Examples of possible famous/celebrity ILEs-ENTps

[MysticSonic]

He could be ENTj, I dunno.

Not ISTj.

[Expat]

In fact, quick, spontaneous and flexible reaction, whether you call it "ideas" or "behavior", is peculiar to all the four EP types, it is their inborn trait. This trait may "fade" due to socialization, or in case of long-time stresses, but it can be easily awaken again, when stimulated properly.

However, spontaneity of EP types manifests differently for N and S types. ENp types tend to be curious, they spread their attention on too many things altogether and for this reason may look distracted and even "introverted". ESp types tend to attack too many material objectives, strive for winning too many attractive things (whether it may be power, money, or attention of attractive representatives of the opposite sex).

Ok, from this point of view, I'd agree that Caligula was more probably ESTp. I'd say the same for Mao (as I also indicated in my original post) and Mobutu; not ISTj though.

[Rocky]

Transigent, we have really had opposing viewpoints lately.

1) I don't think people should be that similar to others in their Quadra at all.

They may have certain values that are similar, but that's where the similarities end. People who come in new to socionics would be laughing at you. "That guy thinks an ENFJ is similar to an ISTJ? What's he smoking?" And stuff like that. The similarities that do exist aren't very apparent and are more hidden. Behaviorally and so on, they are all drastically different.

For example, how can you confuse an ENTP with an INTJ if you were to meet them? Their values may be similar, but their appearances are so very different. An INTJ may be completely cold, showing little expression, careful, not very responsive, and so on. An ENTP is the type of person who would want to scream to the world what he thinks as soon as it pops into his head; little inhabitions. They aren't as restrained or self-controlled, and can be very vocal, impulsive, and enjoy changing things regulary. INTJ, in contrast, can be finicky and resistant. Think of someone like Mike Mussina who stayed in his hotel room eating peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches when he went to Japan because he didn't want to go out and was skeptical of eating Japanese food. In some ways, ENTP can be closer to ESFP then they are to INTJ.

2) yeah, at least 75% of the Entertainment businss is ENTP. And this is coming from a non-ENTP.

[Jonathan]

I don't think people should be that similar to others in their Quadra at all.

I think we're talking here about the difference between prototypical people and those who have acquired more qualities from their quadra. It makes sense to me that both you and Transigent can be correct...about different people.

Certainly, the stereotypical INTj is going to be very reserved, and you'd never confuse that person with ESFj at all. But then there are more complex types....where you meet a person and that person is really friendly and caring, and you think ESFj, and then you have a deeper converation with the person, and it turns out to be all about abstract math or physics or something, and the more the person talks the more you're confused about what type he or she really is.

[Joy]

like meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Mariano Rajoy]

socionics is based on a typology of 16 characters. if we limit ourselves to four characters, then we would have the quadras. if we expand to say, 32 characters, then we have the sub-type theory. you can divide the rabble into how many even numbers you want and simply look for correlations. 4 is very crude, 32 is a bit hard to work with in application. this isn't rocket science.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

For example, how can you confuse an ENTP with an INTJ if you were to meet them? Their values may be similar, but their appearances are so very different. An INTJ may be completely cold, showing little expression, careful, not very responsive, and so on.

What about dual-seeking ? Most of them should be more or less receptive. I haven't yet met a dominant that I would call completely "cold", ESPECIALLY in informal contact.

People who seem "cold" are either in the Ego, or in the Super-Ego.

This reminds me of the frame-fitting topic. As a general rule, I'd say the four IxTx are the most likely to seem "cold". Most INTJs are colder than ESFPs.

I cannot change your opinion on this, but I am going to let you know that if we start "arguing" about ENTp, then your group of ENTp's has a whole shitload of different types in it, and we are going to get nowhere, because your "criteria" for selecting an ENTp has NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERTYPE RELATIONSHIPS WHATSOEVER, and instead focuses on how "uninhibeted" they are. So lets not go there. We are using different systems.

It is extremely difficult to type everyone by relationships (too many variables). I try to type them on who they actually are... is that so hard?

Gulenko worships the middle 2 Quadras. They have , which is his "weakest" function. His self-hate probably propels him to idolize people who can do things that he cannot. Indeed, the first thing he probabaly does when typing people is to look for , which he has idolized to the point of people who thrive totally on pressure, are never lazy, never give up, and always hold thier ground. ALL of which, are total exaggerations.

This Brain-Types guy worships the ENTp. They have which is HIS "weakest" function. His idolization probably propels him to type talented people as being all ENTp. is probabaly thought of as the "genius" function which sees things in the world that others cannot, and expresses everything that can be wrong and changed.

Not really. The most talked about type in his book is ISTP. I think it has something to do with the Quasi-Identical relationship thingy. Though the most common typings are ENTPs, that's true. But remember, he doesn't type by personal opinion really. He uses his "system".

Don't you see that neither of the funcitons or is that good?

Yeah.

2) yeah, at least 75% of the Entertainment businss is ENTP. And this is coming from a non-ENTP.

Okay, so would an ISFp be the best thing for most of the Entertainment business? Do these people need to be reminded to eat and sleep and be reminded to have emotions? I doubt it.

That's not even what socionics would classify as Duality.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

This reminds me of the frame-fitting topic.

That kid needs to learn how to write in English. What the hell is he saying? Doesn't he see the Emperors New Clothes?

I was talking more about Dynacism-however you spell it.

It is extremely difficult to type everyone by relationships (too many variables). I try to type them on who they actually are... is that so hard?

Apparently, since 75% of the Entertainment Business is typed as ENTp.

but how do you know?

That's not even what socionics would classify as Duality.

Well, whatever, you get the point. Don't pick apart the words. I was just trying to get the point across with an example of sorts. If you didn't get it, just ignore it. Everything isn't explained perfectly, okay? You were supposed to start thinking about if ISFp would be duals to everyone in the entertainment business, if you didn't start thinking about that, and instead thought about how the statement itself was wrong, well...just forget it.

No, I got it... that's just not what Duality is. Duality only works in close personal contact. This does not mean that you will like every dual or be attracted to every dual. Every socionist will say that. You have to like the individual person first, then get to know them personally, for socionic relationships to work.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

I was talking more about Dynacism-however you spell it.

Well, then I am confused why this reminded you of what he wrote? I mean, one of the most easy things to notice is that some people are afraid of "expression, etc." and some people welcome it. I noticed this way before socionics came with an explination. What is your point?

"And any responsible scientist is a constant skeptic who knows that all theories and models are tentative and should always be subject to revision impending new evidence."

This is the same thing I talked about before, such as with this,

"Remember, models themselves are limited. They are an attempt to describe the microscopic world, on the macroscopic level. They are generalizations, simplifications, and often times wrong."

This is why I have a hard time saying something like, "If he does this, it must be Beta, or if he hates this, he must have a PoLR of Te" and so on. You could also be using the MBTI model and end up explaining things differently (if you put trust in following it). Next they will come up with newer models and we will start following those. As he said, resonable scientists are always skeptical of following models and seek to follow reality whenever possible.

Sure, I am setting myself up to get fucked by saying it, but I do think that "dual seeking" functions exist to a certain extent, and you can tell an IxTp from a IxTj apart quickly, because one is more emotionally "afraid" and needs to be warmed up alot, and another is easily "switched over" and isn't really afraid of you or seeking to bring you down somehow.

I think all four of them need to be "warmed up". It's sort of like ISxx types with Ne, INxx types with Se, and so on.

but how do you know?

How much sense does it make to say that one type predominates? I refuse to believe that, it makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense. People in certain types are more likely to gravitate towards certain enviorments/activities. For, say, ENTP, that could be attention/fame/entertaining, and so on.

No, I got it... that's just not what Duality is. Duality only works in close personal contact. This does not mean that you will like every dual or be attracted to every dual. Every socionist will say that. You have to like the individual person first, then get to know them personally, for socionic relationships to work.

Uh, yeah? Duh. I never said that the above wasn't true?

Never mind that part. I just don't think people have to be attracted to their duals if they saw them in Entertainment or something.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

It's the "16 types" forum.

And don't be so quick to turn down other views. For example, the BrainTypes guy has made some observations about types that CAN be explained well with the SOCIONIC system, even without use of it. One thing about INTPs he said is that they are relatively indifferent to authority figures and will not have a have time following them. This is what would be an Se dual-seeking function in socionics. (He also said that ESTPs aren't anti-authority, yet ISTPs are resistant to it, more Se/Si differences). What I like about this approach however is that he didn't use some model to justify it, rather it was from actual living people. It just happens to line up with our system. But I'd say for the most part, Model-A isn't really empirically justified (we've had threads about this), so following everything it says just seems silly to me.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[science as magic]

salvador dali imo

[Dioklecian]

Sideshow BOB

[detail]

Mitchell Feigenbaum?

[FDG]

I don't know his personality, but I would agree with you judging from his work, detail.

Another one, Paul Feyerabend:

[astralsilky]

Jack Nicholson



Dennis Quaid



Marlon Brando

[Gilly]

Brando is an SLE. The others work.

Al Pacino






Ed Norton








Larry David





Dustin Hoffman





Jeff Goldblum

[Blaze]

what about female entp's? :-)

[Logos]

Al Pacino as an ILE? I am just not seeing it.

[Gilly]

Al Pacino as an ILE? I am just not seeing it.

Look up other pictures. Compare to Hoffman and Norton.

[astralsilky]

Brando is an SLE. The others work.

Well, (no offense intended but) interestingly enough, I disagree with practically everyone you just suggested for ENTp. Hmm.

The only one that MAYBE, maybe one is Larry David -- whoever that is -- simply 'cause I could not easily rule him out. The others are definitely not (at least, not according to "my" notes).

[Logos]

So what types do your notes say the others are?

[Exodus]

Sideshow BOB

Sideshow Bob is Ni ego.

And Al Pacino is hardly Ne-dominant, more like Se.

A female ENTp:

Melissa Joan Hart

[Gilly]

So what types do your notes say the others are?

Yeah, I'd like to know as well...some seem fairly obvious to me.

[Gilly]

And Al Pacino is hardly Ne-dominant, more like Se.

Why's that? Because the characters he plays are always badasses?

[Expat]

The "true" Al Pacino is best seen in a documentary, Looking for Richard -- it's about his (failed) attempt to make a film version of Richard III. I think ENTp works, especially since it looks like it failed due to too much Ne and too little Si on his part.

[Exodus]

And Al Pacino is hardly Ne-dominant, more like Se.

Why's that? Because the characters he plays are always badasses?

More like they are always Se dominant. I'll find more evidence to support this.

[Gilly]

And Al Pacino is hardly Ne-dominant, more like Se.

Why's that? Because the characters he plays are always badasses?

More like they are always Se dominant. I'll find more evidence to support this.

Guess which other ILE's are?

Nicholas Cage

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

Not 100%, but I think it's a fair bet. His roles as tough guy/bad guy are rather...unconvincing.

[mikemex]

Darwin and Tesla were both INTp.

Mao ISTj.

Dustin Hoffman is likely to be ENTp Ti subtype. That might explain why he is the favorite actor of my dad (INTj).

Nicholas Cage... I see him as a Fi type. Not very expressive, almost cold. INFj.

[Expat]

I don't think anymore that Mao was ENTp; ESTp or even ISTj are more likely.

[Rocket]

Hellboy ... with Selma Blair ... a great dual match :-)

Insert Image:


I know some of you will say ESTP .... but to me he is as ENTP as they get:-)

[UDP]

There are so many disagreements in this thread.

Anyone want to try to list some again?

[Logos]

Bump for anamericancer.

[Expat]

Larry David




Bill Maher





Weird Al Yankovic