Most common types among actors

[Rick]

Out of curiosity, I asked experienced socionists at a Russian language forum the following question:

"Which type (or types) are most common among movie actors?"

(http://www.socion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=275)

I expected a more lively response, but only got a few answers. Basically, participants wanted quite a bit more details before answering. They were hesitant to answer because they felt they had not studied enough actors to draw any conclusions. One said that at the very least he recognized ILE's among actors quite rarely.

I'm posting this here for your interest and because I told them the poll results would be posted here.

[Creepy-bg]

I'm currious Rick if you have an opinion on Philip K Dick's type. He's a brilliant (and arguably schizophrenic) author from the 60's to 80's. If your not aware of his work could you pose this question on the Russian boards too?

His writtings and general mindset deeply resonate with me. I don't know if it's due to our similar outlook on life and philosophy, similar history with drugs, or some latent schizophrenia in myself (many schizophrenics identify with his writting).

Anyways I've always been currious to know his type...

[Park]

... *waiting for Rocky's Response Rocket * ...

[Rocky]

... *waiting for Rocky's Response Rocket * ...

ENTP

[Rick]

I'm currious Rick if you have an opinion on Philip K Dick's type. He's a brilliant (and arguably schizophrenic) author from the 60's to 80's. If your not aware of his work could you pose this question on the Russian boards too?

I have never heard of him, but looking at his photos, I would say he's ILE. To confirm that, I would want to find out some more about him (don't have time at the moment...).

[Creepy-bg]

Read the article on Wikipedia for a decent biography...

His books were the basis for quite a few movies... Blade Runner, Total Recall, etc... All of which lost their meaning through the Hollywood process.

Anyways, I was just wondering....

Sorry for the attempted thread hijack. lol

[Gilly]

EIE would be most common, I suspect.

[WVBRY]

EIE would be most common, I suspect.

I dont know. Thats kind of a stereotype. :wink:

It would be interesting to test the actors in Hollywood as a fee for entering into the oscar's ceremony.

[Rick]

EIE would be most common, I suspect.

I dont know. Thats kind of a stereotype.

It would be interesting to test the actors in Hollywood as a fee for entering into the oscar's ceremony.

My attempted survey showed that no one felt qualified to make any speculative statements that they couldn't back up. I think that if we approached this task seriously, we would encounter a lot of difficulties:

1. How do we define 'movie actor'? Main roles or all roles?
2. Which movies do we take into account?
3. Do we weight all movies equally and all actors equally, or do we give more weight to lead actors, etc.?

After all of this I doubt we would feel qualified to answer the question anymore .

[Catholic Schoolboy]

Lovely ones, ENTp is not exactly a common type. What makes you think that there are a lot of ENTp actors? Why do you think they are drawn to such a job? I say the most Common type for Actors is the most common type in public which ever that may be.

[WVBRY]

Lovely ones, ENTp is not exactly a common type. What makes you think that there are a lot of ENTp actors? Why do you think they are drawn to such a job? I say the most Common type for Actors is the most common type in public which ever that may be.

Or maybe the least common type in public.

[Catholic Schoolboy]

There is a chance of that. But the least common type again is not ENTp. I think perhaps it is INTp, which I'm not saying because I am INTp but because I have only ever met two. If the least common type is indeed ILI then they are not the most common actors.

[Angel von Himmel]

I am actually pretty good at acting .... better than most and I am convincing as well.

[Rocky]

Ok, here goes...

I think ILE (ENTP) is the most common actor for a few reasons. For one, it's an impractical occupation. I remember when I was younger I considered whether or not it would be worth it to pursue such a job, and I thought, no. I thought of all the wasted lives, the people living on the streets or in broken down pads, the poor, the drugs, etc... I also thought of all those actors that had to take various shitty roles for most of their young lives to even make a decent chunk of money. They go after hundreds of crappy audicienes to fish for third rate jobs. Not attractive at all. An ENxx type might think of all the stars, and how they have a possibility to become famous, yada yada yada whereas I saw it as a hinderance. It's not practical. Also, it seems like ENTPs love attention. They may be attracted to all the spot light, fame, attention, etc... with little worry of the consequences or the down side of it. Also, I would imagine, that ENxPs are fairly competant actors to begin with. Isn't acting an Intuitive trait? Especially while Extraverted, and an adaptable Perceiver?

Oh, and Sycophant, I have heard both socionics and BrainTypes claim that the ILE and the ENTP are the most common type. Just Something to think about. And no, I don't want to argue this point because we already had a thread on it and there is little evidence to argue against it.

[Scrummy]

When I auditioned for Juilliard last year, almost all the prospective Drama majors were either ENTp, ENFj, or interestingly enough, ISFp... the ones that got called back after the initial reading were overwhelmingly ENTp, with a few ENFjs. The ISFps had a tough time, and although they seemed the most collected of all types, I saw only one get through successfully to the third round. The ENTp were liable to extol the virtues of their own talent, which is obnoxious to some extent, but necessarily ina business like acting. The ENFjs tended to charm their way through their auditions.

I was there as a propective Voice major. Voice students, no matter what conservatory you are at, are pretty evenly divided between ENTjs and ENTps (people say all lawyers are failed performers, lol), with a smaller number of INFps. Most of the women are ENTjs. Most of the men are ENTp. Actually, interestingly enough, most of the tenors and sopranos were ENTp, most of the mezzos and baritones were ENTj.

Both of these types are typically fond of describing the beauty of their own voices, matched only in flaterry by personal ads: "I'm a dramatic tenor, with a rich, agile voice. I have a good squillo to my sound, but still maintain the forte heft required of my fach. It is almost baritonal in timbre in the lower range, with a bright quality in the upper... etc."

INFps are distributed pretty evenly between men and women for this major. We tend to slip under the radar, tend not to socialize in the same way as the ENTx's, and most of them had excellent voices with good musical instinct.

Piano majors tend actually to be INTps - INTps are in fact, the typical "child prodigy" type and I see a lot of them enrolled in the preparatory divisions at places like Juilliard or Peabody.

[Rocky]

I know an ENTP who is going to Julliard, BTW. He's my neighbors cousin and I know him pretty well.

[Scrummy]

Tell him congratulations. It's an excellent school. What's he studying?

[Catholic Schoolboy]

Very amusing observations, Auvi. From my limited experience in this area I pretty much agree with you.

Rocky you make some very good points, and I actually agree with you, most Actors do seem to be ENTp. I only wanted to see how people are coming to that conclusion. Oh, and I never argue. I observe.
:wink:

[Rick]

Someone please name some of these ENTP actors you are referring to.

[Gilly]

Nvm

[Rocky]

Tell him congratulations. It's an excellent school. What's he studying?

I think somewhere around here in NY, not quite sure... he plays the violin...

Someone please name some of these ENTP actors you are referring to.

Will Smith
Marlon Brando
Jon Stewart
Cedric the Entertainer
Mel Gibson (no, not an SLI :wink: )

And I'm sure a boat load more whom I'm not thinking of right now or just haven't typed either way. But it's a start.

[Rick]

I haven't looked into these actors too seriously, but I think that they could have the following types:

Will Smith - ESE
Jon Steward - LIE
Cedric the Entertainer - SEE
Mel Gibson - LIE

To me Will Smith and Cedric seem much warmer and more emotional than the others. Where do you see in them?

[Gilly]

George Carlin - ENTp

Kindof an actor.

Brad Pitt maybe?

[tcaudilllg]

Will Smith is SO ESFP. (feeling subtype)

[Gilly]

Will Smith is SO ESFP. (feeling subtype)

He could be ENFp, intuitive sub.

[olduser]

this thread is stupid.

[Rocky]

For one thing, Will Smith and Cedric the Entertainer are far more laid-back than either the SEE or ESE. smilex seems to have a good theory here. From what I can gather of ESE, they have a bit of a short fuse, and are very emotional; Will Smith is much smoother.

Will Smith



Check the VI. He as the eyes of an ILE (possibaly IEE). He doesn't seemed focused in one area, but his eyes are drifting around.

Also, if you were unaware, he was on his way to MIT when he decided to go into music instead. Say what you will about intelligence relating to type (I don't think there is) but it would be somewhat ignorant to ignore the fact that some types are more drawn to and interested in certain fields (and excel in them) than others. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd bet MIT is the toughest technical in America to get into, and I don't know of any SEEs or ESEs who are devoted enough to technical fields to put that much time and energy into them ("Oh, that's not politically correct!" Boowhoo...).

And, remember, he is also capable of more serious roles such as in Independance Day and Ali.

Cedric the Entertainer



You can note again that, while watching him, you can see those same "Intuitive eyes" that he shares with Will Smith and most other Intuitive types.

As for his interest in schooling, he studied Mass Communications at SMSU. Just something to think about.

These guys can actually be more serious, and sharper, than they'd let on. Most of the time, you don't see anything outside of the "entertainment" side, which I have always thought to be misleading.




And health, you sometimes have to watch your mouth.

[tcaudilllg]

For one thing, Will Smith and Cedric the Entertainer are far more laid-back than either the SEE or ESE. smilex seems to have a good theory here. From what I can gather of ESE, they have a bit of a short fuse, and are very emotional; Will Smith is much smoother.

It's not very empirical, granted, but my ESFP cousin reminds me very much of Will Smith. Howabout this comparison: Will Smith and Dem vice-prez candidate John Edwards? (an ESFP by any standard!)

It's important to remember that a good actor who takes himself seriously can simulate a person of another type with good coaching from a good director.

If you'll notice whenever he is speaking to a media crew, Will Smith will lean down to the microphone and his eyes will quickly scan his surroundings, and he'll say something characteristically lighthearted and funny that really gets on people's good side. He concentrates more on his relations with people than on his potential to interact with them. (as an ENTP does, right darkside?)

[Gilly]

He concentrates more on his relations with people than on his potential to interact with them. (as an ENTP does

That makes an infinite amount of sense to me.

[Rocky]

He concentrates more on his relations with people than on his potential to interact with them. (as an ENTP does

That makes an infinite amount of sense to me.

Where are you getting that from?

And without caring about whether or not I will be flamed for this, do you honestly believe that an ESFP would be interested in going to MIT?

[Rick]

And without caring about whether or not I will be flamed for this, do you honestly believe that an ESFP would be interested in going to MIT?

This may surprise you, but I am convinced that if we did a survey of all MIT students, we would find that some decent percentage of them were SEE's. In fact, we would find all types. If types were randomly distributed, we would find 6.25% of students belonged to each type. However, due to the technical nature of MIT, I would personally expect to find only maybe 3-4% were SEE's.

I have seen too many cases where all these stereotypes fly out the window. I know an SEE who studied Applied Mathematics and was a chess master of some high level. Nonetheless, he is a born entertainer and jokester and has been selling satellite internet since college. I know SEI programmers, IEE, EII, and EIE mathematicians, ESI legal experts, etc. Heck, I have even known ILE entertainers!!

Check the VI. He as the eyes of an ILE (possibaly IEE).

I don't know what you're referring to here. Can you be more specific?

He doesn't seemed focused in one area, but his eyes are drifting around.

I think this is typical of most or all extraverts. They subconsciously keep track of the entire situation rather than only the part that applies to them.

As for his interest in schooling, he studied Mass Communications at SMSU. Just something to think about.

Perfect field of study for many SEE's, don't you think?

[Rick]

George Carlin - ENTp

Kindof an actor.

Brad Pitt maybe?

Carlin - possibly. Note that he displays virtually no outward emotions through his face. This is why D. Lytov said, "trying to squeeze emotions out of an ILE is like milking a bull." ILE's thinking processes require aloofness and emotional disengagement so that they can focus on understanding the big picture and focus on strategy. Even if you are able to involve them emotionally in some situation, this can't continue for very long. They soon revert to their usual self. So I would say that anyone who is animate and emotional and trying to convey a certain persona on all or most of their pictures simply cannot be an ILE.

Almost everyone over here considers Brad Pitt an LIE.

[ScanDave]

George Carlin - ENTp

Kindof an actor.

Brad Pitt maybe?

Carlin - possibly. Note that he displays virtually no outward emotions through his face. This is why D. Lytov said, "trying to squeeze emotions out of an ILE is like milking a bull." ILE's thinking processes require aloofness and emotional disengagement so that they can focus on understanding the big picture and focus on strategy. Even if you are able to involve them emotionally in some situation, this can't continue for very long. They soon revert to their usual self. So I would say that anyone who is animate and emotional and trying to convey a certain persona on all or most of their pictures simply cannot be an ILE.

Almost everyone over here considers Brad Pitt an LIE.

That is kinda like how I have a hard time laughing at people's jokes unless I'm really comfortable, or matching the emotions of others unless it is strong positive emotions. I mostly crack myself up, or find myself laughing with people as I match their moods. Like at work, I've been told to smile when greeting customers. I have to tell myself to do it most of the time. When I'm helping a customer I never know if I'm being too distant, or should I be more friendly. I feel more comfortable being super friendly and expressive around customers that are lively and animated. I'm usually thinking too much about how can I help a customer instead of building rapport.

[Gilly]

I can be excitable around some people, but I don't think of it as an emotional excitement. I think it's just energizing to be around interesting people who listen to my crazy ideas.

[Rick]

That is kinda like how I have a hard time laughing at people's jokes unless I'm really comfortable, or matching the emotions of others unless it is strong positive emotions. I mostly crack myself up, or find myself laughing with people as I match their moods. Like at work, I've been told to smile when greeting customers. I have to tell myself to do it most of the time. When I'm helping a customer I never know if I'm being too distant, or should I be more friendly. I feel more comfortable being super friendly and expressive around customers that are lively and animated. I'm usually thinking too much about how can I help a customer instead of building rapport.

This sounds typically ILE. They like to have the issue of psychological distance (in communication) taken care of for them, and would prefer to always use the same distance and act like everyone's "buddy" -- no matter what the situation or person. They become uncomfortable when for some reason others want to change the distance on them and make the relationship formal and strict, or intensely close and personal. Does this sound right?

In contrast, SEE's and IEE's (with as their creative function) are very flexible in their psychological distance. They recognize when they must be cold and formal, and when they can "break" the existing distance and create a closer distance. Because of this they rarely if ever do or say something stupid (that they would regret) in a group or even one-on-one that destroys the mood and hurts others' feelings (unless it was intentional).

[Topaz]

This sounds typically ILE. They like to have the issue of psychological distance (in communication) taken care of for them, and would prefer to always use the same distance and act like everyone's "buddy" -- no matter what the situation or person. They become uncomfortable when for some reason others want to change the distance on them and make the relationship formal and strict, or intensely close and personal. Does this sound right?

In contrast, SEE's and IEE's (with as their creative function) are very flexible in their psychological distance. They recognize when they must be cold and formal, and when they can "break" the existing distance and create a closer distance. Because of this they rarely if ever do or say something stupid (that they would regret) in a group or even one-on-one that destroys the mood and hurts others' feelings (unless it was intentional).

Right you are Rick. I couldnt have put it better myself. (Although, I admit that every once in a while I do make a faux pas, which I try to clean up as fast as I can :wink: )