Zimbardo was notably blind to the negative impact of his experimentation on his human participants. Several of the participants had nervous breakdowns. Many of his colleagues tried to tell him that the trauma on the participants was too great and deeply questioned the ethics of the experiment. Zimbardo always responded that the use to society in understanding this phenomenon was far greater. That is a typical Beta "vision" in which the impact on individuals in the here and now (R & S) is ignored in favor of what is perceived as a broad-sweeping future good (E+T).
This leaves IEI and EIE as options. His obsessive focus on the experiment (he barely slept during the week-long period) and perseverance in gathering data, as well as his inclination to steam-roll dissenting opinions, is much more consistent with EIE
Perhaps Ritella can tell us how she knows that Zimbardo's attitude is to be attributed to his Socionics type, and not, for example, to some brain defect or some kind of disorder which hindered his emphatic abilities?
Another example. in a video typing a girl , Jack Oliver Aaron says, at 1:13:19:
... a few things you said in the interview that really stood out for me. Early on in the interview what you said about getting annoyed when people are trying to get you to calm down, rather than meeting you with your emotions, I think that's a good example of a more Beta humanitarian , where they tend to have strong emotional responses, or are rather intense, and they don.t like the idea [???] calm it down, [you said?] it makes it sound if they're missing your emotions, there not... there not... it's like your voice is not being heard, and for Betas their voice needs to be heard and recognized and they need someone to meet them emotionally
This is utter nonsense. The described behavior, i.e. feeling the need to be heard, understood, to have your emotions recognized, is not something specific to Beta humanitarians, it is common to all people to some extent, unless we have some mental disability or disorder of some sort. Statistically speaking women are somewhat more sensitive to this issue ("women are from Venus, men are from Mars", that kind of thinking, which in itself is the result of a modern social construct and a BS statement in its own right), but males have these needs in some way just as well. Also, it is not uncommon for younger persons, still looking for their place or niche in life, to have such needs to a greater extent than older people, regardless of their type. Ergo: Forer Effect conclusion...
What has happened in these two examples, is that the authors have failed to go through a proper process of falsification, i.e. they failed to investigate other possible explanations for the observed behaviors or intentions, ideas that might be better ways of explaining those perceived phenomena.
That's what happens if you use only a Socionics framework in your attempts to explain phenomena, and leave everything else out of the equation: you end up with nonsense that can easily be refuted. And Forer Effect conclusions. So if you want to type another person, always ask yourself if an observed behavior or intention, cannot be better explained by something outside Socionics. For which, of course, you need a lot more knowledge and (life) experience
By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE. What I see in her behavior is not so much typical of her type, they are typical of an insecure young woman seeking to understand herself and her place in life better. The emotions radiated are not the result of her type, but in a sense, of some kind of mild stress.