Jimmy Fallon

[Still Alive]

I can't explain it logically, but from what I've read and observed I get a strong intuitive feeling about these two being IEI.





That damn smile...

This person got it

[hellohellohello]

Si-Leading/Ne-Suggestive up the wazoo starting @ 2:28

2:55??? Hello? Si?

Ethics > Logic throughout the interview. Ethics are focused on endogenous processes vs. Logic is focused on exogenous processes.

[myresearch]

He has been typed as LSI C in model g.

[Distance]

He has been typed as LSI C in model g.

I could see that.

[Adam Strange]

He has been typed as LSI C in model g.

Doesn't Gulenko type everyone as LSI?

He's the @Awake of the LSIs.

Personally, Fallon looks to me like he's got some Infantile thing going pretty strongly.

I can't explain it logically, but from what I've read and observed I get a strong intuitive feeling about these two being IEI.





That damn smile...

This picture just shouts "Hey, I'm just a cute little kid. Got some cookies for me?"

[Finaplex]

Doesn't Gulenko type everyone as LSI?

He's the @Awake of the LSIs.

Personally, Fallon looks to me like he's got some Infantile thing going pretty strongly.



This picture just shouts "Hey, I'm just a cute little kid. Got some cookies for me?"

I have more to add to this joke, but won't because, the zoomers on this site are 'sensitive' lately.

[Still Alive]

Gulenko types most people EIE last time I checked him

[myresearch]

Doesn't Gulenko type everyone as LSI?

He's the @Awake of the LSIs.

Personally, Fallon looks to me like he's got some Infantile thing going pretty strongly.

There are different types typed by him out there. But people who are generally typed are EIE LSI yes.

I think I typed him as SEI years ago seems sensory to me but was more into entertaining, charming. He is not very conflict oriented in his show hence that lead me to think that in that time, but ofcourse thats his job and on tv thing hence his image not who he is in actuality.

Speaking of G typing LSIs, considering that you are prone to type people who are dramatic and more into attention and arguments as ESI aka you are dual.

And since Fi base is opposite that. And those are manifestations of Fe and not Fi, I think..... there is a chance that you can get typed as Ti ego But I dont think we will find out

Glad to see you back.

[Adam Strange]

There are different types typed by him out there. But people who are generally typed are EIE LSI yes.

I think I typed him as SEI years ago seems sensory to me but was more into entertaining, charming. He is not very conflict oriented in his show hence that lead me to think that in that time, but ofcourse thats his job and on tv thing hence his image not who he is in actuality.

Speaking of G typing LSIs, considering that you are prone to type people who are dramatic and more into attention and arguments as ESI aka you are dual.

And since Fi base is opposite that. And those are manifestations of Fe and not Fi, I think..... there is a chance that you can get typed as Ti ego But I dont think we will find out

Glad to see you back.

Glad to be back, @myresearch.

As I've gotten more exposure to people over the years, I've found that I'm re-typing a lot of the people for whom I had a previous opinion. It's discouraging, because I like to be accurate and I'm not accurate much of the time. I can completely understand why many people don't believe in Socionics, even though I still do.

I think the problem with trying to classify people into strict categories is twofold; the categories are not well defined, and neither are people. Lol.

Which is a pretty Ti thing to say.

However, I'm quite sure that I'm not a Ti ego type, but rather I'm a Te type. But proving that? Hah.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

i thought everyone typed him SEI for some reason. his expressions looked very SEIsh to me but after i voted i saw ppl thought ILE. interesting to note. idk if its just what kind of ppl i see but most ILEs seem colder than his pictures at least even if they can be friendly, and most of the ones i know are narcs, socio/psychopaths and ig if neither then schizos. edit: LOL NVM

[Aster]

He has been typed as LSI C in model g.

And here I typed him IEE. I fail model G lol At least maybe the C subtype makes sense with that. maybe I was just seeing his subtype in model G.

[myresearch]

And here I typed him IEE. I fail model G lol

I saw and thought mb its due to C effect. IJ C seems to get typed as ExxP at times, andrew tate is another example, he is typed as LSI CD in model g. Tom Cruise another LSI CD.

Nicole Kidman was married to Tom Cruise and had a crush on Jimmy, she seems to have a type at least in terms of model g.

[hellohellohello]

Gulenko doesn't know his own type lol. He was typed ESI by Augusta.

I'd stop using Model G asap. His typing process involves behavioral facial/body patterns to try and make it easier to type others more objectively, which is just a nonsensical "advanced VI" approach. He has coined this as 'energy.'

However, this is not "psychic energy," but physical energy (Sensory > Intuitive approach? Makes sense as he was typed as ESI. Not to mention the whole "Humanitarian Socionics" bend he has which is clearly Ethical) as he is typing others' based on physical presence (similar to some who use MBTI methodology). These behaviors are usually unconscious to the individual, so essentially he is typing others' unconscious behavior patterns and claiming they are 'natural behavior' when in reality you are supposed to be typing others based on conscious 'cognition' or 'way of processing information' and assimilating that to 8 different IEs.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

2nd May 2023:

The Sedecology consensus typings (where there was a majority for one type and a minimum of 3 typers) had it that 13.26% of "famous people" typed are EIE, which is about double 100%/16. My own typings distribution vs. Sedecology was 19.65% of the famous people I typed (i.e. those I'm interested in enough to type) I type EIE, vs. 17.03% for Sedecology.

With Gulenko, from what I can count from his website, his famous people database is split as follows:

EIE	47	26.11%
LSI	32	17.78%
SLE	23	12.78%
ILI	21	11.67%
SEE	19	10.56%
IEI	8	4.44%
ILE	7	3.89%
LII	6	3.33%
ESE	5	2.78%
LIE	5	2.78%
IEE	3	1.67%
SEI	1	0.56%
ESI	1	0.56%
LSE	1	0.56%
EII	1	0.56%
SLI	0	0.00%

But I think EIE and LSI are more heavily represented amongst the people he types in this community. I think a type like IEI is more likely to be most common there.

In Big Five terms, from a few papers, from what I recall: Actors overall are above average in terms of extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, and middling in terms of conscientiousness. Musicians I think were introverted, high in openness to experience, below average in terms of agreeableness (if I recall correctly), below average in terms of conscientiousness, except in the facet (one sixth of conscientiousness) of Ambition (or a similarly named concept). But singers compared to other musicians scored higher in terms of extroversion. Research into politicians generally shows they score above average in terms of extroversion and conscientiousness, and I think in the Western world, higher in terms of openness to experience than the general population.

[hellohellohello]

How people don't realize that his typings are skewed (first sign of being incorrect) as types are evenly distributable across any society.

Second, how people take somebody's word for granted because they are a proclaimed expert instead of digging into source material on a subject themselves will forever be beyond me.

Ignorance, apathy, not wanting to actually figure yourself out (which would do wonders for plenty of people here), etc.

But we live in a SOCIETY.

INB4 someone points out that Gulenko is typing 'actors' and therefore yes, most of them would be EIE...based on behavior and what we commonly know as 'Fe' which common understanding is slightly off. It has nothing to do with 'emotional expression' but noticing an objects' internal emotional states and assimilating (Extravert-ing) yourself to that object. It's why many people know SLI/ILIs to be 'emotionally deaf,' not because of a lack of expression. They are human and have emotions and can express them too.

You're still typing based on occupation, behavior, etc. Anyone can be anything they want. There are some types that may gravitate towards one occupation over another, sure, I could buy that in theory, but usually not in practice, and you're still typing based on behavior (which is not psychic energy/brain metabolism)

[myresearch]

How people don't realize that his typings are skewed (first sign of being incorrect) as types are evenly distributable across any society.

Second, how people take somebody's word for granted because they are a proclaimed expert instead of digging into source material on a subject themselves will forever be beyond me.

Ignorance, apathy, not wanting to actually figure yourself out (which would do wonders for plenty of people here), etc.

But we live in a SOCIETY.

INB4 someone points out that Gulenko is typing 'actors' and therefore yes, most of them would be EIE...based on behavior and what we commonly know as 'Fe' which common understanding is slightly off. It has nothing to do with 'emotional expression' but noticing an objects' internal emotional states and assimilating (Extravert-ing) yourself to that object. It's why many people know SLI/ILIs to be 'emotionally deaf,' not because of a lack of expression. They are human and have emotions and can express them too.

You're still typing based on occupation, behavior, etc. Anyone can be anything they want. There are some types that may gravitate towards one occupation over another, sure, I could buy that in theory, but usually not in practice, and you're still typing based on behavior (which is not psychic energy/brain metabolism)

There is no way to type people without taking their behavior in consideration, person s metabolism has to come out in some kind of externality so others can see to type the person. We cannot telepathically access brain metabolism. But yet here we are under the typing thread of a person who we cannot access to their brain metabolism. I think expecting that would be expecting the impossible.

Everyone can type every person in any way since we are here, we can see all different people having different approaches and typings. Everyone can have different opinions in this matter and can find other opinions as not making sense, we can see that happens all the time.

Model g typings can be helpful for people who want to dig into model g. If someone doesnt want to then they can just skip as they do all other typings given.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How people don't realize that his typings are skewed (first sign of being incorrect) as types are evenly distributable across any society.

Second, how people take somebody's word for granted because they are a proclaimed expert instead of digging into source material on a subject themselves will forever be beyond me.

Ignorance, apathy, not wanting to actually figure yourself out (which would do wonders for plenty of people here), etc.

But we live in a SOCIETY.

INB4 someone points out that Gulenko is typing 'actors' and therefore yes, most of them would be EIE...based on behavior and what we commonly know as 'Fe' which common understanding is slightly off. It has nothing to do with 'emotional expression' but noticing an objects' internal emotional states and assimilating (Extravert-ing) yourself to that object. It's why many people know SLI/ILIs to be 'emotionally deaf,' not because of a lack of expression. They are human and have emotions and can express them too.

You're still typing based on occupation, behavior, etc. Anyone can be anything they want. There are some types that may gravitate towards one occupation over another, sure, I could buy that in theory, but usually not in practice, and you're still typing based on behavior (which is not psychic energy/brain metabolism)

I think types are evenly distributed in a population, but that's only because I think that typical (i.e. excluding disorders...maybe) personality traits invariably exist on a normal distribution in a population. But I think that in areas of management (politics, military, business etc.), especially at the elite level, EXXJ temperament types are especially prevalent (as evidenced by Big Five research). IXXP types are especially not prevalent in the mass media (the extroverted world), the arts and sciences perhaps being the main exception.

[hellohellohello]

There is no way to type people without taking their behavior in consideration, person s metabolism has to come out in some kind of externality so others can see to type the person. We cannot telepathically access brain metabolism. But yet here we are under the typing thread of a person who we cannot access to their brain metabolism. I think expecting that would be expecting the impossible.

Everyone can type every person in any way since we are here, we can see all different people having different approaches and typings. Everyone can have different opinions in this matter and can find other opinions as not making sense, we can see that happens all the time.

Model g typings can be helpful for people who want to dig into model g. If someone doesnt want to then they can just skip as they do all other typings given.

There is a way to type others without considering their behavior. You can access the internal state of someone and can see it in mental states. You ever peer into someone's mind before?

[myresearch]

There is a way to type others without considering their behavior. You can access the internal state of someone and can see it in mental states.

You have to see hear the person, have to consider their previous external data, so there has to be external data. Otherwise you can access to someone's internal state in antartica right now and if you think thats possible, i wish you good luck.

You ever peer into someone's mind before?

.... The answer of that question should be accessible to mind peerers

[Sol]

You can access the internal state of someone and can see it in mental states.

You may use logics, emotions (IR) and intuitive impressions about traits and state of a human from _behavior_ data, a part of which is nonverbal one. It's how types are identified, including when by photos/videos. Only behavior approach fits to common in today psychology and has experimental basis.

Other way would be totally esoterical, when you know nothing about behavior of a human. Alike a name only or other conditions.
I doubt you may get comparable or good enough accuracy with this only. Especially for random people and regularly.

While when you know something or see a human - you intuitively analyse his behavior to suppose a state and traits.

[godslave]

- " You're an Ethical Extrovert !"

[hellohellohello]

You have to see hear the person, have to consider their previous external data, so there has to be external data. Otherwise you can access to someone's internal state in antartica right now and if you think thats possible, i wish you good luck.



.... The answer of that question should be accessible to mind peerers

It's possible as long as the individual is there beside you. You can hear the person, sure, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying two people can both be waving their arms in the air, but one could be waving their arms in the air in form of dance while the other is screaming for help. It's not what they are doing (external), it's what they are signaling by those actions (internal). Again, not relying on behavior, but lying on internal mental, or 'mind,' states to dictate what the intent is behind what one is saying. The old phrase "It's not what you say but how you say it" is the key here. You just have to know what to look for in how someone is saying something, not what they have said.

And yes, I do communicate with penguins in the Arctic every day. They are doing ok for right now

[myresearch]

It's possible as long as the individual is there beside you. You can hear the person, sure, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying two people can both be waving their arms in the air, but one could be waving their arms in the air in form of dance while the other is screaming for help. It's not what they are doing (external), it's what they are signaling by those actions (internal). Again, not relying on behavior, but lying on internal mental, or 'mind,' states to dictate what the intent is behind what one is saying. The old phrase "It's not what you say but how you say it" is the key here. You just have to know what to look for in how someone is saying something, not what they have said.

How a person says something also has external cues in my perspective, if something was exactly same in the past and present in terms of externality in every aspect, I dont think person would think different about both exactly seemingly same situation. What is internal comes out in external and what is external shows internal, they both feed each other.

And yes, I do communicate with penguins in the Arctic every day. They are doing ok for right now

Am always happy to hear that penguins are doing ok.

[hellohellohello]

How a person says something also has external cues in my perspective, if something was exactly same in the past and present in terms of externality in every aspect, I dont think person would think different about both exactly seemingly same situation. What is internal comes out in external and what is external shows internal, they both feed each other.

Sure, I don't have any problem with seeing it that way. I still wouldn't solely rely on behavior though, as many do. There's a subjective factor involved with every decision and getting a typing right, or honestly, being able to understand others empathetically in nearly every facet of life, involves taking a look at what that internal factor or 'structure' is; Intent.