite unable to experience its practical, individual value, but remains stuck in a more or less tautological position. The materialistic mentality is an instructive example of this.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

I actually see a lot of Ti in that clip: subjective interpretation of history, subjective valuation of the truth, precision of language and arguing semantics, responding to external stimuli (questions). Knowing some about Malcolm X (I've taught him in an Ethics and Society course), his view of truth is grounded in a very personal, subjective version of history--his emphasis on irrelevant details is also very indicative of Ti. 

Jung on Introverted Thinking (bolding mine):


> This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, *External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. *It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern.* It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight*, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake.


The fact that he is repeating ideas mostly generated by Elijah Mohammad ("the Messenger") to me speaks more to Se-Ni than Te vs. Ti. He's doing something a lot of SPs do--Ni adopts a paradigm someone else thought of, then Se puts it forcefully into action. It's the same reason so many hero types are SPs in literature--there's no more forceful advocate for something than an SP. Their Se means they catch details and nuances (when they want to) and their Ni helps them fill in the gaps.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> After watching this video I would say he is a Te dom, or at the least, a user of it. His reliance on external facts seems so apparent. All of his knowledge seems to derive from an external source, this "messenger" person that he keeps referring to, as if he is borrowing a formula that works or he is confident it will work, it highly represents what Jung says about Te users:


Well...I think it's important to consider that he's not genuinely debating or trying to figure through a problem. He's persuading via feeling. That's why I don't think he could be a Ti dom, because he's throwing logic on the back burner and i think it would be hard for a true Ti dom to do that.

For some reason I do see his arguing here, about his break from Islam, as appealing to Fi, which would go along with Te. 

*sigh* I think this conversation is like most of the MBTI ones, where I feel like I'm just running down a rabbit hole. Um...but for some reason this video seems more Fi because he's just being more genuine with his expressions, and I feel he explains his own feelings/morality more in here.

The whole video is giving me the creeps though. Poor guy. (I think it also creeps me out that it's called from "beyond the grave," and I don't really know the history of this video). He seems completely different in it. 






Also, I edited out a bunch of stuff because IDK what I'm talking about with functions. But does this video give anyone else the creeps? I have trouble with it. I just randomly found it on youtube and don't know the veracity of it or history or anything.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

TyranAmiros said:


> I actually see a lot of Ti in that clip: subjective interpretation of history, subjective valuation of the truth, precision of language and arguing semantics, responding to external stimuli (questions). Knowing some about Malcolm X (I've taught him in an Ethics and Society course), his view of truth is grounded in a very personal, subjective version of history--his emphasis on irrelevant details is also very indicative of Ti.
> 
> Jung on Introverted Thinking (bolding mine):
> 
> ...


Where are you getting any "subjective" interpretation when he his clearly saying things such as "therefore he teaches us....." And then goes on to explain what it was that he was taught, which is showing that these ideas are borrowed from without rather than formulated from within:



> Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, *if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education*.


The things you say on Se and Ni also seem to be incorrect, Se is purely focused on objective perception not ideals, and Ni doesn't adopt paradigms that others thought of, its an introverted function for a reason, it starts from within and is focused from within. Its whole perception is inwards, to perceive archetypes that are analagous to external events, but the archetypes are inward and focused on inward. Ni doesn't adopt from others.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

TyranAmiros said:


> I actually see a lot of Ti in that clip: subjective interpretation of history, subjective valuation of the truth, precision of language and arguing semantics, responding to external stimuli (questions). Knowing some about Malcolm X (I've taught him in an Ethics and Society course), his view of truth is grounded in a very personal, subjective version of history--his emphasis on irrelevant details is also very indicative of Ti.
> 
> Jung on Introverted Thinking (bolding mine):
> 
> ...


I was thinking the same thing. Se apply the Ni with the force and detail it needs. He has got a script and he is sticking to it. He is not going to bend. He can adjust with the questions though. SP is the classic "doer" of the "dream". He is an adventurer, and will go on forever if you let him. He is not just a blind yes man though. 

I was saying that Hitler and Rommel are a good example of NFJ and STP working together. lol. I don't know if that is true or not. But Hitler is the dreamer inspirer type, who doesn't really pay attention to detail. He needs a guy like Rommel to carry it out. Rommel is more flexible. Hitler believes in the power of the idea. He lacks tactics.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Se apply the Ni with the force and detail it needs. He has got a script and he is sticking to it. He is not going to bend. He can adjust with the questions though. SP is the classic "doer" of the "dream". He is an adventurer, and will go on forever if you let him. He is not just a blind yes man though.


Ne:


> The intuitive’s morality is governed neither by thinking nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his vision and in voluntary submission to its authority. Consideration for the welfare of others is weak. Their psychic well-being counts as little with him as does his own. *He has equally little regard for their convictions and way of life, and on this account he is often put down as an immoral and unscrupulous adventurer.*





> The intuitive is never to be found in the world of accepted reality-values, but he has a keen nose for anything new and in the making. *Because he is always seeking out new possibilities, stable conditions suffocate him*.


Se:



> .His life is an accumulation of actual experiences of concrete objects, and the more pronounced his type, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events in his life hardly deserve the name “experience” at all. What he experiences *serves at most as a guide to fresh sensations; anything new that comes within his range of interest is acquired by way of sensation and has to serve its ends*.





> *However, it is only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes that excite sensations for the extravert*; those, exclusively, which everyone everywhere would sense as concrete. Hence the orientation of such an individual accords with purely sensuous reality. The judging, rational functions are subordinated to the concrete facts of sensation, and thus have all the qualities of the less differentiated functions, exhibiting negative, infantile, and archaic traits. *The function most repressed is naturally the opposite of sensation— intuition, the function of unconscious perception.*


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Arturo said:


> Well...I think it's important to consider that he's not genuinely debating or trying to figure through a problem. He's persuading via feeling. That's why I don't think he could be a Ti dom, because he's throwing logic on the back burner and i think it would be hard for a true Ti dom to do that.
> 
> For some reason I do see his arguing here, about his break from Islam, as appealing to Fi, which would go along with Te.
> 
> ...


Everything in this video was Malcolm X speaking only about external facts, such as events, their dates, facts about the muslim movement, facts about people who were told to assassinate him, and their happenings that flow into a general idea. He even states that if it didn't come from Muhammad's son, he wouldn't have believed it which shows his reliance on authority and lack of reliance on personal values/or logic.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Ne:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't get why Ne-Ti on here tend to quote Jung ad infinitum. My description of those things also contains my own experience, and references other than Jung. Your approach is too academic. Malcolm X is not using Te. He wants you to think he is using Te. Which makes him Ti. And Se, Ni, Fe.

Reciting facts isn't Te. Anybody can do that. It is cherry picking the right ones, at the right moments. Adjusting. STP made good debunkers. They have a good eye. James Randi is a guy like this.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

I always viewed Malcolm X as an ISTP and MLK Jr. as an ENFJ.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Everything in this video was Malcolm X speaking only about external facts, such as events, their dates, facts about the muslim movement, facts about people who were told to assassinate him, and their happenings that flow into a general idea. He even states that if it didn't come from Muhammad's son, he wouldn't have believed it which shows his reliance on authority and lack of reliance on personal values/or logic.


I don't really think that's as related to functions as it is to enneagram though. Like everything about him seems 6 (the loyalist). His issue with authority, alliances, and even group affiliations. Plus...his charismatic public persona and air of authority and didactic speech.

I think that's what's so sad about it to me. That something that should have been about the ideal of raising people up ended up being about something much more corrupt.

But I think I see Fe in him again after watching the video again. Even at the end where the press are talking to him, I feel his Fe comes out more. I think he just seems more honest in these later clips...like he was honestly distressed and finally laying stuff out on the table. I did think it was interesting how he talked about the fire and the mechanics...it seemed very sensing...though he was describing a physical event.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Arturo said:


> I don't really think that's as related to functions as it is to enneagram though. Like everything about him seems 6 (the loyalist). His issue with authority, alliances, and even group affiliations. Plus...his charismatic public persona and air of authority and didactic speech.
> 
> I think that's what's so sad about it to me. That something that should have been about the ideal of raising people up ended up being about something much more corrupt.
> 
> But I think I see Fe in him again after watching the video again. Even at the end where the press are talking to him, I feel his Fe comes out more. I think he just seems more honest in these later clips...like he was honestly distressed and finally laying stuff out on the table. I did think it was interesting how he talked about the fire and the mechanics...it seemed very sensing...though he was describing a physical event.


I have noticed Ti doms, or those with Ti before Fe, do that a lot. Ti is often tripped up with Fe. INTP do this particularly a lot. STP do it, but it is less noticeable, and they are more confident on the fly. He puts an idea out there aggressively, with Ti and Se. Totally subjective and pushed out hard. But the Fe gives him a little trip, right after. He says immediately afterwards, "I am sorry to speak to you gentlemen like this.." and continues with Ti-Se. Fe sporadically scans the environment to make sure Ti and Se doesn't get too out of control. It reels them in. It is like an anchor. He is actually appealing to traditional values.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't get why Ne-Ti on here tend to quote Jung ad infinitum. My description of those things also contains my own experience, and references other than Jung. Your approach is too academic. Malcolm X is not using Te. He wants you to think he is using Te. Which makes him Ti. And Se, Ni, Fe.
> 
> Reciting facts isn't Te. Anybody can do that. It is cherry picking the right ones, at the right moments. Adjusting. STP made good debunkers. They have a good eye. James Randi is a guy like this.


If we are talking about the system that Jung perceived and defined then we must abide by the definitions to see if what these people present coincide with what Jung defined. So in Jungian cognitive functions, the system, if anything is presented as being representative of a part of his system then under the system they would be defined as that part. If a person had all the characteristics of a Te Dom as it is defined in JCF then that would make them a Te Dom. If somebody does not contain the characteristics of a Te dom then under JCF they are not a Te dom. If your going to see if someone fits into a system, then you have to abide by the definitions of the system to see if they accurately fit. Any decisions that diverges from the facts of the system has a higher probability of being a flawed decision because it doesnt coincide with the system which is what it was intended to do, therefore it fails at doing what is intended and is susceptible to creating false facts. This is why I quote facts to show others how their reasoning doesn't match the concepts, therefore they can not be representative of the concepts under the system that we are judging it by.

Also under JCF the reciting of afacts and not affirming beyond them, except to form into a general idea is Te:



> When objective data predominate over thinking to any great extent, thinking is sterilized, becoming a mere appendage of the object and no longer capable of abstracting itself into an independent concept*. It is then reduced to a kind of “after-thought,” by which I do not mean “reflection” but a purely imitative thinking* which affirms nothing beyond what was visibly and immediately present in the objective data in the first place. This thinking naturally leads directly back to the object, but never beyond it, not even to a linking of experience with an objective idea.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Double post


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Arturo said:


> I don't really think that's as related to functions as it is to enneagram though. Like everything about him seems 6 (the loyalist). His issue with authority, alliances, and even group affiliations. Plus...his charismatic public persona and air of authority and didactic speech.
> 
> I think that's what's so sad about it to me. That something that should have been about the ideal of raising people up ended up being about something much more corrupt.
> 
> But I think I see Fe in him again after watching the video again. Even at the end where the press are talking to him, I feel his Fe comes out more. I think he just seems more honest in these later clips...like he was honestly distressed and finally laying stuff out on the table. I did think it was interesting how he talked about the fire and the mechanics...it seemed very sensing...though he was describing a physical event.


He could also be a 6 but his reliance on external facts and solely external facts would also make him a Te user. Where is it that you see Fe. BTW here is a description of Fe:



> The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or accord with traditional and generally accepted standards. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre or to concerts, or go to church, and do so moreover with their feelings correctly adjusted. Fashions, too, owe their whole existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the positive support of social, philanthropic, and other such cultural institutions. In these matters extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without it, a harmonious social life would be impossible.


I would like to see your explanation for Fe so I can understand your reasoning.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

I guess I'm unclear what you mean by "external facts". We all rely on our perceptions of the external world. We do so in different ways depending on what our functions are. 

Extraverted thinkers, according to Jung and the MBTI, "are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas." But Malcolm X doesn't. What does he mean that his father and grandfather didn't have a last name? Objectively, they did--Little. Objectively, Malcolm X had a different last name before his conversion. But, of course, admitting that would undermine the exact argument he wants to make: that the very act of having a last name that comes out of slavery is in fact a continuation of this subjugation. So Malcolm X uses an "unconscious truth" rather than an empirically observable one. It's as Jung describes:



> unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life.


What is that next function? Well, as your Ne quotes point out, the Ne user's


> Consideration for the welfare of others is weak. Their psychic well-being counts as little with him as does his own. He has equally little regard for their convictions and way of life, and on this account he is often put down as an immoral and unscrupulous adventurer.


Is this in any way an accurate depiction of a man who, by all accounts, was not only sincere in his beliefs, but became so disillusioned by one way, it because a stumbling block for the rest of his life? That's weak Ni talking: 



> It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades.


Similarly, we see the same theme with respect to Se: 


> Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the object.


This is a particularly apt description of Elijah Mohammad's influence on Malcolm X. His fascination with the Nation of Islam--his delivering of ideas taken--as you say--from the teachings of others, is exactly what we'd expect of auxiliary Se. ISxPs often turn to coaches, religious leaders, and other authority figures exactly for this reason. Se wants pleasure through action and one way of achieving this is succeeding in the eyes of someone you value--the endorphin rush when you succeed, the adrenaline rushes as you push yourself. That's exactly why the "betrayal" hurt Malcolm X so much--he thought he was doing the right thing.

On Malcolm X and Fe--we're limited in the clips here because he's addressing hostile audiences. He's never going to come across as an Fe-dominant or auxiliary, but listen to the way he talks about African-Americans and Blacks generally--they're all his people, and he conceives of his role as trying to bring them together--he minimizes differences--real differences--within the African-American community because he wants them to see themselves as a group able to advocate for all its members.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

TyranAmiros said:


> I guess I'm unclear what you mean by "external facts". We all rely on our perceptions of the external world. We do so in different ways depending on what our functions are.


External facts= facts derived from external source
Internal facts= facts derived from an internal source



> Extraverted thinkers, according to Jung and the MBTI, "are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas." But Malcolm X doesn't. What does he mean that his father and grandfather didn't have a last name? Objectively, they did--Little. Objectively, Malcolm X had a different last name before his conversion. But, of course, admitting that would undermine the exact argument he wants to make: that the very act of having a last name that comes out of slavery is in fact a continuation of this subjugation. So Malcolm X uses an "unconscious truth" rather than an empirically observable one. It's as Jung describes:


Its not the fact that I'm focused on, I'm focused on the source of the fact. Were the facts he presented his, as in do they derive from him or were they derived from an external source. In the clips presented in this thread, he constantly refers to an external source (the messenger or actual event) for almost all of his facts. The conclusions he made were always in agreement with these external facts.



> . So in judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: *by what criterion does it judge— does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective?* A further criterion is the direction the thinking takes in drawing conclusions— whether it is principally directed outwards or not.





> . Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, *if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education.*





> *It has the appearance of being captivated by the object, as though without the external orientation it simply could not exist.* It almost seems as though it were a mere sequela of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when flowing into some general idea. *It seems to be constantly affected by the objective data and to draw conclusions only with their consent.*





> .This difference becomes quite palpable when extraverted thinking appropriates material that is the special province of introverted thinking; when, for instance, a* subjective conviction is explained analytically in terms of objective data or as being derived from objective ideas*.





> . *This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment.* By this formula good and evil are measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. Everything that agrees with this formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong, and anything that passes by it indifferently is merely incidental. *Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively*.





> Generally the motive of justice and truth is not sufficient to ensure the actual execution of such projects; for this, real Christian charity is needed, and this has more to do with feeling than with any intellectual formula. “*Oughts” and “musts” bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations.*





> *The thinking of the extraverted type is positive, i.e., productive. It leads to the discovery of new facts or to general conceptions based on disparate empirical material. It is usually synthetic too. Even when it analyses it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the analysis to a new combination, to a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a different way or adds something to it. One could call this kind of judgment predicative. *





> What is that next function? Well, as your Ne quotes point out, the Ne user's
> 
> 
> Is this in any way an accurate depiction of a man who, by all accounts, was not only sincere in his beliefs, but became so disillusioned by one way, it because a stumbling block for the rest of his life? That's weak Ni talking:


No, its not weak Ni, its instead strong Ne which is what a dominant Ne is:



> *His conscious attitude towards both sensation and object is one of ruthless superiority.* Not that he means to be ruthless or superior— he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees and rides roughshod over it, just as the sensation type has no eyes for its soul. His conscious attitude towards both sensation and object is one of ruthless superiority. Not that he means to be ruthless or superior— he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees and rides roughshod over it, just as the sensation type has no eyes for its soul.





> *The intuitive’s morality is governed neither by thinking nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his vision and in voluntary submission to its authority*. Consideration for the welfare of others is weak. Their psychic well-being counts as little with him as does his own. He has equally little regard for their convictions and way of life, and on this account he is often put down as an immoral and unscrupulous adventurer.





> The intuitive is never to be found in the world of accepted reality-values, but he has a keen nose for anything new and in the making. Because he is always seeking out new possibilities, stable conditions suffocate him. *He seizes on new objects or situations with great intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without any compunction and apparently without remembering them,* as soon as their range is known and no further developments can be divined. *So long as a new possibility is in the offing, the intuitive is bound to it with the shackles of fate*.


------------------------


> Similarly, we see the same theme with respect to Se:


Se doesn't become one with his visions, Se focuses on objective *sensations*, the sensous aspects of an object to their fullest extent, key word *sensous*. 



> As he has no ideals connected with ideas, he has no reason to act in any way contrary to the reality of things as they are.* This manifests itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, as befits the occasion; he keeps a good table with plenty of drink for his friends, making them feel very grand, or at least giving them to understand that his refined taste entitles him to make a few demands of them*. He may even convince them that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.





> His love is unquestionably rooted in the physical attractions of its object. If normal, he is conspicuously well adjusted to reality. That is his ideal, and it even makes him considerate of others.


And this is low Ni here (Se description):



> In consequence, the unconscious is forced out of its compensatory role into open opposition. *Above all, the repressed intuitions begin to assert themselves in the form of projections. The wildest suspicions arise; if the object is a sexual one, jealous fantasies and anxiety states gain the upper hand. More acute cases develop every sort of phobia, and, in particular, compulsion symptoms*. The pathological contents have a markedly unreal character, with a frequent moral or religious streak. A pettifogging captiousness follows, or a grotesquely punctilious morality combined with primitive, “magical” superstitions that fall back on abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions which have been driven into harsh opposition to the conscious attitude, and they appear in a guise that is all the more striking because they rest on the most absurd assumptions, in complete contrast to the conscious sense of reality. *The whole structure of thought and feeling seems, in this second personality, to be twisted into a pathological parody: reason turns into hair-splitting pedantry, morality into dreary moralizing and blatant Pharisaism, religion into ridiculous superstition, and intuition, the noblest gift of man, into meddlesome officiousness, poking into every corner; instead of gazing into the far distance, it descends to the lowest level of human meanness*.


------------------


> *This is a particularly apt description of Elijah Mohammad's influence on Malcolm X. His fascination with the Nation of Islam--his delivering of ideas taken--as you say--from the teachings of others, is exactly what we'd expect of auxiliary Se. * ISxPs often turn to coaches, religious leaders, and other authority figures exactly for this reason. Se wants pleasure through action and one way of achieving this is succeeding in the eyes of someone you value--the endorphin rush when you succeed, the adrenaline rushes as you push yourself. That's exactly why the "betrayal" hurt Malcolm X so much--he thought he was doing the right thing.


The bold actually more so applies to extraverted thinking and definitely not Se because Se doesn't borrow ideas in any form, its not focused on "ideas", its focused on enjoying the maximum sensation that they can achieve. Te on the other hand does borrow its facts from without, external facts:

Te:



> . Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education.





> * It almost seems as though it were a mere sequela of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when flowing into some general idea*. It seems to be constantly affected by the objective data and to draw conclusions only with their consent.





> . When objective data predominate over thinking to any great extent, thinking is sterilized, becoming a mere appendage of the object and no longer capable of abstracting itself into an independent concept. *It is then reduced to a kind of “after-thought,” by which I do not mean “reflection” but a purely imitative thinking which affirms nothing beyond what was visibly and immediately present in the objective data in the first place*. This thinking naturally leads directly back to the object, but never beyond it, not even to a linking of experience with an objective idea.





> . It usurps the place of all more general, less definite, more modest and therefore more truthful views of life. It even supplants that general view of life we call religion. *Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the slightest connection with anything religious. At the same time, it assumes the essentially religious quality of absoluteness. It becomes an intellectual superstition.* But now all the psychological tendencies it has repressed build up a counter-position in the unconscious and give rise to paroxysms of doubt.


Se:



> The more sensation predominates, however, so that the subject disappears behind the sensation, the less agreeable does this type become. He develops into a crude pleasure-seeker, or else degenerates into an unscrupulous, effete aesthete. Although the object has become quite indispensable to him, yet, as something existing in its own right, it is none the less devalued. *It is ruthlessly exploited and squeezed dry, since now its sole use is to stimulate sensation*. The bondage to the object is carried to the extreme limit.





> Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it. It cannot be anything except concrete and real; conjectures that go beyond the concrete are admitted only on condition that they enhance sensation.* The intensification does not necessarily have to be pleasurable*, for this type need not be a common voluptuary; *he is merely desirous of the strongest sensations, and these, by his very nature, he can receive only from outside. What comes from inside seems to him morbid and suspect.*





> *To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them— that is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company;* he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete.


------------------



> On Malcolm X and Fe--we're limited in the clips here because he's addressing hostile audiences. He's never going to come across as an Fe-dominant or auxiliary, but listen to the way he talks about African-Americans and Blacks generally--*they're all his people, and he conceives of his role as trying to bring them together--he minimizes differences--real differences--within the African-American community because he wants them to see themselves as a group able to advocate for all its members*.


If he's an Fe dominant or aux, then no matter what he will come off as Fe dominant or aux, its literally how an Fe aux dominant or aux extravert's. 

The bold applies to both Je functions, Fe and Te:



> The rationality of both types is object-oriented and dependent on objective data. *It accords with what is collectively considered to be rational*. For them, nothing is rational save what is generally considered as such.





> . Rational judgment, in such a psychology, *is a force that coerces the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern, or at least tries to do so. *





> *The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or accord with traditional and generally accepted standards.* This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre or to concerts, or go to church, and do so moreover with their feelings correctly adjusted. Fashions, too, owe their whole existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the positive support of social, philanthropic, and other such cultural institutions.* In these matters extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without it, a harmonious social life would be impossible*.





> Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, *everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong*— he is resisting the universal law, and is therefore unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. *His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must under all circumstances be realized, for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and therefore must also be a universally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of mankind. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from the higher standpoint of justice and truth. *


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I have heard that ESTP and ENTJ can look a lot alike. One of my good friends is an ESTP, and can appear to be ENTJ. I think ESTP are more lively. This may highlight some of the differences:


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> He could also be a 6 but his reliance on external facts and solely external facts would also make him a Te user. Where is it that you see Fe. BTW here is a description of Fe:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see your explanation for Fe so I can understand your reasoning.


I think it's pretty weak evidence on my part, but I noticed his comforting smile when he was talking about the death threats and other stuff to the reporters (I think about 13 or 14 minutes in). Even though the people around him looked quite disturbed and serious and he was talking about serious threats, he was trying to put people at ease. He was also being inspiring and modeling forgiveness. But...I am not tha knowledgeable about functions--certainly not Fe.

Also, though I do like reading Jung's descriptions, I feel like they are more geared towards the observations of people with that dominant function. I think the later theories address functions stacking in more detail. For example, I see his Fe description more like something observable in ESFJ, but perhaps not in tertiary Fe in an ESTP.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Arturo said:


> I think it's pretty weak evidence on my part, but I noticed his comforting smile when he was talking about the death threats and other stuff to the reporters (I think about 13 or 14 minutes in). Even though the people around him looked quite disturbed and serious and he was talking about serious threats, he was trying to put people at ease. He was also being inspiring and modeling forgiveness. But...I am not tha knowledgeable about functions--certainly not Fe.
> 
> *Also, though I do like reading Jung's descriptions, I feel like they are more geared towards the observations of people with that dominant function. I think the later theories address functions tacking in more detail. For example, I see his Fe description more like something observable in ESFJ, but perhaps not in tertiary Fe in an ESTP*.


Yea all of his descriptions are geared towards dominants, hence why JCF consists of 8 types instead of 16. He does speak on functions in the unconscious (any function less differentiated than the dominant), which he states that they are used in archaic ways:



> 14. DIFFERENTIATION means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept of differentiation chiefly with respect to the psychological functions (q.v.). *So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.— that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself.* Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. *As a rule, the undifferentiated function is also characterized by ambivalence and ambitendency, 34 i.e., every position entails its own negation, and this leads to characteristic inhibitions in the use of the undifferentiated function.* Another feature is the fusing together of its separate components; *thus, undifferentiated sensation is vitiated by the coalescence of different sensory spheres (colour-hearing), and undifferentiated feeling by confounding hate with love*. To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, *it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions*. Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. *Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed*.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> External facts= facts derived from external source
> Internal facts= facts derived from an internal source


This is a tautological definition here--how far does "external source" extend and what would "internal facts" look like? The latter seems to be an oxymoron to me--a "fact" is something by definition external. Otherwise, it's an idea or impression or interpretation. I also wouldn't consider all of the story-telling he does as "factual"--not that he's inventing things, but where do examples and anecdotes fall?



> Its not the fact that I'm focused on, I'm focused on the source of the fact. Were the facts he presented his, as in do they derive from him or were they derived from an external source. In the clips presented in this thread, he constantly refers to an external source (the messenger or actual event) for almost all of his facts. The conclusions he made were always in agreement with these external facts.


I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at in this paragraph. Outside of a few stories and examples, generally prompted by the moderators, there's little that's factual in what Malcolm X says. There are quite a few semantic games (the last names bit), and the rest seems to be internalized judgments (shootings of African American youths), speculations, conjectures, and interpretations. Further, I don't believe that Malcolm X is referring to an outside standard here--someone else may have use the adjective "brutal" first, but that doesn't mean that Malcolm X doesn't find it brutal himself. The clip gives me the impression of complete buy-in. 



> Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.


This Jung quote on Ti strikes me as particularly apt in terms of describing Malcolm X's life, especially his later years. Especially how he became progressively more extreme over his life as he was frustrated by different groups.



> No, its not weak Ni, its instead strong Ne which is what a dominant Ne is:
> 
> The intuitive is never to be found in the world of accepted reality-values, but he has a keen nose for anything new and in the making. Because he is always seeking out new possibilities, stable conditions suffocate him. He seizes on new objects or situations with great intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without any compunction and apparently without remembering them, as soon as their range is known and no further developments can be divined. So long as a new possibility is in the offing, the intuitive is bound to it with the shackles of fate.


But this is completely wrong for Malcolm X. He held _extremely consistent_ views throughout his life, and though he grew more extreme, he spent his _entire adult life_ wedded to the notion that African-Americans must defend their rights with force if necessary. He didn't abandon others; they abandoned him. He did not seek out new opportunities, he certainly does have a strong concern about the welfare of others, and his vision was not dependent on external realization. He is not an extraverted intuitive.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

TyranAmiros said:


> I guess I'm unclear what you mean by "external facts". We all rely on our perceptions of the external world. We do so in different ways depending on what our functions are.
> 
> Extraverted thinkers, according to Jung and the MBTI, "are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas." But Malcolm X doesn't. What does he mean that his father and grandfather didn't have a last name? Objectively, they did--Little. Objectively, Malcolm X had a different last name before his conversion. But, of course, admitting that would undermine the exact argument he wants to make: that the very act of having a last name that comes out of slavery is in fact a continuation of this subjugation. So Malcolm X uses an "unconscious truth" rather than an empirically observable one. It's as Jung describes:
> 
> ...


You have been hitting the nail on the head in here.

Most people don't think about their names. Certainly not white people. A black person in America having a Russian or Italian last name would be strange to me. I have heard of african americans with Italian last names, but they are very, very rare. A black person with a name from the British Isles is totally expected. I know for a fact that no black person in this country shares my last name. Or anything close to my last name

He took the name, to its absolute core. He totally distilled it down, to what he thought was its essence. 

So Malcolm X takes the mundane daily fact of a person's name. And turns it into a huge statement, which is very powerful. It is such a prominent part of a person's identity. When a guy says he has the last name X in the 1950s or whatever, people want to know what that means. So that one letter can unravel into a large rant. lol. Every time. I love this guy. He is so good. 

And you are right about him never really changing. He just had to keep adjusting to stay consistent with what he always trying to do. You have to change with the world. A guy like him is necessary, even if he is an extremist. The Nation of Islam and crime and racism, were a part of him. They were part of the journey. He wouldn't be there without them. They were like booster rockets on the space shuttle. They make you liftoff, but you shed them when you reach a certain altitude.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> STP are tribal and team players. Like NFJ. Nobody else is though. That is why they are so mad.
> 
> He doesn't need to get "under the surface of things". He saw it with his own eyes. He was just a student of life. He observed and analyzed. That is why ESTP make great businessman and leaders. They can be arrogant and aggressive, but have a social fluidity to them. Almost innocent and childlike. They change. They are movers and shakers. They make things happen. And are loose cannons.


 If that's supposed to be Se over Ne, all types will "see things with their own eyes". Everything starts with sensory data. It's what we do with it after taking it in, that determines S/N and e/i orientation. S is about "at hand" tangible data. Se is these sense impressions as they occur; Si is sense impressions compared to a mental storehouse of data. N is intangible data "filled in" to experience. Ne is based on the interconnections between external objects. Ni is intangible impressions from with in (basically associated with the unconscious. This is what's then used to fill in data).

"Observing and analyzing" indicates more than simply taking emergent sensory data at face value. He's connecting things, such as "you say this over here, but do this over there". All the ideology and stuff he was answering, is the domain of N. HE did not seem that focused on the tangible world for its own sake.


> If King isn't using Fe, nobody is.


And this is usually based on him being so focused on doing something good for people, and trying to create harmony. But I would say Si can be associated with this as well. It's not so much about "using" functions, as if they are these behavioral gears we either use, or switch to something else. They are perspectives. And some of them can accomplish the same things. 
Si is about tangible impressions compared to a storehouse of experience. This will lead to them desiring familiarity, and "concrete" institutions such as community, family, etc. This is why they are the "Guardians" (even though Keirsey rejected the functions, which was a bit short sighted).
Fe is a rational decision making process of "good vs bad" (personal affect) basically, with the standard being the environment or culture. Which could be community, etc. that Si deals with. So you can see both dealing with community harmony, and the difference is Si perceiving it, and Fe is judging based on it. (And of course, Si+Fe is going to be doubly about that).

I haven't really looked at King long enough to see what he really is, but at cursory glance, he looks like a typical ISTJ (though both types on the surface are "Chart the Course", or Melancholy, and may look sililar in behavior). 
Saying "I have a dream" does not sound like Ni, if that's what people are going by. That could be a more inferior Ne (imagining what could be done in the external world) he was "aspiring" to. An ISTJ also will have tertiary Fi, which will give them that "personal" ("good/bad" desire for "harmony") perspective.


FearAndTrembling said:


> Our conversation shows why Malcolm X is not Ne or intuitive.
> 
> The only reality there is the present moment in the environment. The present is the only thing that exists. Everything unites into it. It is eternity.
> 
> MLK is building a larger framework that can last. He has more patience is and more future oriented. Malcolm X usually learned from direct experience and hindsight. His whole story is just telling how his previous self was wrong, up until the day he died. He had to see things to believe them.


 I've always had to see things to believe them too. I would say that is more Ti, which is about a "correct/correct" judgment based on what you have learned individually, or from nature (rather than the environment or culture). You won't _judge_ it "correct", until you receive more [external] data.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Who taught black people to hate themselves is the environment. He lived it. He straightened his hair like a white guy. Because that is what cool black guys did back then. His whole image was a fraud, and borrowed. He was very light skinned too. And had reddish hair. Wore the most ridiculous outfits. He said even people in NYC had never seen anything like him. They would stop and stare. Nobody protected his mother, she was put in a mental institution. He said he would not even talk about his mother, because he was afraid he would kill somebody over the smallest slight.
> 
> He reminds me of ESTP I know. They are sponges. They just fight through life. They never stop learning or changing. I don't think anyone has a sharper eye on the environment. They see so much. I suppose he could be using Ne. ETNP are called architects and inventors. ESTP are more conquerors and doers. I think of him as a doer more than an architect. He learns by doing. He is very in tune with the environment either way.


I think that description could be either type. Sanguine-Choleric mixes, and the extraversion and pragmatism is what leads to the "doer".
But he was very philosophical (which is more N than S), even if he may not have invented much of his own ideas.


Shadow Logic said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> After watching this video I would say he is a Te dom, or at the least, a user of it. His reliance on external facts seems so apparent. All of his knowledge seems to derive from an external source, this "messenger" person that he keeps referring to, as if he is borrowing a formula that works or he is confident it will work, it highly represents what Jung says about Te users:





Shadow Logic said:


> Where are you getting any "subjective" interpretation when he his clearly saying things such as "therefore he teaches us....." And then goes on to explain what it was that he was taught, which is showing that these ideas are borrowed from without rather than formulated from within:


Ne can do that as well, as it's intangible (conceptual) data being received from an outside source. It's an "interpretation" of life, basically. Then, Ti "nails it down" with true/false judgments based on what he's learned from life (and hence, why he sticks with that ideology, instead of exploring others as you might expect for Ne).

I myself was like this, in my approach to religion (though my circumstances were different, and there was no one movement I gave my allegiance to like that, though I might have, if had found one that completely passed Ti's [strict] sense of true/false —which is out front for me, and would be simply an auxiliary for him, so he was more able to join something that spoke to his experience. He eventually gave it up, when new revelations came into view, which challenged the whole thing).



TyranAmiros said:


> I actually see a lot of Ti in that clip: subjective interpretation of history, subjective valuation of the truth, precision of language and arguing semantics, responding to external stimuli (questions). Knowing some about Malcolm X (I've taught him in an Ethics and Society course), his view of truth is grounded in a very personal, subjective version of history--his emphasis on irrelevant details is also very indicative of Ti.


 Yeah; I always get Ti vibes from him, which is why I admire him so. He just tears right through conventional senses of true/false with stuff everyone else has ignored.



> The fact that he is repeating ideas mostly generated by Elijah Mohammad ("the Messenger") to me speaks more to Se-Ni than Te vs. Ti. He's doing something a lot of SPs do--Ni adopts a paradigm someone else thought of, then Se puts it forcefully into action. It's the same reason so many hero types are SPs in literature--there's no more forceful advocate for something than an SP. Their Se means they catch details and nuances (when they want to) and their Ni helps them fill in the gaps.


 That's not Ni/Se at all. Again, Ni is perceiving intangible data from within which is likely unconscious). It will be likely to "fill in" what no one else thought of. 
Se is not so much about "putting something into action", at least not all by itself. That basically requires judgment. Se will inform what action can be taken in the moment, and Ne will look at larger contexts, to see which "strings can be pulled" so to speak [i.e. what's not tangibly "at hand" in the moment, but can be envisioned to happen], in taking action.

Ne, at least in my experience, has a tentative quality to it. We'll give something a 'chance', as a "possible" truth (according to Ji). We "try it on", until Ji either finds it "wrong" (false/bad, according to T/F, respectively), and then move on. So it's possible for us to just adopt someone else's ideas like that. We're operating on the external perception, and it has for the time being, "passed" with the internal judgment. But this can change at any time.



FearAndTrembling said:


> I have noticed Ti doms, or those with Ti before Fe, do that a lot. Ti is often tripped up with Fe. INTP do this particularly a lot. STP do it, but it is less noticeable, and they are more confident on the fly. He puts an idea out there aggressively, with Ti and Se. Totally subjective and pushed out hard. But the Fe gives him a little trip, right after. He says immediately afterwards, "I am sorry to speak to you gentlemen like this.." and continues with Ti-Se. Fe sporadically scans the environment to make sure Ti and Se doesn't get too out of control. It reels them in. It is like an anchor. He is actually appealing to traditional values.


 The functions don't work so mechanically as people are making them out to be. Their products are all mixed into all data together, and our ego's (and complexes, which are what hook up to the other functions in the stack) separate out whichever data they are specialized for. 

They're not really "actions" like that. Se isn't "putting out" anything. Quite the contrary, it's "_taking in_". Ti makes the judgments, and the data it is using is more conceptual stuff such as ideas. Now, these ideas are often accompanied by what we call "factual" data, which has become associated with S. But it's not the words on the page (the actual _tangible_ data) that are the focus; it's the *ideas* being conveyed with them. 
I so wish he were still alive, because he would be the one to go after all the "statistical" data conservatives have been trumpeting rather loudly to suggest blacks are "problematic" drains on the nation (which our other ["default"] leaders such as Sharpton and Jackson, I have always found to be rather slow on these things, though the Right has gotten so loud about this stuff, they are finally being forced to address it more. This rhetoric is all about intangible interconnections, not [direct] sensory impressions. This is the type of stuff Malcolm used to take and stuff right back down their throats with other (usually ignored) data informing the "facts" they [selectively] use.

In this case, any sensory data has reality by virtue of the intangible idea. A true S product would have meaning only be sensation, meaning it simply is what it is. To T's, something is good/bad by virtue of being true false. For F's, something is true/false by virtue of being good/bad. 
You can't totally separate these elements of the data; so a function is differentiated as a distinct S/N/T/F by which one the ego is giving more weight to.

Here is a better way to express the functions:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...king-again-top-root-defiitions-functions.html

As for function tandems (like "Ti/Fe", etc); here's a better way to denote them:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/295034-finally-official-tandem-group-names.html


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Malcolm X is not philosophical at all. Bruce Lee is philosophical. Where is Malcolm X's philosophy? He has about as many tidbits as an athlete or singer would have. He is insightful, but he isn't a philosopher. Martin Luther King was a philosopher. I am not going into details, but an ISTJ did not write this, and neither could Malcolm X:

*First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the *****'s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the ***** to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."*


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

He studied a lot of philosophy, whether he actually created any of his own or not. That's what I meant.

You can't always go "such and such type would never say/write/do {etc} something like this". This was obviously later on, and he was becoming increasingly disillusioned with certain things (especially after the Birmingham church was bombed). So it was forcing him to expand his perspective (in addition to probably being in midlife already, anyway. In my view, it's as I explained; a Melancholy going from a "Guardian" to a "Rebel" because he tried to work within the institution, but it persistently showed itself to be corrupt to the core. should also mention he also seems to have more of an "Ordering" rather than "Aligning" mind, which are the Te/Fi and Fe/Ti tandem perspectives, as expressed in the second link above. He seems to be more into ordering logically according to the environment, and the "harmony" aspect of it is only for the same of the logical order, to achieve the objective).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Eric B said:


> He studied a lot of philosophy, whether he actually created any of his own or not. That's what I meant.
> 
> You can't always go "such and such type would never say/write/do {etc} something like this". This was obviously later on, and he was becoming increasingly disillusioned with certain things (especially after the Birmingham church was bombed). So it was forcing him to expand his perspective (in addition to probably being in midlife already, anyway. In my view, it's as I explained; a Melancholy going from a "Guardian" to a "Rebel" because he tried to work within the institution, but it persistently showed itself to be corrupt to the core. should also mention he also seems to have more of an "Ordering" rather than "Aligning" mind, which are the Te/Fi and Fe/Ti tandem perspectives, as expressed in the second link above. He seems to be more into ordering logically according to the environment, and the "harmony" aspect of it is only for the same of the logical order, to achieve the objective).


At the beginning you said Malcolm X was an Intuitive because he saw "under the surface", and then you later added he was philosophical. Which is basically saying that he is too deep and philosophical to be a sensor. I believe that MLK is much deeper than Malcolm X, but you labelled MLK a sensor. 

You can see MLK has a quite unorthodox interpretation of Christianity. Comparing other philosophies like that, and adding your own thing, is philosophy. 

Bruce Lee is a guy often classified as an ISTP. He is an INFJ. People on this forum have recently accused me of being an ISTP too. Or INTP. They think we are leading with Ti, we are not. Feeling and intuition comes first. That is why we like simplicity. Because it is so hard to get there. It is what we want though. Malcolm X can turn on a dime. He has a rapid fire intensity. He is always in the moment. It is natural. It takes hard work for INFJ to get there. 

Lee and Malcolm X can be seen as dual types. They are ronin warriors. Lee is more disarming, but actually has more weight and intensity. Lee's ideas have to be pushed through his whole system, before they come out. That is why he is so confident in them, and doesn't have to keep on going on forever. There are no wasted motions. It is all done inside. Malcolm X will battle continually. He doesn't have that sense of closure, or inclination to compress so much into so little. He starts of small and then builds. Lee starts off big, and finally reduces it something that can be somewhat understood. It has been packaged for everybody. 

You can see that Lee is more sedated, but pushes his ideas hard on the environment. He is much more aware, through Ni-Fe, of the audience. It is constructed with them in mind. As he is more abstract and people orientated. Malcolm X is more concrete and thinking oriented. I can honestly tell that Lee is an INFJ and Malcolm X is an STP, by hearing them talk and observing them interact with people. You can see the difference immediately.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> At the beginning you said Malcolm X was an Intuitive because he saw "under the surface", and then you later added he was philosophical. Which is basically saying that he is too deep and philosophical to be a sensor. I believe that MLK is much deeper than Malcolm X, but you labelled MLK a sensor.
> 
> You can see MLK has a quite unorthodox interpretation of Christianity. Comparing other philosophies like that, and adding your own thing, is philosophy.
> 
> ...


I've never watched anything from Bruce Lee, but that was an exceedingly interesting video. It reminds me: have you ever heard about something called 5 Rhythms? It's a spiritual dance class of sorts, where (awesome) music is played and everyone dances in the way that they see fit. It seeks to connect emotions and physicality both within the self and in connecting to others. There's very much a community orientation in the whole experience; I imagine it was likely created by an INFJ.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> At the beginning you said Malcolm X was an Intuitive because he saw "under the surface", and then you later added he was philosophical. Which is basically saying that he is too deep and philosophical to be a sensor. I believe that MLK is much deeper than Malcolm X, but you labelled MLK a sensor.
> 
> You can see MLK has a quite unorthodox interpretation of Christianity. Comparing other philosophies like that, and adding your own thing, is philosophy.


 You posted a single speech of King and said "an ISTJ did not write this". That's a very definite statement. I did not use a single speech of Malcolm, but rather his overall approach. (And of course, this could be wrong. We have not even tested him. But this is why such absolute statements are not good).

And again, coming up with an "unorthodox" interpretation of Christianity does not make one an N. And it's not really "unorthodox" to begin with, depending on what one sees as "orthodoxy". Again, he tried to work within the system, but saw it as corrupt, or at least indifferent. This forces one to go beyond ego's comfort zone.


> Bruce Lee is a guy often classified as an ISTP. He is an INFJ. People on this forum have recently accused me of being an ISTP too. Or INTP. They think we are leading with Ti, we are not. Feeling and intuition comes first. That is why we like simplicity. Because it is so hard to get there. It is what we want though. Malcolm X can turn on a dime. He has a rapid fire intensity. He is always in the moment. It is natural. It takes hard work for INFJ to get there.
> 
> Lee and Malcolm X can be seen as dual types. They are ronin warriors. Lee is more disarming, but actually has more weight and intensity. Lee's ideas have to be pushed through his whole system, before they come out. That is why he is so confident in them, and doesn't have to keep on going on forever. There are no wasted motions. It is all done inside. Malcolm X will battle continually. He doesn't have that sense of closure, or inclination to compress so much into so little. He starts of small and then builds. Lee starts off big, and finally reduces it something that can be somewhat understood. It has been packaged for everybody.
> 
> You can see that Lee is more sedated, but pushes his ideas hard on the environment. He is much more aware, through Ni-Fe, of the audience. It is constructed with them in mind. As he is more abstract and people orientated. Malcolm X is more concrete and thinking oriented. I can honestly tell that Lee is an INFJ and Malcolm X is an STP, by hearing them talk and observing them interact with people. You can see the difference immediately.


I don't know anything about Bruce Lee. If people think he's an SP, it's because he's most known for martial arts, which is of course a very Sensory focused thing. Of course, you have to go by more than that. But I don't know his "ideas". So I can't type Malcolm X by comparison to him.
(And it should be mentioned that ISTP and INFJ are very close cognitively, having the same four ego-syntonic functions. So those lesser functions will come up, plus growing naturally beings them out more as well. So the Ni, for instance, may figure in his speech).


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

TyranAmiros said:


> *This is a tautological definition here--how far does "external source" extend and what would "internal facts" look like? The latter seems to be an oxymoron to me--a "fact" is something by definition external*. Otherwise, it's an idea or impression or interpretation. I also wouldn't consider all of the story-telling he does as "factual"--not that he's inventing things, but where do examples and anecdotes fall?


An external source, is a source of information that is derived from the external world, while internal sources are sources of information that is derived from the internal mind. Math isn't external nor is logic but both contain facts, a teacher or a book would be an external source. The objective thinker (Te) only uses outside sources to supplement their knowledge, the Internal Thinker (Ti) extracts certain facts to fit their internal system that is already preconceived. Malcolm X uses no internal thinking in any of those videos because he is not referring to an internal system or an internal thought process but instead he spills out a ton of facts that have been derived from an external source (such as his teacher Muhammad and factual occurrences). In none of those interviews did he give "examples", he literally was just retelling factual occurences or information told to him by someone else, and every conclusion was in favor towards the external facts. If the anecdotal retelling of stories happens to be factual occurences, rhen that would mean he is just retelling factual occurences, a "sequela of external facts".

Also what I have bolded is even resemblant to Te, or at least one who is only use to Te:



> A thinking that is directed neither to objective facts nor to general ideas, one might argue, scarcely deserves the name “thinking” at all. I am fully aware that our age and its most eminent representatives know and acknowledge only the extraverted type of thinking. *This is largely because all the thinking that appears visibly on the surface in the form of science or philosophy or even art either derives directly from objects or else flows into general ideas.* For both these reasons it appears essentially understandable, even though it may not always be self-evident, and it is therefore regarded as valid. *In this sense it might be said that the extraverted intellect oriented by objective data is actually the only one that is recognized*.


Whereas Ti differs from Te in the aspect that it contains an internal system of facts personal to it, instead of going off of general ideas, teachers, and immediate experience of objects :



> But— and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect— there also exists an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term “thinking” can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is oriented neither by immediate experience of objects nor by traditional ideas.





> *It does not lead from concrete experience back again to the object, but always to the subjective content.* External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality. *With regard to the establishment of new facts it is only indirectly of value, since new views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern.* It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate*. Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake*. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style. *Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea*, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind’s eye. Its aim is never an intellectual reconstruction of the concrete fact, but a shaping of that dark image into a luminous idea. *It wants to reach reality, to see how the external fact will fit into and fill the framework of the idea*, and the creative power of this thinking shows itself when it actually creates an idea which, *though not inherent in the concrete fact, is yet the most suitable abstract expression of it. *Its task is completed when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.


Malcolm X doesnt talk about theories/ideas while using facts to prove them, but instead he recapitulates a string of external facts or general ideas derived from some external source. He doesn't present ideas that aren't inherent in concrete facts but is yet the most suitable expressions of it, but instead he focuses on external facts and factual occurrences, never diverging from an external source, not once. 




> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at in this paragraph. Outside of a few stories and examples, generally prompted by the moderators, there's little that's factual in what Malcolm X says. There are quite a few semantic games (the last names bit), and the rest seems to be internalized judgments (shootings of African American youths), speculations, conjectures, and interpretations. Further, I don't believe that Malcolm X is referring to an outside standard here--someone else may have use the adjective "brutal" first, but that doesn't mean that Malcolm X doesn't find it brutal himself. The clip gives me the impression of complete buy-in.


The last name bit was a retelling of factual occurrences. Slaves lost their true last names the moment they entered the boat to leave Africa and to come to the colonies, no descendant of any of these slaves contains their true last name, their true origin. Many slave masters gave their slaves their last name, others adopted their former slave masters last name when they were freed after the civil war. Malcolm X explains this factual occurrence and concludes in favor of these external facts that he doesn't know his last name. Shooting of African Americans isn't an internal judgement, its a focus on factual occurrences. In no where does he interpret anything, but instead just tells facts that derive from some external source. He doesn't even put things into his own words, he even states almost every time, the external source that gave him his facts, nor does he present any speculations.




> This Jung quote on Ti strikes me as particularly apt in terms of describing Malcolm X's life, especially his later years. Especially how he became progressively more extreme over his life as he was frustrated by different groups.


I can't speak on his life because all I know of him is a movie I saw in the 90s, and the interviews presented in this thread. When it comes to commenting on his life I have to back out because I have insufficient information for now.





> But this is completely wrong for Malcolm X. He held _extremely consistent_ views throughout his life, and though he grew more extreme, he spent his _entire adult life_ wedded to the notion that African-Americans must defend their rights with force if necessary. He didn't abandon others; they abandoned him. He did not seek out new opportunities, he certainly does have a strong concern about the welfare of others, and his vision was not dependent on external realization. He is not an extraverted intuitive.


I agree with you that he is definitely not a Ne Dom or Aux, he shows no Ne at all. I was presenting the Ne description to help you have a better understanding of it, instead of just thinking its "weak Ni".


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Eric B said:


> Ne can do that as well, as it's intangible (conceptual) data being received from an outside source. It's an "interpretation" of life, basically. Then, Ti "nails it down" with true/false judgments based on what he's learned from life (and hence, why he sticks with that ideology, instead of exploring others as you might expect for Ne).
> 
> I myself was like this, in my approach to religion (though my circumstances were different, and there was no one movement I gave my allegiance to like that, though I might have, if had found one that completely passed Ti's [strict] sense of true/false —which is out front for me, and would be simply an auxiliary for him, so he was more able to join something that spoke to his experience. He eventually gave it up, when new revelations came into view, which challenged the whole thing).


Ne doesn't interpret reality, it perceives it. Let's understand a few facts of Ne, it is not an conceptual function, its a function that perceives possibilities in the present moment. Ne takes in data through perception, not thinking, therefore it is focused on all the happenings in the present moment then it perceives all the potential in that present moment. These perceptions are focused on the relations and conditions of external objects, it does not use external facts unless its to grant more possibilties. Last, but not least, Ne externalizes possibilities, it does not externalize thoughts derived from others. Ne would only go to religion because it perceives possibilities therr that it wants to attain, it never relies on a teacher, because external facts is not its aim, possibilities in the external world is its aim, therefore only facts that open up possibilities are considered, and Ne focuses on externalizing the possibilities and using facts to prove them (if Ne-Ti), but it does not just spill out facts derived from others.



> *Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them and delivering the individual from their power.* Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.





> Neither reason nor feeling can restrain him or frighten him away from a new possibility, even though it goes against all his previous convictions. Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are his inferior functions, carrying no weight and hence incapable of effectively withstanding the power of intuition. And yet these functions are the only ones that could compensate its supremacy by supplying the judgment which the intuitive type totally lacks. The intuitive’s morality is governed neither by thinking nor by feeling; *he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his vision and in voluntary submission to its authority*.





> .*The intuitive function is represented in consciousness by an attitude of expectancy, by vision and penetration; *but only from the subsequent result can it be established how much of what was “seen” was actually in the object, and how much was “read into” it. Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but an activity that seizes and shapes its object, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out.


Ne's only authority is the possibilities it envisions, it does not use others as the source of their information, since its the possibilities that we derive our information from. We would only use a fact to open up more possibilities, nothing more or less than that.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

When I said “interpretation”, I meant all functions are [different] interpretations of an otherwise undivided reality.
My point was, you can't say “he believed someone else's ideas, so he was using Te; and he stuck with that one idea, so he wasn't using Ne”.

He found a belief system that spoqe to his experience, and Ti determined it was “true”, until more data came to light.


----------

