Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[Northstar]

Yeah, that bold text is a pretty garbage description. I see peripheral as more like a certain comfortable energy that is relatively free from tension (you can really relax in their presence), ruthless and competitive impulses (whether exercised or kept in check), doesn’t have the impulse to push itself even in situations that would warrant it from the perspective of central types, and is much more relaxed about determining what is singularly true or correct (though of course peripheral may think they are more correct than others, Victor obviously thinks that about himself to some extent). There is more to it than that, but I’m just painting a broad picture. The good news is that we have other ways of checking type: temperament, activity orientation/club, cognitive style, etc. Relying on any one thing rigidly in Socionics is foolish and Victor agrees with that very much as well. He would also agree that there are druggies of both central and peripheral types, it’s just that centrals and peripherals might be more inclined to use it for different reasons, peripheral less a doping agent and more for pleasure and reckless exploration (S and I functions). However, once addiction sets in (as it surely can for any type or group, even if to different extents), you probably have to be careful with something like this and like I said it’s a bad idea to type someone based on one thing anyways. That said, there really aren’t many Alphas and Deltas at the top of managerial and political hierarchies from the SHS point of view, so I’m sure that you are typing people differently there (which is fine btw, of course there are many different systems and we can each decide what we find useful and live with the consequences of that).


It is true that most people who study Victor’s work think Angela Merkel is not LII in his system, but no one has done a detailed profiling of her and maybe she is just an unusual example of LII (even if peripherals aren’t common in powerful circles doesn’t mean it’s literally impossible for them to be there). Justin Trudeau is also very central from an SHS point of view. The guy praises communist dictatorships, enforces strict “woke” rules and compliance with them in his government, very image conscious, broadly ambitious, etc. Not sure why a peripheral would be, at least intrinsically, motivated to be so forceful, competitive, ideological and dogmatic in their approaches and tastes. Maybe you think he’s just a puppet, but it’s hard for me to see what peripheral type he would be. “Charming” voters is a hugely competitive enterprise involving promoting oneself to powerful and relatively ruthless people and interests, being very image conscious, knowing how to maneuver with the “powers that be”, trashing one’s opponent and saying how you can do things better, etc. It certainly doesn’t seem like something based on S “bodily comfort/health/sensations” or I “light-hearted/explorative/risky/unworried behavior”.

Yes, we disagree here. I think claiming Ne/Si valuers are DCNH NH is simply a crutch for explaining away a typing method with major problems. Your definition of Ne/Si means that these people almost do not exist. How did they even survive evolution by having zero competitive impulses? I don't think I've actually met such a person, even the most relaxed and mellow types have self-preservation and competitiveness under the surface.

[Northstar]

Have you studied general relativity and/or quantum mechanics? By such (scientific) theories, there are meaningful (i.e. ontological) notions of relativity that go beyond just one single, straightforward, unipolar “truth”, and this may be relevant to understand "truth" in typology since the observer is arguably more intertwined with the observed than in subjects like physics. Objectively verifiable as a purely binary distinction is probably not realistic, since even in science the observer and its relationship with what is being observed is important. I think the notion of more or less evidence (and relative clarity of evidence) are quite important though, so we can probably be said to be able to take a more or less objective approach to matters such that most people would reasonably dismissive someone regarding certain things as "mere opinion" due to a preponderance of straightforward evidence in favor of the conclusions.

Yes, I did actually study them, both out of curiosity and as part of my technical university education. I don't agree, I think it's a popular misconception that relativity and quantum mechanics somehow means that truth is relative, even Einstein himself didn't agree with this interpretation. Relativity simply means that there isn't a "central measuring point" for space and time, it's dependent on your frame of reference. That doesn't mean things aren't deterministic. The same goes for quantum mechanics, the observer effect is a practical constraint due to invasive instrumentation. Causality is still intact even if there are "weird effects" and things at a quantum level are difficult to measure precisely.

That measurements of time and space are relative to the observer doesn't mean that aren't always the same, there are no multiple results with the same frame of reference. In typology, everyone can have their own definitions of types, but to be able to meaningfully discuss these things with others, a commonly agreed measurable yardstick is useful. This is something CT/Vultology is good at (high inter-rater reliability, much better than socionics). Black-box typing services where there is no other explanation than "vibes" is not very interesting to discuss. And yes, Gulenko does provide a short report about how he arrived at his conclusions but I think most people here agree that it's just made-up after the fact by cherry picking things here and there to justify the conclusion he arrived at using his own esoteric methods.

[Varlawend]

Thanks for the response!

Yeah, I think his typing approach has some major issues and while his book was entertaining, I don't think his typing methodology is interesting enough to pay course money for. I might consider buying another book if he'd detailed his "esoteric" approach in some readable way like Auburn does with CT. To be honest, I don't think socionics is worth taking seriously enough to affect any life decisions you're going to make. It's for fun, nothing else.

I too wish he’d write a book about more of his course material. It would make things a lot easier and more accessible for sure. And then maybe have some tests to check for competence, since if it’s just reading material then people probably wouldn’t take it as seriously. Perhaps it will happen at some point! If not by Victor, at least by someone else, since I doubt Victor will do this as he is just too busy (with courses, typing people, and being in a country in the midst of war). For me, Socionics is just another theory that is interesting to understand humans with, and while I think it could affect a decision I or someone else makes, I wouldn’t recommended making any kind of absolute decision on the basis of it (e.g. don’t date this person because they are X type, don’t go to this career because your type doesn’t do that, e.g. assuming you actually want to, this is a pretty robotic, ugly and indefensible use of Socionics). I think Socionics can just be used to enhance people’s decisions and how they relate to and understand others, certainly not something to make decisions for them though.

Yes, we disagree here. I think claiming Ne/Si valuers are DCNH NH is simply a crutch for explaining away a typing method with major problems. Your definition of Ne/Si means that these people almost do not exist. How did they even survive evolution by having zero competitive impulses? I don't think I've actually met such a person, even the most relaxed and mellow types have self-preservation and competitiveness under the surface.

I’m not claiming that Ne/Si valuers are distant subtypes; I’m saying that some methods might assess some people as Ne/Si valuing in one method (which may not be absolutely correct or inclusive of typological information), and those same people might be assessed as just having such a subtype in an SHS-like method (or perhaps some other distinctive feature than just a subtype). I’m not convinced there is an inherent problem with the typing method of SHS if by that you mean something like typing too many people as central, since I don’t think a bias is acceptable in either direction and that we simply have to go where the data takes us (including away from SHS or any other theory if the data suggests as much). In fact, I’m currently dating someone typed as a peripheral type in SHS theory (not my dual, lol), there are multiple other SHS peripherals in my family and among friends of mine (both in and out of the typology community), and I think there is at least arguably a significant difference in these people compared to “SHS centrals” (of course you can debate how deep or fundamental this difference is). I can grant that SHS doesn’t necessarily have the best way of dividing of central/peripheral that exists; you certainly think it doesn’t, I just think that remains to be seen via more exploration and more data collection and more rigorous methods. I also think your interpretation of what I am saying is too absolute or exclusive (I used the word “relatively” before describing peripherals, and I speak of hugely competitive and dictatorial enterprises of people like Justin Trudeau, not absolutely but at least relatively to what most people deal with); of course peripherals still have all 8 functions like Se and Ni and some competitive impulses and ability to succeed in competition. It’s how they are compared to other people, how their functions compare relationally within themselves and their own functional blocks, that would make them typed differently.

Yes, I did actually study them, both out of curiosity and as part of my technical university education. I don't agree, I think it's a popular misconception that relativity and quantum mechanics somehow means that truth is relative, even Einstein himself didn't agree with this interpretation. Relativity simply means that there isn't a "central measuring point" for space and time, it's dependent on your frame of reference. That doesn't mean things aren't deterministic. The same goes for quantum mechanics, the observer effect is a practical constraint due to invasive instrumentation. Causality is still intact even if there are "weird effects" and things at a quantum level are difficult to measure precisely. That measurements of time and space are relative to the observer doesn't mean that aren't always the same, there are no multiple results with the same frame of reference. In typology, everyone can have their own definitions of types, but to be able to meaningfully discuss these things with others, a commonly agreed measurable yardstick is useful. This is something CT/Vultology is good at (high inter-rater reliability, much better than socionics). Black-box typing services where there is no other explanation than "vibes" is not very interesting to discuss. And yes, Gulenko does provide a short report about how he arrived at his conclusions but I think most people here agree that it's just made-up after the fact by cherry picking things here and there to justify the conclusion he arrived at using his own esoteric methods.

Agreed with you on the popular misconception; I am not saying that truth itself is entirely relative or just in the eye of the beholder. What I am trying to say (not sure how precisely I articulated myself the first time) is that truth contains a lot of relativity and complexity to crunch, even if ultimately there is such an absolute nature of truth or absolute nature of reality (in which I would be inclined to agree with you), and moreover, that truth is living and the way which we interact with it changes the results (even in an absolute way). Basically, I'm talking about relativity, not relativism. Total relativism/nihilism IMO is a coward's view of reality which refuses to open oneself to the challenges and feedback of "objective" reality regarding the effectiveness or lack thereof of our actions in their ability to achieve our goals. Likewise, believing we know the absolute truth (which I am not imputing to you, in fact you said the opposite when you spoke about complexity) is simply a refusal to acknowledge the many things we can't possibly know with certainty, since we have to seek out our own flaws and falsifications, otherwise we can always rationalize them away yet continue to be punished by our arrogance and blindness in practice.


When it comes to relativity theory, it is exactly my point that there isn’t a central measuring point when it comes to typology theories either. Yet, people new to this field wouldn’t necessarily guess that if they listened to so many people talk about this; they talk about it as if they already have this central measuring point in ways which aren't realistically justifiable (if we are honest about the limits to our knowledge). There are all these meaningfully different frames, and while we will get deterministic results in each one if we apply each physics frame or typology theory in a disciplined and accurate way, it is possible we may be seeing some similar things differently by people not using the same frame. And if we want to understand someone’s point of view and ultimately come to a harmonious perspective which comprehends the different relative frames and can derive insight more arbitrarily, then we have to understand the frame from which things are being measured, or at least the general principles that we would expect from any useful and accurate frame. And I think this is rarely done as much as it could be. Yes, people can be wrong and have a lack of common sense or even understand their own frames in an inconsistent or maladroit way, so criticism is also important.


And when it comes to quantum physics, we see the problem of how we participate in living truth and how our perspective and the approach we take to reality alters reality in turn. There are practical measurement limits in quantum physics, yes, but the limits are more fundamental than that, since it's not as though we will overcome them and one day measure particles in some all inclusive way. Consider, for example, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. There is simply no getting around the fact that we will never have a literally perfect objective/inclusive measurement, because whatever we make the measurement with (physics tools or typology methods), it has an effect on how our relationship with the thing plays out in reality. Basically, truth is not something static, but also dynamic and participatory, even if it is ultimately absolute. We are active agents within that truth, and in this sense typology theories aren’t just attempts to describe some static objective truth, but different ways of interacting with truth which are more or less effective or possibly effective in different ways (like different ways of making measurements regarding quantum mechanics or Heisenberg’s principle or something along those lines). And this is quite layered and not necessarily straightforward, so that is why it is important to me to avoid arrogance and make few assumptions about what is true in typology without testing it in practice (not saying I am or have been perfect in this, I surely haven't, but it is important to me in principle).


And there is a lot to test in practice, because typology is full of arrogance and less mature theories, so in order to really navigate this space, I think we require a tricky combination of good logical razors and criticisms while also being open to gestalt understandings which don’t proceed straightforwardly from what we already know. And I think this is the mistake some people might be making regarding Victor. Though there is so much of value to life besides typology, so I understand not wanting to invest in it, including in the case of something like SHS which is more unusual. I have many interests and pursuits other than typology as well and it’s hard to juggle them all sometimes, so we need to prioritize, but we can still keep an open/active mind about the topic. I just like typology since it is useful for organizing information about people and general abstract topics, and I think it's an interesting topic of study in a more abstract sense (i.e. humans are more interesting to me than inanimate matter).

I am very fond of CT/vultology’s inter-rater reliability; it’s one of the many impressive studies they have come up with recently. They are definitely superior to Socionics in that, and in their overall methodological approach IMO (as to their level of insight, I am less sure).

[Sanguine Miasma]

In order to understand Gulenko one has to understand what analytical thinking really is. He is a prime example of such thinking.

Analytical Thinking
Definition
Must be able to identify and define problems, extract key information from data and develop workable solutions
for the problems identified in order to test and verify the cause of the problem and develop solutions to resolve
the problems identified.
Key Words: Problem Analysis; Data Analysis; Judgment.
Behavioral Indicators:
1. Collects information and data.
2. Extracts relevant data in order to identify possible causes for the problem.
3. Critically examines issues by breaking them down into manageable parts.
4. Analyses information to determine and ascertain the most likely cause of the problem.
5. Identifies the logical, factual outcomes based on the data, information and analyses conducted.
6. Identifies action to prevent the problem from occurring partially or totally.

https://www.csu.edu/humanresources/empdev/documents/AnalyticalThinking.pdf


There are ways to learn this. Just analyze these sorts of datasets.

[myresearch]

I'd say that central types tend to occupy extremes. It is probably the theme that peripherals disregard. Periphery in itself is the center of life.

I agree. What I meant to say, when you look at people you can see that others factors have more influence than sociotypes. For example, lots of famous people, have parents or relatives in the industry, lots of entrepreneurs come from wealthy families, lots of children of politicians get into ivy league and then get partial or sole ownership of some foundations and companies etc. Ofcourse there are also people who accumulate everything on their own, that can go from bottom to top, generally speaking though, it is not that common in comparison, most people have foundation already.

Besides all that, I think nurturing style and environment especially early ones can shape people's ego in certain way to make them desire or want to refrain certain things regardless of sociotype. That's the thing l like about DCHN.

[Nephilthoth]

The relativity of identity and personality and relativity in physics is a poor comparison.

[Alive]

lmao @Alive benefiting from his benefactor in a glorious, over-the-top way as always. <3

I haven't analyzed ILI and Ni- as much, but Ni+ often looks at at something and thinks about how relevant it will still be in the future. it strives to find universal themes that can be appreciated by different societies and generations. gifted Ni+ types have painted The Birth of Venus, filmed 2001: Odyssey in Space, composed the 9th Symphony with Ode to Joy, designed the Sistine Chapel, sculptured David, written Crime and Punishment, published the theory of relativity, solved the poincaré conjecture etc. all these works have stood the test of time. it is very difficult to really describe Ni+ but you can observe it in the creative pursuits of IEI. I think lyrics are ultimatively the inventors because they perceive reality as a constant repetition of the same things happening and unfolding over and over again and strive to create something new because of it.

[Shazaam]

I haven't analyzed ILI and Ni- as much, but Ni+ often looks at at something and thinks about how relevant it will still be in the future. it strives to find universal themes that can be appreciated by different societies and generations. gifted Ni+ types have painted The Birth of Venus, filmed 2001: Odyssey in Space, composed the 9th Symphony with Ode to Joy, designed the Sistine Chapel, sculptured David, written Crime and Punishment, published the theory of relativity, solved the poincaré conjecture etc. all these works have stood the test of time. it is very difficult to really describe Ni+ but you can observe it in the creative pursuits of IEI. I think lyrics are ultimatively the inventors because they perceive reality as a constant repetition of the same things happening and unfolding over and over again and strive to create something new because of it.

Ni is convergent - like my brain is looking for all these conceptual layers and ideas in time and bringing them together in a singular, unifying point. With 4D Ni & Fi - IEIs are very good at making connections between things. We're the heart of the socion, bringing everybody else together. IEI art tends to be inspiring, beautiful, creative, humane, absurdist, perverse, often an explosion of the Te systes.. Beta NF has to kinda avoid the trap of avoiding Te too much though- the best writing still has TE in it, it's just not the main point because it's boring. Positive side of Te polr is I'm not going to get stopped or trapped worrying about how efficient or productive something is or not. To me, the real makes the magic better and the magic makes the real better because of the convergency.

Though surely we of course realize not everybody is the same or anything overly lame and boring like that - that's where the drama and fun part comes in.

[Alive]

Though surely we of course realize not everybody is the same or anything overly lame and boring like that - that's where the drama and fun part comes in.

I wonder if Te PolR sometimes leads to ambiguous plots that don't have to make sense or be explained in a rational way, like a David Lynch film for example.

[Sanguine Miasma]

It really raises your self esteem when you realize that you got labelled as a male version of challenge trophy by the originator.

[myresearch]

Harmonizers are the homeless types. They are the weakest of all and they are destined to live in a commune in a very poor community where the only thing that would save them is their receptiveness and amiability. They are basically beggars and survive through handouts. Some of them don't even count their resources very much. Dominant types take their money and resources and achievement from them anyway on the daily, so why count. City life doesn't suit them because it's very brash and it requires them to rise above, compete and be independent when they would rather sit back, relax and focus on their inner wanderings while making sure they don't disrupt their environment because they are very sensitive to change. It's a shit life but then this cute, hip and sexy Creative rebel/snowflake comes along. If a Creative type gets to like them then it would be nice because to some extent these Creatives are cool and with their activity could have generated some resources of their own and these Harmonizers would provide value by not stepping onto their toes and not force them to do anything. It's so little of a value but means big to Creatives because these people are too much of a snowflake to even appreciate "The Society TM" that these Ds and Ns are so fixated on creating. Finally, they can talk shit about these boring normies and annoying dictators and would get a laughing audience from a Harmonizer who, specially if intuitive with poor sensing might not even be aware of their environment at all times but say yes anyway when they get the cue to react. The Harmonizer is just happy to be there and experience that the Creative is existing and interacting with them. Finally Creatives can just do the most random of things that don't even help society, fixate on themselves and act like a full-blown snowflake and for some reason a Harmonizer would say omg that's my type and of course the Creative would feel loved and this just fuels the fire within them. That fire could make them do stuff and maybe that gets more resources. More love more resources more handouts to Harmonizers.

That's what love is. Resources won't even matter anymore they would just exist! And with this love the Harmonizers get the handouts and yay, some of them actually stop being homeless. Thank you Creatives for making the world a better place for Harmonizers.

Interesting sociofiction to read. I am not sure if H stands for Homeless and D stands for Dictator, I know people would be amazed but there are Si/Ne and H people on top, yeah both at the same time and there are Se/Ni D people at the bottom. life is life.

[myresearch]

Homeless, Dictator, Normie, Cool Kid.

You can win over people by getting handouts. H for example can up their social game, if they get lucky and find some good types, spread their work around or support them, for some reason these people would just treat them or have a cut from the work. And like I've said Creatives can also just take and adopt them without realizing it, that resources wouldn't matter much anymore and maybe they can work on their own shit. Also H also stands for harmless. You already know Dominants can land on their feet so better to just make them work their life out on their own, but Harmonizers just have that cuteness in them that you kinda wanna help them out. Now this could be an advice to Harmless Harmonizers - if you are too weak, give your love to a strong person and be there for them. Don't ask much for return but you'll get help anyway. Just make sure they aren't the Dbag types. If you can't produce your own shit because you are too tired and weak for this world, be a support instead.

Homeless and Hungry --> Harmless Helpful Healer --> Hip, High-Profile and Happy af.

I assume this all means you type as H type.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Harmonizers are the homeless types. They are the weakest of all and they are destined to live in a commune in a very poor community where the only thing that would save them is their receptiveness and amiability. They are basically beggars and survive through handouts. Some of them don't even count their resources very much. Dominant types take their money and resources and achievement from them anyway on the daily, so why count. City life doesn't suit them because it's very brash and it requires them to rise above, compete and be independent when they would rather sit back, relax and focus on their inner wanderings while making sure they don't disrupt their environment because they are very sensitive to change. It's a shit life but then this cute, hip and sexy Creative rebel/snowflake comes along. If a Creative type gets to like them then it would be nice because to some extent these Creatives are cool and with their activity could have generated some resources of their own and these Harmonizers would provide value by not stepping onto their toes and not force them to do anything. It's so little of a value but means big to Creatives because these people are too much of a snowflake to even appreciate "The Society TM" that these Ds and Ns are so fixated on creating. Finally, they can talk shit about these boring normies and annoying dictators and would get a laughing audience from a Harmonizer who, specially if intuitive with poor sensing might not even be aware of their environment at all times but say yes anyway when they get the cue to react. The Harmonizer is just happy to be there and experience that the Creative is existing and interacting with them. Finally Creatives can just do the most random of things that don't even help society, fixate on themselves and act like a full-blown snowflake and for some reason a Harmonizer would say omg that's my type and of course the Creative would feel loved and this just fuels the fire within them. That fire could make them do stuff and maybe that gets more resources. More love more resources more handouts to Harmonizers.

That's what love is. Resources won't even matter anymore they would just exist! And with this love the Harmonizers get the handouts and yay, some of them actually stop being homeless. Thank you Creatives for making the world a better place for Harmonizers.

Out of curiosity, have you met your sexy creative yet, or are you speaking from hope?

[mysteryofdungeon]

I'm not looking for a sexy creative, I'm looking for my cute normie shuttle trader! My goal is to be the Dbag dominatrix type.

But hey if the stars align, a sexy creative is not really bad. I'm too average and yet too crazy for normies. Very inert, says a lot of shit, believes in lots of pseudoscience, failing magician, doesn't even know her type and most importantly, a fucking mod on this obscure and weird forum. A sexy creative would be a blessing for this woman! Imagine the handouts!

You’ve not failed

you’ve captured my heart with magical voodoo (and given me a constant erection with your voodoo doll of me)

[mysteryofdungeon]

It really raises your self esteem when you realize that you got labelled as a male version of challenge trophy by the originator.

Now I know what I need to do

to claim my title as your dual opposite, the worthless aggressor incel

[Poptart]

N is for Narc (as in someone who reports your rule violations to the authorities, not narcissist)

[Rune]

@Varlawend , could you give a list of celebrity examples of each of the 16 types - preferably ones that are Western and can be found in a lot of videos?

[Alive]

one's DCNH description of harmonizing subtypes is pretty excellent. I like about them that I don't have to argue or explain much, they will just go along with what I want. eases my soul in some way. normalizing subtypes are often pedantic about the details.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I'm not looking for a sexy creative, I'm looking for my cute normie shuttle trader! My goal is to be the Dbag dominatrix type.

But hey if the stars align, a sexy creative is not really bad. I'm too average and yet too crazy for normies. Very inert, says a lot of shit, believes in lots of pseudoscience, failing magician, doesn't even know her type and most importantly, a fucking mod on this obscure and weird forum. A sexy creative would be a blessing for this woman! Imagine the handouts!

Oh man. I bet your handouts would be great. But how are you planning to go down the path of the dominatrix? What's preferable about it compared to meeting a hot creative?

[mysteryofdungeon]

Well, honestly I’m quite new to this path so I just bought a whip for a start. Whip whip whip everyone. Want to straighten people up and make them work, whip. Don’t like them, whip. Might work very weirdly on those masochist victims though. I really need to prevent it from turning me into an LSI.

Get real good so you can whip the hair off my body bby

[Varlawend]

The relativity of identity and personality and relativity in physics is a poor comparison.

Of course it's not the same thing, but is it a poor comparison in a way that is relevant to the points being made? If not, then your point is weaker, at the very least.

[Varlawend]

@Varlawend , could you give a list of celebrity examples of each of the 16 types - preferably ones that are Western and can be found in a lot of videos?

Sure thing, or at least I can for most types. The one's that are rare are especially introverted sensation and introverted ethics type, especially peripheral sensory types and ESI, because by the very nature of these types, their bearers are usually conformal and deliberately try not to stick out or are much more easily embarrassed at attention (in the case of Delta managers, their work is directly on the territory, not centralized management, so they wouldn't tend to rise in central management hierarchies). That doesn't mean there are no famous examples, just that you'd have to scrape for them, since I do know more examples of these types IRL.

ILE: Steve Wozniak (Creative subtype), Ray Kurzweil (CN or NC subtype)
SEI: none western, but Evgeny Leonov (likely Creative subtype), Danny DeVito sort of reminds me of him so maybe he is a possible example that is Western
ESE: none western, but Nikolai Drozdov for males, Masha Efrosinina for females, if I was more familiar with actors and actresses then I'm sure there would be some in Hollywood since ethical extroverts are common in an artistic environment, there are also plenty in all kinds of salesmanship and service industry positions
LII: Ken Wilbur (probably Harmonizing subtype), Dario Nardi (Harmonizing subtype), Ben Vaserlan (Creative subtype), David Keirsey Jr. (distant subtype)

EIE: Steve Jobs (DC subtype), Jordan Peterson (Normalizing subtype), Vlodomyr Zelensky (Creative subtype), Johnny Depp (CH subtype), Ava Max (CD subtype), Lorde (Harmonizing subtype), Osho (Harmonizing subtype)
SLE: Recep Erdogan (Dominant subtype), Hillary Clinton (Dominant subtype), Victoria Nuland (distant subtype)
LSI: Tulsi Gabbard (Dominant subtype), Vladimir Putin (Dominant subtype), Joe Biden (Creative subtype), Elon Musk (DC subtype), Giulio Tononi (NC subtype), Gordon Ramsay (CD subtype), Tim Cook (ND subtype)
IEI: Polina Agureeva (Creative subtype), Russian but a really good example, she played in this one film/series "Liquidiation" with her SLE-H dual Mikhail Porechenkov, so it's interesting to see the Beta irrationals there for a change of pace, this data scientist John Sukup was also speculated by multiple top SHS students to be IEI-C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0NQUOrDR_E, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_2Ob_BN2uE

SEE: Donald Trump (Dominant subtype), Boris Berezovsky (HD subtype), John Madden (contact subtype), Britney Spears (CD subtype), Kim Kardashian (distant subtype)
LIE: Richard Branson (Dominant subtype), Oleg Tinkov (not sure about subtype)
ILI: Jeff Bezos (Dominant subtype), Nassim Taleb (Initial subtype), Alfred Hitchcock (Creative subtype), Albert Einstein (Creative subtype), Grigori Perelman (NH subtype), Grigory Reinin (Harmonizing subtype), Stephen Wolfram (Normalizing subtype)
ESI: maybe the rarest famous type, hardly any, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGZqIiueJI (ESI-C, typed by Gulenko)

LSE: hardly any among famous people, apparently Henry Ford was speculated as LSE-D at one point but this is doubted, but also: Victor Glushkov (would be Normalizing subtype)
IEE: not western, but Ani Lorak (Creative subtype), Eldar Ryazanov (Harmonizing subtype), as with Enthusiast I'm sure there are some in the artistic environment but not close to as much as central ethical extroverts, I'd have to get more familiar with it to find them as -E (EIE/SEE) is much more interested in drawing in and influencing large audiences
EII: Carl Rogers (distant subtype), Abraham Maslow (Creative subtype)
SLI: hardly any among famous people, but I can give this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8EjM3GaYc) which apparently contains an IEE and SLI dual couple, there is also this channel (https://www.youtube.com/c/TheIntrovertedThinker) of a girl typed SLI by Victor, not sure about subtype, in addition to Farrah McKenzie on Ben Vaserlan's channel

I can get more into celebrity typing in the future, but I tend to find typing regular people more interesting since they are more diverse (but all of it is still somewhat interesting). I have a lot more celebs stored, I just don't have time to pore over them right now. Some of these types I could give a lot more examples for.

[The Iconoclast]

What do you think Bob Dylan's type is? I recently analyzed his behavior in sporadic interviews, as well as his behavior off camera. He is without a doubt a very secretive guy. My two hypotheses are EIE or ILI. He displays all this artistic talent, transformation skills, intrinsic notion of the social problems of his time. He was also known as a spokesman of a generation, someone with a sensitivity to the themes of the collective unconscious, reformer and rebel. Only he exhibits a closed and seemingly introverted behavior. He could be an EIE with an accentuation on some introverted function.

He could be ILI, since he criticized the social order, pointed out errors and contradictions, presented emerging trends, etc. Perhaps he exercised his social mission (T plus L) through music and poetry. C subtype is the most plausible. He is also enthusiastic, abrupt, experimental, reserved, kind of cold, likes to reinvent himself, is often seen as rude. About Johnny Depp, I believe he looks more like a Harmonizing than a Creative. I would change the order of subtypes to HC. Thank you for the very useful information you have posted here.

[Alive]

Bob Dylan is the definition of the "Lyric"

She lit a burner on the stove and offered me a pipe
"I thought you'd never say hello, " she said
"You look like the silent type"
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an Italian poet
From the thirteenth century

And every one of them words rang true
And glowed like burning coal
Pouring off of every page
Like it was written in my soul from me to you
Tangled up in blue

[Varlawend]

What do you think Bob Dylan's type is? I recently analyzed his behavior in sporadic interviews, as well as his behavior off camera. He is without a doubt a very secretive guy. My two hypotheses are EIE or ILI. He displays all this artistic talent, transformation skills, intrinsic notion of the social problems of his time. He was also known as a spokesman of a generation, someone with a sensitivity to the themes of the collective unconscious, reformer and rebel. Only he exhibits a closed and seemingly introverted behavior. He could be an EIE with an accentuation on some introverted function.

He could be ILI, since he criticized the social order, pointed out errors and contradictions, presented emerging trends, etc. Perhaps he exercised his social mission (T plus L) through music and poetry. C subtype is the most plausible. He is also enthusiastic, abrupt, experimental, reserved, kind of cold, likes to reinvent himself, is often seen as rude. About Johnny Depp, I believe he looks more like a Harmonizing than a Creative. I would change the order of subtypes to HC. Thank you for the very useful information you have posted here.

Good question! I’m not especially familiar with Bob Dylan, but, from what you describe, he sounds more like a Mentor. Your speculation about intuitive dialectical thinking makes sense given the themes of criticism, rebellion, reform and social orientation (i.e. right spinning), etc. But a Critic is unlikely to tackle the main social problems of a time or be the voice of a generation since their E is inflation block, much more personal, over close psychological distance and not designed for something so sweeping (Mentor social mission). On the other hand, Mentors are also often quite critical of society and point out contradictions, just as Critics do (often Mentors are even louder about such things). To have another layer of sureness, I’d also want to look at his visual signals and emotional manifestations on video, but I’d lean towards Mentor for now.


Perhaps Bob Dylan does fit the idea or definition of a Lyricist very well in some versions of Socionics, just not SHS. SHS Lyricists are not such a critical and rebellious type who heat up a situation and reform society, but rather contribute to peace, gentle soulfulness, mollifying or getting around conflicts (as we see with someone like “Lore/Aster”).


As for Depp, it does seem that he has significant Harmonization. Overall, he seemed more creative to me because he has been inclined to rebellious behavior since a child, not easily adapting to or fitting into life, engaging in acting (the “Player” version of EIE) and remarkably beautifully emotional mimicry (seems like he’s the brightest character in much that he’s casted in, playing an “E” role), good sense of charm and humor, getting into drama and attracting attention (not all his fault e.g. Amber Heard but nonetheless he seems a drama magnet), etc. I’d oppose this to someone like Osho, who, though also controversial (HD or HC subtype so he also has at least one significant contact subtype), generally has stiller and more meditative and relaxed mimicry (like a Buddha or wise old man figure), and is more philosophically and spiritually inclined as a kind of guru figure, helping people achieve a kind of wholeness rather than engaging in outlandish or entertaining behaviors like Johnny. Johnny does have some of the EIE-H dark aesthetic though, and comes across as pretty low key, relaxed and shy at times, so I could see some of where a speculation of H might come from, I just haven’t seen as much in terms of obvious H behavior from him (at far psychological distance).

[mysteryofdungeon]

Usually, in the land of intelligent and questioning people, arguments are valued more than assertions; that is, it's more important why we believe something, than simply what we believe.

Are you saying “usually” because you didn’t make it to that land?

[Varlawend]

Are you saying “usually” because you didn’t make it to that land?

I'm simply floored by the force and relevance of the argumentation in this post. I think you are probably at too high of a level for me to really engage with. Can you please lower the intellectual level so that someone like me can understand you?

[mysteryofdungeon]

I'm simply floored by the force and relevance of the argumentation in this post. I think you are probably at too high of a level for me to really engage with. Can you please lower the intellectual level so that someone like me can understand you?

Understand deez nuts

[aster reverie]

Understand deez nuts

Bad fat cat!

Off the couch!

[mysteryofdungeon]

@Lore Garfield is cute, but he would scratch up deez nuts that were meant for Varlawend to understand.

[aster reverie]

@Lore Garfield is cute, but he would scratch up deez nuts that were meant for Varlawend to understand.

there are many nuts on this forum that can be hard to understand

[mysteryofdungeon]

there are many nuts on this forum that can be hard to understand

Hard? Mine are soft …. Maybe Garfield got to them early.

[Sanguine Miasma]

My evil beta brain needs to figure out how to overthrow this cult leader.

[Nephilthoth]

Of course it's not the same thing, but is it a poor comparison in a way that is relevant to the points being made? If not, then your point is weaker, at the very least.

lol I thought it was apparent in my original statement that I'm saying its not relevant. They are entirely different things obviously.

[Varlawend]

lol I thought it was apparent in my original statement that I'm saying its not relevant. They are entirely different things obviously.

I see; I don't want to interpret your statements too harshly, though I don't think that relativity in both contexts actually has NOTHING relevant in common (though the nature of a typology frame, and physics frame, are definitely VERY different and that is a fair thing to highlight). If anything though, I feel that the "frame problem" (a problem of knowledge representation) would be much worse in typology than in something like physics, thus the relativity of typology frames is pertinent in arguably more circumstances than it is in physics (since it physics it comes up more at high speeds and high energies and such). To clarify once more, this isn't to imply that I believe in some kind of relativism or the lack of absolute nature of truth (I believe the opposite), rather I'm concerned with the imperfection, incompleteness and translational frame problem (the problem of translating between two different frames that both incompletely and approximately represent the type/identity of a person) inherent in our knowledge representation and understanding of typology and identity.

[aster reverie]

Hard? Mine are soft …. Maybe Garfield got to them early.

soft nuts are easier to crack

but now you just sound like roadkill lol

[mysteryofdungeon]

soft nuts are easier to crack

but now you just sound like roadkill lol

Well they don’t crack, they just tear apart and my cum dribbles all over your face.

[myresearch]

@Varlawend has anyone typed by G with polr accuentation according to your knowledge?

I mean people who paid for his services, not public figures etc.

[Nephilthoth]

I see; I don't want to interpret your statements too harshly, though I don't think that relativity in both contexts actually has NOTHING relevant in common (though the nature of a typology frame, and physics frame, are definitely VERY different and that is a fair thing to highlight). If anything though, I feel that the "frame problem" (a problem of knowledge representation) would be much worse in typology than in something like physics, thus the relativity of typology frames is pertinent in arguably more circumstances than it is in physics (since it physics it comes up more at high speeds and high energies and such). To clarify once more, this isn't to imply that I believe in some kind of relativism or the lack of absolute nature of truth (I believe the opposite), rather I'm concerned with the imperfection, incompleteness and translational frame problem (the problem of translating between two different frames that both incompletely and approximately represent the type/identity of a person) inherent in our knowledge representation and understanding of typology and identity.

Yeah, personality is more relativistic than physics, even in the context of general relativity. For example, in physics we are able to verify this theory by observing various effects that gravity has on light such as gravitational lensing. These things are observer independent, I can see it, you can see it, anyone can.

Is this possible with personality? What is an objectively true personality? If so how does one determine this?

In General relativity space and time are affected by gravity. What is the cause of relativity in the context of a person?

There isn't a constant like gravity to use in this context. I have my idea of a person, they have their own idea of who they are, their friends and family have theirs. There is no central authority on who determines this. This is a living social construct that can change throughout time. That is the odd part about all of this, the idea that people are similar to inanimate bodies floating through space. Its deliberately removing the subjectivity of human experience. Instead, personality is better represented in the form of a rhizome with creeping roots growing in all directions with no real center.

As for imperfection, representation of a personality being perfect or imperfect I think is the actual wrong frame of understanding personality. What one person lacks in representation is a subjective judgement, and what they lack would depend on the observer's opinion.

Ah well, how are we supposed to type anyone then? Its easy, we continue to use constructs like socionics which are just tools for us to make sense of a person. Just as we use language to make sense of human experiences. I can't ever truly know how you feel but I can get an understanding thanks to the construct of language. But it is important to understand that this is incomplete and will always be incomplete.

[aster reverie]

Well they don’t crack, they just tear apart and my cum dribbles all over your face.