Lindsay Lohan

[Timeless]

slight chance of ISFp

And what makes you think that?

[mfckr]

.

[Beautiful sky]

Look at the slant of the eyes at the corner and a side picture of her. She's now ESFp. Also look at the morphological pictures that YEkatarina put together.

Wow there's no access to the site anymore (I'm talking about Socionko).

[Galen]

While I was watching Inception yesterday I couldn't help but notice how much Leonardo DiCaprio looks like her lol.

[munenori2]

And what makes you think that?

Drugs. Lots and lots of drugs.

[crazedrat]

Yeah she's ESTp. Maritsa, you're wrong again. You sure are good at that

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah she's ESTp. Maritsa, you're wrong again. You sure are good at that

I have the book that says otherwise and you don't really trust VI, do you? Furthermore, you can't have her for questioning/gauging to proove that point.

[717495]

Is Lindsay Lohan still a real person? She was in the fucking parent trap I thought she died several years ago and everyone forgot about her.

[Timeless]

Drugs. Lots and lots of drugs.

I bet she does nuke too.

[717495]

Nor would any self-respecting INTp would put up w/ her bullshit

I think INTps can easily put up with a lot of bullshit and craziness. That's why they're INTps and thus rather ugly and worthless creatures. INTjs are the ones who will be dicks about it and think she's a bad person, or something. But anyway, I'm not comparing her to most ESFps. She's obviously pretty messed up, in some of these videos, I suppose. At the same time, I can see some elements of indication towards ESTp I'm uncertain about, but I lean more towards ESFp.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

INFp males will (secretly) grovel over it though and think its sexy.

Not sexy, but I think people need to leave her alone sometimes, she just wants to have lots of fun and do her own thing. Society is way too afraid of Beta independence.

*makes leave lindsay lohan alone video*

She's obviously pretty messed up, in some of these videos, I suppose.

And what makes you the paragon of goodness? I'm kinda tired of people judging and hating on successful people. It's like they think they summoned demons or dark demonic forces just to get ahead in life. When all they really did was wake up and paid attention for a little while. I used to be really critical towards successful people but why? They only got there being incredibly intelligent and driven. My own jealousy and criticism was just holding me back in life from doing the things that I wanted.

Look, all they're really trying to do is create their own way and live their lives fully instead of just analyzing it/and watching life like the rest of the people. It's something anybody could do if they put their minds to it. So being all schaenfraude with their draaaaaama is just getting old to me. If I become famous, I'd just run toward that cause I know that in a way - I'd be attracting a lot of it.

[717495]

And what makes you the paragon of goodness?

I just said that INTps are ugly and worthless creatures in that last post. I was assuming she was messed up because I was listening to other people's responses, and not because I am knowledgeable in the area of what's acceptable or what's healthy, or whatever.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I know that, I was just trying to make an indirect point that what's 'goodness' and 'fucked up ness' anyway. You know? Just a healthy debate.

The way I look at is people have one or two choices in life and that's what it all boils down to:

They can either create or consume. They can either write life the way they want it to be and constantly create, or they can simply absorb other people's art. Either choice is fine actually. No matter what is happening, life can be boiled down to those two things.

all Lidnsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus did, and yeah they were born/pressured into it, maybe unfairly- is they live their lives constantly and don't absorb the media, they make the media. Perhaps Ms. Lohan is really a consumer trying to be a creator. I like her personality and her 'soul' but I'd agree she's pretty talent-less.

[717495]

Or what I like to call it, think rightly or wrongly. I don't see any correctness in pure creativity, even though I'm totally for creativity and doing things the way that most people don't expect or approve of, but not because of the latter, which seems like still in essence creativity. Sometimes people can try to be themselves, but still think too correctly, and never reach a point of sufficient creativity.

[mfckr]

.

[mfckr]

.

[717495]

Sorry I was focusing more on how she acts and less on what her facial skeleton looks like/what faces she chooses to make. I think a large amount of people wouldn't be so focused on those attributes when it comes to identifying duality or a personality type. People can be rather focused on how good someone looks or holds themselves at a physical level, and tastes always seem to differ within same types (I've never been surprised by this because it's a natural expectation), but as far as duality goes its more to do with deeper issues like someone's cognitive values and how they may affect their more superficial persona (like you know, everyone says and does things they don't mean, we all do stuff and emote, and speak somewhat similarly but we really mean to indicate different things, and have different focuses; it's a natural process that gets mixed together), and how they act and react to situations, what they say that is relateable and their stance on a variety type related things, and just a bit less about having certain physical edges about them, or hints of valuing something because they have a twinkle in their eye or a smile that fits with someone else. Sometimes VI helps, but it certainly depends on the context, like "this person just made a specific face at a comment which could indicate that she's feeling or thinking about something identifiable to that unique reaction." But this seems like more of an way of going abouts typing, something I don't really focus much on. Seems less evidentual to me anyhow.

[mfckr]

.

[717495]

Yeah, well Sociotypes will always be apparent, and values will urge to be communicated to each his own no matter if someone doesn't speak the same language (we've had people attempt to type pets because they show a level of intelligence). I'd expect a reasonable identification of personal values to be through realistic means and less about how someone appears on the outside, which always has the potential of surprizing people, to where they change what they initially thought about someone after getting to actually know them. You might have a mean aunt, and years later think that you won't get along with this new person because she reminds you of her, until you begin to notice how nice and attractive she is on the inside, how your personalities fit better, and even still not like her as much as you should, because she still looks like your aunt and has many of the same expressions and mannerisms that have a negative impact on you. This is basic psychology without the personality types involved. If you choose call these type related, then its your personal choice I guess. This does go to show that you hold a specific line of seriousness in this method of identification, which seems very well type related, and which I'm sure many others don't care to focus on.

[mfckr]

.

[Hitta]

I was being a little bit facetious about the whole 'INTps would never put w/ her bs; INFps grovel over it' thing. I mean, there is truth in what I said too—but don't take it hyper-literal. Something that applies to most things I say anyway. Reality is too complex for that kind of nonsense. All you can really do is make grunts about it.

Anyway. I subjectively detect no in Ms. Lohan. There's nothing in the eyes to indicate as such—she 'feels' more cold and barren to me in the way that β-ST females tend to strike me (whereas I gather a β-NF would react w/ an entirely different impression as the valued elements are more in sync). One can think subjective impressions of this nature are ridiculous if they'd like; but then they should seriously ask themselves how else it is that humans are able to reliably detect the presence of their own duals, compatible quadra members, etc. Surely we must have evolved reliable instinctual faculties for deciphering the right signals in this way if dualization and what not is beneficial to us.

Edit: A few points of comparison w/ persons of a similar caste (actor/celebrity folk) I type as actual ESFps




Amber Heard (Se sub) and Danielle Panabaker (Fi sub), respectively. Note similarities between them in areas of the eyes, mouth, and overall facial motility. Among other things, also note their lack of a 'harsh' exterior in contrast to Lohan (btw the previously posted pictures of her are circa '07 at least, if not earlier, effectively predating her being as fucked up as she is now—just in case anybody wants to try that excuse). Other distinctions should be obvious, there's little need for me to elaborate ad nauseam.

we have similar tastes in women

[717495]

May we remind you hitta, that these ones are you:

Ne-INTj




Ti-INTj



It's easy to tell by comparing the mouth and eye lines, and the cold barrenness.

[Rubicon]

They're both gross.

I think he comes off as a lot more sincere though.

[silverchris9]

Also, why is it that every trainwreck of a cokewhore slurring its way into the media spotlight is immediately tagged as being ESFp? Can we please knock it off w/ that stereotype and broaden our minds to the possibility that other types just might be capable of the same behavior patterns? For fucks sake.

Nuh-uh. We immediately typed Amy Winehouse SLE. And it's entirely valid to type people who overindulge in crazy sensory experiences (i.e., sex, drugs and rock n' roll), constantly pushing it further and further and further, as Se-leading types. That's practically drawn directly from Jung. Not that that's a rule, but it is a trend and therefore a good place to start for a typing. I think people tend to go ESFp over ESTp for performers and people who appear to be operating in a social sphere. On the other hand, that didn't happen with Amy Winehouse. Also, I typed Lohan ESFp back when I still liked her. I don't remember why though. And yes, your pictures do look pretty darn beta. Interview time!

[Sol]

ESFP(?)

[Raver]

*Bump*

I'm typing her Se-SEE for now until I find evidence to the contrary.

[Kill4Me]

Pink (SLE-Ti):



Megan Fox (SLE-Ti):



Sasha Grey (SLE-Ti):



Lindsay Lohan (SLE-Ti):

[Sol]

Pink, Megan Fox - SLE
Sasha Grey - ILE
Lindsay Lohan - ethical

[The Reality Denialist]

messed up, ethical, sensor, irrational.

I think she needs some Ne and T.

[Beautiful sky]

SEE