Famous People and Celebrity Benchmarks

[krieger]

Pinocchio, have you ever met a person who didn't think you were completely out of your mind for thinking bruce willis is INFp.

[Mattie]

Look.to.the.sky, great point on Hector. ESI fits perfectly for him. And I also hesitate about typing fictional characters, but a) these characters are largely archetypal and are therefore ripe, imo, for typing archetypally (what sorts of people are these, socionically and otherwise), and b) great literature, especially great representative/objective literature, has a great capacity to accurately render human beings, and those accurate renderings presumably include socionics type. So I'd be much less cautious about typing Hector and Achilles than, say, Grey's Anatomy characters (because they just randomly change their personalities based on the needs of the plot for the week. Ugh). Also, Helen and Paris are both Alpha SFs, imo. I'd go with SEI for Paris, for sure. I think ESE for Helen over EIE, but both make sense. Also, my literary socionics thread has never really been alive or dead; I just use it as a repository of my socionics-related thoughts about literature or literature-related thoughts about socionics (same thing?).

There's just too much room for interpretation, especially with evidence you don't have a first-hand experience with. We are receiving mythological characters that don't originate from Homer, but interpreted through Homer, and then interpreted through scholars and readers overall. Are they archetypal? Yes, that's what mythology was for, to create archetypes for the rest of humanity to follow. But they are one-dimensional and tend not to be complex. With the rhetoric used in this thread, that a certain character is a "model" or given as a type while retaining their one-dimensional personality (and out-of-character scenes due to the author), I find that we reinforce the stereotypes through this sort of discourse.

But it is fun

[silverchris9]

What? Anglo-Saxon people can't properly understand/interpret Greek literature. So probably Pinocchio is the only one allowed to be right in this (rather unique) case.

?

Serious?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[somavision]

Aldous Huxley- IEE

Did you mean Aldous Huxley? Huxley the type is named after his grandfather, Thomas Huxley, although I personally believe that from reading extensive and contrasting works that Aldous is also most likely IEE (and I've seen that Rick him listed as a possible IEE), I don't know if this view is a universal one.

[Marie84]

Till Lindemann - ESTj
Alice Cooper - INFj
Bruce Willis - ESTj

Highly doubt it

[Marie84]

Did you mean Aldous Huxley? Huxley the type is named after his grandfather, Thomas Huxley, although I personally believe that from reading extensive and contrasting works that Aldous is also most likely IEE (and I've seen that Rick him listed as a possible IEE), I don't know if this view is a universal one.

I think you're right. I got this list off of the regular wiki (not socionics wiki) so I checked and they did link it to Aldous, which is a typo fault of the wiki and me for not catching it
fwiw, Aldous has also been typed as IEE, he just isn't the right Huxley in this case

[1981slater]

Josh Radnor: ILE
(Ted: ILE)



Cobie Smulders: SEI
(Robin: SEI)

[Galen]

I'll give it a shot

Ne-ENTp: Jim Gaffigan
Ti-ENTp: Albert Einstein, Bobby Fischer, Al Yankovic
Si-ISFp: Sarah Chalke
Fe-ISFp: Britney Spears
Fe-ESFj: Johnny Carson, Robin Williams, my aunt Sue
Si-ESFj: My dad
Ti-INTj: Larry King
Ne-INTj: Gary Larson?, e. e. cummings?

Se-ESTp: Yayoi Kusama, Alex Borstein, Mike Tyson
Ti-ESTp: Liam Gallagher
Ni-INFp: Carl Jung
Fe-INFp: Kurt Cobain
Fe-ENFJ: Lucille Ball, Judy Garland
Ni-ENFj: Scarlett Johansson
Ti-ISTj:
Se-ISTj: Fred Phelps, Chris Langan?

Se-ESFp: Peter Gabriel
Fi-ESFj: Kylie Minogue, Amy Yasbeck
Ni-INTp: Dylan Moran
Te-INTp: John Mulaney
Te-ENTj: Adriano Celentano?
Ni-ENTj: Yukio Mishima, Rachel Maddow
Fi-ISFj:
Se-ISFj: Margaret Mitchell?

Ne-ENFp: Bill Lawrence, Olivia Munn
Fi-ENFp: Jemma Griffiths, Michael J. Fox
Si-ISTp: Dick Van Dyke, Chuck Norris
Te-ISTp: Neil Patrick Harris, Kentaro Kobayashi
Te-ESTj: Ian Anderson
Si-ESTj: John Wayne
Fi-INFj: Helen Keller
Ne-INFj: Morgan Freeman

[MatthewZ]

LII - Eric Idle, Michael Shanks, Emily Deschanel, Zachary Quinto, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Leonard Nimoy

All due respect, Krig, but I'm seeing a tendency to overtype people as LII, here.

[Krig the Viking]

All due respect, Krig, but I'm seeing a tendency to overtype people as LII, here.

This isn't really the thread for it, but if you want to discuss any of the people I listed, you're welcome to start a new thread. I'm always open to new evidence or reasoning I hadn't considered.

[Sol]

ILE - Hugh Grant
SEI - Amanda Bynes
ESE - Salma Hayek
LII - Keanu Reeves

EIE - Julia Roberts
LSI - Charles Bronson
SLE - Jack Nicholson
IEI - Gwyneth Paltrow

SEE - Whoopie Goldberg
ILI - Alan Rickman
LIE - Robert Redford
ESI - Barbra Streisand

LSE - Harrison Ford
EII - Emily Watson
IEE - Mena Suvari
SLI - Stephen Fry

[Gilly]

lol. Oprah is definitely EIE, but also an unbearably fake psychopath.

[Gilly]

I like Chris Langan as a benchmark Se-LSI. Pretty much everything about him screams it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Oprah is so interpersonally exploitative it's scary, same thing with the Hicks' nutcases.

"Okay Oprah I'd prefer if you'd keep that a secret, thanks!"

Oprah goes on to tell everybody she knows to boost up her own fame and career.

I guess we all do that to a degree, but the level of narcissistic interpersonal exploitation that woman does is just plain hilarious.

[Creepy-]

Two fictional ESIs:

- Doctor Ernst-Günther Schenck from "Der Untergang" (The Downfall) - the frowning bald professor;

- Lilly Squires from "Perfect Creature" - the police woman main character.


Both characters are IMO very good depictions of ESI, as in appearance and actions, but I have no opinion on the actors themselves. Christian Berkel (Schenck) played a credible Delta ST role as the barman in "Inglourious Basterds" and Saffron Burrows (Lilly) is allegedly known for Serena Stevens in "Law & Order: Criminal Intent", which I never watched. She looks Fi anyway.

Furthermore, Lilly's ESI values are pretty obvious: taking care of the populace behind the scenes, confidentiality to keep the situation under control for the sake of everyone, important matters, collaboration with authorities, risk/sacrifice if needed or only solution, responsibility, protective over the things and especially people who are important for the future, etc.

A bit off-topic: "important for the future" - of society, for example, the way they see it, which generally is humanist and coincides with adapting established values to contemporary changes and modern implementations of legacies. In this film, at the end, she takes the charge of protecting the first female vampire, which in fact is a change, but one that promises to ensure the current status-quo in the future, the symbiosis between man and vampire. This comes in contrast with Beta wishes for radical changes, though these are weakly represented in this movie only by the visions of Edgar (likely IEI), who's anyway a sick and mad loner.

-- Bolt

[mu4]

Feyman is a stereotypical LIE...

I disagree.

I think Feynman is ILE and Murray Gell-Man is ILI
Carver Mead(One of Feynman's students) is probably ILE or LII

If you look at the rivalry and conflict between Feynman and Murray Gell-Man, it's very stereotypical ILE and ILI rivalry. Althrough they could work together more or less, Feynman was always trying to show off on Gell-Man who was the pedant and critical of Feynman's showmanship.

If you look at Feynman's and Mead's scientific thought and methodology it's more inline with Einstein(ILE) and Schrodinger(ILE) vs Bohr(ILI).

[mu4]

Claude Frollo-LII

Frollo is probably LSI not LII, he tried used his authority to satisfy his sexual urges. Se ego, Si ID. Very jealous and vindictive and tries to kill Phobeus out of jealousy.

eh... I totally buy Balzac as ILI, but I don't buy Victor Hugo as anything other than an Ni-ego, and certainly not Ni-polr. I mean, I'm sure there are aspects of Hugo that typify the ESE, in sort of an external way... but he's unquestionably an Ni-ego, and almost as unquestionably beta. EIE is a far better typing for him. Also Hamlet isn't exactly right... but if Hamlet had a type, it would be EIE.

I don't know how you can consider Hugo a Ni-Ego. His writing is extensively concerned with the situation of his present day life and social conditions of the time, as well as his description of the injustices of his time. It is a study of the present and past situations, rather a vision or promotion of some unknown values. His writing is full of characters who are fully formed in their motivations so I think Fe leading is good, but his writing is more about fully fleshed characters, as if they were living and breathing beside you rather then visionary thinking and abstract symbolism.

If there is any characteristic of Hugo's writing, is that he presents so that you are there, sensing and feeling what he experienced through his life experiences.

[717495]

Fictional characters only work in so much as while typing their personality correctly, accepting that their intertype relations usually don't make any sense.

[The Ineffable]

If you look at Feynman's and Mead's scientific thought and methodology it's more inline with Einstein(ILE) and Schrodinger(ILE) vs Bohr(ILI).

Okay, I finally found a source where Aushra types Bohr as ILE - as she was typing Einstein the same. She was even exemplifying this type by it in discussions. I do type him as ILE and find this habit to claim he is ILI baseless.

But thinking of my type by the name of Don Quixote, but better - Niels (Bohr) is so inspired by it during any discussions that any epistolary expression of their thoughts more organized own thinking.
...
The best example - an example is not very successful collaboration between Einstein and Niels Bohr, though both belonged to the same type of personality and they both found their own track errors in science.

Ashton, if you read this: Please update your bullshit for future reference.

Edit: apparently she was arguing for why Niels Bohr is a better name than Don Quixote (1987).

[mu4]

Okay, I finally found a source where Aushra types Bohr as ILE - as she was typing Einstein the same. She was even exemplifying this type by it in discussions. I do type him as ILE and find this habit to claim he is ILI baseless.

Ashton, if you read this: Please update your bullshit for future reference.

Edit: apparently she was arguing for why Niels Bohr is a better name than Don Quixote (1987).

I think she's wrong, although she gave a explanation of it. The respectful rivals aspect of their relationship is more likely ILE and ILI relationship. Their mutual criticism of each other actually made them formulate some very insightful arguments based on their differing perspectives. Although they didn't collaborate together, their conflict could be seen as collaborative.

The biggest difference in thought in this debate was over Ne and Ni.

Ne: There is something there which underlies quantum reality.
Ni: We can't know and it doesn't matter as long as we can make observations and predictions.

This is a simplification but I think these represents their perspectives.

For Einstein, there was always a underlying cause which could be explained. Consequently, another ILE Schrodinger was in agreement with Einstein on this. He illustrating how absurd it would be for us to explain our reality based on the observer. Schrodinger's cat was the argument, and it illustrate the insensibility of the cat only being dead/alive after we had opened the box and observed the cat. The argument isn't something provable but based no realism. Just because we don't know if the cat is dead or alive doesn't mean the cat dies/is alive when we observe it.

Schrodinger and Einstein saw giants in the windmills when they kept on to their belief that there was something underlying all the uncertainty and problems of observation. They knew they could not counter Bohr's arguments without actually discovering the underlying cause which was unknown and even the means to investigate was unknown. We have much more evidence for Einstein and Schrodinger's perspective now as well as the invalidation of some of Bohr's predictions, but they clung to their guns back when it was impossible to substantiate. I think Don Quixote/Einstein/Schrodinger are a better representative of ILE then Bohr.

[The Ineffable]

I think Don Quixote/Einstein/Schrodinger are a better representative of ILE then Bohr.

I don't think so, this is my problem, as I typed him ILE independently (never new of Aushra's confession), probably you recall, the time when I was discussing the possibility of Einstein to be ILI. The fact is that in the debate, I was totally with him. It was obvious to me what their aims were:
- Bohr was rather trying to visualize how things really are, to find out intuitive means to figure out how it exactly is as that small level;
- Einstein's purpose was to rather come with an explanation that just makes sense, mathematically or whatever, to formalize it and put it on paper.

Now obviously, I was kinda pissed off by Einstein's approach, as I'm normally interested in exactly what's going on, instead of some formula that makes sense on paper, because, as a rule of thumb, I fear that hasty approach turns people towards a dead end and an era of mistake - look into the history, there were a lot of established "truths" that kept humanity in error for hundreds of years, even if they often "worked", and which only later were debunked.

It is unfortunate that you rely too much on the mainstream scientific media, a lot of these established "facts" are merely conventions. Of course, I am extremely skeptic in believing that people like Feynman would support mere synthetic (as in artificial) truths, still I strongly doubt that the matter of their conclusions - and side they supported - can somehow be type-related.

I don't think Bohr is ILE, regardless of what Aushra may have happened to type him at one point in time. She's not the definitive prophet on Socionics by any means and has been wrong before, and admitted to it.

Actually Bohr = ILE was a certainty that grew along the time in Aushra, as long as she began using him as an example for this type, even up to the point of proposing to exchange Don for Niels. I find hard to believe that you can better understand the essence of ILE than Aushra, especially since your conclusions and explanations are rather based on obfuscated language semantics and equivocations, than real research.

Your red herring rather makes me dismiss your opinion entirely, as you don't even prospect the possibility - which is more reasonable - that her later view was more rigorously validated than her previous ones.

hkkmr's explanation as to the crucial difference between Einstein (ILE) vs. Bohr (ILI) makes a great deal of sense in terms of justifying these typings.

I find your justification laughable... you base your claim on his understanding which in turn, is an artificial construct based on these old prejudices. I'm sorry, but once someone's understanding is based on wrong assumptions, how can he justify his these assumptions by his own understanding? That's circular reasoning.

Acceptance of uncertainty as something fundamental to nature itself, seems to be a very -centric theme (which Bohr echoed). Whereas for ILEs—especially in light of having a Causal-Determinist cognitive style—such justifications can be especially bothersome.

LOL, is this the WTF of the day?
---

@hkkmr: I would love to discuss this further in the future, just I don't have time to enter into details right now, I rather wanted to let you know this fact in order to think about it.

[mu4]

- Bohr was rather trying to visualize how things really are, to find out intuitive means to figure out how it exactly is as that small level;

- Einstein's purpose was to rather come with an explanation that just makes sense, mathematically or whatever, to formalize it and put it on paper.

I think you're wrong here. Bohr said that we could not know how things really are or where it will be, there is only statistical probability. His explainable of the universe is cause agnostic but mathematically representable.

Einstein's challenge was that although we could not yet observe the fundamental causes of the universe, it was still there and maybe even explainable in time and there was no reason to stop investigation. Bohr was the formalist.

Now obviously, I was kinda pissed off by Einstein's approach, as I'm normally interested in exactly what's going on, instead of some formula that makes sense on paper, because, as a rule of thumb, I fear that hasty approach turns people towards a dead end and an era of mistake - look into the history, there were a lot of established "truths" that kept humanity in error for hundreds of years, even if they often "worked", and which only later were debunked.

You're mixing up the people here as well because Bohr's obfuscation of quantum mechanic is what caused by some people's opinion a theoretical dark age in quantum mechanics.

http://bebekim.wordpress.com/2009/10...can-spectator/

Remember, this is a description of Bohr and Schrodinger and Einstein without any knowledge of socionics but by a important engineer and scientist, as well as student and collegue of Feynman.

It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.

Orthodoxy has always been with Bohr, not Einstein.

It is unfortunate that you rely too much on the mainstream scientific media, a lot of these established "facts" are merely conventions. Of course, I am extremely skeptic in believing that people like Feynman would support mere synthetic (as in artificial) truths, still I strongly doubt that the matter of their conclusions - and side they supported - can somehow be type-related.

Mainstream scientific media is Copenhagen interpretation, which is not really visualization but obscured by abstractions and a view created by the limitations of its time.

It was Einstein who was able to visualize the possibilities and make the right call about coherent phenomenons such as Bose-Einstein condensate and the like. These are not possible by just a statistical model, you have to make some assumptions about the underlying cause, you actually have to visualize that cause.

There is no possible way you can convince me that Bohr was a more realistic visualizer of how the world worked than Einstein, because Einstein was able to visualize undiscovered phenomenon in his head while Bohr could only say very loudly that we couldn't know.

[mu4]

But this sort of inherent indeterminism makes some people (like Einstein) uncomfortable, and remains a philosophical-scientific quandary to this day as you pointed out. Personally, I prefer Born's view.

I think it's where one makes the leap of faith, because there is speculation about determination being done, just how it is done is different.

Causal determinism is about making some hypothesis about the underlying cause of some event. This is only substantiated with the observation.

But believing that the observer/believer of the event is the determinant of the consequence of the action is also determinism, but without any introspection into the chain of processes.

I hold that there is underlying unknown causes which determine the observations we see today, which may be unknowable. I'm OK with that.

However say that someone say, if you open the box and the cat is dead and it wasn't dead or alive before the box was opened. I'm not OK with that.

Also things like if you choose out of free will to believe in God, then you will go to heaven, and if you choose out of free will to not believe in God, then you will go to hell. This is just another form of determinism, and free will in this particular scenario is the cause and not just the cause, the final cause.

Ultimately, I choose not to let my "final cause" be either observation or choice, but rather something I investigate.

[717495]

Bump. Let's keep going with this, but remember to follow the rules in the OP: no type debates here please.

Here is a page with famous benchmarks http://socionics.org/type/celebs.html and from this list, celebrities selected in order of youtube search results:

ILE - Albert Einstein 6120, Dustin Hoffman 5110, Jamie Lee Curtis 3000, Jeff Goldblum 2940
SEI - Barbra Streisand 7070, Kevin Spacey 5060
ESE - Paul McCartney 134000, Bill Clinton 6670, Sandra Bullock 6340, Courtney Love 5880, Liza Minnelli 5710, Juliette Binoche 1660
LII - Al Gore 6770, Vladimir Putin 5850, Kevin Costner 5130, Patricia Kaas 4110

EIE - George W. Bush 10700, Charlie Chaplin 6650, Mylene Farmer 6040, David Copperfield 5730, Mickey Rourke 5710, Annette Bening 1550
LSI - Clint Eastwood 6400, Pierce Brosnan 5880, Saddam Hussein 5850, Steven Seagal 5840, Charles Bronson 4930, Don Johnson 3880, Donald Rumsfeld 3480, Glenn Close 1890
SLE - Madonna 356000, Hillary Clinton 7340, Al Pacino 6320, Anthony Hopkins 5710, Marlon Brando 5570 ,Russell Crowe 5540, Michael Douglas 5230, Dennis Hopper 4700
IEI - Jennifer Aniston 6500, Edward Norton 5310, Hugh Grant 4930, Lisa Kudrow 3230, Ray Bradbury - 2070

LIE - Brad Pitt 7200, Bill Gates 6850, Matt Damon 6360, John F. Kennedy 6280, Tony Blair 6180, Julia Roberts 5940, Sigourney Weaver 5370, Uma Thurman 5170, Robert Redford 4200
ESI - Brigitte Bardot 5390, Julianne Moore 4280, Michelle Pfeiffer 3220, Jacqueline Kennedy 1140
SEE - Britney Spears 472000, Elvis Presley 175000, Drew Barrymore 5760, Elizabeth Taylor 5680, Goldie Hawn 1630
ILI - John Lennon 164000, Woody Allen 5840, Carl Jung 2640

LSE - Milla Jovovich 5730, Gillian Anderson 3800, Sophia Loren 3600, Margaret Thatcher 3570, Helen Hunt 2320
EII - Gwyneth Paltrow 5840, Ralph Fiennes 5510, David Duchovny 4420, Jeremy Irons 2540, Carrie Fisher 1760
IEE - Steve Jobs 7420, Robin Williams 6120, Jude Law 5880, Whoopi Goldberg 5670, Bertrand Russell 2000
SLI - Angelina Jolie 12200, Mel Gibson 6500, Meryl Streep 6330, Renee Zellweger 4930, Harvey Keitel 2350

[ragnar]

ILE - Richard A. Muller
SEI - Shlomo Artzi
ESE - Donald Duck
LII - Kurt Godel

SLE - Donald Trump
IEI - Dr James Dobson, Ken Livingstone, Dana Plato
EIE - Oprah Winfrey, Monica Lewinsky
LSI - Adolf Eichmann, Vladimir Putin

SEE - Deborah Harry, Penn Jill ette
ILI - Leo Szilard, Donald Knuth, John Horton Conway, Raymond Joseph Teller
LIE - Edward Teller, Condaleezza Rice, Benyamin Netanyahu, Henry Kissinger
ESI - Joan Collins, Johnny Carson

IEE - Geraldo Rivera, Dina Gusovsky
SLI - Clint Eastwood
LSE - James Randi
EII - Ralph Nader

[The Ineffable]

Al Bundy - ESTp

I'm surprised to find Bundy typed correctly on the forum . Good. And Peg is EIE (ENFj).

[Saberstorm]

We need a modern day famous American to be the Delta SLI! I have no idea who to pick. Think of a "down-to-earth tool using introvert with difficulties with Fe." How about Gargamel from the Smurfs!!




Gargamel is not really all that great with the "Ni" magic, so I bet it is a role function. All that Ni is a false face, a front intended to prevent him from sliding into a mental crisis. He does not value the Ni (magic)I bet he consideres it pretty low margin work compared to raking his garden and setting up mechanical traps. Never thought of what would happen if he really got a smurf. Judicious body language, aristocratic, and serious... introverted delta thinking type.

[The Ineffable]

i was gonna suggest rabin instead (for istp), the assassinated israeli prime minister. at least that's what i gather from the little that i know.

But how many people know that guy? I personally have no idea about him.

Gargamel is not really all that great with the "Ni" magic, so I bet it is a role function. All that Ni is a false face, a front intended to prevent him from sliding into a mental crisis. He does not value the Ni (magic)I bet he consideres it pretty low margin work compared to raking his garden and setting up mechanical traps. Never thought of what would happen if he really got a smurf. Judicious body language, aristocratic, and serious... introverted delta thinking type.

He appears Extroverted Rational - purposeful, determined, a doer and insensitive when it comes to his goals. Based on your far-fetched inference, he could be Si-Creative (ESE or LSE).

[nanashi]

I'll give it a shot

Ne-ENTp: Jim Gaffigan
Ti-ENTp: Albert Einstein, Bobby Fischer, Al Yankovic
Si-ISFp: Sarah Chalke
Fe-ISFp: Britney Spears
Fe-ESFj: Johnny Carson, Robin Williams, my aunt Sue
Si-ESFj: My dad
Ti-INTj: Larry King
Ne-INTj: Gary Larson?, e. e. cummings?

Se-ESTp: Yayoi Kusama, Alex Borstein, Mike Tyson
Ti-ESTp: Liam Gallagher
Ni-INFp: Carl Jung
Fe-INFp: Kurt Cobain
Fe-ENFJ: Lucille Ball, Judy Garland
Ni-ENFj: Scarlett Johansson
Ti-ISTj:
Se-ISTj: Fred Phelps, Chris Langan?

Se-ESFp: Peter Gabriel
Fi-ESFj: Kylie Minogue, Amy Yasbeck
Ni-INTp: Dylan Moran
Te-INTp: John Mulaney
Te-ENTj: Adriano Celentano?
Ni-ENTj: Yukio Mishima, Rachel Maddow
Fi-ISFj:
Se-ISFj: Margaret Mitchell?

Ne-ENFp: Bill Lawrence, Olivia Munn
Fi-ENFp: Jemma Griffiths, Michael J. Fox
Si-ISTp: Dick Van Dyke, Chuck Norris
Te-ISTp: Neil Patrick Harris, Kentaro Kobayashi
Te-ESTj: Ian Anderson
Si-ESTj: John Wayne
Fi-INFj: Helen Keller
Ne-INFj: Morgan Freeman

I definitely see Rachel Maddow as someone who thinks and acts like I do. She reminds me of Ashton (LIE), too