Devin James Stone (LegalEagle) MBTI 성격 유형
인격
"Devin James Stone (LegalEagle)은 어떤 성격 유형입니까? Devin James Stone (LegalEagle)은 mbti의 ESTJ 성격 유형입니다. enneagram의 1w2 - so/sp - 137, big 5의 SCOAI, socionics의 LSE입니다."
I'm almost certain that Stone has an Si/Ne axis. Whenever he is tasked with explaining a legal issue or an event surrounding a legal issue, he circumscribes the topic by examining ALL of the facts and angles that would lead to a well-rounded conclusion, rather than narrowing the relationships of facts toward a sort of trend-line that would point toward a more focused conclusion, as someone with Se/Ni might do. The more difficult issue for me is choosing between ENTP and ESTJ. I've gone back and forth on this but for now I'm going with the latter. Since Stone spends so much of his time deliberating on the various angles surrounding an issue, Ne might very well be his dominant function. However, if his Ne were dominant, his Si would be repressed, and he doesn't spend much time debating hypothetical angles and wandering into what-if scenarios unless he has real-world examples and facts to relate to. In other words, his Ne limits itself to what can be carefully and *denotatively* explored, a sign that it is being anchored by Sensing and/or Thinking farther up the function stack. (*Side note: Michael Pierce links cognition of a denotative quality with Thinking and Sensing, and cognition of a connotative quality with Feeling and Intuition.) As for Te vs. Ti: The questions Stone asks, and the answers he reaches – ambiguous though they may be – are nevertheless geared toward reaching conclusions about what can be determined in the objective world, i.e. what conclusions can be drawn based on what the law actually says and what the evidence says. This should come as no surprise considering that the world of law is primarily a Te world. Stone usually doesn't wander into philosophical discussions in which he discusses the moral or logical theory that supports or justifies a particular law. He assumes implicitly that these underlying theories are valid, and skips ahead to actualities, focusing on what laws are in place and how they are applied or should be applied. In fact, in the video that Tloy posted below, he pounces on exactly this issue: "The problem with law school is that it doesn't actually teach you how to be a lawyer. You learn theories of justice. Imagine if, in medical school, Day 1, the professor's like, 'Today we're going to tell you about science. It's how a lot of people learn medicine.' " This seems to me like Te critiquing Ti. Obviously, theories of justice are important, but Stone doesn't see them as the ultimate point.
전기
Devin J. Stone is an associate in the Los Angeles office of Barnes & Thornburg and is a member of the firm’s Litigation Department. Mr Stone’s practice focuses on all aspects of civil litigation and trial, focusing on commercial litigation matters. Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Mr Stone was an associate at the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Before that, he served as an extern for the Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, a senior judge for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
인격 correlate
Michael Stevens
Michael Reeves
Hank Green
Kurzgesagt – In a nutshell
NileRed
Tom Scott
Felipe Castanhari (Canal Nostalgia)
Barış Özcan
