Rei type de personnalité MBTI
Personnalité
"Quel type de personnalité est Rei? Rei est un type de personnalité ENTP dans MBTI, 7w8 - SP7 - 748 dans Enneagram, SCOEI dans Big 5, ILE dans Socionics."
i shall argue why her strategy shows she’s ti-fe and sp dom, and why it’s terrible. her strat is “always cure if you have the vaccine”. she has to prove why people will not have the incentive to defect. defecting here means having the vaccine but not using it. the scenario wherein this would occur is if the person simultaneously has the vaccine and is a zombie, so they have an incentive to not use the vaccine cuz they want team zombie to win. she argues that if the zombie with the vaccine infects another person, then cures them, they’ve exposed themselves as a zombie so they’ll be at risk at getting shot by the person they’ve just cured since that person is now back to playing for team human. it’s this risk, she claims, that keeps the zombie from defecting. but she assumes the zombie with a vaccine will actually use the vaccine, which is exactly the behaviour she needs to prove. her argument is circular. in reality, if you’re a zombie with a vaccine, why the hell would you use it? infecting someone just adds an ally, while curing them creates the risk of retaliation. so the idea that exposure prevents defection relies on assuming the zombie plays against their own interest. a zombie with a vaccine still has every incentive to defect, and nothing in her pact prevents it. now why’s this ti-fe? cuz she didn’t intend to prove why the pact would hold in practice. she is building a closed, internally consistent system where you must first accept the rules (always cure if you have a vaccine), then follow her logic. the issue that i, a te-fi user, find glaring is that in the actual scene her goal is to convince others to join. in that context, external validity does matter. people will only follow if they believe the pact is viable. yet she never addresses why a zombie with a vaccine would act against their incentive. instead she just claims that she herself is the zombie with a vaccine and that she is willingly siding with the humans. but that’s not a logical choice. the best defence for her choice is that her ultimate goal is to restore everyone to being human, because if all zombies are converted back then the humans win. that would give her an incentive to cure. but this rationale is fragile, because nobody knows if there are enough vaccines. the strategy assumes away the scarcest resource (she lacks te). when pressed on that point, she insists that the pact can survive on belief alone (you don’t actually need enough vaccines, you just need everyone to believe you have enough, which is pure fe.) this response introduces more problems than it solves. 1) why would anyone risk their survival on an uncertainty they can’t measure? 2) people in the game can literally see how many zombies still roam uncured inside her group since they quarantine their own zombies. it’s obvious they lack vaccines. the bluff cannot hold when the evidence sits in plain sight. 3) in the world where humans are the majority, a real shortage still kills members of the bloc in the end, including her if she truly were a zombie. 4) in the world where zombies are the majority, even if her bloc manages to cure its own, the rest of the population could simply convert to zombies, leaving the bloc a minority so they still lose the game. the only way to make sense of this is to deduce then she must’ve been lying about her identity. she wasn’t a zombie with a vaccine. she was human. and from that position, her move makes sense. humans won’t kill her because she carries a vaccine, and zombies won’t target her because they believe she’s already one of them. she created a personal win-win. her self-preservation is clever. (Sp7) but as a group strategy it’s still terrible. it depends on everyone else suspending disbelief. it’s not rational that so many went along with it unless they’re all 4L. and she herself missed the more optimal strategy. if our goal is to minimize the number of deaths then the optimal strategy would be to turn everyone into a zombie. the only way i can think of this strategy not working is if the number of total rounds is less than that needed to turn everyone into a zombie. we can calculate this. there are 4 teams of 16 so 64 players in total, if we start with 4 zombies then it’ll take 4*2^x=64 —> x=4 rounds to infect everyone. the game has 20 rounds in total. our strategy is well below the limit. a counter argument might be “but zombies won’t want to risk exposing themselves”. we can easily work around this if we make everyone promise not to use their shotgun or vaccine. they will have no incentive to do so because getting turned into a zombie is in their best interest. her obsession with her own survival blinded her to the possibility of a better plan. (So7 blind.) if she had chosen the actually optimal approach, she could have created a win-win scenario for everyone including herself. her strategy makes no sense to a te-fi user + so7 dom, another reason why she’s probably a ti-fe user + so7 blind.
