Stereotypical fictional personalities in relation to ETypes, Socionics and MBTI

[machintruc]

No, this is not an offensive thread.

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_character

--- QUOTE ---

Theophrastus

The study of the Character, as it is now known, was conceived by Aristotle’s student Theophrastus. In The Characters (c. 319 BC), Theophrastus introduced the “character sketch,” which became the core of “the Character as a genre.” It included 30 character types — twenty-six moral types and four social types. Each type is said to be an illustration of an individual who represents a group, characterized by his most prominent trait. The Theophrastan types are as follows:

* The Insincere Man (Eironeia)
* The Flatterer (Kolakeia)
* The Garrulous Man (Adoleschia)
* The Boor (Agroikia)
* The Complaisant Man (Areskeia)
* The Man without Moral Feeling (Aponoia)
* The Talkative Man (Lalia)
* The Fabricator (Logopoiia)
* The Shamelessly Greedy Man (Anaischuntia)
* The Pennypincher (Mikrologia)
* The Offensive Man (Bdeluria)
* The Hapless Man (Akairia)
* The Officious Man (Periergia)
* The Absent-Minded Man (Anaisthesia)
* The Unsociable Man (Authadeia)
* The Superstitious Man (Deisidaimonia)
* The Faultfinder (Mempsimoiria)
* The Suspicious Man (Apistia)
* The Repulsive Man (Duschereia)
* The Unpleasant Man (Aedia)
* The Man of Petty Ambition (Mikrophilotimia)
* The Stingy Man (Aneleutheria)
* The Show-Off (Alazoneia)
* The Arrogant Man (Huperephania)
* The Coward (Deilia)
* The Oligarchical Man (Oligarchia)
* The Late Learner (Opsimathia)
* The Slanderer (Kakologia)
* The Lover of Bad Company (Philoponeria)
* The Basely Covetous Man (Aischrokerdeia)

It is unclear where Theophrastus derived these types, but many strongly resemble those from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Despite the fact that Theophrastus sought to portray character types and not individuals, some of the sketches may have been drawn from observations of actual persons in Athenian public life. Although the preface of the work implies the intention to catalogue “human nature, associate[ed] with all sorts and conditions of men and contrast[ed] in minute detail the good and bad among them,” many other possible types are left unrepresented. These omissions are especially noticeable because each of the thirty characters represents a negative trait (“the bad”); some scholars have therefore suspected that another half of the work, covering the positive types (“the good”), once existed.[citation needed] This preface, however, is certainly fictitious, i.e. added in later times, and cannot therefore be a source of any allegation.[citation needed] Nowadays many scholars also believe that the definitions found in the beginning of each sketch are later additions.[citation needed]

--- END OF QUOTE ---


What do you think ? We have a very early 30-type theory. Each may remind an EType-Phitype combination


* The Insincere Man (Eironeia) : EIE 00+
* The Flatterer (Kolakeia) : EIE ++0
* The Garrulous Man (Adoleschia) : all types with S+
* The Boor (Agroikia) : LSI/SLE/SEI/SLI with S- and N-
* The Complaisant Man (Areskeia) : all types with S+
* The Man without Moral Feeling (Aponoia) : all TP types with S-
* The Talkative Man (Lalia) : all types with S+ (what difference with the Garrulous ?)

and so on.

[marooned]

what type is the fabricator?

I think there should be a "terminator" - one who identifies when things are "terminal" and then finishes them... it could be called the "get it done man" (as an aka thing).

The Bore would be another type I wish was on the list. (one who makes even the most exciting riveting things mindlessly and endlessly boring)

[munenori2]

I'm going to have to go with dee on this one. You can't really draw connections with types except maybe in terms of the faults they might have more of a tendency to manifest. Considering Aristotle's view of virtue as being a mean between vices of excess or deficiency, these types seem to be more or less descriptions of those deviations which I imagine a person could embody multiples of, even arising out of widely different motivations. You seem to be aware of the shortcoming, so I won't press the point any further. I'm no expert on E/Phi-types so I can't comment on any correlations therein.

[tcaudilllg]

I suspect people take these types too seriously even today. Tradition can be a dangerous thing....