Examples of Deltas

[myresearch]

Nick Fortino, EII

He looks like ESI ex coworker. Havent seen any EII male irl though.

[Distance]

ENFP interview, schizoid personality disorder.

If anyone is curious here is SPD in an extravert.

[Park]

ENFP interview, schizoid personality disorder.

If anyone is curious here is SPD in an extravert.

Which one are you referring to? She self-types INTJ in MBTI.

[Distance]

Which one are you referring to? She self-types INTJ in MBTI.

The man is ENFP.

[Apartamento]

Jacob Collier, an ENFp/IEE?

I have trouble typing him actually, he's so chaotic and eclectic, hence my first impression was IEE, but he's also extremely prolific and is constantly hustling/overworking himself, he has no chill.

[nifl]

Jacob Collier, an ENFp/IEE?

seems like it. Ne lead, at least

[Renna]

[Renna]

[Sol]

Granush Azizyan - INFJ
or ISFJ


Valentina Zorina - mb ENFP

[Rusal]

The YT algorithm worked its magic on me and I ended up in the Amberverse.
Amberlynn Reid takes so much abuse, the internet is vicious. And the women abusing her don't realize they’re digging their own grave.
Anyway, Amberlynn's ex Becky mb SLI



Amberlynn maybe delta NF

[Rusal]

Has he been posted already?

[Distance]

ENFP ^



Who?

[Sol]

Rusted Typology - ENFJ
Jonathan Harris - EIE, LSI

[Distance]

SLI

[Sol]

Anna Kiryanova - ENFP


Elena31Elena - INFJ

[The Reality Denialist]

Walter Tschinkel, an ant nest casting inventor - SLI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_R._Tschinkel




I could say that he made an art from by killing a nest full of ants.

[Ikite iru]

Ah yes the delta sensing types, who are truly inventors or artists. No IEI to see here

[idol]

Walter Tschinkel, an ant nest casting inventor - SLI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_R._Tschinkel



I could say that he made an art from by killing a nest full of ants.

It looks disgusting, ewww ..

[Sol]

Svetlana Dragan - INFJ

[Distance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogaxIWJqQIg

SLI ^

[Distance]

Palmer SLI

[Distance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNexLQgaJNc

SLI Tom Landry^

[Sol]

Kirill Chereshko - ESTJ


Antonio Banderivec [left] - ISTP

[The Reality Denialist]

Te are making a killing this summer. Rex Heuermann, Long Island serial killer suspect number one. I can see LSE.

[nifl]

Rex Heuermann is not from Delta

[godslave]

Te are making a killing this summer. Rex Heuermann, Long Island serial killer suspect number one. I can see LSE.

He had an unusual sociology for a serial Killer. It's very rare to see someone from a high social status or middle/upper-middle class as a serial killer. Mass murderers of the Tyrannical kinds (code for Crazy fanatics like " He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named ") aside.

[The Reality Denialist]

He had an unusual sociology for a serial Killer. It's very rare to see someone from a high social status or middle/upper-middle class as a serial killer. Mass murderers of the Tyrannical kinds (code for Crazy fanatics like " He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named ") aside.

Yes. As it is said by Gulenko LSE sees social standing something that is very important.

His verbal output shows lots of Te + Se and rule bending in terms of Ti ignoring.

Anyway, not a typical sadist in terms of personality although his actions were sadistic. OCPD traits are closer than sadistic personality traits but I think he is probably a C sub which makes OCPD-ish stuff much less obvious.

[Sol]

Rex Heuermann reminds Trump, somehow
then a chance for EIE too

[godslave]

Rex Heuermann reminds Trump, somehow
then a chance for EIE too

That's true , I had the same impression.

However, EIE for that dude (and Trump ??) ? I mean, he seems like a logical type not an humanitarian. He's a kind of nerd. Probably intuitive. I have a hard time seeing a N function as Polr for him. . mb ILE or LIE ??

The interviewer is Fe valuer (oh no ! the video has been taken down) .

[Sol]

mb ILE or LIE ?

He was controversive in impressions. In some cases it's especially useful to see a human in more situations, on several videos.
For example. When I did intuitive-nonverbal typing experiments for bloggers the average accuracy have arised significantly after in 2nd experiment I've inputed the condition to watch >= 2 clips for one human.

[godslave]

He was controversive in impressions. In some cases it's especially useful to see a human in more situations, on several videos.
For example. When I did intuitive-nonverbal typing experiments for bloggers the average accuracy have arised significantly after in 2nd experiment I've inputed the condition to watch >= 2 clips for one human.

Yes, indeed.

By the way, you should make an update of your "video bloggers" section because there are a lot of broken links.
I was also wondering the degree of confidence of your typing of all those bloggers/youtubers. I mean are you 100% sure that all the typings are correct ?

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, reclusive stable lifestyle lack of adventure is typically a process type inclination as is ocpd, detailed codes and list goes on. One can readily see dynamic body language and Fe too which is clearly served as a role and not valuable. See Dr G.

[Sol]

I mean are you 100% sure that all the typings are correct ?

When I input an example in the list I'm subjectively assured ~90%, in general. The assurance also depends on concrete bloggers.
Based on my experience, after some years I may remove or replace a quantity of such examples. Taking existing experiments with ~17% average match, the common accuracy is ~40% for not-well known people.
I may only subjectively hope to identify types significantly better than this "common". And to hope, that my skills to the time when I remove an example were significantly improved.
I make lists of famouses since 2000s. Technology developed to appear cheap fast Internet. Compared to actors seen in movies and text interviews (which someones used much), video bloggers are more quality data and so I've switched to them in mid of 2010s. During this 10 years I changed a lot of opinions to the degree close to mentioned ~1/2 accuracy. As I've said - I hope my skills are improved and reduce % of mistakes.

When you do complete IR sorting - you are using the same criterion for many examples of many types, so even if the accuracy is not close to 100% - you should notice useful tendencies. Even if real average accuracy in any type group would be ~50% - this means the group has much more of the said type than any other type group (where it may be placed with expected accidental chance of ~6% or ~10% to one of 5 close types: 50% vs 10%), while other types there are random so are perceived as a noise.
When are used 3 or more examples per a type and when you _generalize impressions_ in single type image and then compare these generalized images - this should reduce the distortions from not perfect accuracy.
What is real accuracy of concrete freshly made example - I do not know. I may have speculative assurance and relatively objectively to suppose _bottom possible_ accuracy based on % of changes during long time (following to idea the accuracy was not reduced). _bottom possible_ is not far from average accuracy goten in experiments. The simple approximation is to evaluate the accuracy as (40% + 90%) / 2 = 65%, let's around to 70%. But when I place examples, I'm assured ~90% and hard to say about objective % there. With 70% accuracy and using 3 examples per a type would mean 2/3 examples of a type are correct.
The lower accuracy is (or when not correct criterion would be used) - the harder is to sort examples of types, as impressions become more random, criterion is felt more muddy. So types close to neutral IR can be placed in rather random way, but best and worst IR are expected to be noticed and placed closer to the theory - as those fit to criterion in more clear way.

[godslave]

When I input an example in the list I'm subjectively assured ~90%, in general. The assurance also depends on concrete bloggers.
Based on my experience, after some years I may remove or replace a quantity of such examples. Taking existing experiments with ~17% average match, the common accuracy is ~40% for not-well known people.
I may only subjectively hope to identify types significantly better than this "common". And to hope, that my skills to the time when I remove an example were significantly improved.
I make lists of famouses since 2000s. Technology developed to appear cheap fast Internet. Compared to actors seen in movies and text interviews (which someones used much), video bloggers are more quality data and so I've switched to them in mid of 2010s. During this 10 years I changed a lot of opinions to the degree close to mentioned ~1/2 accuracy. As I've said - I hope my skills are improved and reduce % of mistakes.

When you do complete IR sorting - you are using the same criterion for many examples of many types, so even if the accuracy is not close to 100% - you should notice useful tendencies. Even if real average accuracy in any type group would be ~50% - this means the group has much more of the said type than any other type group (where it may be placed with expected accidental chance of ~6% or ~10% to one of 5 close types: 50% vs 10%), while other types there are random so are perceived as a noise.
When are used 3 or more examples per a type and when you _generalize impressions_ in single type image and then compare these generalized images - this should reduce the distortions from not perfect accuracy.
What is real accuracy of concrete freshly made example - I do not know. I may have speculative assurance and relatively objectively to suppose _bottom possible_ accuracy based on % of changes during long time (following to idea the accuracy was not reduced). _bottom possible_ is not far from average accuracy goten in experiments. The simple approximation is to evaluate the accuracy as (40% + 90%) / 2 = 65%, let's around to 70%. But when I place examples, I'm assured ~90% and hard to say about objective % there. With 70% accuracy and using 3 examples per a type would mean 2/3 examples of a type are correct.
The lower accuracy is (or when not correct criterion would be used) - the harder is to sort examples of types, as impressions become more random, criterion is felt more muddy. So types close to neutral IR can be placed in rather random way, but best and worst IR are expected to be noticed and placed closer to the theory - as those fit to criterion in more clear way.

Okay ! Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, the more examples you have the more the effect of the exposition tends to manifest, enough to establish a pattern regardless of the accuracy of the typing as long as it stays within a reasonable range of probability. I think it's indeed better to find just common people instead of superstars or celebrities. I spend some time everyday on Youtube chasing specimens in their natural habitat lol ! It would be hard to find an NT if you search for it in MMA cages...

[Sol]

to establish a pattern regardless of the accuracy of the typing

With a recommendation of >= 3 examples per a type as acceptable minimum can be said 70% accuracy. I hope to support it higher.

In today psychology 0.7 correlation is thought as "good". It deals much with probable and uses methods with not excellent practical efficiency. Some used ideas and methods have no stats or a proof at all.

> it's indeed better to find just common people instead of superstars or celebrities

The main reason well-known people are better as give more personal data and hence more chance for IR effects be perceived as should.

Bloggers videos is quick and easy method for IR. The purpose is similar to dichotomy/functions selfreport tests - express typing or additional useful data. Without expectation of high accuracy, which for existing tests is ~30-50%. Even with all correct examples, - you have lesser of personal data to make impressions more muddy, may get more distortions from other factors influencing on impressions, may not apply correctly sorting criterion.
Also. Most people are doubtful to do the needed efforts to study the theory and apply it correctly. Even 50% accuracy can be higher than the majority of interested in own type would have by own typing of people well known for them for IR. Such is if to follow the situation that on forums ~50% of people mistake in own types or doubt in them for more than 1 year. So tests for many ones can be more accurate approach than own thinking.

> It would be hard to find an NT if you search for it in MMA cages...

Types difference for occupations is % presence and average achievements. To find lesser usual types is easier among having worse results and where requirements are lower.

[Sol]

Polina Tarot - ENFP
or ESFP

[The Reality Denialist]

Thee way H-Rex was interviewed is a far superior way to type. Unfortunately we do not get to see that unfiltered act so often.

[Sol]

Tatyana Komleva - INFJ

[Distance]

Wrly dry delta humor

Wait for stickers part

*Drum roll*

[Distance]

Mike Rowe ST

Not sure which one.