He could be ENTj, I dunno.
Not ISTj.
He could be ENTj, I dunno.
Not ISTj.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
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.Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
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.
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.I don't think people should be that similar to others in their Quadra at all.
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.
like meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
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.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
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.Originally Posted by Transigent
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?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.
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".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.
Yeah.Don't you see that neither of the funcitons or is that good?
That's not even what socionics would classify as Duality.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.2) yeah, at least 75% of the Entertainment businss is ENTP. And this is coming from a non-ENTP.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
I was talking more about Dynacism-however you spell it.Originally Posted by Transigent
but how do you know?Apparently, since 75% of the Entertainment Business is typed as ENTp.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?
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.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.That's not even what socionics would classify as Duality.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
"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."Originally Posted by Transigent
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.
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.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.
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.How much sense does it make to say that one type predominates? I refuse to believe that, it makes no sense.but how do you know?
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.Uh, yeah? Duh. I never said that the above wasn't true?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.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
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.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
salvador dali imo
Sideshow BOB
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I don't know his personality, but I would agree with you judging from his work, detail.
Another one, Paul Feyerabend:
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Jack Nicholson
Dennis Quaid
Marlon Brando
Brando is an SLE. The others work.
Al Pacino
Ed Norton
Larry David
Dustin Hoffman
Jeff Goldblum
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
what about female entp's? :-)
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Al Pacino as an ILE? I am just not seeing it.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Look up other pictures. Compare to Hoffman and Norton.Originally Posted by Logos
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Well, (no offense intended but) interestingly enough, I disagree with practically everyone you just suggested for ENTp. Hmm.Originally Posted by Gilly
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).
So what types do your notes say the others are?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sideshow Bob is Ni ego.Originally Posted by Dioklecian
And Al Pacino is hardly Ne-dominant, more like Se.
A female ENTp:
Melissa Joan Hart
Yeah, I'd like to know as well...some seem fairly obvious to me.Originally Posted by Logos
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Why's that? Because the characters he plays are always badasses?Originally Posted by thehotelambush
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
More like they are always Se dominant. I'll find more evidence to support this.Originally Posted by Gilly
Guess which other ILE's are?Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Nicholas Cage
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
.
Not 100%, but I think it's a fair bet. His roles as tough guy/bad guy are rather...unconvincing.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
[] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I don't think anymore that Mao was ENTp; ESTp or even ISTj are more likely.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
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:-)
ILE
There are so many disagreements in this thread.
Anyone want to try to list some again?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Bump for anamericancer.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Larry David
Bill Maher
Weird Al Yankovic
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied