Archetypes and Socionics

[jason_m]

I think that what a personality system is ideally trying to accomplish is to discover the basic archetypes or themes that personalities can take on. What I have noticed is that, with respect to the Enneagram, Socionics, and the MBTI, there are certain themes in each system. The themes overlap, but there are some themes that are captured better in certain systems, and some themes that are not captured at all in others.

For example, let's consider the four "Researcher" types in Socionics:

The Researcher types take on the following roles:

ENTp - Inventor
INTp - Observer/Critic
INTj - Analyst
ENTj - Director

Interestingly, what you'll notice is that a basic researcher type is missing: The "theorist". Theorists can be INTj-Ne types or ENTp-Ti types, but there is no clear type for this researcher theme. In the MBTI, the theorist theme is best captured by the INTP type. The MBTI, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have an equivalent to the Socionics INTp type.

What this means is that to create a complete personality system, what has to be done is that each basic theme that people can take on has to be captured as a distinct type. The best way to capture the basic themes is to look at the types in each major personality system and analyze what the themes are. Then, once you have an inclusive list, try to think of other themes that are not captured, perhaps by looking at an exhaustive list of famous people, and trying to determine what their basic themes are. This would create a much more complete personality system.

Jason

[Expat]

I don't think that this is a very useful approach.

We tried to do something like that, in the wiki, in the "common social roles" bit in the type profiles, but even though they were sort of tongue-in-cheek there were complains and objections.

Those "archetypes" - such as Legionnaire for ESTp, etc - are useful as nicknames, and for that, there are already versions.

And, to answer your own question: several types could fit "the theorist", which is why such a name would be more confusing than useful.

[Phaedrus]

Interestingly, what you'll notice is that a basic researcher type is missing: The "theorist". Theorists can be INTj-Ne types or ENTp-Ti types, but there is no clear type for this researcher theme. In the MBTI, the theorist theme is best captured by the INTP type. The MBTI, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have an equivalent to the Socionics INTp type.

The theorist theme is best captured by the INTp (ILI) in Socionics too, and the only reason why that is not obvious in the socionic literature is because that aspect of the INTj and INTp types is muddled in the socionic type descriptions. The INTP (MBTT) is the exact same type as the ILI in Socionics.

INTjs are not theorists in the same sense that INTPs and ILIs are theorists. INTjs are systems builders, and they are recognized as such by both MBTT and Socionics. But being a systems builder is not the same thing as synthesizing empirical data into theories designed to explain the world and how it functions.

Take a theory like Darwinism, for example. It has nothing to do with or INTjs. Scientific theories are about finding the objective truth, and INTjs are not particularly interested in that, whereas that drive is at the core of the INTP/ILI type.

We also have a very distinct and clear divide in philosophy between thinkers and thinkers, but Socionics does not understand this difference even though it is captured by the Reinin Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy and described in the type descriptions if we compare the outlooks of INTjs and INTps. The lack of understanding of this divide among socionists in general have resulted in inferior type descriptions in which all philosophy is incorrectly attributed to INTjs.

[Ezra]

I don't think socionics is about archetypes. You make it sound like it's some sort of spiritual search for one's better way of being. That's what the Enneagram is for.

[tcaudilllg]

I think that what a personality system is ideally trying to accomplish is to discover the basic archetypes or themes that personalities can take on. What I have noticed is that, with respect to the Enneagram, Socionics, and the MBTI, there are certain themes in each system. The themes overlap, but there are some themes that are captured better in certain systems, and some themes that are not captured at all in others.

For example, let's consider the four "Researcher" types in Socionics:

The Researcher types take on the following roles:

ENTp - Inventor
INTp - Observer/Critic
INTj - Analyst
ENTj - Director

Interestingly, what you'll notice is that a basic researcher type is missing: The "theorist". Theorists can be INTj-Ne types or ENTp-Ti types, but there is no clear type for this researcher theme. In the MBTI, the theorist theme is best captured by the INTP type. The MBTI, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have an equivalent to the Socionics INTp type.

What this means is that to create a complete personality system, what has to be done is that each basic theme that people can take on has to be captured as a distinct type. The best way to capture the basic themes is to look at the types in each major personality system and analyze what the themes are. Then, once you have an inclusive list, try to think of other themes that are not captured, perhaps by looking at an exhaustive list of famous people, and trying to determine what their basic themes are. This would create a much more complete personality system.

Jason

The theorist is described by the creative leader trait in Supersocion theory. It applies to INTjs and ENTps because to create a theory of something means to confront reality head-on and to try to describe it. Non-creativity confident people do not usually try that, and when they do they screw up pretty bad compared to the creativity confident types.

[Phaedrus]

The theorist is described by the creative leader trait in Supersocion theory.

No. A theorist is never a leader, whether creative or non-creative.

It applies to INTjs and ENTps because to create a theory of something means to confront reality head-on and to try to describe it.

It does not apply to INTjs and ENTps for that reason, especially not to INTjs. You are not trying to do what you describe here and neither are other INTjs. Theories of reality are usually based.

Non-creativity confident people do not usually try that, and when they do they screw up pretty bad compared to the creativity confident types.

Wrong. Creativity and correspondence with reality has very little to do with each other, and INTjs usually screw up very badly when it comes to describing objective reality in a correct way.

[krieger]

Interestingly, what you'll notice is that a basic researcher type is missing: The "theorist". Theorists can be INTj-Ne types or ENTp-Ti types, but there is no clear type for this researcher theme.

In what way would you describe a theorist to be different from the other role variants such as inventor, analyst, observer and director? Don't all NT types handle theory in some way and create it where they asess it needed?

[tcaudilllg]

No. A theorist is never a leader, whether creative or non-creative.


It does not apply to INTjs and ENTps for that reason, especially not to INTjs. You are not trying to do what you describe here and neither are other INTjs. Theories of reality are usually based.


Wrong. Creativity and correspondence with reality has very little to do with each other, and INTjs usually screw up very badly when it comes to describing objective reality in a correct way.

You're a radical, and you're wrong.

Don't you understand that no one listens to you anymore, except people who have the same condition as yourself?

[Phaedrus]

You're a radical, and you're wrong.

I am right. And if you disagree with me, you are wrong. Obviously you are wrong then.

Don't you understand that no one listens to you anymore, except people who have the same condition as yourself?

I have said repeatedly that I don't care about that, and yet you come up with this idiotic "argument". Your thinking is muddled, and your capacity for logical reasoning is limited. You are wrong, and you must accept that fact and reprogram your brain. We can't accept false beliefs, can we? So get the job done. Unbrainwash yourself, tcaudilllg.

[Ezra]

Enneagram is largely useless for this, because how different Ennetypes relate is largely unexplained.

Palmer wrote a whole book on relationships between the Enneagram types, in both love and work. It's called The Enneagram in Love & Work if you want to check it out.

INTjs usually screw up very badly when it comes to describing objective reality in a correct way.

This is why you are an LII.

[tcaudilllg]

I am right. And if you disagree with me, you are wrong. Obviously you are wrong then.


I have said repeatedly that I don't care about that, and yet you come up with this idiotic "argument". Your thinking is muddled, and your capacity for logical reasoning is limited. You are wrong, and you must accept that fact and reprogram your brain. We can't accept false beliefs, can we? So get the job done. Unbrainwash yourself, tcaudilllg.

So now you're disputing your autism diagnosis? Autism meaning... some parts of reality you just can't process effectively?

I think you should consider having confidence in my view as opposed to your own. I think if you did, you would be respected. It would take a lot of courage, certainly.

[Wynch]

The theorist theme is best captured by the INTp (ILI) in Socionics too, and the only reason why that is not obvious in the socionic literature is because that aspect of the INTj and INTp types is muddled in the socionic type descriptions. The INTP (MBTT) is the exact same type as the ILI in Socionics.

INTjs are not theorists in the same sense that INTPs and ILIs are theorists. INTjs are systems builders, and they are recognized as such by both MBTT and Socionics. But being a systems builder is not the same thing as synthesizing empirical data into theories designed to explain the world and how it functions.

Take a theory like Darwinism, for example. It has nothing to do with or INTjs. Scientific theories are about finding the objective truth, and INTjs are not particularly interested in that, whereas that drive is at the core of the INTP/ILI type.

We also have a very distinct and clear divide in philosophy between thinkers and thinkers, but Socionics does not understand this difference even though it is captured by the Reinin Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy and described in the type descriptions if we compare the outlooks of INTjs and INTps. The lack of understanding of this divide among socionists in general have resulted in inferior type descriptions in which all philosophy is incorrectly attributed to INTjs.

Uh oh. Hate to break the system, but if this is true, then I do not fit your model at all. I'm an MBTI ENTp, of which there can be absolutely no doubt. But I'm also a Ti-ENTp in socionics. That much fits your understanding of socionics.

But here's the kicker:

I'm a theorist. I seek objective truth. What does it all mean??

[munenori2]

To the OP, I was actually mulling this idea over last night about archetypes and symbols, though less so in a socionics perspective. I guess I was trying to piece together how something can seem like so much more than it apparently is to people, how much common ground there is in the myths and symbols of the world, and how this seems to sink in and pervade the experience of a person's life while I was watching the moon and listening to the sounds of the turning world.

Needless to say, I was feeling very introspective last night.

[munenori2]

It definitely means that you're probably an idiot.

[Phaedrus]

This is why you are an LII.

How many people on this forum do you consider competent in typing? Do you realize how idiotic it is to think that I am an LII, and do you realize how few of the competent people on this forum actually believe that I am an LII? If you have a minimum of competence, you must agree that tcaudilllg is definitely an LII. But how do you explain the fact that he can see clearly that I am not an LII? Do you think that tcaudilllg is an incompetent idiot?

[munenori2]

Do you think that tcaudilllg is an incompetent idiot?

Is that a trick question?

[Logos]

Do you think that tcaudilllg is an incompetent idiot?

How many competent idiots do you know?

[Ms. Kensington]

post

so im astounded by how brilliant the yellow is in your new avi. who is the artist?

[Phaedrus]

Autism meaning... some parts of reality you just can't process effectively?

No, that's not at all what autism is about. You have a lot to learn there.

I think you should consider having confidence in my view as opposed to your own.

Having confidence in a relativist!? You must be joking.

[Phaedrus]

Uh oh. Hate to break the system, but if this is true, then I do not fit your model at all.

It is not my model, and it is not even a model. It is the empirical facts about what the types are like.

I'm an MBTI ENTp, of which there can be absolutely no doubt. But I'm also a Ti-ENTp in socionics.

Yes, of course. Every MBTT ENTP is an ENTp in Socionics. It's the exact same type.

I'm a theorist. I seek objective truth. What does it all mean??

That we are both NT Rationals (compare David Keirsey's four temperaments). But ENTps do not exemplify a typical Theorist, it's not the ENTp's main theme. ENTps exemplify the Inventor theme, but of course that doesn't mean that ENTps are not theoretical or that they are not focused on science like all the NT types are in slightly different ways.

[Wynch]

It is not my model, and it is not even a model. It is the empirical facts about what the types are like.


Yes, of course. Every MBTT ENTP is an ENTp in Socionics. It's the exact same type.


That we are both NT Rationals (compare David Keirsey's four temperaments). But ENTps do not exemplify a typical Theorist, it's not the ENTp's main theme. ENTps exemplify the Inventor theme, but of course that doesn't mean that ENTps are not theoretical or that they are not focused on science like all the NT types are in slightly different ways.

I'm not focussed on science. Nor am I an inventor. I'm a Gender and Family History major. What I do is I use implicit understandings of the past to create a system of understanding therein and to theorize on pieces of history that remain relatively untouched. What does THAT mean?

[Phaedrus]

How many competent idiots do you know?

Some people are very competent in some respects but idiots in other respects. A rather perfect example is Expat. And many people consider me to be an idiot, but I am very competent when it comes to correct typing.

[Phaedrus]

I'm not focussed on science. Nor am I an inventor. I'm a Gender and Family History major.

What you as a single individual is or is not is irrelevant. The ENTp type is an inventor. The INTp type is a theorist.

What I do is I use implicit understandings of the past to create a system of understanding therein and to theorize on pieces of history that remain relatively untouched. What does THAT mean?

That you don't seem to be trying to explain the empirical facts in a theoretical framework, that you seem to be more interested in developing possibilities than in nailing down the objective truth. If that's what you are doing, then it is a good illustration of the differences between (your approach) and (my approach).

[Wynch]

What you as a single individual is or is not is irrelevant. The ENTp type is an inventor. The INTp type is a theorist.

That you don't seem to be trying to explain the empirical facts in a theoretical framework, that you seem to be more interested in developing possibilities than in nailing down the objective truth. If that's what you are doing, then it is a good illustration of the differences between (your approach) and (my approach).

Ah, but I do examine and explain the empirical evidence. I take the evidence and extrapolate to try and determine the objective truth. That involves digging beneath the surface to implicit relationships and drawing connections (something that comes quite naturally to ENTp). Building a theory and examining it's potential. The process is objective, it takes evidence and (like any other theoretical system) tries to determine how the evidence fits together to make a relevant argument.

Additionally, how is Ni somehow more objective than Ne? Especially at a level of scientific reasoning. At that point you sound like you're tossing out functions haphazardly to add weight to your argument.

As for a single individual being relevant, I think that if I disprove your theory then your theory is bust, no? How is that irrelevant? The issue is that I am a theorist and only an inventor in so much as I invent theories.

[misutii]

I don't think socionics is about archetypes. You make it sound like it's some sort of spiritual search for one's better way of being. That's what the Enneagram is for.

I think archetypes are useful to a certain extent, specifically with an historical approach. So for example if we look at human civilizations, from the Aztecs to the Egyptians, in each there is commonalities amongst the social roles people play(or are forced into). Of course many times people didn't have a choice and were born into their "role" but that's irrelevant, what would be relevant is: did they excel in that role? and if so was it compatible with their socionics type? Compatibility is of course determined by whether or not an individual's social role allowed them (even rewarded them) to use their ego functions.

Mercantile, Administrative
Theoretical, Engineering
Artistic (drama/theater/entertainment), Political
Ecclesiastical, Political
Inventing
Spiritual, Ideological
Military
Artisan

I'm missing things I know so feel free to add. As for general careers found, in one way or form, in all civilizations: Merchant, Artist/Entertainer, Mystic/Priest, Military General, Artisan, Politician, Engineer/Inventor.

So from this you get some general archetypes. Leonardo da Vinci, famed inventor and engineer, for example, is very much an archetypical ENTp . Napoleon and Julius Caesar, famed military generals and politicians, were archetypical ESFps etc. Shakespeare, famed playwright and dramatist - ENFj etc. etc.

[Ms. Kensington]

I think archetypes are useful to a certain extent, specifically with an historical approach. So for example if we look at human civilizations, from the Aztecs to the Egyptians, in each there is commonalities amongst the social roles people play(or are forced into). Of course many times people didn't have a choice and were born into their "role" but that's irrelevant, what would be relevant is: did they excel in that role? and if so was it compatible with their socionics type? Compatibility is of course determined by whether or not an individual's social role allowed them (even rewarded them) to use their ego functions.

Mercantile, Administrative
Theoretical, Engineering
Artistic (drama/theater/entertainment), Political
Ecclesiastical, Political
Inventing
Spiritual, Ideological
Military
Artisan

I'm missing things I know so feel free to add. As for general careers found, in one way or form, in all civilizations: Merchant, Artist/Entertainer, Mystic/Priest, Military General, Artisan, Politician, Engineer/Inventor.

So from this you get some general archetypes. Leonardo da Vinci, famed inventor and engineer, for example, is very much an archetypical ENTp . Napoleon and Julius Caesar, famed military generals and politicians, were archetypical ESFps etc. Shakespeare, famed playwright and dramatist - ENFj etc. etc.

well i think what the archetypes do is similar to what i would find interesting with socionics knowledge.

[Ms. Kensington]

i think its strange that i had recently been thinking about clubs as well.

[Phaedrus]

Additionally, how is Ni somehow more objective than Ne?

It isn't. Te is more objective than Ti though.

Especially at a level of scientific reasoning. At that point you sound like you're tossing out functions haphazardly to add weight to your argument.

What argument? I have only claimed that the ENTp is an Inventor and that the INTp's role is the Theorist's. All four NT types are born scientists, but there are differences between them in what attitudes they have towards science.

As for a single individual being relevant, I think that if I disprove your theory then your theory is bust, no? How is that irrelevant? The issue is that I am a theorist and only an inventor in so much as I invent theories.

You don't seem to understand what we are discussing here. We are not discussing your person -- what you do as an individual is totally irrelevant. I am talking about the types.

[Phaedrus]

The INTp type is a critic not a synthesizer. ENTp/ENTj are the primary synthesizers of the socion.

Not entirely correct. is synthesis, is analysis. INTps are quite often synthesizers.

Positivist NTs synthesize. Negativist NTs split.

No.

ENTp = positivist/static = synthesis of theoretical ideas into a single framework
ENTj = positivist/dynamic = synthesis of experimental data into a single practical methodolgy

INTj = negativist/static = hierarchical classification of reality and implementation of proper system
INTp = negativist/dynamic = deconstruction and criticism of methodology

No. This is misleading and not correct as a general pattern.

INTps are not synthesizers in the strict sense, otherwise you wouldn't be spending all your time criticizing everyone's ideas on the forum, but provide your own.

To be a synthesizer does not exclude the possibility of being a critic as well.

[Logos]

It isn't. Te is more objective than Ti though.

Incorrect. Te is dynamic objectivity, whereas Ti is static objectivity.

[Phaedrus]

Incorrect. Te is dynamic objectivity, whereas Ti is static objectivity.

No. Ti is not objectivity in any way.

[Logos]

What you as a single individual is or is not is irrelevant. The ENTp type is an inventor. The INTp type is a theorist.

The INTp type is an architect.

No. Ti is not objectivity in any way.

Incorrect. Ti is another form of objectivity that differs from Te objectivity.

[Phaedrus]

No. There is synthesis/analysis at different levels. If you're reffering to Gulenko's appropriation of synthesis for dynamics, he was specifically referring to the ability to integrate visible or confirmed data into chains of cause-effect. But this is pure association of data, not a kind of induction per se.

I am not referring to that. Synthesis is not induction.

The induction of fragments by Alpha-NTs is another type/level of synthesis.

No. Don't confuse these concepts.

The model of pure = synthesis, = analysis would only be applicable to animals (if even) or people with a very low IQ (if even). It has no place in a full accounting of human cognition.

I already has a place in Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

The INTp type is an architect.

Exactly. And a theory is a logical structure -- a synthesis.

Incorrect. Ti is another form of objectivity that differs from Te objectivity.

Here your thinking is muddled in the same way as the thinking of mumbo-jumbo New Age charlatans is muddled when they talk about psychic "energies" as another form of energy than what is referred to in physics by the same name. There are not two different kinds of objectivity, only one.

[Ms. Kensington]

Exactly. And a theory is a logical structure -- a synthesis.


Here your thinking is muddled in the same way as the thinking of mumbo-jumbo New Age charlatans is muddled when they talk about psychic "energies" as another form of energy than what is referred to in physics by the same name. There are not two different kinds of objectivity, only one.

ok, fine.

[Logos]

Exactly. And a theory is a logical structure -- a synthesis.

Then what is an invention? A logical structure? A...synthesis.

Here your thinking is muddled in the same way as the thinking of mumbo-jumbo New Age charlatans is muddled when they talk about psychic "energies" as another form of energy than what is referred to in physics by the same name. There are not two different kinds of objectivity, only one.

False. You really do enjoy being incompetent about the functions and types don't you? Your statement here is far more muddled and inconsistent with the theory and observations.

[Phaedrus]

Then what is an invention? A logical structure? A...synthesis.

A theory is always a logical structure -- and necessarily so. An invention doesn't need to be a logical structure, although some inventions can be. A theory is always a synthesis -- and necessarily so. An invention doesn't need to be a synthesis, although some inventions can be.

False. You really do enjoy being incompetent about the functions and types don't you? Your statement here is far more muddled and inconsistent with the theory and observations.

The concept objectivity is used in many different contexts and Socionics is not the primary one. You are failing again to accept the inevitable truth, a behaviour that is more pathetic than sad.

[Logos]

A theory is always a logical structure -- and necessarily so. An invention doesn't need to be a logical structure, although some inventions can be. A theory is always a synthesis -- and necessarily so. An invention doesn't need to be a synthesis, although some inventions can be.

The problem is, Phaedrus, that even a casual glance through well accepted ILEs shows that they are far more theoretical than you giving them credit for being and that you are trying to build up the ILI as the sole purveyor of knowledge, wisdom, truth, and ultimately, perfection in the Socion. You are relying too much on Keirsey type titles which leads to muddled views of the types. In MBTI, Einstein is believed to be an "INTP Architect" and he is inevitably in the writers' minds when they write up their type descriptions, but Einstein is an ILE. Entertaining your incorrect view that ABCD=ABCd, that would make Einstein a "have to be" ENTP. But what sort of inventor was Einstein? Was he not of a far more synthesizing and theoretical nature than one of an inventing one? So your claims are just hollowed shells of theories that tries to disguise itself as fact.

The concept objectivity is used in many different contexts and Socionics is not the primary one. You are failing again to accept the inevitable truth, a behaviour that is more pathetic than sad.

Ti is the other half of the same whole to which Te belongs. The difference lies in objective dynamics versus objective statics. It is as simple as that.

[Phaedrus]

The problem is, Phaedrus, that even a casual glance through well accepted ILEs shows that they are far more theoretical than you giving them credit for being and that you are trying to build up the ILI as the sole purveyor of knowledge, wisdom, truth, and ultimately, perfection in the Socion.

What's the problem with all of you? I have never said that ILEs are not theoretical. Of course they are -- all NTs are theoretical. And, in a certain sense, the most theoretical type is the LII. But the LII is "theoretical" in a way that has very little to do with finding the objective truth and describe and explain it in a scientific theory.

The LII is a builder of theoretical systems/models that the LII is then trying to implement, even "force" unto reality -- a perfect example of that systems building is the work of tcaudilllg.

The ILE's role is to be an inventor. Of course you can be theoretical and an inventor at the same time, but there is no other type that captures the essence of invention than the ILE, so that's the role he is given if we are talking about archetypes and such things.

The ILIs main role is to be an observer that tries to understand and explain what the world and what is happening in it. Part of that role is also to criticize and point out what is false from what is true. There is no other type that captures the essence of being a theorist in this sense than the ILI. More so than any other type the ILI is always focused on truth and knowledge -- and that is what science and scientific theories are all about.

You are relying too much on Keirsey type titles which leads to muddled views of the types.

No. Keirsey and Socionics agree on this. There is no difference, they are talking about the exact same types.

In MBTI, Einstein is believed to be an "INTP Architect" and he is inevitably in the writers' minds when they write up their type descriptions, but Einstein is an ILE.

Yes, probably. But it is not too difficult to understand why they have mistyped Einstein, because he is not the most typical of ILEs. In many ways he is similar to an ILI.

Entertaining your incorrect view that ABCD=ABCd, that would make Einstein a "have to be" ENTP.

Of course. If Einstein was an ILE he was an ENTP. But there are many mistyped famous people in the MBTI community, Keirsey has mistyped quite a few people too, and as you know that there are lots of mistyped people in the socionics galleries of celebrities too. This is a very common phenomenon.

Many socionists believe that Jung was an ILI, but we know that Jung was an LII, because that is totally obvious if you look at video interviews with him. How can such mistypings occur? Why are so many socionists and MBTI practitioners so damn incompetent when it comes to correct typing? I don't know the answer, but it is an irritating but and indisputable phenomenon that too many people are bad at typing.

But what sort of inventor was Einstein? Was he not of a far more synthesizing and theoretical nature than one of an inventing one?

That's one of the reasons he is probably mistyped by Keirsey and MBTT.

Ti is the other half of the same whole to which Te belongs. The difference lies in objective dynamics versus objective statics. It is as simple as that.

No, it is not as simple as that.

[Logos]

What's the problem with all of you? I have never said that ILEs are not theoretical. Of course they are -- all NTs are theoretical. And, in a certain sense, the most theoretical type is the LII. But the LII is "theoretical" in a way that has very little to do with finding the objective truth and describe and explain it in a scientific theory.

The LII is a builder of theoretical systems/models that the LII is then trying to implement, even "force" unto reality -- a perfect example of that systems building is the work of tcaudilllg.

Phaedrus, read back to me where I suggested that you said that ILEs are not theoretical. I believe my words were that, "[ILE] are far more theoretical than you giving them credit for being." The LII is not up for discussion right now, so I do not know why you constantly try to turn the discussion to it when it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

The ILE's role is to be an inventor. Of course you can be theoretical and an inventor at the same time, but there is no other type that captures the essence of invention than the ILE, so that's the role he is given if we are talking about archetypes and such things.

Thomas Edison and Ben Franklin, who are the archetypes of modern inventors, are LSE. Another famous inventor, Leonardo di Vinci is SLI. Obviously you are wrong about how well the title matches the essence of the types.

No. Keirsey and Socionics agree on this. There is no difference, they are talking about the exact same types.

They think that they are talking about the same types, but they obviously have different people in mind when doing so.

Yes, probably. But it is not too difficult to understand why they have mistyped Einstein, because he is not the most typical of ILEs. In many ways he is similar to an ILI.

Of course. If Einstein was an ILE he was an ENTP. But there are many mistyped famous people in the MBTI community, Keirsey has mistyped quite a few people too, and as you know that there are lots of mistyped people in the socionics galleries of celebrities too. This is a very common phenomenon.

Many socionists believe that Jung was an ILI, but we know that Jung was an LII, because that is totally obvious if you look at video interviews with him. How can such mistypings occur? Why are so many socionists and MBTI practitioners so damn incompetent when it comes to correct typing? I don't know the answer, but it is an irritating but and indisputable phenomenon that too many people are bad at typing.

That's one of the reasons he is probably mistyped by Keirsey and MBTT.

Then replace Einstein with other famous ENTps and the result will be the same: Galileo Galilee, Aushra, Democritus, Stephen Hawking. How many of these are mistyped INTPs?

No, it is not as simple as that.

It is that simple, but your muddled thinking seeks to make it more complicated and convoluted than it really is.