Originally Posted by electric
There is demand for actors of all types because people want to be able to identify with the people they see. Not many SLIs are drawn to theater (that's a whole different genre), but in movie acting you just have to be able to convincingly portray a set of archetypes clustered around your own personality. Also, a good body and symmetrical facial features help. That means that all types are equally good at movie acting, and people just work on the archetypes closest to their own type and constitution.
Yes, but now you're talking about individual, not group achievements. There's no leadership or delegation in music composition, so you have to master all elements on your own. The ones who become famous seem to convey an 'entire world' to the listener -- not just a message about his leading function. Yes, Wagner's music is about symbolism, but it is also about power, conflict, and victory -- probably much more so than the works of IEI composers. And Rachmaninoff's music is probably more technically intricate and melancholic than works ofRick's site suggests that famous people probably are people who focus more on their strengths and delegate their weak areas to others. That's probably true in a lot of cases, but I think that in particular famous classical composers have tended to take on qualities of their dual, at least in their art (probably not in real life as much).
Apparently a number of Socionists have typed Wagner as SLE and Rachmaninoff as LII. Yet Wagner's music dramas seem to be so much about symbolism, inner imagination, a literary quality, and basically IEI...yet with the confidence and attention to details one expects with SLE. Rachmaninoff seems all about F....so if he's really LII, it's LII with very strong Fe.composers. In real life, Wagner was very un-
and Rachmaninoff very un-
, but this side definitely came out in their compositional work.


composers. In real life, Wagner was very un-
and Rachmaninoff very un-
Reply With Quote