Oprah Winfrey

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

She starts humanitarian institutions for a lot of people, which is just not a Beta thing to do.

Betas are more of the independent celebrity vibe ala Marilyn Manson. They encourage individuality and following your own moral ethics, as long as it doesn't in fringe of the rights of others. We are more wiccan-esque. Deltas are more group, Christian-based in their ethics, which is exactly what Oprah is.

For example, like other IEIs- such as Joss Whedon or some such, if I wanted to create some institution for gays, I would have a keen awareness of how that won't really be a good idea, because people demand independence and not to be bogged down too much in groups. I can certainly see how people would want to do that idea in theory, and it is noble- but I just don't think institutions are a good idea. Oprah's little home for black girls has a lot of ethical violations, because it attracted some creepy sex offenders. (Last I heard)

Deltas and Betas clash because Deltas usually build these institutions, and prison the Betas- who are natural outcasts of society. They think these places will help 'shape Betas up' but it just makes us even more angry and rebellious and refuse to fight within the system. They try to institutionalize Betas, cage them up- and that's where a lot of the fighting and angst between Betas and Deltas start.

[Jarno]

So there's something wrong with Jake's confidence level because you disagree with him?

No because a lot of posters in this thread seem to disagree with Jake, a bit of modesty would be normal.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't know any IEE's like her, and although i've nothing against her, I can't see her as my dual. I say EIE.

I think it's unlikely that an ISTp would go for the sort of stuff I've seen Dr. Phil go for, but ISTj isn't a bad fit for him,

[duality is cringe]

Deltas and Betas clash because Deltas usually build these institutions, and prison the Betas- who are natural outcasts of society. They think these places will help 'shape Betas up' but it just makes us even more angry and rebellious and refuse to fight within the system. They try to institutionalize Betas, cage them up- and that's where a lot of the fighting and angst between Betas and Deltas start.

Interesting, I like this for some reason. Not meaning that I want to cage Betas (lol), but the different mentalities you are describing here. Delta NFs are most likely the one's to expect you to 'shape up,' whereas Delta STs just want to keep you separated from what they perceive as being the "good" aspects of society. Or something like that.

On the subject of Ms. Winfrey, I'm really not seing what makes her an obvious Beta.



Allie made a good case for intertype relations. An individual of any type or quadra can certainly agree with Oprah's viewpoint, but the manner in which she emphasizes the importance of understanding alternative perspectives and how comfortably open ended and uncertain she, not only allows, but appears to "strive" to keep her "conclusions" or religious philosophy, I definitely think Oprah most likely Fi-ENFp > ENFj. Reminds me a lot of look.to.the.sky.

[Gilly]

Personally I think Oprah is kind of a "fake Delta," an EIE who has personal interests in being wealthy and powerful, and masks them behind a humanitarian facade which she uses to manipulate people and spread her views. She might not even be totally conscious of it, but that's how I see her.

[Gilly]

PS what is all this misonceived bullshit about "Betas would kick Ophra's ass!" or "She's too nice/humanitarian/whatever to be Beta?" Do people think Betas are just universally out-for-myself go-getters who don't give a shit about society or something? I think that's kind of preposterous; it's insane to think that 1/4th of the world's population, while perhaps conceivably dominated by the same HIGHLY abstracted methods of perceiving information, would reach the same conclusions about their attitudes towards society, and for the same reasons. Absolutely preposterous. Anyone who thinks this is buying too much into prescribed ways that types can manifest and isn't seeing clearly enough the idea that types are meant to describe nothing more than methods of perceiving information, and have nothing to do with superficial ideological orientations towards society.

[Sirena]

^ best post i've read here in a while .

this is exactly the sort of misconception that leads to alienating and ganging up.

[ScarlettLux]

Yeah, I think she's an EIE and Dr. Phil an LSI. Just because I don't like her doesn't mean she isn't in my quadra. Sirena, we aren't ganging up on you/alienating whatever... I don't care for you one way or the other, but I still believe you're not in my quadra. It doesn't mean I'm 'politically typing' you or Juju.

[Gilly]

ZOMG SL IS BEING TACTFUL AND NOT BLUNT, NO FECKING WAI IS SHE BETA

ALPHA ALPHA ALPHA

[Creepy-bg]

all I'm seeing is a bunch of socionics jibber jabber, let's cut to chase... Would you fuck Oprah?

[Sirena]

[Gilly]

all I'm seeing is a bunch of socionics jibber jabber, let's cut to chase... Would you fuck Oprah?

For all of her worldly possessions? I'd think about it.

[ScarlettLux]

She's pretty sexy for her age. And situation...

[Creepy-bg]

I'd do it just to be able to say "I fucked Oprah!"

[discojoe]

She's pretty sexy for her age. And situation...

She's not even slightly sexy or attractive. She's narcissistic and evil.

[Park]

On the subject of Oprah showing Delta values...

Personally I think Oprah is kind of a "fake Delta," an EIE who has personal interests in being wealthy and powerful, and masks them behind a humanitarian facade which she uses to manipulate people and spread her views. She might not even be totally conscious of it, but that's how I see her.

My thoughts exactly.

PS what is all this misonceived bullshit about "Betas would kick Ophra's ass!" or "She's too nice/humanitarian/whatever to be Beta?" Do people think Betas are just universally out-for-myself go-getters who don't give a shit about society or something? I think that's kind of preposterous; it's insane to think that 1/4th of the world's population, while perhaps conceivably dominated by the same HIGHLY abstracted methods of perceiving information, would reach the same conclusions about their attitudes towards society, and for the same reasons. Absolutely preposterous. Anyone who thinks this is buying too much into prescribed ways that types can manifest and isn't seeing clearly enough the idea that types are meant to describe nothing more than methods of perceiving information, and have nothing to do with superficial ideological orientations towards society.

You nailed it again.

[The Greeter]

We have to stop assuming that certain ideologies equate to certain quadras. We can't say, if you like communism = Beta, capitalism = Gamma and whatever, just as we don't assume that a person who likes summer must be Beta, winter = Delta.

Betas are more of the independent celebrity vibe ala Marilyn Manson. They encourage individuality and following your own moral ethics, as long as it doesn't in fringe of the rights of others. We are more wiccan-esque. Deltas are more group, Christian-based in their ethics, which is exactly what Oprah is.

Deltas and Betas clash because Deltas usually build these institutions, and prison the Betas- who are natural outcasts of society. They think these places will help 'shape Betas up' but it just makes us even more angry and rebellious and refuse to fight within the system. They try to institutionalize Betas, cage them up- and that's where a lot of the fighting and angst between Betas and Deltas start.

You can't possibly believe this. Is it natural for you to demonize people unlike you? Have you considered that Deltas and even other quadras may feel exactly like you do but may switch around the labels? Probably not, because if you did, you would realize what you say really has no meaning in terms of being 'special' or being 'outcasts' or even being right for that matter.

[Park]

Reminds me a lot of look.to.the.sky.

Who's possibly an ESE btw. (just an observation)

Eh, I would say IEE.

And not just because Ashton says so.

Fi ENFp

I definitely think Oprah most likely Fi-ENFp > ENFj.

What is it that makes Ashton, Jake, Steve, Allie, DeAnte, (who else?) agree on celebrity typings like 99.9% of the time? I mean, they can't just accidentally match all the time.

[Gilly]

What is it that makes Ashton, Jake, Steve, Allie, DeAnte, (who else?) agree on celebrity typings like 99.9% of the time? I mean, they can't just accidentally match all the time.

Funny, ain't it?

[duality is cringe]

Who's possibly an ESE btw. (just an observation)

This from the guy who creates threads of admiration dedicated to his "conflictors" Scarlett Johanson and Marisa Tomei, loves Fe-ENFj Glenn Beck and repeatedly posts pics of Eddie Murphy (ENFj) in the ESE thread as if he's got a crush, and self types as ISTp?

You've got about as much credibility questioning the types of other forum members as Cyclops. Please stfu.

What is it that makes Ashton, Jake, Steve, Allie, DeAnte, (who else?) agree on celebrity typings like 99.9% of the time? I mean, they can't just accidentally match all the time.

Probably because the people you listed actually think about shit instead of blindly accepting the predominant groupthink.

Or maybe Ashton is destroying all our minds. How can one man be so powerful?

[implied]

What is it that makes Ashton, Jake, Steve, Allie, DeAnte, (who else?) agree on celebrity typings like 99.9% of the time? I mean, they can't just accidentally match all the time.

oh, you know, it just happens like that. lol.

[duality is cringe]

so the only people you consider to be thinking for themselves are the ones that agree almost 99% of the time on someone's type?

I meant that mostly in relation to Winterpark, whom I think rarely ever thinks for himself and suspect blindly accepts the typings of whomever he considers "authoritative," (though he'd probably claim the same of me) but w/e glam.

[ArchonAlarion]

What is it that makes Ashton, Jake, Steve, Allie, DeAnte, (who else?) agree on celebrity typings like 99.9% of the time? I mean, they can't just accidentally match all the time.

We are an evil conglomerate who will bring this forum to the ground.

Everyone will hail us and we'll be supreme dominators of all typing.

Then Gilly and JuJu will ride forth on glorious white horses and lance us.

Finally you can all feel validated in your association based arguments and bask in the sheer win.

Or because we have a similar typing model/methodology which is in its relative infancy and therefore its likely we have not yet had time to get whacky shoot off opinions and thus we have close typing.

Also there are infinite falsehoods, but one truth. So maybe we are just onto the truth and because there is only one truth, we have close typings.

Have a blast kidd-o.

[Steve]

What's also been interesting is that we (Jake, DeAnte, Strrrng, Jriddy, myself) - (I can't speak for Ashton and Allie because many recent type discussions with them have resulted in dissonance in our points of view, so I don't know how consistent we are anymore) usually end up agreeing even on new typings, other than people in Ashton's gallery or on our userlists. So it must mean that we're seeing something recognizable that consistently holds through to new typings.

Maybe there's something coherent about it? Isn't that what theories like socionics are hoping for?

[duality is cringe]

We are an evil conglomerate who will bring this forum to the ground.

Everyone will hail us and we'll be supreme dominators of all typing.

Then Gilly and JuJu will ride forth on glorious white horses and lance us.

Finally you can all feel validated in your association based arguments and bask in the sheer win.

Actually, I prefer this answer. This is now my answer to Winterpark's question.

[Park]

This from the guy who creates threads of admiration dedicated to his "conflictors" Scarlett Johanson and Marisa Tomei, loves Fe-ENFj Glenn Beck and repeatedly posts pics of Eddie Murphy (ENFj) in the ESE thread as if he's got a crush, and self types as ISTp?

Marisa Tomei is my conflictor, I agree, but Scarlett Johansson isn't. And yes, I sometimes create admiration threads for my conflictors, sometimes it's solely for the physical attraction and sometimes other reasons... do you have a problem with that? Also, Glenn Back is certainly not an ENFj and neither is Murphy. And yes, I do self-type as ISTp, do you have a problem with that?

And what does all of this incorrect shit you spit have to do with me carrying out my observations for look.to.the.sky's type? What's your problem with that?

You've got about as much credibility questioning the types of other forum members as Cyclops. Please stfu.

I would bark like a dog if a wanted to, asshole. Or perhaps I should take your example and try to earn some credibility around here by acting like the despicable idiot you are.

Probably because the people you listed actually think about shit instead of blindly accepting the predominant groupthink.

Oh right. So that's how the sub-dominant groupthink develops.

Or maybe Ashton is destroying all our minds. How can one man be so powerful?

Beats me. But what beats me more is your presumptuous little mind that doesn't know how to start a conversation without it's preconceived delusions about reality and truth. You can shine Pheadrus' shoes.

[buckland]

She screams in her show which shows in her emotional control of the crowd. I am still not too sure in my ability to directly type in someone's ego block, but she lacks (compare this with Tyra Banks' show) which leads to ENFj. Plus she greatly reminds me of my ENFj friend, and she acts and also sort of looks like her.

[duality is cringe]

Marisa Tomei is my conflictor, I agree, but Scarlett Johansson isn't. And yes, I sometimes create admiration threads for my conflictors, sometimes it's solely for the physical attraction and sometimes other reasons... do you have a problem with that? Also, Glenn Back is certainly not an ENFj and neither is Murphy. And yes, I do self-type as ISTp, do you have a problem with that?

And what does all of this incorrect shit you spit have to do with me carrying out my observations for look.to.the.sky's type? What's your problem with that?

They are all ENFjs, you love them and are too stupid to realize that, which is why you, of all people, have no business questioning anyone else's type. Simple as that.

You can shine Pheadrus' shoes.

You can suck Phaedrus' cock.

[1981slater]

It is clear she's ethical...

...I think SEE makes sense.

[Park]

They are all ENFjs, you love them and are too stupid to realize that, which is why you, of all people, have no business questioning anyone else's type. Simple as that.

Right... and why don't you mind your own business?

wow, this is exactly the sort of reasoning that leads to groupthink.

...and that creates the likelihood of DeAnte being a Ti type as well?

[Park]

glamourama is IEI and complaining. i don't think it's type-related necessarily because probabilistically such convergences will inevitably happen at least occasionally, but where one goes from there might be.

That makes sense, you're right. I guess what I meant to say was...

wow, this is exactly the sort of reasoning that leads to groupthink.

... and that led Phaedrus to his painful insanity.

[mu4]

There is group think everywhere, even against AA and others. Let's not use personal attacks since there is more rational discussion to be had here.

Oprah is more likely IEE then EIE.

Dr. Phil is probably Delta ST not LSI.

Oprah relates more to Kanye then 50 cents. Fi vs Fe types.

Most of her intertypes point to Fi valuing.

Some people point to her humanitarianism as a front to gain wealth and influence.

Well it's not really Beta that do this, Beta use charisma to attain power and control. And if they get money, they'll use it that way too. Which often they would like to put towards some "social-progress" ends. Their attitude is more "Follow me and my ideology, let's change the world". They sell their personal charm and forceful personality to attain power in wholehearted desire to change the world. (Sometimes they succeed in a rather nasty fashion.)

For Delta NF's, they tend to put their moral agenda front and center, and use it to get money, benefits, and fulfill their many interests. Delta message is more, "I'm good, give me money and I'll teach you how to be good". There is a sort of convenient morality some Delta NFs sells to attain comfort in their lives.

Often times they will collaborate tactically in these endeavors, but it's quite different in nature and motivations.

Oprah more or less sells to soccer moms a form of bland homogenized comfort food for the soul in which housewives partake in gleefully.

[mu4]

And you're probably an idiot.

Haha, I don't mind being a idiot, but I refuse to believe that these two men are the same.



And




One does lists of.... yea.. krap

The other does...

Tenderloin of Beef
Salt and Pepper
Rosemary
Butter
Done

Oh yea.. he also does this.. "Fuck off."

[Park]

[Trevor]

Big words, basically.

[Park]

DR PHIL ISTJ BETA BETA BETA BETA BETA BETA ISTJ ISTJ ISTJ ISTJ ISTJ ENTPENIS

[Gilly]

LMFAO @ Glenn Beck as EIE. LMFAO.

And Eddie Murphy is an ESE if there ever was one.

[Park]

LMFAO @ Glenn Beck as EIE. LMFAO.

Ditto

And Eddie Murphy is an ESE if there ever was one.

and ditto.

[Lotus]

What is it that makes Ashton, Jake, Steve, Allie, DeAnte, (who else?) agree on celebrity typings like 99.9% of the time? I mean, they can't just accidentally match all the time.

Funny, ain't it?

oh, you know, it just happens like that. lol.

To study a theory you need to agree on what phenomena you're observing. You all look at the color red, agree that it's the color red, and then you can identify other things that are the color red. You don't sit around and discuss what it means to be red, or describe what red is like and then go and identify it. That's the wrong approach, and that technique is pretty much “Classical Socionics” in a nutshell. People will [somewhat] agree on what a type is in text, but when they go out and try to identify these types in celebrities or IRL there is never any consensus. So they criticize us for having a consensus. Well, what the hell are they criticizing anyway? Of course we have a consensus when we our methodology is observable rather than textbook. We agree on what a color looks like and therefore we can identify color in any object you throw in front of us. Maybe if we—like the people who criticize us—type based off of descriptions rather than people we'd lack a consensus too. However, once you know what red looks like it's kind of difficult to not have a consensus with others who know what red looks like too. It's observable phenomena; it's exactly what it appears to be.



ETA: Ugh. I shouldn't have said “we”—because there isn't even a “we”, in all honesty. I pretty much only talk to Ashton or dolphin about Socionics, and only for him to VI friends and such really. I don't feel like I'm in any group, or that I subscribe to any particular school or thought or whatever. Just leave me out of it.

[Steve]

To study a theory you need to agree on what phenomena you're observing. You all look at the color red, agree that it's the color red, and then you can identify other things that are the color red. You don't sit around and discuss what it means to be red, or describe what red is like and then go and identify it. That's the wrong approach, and that technique is pretty much “Classical Socionics” in a nutshell. People will [somewhat] agree on what a type is in text, but when they go out and try to identify these types in celebrities or IRL there is never any consensus. So they criticize us for having a consensus. Well, what the hell are they criticizing anyway? Of course we have a consensus when we our methodology is observable rather than textbook. We agree on what a color looks like and therefore we can identify color in any object you throw in front of us. Maybe if we—like the people who criticize us—type based off of descriptions rather than people we'd lack a consensus too. However, once you know what red looks like it's kind of difficult to not have a consensus with others who know what red looks like too. It's observable phenomena; it's exactly what it appears to be.

Precisely