Some Comedians

[silverchris9]

Katt Williams





I'm thinking Alpha NT, but that's sort of an odd typing, so I should probably get another one. I'm almost positive he's an intuitive type over a sensory type.


Steve Byrne





ST, I'm almost positive, I'm thinking SLE, honestly. But I'm afraid of over-typing SLE, so shrug.


Bob Sagat





BETA. ROFL. And got famous for being in two of the most delta shows of all time. No wonder he has tourette's now. Probably a beta extrovert (introverted subtype though), not sure which one.


Chelsea Handler



Se-ego. I kinda want to type her SLE too. It's not my fault! Comedy is all about the Fi-polr, yo!


Dane Cook

Do I really need to post a youtube video of Dane Cook? SEE, SLE, EIE. CLEAR extrovert, yes, in the socionics sense. (Dichotomies aren't dead!)


Chris Rock



I really think Chris Rock might be IEI-Fe (sidenote: IEIs are all over rap). He's a clear introvert, btw.


And also, I'm trying to think of a clear Fi-valuing comedian. The You Might Be a Redneck guy is probably gamma. Jimmy Kimmel's girlfriend is probably ILI.


So yeah. Type any and all por favor.

[xerx]

Why not Beta extrovert for Kat Williams and Alpha NT for Bob Saget?
Agree with all the rest. Right on for Chris Rock as IEI.

[Creepy-male]

Steven Wright: ILI (by THA's typing, I agree)



Clearly Fe-devaluing. Jokes run on disorienting Ni worldplay.

[xerx]

Steven Wright: ILI (by THA's typing, I agree)

YouTube - Steven Wright on Letterman: 1990

Clearly Fe-devaluing. Jokes run on disorienting Ni worldplay.

Totally 100% agree with ILI. I was thinking of him too before you posted that. Read my mind.

[Creepy-male]

Honestly he seems more to me than anything else.

Well, if you parse his jokes, the humour comes from how the internal logic flows so... bizarrely.

eg: "I was out driving in the desert, and this flying saucer comes out, and these aliens appear that are three feet tall, and I ask, "Are you really three feet tall?" "Nah we're just really far away"."

I think of Ne humour being more like SpongeBob SquarePants, for example the fact that the entire series is built around transposing a primary school boy into an "adult" world (Mr Krabbs is his dad, "driving" school, the fact alone that he acts like a little boy, etc) that still behaves identically to the sort of world a schoolboy would inhabit; as opposed to just being "random".

[silverchris9]

typings

Those strike me as odd (your typings of the ones I posted), but I didn't have strongly-considered opinions, so I'm willing to accept that I could be way off. I might come back and argue Bob Saget, though. For one, the way he messes with that kid in the "That's Not Right" special screams Fi-nonvaluer. Also the way he's constantly apologizing for his constant rude jokes, but not stopping the rude jokes at all reminds me a little of a kind of morality you see a lot in betas: this sort of "I know that what I'm currently doing is universally wrong, like, there's a rule against it, I shouldn't be doing it... but I kinda don't care and it's not really doing any harm is it, except it might be hurting someone's feelings, but hey it doesn't look like they're going to go commit suicide or anything soooo..." Not that you don't get betas who are consequentialists, but that interplay of consequentialism and moral rules that are detached from the effect of the action on the individual seems very beta to me.

Also, you HAVE seen real Bob Saget, right? Because I would type Full House Bob Saget and America's Funniest Home Videos Bob Saget as SLI in a heartbeat. But that Bob Saget is a LIE!!! (as in, a falsehood, not a socionics type). The real Bob Saget jokes about fucking Kimmy whatever her name is and uses the word cock in every other sentence. And doesn't have an introverted vibe to me at all. Granted that he's a performer, but many performers will clearly come off as introverts in interviews (Eminem, Prince), and Bob Saget does not. Danny Tanner from Full House is a clear introvert though.

Sacha Baren Cohen is what I was looking for. He has that non-Fe humor. Even with SEEs, you can feel some degree of Fe, because that's their demonstrative, so they still have Fe, it's just covert. But Gamma NTs, they'll still be hilarious but they'll have like no Fe and it's weird. It's not what I expect. I feel it a little bit from Craig Ferguson too. Not from Wanda Sykes. But she's probably less dualized than Ferguson, especially coming up in the HEAVILY Fe-oriented world of black (as in African-American) comedy, i.e., Steve Harvey, Eddie Murphy (probs. that older guy whose name I don't remember too).

[silverchris9]

Why not Beta extrovert for Kat Williams and Alpha NT for Bob Saget?
Agree with all the rest. Right on for Chris Rock as IEI.

Well, Katt Williams is obviously not SLE---no SLE vibe from him whatsoever. The other three beta types would merit consideration, but KW is like 100% not an SLE. His energy isn't "volitional" in nature. If he had to persuade somebody to do what he wanted them to do, he wouldn't even think to use power (be it power in the form of leverage or in the form of simply taking command); he'd either be funny or use emotional manipulation (which I suppose takes LII out, and he doesn't have EJ energy, really). EIE is a possibility... but I get such a logical vibe from him, yet he's OBVIOUSLY Fe-valuing over Fi-valuing (he has that Fe cadence of emotion, all about the internal motion), which leaves alpha NT or LSI, and I really don't get even a whisper of Se-ego from him. Shrug. Maybe EIE.

ILE is the only non-beta type I'd consider for Bob Saget. He does have a sort of random motion, a certain discursiveness that I might associate with Ne by stereotype. But then, I exhibit said discursiveness myself when I don't reign myself in deliberately. So... shrug.

[silverchris9]

Haha. You obviously haven't heard ISTps talk shit before. They're major assholes like that lol. It's awful, worse than anything I've ever heard from Betas.

Um... ugh... maybe... he doesn't seem like he's delta to me at all. I've never met a "talk shit" SLI. All the ones I know are nice. Ergh. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm blinded by the non-PC language. I should actually analyze him seriously. Still... he acts like a beta.

Craig Ferguson interview!

[xerx]

For Sasha Baron Cohen, I like the case for IEE. His act is mostly aimed at finding the personality people are hiding behind a social mask then exposing it for what it is, which could be understood in the context of using as a game to attract attention to +.

The funny thing is that my LSI dad had a visceral gut reaction to him and couldn't stand him. He considers what he does to be completely rude and unacceptable, and that he shouldn't expose people's motives in such a surreptitious and underhanded manner.

He's also married to Isla Fisher whom I believe is a strong case for Si ego, probably Alpha SF.

[Marie84]

ILE for Sagat?

[Marie84]

For Sasha Baron Cohen, I like the case for IEE. His act is mostly aimed at finding the personality people are hiding behind a social mask then exposing it for what it is, which could be understood in the context of using as a game to attract attention to +.

The funny thing is that my LSI dad had a visceral gut reaction to him and couldn't stand him. He considers what he does to be completely rude and unacceptable, and that he shouldn't expose people's motives in such a surreptitious and underhanded manner.

He's also married to Isla Fisher whom I believe is a strong case for Si ego, probably Alpha SF.

I think so too

[717495]

Any type can talk shit. You can be attracted to people who don't talk shit and have people you don't like in your quadra. There's not going to be people in one quadra who mostly like talking shit or something. Seems way too overgeneralized.

[xerx]

He is making fun of and exposing social masks… but I think it's ultimately more about just laughing at seeing what he can get away with. He's not really going out of his way to find people's real personality or what have you, or something hidden behind their social facades, etc. It's nothing that deep IMO, its a lot simpler than that. And the fact that there's not really any great message or meaning behind it is a lot of what makes it so funny.

I think the particulars of what he does is purposely kept ambiguous to attract an audience, so none of this can be known for sure. What I said was that I liked the case for IEE as a corollary to the idea that he tests people's personalities and uses Fe as a game. So the typing is more conditional and hinges on that than anything. [EDIT: even so, there is certainly an element of purposeful deception involved and trying to trick his guest into making mistakes.]

Nevertheless, I never got the impression that he was either Fe ego or LIE, as you propose, so I favor IEE until otherwise convinced.

Isla Fisher is ESTp I'm pretty sure. I can see how she superficially comes off α-SF, but on closer inspection I'd insist that she isn't one.

Interesting typing that I probably wouldn't have thought of. Why do you think so?

[Gilly]

Dude Bob Saget is fucking hilarious.

[silverchris9]

Well, yeah. Of course most ISTps are going to nice people—most individuals of ALL types are going to be nice people. α, β, γ, δ, what have you. But you'll also find asshole people with crude tongues populating every quadra as well. β doesn't have a monopoly on shit-talking and/or being politically incorrect. Not by a long-shot. That's just another myth that needs to hurry up and die.

Well... that's a long conversation. it's a stereotype that's popular on this board, and... there is some truth to the concept that betas are "extreme," I think. And I don't think that Bob Saget is un-nice in a moral way, just in an interpersonal way, although I do think he is "rancid" like Mercutio and the Nurse. ...so sure, crudeness doesn't automatically equal beta. But indifference to how one's actions impact others' inner world (the long term stable inner world, as opposed to the feelings of the moment, the emotional rise and fall) or the part of the inner world that I don't have a better word for than feelings is Fi-nonvaluing.

Eh, how though? Saget seems pretty low-key there and not very -valuing in the least. BTW, good -ish commentary by Ferguson at 5:35-6:00.

He acts like a beta in that he is a likeable jackass. Non-likeable jackasses are delta. Likeable jackasses are always beta, or at least gamma. Dur.

Serious note, he does come off a hell of a lot more introverted than I would have expected in that interview. On the other hand, anybody would come off more introverted and introspective after their dad has just died, so maybe that's not a good example. There has to be some way to type his style of humor---he can attach a "dirty" connotation to almost anything, and the way he goes about that can surely be typed somehow.

Do we get the "volitional" vibe from Bob Saget? You can say that Se doesn't involve "force," but certainly it has a certain directional aspect to it, much like Fe has a waveform sort of aspect. Either Se has a directional aspect, or something else does and I need to go and found my own theory, because I can see it a mile away. And if I'm imagining it, all the better, I guess that just means I can write it in a play... He certainly pretends to give commands, but that's not something most people accept for typing... his stage persona reminds me so much of a beta. Not just the cussing, that's whatever, but... maybe it's just the fact that Bob Saget comes off as unintentionally emotionally naked. Maybe I just want to claim him for my quadra because he comes off as a really interesting figure, apart from whether or not he's funny.

Is there any positive evidence for SLI? I don't see focus on Si, except that some country music you can type as Si-y (not meaning that only Si-valuers like it, but there's a correlation), peaceful, relaxing, not jarring stimulation seeking, not seeking something to disrupt the stability but something to lead you through the garden path as it were. And where is the Fe-polr? He doesn't seem indifferent to or detached from the emotional consequence he produces in the room (although I get the sense that he doesn't follow his own emotional processes terribly well). He seems very much aware of it and in tune with it. Now, you could just say that's what a performer does. There has to be something differentiating a crude beta from a crude delta, perhaps I could clarify that and apply it to Bob Saget. I really don't buy him as SLI. What's SLI about him. He acts like he's stimulation seeking in the Se way. He seems like he wants to shake the room up. Si-leading types don't feel that way to me. IP types don't feel that way to me, even in performance you can tell the difference, especially if they're performing as themselves. I've seen IP comedians, they're so much more... passive, even in performing it's this sly implication rather than an attention "grab". But maybe he doesn't. Maybe I'm projecting that on to him.

Also, if this Entourage self-parody is anything like he actually is (the majority of the time), I don't buy any IP typing.



Not that IPs can't enter hyperactive (like Jacques after he sees Touchstone in the forest in As You Like It, a scene which was played dreadfully in the Kenneth Branagh movie), but if that's a usual energy state (even if it's self-parody, if that's the general characteristic, just dialed-up), EP or EJ would be way more fitting. In fact, I'd be much quicker to accept an LSE typing than an SLI typing. I could see LSE, actually, although even then, he seems a little too slick or smooth for an LSE, which could be explained away, I'm sure, he does make his living in Hollywood.

Actually, watching two interviews, he may just be a damn good performer. But I mean, he fucks with people.



Do SLIs fuck with people? That just seems counter to Si, even? But then, it's a job, so I can almost buy it; I mean, that's what comedians do. But... I'm having serious issues with an SLI typing. There should even be some degree of passivity, we would expect some degree of passivity, of live and let live, he seems like Se to me, fuck with people as a way of life, as a way of seeing what will happen, as a way of learning about the world... But then I'm beginning to doubt the Se typing. Ergh. I'm still leaning beta pretty hard. I can't tell. Maybe it's his comedian persona. But this seems to be a productive uncertainty. I usually type by vibe, anyway.

EDIT:
Also, he is apparently good friends with Uncle Not-John-Stamos, and that guy does seem IEE. So score one for DeltaBob.

[xerx]

I never suggested he was ego, and afaik you never did either. I agree he does use as a 'game'—which could easily be explained as him using (or abusing lol) his Role function.

Another point worth mentioning is that he exhibits more of an EJ>EP temperament.

I never suggested that you suggested he was Fe ego. Just that this was a frequent suggestion for him. Why is he more EJ?

As much as I hate such stereotypes, she just seems more outwardly 'forceful' than I would ever anticipate from an α-SF. Reminds me a lot of an Se-ESTp cousin of mine actually.

She looks way too fucking wired. A more frequent disposition of -valuers and especially many ego females.

She doesn't seem that forceful to me, sort of has a perfect temperament actually. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with "wired".

[silverchris9]

Yeah, they fuck with people. Why not? I fuck with people too, though not often. It can feel like a imperative where you're genuinely curious just to see what the hell a person will do in reaction—just because. For no purpose or intention other than just wanting to see it and know it.

Sure. Beta comedians later. But now, this doesn't sound like Te to me, or doesn't sound like my conception of it. Of all the functions, I'd imagine Te would be the least likely to do things "just because," and certainly not a just because that involves somebody's reaction. I mean, if you view it purely in an action-reaction sense, perhaps, and of course IMs are less about what and more about how. Still, in general, acting on people to see how they react is usually done in order to deduce properties about the person acted upon, in other words, it's very Se, like in that thread I started in General Discussion. Manipulating objects in order to find out something about them. Now, you could make a case that Te would be interested in a person's reaction viewed in a purely external dynamics way: what action produces what reaction, rather than what static property can we deduce. But overall, I'd say Te is the function least interested in reactions of other people for their own sakes, simply because Te isn't interested in anything for its own sake, not if you believe in the "optimization" idea of Te. I mean, messing with people makes sense in the Se context of revealing properties about the person/object, especially "how weak, how strong." But in the context of Te... what would you call that, gathering data about action-reaction pairs? But how can human actions and reactions ever really be factual. I'd figure that Te would be wary of that sort of "data." I guess my point is that it seems like a needless expense of energy, something that is opposed both by the Te element of the typing and by the IP element of the typing. Like in the sign language video, I don't see that Saget has assessed the situation and determined that his act is going to be funnier if he messes with the sign language guy. In fact, messing with the sign language guy seems like a distraction from his actual jokes. It seems rather that he just has a sort of compulsory mess with people impulse, which a) seems Fi-devaluing (not strong evidence, but evidence), insofar as it is rather inconsiderate, and b) fits with the model of Se as a function interested in manipulating objects as a basic way of learning about the world (and as such as an inherent good).

So, sum up, I don't see how curiosity about how a person will react in a given situation would be neither internal (questions about motivation, internal state of the subject, invisible qualities, what's s/he like), nor static (what does my manipulation or experience of the object tell me about what that object is). As such, a regular pattern of "messing with people" to gauge their reaction seems to point away from Te. OTOH, you could simply argue that it's a function of Ne-superid (which, again, I would buy more as emotionally clumsy LSE Ne HA than as SLI Ne DS). I acknowledge that there may be an external dynamics POV from which to look into a person's reactions, but I find it doubtful that this sort of "fuck with them to see what they will do" attitude would be typical of an external dynamic function like Te (or Si, for that matter).

[silverchris9]

typings

Maybe not on topic, but I'd question the South Park typings (I've thought ILE-SEI since listening to an interview with them on NPR). And I've never thought of Roseanne as SLE, though Rosie O'Donnell (unfortunately) makes sense as SLE. Tom Green's another one I've always thought was alpha. Granted I haven't researched him seriously, but... Oh, and Jim Carey. I've always liked Jim Carey, but he's another one that I've always typed ILE > SLE. I think I'll go back and watch some interviews with Jim Carey though.

[Gilly]

Timothy Leary is either EIE or LIE, Ni sub. Tom Green is no fucking ST, probably ILE or some really fucking weird IEI.

[Gilly]

Yeah sorry, Bob Saget is LSI-Se.

[Creepy-male]

Timothy Leary is dead.

But yeah, EIE.

EDIT

Yeah sorry, Bob Saget is LSI-Se.

Welcome home, Gilly.

[Gilly]

I'm not saying shit. I don't know shit.

[Gilly]

Hey, you're the one who's all about typing by subjective reactions. That man is my fucking dual, and he reminds me INFINITELY of someone I previously typed as LSI-Se.

[Creepy-male]

INFINITE REMINIIIIIIISCEEEEEEEEEEENCE.

[Crispy]

Timothy Leary is either EIE or LIE, Ni sub. Tom Green is no fucking ST, probably ILE or some really fucking weird IEI.

According to VI, Tom Green is indeed ILE
Intuitive-logical extravert (Don Quixote, The Seeker)

[Gilly]

But he's such an obviously passive little IP monkey. God what the hell are you guys seeing in this man, seriously? It's just fucking Bob Saget lol.

Lol exactly! That's why he was perfect for the Full House shit: he's just this stable IJ dad, the ultimate phlegmatic, totally unflappable, not even in the sense of being super strong or courageous or some shit, but he just has that incredibly stable vibe, like everything could go wrong and he'd just roll his eyes and be like "Aww fuck, not again." Exactly why he is my dual.

[Aiss]

typings

What do you type Jimmy Carr?

[xerx]

He moves like a rational type, note rigidity in movements and posture. Facial movements and speech also indicate a Dynamic psychological orientation.

I see. I don't associate rigidity of movements with rationality.

It's a figure of speech:

5. Slang Very stimulated or excited, as from a stimulant or a rush of adrenaline.

I don't associate that with valuing. Do you have a non-VI reason that he may be an LIE?

[Gilly]

I would see Saget as LIE, even, before SLI.

[xerx]

That wasn't about him.

For real? No kidding.

And yes, I had inserted a description of Dynamics, which he fits better if you watch the accompanying videos.

Not seeing it.

[Gilly]

Lol, Bob Saget caused Gilly to have an identity crisis. That's funnier than shit.

That is pretty funny

No, I'm just a little loopy today

[ashlesha]

joe rogan, SLE

[silverchris9]

South Park is so typically β though lol. How could they not be?



I thought Tom Green was α too initially (I figured ENTp). But upon researching him more, he stands out more β.



I think there's something of a misleading association that anything dorky/geeky/whatever must be α. Hence the tendency to type Carrey and Green as α because they fit more generally with that kind of schtick. But it isn't always true.

I'm glad that you're intelligent but have different typings than me. That's productive.

Now, as for Jim Carrey, it's not just the dorky/geeky thing. The "persona" that Jim Carrey got famous for is very much Ne. Of all the functions, Ne is the purest "let's do shit because we can" function. Ne is the function that is most likely to ask "why not" rather than "why" when it comes to taking action. And Jim Carrey got famous for just doing stupid stuff, just, "why not go take some dude's sweater?" "why not make a random funny voice here?" It's random-funny. Not saying that other types can't do random, but if someone makes a whole career off of random-funny (+ some "gross-out" humor), it points towards Alpha NT, imo.

Jim Carrey seems much more as though he would be seeking stability and relaxation (Si) for an all over the place mind (Ne) than forecasts of what will happen as a result of his actions (Ni). He actually reminds me of Robin Williams:



This seems like Ne to me. What do you think? Actually, I think Robin Williams and Jim Carrey are very similar, especially in their career paths, with this getting famous being silly then all of a sudden being a serious actor out of nowhere. The intellectualism that comes out hidden behind the supreme randomness seems characteristic of ILEs. But I could be off!

[Creepy-male]

Robin Williams is ESE. And also bipolar, and tends to do his work when he's manic, obscuring his typing.

Why is he ESE? Think of the film Jack. It's almost autobiographical: a small boy trapped in the body of a grown man. Semi-serious

All of his comedy films are basically about a guy with good cheer running around making everyone's life fantastic and fun and awesome and how wonderful and happy life is. They're pure ESE.

Jim Carrey is another clear Fe dominant. His humour style is based around being CRAZY WHAT THE HELL OVER THE TOP LOLZZZZZZZ!!!!!1!111!!1!1! Randomness be damned, the Fe just pours out of that guy. As for whether EIE or ESE, I don't have a real opinion.

Fe humour is often characteristically direct, it's a targeted assault on your funny bone, as an extension of how Fe likes to deftly manipulate emotions and passions. It can come out with randomness, like Jim Carrey, or the ENDLESS ASSAULT of Robin Williams. Compare with Tom Cruise, who uses Fe for non-comedic purposes (his jumping around on Oprah is a really exaggerated example, but an example nonetheless).

[Ave]

(Chris Rock) Fi-ENFp. Yes, I swear it.

Nah, No way Id say Ni ENTj, Ive posted before the man is ENTj i dont know wy im the only one seeing it.

[silverchris9]

Robin Williams is ESE. And also bipolar, and tends to do his work when he's manic, obscuring his typing.

Why is he ESE? Think of the film Jack. It's almost autobiographical: a small boy trapped in the body of a grown man. Semi-serious

All of his comedy films are basically about a guy with good cheer running around making everyone's life fantastic and fun and awesome and how wonderful and happy life is. They're pure ESE.

Jim Carrey is another clear Fe dominant. His humour style is based around being CRAZY WHAT THE HELL OVER THE TOP LOLZZZZZZZ!!!!!1!111!!1!1! Randomness be damned, the Fe just pours out of that guy. As for whether EIE or ESE, I don't have a real opinion.

Fe humour is often characteristically direct, it's a targeted assault on your funny bone, as an extension of how Fe likes to deftly manipulate emotions and passions. It can come out with randomness, like Jim Carrey, or the ENDLESS ASSAULT of Robin Williams. Compare with Tom Cruise, who uses Fe for non-comedic purposes (his jumping around on Oprah is a really exaggerated example, but an example nonetheless).

I might buy Robin Williams, but Jim Carrey is in no way Fe-dominant. Fe dominance is... more precise than Jim Carrey, even if it's not more controlled. It has emotional content. Whereas Jim Carrey's comedy doesn't really have emotional content. Jim Carrey (as a comedian) is one-note emotionally: he's happy/dopey. Has been, as far as I can tell, his whole career. The Ace Ventura character (as it remember it) mines comedy from being emotionally unflappable; that is, his internal disposition doesn't change no matter what happens to him (except maybe if he gets angry). This is also known as stupid/emotionally clueless, whatever. Now, Carrey can play an emotionally nuanced character well, but this came to him secondarily, as something he learned over time rather than the part of his gift that came naturally/spontaneously, i.e., Fe HA. The part of Jim Carrey's talent that came naturally is more Ne-related: bouncy, all over the place. Hyperactive =/= Fe or Ne or anything (except maybe extroverted), but the kind of hyperactivity, the randomness, the skipping from thought to thought to thought, the "why not" approach to just doing random shit, is Ne-related. Even the classic stereotype of possibilities applies here. Jim Carrey isn't consciously focused on the emotional dynamic of the room like an Fe-dominant. He's focused on the doing whatever comes to mind, crazy, even "kiddy" (alpha is the "kid" quadra, remember) part of performance. Like a big funny ILE clown with hidden Ti/Fe depths. So, yeah, if you're SEI, Jim Carrey's your dual. Have fun.

Also, I think the comparison still stands, even if Robin Williams is the other alpha extrovert (and yeah, ESE does seem more obvious for him, I will say), because it's still a good example of a very Ne/Fe comedy. Williams is overall weighted towards the Fe, perhaps. But Carrey is weighted more towards the Ne, imo.


Back to Bob Saget

I don't know…he consistently seems like I said, pretty low-key. He doesn't appear quite that rambunctious or stimulation-seeking to me as he seems to you.

Yeah, he does seem low-key in some interviews, but then he seems high-strung in performance, and then he seems super-low key in Full House. So therefore he's an EIE 3 chameleon. lol.

Why? It would be easy to view human beings detachedly in a purely operational sense fitting to . As external mechanical objects with basic key properties, certain psychological thresholds and response parameters, etc. Something to poke, prod, experiment on, and record causal data about. Yes, it's a cold-blooded perspective to view human beings under and probably not very healthy.

Exactly. That's why they would be very unlikely to do that as a constant or regular state, because the data they gather wouldn't be very reliable or useful. That is a good explication of how Te would assess people in the way we're talking about devoid of Fi though, I think.

Well, a lot of people of all types like to 'fuck with people'. I'm just offering a hypothetical viewpoint of why a ego might be motivated to do so.

But we're talking questions of likelihood. Who's more likely to view people that way, deltas or betas, Te or Se/Fe? I say the latter. Obviously no one piece of evidence can provide conclusive proof of a type, but this one does seem weighted to the "more beta" side, to me. The behavior is a more natural "fit" with Se/Fe than with Te, imo, except perhaps as Ne HA as I said.

[silverchris9]

What gives you that impression? I'm not sure how I would pick up on something like that.

That's a good question. Ummm... it's just what I imagine. Let's see. I imagine the Ne/Si dynamic as being rather like the Ne person's mind is constantly spinning, what can I do next, what can I do next, always in motion. This is a a general EP thing, but I think it differs from Se hyperactivity in that I think Se is more like "get an impulse; act on it" whereas Ne is more like "permanent impulse to think of things to do." So Se needs Ni to say "hey, before you act on that impulse, here's what will happen." Whereas Ne needs Si to say, "you know, you don't have to constantly DO stuff and constantly follow your permutations and such. You can just sit here and relax." Jim Carrey seems less like he has impulses that he acts on and more like he is just permanently set to "think of something random to do." Now, that's also his comic persona, so hey. In other words, Se hyperactivity seems to me directed, whereas Jim Carrey's hyperactivity does not seem directed to me, it seems random in the purest sense of the word, like unconstrained random movement of particles. Now he's over here! Oh wait, now he's over there! Oh, and he zig-zagged!

I did skim his dating history, but its not altogether conclusive on anything. He was dating Jenny McCarthy for awhile who seems an obvious ISTj or at least β-ST. But that alone doesn't point towards or against any typing per say.

I suppose investigating the types of people he's close to could work. I might do that. For what it's worth, Bob Saget seems to be close to the guy who played the other uncle on Full House, and that guy seems pretty IEE to me, so there's a point for the SLI typing.

It's in part, though not because it's 'random'… tbh γ-SFs are some of the most random people on Earth to me, but I think I'm supposed to feel that way. Anyway, it is true that Robin Williams is an valuer and if you read qualitatively into what he says vs. what Carrey says, there's a strong difference there… I'll think later how to put it in words.

Above all, they're both huge 7s, which I think might primarily be the resemblance you're seeing between them.

I like the idea of differentiating Robin Williams' Ne valuing from Jim Carrey's (potential) Se-valuing. That would be helpful, I think, because it would cut through the problem of comic randomness, 'cause they're both comically random.

Initial thought for Carrey was ENFj actually. But why not agenda just the same? To me he often comes off too much, too loud. Some of that's 7, but not all of it. He's more like on overdrive, without any calibration or the kind of measured dosing that egos more capably administer—like Williams tends to. It's one of the things, along with VI and temperament, that dissuaded me from Carrey being ego.

Exactly.

Like I've frequently said, it's the how, not the what… both δ and β can 'fuck with people'. But its the qualitative ways they go about doing so which will distinguish them.

grumblegrumblegrumble. Fine. I will refocus my efforts into determining a qualitative difference between how betas mess with people and how deltas do it. Although I still have an argument that betas are more likely to habitually mess with people than deltas. Gosh, so much of what Saget does in the comedy special seems SO beta to me. But maybe I'm off.

But he's so introverted…

Maybe he is irl. But on stage he doesn't seem like an introvert at all. And there was an interview that I watched where he seemed really extroverted too. He seems introverted in Full House, lol.

It's in part, though not because it's 'random'… tbh γ-SFs are some of the most random people on Earth to me, but I think I'm supposed to feel that way. Anyway, it is true that Robin Williams is an valuer and if you read qualitatively into what he says vs. what Carrey says, there's a strong difference there… I'll think later how to put it in words.

Also, I know what kind of randomness you're talking about. There's an ESI I know very well who could be described as random, but I find his randomness more like... just surprising, not the kind of Spongebob, chase the butterflies randomness.