# Kirk and Spock SEE & ILI duals?



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Hitler is usually typed as F-dominant in socionics (ENFj). While he had strong ties to "his people", his life and actions are a world-known example of exceedingly unethical behavior. Strong reaction to someone's hardships and unfairness are all good intentions, of course, but as the saying goes good intentions often pave the road to hell. Therefore I don't make absolutist judgements about information elements being good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral. It is people who are this way, how their lives their actions demonstrate them to be, not their types or any IEs.
> 
> 
> Enneagram. Have you considered that your sense of justice has more to do with you being 6 rather than Fi dominant? I know an ESI 3w4 girl who constantly lies to promote herself at work. Fi doesn't make any difference except that she wants to eliminate people who she sees as standing in her way, who don't harmonize with her picture of the world somehow.


The best raging Fi description I could muster, at least it is how I see Fi:



FreeBeer said:


> Fi is internal, that feeling deep in the pit of your stomach that something is right, wrong, fair unfair, correct, incorrect. You just know as if by instinct without relying on any external system of morals, laws etc. "You feel it in your bones." If the wold and society would go under you'd still know what is good and what is not, what you like and what not, you'd go against God if you'd have to and tear down the hypocrisy, the veil of lies and deception to expose the raw core of it so you can rip out the infection! Nothing external is sacred enough.
> 
> Fi is conscience, the burning inner flame. Nothing external may stand in it's way.
> 
> ...


With the above in mind I'd consider someone like Arya Stark Fi-ish, because she does and says whatever she thinks/feels is right regardless of what is objectively good/bad, right/wrong. What matters is what feels right to her and in that light killing, vengeance, assassination and so on is justified within her cynical and dark reality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> The best raging Fi description I could muster, at least it is how I see Fi:
> 
> 
> 
> With the above in mind I'd consider someone like Arya Stark Fi-ish, because she does and says whatever she thinks/feels is right regardless of what is objectively good/bad, right/wrong. What matters is what feels right to her and in that light killing, vengeance, assassination and so on is justified within her cynical and dark reality.


If this is not indicative of gamma SF values I don't know what is. 



> Gamma SFs, the Politicans (ESFP) and Conservators (ISFJ), are masters of exploiting interpersonal relations to ensure they get what *they* want at minimal personal cost. The game is self-assertion and obesiance, and what they want can change on a whim. Depending on their perceived "severity" of the issue, they can demand that the world stop, every logistical system of polity and natural order be circumvented, and everyone around them be miserable, wait, or lose out if they have not yet acquired what it is they want, or believe themselves to be entitled to (though often arrived at through no particularly sound methodology). They fear change and novelty like the plague, making them subsequently appear reliable, traditional and conservative ... "good citizens" quietly supporting the status quo through the mundane efforts of their chosen daily grind. From all appearances, they exemplify patriotism and good stewardship. They are masters of consciously presenting the right particular image as someone who is "worth" whatever goal they have in mind for the moment. But truth be known, there is nothing about their cognitive wiring which makes them inherently more "ethical," in the common sense of the term, over any other type.
> 
> Gamma SFs possess an innate "us vs. them" mentality. They seek materially gainful relations with others which enhance their personal sense of conservatism, material prosperity, and inconspicuously "normal" - yes, even mediocre - social appearances. You're either in their club - because you contribute economic value and/or make them look good - or else you're out. Depending on the situation, Gamma SFs may hide some of their resources in the hopes of gaining more from another, at the others' expense. It doesn't matter which party is in better material standing - as long as they can find any means possible to extract what they wish, concern for the welfare of the opposing party aside. They attempt to elevate their own image as reasonable, "normal" citizens by denigrating others through their own irrational perceptions and whims. A good example of a Gamma SF is the cantankerous restaurant customer on old Sesame Street episodes who Grover (ENTP) must repeatedly serve.
> 
> ...


The real "Ethics" of Gamma SFs - Uncovered


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

This may be my misunderstanding of the functions, but I wondered why you all type Spock as an intuitive? Usually Spock suggests the idea that immediately apparent (and, of course, logical). Similarly, McCoy suggests the obvious alternative to Spock based on ethics. Spock tends to go for methods that are tried and tested and rarely suggests taking risks and often sees no other possibility to the one he suggests. Kirk tends to be the one, if any, who considers the multitude of possibilities and what's right for his crew. Kirk is Captain because he sees beyond what is logical and what is ethical and sees what is the best outcome. Kirk is a bit harder to type unless you specify which series you're talking about (like FreeBeer said, new Kirk is probably what I'd consider Se) but Spock seems pretty consistently what I understand to be Si. 

For example, in the 2009 Star Trek reboot Spock has the option to chase Nero to Earth and intercept him. Instead, he opts to regroup with the rest of the fleet because he is more comfortable following that order. It's not that he doesn't care about Earth, it's that he cannot see another way around the issue. It's not until Kirk comes along that they are able to consider that possibility. In ST Into Darkness, Cumberbatch's character criticises Spock for not being able to break rules. Obviously Si is more than just about following rules but the beginning of the movie is about how Spock followed them to such an extent that both he and Kirk lost their positions on the Enterprise. He's not human so probably a bit harder to type but I can't see any example of intuition in him.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

bombsaway said:


> This may be my misunderstanding of the functions, but I wondered why you all type Spock as an intuitive? Usually Spock suggests the idea that immediately apparent (and, of course, logical). Similarly, McCoy suggests the obvious alternative to Spock based on ethics. Spock tends to go for methods that are tried and tested and rarely suggests taking risks and often sees no other possibility to the one he suggests. Kirk tends to be the one, if any, who considers the multitude of possibilities and what's right for his crew. Kirk is Captain because he sees beyond what is logical and what is ethical and sees what is the best outcome. Kirk is a bit harder to type unless you specify which series you're talking about (like FreeBeer said, new Kirk is probably what I'd consider Se) but Spock seems pretty consistently what I understand to be Si.
> 
> For example, in the 2009 Star Trek reboot Spock has the option to chase Nero to Earth and intercept him. Instead, he opts to regroup with the rest of the fleet because he is more comfortable following that order. It's not that he doesn't care about Earth, it's that he cannot see another way around the issue. It's not until Kirk comes along that they are able to consider that possibility. In ST Into Darkness, Cumberbatch's character criticises Spock for not being able to break rules. Obviously Si is more than just about following rules but the beginning of the movie is about how Spock followed them to such an extent that both he and Kirk lost their positions on the Enterprise. He's not human so probably a bit harder to type but I can't see any example of intuition in him.


In Socionics, Si is a focus on the body's reaction to the environment and on reaching/maintaining a state of internal balance. If you meant to discuss his MBTI type, that's fine, but it's better to specify that.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> In Socionics, Si is a focus on the body's reaction to the environment and on reaching/maintaining a state of internal balance. If you meant to discuss his MBTI type, that's fine, but it's better to specify that.


I'm still getting to grips with the conversion. I figured his MBTI type would be his Socionics type (perhaps just with the J/P switched because of the introversion). If you're not denying that he's Si in MBTI I'd be interested to know why he'd switch coming to Socionics?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

bombsaway said:


> I'm still getting to grips with the conversion. I figured his MBTI type would be his Socionics type (perhaps just with the J/P switched because of the introversion). If you're not denying that he's Si in MBTI I'd be interested to know why he'd switch coming to Socionics?


Because the cognitive lens known as Si in Socionics is not defined in the same manner as the function Si in MBTI. And I have no opinion of his type in MBTI.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@bombsaway User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki For more on that.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

After reading that essay I can see why Spock would be considered Ni as opposed to Si. It's cleared up my understanding of Spock but probably worsened the clarity of the functions for me. 

Out of curiosity, @LeaT, when you were typing me and described me as using Si-Ne, were you referring to Socionics or MBTI Si? The mug test seemed to be analysing my use of MBTI perception but would the results also be applicable to Socionics Si? Based on Aestrivex's essay (or edited version of the essay) they seem like the least agreeable comparison.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@LeaT



> They fear change and novelty like the plague, making them subsequently appear reliable, traditional and conservative ... "good citizens" quietly supporting the status quo through the mundane efforts of their chosen daily grind. From all appearances, they exemplify patriotism and good stewardship. They are masters of consciously presenting the right particular image as someone who is "worth" whatever goal they have in mind for the moment. But truth be known, there is nothing about their cognitive wiring which makes them inherently more "ethical," in the common sense of the term, over any other type.


This in perticular is what vexes me in Gamma SFs. Lets be serious here, change is inevitable and people wo can't roll with it are doomed or at least that is how I see it. Maybe because I grew up in a time when constant adaptation, learning and running after the latest and greatest advances in technology is the norm? Fearing change is alien to me at least, change is always exiting news imo, it brings with it so many new possibilities to explore and make use of.

:| if this is anything similar to how new office users always complain about changes in software and can't handle changes in organisational structure, location, goals and so on, then fuck it. I prefer to roll with things and adapt as fast as possible, simply because I find it o.o fun and exiting. Stability breads routine and stangnation, which ultimately leads to boredome and I can't handle being bored....I can't handle stagnation in relationships either...if things are going to smoothly and have reatched a point where things are very stable and unchanging...it frustrates me and I start causing drama to press for change or at least to shake things up a bit.

I still don't understand other people's fears about taking new machinary or aproaches, theories or anything apart to see how it works, how it can be made better or used for something other then the intended purpouse aka adapted to in the moment needs. Such things imo are always the most fun. Its probably why I like protests and pressuring government, why to stop experimenting is impossible despite being unable to accept unproven logic :S.

Funy enough I still think I'm Fi-Te, mostly because of my Te approach to information aka reqire solid evidence, whatever works in stead of unproven theory and I obviously know what Fi is.

Example: My latest thread

*By this Spock's approach to things could be seen as Gamma ILI imo. I mean it works, doesen't it?*

*On topic:* imo Spock's "tried and proven" preference stems mainly from Te and not a sign of socionics Si, as was said earlyer introverted sensing is not the same as MBTI Si.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Socionics.com is not considered to be the most reputable site to begin with.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

LeaT said:


> If this is not indicative of gamma SF values I don't know what is.
> 
> 
> The real "Ethics" of Gamma SFs - Uncovered


Well haters gonna hate.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> @_LeaT_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The way I see the above of how you reason is that I think they got it wrong in that particular aspect - I think gamma SFs are the ones who like to break the system, beta STs to maintain and uphold the system and not like change. There's a reason the beta ST descriptions sound like MBTI SJs.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Socionics.com is not considered to be the most reputable site to begin with.


Meh, I googled, pulled a random thread from the internet describing gamma SF values. So there's that. The point why I did that goes beyond the nature of the source, really.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> The way I see the above of how you reason is that I think they got it wrong in that particular aspect - I think gamma SFs are the ones who like to break the system, beta STs to maintain and uphold the system and not like change. There's a reason the beta ST descriptions sound like MBTI SJs.


I think that depends on the system the Beta is devoted to. "Dueling ideologies" is not unheard of in Beta, nor necessarily all that uncommon. There is a thread addressing this, but I'm having trouble locating it at the moment.



LeaT said:


> Meh, I googled, pulled a random thread from the internet describing gamma SF values. So there's that. The point why I did that goes beyond the nature of the source, really.


But if you're using a source to prove that point, shouldn't it be a good, dependable one? Site's reputation aside, IIRC, those profiles were meant to be exaggerated to the point of comedy.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I think that depends on the system the Beta is devoted to. "Dueling ideologies" is not unheard of in Beta, nor necessarily all that uncommon. There is a thread addressing this, but I'm having trouble locating it at the moment.


Yes, betas can have rival social systems, definitely. There is a significant difference in that they are rival though. They both try to build unity, that's the Fe focus. Fi doesn't do that, it tears down entirely.


> But if you're using a source to prove that point, shouldn't it be a good, dependable one?


The text conveyed what I was looking for in a general sense so it honestly sufficed for the purpose I intended. It was somewhat accurate for all intents and purposes.

I do however get what the text itself was getting at. The fear of change isn't just in the literal sense of the word - it relates to how Se and Fi are both static elements. I just think it's conveyed poorly, like how you see Ni being associated with time or Se force without really describing what this means. You need to somewhat untangle them as concepts.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

FreeBeer said:


> With the above in mind I'd consider someone like Arya Stark Fi-ish, because she does and says whatever she thinks/feels is right regardless of what is objectively good/bad, right/wrong. What matters is what feels right to her and in that light killing, vengeance, assassination and so on is justified within her cynical and dark reality.


I think Fi-valuers can be just as prone to objective morality. Whether that morality comes from outside or within, what matters is that the subject considers those principles to be absolutely true and to apply to everyone. That doesn't negate your observations about Arya or mean that she isn't Fi-valuing, but it's an important thing to keep in mind.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> Yes, betas can have rival social systems, definitely. There is a significant difference in that they are rival though. They both try to build unity, that's the Fe focus. *Fi doesn't do that, it tears down entirely.*


I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this or where you got it from. Would you mind elaborating? Can you give examples?



> The text conveyed what I was looking for in a general sense so it honestly sufficed for the purpose I intended. It was somewhat accurate for all intents and purposes.
> 
> I do however get what the text itself was getting at. The fear of change isn't just in the literal sense of the word - it relates to how Se and Fi are both static elements. I just think it's conveyed poorly, like how you see Ni being associated with time or Se force without really describing what this means. You need to somewhat untangle them as concepts.


Is this a general "you" or a personal "you"?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this or where you got it from. Would you mind elaborating? Can you give examples?


I mean that Fi sees people as individuals, Fe people as a collective, if I have to put it in more general and simple terms.


> Is this a general "you" or a personal "you"?


General you.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> I mean that Fi sees people as individuals, Fe people as a collective, if I have to put it in more general and simple terms.


I see. While I have some idea of how you would come to such a conclusion from this starting point, I would have to observe it happening before accepting it as valid.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I see. While I have some idea of how you would come to such a conclusion from this starting point, I would have to observe it happening before accepting it as valid.


I see it more as a reasoning process in people. It doesn't necessarily look like that when you study people in actuality, but it seems to be a certain movement in how people operate that pulls them in those directions. 

Consider for instance the character Amber in the anime Darker Than Black. I'd peg her as some kind of beta NF with subdued Fe, so either EIE-Ni or IEI-Ni, but probably EIE-Ni. At face value her ideals seem rebellious. She started the organization Evening Primrose to overthrow the current world order and start a new one which is her goal in order to free the series' antagonists referred to as contractors, humans with superpowers. In the current world order, contractors are considered dangerous and tend to live on the social fray, often operating in the dark or having to disguise themselves as "actual" humans. 

Now, compare her to Hei who is most likely some kind of gamma SF type, I'd wager ESI-Fi alternatively if so, ILI-Te but I doubt it. In the last few episodes, it turns out that Amber needs Hei's powers in order to actualize her goal. She makes the benefits very clear to him, and rationally, her goals might even seem noble. Hei, also being a contractor, would naturally benefit from Amber's actions but ultimately he actually choses to betray her. Instead, his actions reflect that of individuality -- he choses to be his own, half-human, half-contractor and nothing actually changes. 

It's not that he prefers the world as it is -- it's just that the alternative is better to him. In Amber's scenario, all humans would be wiped out and only contractors left alive. Hei cannot accept that as an ethical outcome so he choses neither scenario proposed towards the end. He doesn't let the humans kill all contractors and he doesn't let the contractors kill all humans. He actually favors that of unity. At face value then, it's easy to think Amber as Fi and Hei as Fe. That's how their actions would look like externally. However, what's really going on is more of a struggle between two various Fe paradigms (humans as Fe group vs contractors as Fe group) and it perfectly exemplifies how I think gamma SF is also democratic in terms of Reinin. 

Hei's reasoning process seems to be more in the lines of, not only is it a matter of identity to him (he identifies as both human and contractor rather than either one), but that they are both of equal worth. They are both unique in their own sense and thus none is of more value than the other. In Amber's case, she clearly values one social group in that she identifies as a contractor and she values contractors more than she values humans despite that she knows Hei is not a genuine contractor but was granted powers by his sister. Not only is aristocratic reasoning, but it shows how Fe operates and how Fe, even when it seeks to get along, can cause group friction in that one group is valued more than the other.


----------

